HHO: Good, bad, or ugly?

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by IsaacMTSU

I would assume that if uses 1/8th less fuel to idle that it would use less fuel throughout the RPM range...

The assumption may or may not be true... that's why measurements are better.

The amount of fuel by itself is insufficient ... you have to know both the real time fuel consumption and the real time power output at the same time ... if power output drops to 1/10 while your fuel use dropped to 1/8 you are less efficient and more wasteful ... 1/8 the power from 1/8 the fuel is no improvement at all in efficiency either... real world variables change too much too easily ... that is why people use controlled conditions like Dynos inside a building to produce a BSFC chart.

If you are using to fuel sources such as gasoline and Hydrogen ... to make an accurate BSFC chart will require measuring both of those input fuel sources in real time ... while also monitoring the real time power output from the system under controlled conditions ... the best controlled conditions are those of a 3rd party , to avoid bias.

[IsaacMTSU]

That was a typo... I meant it was using 1/8th of the fuel to maintain the same idle speed. It's funny how adamant everyone is about saying this is not possible, it's perpetual motion, etc. when it's really just adding a second source of fuel. It's not free energy. Also, I understand BSFC, dyno charts, efficiency, etc. I Have a B.S. in Aerospace Propulsion.
As for the "I'm not saying it works, I'm saying it works"... Really, I guess I should say that I don't think it is practical or even possible on a large scale, but at least there is a little bit of energy there to work with on a very small scale.
The Triumph TT600 was the first fuel injected sportbike, so maybe the system was not as refined as the newer fuel injection types.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by IsaacMTSU

It's funny how adamant everyone is about saying this is not possible, it's perpetual motion, etc. when it's really just adding a second source of fuel. It's not free energy. Also, I understand BSFC, dyno charts, efficiency, etc. I Have a B.S. in Aerospace Propulsion.
As for the "I'm not saying it works, I'm saying it works"... Really, I guess I should say that I don't think it is practical or even possible on a large scale, but at least there is a little bit of energy there to work with on a very small scale.
The Triumph TT600 was the first fuel injected sportbike, so maybe the system was not as refined as the newer fuel injection types.

Funny huh? Then as an engineer you can appreciate the fact that not only is hydrogen electrolysis endothermic, the energy recovery is on the order of 20%. To make 1 more hp from your bubbler, you have to supply 5 from your engine. How does that make sense?

All the gibbering about this stupid trash, and NO ONE CAN DOCUMENT ONE CASE OF IMPROVED POWER OR ECONOMY from these schemes. That's why this subject attracts derision and mockery, as I and many others ARE practicing engineers and understand why it doesn't work, theoretically and practically.

[IsaacMTSU]

It is funny, the end of the argument should be: You can power your car by HHO, but fueling the reaction takes more energy than it takes to power your car.

[fidalgoman]

Originally Posted by IsaacMTSU

It is funny, the end of the argument should be: You can power your car by HHO, but fueling the reaction takes more energy than it takes to power your car.

Exactly right. Do the science. Check efficiency losses for each stage. TANSTAAFL. Heat engines have well known efficiencies and deficiencies. The only way you can improve economy is to use less and more efficient power to get the job done. You can reduce weight, improve aerodynamics, reduce rolling drag, tailor your driving style to minimize power requirements and/or create greater efficiency in the engines fuel power conversion. Ideally all of the above.

If you want to go all out you can back track your fuel source and find true energy economy. Government subsidized programs often only mask real environmental cost. You need to check it out for yourself. Also some hybrids use batteries that contain materials mined in other countries that are gross environmental polluters. Red pill or Blue so to speak. Choose and be happy with yourself.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by IsaacMTSU

It is funny, the end of the argument should be: You can power your car by HHO, but fueling the reaction takes more energy than it takes to power your car.

Really? I haven't even seen that at all, not to mention increased economy.

[IsaacMTSU]

Me either, but you could power a hydrogen car by hydrogen that you produce through electrolysis. Driving it while making it would be impossible and you would spend more on producing the fuel than would be practical.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by IsaacMTSU

It's funny how adamant everyone is about saying this is not possible, it's perpetual motion, etc. when it's really just adding a second source of fuel. It's not free energy.

I don't anyone is suggesting you can't run a ICE on hydrogen as energy carrier ... They did that decades ago ... it isn't hard ... the problem comes from where you get the energy to get the hydrogen ... it is when people suggest on vehicle electrolysis of water from the alternator that they violate known and proven laws of thermodynamics , and it is not possible as they describe it ... even in the narrow margin where electrolysis can be endothermic the required operating efficiencies are just not possible... without having a on vehicle hydrogen fusion reactor ... that we haven't been able to pull off at all ... much less that small.

Originally Posted by IsaacMTSU

That was a typo... I meant it was using 1/8th of the fuel to maintain the same idle speed.

Originally Posted by IsaacMTSU

Also, I understand BSFC, dyno charts, efficiency, etc. I Have a B.S. in Aerospace Propulsion.

Than you already knew before you posted the first part ... that 1/8 fuel at the same idle speed is insufficient data to determine operating efficiency to know if it is a loss or a benefit ... do you have the other yet missing data that would be needed to make that judgement?

[Ken Fry]

Originally Posted by IsaacMTSU

It's funny how adamant everyone is about saying this is not possible, it's perpetual motion, etc. when it's really just adding a second source of fuel. It's not free energy.

It seems you still have not grasped the chemistry and thermodynamics involved. For an HHO unit to "work" to improve fuel efficiency, the electrolysis process would have to operate at greater than 500% efficiency. Was thermodynamics not part of your curriculum? Processes do not operate at 100% efficiency, let alone over 100%. So yes, to work, you'd need "free energy", "perpetual motion" "over unity" etc. Your HHO unit would need to be magically efficient.

The reason people are concerned is that millions of dollars have been bilked from unsuspecting marks. That's why the FTC got involved in putting Dennis Lee out of the HHO business. We can stand by and let it go on, or we can do something constructive by not accepting illogical arguments that try to suggest there is some scale at which onboard electrolysis works to improve fuel efficiency.

It is not "just adding a second source of fuel" at all. Water is not a fuel. Hydrogen can be split from water with a large energy investment... which comes from where: Zero point? Sky? Prayers? No. It comes from the fuel in the tank.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by Ken Fry

For an HHO unit to "work" to improve fuel efficiency, the electrolysis process would have to operate at greater than 500% efficiency.

It isn't quiet that bad ... especially from a 'energy I pay for' perspective.

From a Energy balance point of view to break even ... I think the current technological lower limit would be around ~138% efficient electrolysis ... and ~276% from what I've seen in things automotive size... As an absolute limit , I think the combined steps from chemical energy to electrical energy back to chemical energy would have to reach ~83% Efficient ... not currently possible that I know of.

I know some HHO advocates like to try and claim the energy lost in getting the hydrogen can be made up in the efficiency benefits of Lean burn ... by using the faster flame speed of hydrogen to support lean burn in an engine not designed for it ... but as the study referenced earlier in this thread showed ... even without paying for the energy costs of getting the hydrogen ... the net ICE efficiency benefits from were about ~3.8% when they were using ~1.5Lb/hr of Hydrogen.

Engines designed for Lean Burn have been tested to operate at up to ~20% more efficient ... and they do it without the additional weight of the HHO system , or the energy losses of getting the hydrogen from water.

- - - - - -

HHO not to be confused with Hydrogen (H2) as an energy carried and water (H2O) used in a combined cycle type system ... which would still have the efficiency issues of getting the H2 from some other energy source.