HHO Generators and Subarus Possibilities

[johnnyispy]

this person has put a lot of development into this...

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/ZeroFossilFuel

 

Jspy

[aircraft engineer]

Sorry - ferox - your statement has the same effect as "prove the non-existence of god". You DON'T PROVE A NEGATIVE.

 

Let them SHOW their DATA (other than unverifed testimonials from unknown persons) and then it will be given an audience. Merely saying "This is good, it saves gas and it works..." is akin to "the sky is falling" in reverse.

 

Need I remind you of those quack cures for cancer out there that people (grasping at straws) will try? ANYTHING that offers some "hope"...

 

IF 1+1 supposedly = 3, the NUMBERS REQUIRE VERIFICATION.

 

Or to be blunt - "YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE WITH THAT."

 

The QUANTITY of hydrogen produced doesn't provide a sufficient energy input to add usable power to an SI engine in "factory trim". GIVE ME ANALYTICAL DATA!!

 

Put magnets around your fuel line - that supposedly helps, too.

[johnnyispy]

ok here is a event

 

http://www.smacksboosters.110mb.com/

 

jspy...

[McDave]

ok here is a event

 

http://www.smacksboosters.110mb.com/

 

jspy...

Here's a closer look at what is involved with Smack's product according to his FAQ. You're going to need a few "extras".

 

ASSEMBLED Smack's are now available for $270 USD for US continental customers

 

The Smack unit comes shipped to you as seen on the front page of my site. Just the booster only. No EFIE, no wires, no tubing, no relays, no catalyst. Just the assembled booster unit itself.

 

You'll need one of the$e for each front O2 $ensor.

For those who do need to make engine management adjustments, I recommend using an EFIE device from Eagle research. It's $60 and easy to use.

 

Only di$tilled water.

The formation of these solids are accompanied by the formation of unknown gases which mix with the hydroxy to form "who-knows-what" - a mixture that is of unknown content and possibly toxic to you and your engine. So for this

reason only use distilled water in your cell.

 

A cataly$t, assuming Homeland Security approves your security clearance.

Potassium hydroxide (KOH) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) are two substances that catalyze efficiently. They are commonly used in the production of soap and can be easily obtained on the WWW and shipped to your door after a simple security check is filled out.

 

I hope it doesn't get cold where you live.

How do I prevent my electrolyte from freezing?

There are several suggestions to address this problem. Just adding KOH or NaOH helps lower the freezing point of your water – but in some climates that is not enough. Some suggest using low power heat elements to keep the unit liquid. My personal solution – use quick connects for the gas and power lines and just remove the unit when driving is complete. A bit of a pain, yes – but it's worth the 20% to me.

 

I'm not sure what a PWM is but you need one of tho$e too.

For short commutes of less than 2 hours, I recommend the same protocol be followed as before. Set cold current draw to 14amps. For longer periods, either use a PWM or set your cell cold to draw 4 - 5 amps. This will allow the unit to stabilize at an acceptable level. This may vary from one unit to the next, so trial and error will be necessary at first.

I have purchased a PWM and will be conducting more temperature trials using it as described above

 

I just love his scientific explanation how it works!

So where does the energy come from? You cannot get more out than you put in... right???

Think of free energy devices such as my Smack or the Boyce cell as a "valve". We all know that with very little energy, we can turn a water valve from the "off" to the "on" position. The energy contained within that water is much greater than the energy required to open the valve. Granted, the energy imparted on that water is from another source (pumps, gravity, etc.) But we are not concerned with that at the moment. I have many theories of my own as to where this energy actually comes from, but that is for another discussion. What matters to us is the fact that turning the valve on is really easy compared to the amount of work the water pressure it redirects can do.

 

Free energy devices in simple terms work like this. The amount of electrical energy required to redirect the Zero Point energy field we want to tap into is less than the amount of that energy we actually extract from the ZPE field. This is why the Smack works the way it does.

Wow! All that for a whopping 20% gain! Think it will cover the consumables?

It's no mystery that the Smack unit yeilds a 20% increase in fuel economy.

