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

[Cabrera]

You are going to have some type of electrolyte in your "dry cell" right?

Yes, Potassium hydroxide. a 28% concentration. It will be held in a reservoir tank feeding the dry cell.

 

[Cabrera]

So I think it is safe to say that this discussion thread on Explorer specific HHO has run it's course and is no longer active. Is it because all of the posters & experimenters have abandoned their project?
It's sad because it seems to add credibility to the nay-sayers.
Anyway, thank you to all who have previously posted, you have left a legacy of valuable information.

Oh well then I guess there's only one more thing left to do!

 

[soltero]

This thread ain't closed yet

 

[Cabrera]

This thread ain't closed yet

No, I think it's out of respect for the original poster Aldive who passed away earlier this year.

 

[r37ribution]

What!? Al died??? when did this happen?

 

[BrooklynBay]

http://www.explorerforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=280046

 

[r37ribution]

Thanks, I literally just found that. TY for all the great info Al, may you RIP

 

[1998rollover]

Here's an idea I haven't seen tossed about yet. How about sandwiching fiberglass matting between the stainless steel plates as a separator? Might be issues with not allowing the water to flow in fast enough to replace what's split and bubbled out?

Anyone see the "debunking" of this on Mythbusters where they deliberately set up the "experiment" to fail? The thing they built did produce hydrogen and oxygen. Then they proceeded to claim the device was supposed to *completely replace* gasoline. Even worse, they completely blocked off the carburetor on the test vehicle except for the 1/4" line from the gas generator. Of course it didn't work.

 

[trucku]

Here's an idea I haven't seen tossed about yet. How about sandwiching fiberglass matting between the stainless steel plates as a separator? Might be issues with not allowing the water to flow in fast enough to replace what's split and bubbled out?

Anyone see the "debunking" of this on Mythbusters where they deliberately set up the "experiment" to fail? The thing they built did produce hydrogen and oxygen. Then they proceeded to claim the device was supposed to *completely replace* gasoline. Even worse, they completely blocked off the carburetor on the test vehicle except for the 1/4" line from the gas generator. Of course it didn't work.

I felt they buggered that test up too. You can tell when they hold back and do insufficient work.

They do that a lot now it seems. I can understand some of the like not showing how to beat a radar or red light camera...etc, but not saving gas.

 

[Cabrera]

Anyone see the "debunking" of this on Mythbusters where they deliberately set up the "experiment" to fail? The thing they built did produce hydrogen and oxygen. Then they proceeded to claim the device was supposed to *completely replace* gasoline. Even worse, they completely blocked off the carburetor on the test vehicle except for the 1/4" line from the gas generator. Of course it didn't work.

For those who haven't seen the Mythbusters episode in question, here is an excerpt.

 

[FIND]

Here's an idea I haven't seen tossed about yet. How about sandwiching fiberglass matting between the stainless steel plates as a separator? Might be issues with not allowing the water to flow in fast enough to replace what's split and bubbled out?

Anyone see the "debunking" of this on Mythbusters where they deliberately set up the "experiment" to fail? The thing they built did produce hydrogen and oxygen. Then they proceeded to claim the device was supposed to *completely replace* gasoline. Even worse, they completely blocked off the carburetor on the test vehicle except for the 1/4" line from the gas generator. Of course it didn't work.

Doesn't matter, hydrogen combustion is not very energetic when compared to gasoline, and it would defy the laws of thermodynamics to get more energy out of hydrogen combustion than you use separating the hydrogen from the oxygen. The laws of physics don't just change because it is convenient for someone, except at extreme states of matter, but that is another issue entirely.

Even if we were to assume an engine were 100% efficient at converting the combustion energy into mechanical energy, and we were to assume that the alternator/belt drive were 100% efficient at converting mechanical energy to electricity, all the energy generated from hydrogen combustion would be required to separate the hydrogen from oxygen through electrolysis driven by the engine. The same applies to any lower percentage of hydrogen mixture. If you want a 1% mixture of hydrogen, it would require the same energy to perform electrolysis as that same hydrogen would create during combustion. BTW peak thermal efficiency of gasoline engines ranges in the 20-35% range, peak efficiency of your alternator/belt drive is going to be between 70-90% depending on ambient temperature, condition/temperature of the alternator and the condition of your belt, and then your HHO generator will also be a much lower efficiency. You feel the heat that an HHO generator makes? That is wasted energy. 1 btu of heat = roughly 1060 joules or .3 watts/hour. All these numbers basically mean that you will use about 4 times as much energy to produce the hydrogen for your engine as your engine will produce through hydrogen combustion.

