Any Experience With HHO as a Combustion Enhancer?
 

Hi,
I've read a lot of what's on EcoModder, but this is the first time I'm posting.

I have , for over a year, been looking at some of the wonderful things people at Ecomodder are doing with various vehicles and posting their thoughts, mods with pics, marvellous projects for hybridising, fuel economy tips, tricks and projects, streamlining, and so much more. Not to mention doubts and requests for help and advice.

It takes a lot of people with a lot of passion and plenty of blood, sweat and tears to take on, shell out the $$$, test out pet theories, fail, test again, succeed, and I always have a salute for these single-minded tenacious individuals with a mission.

Conspicuous by its absence, however, is any reference to, or practical work done, on combustion enhancers like the use of HHO (by electrolysis of water), which is claimed to burn a greater proportion of the normal air/fuel thus extracting more of its potential for giving out more energy, this resulting in better mileage, smoother combustion, less carbon buildup, etc. -----and perhaps moving us ever closer toward the Holy Grail we're all here for---- highest mileage!!

Discounting the tall claims, on the one hand, from persons out to make a fast buck, and the vociferous brigade ridiculing the concept as impossible on the other, I took a look at quite a few of the hundreds of videos out on You Tube and a few dozen of the thousands of pages of information on Google. Call me gullible, but the arguments, feasibility and projects, including the controlling electronics, caused me pause and a double take! Sometimes, its so to discount a possibility when one equates it with an over-unity situation, without going too deeply into it----which this is not.

There's a famous, (or infamous!) .pdf doing the rounds I found particularly fascinating called "HHO Chapter 10". Costs nothing to download and have a read---and a laugh..........or maybe not. Could give pause for a bit of reflection. (If you have a problem getting it, just PM or post me your email address and I'd be glad to send it over).

One thing is certain---no EcoModder, as I've been able to gather so far, has a closed mind. Its a contradiction in terms! I would love to see this topic discussed, debunked-----or maybe even ratified. If there is any truth in it wouldn't it give us all a huge boost? And if there isn't, its just another possibility studied then firmly ticked off the list!

I do apologize if I have missed any reference to work done in this area on the forums. I, as I'm sure you, would love to hear more about this on this thread.

Regards,

Erich.

It has come up every now and again. I know there's someone or some organization that was offering $1,000,000 or something to anyone that can demonstrate some significant increase in efficiency, and it has gone unclaimed.

Hi Paul,
I saw this too!! Only, to enter, he wanted a $5000 fee!! Have a bash a Chapter 10 just for the heck of it. Costs nuthin'!

(Just by the way! Have been taking in your low cost motor controller and used bits of it for making the controller for my motion flight simulator).

Regards,

Erich

Put "hho" into the EM search box and it says 610 hits right here on EM. "Conspicuous by it's absence"... :confused:

Thanks Frank,
When I got put onto Google from the EM box, I thought something was wrong.
Didn't realize it brought you back to EM!

Erich.

Yes for it HHO
 

A million is way to low and yes its 100% possible

Then what are you waiting for? Get some of that cash and make your fortune.


Oh, BTW, this will end up in the corral.

Thanks Frank.

Thanks! Would like to know if you've done any trials and results obtained. It would help a great deal in deciding if it was feasable, and a possible route I might follow.

Erich.

:confused:

Hmmm, "combustion enhancer" sounds like SS, DD, and different name too, to protect the innocent.....




right.

Check my fuel log, i've tested it for a year with sporadic mpg results and very-little to no-increase in mpgs. Based on that, I didn't want to spend the extra expense on ECU tuning. Go ahead and build/buy your own kit to test for yourself, you might have better luck!

1993 Honda / Acura Del Sol / Integra Si / GSR Gas Mileage (Aero Sol) - EcoModder.com

So am I, Frank! So am I!

Hence before I do anything I'm trying to get to where everyone's at. Thanks to you I stand a lot more educated than I was a couple of days ago. Going through some those posts so far has been great----especially 24 pages of comment on the MYTH BUSTERS trial----or was it fiasco!

I was right about one thing! Whether a yea- or naysayer I did observe a high degree of civility in almost all the posts on Ecomodder. Much appreciated, and to me, a measure of the quality of people on Ecomodder. I stand neutral on the issue because I don't know enough yet. I would try never to make unsubstantiated remarks---either for or against.

One thing I do promise is that if I were to do any of my own experiments they would never be done in a slipshod manner on a vehicle in poor condition. Report back, plus or minus would be authentic. So would every detail of the equipment I used and manner of assessing results. I would value any rational advice and comments, specially from people like yourself. Really, we're all on the same side!

But in the interim I continue my education on Ecomodder on the subject!

Since I'm on nobody's side, we stand to gain, whichever way any tests go!

Regards, Erich.

..it's really just a HALF-ASS problem:

1) FUEL - adding hydrogen to the ICE engine does work; but, obviously involves energy from a second source, the hydrogen.

2) EFFICIENCY - attempting to "create" the hydrogen gas from water, on-the-fly, while driving "consumes" far more energy (ie: second energy source) than the slight increase in ICE efficiency gained while using the gasoline+hydrogen combination.

