Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > The Unicorn Corral
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-02-2012, 10:58 PM   #1 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 30
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
HHO: Good, bad, or ugly?

I've spent about an hour rifling through the search reading up on you guys' opinions on the HHO method. Most seem to think the topic is dead and that those little "HHO generators" have no usefulness to ecomodding. But there seems to be those lingering doubts where certain aspects have never been disproved, and some members here have actually had some measure of success. So as much as some people are tired of hearing about it, I think its time to revisit the topic. What is the current state of the HHO craze? What of all those "engineers" on youtube that were hell bent on developing some type of working generator that actually yielded good MPG gains on a particular vehicle? Many of them posting hundreds of videos on all their testing.

So to answer my own question, I'm going to have to go with "ugly". Its not really good, but the lack of evidence completely refuting it tends to steer me away from "bad". From what I can gather, the real problems with it lie in the fact that you have to somehow reprogram the vehicle's computer (on a gasoline vehicle) to work with the HHO instead of against it or effectively ignoring it altogether.

I guess the real question is this: Once you factor in the added fuel needed to get the alternator to crank out the extra electricity to run the HHO generator, does the HHO itself actually offset the loss? If not, then of course there is no point. But if the generator can even result in a mere 20% gain, then I'm going to have to say that all its detractors are wrong. Cause I'll take 20% (which seems to be the average gain) on any vehicle I own.


Last edited by Photonfanatic; 01-02-2012 at 11:38 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 01-02-2012, 11:11 PM   #2 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,735

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,571
Thanked 3,508 Times in 2,195 Posts
Go for it; prove the detractors wrong.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
Ryland (01-03-2012)
Old 01-02-2012, 11:14 PM   #3 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 30
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I guess I wasn't really planning on "going for it". Just wanted to see what the state of affairs was, I guess.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2012, 11:22 PM   #4 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,018 Times in 1,302 Posts
One liter of HHO provides the same amount of energy as 1 and 1/2 wooden matches. The energy cost in higher fuel consumption to produce the electricity, to produce the electrolysis, to generate the HHO is all a sequence of losses.

There is no laboratory proof that it works and you can not produce anywhere near enough to make a significant difference in economy. In fact extensive testing has proven that it does not work.

You would need something like 300 liters just to keep an engine idling for one minute.

That's why we have a section where impractical solutions are moved to be less of a clutter of space where discussions are useful and tested to be productive solutions.

regards
Mech
  Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to user removed For This Useful Post:
IamIan (01-16-2012), Ken Fry (02-15-2012), Ryland (01-03-2012)
Old 01-02-2012, 11:44 PM   #5 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 30
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Ok thanks for the explanation. What about just using it as a sort of makeshift accelerant? It may be better used there, instead of what many people wanted to use it as, which is a partial fuel substitute.

It also brings to mind a question, about those hydrogen powered cars. If hydrogen is a powerful enough fuel to power a car, (which we all know it is) then it just seems like there would be something to the HHO generator after all. If using pure water, then 1/3 of the gas produced by the HHO generator would indeed have to be hydrogen.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2012, 11:46 PM   #6 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
HydroJim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Alabama
Posts: 624

Aerofocus (retired) - '00 Ford Focus ZX3
90 day: 44.66 mpg (US)

The Red Baron - '93 Geo Metro
90 day: 44.1 mpg (US)
Thanks: 40
Thanked 153 Times in 102 Posts
I know a lot of people on this forum aren't a fan of HHO, but I have had some personal success with HHO. I had limited time to test it last year on my 1998 Jeep Cherokee before I sold it, but I just installed an HHO system on my 2000 Ford Focus and I am going to start tuning the PCM. I'm not exactly sure why it works, but it seems that the HHO allows your engine to go leaner than with just gasoline and there is no noticeable power loss when tuned right. Once I get everything dialed in, I'm going to get a dyno test to remove any human variables.

My only explanation is that the extra energy comes from the water, but I'm really not sure why it works. It would be nice to know.

I attached a picture of my electrolyzer and bubbler in the car from a few months back. I just finished the installation over the holidays, and I haven't taken pictures. The car is currently at my dad's house(I'm only 15 so that's why I don't have a house. ) I'll be over there when the weather clears up around here and I'll take some picture with all the wiring and stuff. I install everything much more professionally than a lot of the videos you see one youtube.

Do me a favor though, never buy an HHO kit online. Most of them are junk. Everything in my system is made by me for my particular car. I do think some people on here should try it, because I know we could get some good data with the meticulous data done by people on these forums. It takes a lot of time and is another thing people would have to take care of which is why I expect car makers don't utilize the technology. Most people can't perform regular maintenance on their car, I couldn't see them draining the bubblers once a week and refilling the electrolyzer. Plus, the system needs to be disassembled and cleaned about every 5,000 miles, or you'll have severe corrosion build up inside the system. It's a lot of work, but it's sure fun to play with. HHO makes big explosions too!
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	1321219922370.jpg
Views:	327
Size:	27.9 KB
ID:	9981  
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to HydroJim For This Useful Post:
Gatech (07-04-2012)
Old 01-03-2012, 11:12 AM   #7 (permalink)
UFO
Master EcoModder
 
UFO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,300

Colorado - '17 Chevrolet Colorado 4x4 LT
90 day: 23.07 mpg (US)
Thanks: 315
Thanked 178 Times in 138 Posts
File under Unicorn please.
__________________
I'm not coasting, I'm shifting slowly.
  Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to UFO For This Useful Post:
Frank Lee (01-03-2012), IamIan (01-16-2012), Ryland (01-03-2012)
Old 01-03-2012, 12:21 PM   #8 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Ryland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Western Wisconsin
Posts: 3,904

honda cb125 - '74 Honda CB 125 S1
90 day: 79.71 mpg (US)

green wedge - '81 Commuter Vehicles Inc. Commuti-Car

Blue VX - '93 Honda Civic VX
Thanks: 867
Thanked 433 Times in 353 Posts
It's a really easy test to do to prove that hydrogen helps with mileage.
Turn on the hydrogen device, drive down the highway with cruse control on, check in your MPG gauge what your gas mileage is, turn off the hydrogen device and see how your mileage changes... that is all the proof that anyone should need, that is, if it really worked, question is, does it really work? I haven't been able to find anyone who has performed that very simple test because they are so obsessed with the idea of their device working that they aren't willing to risk being proven wrong.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Ryland For This Useful Post:
Frank Lee (01-03-2012)
Old 01-03-2012, 12:35 PM   #9 (permalink)
DieselMiser
 
ConnClark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Richland,WA
Posts: 966

Das Schlepper Frog - '85 Mercedes Benz 300SD
90 day: 23.23 mpg (US)

Gentoo320 - '04 Mercedes C320 4Matic
90 day: 22.44 mpg (US)
Thanks: 46
Thanked 227 Times in 156 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Photonfanatic View Post
What of all those "engineers" on youtube that were hell bent on developing some type of working generator that actually yielded good MPG gains on a particular vehicle? Many of them posting hundreds of videos on all their testing.
They aren't real engineers. They are either scam artists, people looking for something to believe in, or fools.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ConnClark For This Useful Post:
Frank Lee (01-03-2012), Ryland (01-03-2012)
Old 01-03-2012, 03:02 PM   #10 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,191
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,521 Times in 1,122 Posts
...as the loud circus music plays in the background, the 3-Ring Uni·Corn Circus announcer confidently blares:

"P.T. Barnum said there's one born every minute...time's up...are you next?"

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com