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

I only recently found out about the "run your car on water" thing, and I was very excited about this prospect. I realize that running a car solely on water for a hundred bucks and some modding is ludicrous, but the concept of using it in conjunction with gas sounds very logical and reasonable to me.

So imagine my delight when my girlfriend leaves it on the Discovery channel when she left and I didn't change the channel, and the concept is part of their show. But then after wasting a half hour to see what the results were, I see them try to run the car on the HHO system alone. Never did they even suggest that one can use it in conjunction with gasoline!

They made it seem like the big oil company conspiracy is just a myth, but what I think they really did is proved it isn't a myth to me. Somehow they were told that they had to exclude this information from the show. I don't know if they sold out for a dollar amount to keep it quiet, or if the Discovery channel told them they could not present the information because of their advertisers.

I really want to know if this works and I think talking to a person who has done it would be much more likely to be the truth than what any for profit company will tell me, so thank god I found this board. I really want to believe that this modification will work, because I am of VERY limited means. I really can't throw the money at a pipe dream. The omission of the test leads me to believe this mod works, but I want to hear it from someone who has done it. Thanks in advance!

I wouldn't get into that big oil conspiracy crap. If there were anything to it the people with all their "patents" and "secrets" wouldn't be wasting their time spamming the ecomodder blog with fake comments. The automakers are falling all over themselves to make better cars, I don't think they'd ignore something that worked.

There are a few people on here I trust who have messed with it, but I've never heard anything conclusive or really positive about the concept.

Welcome to ecomodder!

Like you I am interested in building one of these devices to integrate into my current fuel system. I will build one, but like everything else it takes time. Now I have learned that their are several variations to the device which therefore may yield varying results.

I suggest you begin reading up on the different ways to seperate hydrogen from water in order to find the one that best suits you mechanical skill level plus budget.

Hopefully if I have my unit built sooner than later I can put it to the test and show off some positive results.

[QUOTE=SVOboy;37579]I wouldn't get into that big oil conspiracy crap. If there were anything to it the people with all their "patents" and "secrets" wouldn't be wasting their time spamming the ecomodder blog with fake comments. The automakers are falling all over themselves to make better cars, I don't think they'd ignore something that worked.



For what it's worth....... My opinion...... If we can fly to the moon and walk on it.........We can......

I agree with SVO boy about the spamming thing. What I mean is, I think the technology is there for automobiles to do better mpg wise. That's all I'll say. Now I'll get off my soap box. Sorry 'bout that...

[QUOTE=SVOboy;37579]I wouldn't get into that big oil conspiracy crap. The automakers are falling all over themselves to make better cars, I don't think they'd ignore something that worked.

QUOTE]

Oh contrar. GM had a working EV AND infrastructure for the EV1 in the 90's. Guess what they did? Scrap it. Literally scrap the cars, the tech, the recharge stations, everything.
Can anyone guess what lame excuse they had for why they destroyed the project? Not because of tech, not because of cost.....get ready for it......because of demand. Sorry, when it comes down to selling an SUV that makes 300% profit plus residuals (maint. fluids, adjustments) vs. a car that doesn't have residual income (because the EV1 required almost no maintenance) it's not hard to see what happend.

The detractors of the electric car are correct. Given the limited speed and range, it could only meet the needs of 90% of the population.

On the bright side, as soon as we get that Eco-Apollo project started by the next Pres. we should have something better, cheaper, and cleaner than what we can all buy now.

Back to the question at hand. I have seen several types of the Hydrogen add on's and was present while one of them was built. It made bubbles, but they ran it for a week or so and didn't see much of a difference... if any... I left that day with alot of questions flying around in my head. Like, How much Hydrogen does it make? If it's making hydrogen shouldn't you store it and or meter it before it goes into the engine? What other gases does it create? If there are other gases shouldn't those be separated from the hydrogen? Would it be better if it were compressed? Good Luck in your search for answers !!! If you get any info I'd be interested in hearing about it. Thanks

A couple of guys from Melbourne (Aus) have been pedaling their HHO "invention" (just a typical DIY HHO setup as far as I could tell) on various news and current affairs shows, claiming success, and soon offering conversions from AU$1500... bahahha.

