Hydrogen Generator Experiment

[UFO]

I love it, the first paragraph on that linked site:

For many years people have been boosting their gas mileage by using hydroxy systems. By utilizing electrolysis you can break apart water into a mixture of gases called hydroxy and mix them with the fuel burned in an internal combustion engine. The result can be an increase in fuel efficiency, reduced emissions, more torque, and a smoother running engine. However, it has been a challenge to get the "mainstream" to take "hydroxy boosting" seriously.

No evidence yet of people "boosting" their mileage. This is still a hypothetical, and the text reads as if it was already fact. Nice catchy new word too, "hydroxy", much better than HOH or HHO or electrolysis, and obscures the origins making it seem new, yet again.

Further reading gives this gem:

The flow rate of HHO gas was measured by using various amounts of KOH, NaOH, NaCl (catalysts). These catalysts were added into the water to diminish hydrogen and oxygen bonds and NaOH was specified as the most appropriate catalyst.

What does adding a "catalyst" have to do with measuring a flow rate? And adding an ionic compound to water does absolutely nothing to "diminish hydrogen and oxygen bonds".

Pure hogwash. Not even the introduction to the abstract has any basis in reality let alone science.

[cfg83]

tangomar -

Here is the conclusion from the thesis :

DESIGN AND APPLICATIONS OF HYDROXY (HHO) SYSTEM
http://library.cu.edu.tr/tezler/7998.pdf

6. CONCLUSION

The results of this experimental study are summarized as follows:

1. At mid and higher engine speeds, the HHO system with diesel fuel and gasoline yields higher engine torque output compared to pure diesel and gasoline fueled engine operation unless Hydroxy Electronic Control Unit (HECU) is added to the system. High burning velocity and low ignition energy of HHO-air mixture minimize the effect of the weakened in-cylinder charge flow and increased residual gas fraction which block the fuel to be fast and completely burnt at high speeds. Also, high burning velocity of HHO yields higher resistance against knocking which provides higher compression ratio (CR) and increased thermal efficiency. However, increased CR may cause pre-ignition and this can be minimized by direct HHO injection into the cylinder. At low engine speeds, low lean-flammability limits of HHO causes challenges at higher equivalence ratios. Due to the long opening time of intake manifold at low speeds, high volume occupation (reduced volumetric efficiency) of HHO becomes inevitable. Since minimum ignition energy of HHO-air mixture is a decreasing function of equivalence ratio till stoichiometric (richer) conditions, torque is reduced after HHO addition. A control unit has to be used to obtain appropriate electrolysis voltage and current (gas flow rate) to terminate the impairments of HHO gas at low speeds.

2. Uniform and improved mixing of HHO-air and oxygen content of HHO stimulate combustion which has a major effect on SFC by using an adequate capacity HHO system. Wide flammability range, high flame speed and short quenching distance of HHO yield gasoline and diesel fuel to be combusted completely under high speed conditions without HECU and low speed conditions with HECU.

3. High burning velocity, wide flammability range, oxygen content and absence of carbon make HHO gas an appropriate fuel addition to obtain adequate combustion which yield reputable reduction of HC and CO emissions when a sufficient HHO system is used at mid and higher speeds of engine without HECU and low speed conditions with HECU.

4. A control unit, which decreases electrolysis voltage and current automatically when the engine speed decreases under 1750 rpm for Compression-Ignition (CI) and 2500 rpm for Spark-Ignition (SI) (critical speeds for this experimental study), has to be designed and manufactured to eliminate the impairments of HHO enriched diesel fuel combustion at low speeds and to provide energy economy.

5. The average power increment in test engines during experiments is bigger than the electrical power consumed and fuel economy obtained with the aid of HHO system as well. This indicates that the system is efficient.

CarloSW2

[euromodder]

Read through the study quickly.

Point 5 seems weird, for I haven't found other references to their electrical setup in the study. I may have missed it, but I haven't even read wether the engine runs it own alternator to power the battery.
The claim appears out of the blue, with no data given - essential.

How the (claimed) atomic oxygen and hydrogen would survive the anti-backfire water jar that it gets blown through, is a mystery to me.
While atomic hydrogen and oxygen exist, they are very reactive and short-lived.

[UFO]

H + H = H2. O + O = O2. No way to keep them apart. As if it would make a difference.

