HHO: Good, bad, or ugly?

[Photonfanatic]

Originally Posted by niky

The water is not going to be in liquid form long enough to cause corrosive damage to valves... heck... methanol will do more damage to the engine, but unleaded gasoline and ethanol already do a number on your engine and valves, so if it stands up to that, it should be fine with alcohol injection.

This is considering a properly working water injection system, in which the water nozzles are not damaged (and damage is often done by the methanol, not the water) and the spray comes out the way it's meant to, as a pressurized mist, not as big fat water droplets. This mist flashes into vapor very, very quickly when it meets the hot intake charge, and anything that survives in mist form by the time it comes to the (hot) intake manifold and combustion chamber should evaporate when it gets there.

Some of that "mist" sounds a lot like "steam" which is extremely damaging to metal over time. Sounds more like something you'd use on a very temporary basis just to knock the carbon deposits out of your combustion chambers, rather than something safe for long term use.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by some_other_dave

I'm pretty sure that was a joke, like taking the plasma out of a plasma TV...
-soD

(Air)Damn. I guess it shows the joke was lost on me

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by Photonfanatic

Some of that "mist" sounds a lot like "steam" which is extremely damaging to metal over time. Sounds more like something you'd use on a very temporary basis just to knock the carbon deposits out of your combustion chambers, rather than something safe for long term use.

Well a lot of the fuel you burn ends up as steam too. (Not that I'm advocating water injection for engine longevity)

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by some_other_dave

I'm pretty sure that was a joke, like taking the plasma out of a plasma TV...

-soD

The sad part is every TV was plasma until the mid 80's.

Also i would love to see the pcm/ecu modding get a little easier, that is where the gold is not the HHO.

[niky]

Originally Posted by Photonfanatic

Some of that "mist" sounds a lot like "steam" which is extremely damaging to metal over time. Sounds more like something you'd use on a very temporary basis just to knock the carbon deposits out of your combustion chambers, rather than something safe for long term use.

Steam is water vapor. This mist is simply... mist. Water droplets in suspension in the air.

Yes, using too much or using a system with a bad nozzle which puts out fat droplets that don't evaporate readily is bad for the engine or turbocharger. But we're talking very small amounts here. It's important to size nozzles properly for the application and to ensure that you're only injecting as much water as you need and only when you need it. The system isn't on all the time.

For use as a power booster, the system is only on at high loads, heavy throttle. For use as a fuel saving device, it can be on at high load/part throttle situations or on very minimally for light load / light throttle merely as a detonation suppressant.

[Deputy Diesel]

I have had experience with both HHO and water injection.

First the HHO. I built the hho system stainless plates bla bla bla via what id seen on the wonderful world of the internet. Yes the system produced a good amount hydrogen. however it made absolutely 0% increase of MPG. about the best thing that it did was when I put "out" hose into a pale of water you could light the bubbles on fire and it sounded like a little machine gun.

Definitely messing with the PCM to cut back the fuel when cruising to compensate for the new found wonder fuel was the only change in MPG. And the change in driving style showed the greatest improvements.

I would say the HHO system was on the car for about 6000km. changing the water, wires running everwhere. constant messing with it for no actual gains. it got filed in the trash. And it was a major waste of time.

However the water injection system was a different story. I used it on an old carbed turbo Buick 3.8L I had. for 2 reasons. when commuting with the car about 100km a day it got expensive running premium in it to keep the detonation quiet. so i would adjust the waste gate to run 9psi of boost and on 87 octane. The nozzle was just before the carb. If i drove it easy it was fine but if it was play time id turn on my pump and inject the water. (very fine mist) 9psi boost 87 octane fuel with water injection on it would have no detonation. with out the water there was no way this would happen. At the track I would run premium (94) with water and get 15psi again no pinging. this proved reliable and safe for over 30,000km. it was on a pressure switch so it only came on after 5psi. and i installed a light so i could tell when it was working. for fear of it staying on when it wasnt needed. as for mpg increase I couldnt tell you. but $$$$ per km it was amazing.

I am currently building another water injection system for my 429ci ford 10.5:1 compression so it will run on 87 with no detonation. especially with premium at $1.40L

[bestclimb]

Originally Posted by Photonfanatic

It seems like running water into your motor would eventually cause damage as well. How long can the valves handle all that corrosive steam? My guess would be not long. You'd need to change them out for stainless steel versions. Which would be costly.

Steam is less corrosive than other things in exhaust. One of the products of combustion is H2O so it is not like you would even be adding anything "new" to the mix.

[gone-ot]

...what NASA found out: http://hho4free.com/documents/nasa_hho_proof.pdf

[mort]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...what NASA found out: http://hho4free.com/documents/nasa_hho_proof.pdf

Hi Old Tele man,
That was interesting. I wonder what anybody else made out of it.
It reads like the author didn't really know how an engine works, but sure could figure out flame speed.
On page 27, table III shows the engine energy balance (various A/F ratios with and without added hydrogen). (Ignoring that they could run the engine at 21:1 A/F on just gasoline.)

For the non hydrogen, almost normal A/F, the table claims that at a fuel consumption rate of 164 hp the cooling system takes 62 hp and 46 hp goes out the exhaust. I think 38% of the fuel power - that's 170% of the shaft hp - going out the radiator is preposterous.
The indicated hp is 49 and the measured bhp is 36. So the thermodynamic efficiency is claimed to be 30%, which I find unlikely since this is at part throttle. I can't see what they did wrong, but I can't believe those numbers.

But, it does seem like the experiment shows that for a wide range of hydrogen flow rates, (up to much higher than is possible with on-board electrolysis) the A/F cannot be leaner than 21:1 and the engine still be considered drivable. And at 21:1 there isn't enough improvement in efficiency to bother.

-mort

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by mort

That was interesting. I wonder what anybody else made out of it.

That Lean Burn benefits that some engine's like the Gen-1 Insight get these lean burn FE benefits without the HHO's additional energy wasting steps ... thus HHO system is significantly inferior to energy efficiency and thus MPG.

Originally Posted by mort

I think 38% of the fuel power ... going out the radiator is preposterous.

Preposterous , how so?

ICE's are fairly low efficiency devices ... it is not uncommon at all for ~70% or more of the fuel's energy content to be wasted going out the radiator and the exhaust.