Myth Busters SUCKS! (HHO mod, does it work?)

[Nerys]

that replied made absolutely ZERO sense whatsoever. Am I missing some back story or something that ties that comment in frank?

[dcb]

I think we are all still in shock to learn that hydrogen gas is flammable.

[Nerys]

Well paper is flammable too. Its not going to run an engine now is it? the point is an ICE can SUCCESSFULLY run on hydrogen gas.

There is a difference between flammable and combustible in an ICE to run it.

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by Nerys

Well paper is flammable too. Its not going to run an engine now is it? the point is an ICE can SUCCESSFULLY run on hydrogen gas.

That doesn't automatically make it a good idea. HHO is BS.

[dcb]

solids can be a bit of a challenge to meter. I can't even get my laser printer to reliably move a piece of paper. Fluids are typically much easier.

But you can run a car engine on many flammable fluids for a short while, I've "hand metered" various flammable fluids into an engine such as propane torch, or a cup of alcohol.

This has no/zero/zip/zilch to do with the "merits" of HHO however. It would be like saying gasoline as an additive to gasoline has merit because an engine can run on gasoline.

[Christ]

I use propane torches to find vacuum leaks.

[jarre]

Hi hmilers
Today I finished constructing the hho dry cell generator well I shall see what all the fuss is all about.
jarre

[aerohead]

I dug way back and found the following.
Water injection was of interest as early as around 1915.On foggy or rainy days,or at night near the seashore,certain cars were found to run smoother and have more life.The softening of combustion by the water vapor allowed higher compression engines to operate under higher load without detonation.
Many methods were tried,all un-controlled,and many engines suffered collapsed pistons,fouled spark plugs,or completely quenched combustion.
Water injection languished until World War II when high compression aircraft engines requiring very high octane fuel emerged.
Water injection,actually water-alcohol injection allowed a few seconds of 100% load engine operation without catastrophic engine failure.( I used to mix this stuff up in Vietnam and serve it to heavily laden prop jobs).
Mechanics Illustrated tested a unit in May 1951 and gave it the thumbs up,but not without caveats.
(1) The only unit "worthy" of purchase created a water fog.(2) It was not recommended at all for low compression engines.(3) They recommended a minimum of 50% Alcohol be mixed into the solution.(4) The thing would only help under WOT load or hill climbing.(5) Better even,mix half and half methanol and ethanol,then to that,add only 15% water.(6) An engine with 10:1 compression or higher would be able to cheat on octane at the pump.
They make no mention of the cost of alcohol.

The Octo-gen sold right through the 1950s.
Anion Research,Inc. offered one of the bogus vacuum-operated units in 1981.
The bogus Vapor-Jet went on sale in 1981.
In the July 1983 issue of HOT ROD Magazine,they tested The Goodman System Company' water"fogging" system and gave it a thumbs up as a high-performance engine detonation control device.This system aerated the water to produce a fine mist which would turn to steam in the combustion chamber.It operated off the car's air pump or a stand alone 12-v dc pump.Horsepower gains and mpg improvement are credited to the device( sorry no mpg data is given ).
I did not see the Mythbusters episode,I don't know what they tested.
Water does not burn so it looks like the octane enhancement thing is the strong point.
I can't think of any modern car,with knock-sensors,32-bit processors,etc.,that could "need" such a devise.But hey! I'm surprised all the time.

[Nerys]

Energy return on energy invested is irrelevant.

I can sum up why in one word

Entropy

if you don't know what that means then this explains why you even TYPED the words energy used and energy invested in the same sentence.

Just in case some do not know

100% of all energy usages are LOSSY. you can NEVER EVER get a return on energy expended. the BEST you can hope for is to approach but never actually reach 100% although 100% is mathmatically possible maybe. Not likely in reality though.

this includes HHO this includes Battery Electrics This includes GASOLINE OIL DIESEL PROPANE and any other fuel you can think of. THEY ALL take more energy in than you will EVER see out. Period. End of discussion until the laws of the universe as we know them get revised.

The only real question is DOLLARS IN and DOLLARS OUT.

Lets use a hypotetical comparison of a Gasoline car at 20mpg and a battery electric car such as the RAV4EV both of these are real so its something we can crunch some numbers on.

to go 100 miles in the Gasoline car at current prices costs me $12.10

to go 100 miles in the Battery Electric at current prices would cost me $2

How much energy either uses is irrelevant to me.

The one is $10.10 cheaper than the other (it also happens to use less energy but thats not relevant to me)

NOW lets say I put an HHO system in my car. LETS ASSUME for the sake of this discussion that it does work and lets say I gain 5mpg from it

so instead of my 20mpg I get 25mpg.

the only REAL question here is this. this means I used 4 gallons of gasoline.

IE it saved me $2.42 in gasoline.

DOES THE ELECTRICITY I USED TO CHARGE THE BATTERIES TO RUN THE HHO cost more or less than $2.42

THATS IT. that is the only thing I wish to discover.

if it costs me LESS than $2.42 in electricity to gain that 5mpg per 100 miles then IT WORKS and its BETTER in my view. (also depends on maintenance and how much WORK it is to keep it running this also needs to be factored in)

I don't care about energy in or energy out. I don't care which is more efficient or which pollutes more. I care about one thing.

WHICH WILL COST ME FEWER DOLLARS. Its really that simple.

there are other benifits. even if its BREAK EVEN. I might still do it (especially if its more than 5mpg even at break even) since that means it costs me nothing MORE than what I am paying now but I buy less OIL and this is a good thing to me.

I am going to have to build one of these damned things one day and see if it actually works. ON PAPER it works. the math is sound. if you inject more hydrocarbons IE FUEL into the engine you will go further. WHY some of you even debate this is beyond me its simple science folks.

the only question is NOT if it works but is it PRACTICAL. ie is it cheaper than gasoline.

NO you can not make a car run on hydrogen ALONE. by the time you got a battery pack big enough to allow you to generate enough hydrogen to run the car 100% on hydrogen YOU ALREADY have a battery pack large enough to go 2-3-4 or more times further as a pure ELECTRIC CAR (hydrogen generation is NOT an efficient process) and since no battery tech currently exists to allow 500+ mile ranges for an EV practically then NO your not going to be able to make enough power to run a car on PURE hydrogen and NO gasoline.

but to add a LITTLE bit to increase your range or decrease your gasoline usage even by a little bit? in theory this is doable and these things are CHEAP enough to build that its worth a go (plus I have other uses for a hydrogen generator so if it does not work its no loss for me)

[user removed]

1 liter of HHO has the BTU energy of 1.5 wooden matches. You spend many times more energy through all the losses involved in production than you will ever get out.

How many miles per match you think you are going to get?

Maybe in a Matchbox car .

regards
Mech