Instructables
loading
loading
Picture of HHO car adaptation
HHO is the gas resulting from electrolysis of water. Two H's and an O when seperated are very flamable. On top of being abundant it is cheap and cleaner burning than gasoline. Operating on purley HHO requires lots of modifications to a car but suplementing your gasoline with HHO requires little. There are a million sites out there on HHO car conversion kits. All of them are building plans for anywhere between 50 to 500 dollars. It seems odd that there is no instructable on it. So here, for free, is my attempt at making one. The text at the top is my first try and the text under the "-" line is my second try.
 
Remove these adsRemove these ads by Signing Up

Step 1: Tools and Materials

Picture of Tools and Materials
tools.JPG
jumbo.jpg
This page ended up changing through the process and can vary depending on how you choose to improve upon the design I used.
Tools:

knife or strippers
soddering iron(not essential but saves time)
screw driver
voltage tester(depends)
*drill
*#7 bit
*1/4" tap
*may change depending on the electrode you use and how you connect it to the wire
Materials:(Keep in mind all the materials I used are "borrowed" from work or I had around the house so they won't be the most effective solutions. Be creative with what you use)

Plastic container (I used a grape juice bottle)
High temperature silicone sealant <-expensive; regular silicone sealant MAY work
Wire (I used some left over wire from the amp that went in my wife's car, 14awg)
Teflon tape
Plastic tubing (I had to siphon gas once to change the fuel pump and had this hose from it, not sure why I kept it but I'm glad I did)
salt (for an electrolyte in the water)
Stainless Steel Electrode(update: THIS WILL NOT WORK)
I put this one on bottom because it will have the biggest explination. I am told stainless isn't esential but will not corrode like other metals. I also read that coiled wire would be the best type(i.e. pipe, plate, wire).Platinum would be your number 1 choice but who can afford that? I used some pipe I found at work.

-updates-
-I ended up using the graphite from 2 pencils as my electrodes
1-40 of 549Next »
COM19 days ago
Mith busters busted this long ago. Anyway sounds like youre pushing your car from inside.
Flenters19 days ago

What an interesting discussion we have here. Well, I am not going to try and convince anyone of either side that they are right, but go and look at Scorpion cars being build in Texas, and do better investigation. The mindless following of either the pro HHO and the anti HHO of the respective guru's (whether scientists or not) is quite amusing. My 5 cents worth, a lot of Nicola Tesla's inventions were slammed by the top notch "scientists" of the day as scams since it defies the "laws" of science, but it still worked. To all the experimenters and non believers in science, I say go out there and prove that things can work. But don't do some half baked experiment and come back with un provable data, since going the extra mile can prove a lot of things. Burt Rutan in his quest for Space X said that he hires un schooled people, meaning people without a formal education by universities, because they don't know something can't be done, and subsequently does it.

mesdim1 month ago

well... Hello from greece.

I will not talk about who is wrong or not, i will tell you a story almost 40 years ago.

my father bought a car (our first one ) in 1977 an Austin Allegro 1300 super. After about a year using this nice little car, a friend of my father (a mechanic for ships engines), made a small "thing" that changed everything about the small cars behaviour. He made an electrolysis system that added just oxygen to the cylinders of the engine by the means of some electronic control. I was just 13 years old at the time and did not understand exactly how it worked, but i know (illegally or not i was driving it a lot) that it would go over 9000 rpm for a short period of time, which was very very funny (overtaking larger stronger cars), and at the same time very very expensive (braking the gear box almost every time), so at the end we had it disconnected. So i am certain it was not saving fuel at all (quite the opposite ) but it gave the engine lots and lots of power. maybe the electrolysis system is not about fuel efficiency, but engine power. if someone find a way to turn that into fuel efficiency it would be grate. anyway maybe you are looking the matter of electrolysis the wrong way or maybe i am wrong. i do not know, but your discussion made me remember that story. Thank you for reading this...

This is how nitrous works, except nitrous is two parts nitrogen to 1 part oxygen. Putting pure oxygen in the engine increases the burn rate a ferocity of the explosion in the engine, making more power. Im interested in doing a similar mod, but including the hydrogen.
4x4dan00165 years ago

oooobabyoooo

PLEASE test your apparent falacies to these theories that they work.  You obviously are the most educated in this discussion forum and i want to see your results.  You could have built a multitude of these contraptions in the time you have spent talking about them.   You are having to fight so many people on this topic.  Prove it with hardware and then use your knowledge to inform the people with your scientific findings that this is all a waste of time.  Even after reading comment after comment that you have written still I am unsatisfied, only frustrated.      

I've said it over and over but I'll say it again: I don't need to jump off a cliff to prove I can't fly- and neither do you. 

Everything happening in a mechanical system is mathematically quantifiable. Onboard "HHO" generation has the same likelihood of improving fuel economy as flying to the moon with a propeller beanie. Remember, due to the losses in every energy conversion (which these systems do twice), "HHO" generators return much less energy than they consume. One more time- they use more energy than they return.

To just break even, an onboard "HHO" system would require at least a 100% efficient alternator belt, a 100% efficient alternator, superconducting connecting cabling and a 100% efficient electrolyser; this 'break even' discounts the energy used just by transporting the weight of the thing around.

