Well, has anyone here done an HHO conversion?

[PreservedSwine]

Well?

.........

[Stevels]

I am going to do some tests with my HydrOlar generator and my Listeroid diesel co generator soon. I am waiting to get some reliable equipment to test emissions. Since there is no free energy, my guess is that there will be no significant imrpovement in anything, but I need to find out for sure.

Check out www.HydrOlar.com (http://www.HydrOlar.com)

Stevels

[Clipper]

I am going to do some tests with my HydrOlar generator and my Listeroid diesel co generator soon. I am waiting to get some reliable equipment to test emissions. Since there is no free energy, my guess is that there will be no significant imrpovement in anything, but I need to find out for sure.

Check out www.HydrOlar.com (http://www.HydrOlar.com)

Stevels

There are lots of people here that seem to think it works:
http://www.fuel-saver.org/Forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=15

I am currently gathering the items I need to build my first HHO generator. I have designed it to be extremely efficient, putting 40 amps of current through the plates while only drawing 14 amps from the battery...and that can be adjusted downward if necessary. It of course uses 316 stainless, is a full immersion design (with a small "feeder tank" above the cell that acts as a bubbler and constantly recirculates electrolyte) has an energy density of 1 amp per each 2 to 4 square inches of plate material, (3 square inches, in my design) a nominal voltage of 1.8 (1.24 is required in the plates, but there is a voltage drop through the plates, so optimal is around 2.0) and an optimal plate spacing of between 3 and 5 mm.(4.4 in my design.) And of course a bubbler for safety. All design parameters culled for free from the web.

I am stuck on trying to purchase a DC converter to condition the electrical supply to the unit; the one I've settled on doesn't seem to be available. I am going to call the manufacturer on Monday.

I will, of course, post my findings here (positive OR negative.) But there have already been posts on this forum by at least one of out members, pquevill, who said he increased his mileage by a couple of miles per gallon:
http://www.frybrid.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11014

As to your "free energy" comment, you are operating under some gross misperceptions.

So once again, I will repost this here for your perusal and comment:

******************

I have seen enough engineering evidence, and read enough unbiased discussions (posts by people who are not trying to sell me anything) to believe that there *may* be something to this HHO stuff, and it *at least* warrants some further investigation.

Perhaps if you read below, a little more objectively, about how the hydrogen and oxygen react with the main (hydrocarbon) fuel charge, it will shed some light on what appear to be some misunderstandings...??!!

It would appear that the efficiency gains come NOT from the actual BTU's of hydrogen that you are adding, but from the effect that the hydrogen has on how the main (diesel) fuel charge burns.

From http://www.hydrofuelsolutions.com/Go..._releases.html

...a Hydrogen Generating System (HGS) for trucks or cars has been on the market for some time. Mounted on a vehicle, it feeds small amounts of hydrogen and oxygen into the engine's air intake. Its makers claim savings in fuel, reduced noxious and greenhouse gases and increased power. The auto industry is not devoid of hoaxes and as engineers are sceptics by training, it is no surprise that a few of them say the idea won't work. Such opinions, from engineers can't be dismissed without explaining why I think these Hydrogen Generating Systems do work and are not just another hoax. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a likely source of those doubts. Meaning ...the law -would lead you to believe that it will certainly take more power to produce this hydrogen than can be regained by burning it in the engine. i.e. the resulting energy balance should be negative. If the aim is to create hydrogen by electrolysis to be burned as a fuel, the concept is ridiculous. On the other hand, if hydrogen, shortens the burn time of the main fuel-air mix, putting more pressure on the piston through a longer effective power stroke, and in doing so takes more work out, then this system does make sense. Does it work? Independent studies, at different universities, using various fuels, have shown that flame speeds increase when small amounts of hydrogen are added to air-fuel mixes.

The results of tests at Corrections Canada's, Bowden Alberta Institution and other independent tests reinforce the belief that combustion is significantly accelerated. They found with the HGS on, unburned hydrocarbons, CO and NO, in the exhaust were either eliminated or drastically reduced and at the same R.P.M. the engine produced more torque from less fuel.

Recently I took part in the highway test of a vehicle driven twice over the same 200-kilometre course, on cruise control, at the same speed, once with the system off and once with it on. A temperature sensor from an accurate pyrometer kit had been inserted directly into the exhaust manifold, to eliminate thermal distortion from the catalytic converter. On average, the exhaust manifold temperature was 65°F lower during the second trip when the Hydrogen Generating System was switched on. The fuel consumption with the unit off was 5.13253 km/li. and 7.2481 km/li. with it on, giving a mileage increase of 41.2% and a fuel savings attributable to the unit of 29.18%

From the forgoing, the near absence of carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons confirms a very complete and much faster burn. Cooler exhaust temperatures show that more work is taken out during the power stroke. More torque from less fuel at the same R.P.M. verifies that higher pressure from a faster burn, acting through a longer effective power stroke, produces more torque and thus more work from less fuel. The considerable reduction in nitrous oxides (NOx} was a surprise. I had assumed that the extreme temperatures from such a rapid intense burn would produce more NO.,. Time plus high temperature are both essential for nitrous oxides to form. As the extreme burn temperatures are of such short duration and temperature through the remainder of the power stroke and the entire exhaust stroke, will, on average, be much cooler. With this in mind, it is not so surprising that less NOx is produced when the HGS is operating.