3) So, HALF of the problem is valid, ie: #1. But, the other HALF (#2) of "riding" this DONKEY (ie: "biblical" Ass) is that you can't make hydrogen gas efficiently enough to overcome it's energy cost of creation while driving.

I question if hydrogen is ever added in quantities that could be considered more "fuel"?

AFAIK adding hydrogen for increasing fe is done to help stabilize ultra-lean combustion mixtures for homogenous charge compression ignition schemes.

"energy can neither be created nor destroyed only altered in form" you have to expend energy to get the energy, then you take into account losses that you'll have (thermal, friction, etc (obviously generalized to any kind of transformation) like any other transformation) and it becomes useless

@ Old Tele Man
Thanks! That being as it may, there's the opinion that there are other, fringe, if you will, benefits. Eg., that there is a drastic reduction in CO2 emissions (NOx, too) and a cleaning effect of the carbon in the engine. Just wondered if that alone is sufficient justification for installing a system---leave out the controversial MPG gains!

I recently gutted my cat and replacement for my car type was going to cost a fortune (one of those Korean jobs). Maybe this is the opportunity to do a 'before & after' emission check to verify this. I'm just going by the number of people who have reported very low emissions post an HHO installation.

@ Frank, Thanks!

>>AFAIK adding hydrogen for increasing fe is done to help stabilize ultra-lean combustion >>mixtures for homogenous charge compression ignition schemes.

My reading tells me this, but not strictly restricted to diesel engines. It allows a certain degree of lean burn for petrol engines as well.

However, as I just replied to Old Tele Man himself, leaving aside FE gains, I wondered if the 'fringe' benefits alone were sufficient justification for having an HHO system.

@ JoeNavy--Thanks!
Please have a look at the two posts, to Old Tele Mech and Frank! Slightly different tack!

I wasn't talking about diesels... HCCI, search that too.

OK, Frank---same wavelength now!

If the MPG gains are controversial - then so are the CO2 emissions (in pretty much all cases).
Case 1: You 'make' the H2 on-board via electrical (& ultimately mechanical) load on the alternator. Even if this helps stabilise the burn for some HCCI configurations, the energy gains of the 'stabilisation' are outweighed by the 50%+ loss incurred through extra mechanical load on the engine.
Case 2: A large tank of H2 is stored onboard. The H2 is generated via - most probably - NG or some other FF. Still plenty of CO2 involved here.
Case 3: Like case 2, but H2 is from renewable electricity. The electricity is 'clean' yes, but electricity is highly valuable in it's own right.

In all three scenarios the amount of CO2 offset by any renewables in the entire system (including the demand for non-transport electricity) is lessened compared with the renewable electricity being used directly.

+1 on Homogenious-Charge Compression-Ignition HCCI, which is basically an ICE, using Direct Injection, being operated under both ICE and DIESEL conditions...and switching back and forth between the two states as load conditions dictate by controlling "timing" of both fuel-injection timing (diesel) and ICE-ignition timing.

Thanks to you and Frank too for the expansion! Lots of stuff on 'search'.

Ive also pondered about hydrogen generation on the fly to be used as a fuel additive. To me, I know energy will be lost in the transfer but that doesn't necessarily make it useless just because it looses energy. We have drivetrain losses, superchargers take energy to make energy, and even turbos loose energy while making energy. With all three we honestly dont get the energy out that is put in. Its interesting to see those who are such heavy nay sayers on that principle alone. Superchargers are known for their inefficiencies because of heat and the fact that it takes alot of horsepower to turn the belt to make it useful. So for some superchargers to add 100hp it might take away 35-45hp. The same thing might be happening with hydrogen generators. It may take 3hp with alternator load but it might make 5hp. So at the end of the day the gain is worth the loss.

A great many other things also need to be put into consideration too. Like the design, the solution mix, hose placement. Really, general efficiency of the added components.

The Gain Is Worth The Loss!
 

Hi Floordford,
Thanks for your response. Never has a truer word been spoken!

You have certainly put some thought into this rather than rejecting the concept out of hand. Your analogy to supercharging is a case in point. That the gain may be worth the loss--IOW you come out positive, no matter how small the resultant gain.

>>A great many other things also need to be put into consideration too. Like the design, the solution mix, hose >>placement. Really, general efficiency of the added components.

Oh, absolutely! To take just a single point I'm focussing on---a point of loss, as pointed out by many---My PWM will be linked with throttle opening so that in the 80deg of throttle opening the current drawn by the electrolyser will vary hypothetically from 3A at slow running, to 15A at WOT, and will be adjustable to vary this range as well.

Not much time to be a yea- or naysayer. I am doing my best, as I understand it. I shall just go by what I see.

Regards,

Erich.

one good test is worth more than a million opinions.

