But I HAVE been addressing your points and have been very specific. All you have done is ignore me. Now you're blasting someone else for not addressing your points, yet ignoring the person who did.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is called "misdirection".

What paper? No one has posted any "engineering" paper that shows HHO works for any kind of automotive application. Someone in this thread tried to pawn off a study as proof, but I debunked that one since it was clearly powered by a very large outside source, and stated so several times in the study.

Obviously you can't. Because you've ignored me when I have shown several times how HHO doesn't work, and can't work, in an automotive application. I dare you to prove me wrong. Go ahead, prove to me how a tiny bit of HHO can completely change an engine's thermal efficiency. Prove to me how enough HHO introduced into a diesel with no throttle body can provide enough gas to more than double the fuel mileage, but somehow magically keep the engine from a complete and total runaway at idle.

Don't ignore me, address those key issues. Right now, it sits like this in a room:



Problem is.... NO ONE HAS PRESENTED ANY REAL DATA. The ONLY thing that has been posted is testimonials and claims with ZERO PROOF. That's the problem, and that's what everyone has been trying to tell you.

Don't believe me? Please quote in this thread where someone has posted FACTS that support HHO works in our vehicles. If you really "own your position proudly", then you would be able to support your position and prove it. So far, you haven't.

 

More BS.

This is taken directly off the home page under FAQs:

What's funny is I already addressed this earlier in the thread. It is a common mis-conception perpetrated by HHO scammers. Again, modern internal combustion engines burn nearly 100% of the fuel, not 30%. They try to equate the amount of fuel burned with "thermal efficiency". The two are not one and the same.

See HHO folks. If someone knows anything about engines, it's VERY easy to spot the lies from scammers. What's funny is the HHO fan club won't even try to argue against me, because they can't.

 

That isn't even on-topic. If you have a system with that cell you can PROVE works, then prove it. You can use that proof to hunt venture capital and Green energy research grants.
You needn't invent the thing to be a consultant.

As to why the people SELLING the scam equipment aren't raking in tens of millions of dollars from OEM sales, I'll let them answer why that isn't happening.

This is what big boy hydrogen generation equipment looks like. Teledyne (stock symbol TDY) has been in the tech game for a very long time, so why aren't THEY selling HHO kits or OEM vehicle systems? With their money, there is no barrier to market entry.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogen...q=electrolysis

 

[quote=monckywrench;10502370]That isn't even on-topic. If you have a system with that cell you can PROVE works, then prove it. You can use that proof to hunt venture capital and Green energy research grants.
You needn't invent the thing to be a consultant.

Have you wasted your time building an HHO system?

 

So you assume that burning the fuel is all there is to making motive power. How simple can you be? Why do you think detroit put computers in the cars, nothing simple there.

Oh, by the way, have you tried HHO?

 

There is no scientific evidence they work or ought to work, so why would I? The burden of proof is on the sellers and proponents. Show us the science. That reply isn't science. Anecdotes aren't data. Evangelizing that others should invest in that not supported by science is asking them to invest in something unsupported by evidence! The issue is purely technological, not faith-based.

You didn't answer anything with that, but I'll expand on your misdirection.

Computer control in many ways does simplify control systems for the engineers although the computer is modestly "complex".

Computers allow granular control and monitoring of temperature, pressure, rpm, vehicle speed, fuel flow, and any other parameters the designer wishes. That allows inferring load and adjusting power accordingly. Throttle inputs become a "request" which the system meets within its parameters.

Making power IS just "burning fuel", with precise process control being a design object.

Computers make DIY tuning practical, so when you prove HHO works it will be easy to add to computer controlled systems.

Here's some info to roll your own on your way to HHO wealth. A modded or replacement ECU with appropriate controls could give you control with real time monitoring over every aspect of HHO production and use.

Welcome to diy_efi/efi332

 

This part makes zero sense. Seriously. Your reply has zero logic to it. I already explained the differences between percentage of fuel burned and thermal efficiency. No, not all fuel burned makes mechanical work. I have ALREADY STATED THAT. Which is exactly why your post makes zero sense.

And HHO absolutely, totally, 100% CANNOT change thermal efficiency. Period. End of discussion. You have no argument against it either. You cannot introduce a magical gas it the intake stream that will force the block and cooling system to take in less heat.

