HHO Conversion on my Legacy

[McDave]

The problem with this method of running a small electrolyzer with your power from the gas engine is it takes more power to create the brown gas than you will get out of it.

 

I'm convinced you can repeat that over and over until you're blue in the face and some people will just not get it until they try it for themselves. And even then...

[Zefy]

this may be an old thread but I thought I would chime in on how to inject HHO into the intake of a turboed car.If you make a venturi that you can place in your intake after the turbo just the air rushing past it(or in this case boost) would draw HHO into the intake...

 

anther hole in your theory... if you have it after the turbo then the pressure from the intake will not 'draw' in HHO... it will force it out... IT'S PRESSURIZED!!! That's like saying you're going to fill up a balloon with air and somehow by just having water near it the balloon will fill up with water...

 

in a pressure system such as a turbo car you would need to FORCE in the HHO... on an N/a car with vacuum you could get away with this, but a turbo car? NO!

[Yo'J]

So what does it take to make water and hydrogen combine? Must be a lot:rolleyes: ! If you can make a quart of water and show me it took "no" energy, then, you can say there is no energy stored in water. Its just waiting to be tapped! BUT! It takes fire! Fire needs Fuel! Fuel drives my car! It makes the world go round! Its time to make the blinders disappear, turn off the tv, step out into the universe as we are a real species! (and vote third party?).....

 

I do believ the theory is sound and people are buying the "mileagemaker.com" one and getting great results. My only real question is why not make one instead of buying one?

[mikeshoup]

Oh man. Before you get into any of this sort of thing, you need to understand the laws of thermodynamics. Specifically, the first law:

The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.

This is quite simply stating conservation of energy. Energy Out = Energy In - Losses due to heat

 

In other words, if you put 5 watts into this HHO gizmo, you'll never get more than 5 watts out of it. And that's at the assumption that this HHO generator is able to run at 100% efficiency.

 

Take a look at the url: http://aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam.shtml

The guy basically breaks down the calculations as to why an HHO generator will never work.

 

You would need a 500 amp alternator to even generate enough electricity to run the conversion process and get 40% of the power required to cruise at 65mph. That's not mentioning that those 500 amps have to come from somewhere, either the momentum of the car moving or the engine.

 

C'mon guys, please don't give into these scams.

[Gravityman]

Ok sure...

 

The thing is we are not trying to run the car directly off of HHO. It is the combination of gasoline and HHO that is what we are trying to get. The HHO increases combustion temp, ignites and burns quicker which will increase the amount of gasoline burnt in the engine. This will aid in a more complete burn.

[Zefy]

Ok sure...

 

The thing is we are not trying to run the car directly off of HHO. It is the combination of gasoline and HHO that is what we are trying to get. The HHO increases combustion temp, ignites and burns quicker which will increase the amount of gasoline burnt in the engine. This will aid in a more complete burn.

 

you don't seem to get it... making the HHO takes more energy than you will get with your more 'complete burn'...

 

how is it coming along anyways?

 

how much HHO does it take to improve your combustion? if you made the HHO somewhere else (not in the car) and stored it in some sort of tank perhaps you might see the gains you're hoping for...?

[Yo'J]

So just for conversations sake, how much energy does the radio take from the battery and the alt? Does the radio decrease mileage?

[Gravityman]

So just for conversations sake' date=' how much energy does the radio take from the battery and the alt? Does the radio decrease mileage?[/quote']

 

[McDave]

Hypermile-ing

 

I ran across this site a few days and got a kick out of it. These guys are getting 70, 80, 90 mpg or more in mostly Hybrids without any real mods (except for lightening the load, shaving cargo racks, pumping up tire pressures... the usual stuff).

 

Be sure to check out their Forums:

http://www.cleanmpg.com/

 

I've been playing around with it a bit this week. My last tank of the usual zipping around in city driving with a/c on yielded a disappointing 20mpg ('93 Loyale Wagon 3AT). I'll know in a few more days if a little hypermileing can make much of a difference. What the hey, it's free!