Ive been wanting to get my feet wet in this area to achieve my own results for a while now. The time in research alone is more than id like to admit. My goal right now is to find a descent output very, efficient version. Which I think might be dry cell. It does need to stay low in cost so it can pay for itself sooner. My thoughts also go to the fact that their are varying degrees of designs that range from low output, amp sippers and high output energy hogs. I think finding that happy medium to compliment engine size is the real trick. I can't believe there is a one size fits all or even a "this one for 4 and 6 cylinder. This one for V8s" type of scenario. The "amp draw vs. engine load from that draw vs. benefits from hydrogen output" have to be super fine tuned.

Considering the goal of adding hydrogen has always been to save fuel, why else would one do it when it doesn't? What benefit is there?

Huh? The analogy makes no sense. Supercharging makes more power and consumes more fuel. What does adding hydrogen to the engine do besides consume more fuel?

The supercharger needs to horsepower to be turned. Much like the way that HHO kits will put a load on an alternator. Both will drag the engine down slightly but the gains are greater than what you loose. So the loss is necessary to get the gain and is worth it in the end. Im not saying an HHO kit will give you an extra horsepower but if the supercharger takes 35hp it gives 100hp. If an HHO kit takes 3hp it can give 5-6hp. Or be a benefit by replacing gasoline with another cheap fuel.

Only problem is, HHO kits give squat. :rolleyes:

The juice is worth the squeeze, we've seen people squeezing the HHO fruit for a while and really haven't seen much juice from it. the only one that really spoke of serious improvement has yet to post anything more than a video of him pushing buttons and making his little computer thingy "change setpoints"

Like trying to squeeze blood from a stone? Not sure why anyone would want blood, but that's the metaphor...:turtle:

Many have made hydrogen torches directly from these units. So they do make a notable amount of hydrogen. Granted it might not be enough to feed a v8 at full throttle but i can see it being a help at low speeds. Even a bigger help to those with small 4 cylinder engines. Im not trying to back up something ive not tried, just trying to reduce the nay sayers who have also not tried it. There seems to be equal amount of believers and haters on both sides of this topic. But ive noticed that the majority of nay sayers havent built one of these units and gathered their own results.

you cannot prove unicorns don't exist so you might as well spend your life trying to prove they exist. Plenty of people I trust have tried HHO and it failed.

This is too dumb to respond to.

Oh, wait...

Yeah, everyone should build one for themselves. Because we cannot trust what we hear on the intertubes, or science for that matter. Oh wait, this message is being communicated via technology made possible by science, you can't trust it!

Don't confuse power and energy.

Increased volumetric efficiency ( Power from a given size engine ) ... is not the same as increased energy efficiency ( Energy output from a given energy input ).

An example might be an after burner greatly increases the power output, by much more than it reduces the power output , for a large net increase in power output ... but it actually significantly reduces the operating energy efficiency of the engine ... it produces less thrust energy output per unit of fuel energy input... but more thrust energy output for the same weight and volume displacement of engine.

One reason Turbos are much more common than SuperChargers is that the Turbo recycles some of the exhaust waste energy from the exhaust system... compared to many SuperChargers which get all their input energy by taking it away from the ICE.

In a similar method ... if you were to use a waste exhaust heat to electricity system ( something like Thermo-Eelectrics ) in order to scavenge / recycle some of the waste energy in order to provide the energy for your electrolysis you will load the ICE less than if you get all of your energy from the ICE via the alternator.

If you run an alternator at ~80% efficient ... 5 kW of mechanical load becomes ~4kw of electricity ... if you manage to get ~80% efficient Electrolysis ( good luck getting that high ) you have ~3kw of chemical hydrogen... with a ~30% efficient ICE you will get back ~1kw of mechanical power from taking 5kw of mechanical power ... you need to make up 4kw of lost mechanical power just to break even.

The method Hydrogen injection uses to increase ICE operating efficiency is allowing for lean burn operation , due to the higher flame speed of the hydrogen itself ... these same Lean Burn efficiency improvements can be had without the efficiency losses needed for an alternator based electrolysis system to function ... The Gen-1 Honda Insight is a good example of what can be achieved for Lean Burn , and it doesn't throw away 4kw of power in order to get it.

Another thing to remember is Lean Burn itself may be better energy efficient but it produces less power ... most people who has driven a Gen-1 Insight when it kicks over into Lean Burn know this effect very well ... producing an equal lean burn using alternator electrolysis reduces the power even more... because in addition to the power losses from lean burn you also have power losses from the electrolysis system.

If your current ICE does not do Lean Burn and you want to tweak it to operate in lean burn ... I suggest starting with other methods first ... if you do finally choose to the some type of hydrogen injection ... either generate the hydrogen separately and just store it in the vehicle ... or generate it from some type of waste energy recovery system that might recycle some otherwise wasted ICE energy.

Personally , I think electricity itself is more useful in some type of HEV setup than it is being used for electrolysis and hydrogen injection in the ICE.

But ... it's your nickle ... best of luck.
:thumbup:

I have built many things ... including some of these things ... build one test it ... best of luck ... but , there are more efficient ways of producing Lean Burn ICE efficiency gains without electrolysis loads on an alternator.

i would put a wind turbine on your steering wheel to power the hho generator