I know the laws of physics. So why on earth would I waste my time.

By the way, I played around with electrolysis in high school. We did that in our chemistry class when learning about polar covalent bonding. You may want to look up that term. Once you figure out what it means, you'll quickly understand why HHO doesn't work.

Now, do you actually have anything relevant to discuss, or do you plan to post responses that continuously dodge the topic, and clearly make zero sense.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pocket

This part makes zero sense. Seriously. Your reply has zero logic to it. I already explained the differences between percentage of fuel burned and thermal efficiency. No, not all fuel burned makes mechanical work. I have ALREADY STATED THAT. Which is exactly why your post makes zero sense.

And HHO absolutely, totally, 100% CANNOT change thermal efficiency. Period. End of discussion. You have no argument against it either. You cannot introduce a magical gas it the intake stream that will force the block and cooling system to take in less heat.


I know the laws of physics. So why on earth would I waste my time.

By the way, I played around with electrolysis in high school. We did that in our chemistry class when learning about polar covalent bonding. You may want to look up that term. Once you figure out what it means, you'll quickly understand why HHO doesn't work.

Now, do you actually have anything relevant to discuss, or do you plan to post responses that continuously dodge the topic, and clearly make zero sense.

Conte E., Boulouchos K., Influence of hydrogen-rich gas addition on combustion, pollutant formation and efficiency of an IC-SI engine, Society of Automotive Engineers, 2004-01-0972, SAE Transactions 2004 - Journal of Engines, Vol.114, Sec.3.

Check this out Genius, unless he's lying to SAE.

Or maybe you're better than Society of Automotive Engineers. I'll make it easy for you: 2004-01-0972

Here, I'll even give you the abstract.

Influence of Hydrogen-Rich-Gas Addition on Combustion, Pollutant Formation and Efficiency of An Ic-SI Engine
Document Number: 2004-01-0972

Date Published: March 2004

Author(s):
Enrico Conte - ETH Swiss Federal Inst. of Technology Zurich
Konstantinos Boulouchos - ETH Swiss Federal Inst. of Technology Zurich

Abstract:
The addition of hydrogen-rich gas to gasoline in an Internal Combustion Engine seems to be particularly suitable to arrive at a near-zero emission Otto engine, which would be able to easily meet the most stringent regulations.

In order to simulate the output of an on-board reformer that partially oxidizes gasoline, providing the hydrogen-rich gas, a bottled gas has been used.

Detailed results of our measurements are here shown, such as fuel consumption, engine efficiency, exhaust emissions, analysis of the heat release rates and combustion duration, for both pure gasoline and blends with reformer gas. Additionally simulations have been performed to better understand the engine behavior and NOx formation.

Results show that: When running at \gl=1 and without EGR, addition of hydrogen-rich gas produces a significant shortening of the very first phase of combustion (inflammation phase) rather than of the remaining combustion process; Addition of hydrogen-rich gas allows to run the engine at extremely high \gl or EGR rate; When running at the highest possible \gl or EGR (limited by COV increase) the duration of all phases of combustion remains almost unaffected by the diluents; In all conditions a significant decrease of UHC and NOx emissions has been observed; In all conditions a significant increase of engine efficiency has been measured, which seems to be enough to compensate and overcome the losses due to the partial oxidation of Gasoline in the Reformer. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

 

First, that shows absolutely nothing. I'm not paying $22 to read it. You gave us nothing but an abstract of a paper.

Even with the abstract, here's a part that you seemed to have glossed over:

See that? They didn't even use an HHO generator for the test. They used bottled gas. Meaning they had a large enough quantity from an outside source, not an onboard generator powered by the engine itself.

That little sentence peaked my curiosity, so I searched and I did find a bit more info on that test: http://www.lav.ethz.ch/research/projects/Flyer-EC.pdf

First, the bottled gas they used was a "blend of CO, H2, and N2 (24%, 21%, 55% by volume)". Ladies and gentlemen, this is NOT HHO. HHO is hydrogen and oxygen, not CO, H2, and N2. Right there we have debunked Marianna. But wait! There's more!