An engineering classmate suggested a grass fire as a useful analogy to understand combustion within an engine. The flame front of a grass fire is distinct and its speed depends in part on the closeness of the individual blades. If grass is first sprayed with a small amount of gasoline to initiate combustion, then all blades will ignite almost in unison. In much the same way, small amounts of nascent oxygen and hydrogen present in the fuel-air mix will cause a chain reaction that ignites all the primary fuel molecules simultaneously. Faster more complete burns are the keys to improving efficiency in internal combustion engines. Power gained from increased thermal efficiency, less the power to the electrolysis unit, is the measure of real gain or loss. It follows from the foregoing paragraph that even a modest gain in thermal efficiency will be greater than the power used by an electrolysis unit. The net result should therefore be positive. Thus onboard electrolysis systems supplying hydrogen and oxygen to internal combustion engines, fuelled by diesel, gasoline or propane, should substantially increase efficiencies.

Mixing hydrogen with hydrocarbon fuels provides combustion stimulation by increasing the rate of molecular-cracking processes in which large hydrocarbons are broken into smaller fragments. Expediting production of smaller molecular fragments is beneficial in increasing the surface-to-volume ratio and consequent exposure to oxygen for completion of the combustion process. Relatively small amount of hydrogen can dramatically increase horsepower and reduce emissions of atmospheric pollutants.

********************

I did the math:

My engine is a 6.5-liter, at freeway speeds it is turning about 2000 RPM.

An intake stroke occurs in each cylinder every other stroke, therefore 1000 times per minute the engine is theoretically sucking 6.5 liters of air. So theoretically, 6500 liters per minute, not counting fluid-flow losses, or the extra air the turbo packs in (boost on a stock 6.5 is very low.)

The unit claims 3.7 to 4.2 liters per minute, about 60% of 6.5.

SO the amount of hydrogen introduced is roughly 60% of 1/1000'th of the air moving through the engine. So the total amount of hydrogen introduced is only roughly 60/10,000's (0.0006) of the air, or in percentages, 0.06%.

Not much, certainly not significant in terms of BTU's.

I have no experience in the matter...I can only rely on the research of others, and have not verified that research or the qualifications of the researchers.

But objectively, as an engineer, the "grassfire" analogy and the "faster burn" explanation make sense to me.

Incidentally, the hydrolysis ratio for water is about 1250:1.
So if you're producing roughly a gallon of hydrogen per minute, or 60 gallons per hour,
you're going to use roughly a gallon of water in 20 hours of run time.

[HarryN]

Assuming that the effect really is from enhanced burn performance (essentially changing the cetane rating or improving combustion "completeness") then I suppose this could test out just using a tank of H2 and O2 feeding the air intake.

This would save you the hassle of trying to make the H2 and O2 real time until you have some more supporting info.

[Clipper]

Assuming that the effect really is from enhanced burn performance (essentially changing the cetane rating or improving combustion "completeness") then I suppose this could test out just using a tank of H2 and O2 feeding the air intake.

This would save you the hassle of trying to make the H2 and O2 real time until you have some more supporting info.

Seems to me it would be more difficult and more expensive to meter the H2 and O2 in just the right proportions, than to build a little smack booster out of ss wall plates and PVC pipe.

[HarryN]

Hi Clipper

I guess it depends on what you have sitting around.

- You can rent an oxy - acetylene torch setup with regulators as well as rent a cylinder of H2. A few rotometers and you are off and running with a full visual display of flow rate.

- Making H2 / O2 from electrolysis of water is very easy as well - I did this when I was maybe 12. I collected the H2 by flipping a full jar of water over the electrode.

The O2 on mine did not collect because it reacted with the Cu wire I was using and ended up as CuOx on the bottom of the container. Using SS as the electrodes might fix this problem, but you might need to go to something like graphite.

I did not have access to much of an power supply back then, so output was limited. It took me at least overnight to collect 1 canning jar of H2. I had fun though.

You might not need the full voltage of the car battery either, so a DC - DC power supply might be helpful. The 1/2 cell voltage for H2 is (defined as ) zero, and the 1/2 cell voltage for O2 is less than 5 volts, so it should be possible to improve the efficiency of the process by the same power - just convert to 5 - 6 volts.

Since power = volts x amps, then if you use the same amount of power and get more amps. Example

12 volts x 5 amps = 60 watts = 6 volts x 10 amps.