 

Here are the basics from the main "Beating the EPA" article...

 

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

"Section II - Basic FE saving techniques

 

* Do not use quick accelerations or brake heavily: This reduces fuel economy by as much as 33 percent at highway speeds and 5 percent around town. EPA tests do not account for this kind of vigorous driving.

 

* Do not idle excessively: Decreases average FE. The EPA city test includes idling, but drivers that experience more idling experience lower MPG.

 

* Do not drive at higher speeds: This increases aerodynamic drag (wind resistance) and mechanical friction which reduces fuel economy. The EPA test accounts for aerodynamic drag up to highway speeds of 60 mph, but drivers often exceed this speed.

 

* Cold weather and frequent short trips reduce fuel economy, since your engine doesn't operate efficiently until it is warmed up. In colder weather, it takes longer for your engine to warm, and on short trips, your vehicle operates a smaller percentage of time at the desired temperature. Note: Letting your car idle to warm-up doesn't help your fuel economy, it actually uses more fuel and creates more pollution. Drive to your furthest destination first and then as you are heading home, stop at the closer destinations in order from furthest to closest as the car is warmed up for longer portions of your drive.

 

* Remove Cargo or cargo racks: Cargo and/or racks on top of your vehicle (e.g., cargo boxes, canoes, etc.) increase aerodynamic drag and lower FE. Vehicles are not tested with additional cargo on the exterior.

 

* Do not tow unless absolutely necessary: Towing a trailer or carrying excessive weight does decrease fuel economy. Vehicles are assumed to carry three hundred pounds of passengers and cargo in the EPA test cycles.

 

* Minimize running mechanical and electrical accessories: Running mechanical and electrical accessories (e.g., air conditioner) decreases fuel economy. Operating the air conditioner on "Max" can reduce MPG by roughly 5-25% compared to not using it.

 

* Avoid driving on hilly or mountainous terrain if possible: Driving hilly or mountainous terrain or on unpaved roads reduces fuel economy most of the time. The EPA test assumes vehicles operate over flat ground.

 

* Do not use 4-wheel drive if it is not needed. 4-Wheel drive reduces fuel economy. Four-wheel drive vehicles are tested in 2-wheel drive. Engaging all four wheels makes the engine work harder and increases crankcase losses.

 

Maintain your Automobile: A poorly tuned engine burns more fuel, so fuel economy will suffer if it is not in tune. Improperly aligned or under inflated tires can lower fuel economy, as can a dirty air filter or brake drag.

 

Try to purchase high BTU content gasoline if available: Fuels Vary in Energy Content and some fuels contain less energy than others. Using oxygenated fuels or reformulated gasoline (RFG), can cause a small decrease (1-3%) in fuel economy. In addition, the energy content of gasoline varies from season to season. Typical summer conventional gasoline contains about 1.7% more energy than typical winter conventional gasoline.

 

Inherent Variations in Vehicles: Small variations in the way vehicles are manufactured and assembled can cause MPG variations among vehicles of the same make and model. Usually, differences are small, but a few drivers will see a marked deviation from the EPA estimates.

 

Engine Break-In: New vehicles will not obtain their optimal fuel economy until the engine has broken in. This may take 3-5 thousand miles."

[cameron 1]

whats the point in running hho and gas you still have to buy gas

[McDave]

So just for conversations sake' date=' how much energy does the radio take from the battery and the alt? Does the radio decrease mileage?[/quote']

Depends on how big a radio you have. If you have to upgrade your alternator to power some amps, or a hydrolyzer on a Ford P/U for instance, then yes you will see a decrease in mpg.

[Yo'J]

Depends on how big a radio you have. If you have to upgrade your alternator to power some amps, or a hydrolyzer on a Ford P/U for instance, then yes you will see a decrease in mpg.