The only way these HHO generators work is because of the lean burn condition that results from using the hydrogen/oxygen mixture. You can accomplish the same results by tuning your engine to run leaner. The HHO mixture does make up for some of its wasted energy by allowing you to have a slightly leaner combustion, but, in the end, you SHOULD have a less efficient engine if you are running an HHO generator.

This is not an opinion, I would not be surprised by any individuals results, and anyone who is telling you they are getting better fuel economy does not understand what they are doing and has not considered all the factors that are leading to their better mileage. You can get the same (or better) results from less work and with less investment. Would you dig your basement with a shovel when you have a backhoe? The laws of physics and thermodynamics are quite clear on these types of matters and won't be changing no matter how you design your generator.

If an HHO generator worked, you would see them on a Prius. These things cost about a 10th to make as they sell for online, and a large manufacturer has access to better tooling and equipment for producing these types of things, and therefore, could make WAY better units. Heck, visit any lab where they have equipment for performing electrolysis.... their equipment is a lot better than the stuff you can make yourself, and they can't make these types of things work either.

It's sad because it seems to add credibility to the nay-sayers.

I'm sorry, science does that for us. A pound of wishful thinking cannot replace a pinch of real science.

 

[FIND]

I felt they buggered that test up too. You can tell when they hold back and do insufficient work.

They do that a lot now it seems. I can understand some of the like not showing how to beat a radar or red light camera...etc, but not saving gas.

They are not skewing their results and have nothing to gain. Believe me, their results may not always seem to be the same as "common" sense dictates, but they are all in line with what you should get according to various laws of physics and other natural scientific laws.

 

[Cabrera]

I'm sorry, science does that for us. A pound of wishful thinking cannot replace a pinch of real science.

So you built a system & it didn't increase any fuel economy?

 

[FIND]

So you built a system & it didn't increase any fuel economy?

Why would I waste the money when I already know the results? The laws of thermodynamics are not going to change just because I wasted some money. I already know the physics behind how an engine works, and the physics behind an HHO generator, I know exactly how it will perform in even the best state. Even if I were to haul tanks of hydrogen and oxygen so that I am not wasting engine energy to generate HHO, my engine will operate less efficiently per mass unit of fuel when I replace some of the fuel/air mixture with HHO just because hydrogen is not as energetic a fuel as gasoline.

If you want to argue that it does work, provide proof. Every ounce of scientific and engineering knowledge available in the world says it does not. This is not a question of "what if", "you never know" or "if you test it you will find out otherwise". This is an issue of it being theoretically and actually IMPOSSIBLE. I gave you plenty of reasons why in my above post using REAL figures. If you wish to argue this, I suggest you present real figures and real physics. I am sure I can envision the stance you are going to take, "Oh, you don't know because you haven't tried it, and I am happy with my working generator that takes magical unicorn dust and turns it into a source of unlimited energy," but I don't care. HHO generators do not work any better now than they have in the last hundred years. People have been putting these things on their cars since long before you were born, and they have never worked. You can accomplish the same results with some tuning and some tweaking of your engine management when it is running.

I don't have to build something to prove it does not work. Have you ever heard of a negative proof fallacy? If you want to continue to discuss this, I suggest you prove it does work, and show how it is working using scientific method and figures that reduce any error due to personal, systematic or random influence to a level that can give positive proof.

If you feel I am being unfair in my response or assessment, I can try and give you enough formulas to give you a rough idea how the laws of thermodynamics and energy conservation work in this application. Just give me an idea of your level of technical and mathematical education and I will break it down as much as possible.