I'm a skeptic, I really don't believe a net gain in energy is possible considering the efficiency of splitting the water (alternator load, etc) and then running the hydrogen through the ICE.

But that said, I'd love to be proven wrong and it looks like a fun mod, so I'll have a crack at it I think :)

[QUOTE=Jigsaw;37602]Yeah, exactly. GM and Honda and Toyota and others all knew electric cars worked, and built them. They didn't try to suppress the information or kill anyone involved in the project, they admitted it worked and spent millions of dollars doing it.

I haven't seen anything like that come of these HHO kits.

Since I was a kid, I've heard about the "super-secret patents" that could get a large car or truck 100 mpg, and that they were bought up and hidden by the "Big 3" or "Big Oil," or even "Big Electricity." That was 30 years ago. However, patents are public record and they expire. Those alleged "patents" expired long ago, and the alleged technology is now free for all the conspiracy buffs to use. If you believe in it, go get it. It's yours for FREEEEEEEEE! Go get it, boys!

Hell will freeze over sooner. (Of course, the technology to freeze hell was patented and bought up by a super-secret company.)

regardless mythbusters are a joke. They do one experiment, and a myth is proven!!!! It's entertaining enough to watch them whine at each other though.

They take viewers' opinions seriously. They will often retest if people give them negative feedback.

I needed that laugh thanks.

" Hell will freeze over sooner. (Of course, the technology to freeze hell was patented and bought up by a super-secret company.) "

If you have the time, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFifF...eature=related

That is just part 1, there are 9 or 10 parts to this.
They do run a small engine on hydrogen with no throttle body later on.
Here was my conclusion of what was claimed by the entire 10 episodes:

If you add some hydrogen, the gasoline would burn up completely much faster. Therefore:

You could set the timing on the engine much later, and not lose energy as the pressure increases on the compression stroke. (maybe due to lower bearing and friction loads?)

You could run much, much leaner mixtures than you could ever ignite with gasoline alone.

You could run a spark ignition engine with no intake throttle at all (like a diesel engine) and reduce pumping losses.

Now all of this sounds reasonable to me, but then again I did get a C in Internal Combustion Engines class ( I could not understand accent of the TA who was teaching it:confused:)

If you watch this you will soon want the camera man to shut his yap, as well.:rolleyes:

Someone at work was telling me that there is a system (fuel/water) in design somewhere that would introduce an amount of water into the cylinders at full compression, changing the water to steam, forcing down the pistons from the rapid expansion rate... any truth to this? sounds plausible....

I have a HHO generator(smacks booster) we (some of my buddies) put it in my car to test it one night using a recommended electrolyte (lye) we powered it up and took a test drive. I would say the results were >2mpg. I was getting the same fuel mileage with 4 people as i normally would get with just me in it. Now I don't know how accurate this info is because the test drive was only 15min long. I took it out because I didn't have the wiring i needed (it was hardwired to the battery) I have reinstalled it and done all the wiring, but the lye ate at the sidewall of the pvc and put a coating on the plates so the generator is not working. I don't think this is the most efficient generator out there. I have heard there is a laser HHO generator which is very efficient (never seen it but want to). Also i have heard about super heating the water using the exhaust of a car to produce HHO (though plasma?) Some other thing are the GEET fuel processor and the PICC (I would say they are both using plasma) Stanley Meyers had a water powered car; I think he was using a mechanical way of splitting it (He die/was killed/was poisoned)

About the car manufactures having the technology. There are reports of the Aries K (Dodge) getting 80mpg. I have also heard of a guy who had a Ford Bronco (guessing a early/mid 80's before because it has a carburettor) getting 60mpg. The owner of the Bronco was proud of his vehicle's mpg and spread the word. When Ford found out they left one slip out of the test site they forced/replaced it with a newer model that got worse gas mileage. Now I just have to think how much better and more fuel efficient fuel injection. Another thing to look up is the Fish Carburettor.

guess I'll stop rambling

There is a good thread on 'fordmods', starts off as a member asking if anyone's tried a HHO, and he eventually tries it himself, posts impressive (consistent 20-30% gains) and sparks a lot of interest and some other members follow his lead... interesting discussion:
http://www.fordmods.com/forums/boost...as-t59449.html

Their conclusions/assumptions are the same as yours ttoyoda; very high RON, faster flame front, etc.

