HHO: Is it alchemy? Or will it improve gas mileage on a ’99 4.0 SOHC Explorer? | Page 45 | Ford Explorer Forums - Serious Explorations

  • Register Today It's free!

HHO: Is it alchemy? Or will it improve gas mileage on a ’99 4.0 SOHC Explorer?

Yeah, that is exactly what I am saying, because it wasn't any "Just" an HHO generator that gave you a 37% increase in fuel economy. Hell, the Jet Propulsion Labs testing with bottled hydrogen couldn't generate that kind of increase, and they didn't have to deal with the parasitic drag that you have generating the hydrogen. Why was your Celica only getting 22 mpg anyway? Those things should get pretty near 30 bone stock on the highway. You know, if you had such an efficient electrolytic cell then, what is the problem now? Ever notice how many "experts" that support HHO keep saying how they aren't using it right now, or they aren't getting X increase right now, but that is only because they haven't built their planned cell yet?

But hey, don't trust me. I only referenced testing by the Jet Propulsion Laboratories, Popular Mechanics and THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS OVER THE PAST CENTURY AT CREDIBLE UNIVERSITIES. Some guy on the internet wrote a convincing article utilizing massive amounts of psuedo-science and you have experienced changes in FE that you couldn't explain.

If it helps, even Nikola Tesla thought generating hydrogen through electrolysis was really inefficient and tried to improve on it. He claimed to have done it, but through much more exotic means than you are talking about.

Yes, adding hydrogen to combustion and proper tuning can increase FE and lower emissions, but as you'll see, the methods used for adding said hydrogen are much more exotic than a stacked plate electrolytic generator and not feasible for use in daily driven automobiles. Any testing by credible organizations using electrolytic generation of hydrogen has ALWAYS demonstrated it is an inefficient process.
 



Join the Elite Explorers for $20 each year.
Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,.
Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!
.





My Celica only got 22 MPG before the HHO because it was a second gen RWD with cam and weber carb and a few other mods. I regularly thrashed it every time I started it. It basically lived at red line unless on a long trip. I regularly made a 150 mile trip from school to the parents house, I always used the same amount of fuel for the trip give or take some. After installing the generator, I used far less. I could then go to the parents house, do some mild driving around town, then return to KY on one tank of fuel. Before the HHO I would always have to top off @ parents.

I'm building another unit large enough for the Ex. Please don't call me a liar when I post my results.
 






Yeah, that's fine. I don't care how you waste your money. Just don't tell other people to waste theirs.

edit: Did you ever think that maybe the cause for your change in mileage was that your 22 mpg rating was based on the fact that you

I regularly thrashed it every time I started it. It basically lived at red line

Either way... I'm gonna take the rocket scientists word for it when they couldn't get an increase near as large as that when running bottled gas... Just saying, guys at NASA have a little better engineering credentials than a random guy with a Celica who buys into psuedo-science from the internet.
 






I wish you well, really. But the reality is that there are so many factors affecting mileage, that most people will not have every needed item(such as PCM programming different for both fuels used), or a combination of good and bad tune up items.

I would bet that your Celica could get very close to 30mpg with the right tune etc, but I don't want to spend time to debate that. Regards,
 






Just want to finish with this...

http://xkcd.com/1081/

I think it is appropriate here. I'm off to the pool.
 






LOL, I like water slides too :)
 






After reading all of the threads, I realize that we can all add the hardware and make the same modifications to our vehicles but the missing link will be the PCM tune. The tune is what will bring everything together. The AH-HA moment just like post #461 of this thread. I would be glad to just get to 30mpg for highway driving.

Does anyone have any ideas that they are willing to share with the group?
Thank you.

I am a big guy who just likes his Explorer and loves to drive it.
 






I've started to build one and I'm currently looking for the best option to address the MAP issues. There is a lot more to HHO then they tell you in these cheap glass jar kits that you see for sale. I've been doing my research and studying a lot on the subject. I advise you to lean as much as you can about it before you attempt to install an HHO in your vehicle. I'll be posting my findings on this site when I get the bubbles flowing to share my knowledge.
 






I've started to build one and I'm currently looking for the best option to address the MAP issues. There is a lot more to HHO then they tell you in these cheap glass jar kits that you see for sale. I've been doing my research and studying a lot on the subject. I advise you to lean as much as you can about it before you attempt to install an HHO in your vehicle. I'll be posting my findings on this site when I get the bubbles flowing to share my knowledge.

Be sure and let us know how you are measuring the gas output, and how you are changing the engine operating parameters to compensate for that un-metered volume of gas. :rolleyes:
 






Successful HHO with a 4.0 SOHC

After 3 years of trial and error experimenting with HHO in the Explorer 4.0 SOHC, I'm ready to share with you what I've learned. First, It isn't easy to do. You can't just hook up a mason jar to your engine and expect to get results. What you will get is a lot of steam and KOH going inside your engine. Not good! I never tried a mason jar generator in my engine, but I did try a few very inefficient generators that drew too many amps and caused a lot of heat to build up in the generator, producing steam mostly, instead of a good quality HHO, and this brings us to a new understanding.
One of the additional benefits of adding hydrogen to the engine is what happens to hydrogen when it burns? It turns to water. When fighter pilots in WW2 reported better engine performance while skimming the ocean, they determined it was mist their props were kicking up and going in the intake, thus water injection was invented. So you have steam working as a mechanical advantage in the power stroke pushing the piston down with old fashion steam power. The net effect of having HHO injected in the air intake is what should be looked at. Not just from a stoichiometric point of view of A/F mixture.
Now I honestly can't say I've seen dramatic gas mileage increases, about 10-20% is all, but I like the extra torque I feel when I hit the gas. I can swear by it when it comes to engine performance. I'm only drawing 30amps max to power the electrolyzer. 30 amps from a 130 amp alternator is not bad and doesn't seem to add any parasitical drag. This begs to argue the great debate of the laws of thermodynamics and energy conservation in the HHO debate. You can't get more power out of a unit than what's put in to it. No free lunch! Can't get something from nothing - period end of story! This is true.. But you can get more power out of an engine that is already there, not tapped into and going to waste. It's just making the engine run more efficiently. And if that's true, then how come we get more power from turbo charging? Isn't that getting more power from nothing also? Doesn't the extra power it takes to spin the turbine in the exhaust for the compressor negate the effects of turbo boosting? Yet it does work, and away we drive.
 






I have a few pictures of my system I'm trying to upload but I'm new to this forum and can't seem to figure it out. Just want to show it's not just talk.
 






turbocharging power increase

. . . And if that's true, then how come we get more power from turbo charging? Isn't that getting more power from nothing also? Doesn't the extra power it takes to spin the turbine in the exhaust for the compressor negate the effects of turbo boosting? Yet it does work, and away we drive.

With a turbocharger the hot exhaust gas spins the turbine that drives the compressor. The compressor forces more air mass into the combustion chamber. The increased air mass flow is measured by the MAF sensor and the PCM causes the injectors to add more fuel to maintain the air/fuel ratio. It takes more work for the pistons to compress the increased mass of fuel and air into the combustion chamber but more power is produced when the mixture is burned. Fuel economy may improve with turbocharging because a 4 cylinder turbocharged engine can produce as much power as a 6 cylinder normally aspirated engine but weighs less.

I have a supercharger on my Sport that increased my rwhp from about 170 to 227. However, the engine probably has to produce an additional 25 or more bhp to drive the supercharger.
 






So, does the snake oil get poured into the intake or the crankcase?
 






Back
Top