Just look at the electrolysis equation BTU analysis and become a believer. The numbers do not and cannot lie.

The electrolysis equation (link was dead)

[ferox]

Originally posted by aircraft engineer

Sorry - ferox - your statement has the same effect as "prove the non-existence of god". You DON'T PROVE A NEGATIVE.

 

That is definitely not what I stated. My point is you can't say one way or another whether it works or not without experimental testing. It's just basic scientific method in which a hypothesis is tested and is either supported or unsupported. Skepticism is a foundational principle of scientific inquiry, but skepticism without inquiry is not science.

 

Let them SHOW their DATA (other than unverifed testimonials from unknown persons) and then it will be given an audience. Merely saying "This is good, it saves gas and it works..." is akin to "the sky is falling" in reverse.

 

Need I remind you of those quack cures for cancer out there that people (grasping at straws) will try? ANYTHING that offers some "hope"...

 

IF 1+1 supposedly = 3, the NUMBERS REQUIRE VERIFICATION.

 

Or to be blunt - "YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE WITH THAT."

 

The QUANTITY of hydrogen produced doesn't provide a sufficient energy input to add usable power to an SI engine in "factory trim". GIVE ME ANALYTICAL DATA!!

If these statements are still referring to me, then I have to conclude that you did not actually read my post. You can drag out the "straw man" and HIT HIM WITH AS MANY CAPS AS YOU WANT. The claims of the people selling these kits do not seem credible. It is implausible that these systems can effectively be installed let alone work with as little effort as is claimed. If there is any merit to this idea it would seem to require extensive testing, tweaking, and modification.

 

[EDIT: It is important to keep in mind, myself included, that HHO refers to oxyhydrogen and not hydrogen alone. With a combination of gaseous hydrogen, gaseous oxygen, and vaporized liquid gasoline in a combustion chamber with varying concentration, temperature, and pressure, predicted outcomes are theoretically intractable and must be investigated experimentally.]

 

The quacks at MIT use a plasma reformer to generate hydrogen powered from electricity generated by the engine. If I remember correctly it uses up to 75W. This allows them to run ultra-lean resulting in 20-30% better fuel economy and drastically reduced NOx emmissions. This system is different than the HHO kits, but it shows that small amounts of electricity can be used to generate enough hydrogen to make a significant difference. Whether this can be done with an electrolyzer remains to be seen.

 

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/11/hydrogenenhance.html

 

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2005-01-0253

 

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2003-01-0630

 

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2000-01-2206

 

Put magnets around your fuel line - that supposedly helps, too.

This is petty. As an engineer you should conduct yourself with a greater level of professionalism and maturity.

[uniberp]

There are laws against fraud.

 

Found This Site on YOU TUBE.

 

I am having a Fabricator Friend look into this for me.

He has heard of many engineers playing with this.

 

Looking at this site below if it does not work there must be a lot of suckers out there - I am a sucker for Subaru's for their reliability. I have owned 3 Loyales and now on to my first Legacy. I would by a new STI if i could justify the go.

 

 

http://ecohho.com/

[aircraft engineer]

As an engineer (actually a PE as well - I'm licensed in Washington) I feel it my DUTY to inform people when BS hits the net and I have more than a passing knowledge of the "technology" involved.

 

IF I came across a "perpetual motion" device being advertised, I would lambaste it, too.

 

In THIS case, the numbers don't add up - it isn't even CLOSE, so unless there's more to the bells and whistles than utter MISINFORMATION and FALSE ADVERTISING, it's all snake oil, pure quackery, nothing else. Give me data and I'll change my position.

 

The "data" comment wasn't directed at you per se, but at those touting this SNAKE OIL "solution".

 

In summary - yes, it will make a bit of hydrogen (didn't say it wouldn't) BUT will it make enough to affect the fuel mileage? ROFLMAO - of course not. It's "standard" electrolysis and the output of the disassociated elements based on "experience" (I played with the process in school labs years ago) can hardly make enough for a "pop" let alone run an engine. Scale it up enough to run an engine (even 100hp) and the sheer size of the production plant exceeds a 22 foot semi trailer - plus there's that "little item" of the power input requirement.