The more I read, I definitely want to try this one out.
While there's lots of convincing discussion, I still haven't seen any solid scientific testing.

I like that design
A few thinks i forgot to mention

1. Theory
If you add more Oxygen the O2 sensor will say that the engine is running lean and add more fuel undoing your gain

2. Look at the Joe cell

3. For some pretty cool info goto rex research

4. Last but not least look at Nicola Tesla's work (not water related but very intriguing)

At part Throttle Water injection appears to work similar to higher EGR flow; basically takes up space making your engine "smaller". It does work for some FE gain (well it did in my Supra . . .).

At WOT the engine benefits from cooler charge temps.

I agree totally.....I haven't watched or read enough yet to make an educated decision. I still have alot questions more so on the generation end of it.....

if these hydrogen booster lowered temps on the motor that would be a benificial aspect of them even if the don't add MPG.. a cooler running motor does mean its more efficient

HHO generators are seriously ruining this site for me.

Kevlar,
Water injection is one of the few proven techniques for using water to help your engine
but it is not used as "fuel"
-it is used to modify the thermodynamics and combustion characteristics in the cylinder

check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engines)

it is old school - like WWII into the 50s and 60s
- many of the high performance military piston engines had it
could be used in Ecomodding
- I knew people that did it in the 80s and got some benefit (few MPG)
but engines are better now and may not be worth the cost and weight anymore

unfortunately this concept is often lost in with the HHO chaos

I haven't seen HHO lowering temperatures anywhere?

The consesus seems to be that HHO speeds up flame front allowing for a leaner burn (thus hotter) without detonation.

But does that mean the engine will run cooler with no mixture changes?

I've seen on a few forums people who've tried HHO reporting a different exhaust note while HHO is being added (one guy even posted that his exhaust had changed note, and on inspection found that the HHO generator had broken).
A common theory is that combustion is finished earlier before the exhaust values open... could that allow more heat to be scavanged on the exhaust stroke?

It's not a conspiracy -- it's physics. No conspiracy theorist will ever be convinced by any facts, because every response is another conspiracy by shadowy interests and there's always another "but..." the theorist will throw out. :rolleyes:

That analogy only shows that one can come up with poor analogies that don't prove anything.

That's incorrect. If you're reducing combustion temperatures (which must be happening if the engine is running cooler due to HHO), it's a tenet of physics that you're losing thermodynamic efficiency.

In that video, the engine runs cooler due to very lean mixures or late timing. That is not due to the hydrogen, the use of hydrogen just allows that to be done. They seem to be saying that if you time the engine for later firing, the hot gas stays in contact with the engine walls for less time, thus less heat is transfered to the body of the engine, thus efficiency rises as less heat is wasted heating up parts of the engine.

Also, for this to really be optimized, an engine would get rid of the oxygen sensor and the throttle body to reduce pumping loss and allow really lean mixtures. In an unmodified engine I think the only gain would be from late timing.

The improvements that are happening here are because parasitic losses of the engine are being reduced. I don't think the theoretical engine cycle is being changed.

JamesLaugesen, Thanks for the link!

are you guys talking about hydrogen injection (similar to nitrous oxide injection kits)?

I have built one, still experimenting with it tho, one site that I found very informing was www.smacksboosters.110mb.com I will put up some pics of mine the next time I have it out

Well, I don't have time to waste watching the whole series, and the later timing theory wasn't discussed in that one video above. He did mention exactly what I said (and linked to) about thermodynamic efficiency.

Flow obstructions are not the same thing as pumping losses -- oxygen sensors don't cause pumping losses.

In an unmodified engine, later timing would cause worse performance overall, causing less useful energy to be extracted -- the temperature of the engine might go down, but the temperature of the exhaust would be higher, so the efficiency would be worse. Timing is always BTDC because flame front travel is not instantaneous; you get the maximum energy extraction if the combustion pressure is not "chasing" the piston down, as would happen with late timing.

