View Single Post
Old 07-13-2013, 04:57 PM   #31 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 966
Thanks: 247
Thanked 362 Times in 249 Posts
Some corrections if I may . . .

Originally Posted by esnap View Post
I think folks that are high on HHO forget that any power you get from recombining H and O (burning it) can not be greater than the struggle (HP used ) their ICE had in turning the alternator to separate the two, less line loses (which are a lot)
This is true on the surface, but it does not realize the discussion of precursor radicals in combustion.

The problem is that some folks may see gains but that is more likely due to the moisture that it induced in to the cylinders which actually does produce more efficient combustion. It is a classic case of "mis-attribution of causation"
This is correct. SOME of the positive gains seen by HHO supporters could be attributed to the thermolysis effect of the water vapors adding to the concentration of precursor radicals.

An EFIE that would lean out your burn will gain you incredible MPGs but at the cost of burning up your head (s) and causing havoc.
This is incorrect. Lean burn does not in and of itself destroy your engine. Chrysler lean burn engines ran 20:1 air fuel ratios. Honda's run 22:1 AFR's.

If there was a way to inject water and variably lean out your fuel in a balanced way, I think we could see some great MPG numbers and not destroy our engine.

In other words HHO generators are just very messy and inefficient water injection devices.
Injection of water alone would quench the combustion of the low temperature lean burn mix resulting in miss-fire.

HHO is not as simple as the supporters say it is. And it is not as simple as the detractors say it is.

  Reply With Quote