More amps = more H2. There is a minimum voltage needed to make the reaction go - sort of like it takes a minimum temperature to ignite a flame, but it does not really help you to use 2 X the required voltage.

I remain unconvinced that this will really help fuel efficiency, but I have been wrong many times before. In the interest of helping you run the tests, maybe this will help keep your test setup costs down. Good luck.

[Clipper]

You might not need the full voltage of the car battery either, so a DC - DC power supply might be helpful. The 1/2 cell voltage for H2 is (defined as ) zero, and the 1/2 cell voltage for O2 is less than 5 volts, so it should be possible to improve the efficiency of the process by the same power - just convert to 5 - 6 volts.

Since power = volts x amps, then if you use the same amount of power and get more amps. Example

12 volts x 5 amps = 60 watts = 6 volts x 10 amps.

More amps = more H2. There is a minimum voltage needed to make the reaction go - sort of like it takes a minimum temperature to ignite a flame, but it does not really help you to use 2 X the required voltage.

I remain unconvinced that this will really help fuel efficiency, but I have been wrong many times before. In the interest of helping you run the tests, maybe this will help keep your test setup costs down. Good luck.

Hey, Harry,

Appreciate the kind words...I can't say for certain from experience until I build my own, but I've seen enough evidence that I consider to be POSSIBLY credible that I think there may be something TO this. (For now, possibly credible evidence, to me, is evidence from someone who's not trying to sell something.)

But unfortunately, the evidence is subjective and anecdotal, and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. So there will always be what I call the "2nd Law" (of Thermodynamics) people, who can't look beyond (misapplied) theory, into what really happens, in real life, in the combustion chamber.

You might want to look at this thread:
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=248101
Lotsa guys with no apparent ulterior motive, discussing the gains they've experienced with their diesels.

On page 9 if this thread, I describe the cell that I'm building:
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=248101&page=9
Actually, it looks very much as you've described above...low voltage, high amperage, and 316 stainless seems to be the plate material of choice.

There is also another chatboard where "credible" (as I define it) people discuss their successes AND their failures:
http://www.fuel-saver.org/Forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=15

Hey, if this HHO thing turns out to be a load of hot gas (pardon the pun) then I'll be the first to admit it...but it'll be on the evidence, not on my pet theories....! In the meantime, I'm keeping an open mind...I don't think I'm promoting the idea, just defending it against the 2nd law people, until the jury is in.

Which may not be in our lifetimes. :rolleyes:

[HarryN]

Hi, it looks like you have done your homework. I read most of that thread, and the link to the booster pdf. It is funny - kind of reminds me of the first time I read a frybrid forum - seemed crazy at the time, then gradually, I realized it worked.

I was impressed that the smack design even included a safety feature against back fire (I am kind of a safety nut )

If you find that the design needs more separation of the water in the "post gas production" bubbler to keep water drops from going into the engine, just use a piece of goretex fabric. It has the interesting property that it can pass gasses, but not water drops.

If you can find room, it might be a good idea to set up a 2nd battery with isolation (like an rv setup) in case you need to start up with one battery dead.

[JojoJaro]

Check out my thread on the theory of why HHO improves MPGs. In the thread, I discuss the Diesel Thermodynamic Cycle and the equation governing the Thermal Efficiency of the cycle. How HHO affects the cycle and hence improve thermal efficiency.


http://hhoforums.com/showthread.php?t=1006

[moon161]

Makes no sense. ideal diesel cycle is constant pressure expansion due to prolonged heating. A slow burning fuel (like diesel or VO) injected over a large portion of the stroke.

[JojoJaro]

Makes no sense. ideal diesel cycle is constant pressure expansion due to prolonged heating. A slow burning fuel (like diesel or VO) injected over a large portion of the stroke.


The Efficiency formula tell you that the faster you can provide the heat, the more time it has to translate that heat in usable work.

That is why efficiency increases the faster you can combust your fuel.

You are misunderstanding how the Diesel cycle work. A slow burn is inefficient. There is a misconception that the reason Diesels have more torque is because of the 'slow' burn of the diesel. This is not correct. Diesels have more torque because of its increased efficiency due to higher compression, and the higher BTU content of diesel compared to gas, and the general efficiency of the Diesel cycle compared to the Otto cycle.

[Greg]

MB 190D 2.2 auto
31.5 mpg before HHO
38.5 mpg after HHO

The HHO generator has not been optimized. I just installed it yesterday and just put the HHO gas line in the air cleaner's intake snorkel. I do not have any control of the amps yet (PWM) or even an amp meter on the circuit. I am using a weak baking soda electrolyte that is not as efficient as some more toxic formulas.

A 20% increase on the first time out shows promise.

[HarryN]

Hi Greg - Thanks for that info - pretty interesting.

Just curious - can you tell us how you go about measuring your MPG - the internal meter on the car, or miles per fill up ?

Thanks

Harry

[Greg]

miles per fill up