So you have no idea what the series is about or what data is presented. Excellent. :rolleyes:
Durrr.

I never said they did. Oxy sensors would be un-needed in a system that ran lean. They would have to be disabled in order to let the car injection system run lean.

No kidding. But we are talking about doing modifications, and the whole point is reducing parasitic losses. All of this is dealt with in the videos you cannot be bothered to watch. So I cannot be bothered with explaining it to you.

Uhh... you were the one who said "unmodified," not me:
I was explaining why there would be no gain from late timing in an unmodified engine. I don't need to watch the videos to understand that.

Now now, let's try to be civil. HHO is controversial enough without us arguing in circles with no personal experience or data to go on. :)

I wasn't "arguing in circles." I was responding to what I thought was a claim that changing timing to ATDC would improve efficiency in an unmodified engine. If anyone wants to try that, they're free to do so. I'll be looking forward to the results! ;)

That's fair, we should just keep it friendly since I think we all have the same goal, and oftentimes a discussion can get twisted about in forum format, :)

I laughed at that show when they "Busted" the acetone myth. If they had done some research, they would have started around 3oz per 10 gallons. Instead they ran a car on it and said you wouldn't save money. The Brown gas generator is the same way, the just didn't do it right.

You may be referring to the six stroke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_stroke_engine

Please let's not get off-topic into even more baseless claims.

Is there anyone who HAS watched ALL the videos that could provide some comment? I would like to have an INFORMED discussion about this.

The down side I see in it is that even the amount of hydrogen needed for enrichment seems significant, from my calculations on the back of a postit note.

The up side is being able to run a spark ignition gasoline engine open loop with no throttle body and less heat loss to engine components.

Hey guys,

I am in the middle of an HHO Gen build.
I have done some research part of it being the people in the video on page 1. It is Roy McAlister and I have read his book Solar Hydrogen Civilization. In it he gives some concepts of how hydrogen is supposed to work in an ICE.

Because H2 has the fastest burn rate of any gas it is most efficient to fire ATDC in your engine. This allows much less heat to be absorbed in the cylinder walls and more energy to push the piston down. It was also said that you can use H2 along with other fuels and the mixture, as long as it is at least 5% H2, will burn "like" H2. The analogy being if you set a room full of cardboard on fire it will burn slower then if you used a little gasoline on top of the cardboard then it would burn faster, like gasoline. In the same way you can burn cheap, junky fuel with hydrogen and it will burn up "like" hydrogen.

All that said, I have learned some theory about how this is supposed to work so I am going to apply it in a scientific way to see if HHO will improve FE.
I bought a scanguage and have been trying to get some good baseline number unmodified.

I plan on tweaking with my O2 sensor, MAP, and whatever else if I have to in order to get my engine to run lean. From my research this is the only way to see improvement with HHO from an EFI vehicle.

I will be testing some engine load info on the alternator amp draw requirements when the system is turned on but not hooked up to the car. I will test when it is running and then I will test with everything back to stock. If this thing ends up not to be effective then I go to phase II, which is a tank of compressed hydrogen to add to the fuel.

I love to experiment after I learn so this is the logical thing to do. Theory is one thing but you can't beat experimental data. At some point you just have to try it to see if it works.

silverknight,
Thank you for your informed and reasoned post. :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: What you are saying matches my impressions from the video on youtube. I should rent the whole dvd.

I was also remembering the 5% value for hydrogen.
Are you under the impression from reading the book that you could remove the throttle body completely, and then control the engine power/speed by first, always feeding an amount of hydrogen that would let the engine just idle, (if you added no gasoline at all) and then second, adding gasoline from the injectors to increase the engine speed/power as needed? Because that is the impression I get from the video. If my impression is correct, then it seems an engine ECU would be (almost???) un-needed, you could just have a box that pulse-width-modulated the injectors, and the control knob to set the duty cycle would be attached to the gas pedal. There would be no need to synchronize the fuel injection timing like is needed on a diesel engine.