Second, the engine used was a "Lombardini 4-stroke, 2-cylinder, 0.5-liter engine" that was modified extensively and exclusively for the test. This is a far smaller engine than what anyone drives on the street, and far smaller than the 7.3L diesel that Pappy2 boasted as getting "36 to 38+ mpg". And yet again I'm going to repeat this... it was NOT an HHO kit, it was gas introduced from a BOTTLE, an OUTSIDE SOURCE, on a VERY TINY ENGINE.

Third, if you look at that link, they ran the test from 100% gasoline all the way to 100% gas from the bottle. This is IMPOSSIBLE TO DO with an HHO kit because it does not generate the volume needed.

Basically they came up with a gas combination to replace regular unleaded gasoline, and were able to introduce enough of it to completely cut off the gasoline supply and run the engine. Yet again, this is NOT an HHO kit. It's NOT HHO gas. It's NOT an onboard HHO generator.

Hell, the same can be accomplished with propane. Anyone can covert a gasoline engine to run on propane. That technology has existed for decades, and a handful of people actually do it. It's simply a principle of finding a replaceable fuel with enough flammability, BTU's, and volume to replace gasoline, then tweak the engine fueling and timing to make use of it.

That was a pitiful attempt to try and pawn off this test (actually just the abstract) as so-called proof that HHO kits work. What's sad is this very same abstract appears on many HHO scam sites, and is quoted as being so-called proof that HHO works. It's not even a test of HHO generators to begin with, yet it's touted as such because these scammers post nothing but the abstract as a vain attempt to pretend HHO generators are legit.

Marianna, you've just been owned. We asked for proof, you provided NOTHING.

 

I did a lot of testing on my old truck, there was a little success, but not 38 mpg.

I didn't notice any difference in exhaust smell, and at really high concentrations it smoked like hell.

I noticed at night that when the HHO was running that the exhaust had no haze from a flashlight, and did without HHO. I replicated that several times.

My theory is that the hho is helping the fuel burn a touch quicker, easily done with a tuner.

MPG gains were small, it is very hard to calculate without a lab.

 

A pseudo-simulation of a mythical product by a totally different product is junk science.

Not that the pseudo-science advocates are even capable of understanding "one thing is not like the other".

That's like saying "my F150 simulates a perpetual motion powered vehicle because it has four wheels".

 

You think you're so funny; do you have any idea the work that went into my F150 perpetual motion machine? Frictionless bearings, Low drag paint, HHO Generator, and a flux capacitor.

In all seriousness, with my testing, even if the system worked, the gains would be too small to **** around with a circus of wires and hoses. I didn't even bother with it after a while cause it was winter, and it wasn't worth the hassle.

Now, if you could harness electricity while slowing the vehicle at a stop light, then burn the HHO at take-off, you'd have something.

 

You could in fact make something like that; it's called regenerative braking, and it's what the hybrid vehicles do. Now retrofitting it onto a truck might be challenging, to say the least.

 

I have also been playing around with an HHO setup in my 03 6.0 F250 .I have a pro series HHO system with a 30amp pwm using sodium hydroxide, To save people time I do not sell or advocate anything to do with this subject, I am just experimenting with different alternative fuel sources. I am a find out for myself person, I have my own fabrication buiseness and a certified by FMC up to 2010 Auto @ Diesel Master tech when I left to do my own thing. I have not seen any real gains using the HHO system except when driving on the freeway at speed about 70 to 75mph I noticed that the throttle position is about 20% percent less than without HHO, Used my matco scanner to moniter the pids while driving. I dont know what that amounts to in fuel savings but I have seen it myself that it does do something. I also designed my own propane injection system (not for sale) Using a variable regulator working off the trucks eng boost pressure and input from the tps, Talk about a kick in the ***, definate improvement in power and fuel economy. The power increase is identical if not more than a 100hp programmer ive tried and the fuel economy I dont know the exact numbers except i used to use a tank of fuel a week and with the same amount of drivng i am getting almost 2 weeks of driving now. The biggest issue is the exhaust stinks bad and getting the regulators set so the engine didnt lean out to much or load up at low input but now it is working great and i am still running the HHO system with the propane injection. Does this rate my truck as a" Hybrid "LOL.

 

I'm no chemist, but I don't believe the theory contradicts the laws of thermodynamics, as the system is designed to reduce the waste of incompletely burned fuel, not add a source of energy. That being said, is there anyone that has successfully tried this? Ya know, that isn't selling it? I have no problem trying it myself....