[Reveeen]

I don't pretend to know the how, or the why, this might work, but I like to simplify things.

If HHO was a "real" working thing, would it not make sense to dispense with the hokey stuff, and simply take two parts hydrogen (from a pressure vessel), add 1 part oxygen (from another pressure vessel), small amounts, like what you could generate with these bogus contraptions, at slightly higher pressure that air pressure (what these hucksters claim), and introduce this mixture through, say the PCV system, and stand back, and watch the savings?

 

Now, I have never bought hydrogen before, but I'm sure you could buy a small tank of it, kinda like a hand held propane torch tank.......I know you can buy oxygen this way, so why not hydrogen? Put a regulator on each tank and have at it.

 

Or is there some other agenda here I'm missing?

[aircraft engineer]

I followed the links to the SAE and greencar sites. They are talking about introducing a hydrogen input into a fuel system set up for extreme lean burn. As they note, the main issue with extreme lean burn is the production of nitrogen oxides in the output gas and the introduction of the hydrogen reduces that NOX production. I suspect that the burn temperature is lower with hydrogen than with "ordinary" fuel only. Commonly, EGR is used to reduce the peak in cylinder temperatures by diluting the incoming fuel/air charge with exhaust gas. Whether anyone noticed it or not, they are using a 12:1 compression ratio. That tends to increase the NOX output but is more or less "required" for lean burn - the downside is that it also requires higher effective octane rating for the fuel.

 

Now cutting to the chase (as it were) - those lean burn engines are not your garden variety engines. Running right at the lean limit is difficult - variable loads produce what are essentially "pulses" of "less than lean" operation. Depending, the catalyst could probably be reformulated to take the higher peak exhaust temps into account (cats seem to work better at higher temps anyway) but OVERALL the engine DESIGN itself remains essentially unchanged and efficiency will approach 35% as a maximum.

 

1+1 still = 2.

[McDave]

As an engineer (actually a PE as well - I'm licensed in Washington) I feel it my DUTY to inform people when BS hits the net and I have more than a passing knowledge of the "technology" involved.

 

In a mechanic's tech forum I belong to a junior tech asked if this HHO business was really worthwhile. One of the best responses I've heard yet was from a senior tech:

 

"How in the world are you going to be able to make it in this business if your critical thinking skills are no better honed than that?" He then went on and explained it to him.

[ferox]

Originally posted by aircraft engineer

 

In THIS case, the numbers don't add up

 

With a mix of hydrogen, oxygen, and vaporized gasoline in a system with constantly changing conditions (concentration, temperature, pressure) you cannot calculate meaningful numbers...it's intractable. It requires experimentation.

 

kits = probably extra virgin snake oil

concept = untested, undeveloped

 

In summary - yes, it will make a bit of hydrogen (didn't say it wouldn't) BUT will it make enough to affect the fuel mileage? ROFLMAO - of course not. It's "standard" electrolysis and the output of the disassociated elements based on "experience" (I played with the process in school labs years ago) can hardly make enough for a "pop" let alone run an engine. Scale it up enough to run an engine (even 100hp) and the sheer size of the production plant exceeds a 22 foot semi trailer - plus there's that "little item" of the power input requirement.

 

You can't say that existing technology doesn't do that, so future technology will never get there. Sure, some wire wrapped around a lexan core probably isn't going to get you very far, but I am sure the Wright Brothers were probably called quacks and a lot worse before they achieved flight. Just look at the career opportunity their open-minded perserverance provided for you.

 

Originally posted by Reveen

 

If HHO was a "real" working thing, would it not make sense to dispense with the hokey stuff, and simply take two parts hydrogen (from a pressure vessel), add 1 part oxygen (from another pressure vessel), small amounts, like what you could generate with these bogus contraptions, at slightly higher pressure that air pressure (what these hucksters claim), and introduce this mixture through, say the PCV system, and stand back, and watch the savings?

 

That's a good idea. If I were a garage scientist experimenting with this idea that would be my first step in determining if it even works in a real world engine and if there is a glimmer of success it would be the easiest way to explore optimization.