You may want to pick up a copy of something like this though http://www.amazon.com/University-Physics-Modern-MasteringPhysics-12th/dp/080532187X It appears you will need chapters 1-14 and 17-20 to get the basics of the information you need. That book is probably also calculus based, since I got linked to that after googling physics textbook and got the ISBN from the syllabus of a 200 level physics class.

 

[Cabrera]

I didn't think you built anything.
Do I want to argue that it does work? Not necessarily. I tried it I got results that I found satisfactory.
Am I trying to sell you one? No.
Do I care if you try it or not? not really
You do mention more than once about "arguing that it works" I guess you need confrontation? Thanks but I'm not going to entertain a troll.
In any case, you seem to waste a lot of time (and energy typing) on a subject you have no interest in. To sum it up in less than 10 lines:
For the benefit of those that have an interest I will say this, you won't run exclusivly on HHO, you will only get moderate mileage improvement and the cost (unless the vehicle is used long term) does not justify the expense especially when you use TEG panels to drive the electrolysis process, but that being said it is a fun experiment.

 

[FIND]

I didn't think you built anything.
Do I want to argue that it does work? Not necessarily. I tried it I got results that I found satisfactory.
Am I trying to sell you one? No.
Do I care if you try it or not? not really
You do mention more than once about "arguing that it works" I guess you need confrontation? Thanks but I'm not going to entertain a troll.
In any case, you seem to waste a lot of time (and energy typing) on a subject you have no interest in. To sum it up in less than 10 lines:
For the benefit of those that have an interest I will say this, you won't run exclusivly on HHO, you will only get moderate mileage improvement and the cost (unless the vehicle is used long term) does not justify the expense especially when you use TEG panels to drive the electrolysis process, but that being said it is a fun experiment.

If you didn't want to argue about it, why did you respond? I assumed you were attempting to argue with me, since you responded negatively to my post, therefore I stated that if you did want to argue with me, that you should bring some proof to back up your statements. If you did not want to argue with me, then I would assume that it is implied that not responding would have been a more appropriate response. I respond because I am attempting to correct information that is being passed on to people so that I may help them with future decisions that may impact their automotive experience. If they do not waste time or money on some snake oil product that relies on pseudoscience and testimonials of people who don't have a clue as to what they are talking about, they will have more money to direct towards other endeavors that will improve their automotive experience. The knowledge that I may have had a positive impact on another person's life, however small, brings me great pleasure.

Either way, stop posting to tell people things that are wrong unless you are prepared to back up your statements with factual information. You will not get a mileage improvement that you cannot achieve by tuning your engine to run the same way it is running with the HHO generator. Adding an HHO generator is an unnecessary drag on your engine and there is no positive benefit to having it there. I gave you scientific reasoning as to why it will not work. You responded by calling me a troll and insisting that your fairy dust generator defies the laws of physics.

If you enjoy your HHO generator or get satisfactory results from it, please keep it to yourself, unless you have some type of factual evidence of it working (which, unfortunately, you will never have). It is not necessary to delude others.

I offered to explain anything to you that you wanted, and to even give you in-depth reasoning. I do not think I have been unfair in my offer. The only thing I asked in return was that you do not spread false information. If you believe you can prove information to be true, that is an entirely different story, however, as I have tried to tell you, that is entirely impossible in this instance.

 

[2000StreetRod]

Hesitant to agree

I am somewhat hesitant to agree with FIND's position but only because of his condescending attitude. However, it is my opinion that claimed HHO fuel economy is due to a leaning of the A/F ratio and not due to the power generated by burning Hydrogen. A leaner A/F ratio can be achieved by using an EFIE or a custom tune. According to my Bosch Fuel Injection & Engine Management book by Charles O. Probst, best fuel economy is achieved with an A/F ratio of 15.4:1. However, above 14.7:1 nitrous oxide emissions rapidly increase. I have considered investing in an EFIE or a custom tune for better fuel economy but don't like increasing pollution.

Another reason for HHO fuel economy improvement is that HHO enthusiasts are more aware of their driving habits. Anyone can improve their fuel economy by changing their driving habits without making any changes to their engine configuration.

One method I hope to investigate in the future is to reduce the variation from 14.7:1 when the PCM is in closed loop. The PCM cyclically increases and decreases the A/F ratio from 14.7:1. Better economy and less emissions would result from a range of 14.6 to 14.8 than the typical 14.3 to 15.1 range.

