Hydrogen Generator Experiment

[Christ]

Originally Posted by Coyote X

How about before making a HHO powered/assisted car someone actually designs an experiment mythbusters style that does away with the engine all together and just combusts some gasoline in a 14.7:1 AFR and measure the energy output.

I'm just interested to find out why you chose stoichiometric to use for an experiment pertaining to energy output, when the "science" you refer to has proven time and time again that stoich is and has ne'er been the most efficient, nor has it been the best for power production on a specific amount of fuel.

Under no circumstances is stoich mixture ideal for any engine. Especially considering that engines these days run on a richer mixture than that, just to keep the cats heated to a nominal temp.

The exception to the rule is the lean-burn designs, and the GDI designs, which now can run engines at AFR's of 60:1 efficiently. Also, swirl injection/combustion reduce necessary a/f ratios to produce the same power/efficiency per volume.

This is also to say that the "stoichiometric mixture" for different fuels differs as well. Hydrogen mixtures may have a less or more ratio requirement to be "stoichiometric". That term makes me cringe... the thought that so many people rely on it as a facet of tuning for "|\/|()' P()\/\//-\|-|" LOL.

Anyway, to clarify, stoichiometric is only a bench number. That is to say that it's only ideal in ideal circumstances, which, most certainly, does not refer to real world application.

[Coyote X]

I have no problems with any other ratio and I picked 14.7 more or less arbitrarily. But I figure for real world use knowing the emissions output is kind of helpful so deviating from 14.7 usually carries along with it extra emissions. For setting up an experiment I see no reason why it could not be tested in 0.1 increments from 10:1 to 100:1 as long as the results are repeatable and able to be duplicated.

Really after thinking about it, setting up some sort of test rig that can measure the energy output of any desired fuel in a consistent fashion might be a very handy thing. There are lots of additives and junk that could also be tested in that apparatus and could settle a lot of debates on here.

Off the top of my head, HHO, H2, water injection, acetone, toluene, little bottles of stuff from the store, and different brands of gasoline. If someone could come up with a way to measure energy output, all those could be tested easily

[Christ]

I threw a gallon of Xylene (117 Specific octane, pump method) in with 11 gallons of 87 gasoline on a few fillups... it didn't do much for gas mileage, at least it wasn't detectable in my car with my driving habits, but I did notice afterward that the intake noise had changed... that said, I removed the intake manifold to swap up to MPFI fuel system, and found that the intake runners were squeaky clean, which is exactly the opposite of how they were when I installed this engine in this car.

Stuff in bottles is completely misconceived... if it says it raises octane 3 points, it does just that... 91 becomes 91.3, not 94. Simple math figures these things out. *they also say so right on the bottle*

Look at the ingredients in most additives.. you start to see the same thing over and over again... MTBE, Xylol, Toluene, MEK, Ester, etc... see what they're doing? Add an extremely high octane component in small amounts, and it does change things somewhat, but these things are already in your fuel to begin with.. so they're not some "miracle blend" of additives. Most of them are crap.

Use common sense... if something claims to clean your choke and throttle body, yet you dump it in your gas tank, it's not going to work... your fuel never touches your throttle body or choke on FI vehicles.

By the way, the only reason most of those additives are still around to deliberate about is because people still see a purpose to them where there is none. In most cases, you're adding gasoline's components to gasoline... only you're paying more for the same thing you already had.

There are very few that actually do anything, Lucas, SeaFoam, MMO, etc... these are the ones that have been around for decades, and even they only work when USED CORRECTLY.

[99metro]

When "used correctly" is the key here. I am a believer that simply changing the octane won't necessarily give you better FE, but if you have supporting mods to your vehicle, you CAN get better FE and take advantage of the higher octane. Ask any Corvette owner how the car performs - 85 versus 91 octane.

My car response greatly to mods I perform. With 11 degree advanced timing, I can use 91 octane for a 10% - 15% increase in FE over using 85 octane and factory timing. I am also using non-oxygenated gas. If you do the math and figure cost per mile, 91 octane wins hands down, when "used correctly".

HHO is a curiosity for me right now. If it can TRULY increase FE, my car will know it. Theoretically a 747 can't fly, but it does. I'm not going to spend $200 on a system that will take 10 years to recoup. But to spend $20 and get even 10% better FE, then that might be worth it. Snake oil is snake oil. My great great grandpappy made a living selling snake oil.

I think there might be some here who are using "HHO" with excellent results, but might be lying low in fear of being slammed. It would be nice to see an honest working system. If it doesn't work, then report it as so.

99metro

[Frank Lee]

Theoretically a 747 can't fly, but it does.

[Christ]

747 is "technically" too heavy, the "steel birds" where never supposed to be able to fly, according to the "knowledgable" among those interested at the time.

Interestingly, no airplane throughout history has ever landed... that is not to say that they don't hit the ground, they just were never designed to "land"... they were designed to fly, so in essence, when they land, they're performing a "systematic, controlled-crash situation"

The idea behind landing a plane, especially to commercial pilots, is to "crash with as little damage as possible".. of course, over time, it's been perfected to the extent that "as little damage as possible" has become almost none.

YaY! for aerodynamics.

99metro - Correct. Adding high octane fuel does nothing unless your vehicle needs it.

A vehicle that normally used to run on low-grade fuel, but over time, has developed a penchant for high-grade fuel in order to run properly, should be cleaned with seafoam or something similar. (BY the way, seafoam is essentially mineral spirits and kerosene distillates, for those interested, and in general, it is not cheaper to make on your own.)