[ECONORAM]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Since he is doing an EFIE I wouldn't mind seeing what his results are with and without the EFIE and also with and without hydrogen when only using the EFIE. A wide band on the tailpipe side (not controlling) would provide a small amount of insight as to if either situation is somewhat different.

I say let him run, its his money not mine.

I know this is a little old, but me too; I'd like to see if there are positive results from the EFIE. Very interesting reading.

[oldbeaver]

Originally Posted by cfg83

tangomar -

Here is the conclusion from the thesis :

DESIGN AND APPLICATIONS OF HYDROXY (HHO) SYSTEM
http://library.cu.edu.tr/tezler/7998.pdf



CarloSW2

I don´t approve what Carlo said, however it makes sense to me having a better control of the HHO generetor to make it more efficient.

I constructed two systems myself, the first has one cell at 12V and consumed 30A. It produced, say, one quantity of HHO gas wich flew easily to bubbler and from there to admission. But the steel corroded in least than 1 month.

The second consumed 15A and had 10 small cells powered with 1.5 V each. It produced, say, five times as much HHO as first system. So much that it blew the solution down out of the generator. I had to feed a pump to make circulate the solution and put out the gas to the bubler. Steel was very special, hard to work, but didn´t corrode. However, pump produced foam in the electrolite solution, which made trouble and soon the device wasn´t producing much HHO because foam occupied the place of solution between the plates.

After heating, current consumption increased to 20 A, also.

So, efficiency was decreasing very fast.

Solution didn´t last for a long trip, it consumed and concentration turn to be unsuitable.

What I mean is that it may sound clever in theory, but in the practice is a different thing.

Besides, none of the systems seemed to add power to the engine: in fact, when connected, rpm decreased as when I connected the air conditioner.
I think it was because it was draining more power from battery-alternator than injecting to the engine-alternator.

Supposing we overcome all practical problems, we need to test the efficiency of the generator.

The only acceptable way for me would testing the system in a car with a onboard computer that shows real time fuel consumption. Run the car at a flat speed, say 70 km/h, and switch ON and OFF the HHO generator and see what happens.

I haven´t seen such tests. Just theoretical claims against HHO and other supporting it.

OldBeaver

[elhigh]

The thing is that the "theoretical" claims denouncing HHO systems tend to quote physics, while the claims supporting it tend to quote anecdotes.

I don't think you see many lab studies digging into HHO claims because most labs think it's a bunch of hooey and won't waste their time.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by elhigh

The thing is that the "theoretical" claims denouncing HHO systems tend to quote physics, while the claims supporting it tend to quote anecdotes.

I don't think you see many lab studies digging into HHO claims because most labs think it's a bunch of hooey and won't waste their time.

Not just "think" it's hooey. There has been enough analysis and testing already to know it will never overcome the inherent inefficiencies. Any further testing is a pure waste of time and money.

[oldbeaver]

The critics of HHO are based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, right?

They say that a HHO generation system is a closed system, then due to inherent inefficiencies EVER less energy will be got out of HHO gas than energy used in electrolysis.

However, I think (and be my guess to rebate my opinion) that it is not a closed system: water is coming in. In the same way than crude oil is coming into a refinery. This is the raw material. Do you know the energy balance in a refinery? I don´t.

Yes, because in Otto and Diesel engines, the fuel is generated out of the system. They explore, they dig, they extract, they transport, they refine, they transport again and they sell you the ready to use fuel (gas or diesel). Have you consider all the energy wasted in preparing and transporting the fuel?

They use electricity to do that, which is generated with coal, hydro, atomic, natural gas, burning residues, and some diesel to transport.

In the case of HHO, the production of the fuel is in ONBOARD the car.
The raw material in this case is water, the fuel is HHO.

Conclusion:

First: HHO generation is not a closed system, then maybe the Second Law of Thermodynamics do not apply.

Second: petrol and diesel are not produced onboard, they spend a lot of energy to refine and put this fuels redy to use. If these fuels where produced onboard, what would happen?

I am not saying that the energy balance with HHO is possitive, because I cannot test it. And I haven´t seen a person that test it correctly.

Again, just anecdotes in favor (as you said) and theoretical arguments against. Why not just verify, rigourously?

OldBeaver

[AlaricD]

Water isn't a fuel. Water is an ash (the ash that results from burning hydrogen).

Also, before the threadsurrection, the last post was 03-04-2011, 01:29 PM. This shoulda stayed as dead as HHO.