 

[CDW6212R]

I am somewhat hesitant to agree with FIND's position but only because of his condescending attitude. However, it is my opinion that claimed HHO fuel economy is due to a leaning of the A/F ratio and not due to the power generated by burning Hydrogen. A leaner A/F ratio can be achieved by using an EFIE or a custom tune. According to my Bosch Fuel Injection & Engine Management book by Charles O. Probst, best fuel economy is achieved with an A/F ratio of 15.4:1. However, above 14.7:1 nitrous oxide emissions rapidly increase. I have considered investing in an EFIE or a custom tune for better fuel economy but don't like increasing pollution.

Another reason for HHO fuel economy improvement is that HHO enthusiasts are more aware of their driving habits. Anyone can improve their fuel economy by changing their driving habits without making any changes to their engine configuration.

One method I hope to investigate in the future is to reduce the variation from 14.7:1 when the PCM is in closed loop. The PCM cyclically increases and decreases the A/F ratio from 14.7:1. Better economy and less emissions would result from a range of 14.6 to 14.8 than the typical 14.3 to 15.1 range.

I also tend to agree Dale, that the HHO takes more energy to produce, then what little gas it does make.

As for A/F ratio, I don't agree with the theory of 14.7:1 being a magic efficiency level. I call that myth, and BS. That's old engine physics, based on carburetors and the extremely short atomization period. As the time for gaseous fuel can be increased(it cannot in normal fuel induction designs), the A/F ratio can be leaned out more.

Liquid gas does not burn, figuratively, only the gaseous form burns. I'm not arguing the literal differences there, get past the idea of lighting a match to liquid gas.

The point is how much fuel is in the gaseous state which the engine ingests. With liquid fuel being injected at the head ports, or sucked out of a carb, there is little time for atomization.

If, big if, but if you could increase the time from where liquid fuel begins to mix with air, then what the cylinder sees is more volatile, burns more efficiently. That would improve power, and reduce the waste of gas that wasn't fully gaseous when it hit the cylinder.

That is all theory too, but there have been applications of it. Who has heard of the 200mpg carburetor? That's the most common story people can recall and relate to. But how many people know what that was, what the theory was for those home made carbs? I know because I paid $5 or whatever it was 30+ years ago for plans.

Those were fuel atomization containers attached to the intake to replace the carb. They did function on a steady state level, but they failed because nobody ever included the needed circuits which all carbs have. They didn't have an acceleration pump circuit, or any transitional supplement or control in them. If they had developed those circuits into the design, then they would have built usable carbs, though highly dangerous.

How safe is it to construct a sheet metal box to mount at the engine, which is rather large and full of gasoline laden air? Those are fuel bombs waiting for enough heat or an ignition source to set them off. People discounted those stories because they thought it was not possible. I think it's very possible, but very dangerous.

If you could build a fuel intake/atomization tract which is very long, say 20 feet of passages, the A/F could be much leaner and still make more power. But who is going to work on that, to build it and be able to make it safe to mount at the engine to survive the heat? I decided to not try that way back then. I'll let someone else work on it and take the risk. Regards,

 

[2000StreetRod]

early atomization

Interesting comments, Don. I believe one problem with early atomization is condensation on the intake runner walls. One reason that fuel injection is more efficient than carb induction is fuel is introduced closer to the combustion chamber reducing condensation. I think the goal is to have the fuel injector begin to discharge just as the intake valve is opening to get an atomized charge into the chamber. The injector spray pattern is important to maximize atomization.

The A/F ratio on my Sport leans more than the limit of my A/F ratio meter (16:1) when I decelerate. Since the throttle plate is closed there is only a slight increase in nitrous oxide emissions.

 

[r1nsho]

To further my quest for exceptional gas mileage (http://www.explorerforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44372&highlight=quest ), after a good deal of research into hydrogen fuel use in automobiles, I decided to try HHO for myself.

The literature is full of positive results when using HHO to increase gas mileage up to 50% as well as the naysayers who readily debunk the concept and brand it alchemy. Hopefully this experimentation will shed some light to the viability of HHO use in a real world application.