 

 

Lets say 20 amps, what is my mpg of gas loss. Whats my h2o loss for the same? What is the H-H-O- gain? What are we trying to figure out here? Give me a real figure. Science, (as a religion) is an experiment.

[Zefy]

what i would like to see is this test vehicle of yours to to run stock for at least 1 month recording fuel consumption and mileage in a daily driving pattern (to and from work with nothing else) then for the same test period recording the mileage/fuel with the electrolizer on but not being used then one more with the electrolizer on and hooked up.

 

this would almost be ok as test data. still to many variables for me but people making these things aren't going to be the people with labs and proper testing equipment. (sorry...)

[McDave]

Lets say 20 amps' date=' what is my mpg of gas loss. Whats my h2o loss for the same? What is the H-H-O- gain? What are we trying to figure out here? Give me a real figure. Science, (as a religion) is an experiment.[/quote']

 

I don't think 20 amps are going to fit in a Subaru. You want silly? We can get silly.

[McDave]

what i would like to see is this test vehicle of yours to to run stock for at least 1 month recording fuel consumption and mileage in a daily driving pattern (to and from work with nothing else) then for the same test period recording the mileage/fuel with the electrolizer on but not being used then one more with the electrolizer on and hooked up.

 

this would almost be ok as test data. still to many variables for me but people making these things aren't going to be the people with labs and proper testing equipment. (sorry...)

 

That's going to be the hard part... getting true before and after data. That's why I posted the Hypermileage info - to show how driving style can so affect mileage. One of the posters in this thread (post #58) said he was "(not trying to drive it any more fuel efficiant, driving at my crazy normal pace)." while setting his mpg baseline. Seems to me that would make it easy to pad the After mpg figures. Your Before mpg should be the best you can get too.

 

To get more accurate Before, During, and After readings, they really should all be run on the same day, or at least similar weather conditions, over the same route, and preferably on a hwy route with few stop signs and light traffic.

 

The route would also need to be long enough so you could make sure the gas fill-ups closer reflect the true amount used. When I drove my "new" Subaru home last month I filled it up to the top, drove it 47 miles home on the hwy, and filled up to the top again and calculated the 1.2 gallons used gave me 39 mpg! That can't be right, I thought. So thinking I might not have topped it off fully, I re-calculated it with 1.3 gallons and the mileage drops to 36, and at 1.4 gal it drops to 33 mpg. So just by not filling that extra .2 gal I "gained" 6mpg over the 47 mile course. It really needs to be a couple hundred hwy miles for each test.

[s'ko]

That's going to be the hard part... getting true before and after data. That's why I posted the Hypermileage info - to show how driving style can so affect mileage. One of the posters in this thread (post #58) said he was "(not trying to drive it any more fuel efficiant, driving at my crazy normal pace)." while setting his mpg baseline. Seems to me that would make it easy to pad the After mpg figures. Your Before mpg should be the best you can get too.

 

To get more accurate Before, During, and After readings, they really should all be run on the same day, or at least similar weather conditions, over the same route, and preferably on a hwy route with few stop signs and light traffic.

 

But if you use average fuel comsumption over 3-4 months then use the HHO for 3-4 months, this is account for most variables.

 

my data might not be entirely accurate b/c I work near a large community college and since it's summer session, I have have to start from scratch and collect before mileage while traffic is lighter.

 

BW

[Yo'J]

I don't think 20 amps are going to fit in a Subaru. You want silly? We can get silly.

 

 

Well my 66 ford has antlers, I'll bet the Cleveland 351 in that has a few extra amps to get silly with! I threw out twenty amps because it would equal one large electrolyzer with supposed large output. Or one fancy huge boomming stereo that needs an extra battery.

 

I always wanted 15amps of 120v free on the subie anyway, plug in and go to town, tablesaw, chop saw at least a skill saw, all run between 18amps start up and 10-15 running.

