HHO, Does it work?

[namba209]

Originally Posted by SSGDirk I can't believe that so many people are against it when they haven't even tried it, or know any one that tried it.

I guess you didn't read my earlier post on when Pratt & Whitney and Lockheed tried to develop a hydrogen powered aircraft. The final design of the aircraft ended up being 290 feet long, wingspan 98 feet, empty weight of 178,500 lbs, with a fuel load of 180,000 lbs. The design flight parameters were a range of 2500 nm. at an altitude of 100,000 ft at Mach 2.5. This led the Skunk Works to cancel any further development because any increase in fuel load would only increase the range by only 3%, and using hydrocarbon based fuels with a slight loss in altitude led to the development of the Blackbirds. The Pratt & Whitney model 304 engines eventually led to the rocket motors used in the Convair Centaur rocket to be used in space exploration.

[ungermm]

I remember seeing an article in our news paper about a local company manufacturing hydrogen generating devices for the purpose of increasing mileage in vehicles. A couple things interesting items to note.
1, ...the entire cost of one unit appears to be around $30 for parts, not counting labor. "He's making a killing," Hagopian said.
2, "We've tested a few of these devices and none of them so far worked. We spent $1,000 on one of those things, tried it for about six weeks on one of our cars and I can tell you it does not work," said Gabriel Shenhar, senior engineer and program manager at Consumer Reports' national auto testing center in East Haddam, Conn.
3) "I have seen some video and descriptions of this type of process. The amount of energy it would take to get hydrogen out of water would be more than the engine could produce, so it would be a net loss overall," said Dimitri Stanich, spokesman for the California Air Resources Board.
4) "There are people who say this technology doesn't work," said Jewell (company owner) in response. "I would not have sold over a thousand of them if it didn't.
5) Jewell said he hears from satisfied customers every day, and brought Joe Gordon, owner of Gordon and Sons Towing next door to National Vapor Industries, into the room to give a testimonial. Gordon said his truck got 7 miles a gallon before installing the device, and now gets 9-1/2 mpg.

So, who are you to believe, the guy making a killing and a tow truck guy or the science guys?

For the full article go to http://www.contracostatimes.com/gasprices/ci_10429565

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by Avec This same topic is being discussed on another board I post to. One thing that came up is the possibility that the H2 is not being used as a fuel, but as an accelerant in flame propagation. If a small amount of H2 (and these setups can only generate a small amount) can suitably increase flame spread and/or allow for both leaning and timing advancement, there is some amount of efficiency to be had. To reject it out of hand is the same as "man will never fly" They may not with flapping wings attached to their arms, but . . .well you know. I don't know if there is anything to them, but there might be, and all possibilities should be ruled out by experimentation rather than skepticism. Think outside of the box.

The problem with that logic is that they are claiming MPG increases with no other modifications to the engine. But if you believe what you say is true all I can say is prove it. If you can take an engine into a laboratory and do what no one else has been able to which is give TRUE repeatable evidence that it works instead of anecdotal evidence then you might be onto something. Until then it has no legs to stand on since several independent labs have tested these devices and all found them to not work. So far there is evidence that it doesn't work and none that it does. Seems a little silly to believe in unicorns and fairies since no one can prove they exist… it also seems a little silly to believe HHO works when no one can prove it.

Originally Posted by namba209 The design flight parameters were a range of 2500 nm.

When I first read this I thought you were talking about nanometers which would have been "LOL"… Who knew nautical miles could be so short!

[oldopelguy]

I'm so convinced they are snake oil I'll put my money where my mouth is.

I challenge anyone who's installed one of the "HHO Generators" on their car to prove to me with two tanks of gas the mileage they get out of their car with the device turned on. If they are then willing to turn the thing off and let me drive the car for two tanks of gas I'll bet all 4 tanks worth of fuel that I can get better fuel economy out of their car with the thing turned off than they get with it turned on.