[lostinthe202]

[aircraft engineer]

ah - but what you have with this HHO "process" is basically an attempt to violate the "laws" (and they ARE "laws") of thermodynamics. IF you do an energy balance for the "unmodified engine" you see an amount of energy "input" and an amount of energy "output". The input is pretty simple - it's "fuel". The "output" includes useful "work" (horsepower) plus waste heat (exhaust, exhaust gas speed, coolant, some mechanical losses)

 

OK - so NOW we switch THE IDENTICAL ENGINE over to this "miraculous" additional fuel (remember - partially sourced by power drawn from the "horsepower output" - with no changes to the engine operating system). Remembering that the energy quantity of the disassociated "water" came from the energy produced by that same engine's electrical system PLUS THE "FUEL" IS PHYSICALLY A SMALL QUANTITY ANYWAY, the engine "efficiency" saw no change so the "usable work" available for "output" to the vehicle CANNOT CHANGE EITHER.

 

Remember - IF YOU DON'T KNOW - the 2nd law of thermodynamics is (paraphrased for the non-technically oriented) "You can't WIN (can't get more out than you put in); You can't LOSE (everything that goes IN goes SOMEWHERE - you just have to FIND IT); and you can't even "BREAK EVEN" (there's that little thing that most ignore called "entropy" - a portion of the energy goes into the system that can't be recovered - it makes the system "more random")

 

The "only" way to violate this is to have "perpetual motion" - BUT WAIT... "perpetual motion" is not allowed because YOU CAN'T WIN!!

 

And THAT (in a nutshell) is why it's TOTAL BS (not because they changed the ENGINE to be "more efficient" - which they DIDN'T.

 

IT'S THE SAME ENGINE - A SELF-CONTAINED "SYSTEM" THAT SUPPOSEDLY GETS MORE FUEL EFFICIENCY WITH ESSENTIALLY THE IDENTICAL "POWER" INPUTS (BECAUSE AT THE ROOT, THE HEAT INPUT - THE ENERGY INPUT - IS POWER "IN" AND JUST GETS CHANGED IN FORM.)

 

You probably have a college near you - take this idea and GO ASK A PROFESSOR IN THE MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO HAVE A GRAD STUDENT RUN A CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT AS PART OF A MASTER'S THESIS. Naturally, after he either stops laughing (or just smiles knowingly) you might be informed that it's BUNK the same way I just informed you. (or TRIED anyway ) Oh, and by the way - the Wrights' problem wasn't so much "flying" - a glider can fly - the problem was getting the power source (the engine) and conversion into thrust (the propellers) and the control system (even with the pictures, they STILL haven't been able to re-create the actual "first flight" event because of their control system) all together. They didn't propose an unbelievable "energy balance" as part of their machine.

 

There is NO FREE LUNCH!! (oh, and REVEEN - that's fine for demonstrating whether the system "works" given an outside input. Remember, though, the additional input (the H-H-O gas mix) needs to be accounted for in the output as well.)

[Reveeen]

Well, I'm not about to try anything, simply, I don't "believe", BUT: If we remember the fuel savings devices of the 70's, many of them introduced an air bleed into the PCV system, in effect, leaning out a normally rich condition, I wonder if we are seeing about the same thing? (trouble being: modern auto engines do not have a "normally rich condition" to lean out, unless you consider the extra richness at cold start).

 

If I found my fuel consumption something to be concerned about I would buy a Geo Metro, or a scooter, seeing I own neither, I *must* not be too concerned?

 

I have considered a small Chinese 2 stroke bicycle engine, not to save gas, but for the "free lunch" (no insurance, or plates).

[four-fleet-feet]

I have considered a small Chinese 2 stroke bicycle engine, not to save gas, but for the "free lunch" (no insurance, or plates).

Well, you might not have insurance or plates, but you'll need: A helmet, not cheap. A pair of bicyclist's gloves, for when you will eventually get dumped by an inattentive driver/pothole/storm grate/other thing in your way. Medical insurance for repairing what will get damaged when you ARE dumped (I used to commute by bicycle every day, rain/shine/dark/light, I know whereof I speak, here!). And, last but not least, money to pay your ticket.