[s'ko]

Well my 66 ford has antlers' date=' I'll bet the Cleveland 351 in that has a few extra amps to get silly with! I threw out twenty amps because it would equal one large electrolyzer with supposed large output. Or one fancy huge boomming stereo that needs an extra battery.

 

I always wanted 15amps of 120v free on the subie anyway, plug in and go to town, tablesaw, chop saw at least a skill saw, all run between 18amps start up and 10-15 running.[/quote']

 

20 AMPS huh?? I went to my car this morning and someone stole the amp out of my BRAT. You wouldn't happen to have anything to do with that would you?

[McDave]

But if you use average fuel comsumption over 3-4 months then use the HHO for 3-4 months' date=' this is account for most variables.

 

my data might not be entirely accurate b/c I work near a large community college and since it's summer session, I have have to start from scratch and collect before mileage while traffic is lighter.

 

BW[/quote']

 

Long term averages are useful for sure, but when you get into 6 or 8 month time frames there are other variables to consider. Cars get better mileage in the warmer months since the choke or fuel enrichment times are shorter, but if you use a/c in the summer the mileage goes back down.

 

Then there is the seasonal gasoline issue. The summer blend is less volatile and packs more energy. Winter blends are more volatile to aid in starting but have less energy, further contributing to the cold weather hit in mileage.

 

What other changes were made over that time frame? Did you check the tire pressures regularly for instance?

 

This is why it's better to do your tests in the shortest amount of time and with as few variables as possible - to ensure you're comparing apples to apples.

[Zefy]

the issue with having a short test period is little variables like sitting at extra traffic lights, or playing with the gas pedal can totally scew the results.

 

if you do the testing over a year for instance it's assumed that having low tire pressure for a week will be weeded out by more consistant results. over one year would take account for crappy winter gas and all the other tiny variables.

 

this is exactly the same reason why your results were so odd when you did your testing with mileage. a .1 gallon difference would yeild much greater mileage. Your source of error is obviously, the gas station not filling to the same level. Lets say that source of error is .2gallons. Over 2 gallons that's a pretty big margin however if you waited till the whole tank was empty than 14 gallons (or whatever it is) would still have that +- 0.2 gallon uncertainty from the station.

 

Then your overall error is minimalized.

 

This is why scientists actually doing this sort of work opts for long periods with lots of data points. you can never have to much data!!!

[GeneralDisorder]

While I do not think that you folks will have any luck building HHO generators out of your garage, I would like to point out a few things.

 

1. Hydrogen, if you could get enough of it, and assuming an engine that is capable of leaning out the fuel discharge to accept it, could indeed increase your gasoline mileage.

 

2. Conservation of energy is not violated if you do it right. Yes it requires current, which would normally draw on the alternator. BUT there are ways to "bring extra current from home". It's called a battery. Or several of them. You pull cheap power off the grid by chargeing it/them each night instead of burning more expensive gasoline to generate the neccesary current with the alternator.

 

3. It's entirely possible that the idea could work at some level. I'm not saying it's viable as a consumer product or as a item for automotive makers to employ, but as a sceince experiment it might be interesting.

 

GD

[Zefy]

^^ well put... that's my main issue with this. making the HHO IN the car WITH the engine.

 

i would even take this one step further from what GD had pointed out that you could run a battery to power the HHO electrolizer.

 

why not just make the stuff AT HOME? then have a nice hefty tank in the back for storing your hydrogen and there you go. you make it using 120V power at a fraction of the cost of running a gasoline genset such as an alternator.

 

another thing about having an electrolizer is it doesn't produce HHO at a fast rate. I don't know if any of you have ever used one but even a large one doesn't produce the stuff at any speedy rate.

[McDave]

the issue with having a short test period is little variables like sitting at extra traffic lights, or playing with the gas pedal can totally scew the results.

 

if you do the testing over a year for instance it's assumed that having low tire pressure for a week will be weeded out by more consistant results. over one year would take account for crappy winter gas and all the other tiny variables.