So what is this HHO stuff and what will it do for me?
HHO is an oxyhydrogen mixture made by electric arc technology; it contains 2 parts of hydrogen per 1 part oxygen. It is also known as Brown’s Gas and Hydroxy.

Is this gas safe or will my vehicle go up in flames like the Hindenburg? Yes it is safe; the HHO gas is extracted as required and burned steadily from the water, unlike stored pressurized large volumes of pure hydrogen which is extremely combustible.

When water, distilled in this case, is exposed to electrical energy it become excited and divides into Hydrogen and Oxygen gases. The gases enter the vehicles motor via intake vacuum.

Before jumping on the HHO bandwagon, I highly recommend doing your homework. Read everything you can get your hands on. With new technology ( though HHO is far from new, its use in this application is ) knowledge is everything.

I plan on testing several of the plethora of ready made HHO kits and eventually building one of my own design. For this first trial, I ordered a ready made HHO generator kit from one of our members, Chris Swain ( SwaintaN ). After many e mail communications with him, I decided to obtain one of his single cell units.

Not knowing exactly what to expect with the “kit”, I was somewhat taken aback when I opened the box and saw a glass Ball canning jar with some wires and a hose protruding from the plastic top. The real surprise was that there were no instructions whatsoever included.

I immediately e mailed Chris. Within an hour he replayed: “no they werent suppose to be in it, that is one way I can see the kits cheaper then other people. I email the install instructions”. That’s the first I heard anything about that. Oh well, I have them now.

The negative wire was about a foot of yellow wire. It was attached to the negative terminal, a wing nut, on the top of the jar by simply stripping the wire and looping under the wing nut. This was absolutely unacceptable in my opinion.

The positive wire was attached in a similar manner. However, it had a fuse holder with a 15 amp fuse attached.

The first thing I did was install ring terminals on the wires that attach to the generator and completely rewire the negative lead and remove the extension wire that was simply taped wire to the positive lead.

Subsequently, I had to find a location to mount the generator. The engine bay area in my Explorer is already jam-packed, and given that the generator is made of glass, extra care had to be taken. The mounting location had to be accessible to refill the generator. I fit the HHO generator in behind the passenger side headlight.

The HHO generator was hooked up on my ’99 Explorer by “T”ing the output hose with one leg going to intake vacuum near the PCV filter ( http://www.explorerforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148135 ) and the other going into my Mac intake ( I installed a 1/4” fitting into rubber connector on the intake tube ).

After everything was hooked up, I charged the system with distilled water and 1 teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda ). This is an area in which I plan to experiment to determine the optimal amount of baking soda.

The ignition was turned on and the bubbles were observed. The truck was started and driven through the neighborhood. All appeared normal; no differences were observed nor were they expected.

My ongoing concern is how to tune or modify so that the PCM doesn’t increase fuel as the O2 sensors read a lean condition due to the burn of HHO. Further research and testing will be required. I don’t expect optimal mileage until this issue is resolved.

The PCM tune used to study the HHO generator was one of my custom maximum gas mileage tunes using 89 octane fuel.

The relatively uncomplicated installation took only about 1 hour.

The cost of the generator used in this trial was $55.00 to my door. I decided to use the cheapest ready made kit I could find for the first phase of this research and upgrade from there.

In addition to the kit, I had to purchase an additional T fitting ( 3/8” - ¼” ) to tap into the intake vacuum line and a fitting ( ¼” ) for the Mac intake. I acquired these goods at my local Advance Auto Parts store.

I shall withhold endorsement of this kit until the mileage results are in, however, the quality of the kit is not up to my standards. The instructions do not explain a lot of things, yet when asked by e mail, were explained by Chris. He is very helpful and very prompt with e mail replies.

Will the HHO generator enhance my already very good gas mileage? Only time will tell. I plan a road tryout in the next few days. I also plan on evaluating this device in my son’s Nissan Titan as well as another friends stock Lexus SUV and then on our carbureted Jeep.

Stay tuned for the data …

What did you wire it to? Im guessing something that goes on and off with the ignition. I have a cell that i just got hooked up but cant find anything that goes on and off with the ignition.