The reason for this is that something is in the engine (gunk/sludge/coke/carbon/etc) built up on the combustion chamber and piston tops, that is causing higher compression.

It's been a secret of ASE mechanics for how many years... if you suddenly find that your car is running balls out on higher octane fuel than it used to, CLEAN IT.

Don't just assume that you're getting a better burn now.

As far as Corvette owners are concerned, those cars are ultimately wasteful in their processes, in that while it could be tuned to run 87 Oct fuel, it would still lose power... and the end result would still be detonation (I've tried it)... the compression ratio in that motor is achieved without design consideration for higher cylinder pressure or "uneven spread" techniques... meaning those owners are pretty much either stuck with E85 or 91/92/93 octane.

Just for kicks.... E85 is not 85% ethanol, 15% gasoline.

85% ethanol is correct... the other 15% is "stuff"... lubricants, detergents, cleaning agents, "air scrubbers" etc... there is next to no "gasoline" in E85, except the individual components of it. There are petroleum distillates in it. Other than that, it's nearly purely an aromatic fuel... hence the reason for the additives... aromatics (alone) will lead to bad juju in metal engines.

[whitevette]

Originally Posted by johnmyster

Absolute and total made up imaginary BS. Every time someone with any bit of knowledge simply, easily, and quickly debunks this whole HHO sham, there comes out a new "theory" as to why it is beneficial and why the previous bit of scientific logic doesn't apply. First, it was that the combustion of hydrogen gives you energy. Then once that was proven to be a "perpetual motion" scam, it was alleged to be the "quality of combustion" that was enhanced. Then, as soon as it was suggested that complete combustion was achieved anyhow, now someone is saying that it beneficially delays the combustion event? Are you kidding me?

You absolutely want the combustion event to reach completion as close as TDC as possible. This is so that pressure will be maximized for the piston stroke at all possible points. The piston isn't moving quickly at this point, which gives you plenty of time to complete the combustion event. Delaying will give you the same pressure later, but reduce it early on. That's wasted work (pressure*change in volume) that you could have captured.

As long as the main event doesn't happen before TDC (knock) you're fine.

Yes, I took a two semester (six credit hour) course as a grad student on combustion analysis - specifically geared towards ICEs. I don't have that book handy right now, but whatev. Frickin salesmen making up science. It's as if they have stock in PVC pipe or something.

There's a guy over on the S-10 forums talking about how great of mileage he gets with HHO. His truck is ligher than mine, has 3.73 gears rather than 4.10s, fewer accessories, and a short cab. Same motor. Same trans. I was getting better mileage on a totally stock truck. He's spending his time gluing up PVC pipe and hacking his PCM electronics. I'm doing mods that actually work.

"...the combustion event to reach completion" at or near TDC ? Shazam! Not in my engine, please. Cranks break, you know. Rods bend. ARGH ! F. salesmen aren't the only ones making up science! -whitevette

[whitevette]

Originally Posted by Christ

747 is "technically" too heavy, the "steel birds" where never supposed to be able to fly, according to the "knowledgable" among those interested at the time.

Interestingly, no airplane throughout history has ever landed... that is not to say that they don't hit the ground, they just were never designed to "land"... they were designed to fly, so in essence, when they land, they're performing a "systematic, controlled-crash situation"

Did you ever fly in a plane? A perfect landing is the beginning of a stall, just as the wheels touch the runway. The control is still there. The plane begins to stop flying, not crash!
Controlled crash, my burro.

If Boeing designers didn't know the plane would fly...they wouldn't have been given the go-ahead to spend millions and millions of Boeing's money to build the sucker!

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by whitevette

"...the combustion event to reach completion" at or near TDC ? Shazam! Not in my engine, please. Cranks break, you know. Rods bend. ARGH ! F. salesmen aren't the only ones making up science! -whitevette

o.0 You do realize that ignition happens just slightly before TDC right? At the rates pistons are traveling, a few milliseconds is critical - like the few milliseconds it takes for the event to complete. Ignite early so max pressure is at TDC or as close to as possible (just not before). That would apply unless you've retarded your timing somewhere below 0 degrees - yikes, would that run with no guts....

[elhigh]

Originally Posted by Christ

[snip]
Interestingly, no airplane throughout history has ever landed... that is not to say that they don't hit the ground, they just were never designed to "land"... they were designed to fly, so in essence, when they land, they're performing a "systematic, controlled-crash situation"

The idea behind landing a plane, especially to commercial pilots, is to "crash with as little damage as possible".. of course, over time, it's been perfected to the extent that "as little damage as possible" has become almost none.
[snip]
A vehicle that normally used to run on low-grade fuel, but over time, has developed a penchant for high-grade fuel in order to run properly, should be cleaned with seafoam or something similar. (BY the way, seafoam is essentially mineral spirits and kerosene distillates, for those interested, and in general, it is not cheaper to make on your own.)

The reason for this is that something is in the engine (gunk/sludge/coke/carbon/etc) built up on the combustion chamber and piston tops, that is causing higher compression.

[snip]
Just for kicks.... E85 is not 85% ethanol, 15% gasoline.

85% ethanol is correct... the other 15% is "stuff"... lubricants, detergents, cleaning agents, "air scrubbers" etc... there is next to no "gasoline" in E85, except the individual components of it. There are petroleum distillates in it. Other than that, it's nearly purely an aromatic fuel... hence the reason for the additives... aromatics (alone) will lead to bad juju in metal engines.

You've lost credibility.
Sorry.