 

Ticket? Yes, a ticket. Check with your local gendarmes. Many cities, counties, and even states have made small powered engines like this one illegal for public on-road use. I'll bet the ticket costs as much as a tank of gas for your car, too.

 

(don't even try to argue with Aircraft-Engineer on this thread - he's my brother and I can assure you he will drown you in logic and facts until you give up and see that 'resistance is futile' when concerning silly homegrown methods for saving ga$ - before you flame me, I said homegrown for a reason - if/until this gets perfected, definitely, not probably, not anytime soon, this will only be a dream in many eyes and a moneymaker for those preying on the desperate or foolish or gullible, which he is only trying to prevent! Call it a service provided, gratis, to all who might not know the ins and outs of engineering, physics, and simple d'oh reason! I'm sure we'd all hate to find out a board member, or anyone else for that matter, has been taken for a ride by these hucksters.)

[uniberp]

So, does it work, or doesn't it?

 

I couldn't resist.

 

ah - but what you have with this HHO "process" is basically an attempt to violate the "laws" (and they ARE "laws") of thermodynamics. IF you do an energy balance for the "unmodified engine" you see an amount of energy "input" and an amount of energy "output". The input is pretty simple - it's "fuel". The "output" includes useful "work" (horsepower) plus waste heat (exhaust, exhaust gas speed, coolant, some mechanical losses)

 

OK - so NOW we switch THE IDENTICAL ENGINE over to this "miraculous" additional fuel (remember - partially sourced by power drawn from the "horsepower output" - with no changes to the engine operating system). Remembering that the energy quantity of the disassociated "water" came from the energy produced by that same engine's electrical system PLUS THE "FUEL" IS PHYSICALLY A SMALL QUANTITY ANYWAY, the engine "efficiency" saw no change so the "usable work" available for "output" to the vehicle CANNOT CHANGE EITHER.

 

Remember - IF YOU DON'T KNOW - the 2nd law of thermodynamics is (paraphrased for the non-technically oriented) "You can't WIN (can't get more out than you put in); You can't LOSE (everything that goes IN goes SOMEWHERE - you just have to FIND IT); and you can't even "BREAK EVEN" (there's that little thing that most ignore called "entropy" - a portion of the energy goes into the system that can't be recovered - it makes the system "more random")

 

The "only" way to violate this is to have "perpetual motion" - BUT WAIT... "perpetual motion" is not allowed because YOU CAN'T WIN!!

 

And THAT (in a nutshell) is why it's TOTAL BS (not because they changed the ENGINE to be "more efficient" - which they DIDN'T.

 

IT'S THE SAME ENGINE - A SELF-CONTAINED "SYSTEM" THAT SUPPOSEDLY GETS MORE FUEL EFFICIENCY WITH ESSENTIALLY THE IDENTICAL "POWER" INPUTS (BECAUSE AT THE ROOT, THE HEAT INPUT - THE ENERGY INPUT - IS POWER "IN" AND JUST GETS CHANGED IN FORM.)

 

You probably have a college near you - take this idea and GO ASK A PROFESSOR IN THE MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO HAVE A GRAD STUDENT RUN A CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT AS PART OF A MASTER'S THESIS. Naturally, after he either stops laughing (or just smiles knowingly) you might be informed that it's BUNK the same way I just informed you. (or TRIED anyway ) Oh, and by the way - the Wrights' problem wasn't so much "flying" - a glider can fly - the problem was getting the power source (the engine) and conversion into thrust (the propellers) and the control system (even with the pictures, they STILL haven't been able to re-create the actual "first flight" event because of their control system) all together. They didn't propose an unbelievable "energy balance" as part of their machine.

 

There is NO FREE LUNCH!! (oh, and REVEEN - that's fine for demonstrating whether the system "works" given an outside input. Remember, though, the additional input (the H-H-O gas mix) needs to be accounted for in the output as well.)