 

this is exactly the same reason why your results were so odd when you did your testing with mileage. a .1 gallon difference would yeild much greater mileage. Your source of error is obviously, the gas station not filling to the same level. Lets say that source of error is .2gallons. Over 2 gallons that's a pretty big margin however if you waited till the whole tank was empty than 14 gallons (or whatever it is) would still have that +- 0.2 gallon uncertainty from the station.

 

Then your overall error is minimalized.

 

This is why scientists actually doing this sort of work opts for long periods with lots of data points. you can never have to much data!!!

A year without HHO, a year percolating but not using the HHO, then a year using the HHO. This is going to take a while.

 

Actually that method has it's faults too. For instance, last year here in Central Texas it started raining in March and didn't quit until late August. It was the coolest, wettest year on record. We didn't hardly have a summer. Only one day over 100 and just several in the 90's.

 

This year we are in an extreme drought and already have 25 or so days over 100. Hottest June on record. Running the heck out of the a/c. It was the first thing I fixed on my "new" Subaru. Turning on the compressor is like throwing out an anchor on these little 90 hp motors.

 

So yeah, my yearly averages would be skewed, just like my 47 mile 1.2 gal trip was. The whole idea of my suggestion for a couple hundred mile test is to minimize the effects of weather and temperature extremes and other variables.

 

Besides, we don't want to sit here that long staring at our monitors waiting for definitive results. We want results now! If the guys, once completing their systems, would map out a round trip/circular course of say 250 miles that is virtually all hwy with only a couple stop lights, and carefully top off their tanks each time, I believe they could easily be accurate within one mpg. And the three 250 mile trips could easily be taken in three consecutive days during a calm weather pattern. It could even be done in one or two days if the weather and temps are particularly level and the driver that motivated.

 

One reason I pick 250 miles is because if these systems are supposed to improve gas mileage by as much as 60%, then it stands to reason that on the trip where they are percolating without using the HHO, then their gas mileage would be expected to drop by at least 60%, and we don't want them to run out of gas!

[McDave]

While I do not think that you folks will have any luck building HHO generators out of your garage, I would like to point out a few things.

 

1. Hydrogen, if you could get enough of it, and assuming an engine that is capable of leaning out the fuel discharge to accept it, could indeed increase your gasoline mileage.

 

2. Conservation of energy is not violated if you do it right. Yes it requires current, which would normally draw on the alternator. BUT there are ways to "bring extra current from home". It's called a battery. Or several of them. You pull cheap power off the grid by chargeing it/them each night instead of burning more expensive gasoline to generate the neccesary current with the alternator.

 

3. It's entirely possible that the idea could work at some level. I'm not saying it's viable as a consumer product or as a item for automotive makers to employ, but as a sceince experiment it might be interesting.

 

GD

There's a new start-up sports car being build just down the road from me that plans to use hydrogen-on-demand with gas. I can't help but think the plan has more to do with attracting investors.

 

http://gas2.org/2008/06/04/company-unveils-hydrogen-hybrid-supercar-available-fall-2008/

http://www.kvue.com/news/local/stories/060308kvueScorpion-cb.59cea584.html

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37792/113/

[McDave]

^^ well put... that's my main issue with this. making the HHO IN the car WITH the engine.

 

i would even take this one step further from what GD had pointed out that you could run a battery to power the HHO electrolizer.

 

why not just make the stuff AT HOME? then have a nice hefty tank in the back for storing your hydrogen and there you go. you make it using 120V power at a fraction of the cost of running a gasoline genset such as an alternator.

 

another thing about having an electrolizer is it doesn't produce HHO at a fast rate. I don't know if any of you have ever used one but even a large one doesn't produce the stuff at any speedy rate.

Right now in some cities like Santa Monica you can get the hydrogen for free! Note: Hydrogen powered car required.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/21/eveningnews/main4200339.shtml?source=mostpop_story