I'm that confident in them not working and in my driving style having a bigger net effect even if they did.

There are basic things that will always improve fuel economy and can be proven by facts. Most of them are even cheap. New plugs, synthetic gear oil in the trans and axle, 5W-30 in the engine, a new O2 sensor if required, timing set correctly and basic tuning done will go a long way and cost 1/3rd of the HHO thingy. Add in a good quality set of tires, inflated to max load rating pressure on the side instead of the cushy pressure sticker in the car and you'll see 5% immediately. Next would be exhaust improvements and air filters, both of which are more expensive but not unreasonably so. Take the motor apart a bit to port the manifold and port match the exhaust and you'll have more Hp and better economy.

These things work, and are proven to work on every car by every measure. Why would anyone waste their $ on something that can't be proven when they don't have to to get the same effect?

[blancojp]

Gentlemen and Ladies if any.

Anything can almost be used as fuel if you find a way to either burn it or explode it. I have been in the power generation field for over 30 years and I hear this all of the time. Everyone argues and everyone has evidence that something exists which can boost power or mileage out of a car.

Long ago I heard that "If you buy a diamond ring for 10 cents, you might end up with a ring not worth a dime". Most of these converters use a low voltage and a catalitic element which handles most of the conversion. A low voltage unit must have a short pulse high voltage converter, just like a flyback on a tube style TV, and said pulse will trickle the catalitic element into molecule separation. Since the unit is sealed and only has an exhaust port, the gas must be sucked out by the target induction unit which will create a vacuum and pulse the gas out.

You can build one of these with a few parts from Home Depot and you will have catalitic action resulting in HHO. Is it worth the $44 you will spend building it, NO.

Just remember these units are tested on computer controlled cars and tuned for maximum economy. The Opel 1.9L engine is 1960's technology which will require a few tweeks to remotely come near a new style engine. As an example, I have a Volvo S-40 which has been tuned for max fuel economy. I have a dual curve program, under 3Krpm I have max economy, over 3Krpm maximum HP. At 2Krpm, my car does 75mph on the highway and provides me with a healthy 39mpg. In performance mode, car is extreeeeeeemly fast and does a maximum 16mpg.

Don't waste you time on maybe type add-ons, if you want performance and better fuel economy, make your Opel engine run more efficient. But if you want to have the best fuel economy in the world, make you car run on electricity and put a small nuclear reactor in your trunk. The Russians have a small 22ft, 4-seat submarine that can run non-stop for 6 months under water.

[traytodd]

"HHO isn't perpetual motion. Perpetual motion would be using an altinator to pwer a starter to turn the altinator. In HHO you are using water as a fuel which changes everything."

SSGDirk, on the contrary, if we exclude the other fuel (gas or diesel) running an engine on H2O which is separated into H2 & O2 by accessories powered by that engine is precisely the chemical analog to any mechanical or electrical perpetual motion machine. It takes the same amount of energy to separate H2O into its fundamental components as is released when those components are recombusted to form H2O again. In fact, if the exhausted H2O leaves the engine at a temperature higher than the original water, then there is already a net energy loss even without considering all the other losses in the system.

I have looked at one of the main websites supporting this gimmick and find it riddled with junk science including the claim that they are generating a new molecule HHO as opposed to water which is HOH. As proof they exhibit a mass spectrum, they erroneously call a chromatogram, that exhibits a peak at mass 5 (another new atom or molecule, H5?) and nothing at mass 28 or 32 where N2 & O2 should be plus a peak at 40 (argon? contamination). It is basically shlock science and has been debunked in the literature by other scientists.

The only way this can work is if the H2 & O2 alter the combustion dynamics of the H/C fuel enough to allow leaner mixtures, higher compresson and/or advanced spark. These are all things that can be rigorously tested for and the data presented in a scientific fashion. The lack of such scientific data and the presence of only anecdotal evidence is a clear warning to all to beware of these claims.

Terry