"HHO" cultists regularly rely on the fallacy that "HHO" improves combustion of petrol. Not only does it not, they're chasing the wrong problem. Only 1% of unburned hydrocarbons pass the exhaust valves in cars with modern EFI systems. Even if an "HHO" system could find that elusive 1% that presently gets burned in the cat converter, what have you gained? .3mpg out of 30mpg? Fully insignificant.

ICEs are only about 30% efficient, not because of failure to combust fuel (and yes, everything you've read on "HHO" cultist sites about 15-25-more% fuel goign out the tailpipe is wrrrrrrrrrrrong), but due to the need to keep engine components below their melting points and also to prevent formation of photochemical smog producing NOx (nitrogen oxides).  70% of the thermal energy wasted by an ICE is going out the exhaust and the radiator. If the cultists would see their way clear to trying to recover all that thermal energy which does not contribute to spinning the crankshaft, they'd be on to something. Look up Bruce Crower's 6-stroke engine for a serious attempt to address the right problem- recovery of wasted thermal energy as mechanical motion.

Now, when you understand that 1) not only won't any onboard "HHO" systems generate anywhere NEAR the amount of hydrogen necessary to replace even a tiny fraction of the petrol consumed, 2) completeness of fuel combustion isn't a problem worth addressing, 3) "HHO" won't improve combustion anyway and 4) "HHO" systems are 100% guaranteed to use more energy than they return to the system, you'll similarly understand my recalcitrance to build a device which is 100% guaranteed to fail!
 I completely understand where you are coming from. I am not claiming that hho will help burn gas better. My theory is that it off sets the amount of gas injected. as for power, If you had read my post you would see i came up with an idea of using thermocouples to generate electricity from the heat of the engine and radiator. you just need heat(engine) and two dis-similar metals. so please read a comment before trashing. I never claimed that hho will better burn the gas, and im not sure many others here have. did you even click the link? there are math equations up the wazoo showing that the efficiency of the device has greatly improved. also if the thermocouples work and fill in the inefficiency i would be looking at a 100% efficient hho generator. as for recovery of wasted thermo energy, I AGREE THAT IS THE BIGGEST WASTE. as everyone knows or atleast should know, you can not create or destroy energy, it can only be transfered. the energy spent keeping the car cool is so wasted. the pressure in the radiator could easily power the alternator, could it not? thermocouples mounted in key locations could recover wasted heat at electricity. if those recoveries could work, then the engine would no longer need to spin an alternator or fan, then all of that energy is then spent on motion, increasing your mpg. Please let me know what you think, AFTER reading comment in its entirety
since no one had any comment on my message below, we can only assume it is all undeniably correct, which would further explain this argument.  1) HHO WILL NOT increase fuel efficiency. BUT, WATER IS CHEAPER THAN GAS.  If I can waste 5 gallons of water producing the energy I get from 1 gallon of gas, *I* am happy.  10 gallons?  whatever.  (Ok, at some point it's gunna cost more to fill up with your kitchen sink if it takes too much water, but I think my point is clear.)  SO, looking at oooobabyoooo's logic....  the gasoline you put in the engine IS NOT 100% efficient.  So, theoretically, you CAN NOT RUN YOUR CAR ON GASOLINE.
1)  Your alternator DOES TOO PRODUCE MORE ENERGY THAN YOUR CAR NEEDS.  (If it didn't, it COULD NOT charge a dead battery, and guess what?  It can.)
2)  No fuel is 100% efficient.  We know this, so it's a matter of efficiency vs. cost.  If I can go 25 miles on $3 worth of gas, or 100 miles on $3 worth of water, guess which is my choice?  (mind you, $3 of gas is 1 gallon, $3 of water is probably 100 gallons.)

I don't CARE about efficiency when it comes to my money.  Don't try to confuse the subject.  This is not about HHO making the gas burn better.  BUT how does it NOT make sense that 1 gallon of gas can get you 25 miles, and 1 gallon of water can get you three, 1 gallon of each should get you 28.
There IS unburnt fuel coming OUT of the pistons.  There are various devices added AFTER the piston to recapture that fuel.  There are devices that detect too much fuel and reduce the fuel coming in.  BUT that fuel they detect IS ALREADY LOST.  Less fuel to begin with means less fuel LOST when the engine detects too much fuel, so there's you've got an improvement. maybe very small, but, lots of small improvements can add up :)
'your engine isn't built to detect the right amount of fuel and water, so this will not work!'  there you may be right.  Didn't say this idea was perfect.  It's developing.  OBVIOUSLY a $5 device added to a $10,000(no one out there is adding this to their $50,000 car I'm sure.) car PROBABLY isn't tuned as well as the car (then again.... :) )

So, please, I'm dieing to accept your logic, I WANT to believe this WON'T WORK.  But, all you're telling me is 'converting fuel is going to lose energy'  WE KNOW THIS.  YOU CAN NOT CHANGE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!  WE KNOW WE'RE (NOT PROPERLY UTILIZING ALL THE) ENERGY.

I DO KNOW, from my own experiments, I can make a good deal of HHO with a NINE VOLT BATTERY.  I don't have the facts and figures in front of me, but, from what you're telling me is:

If I take a rechargeable battery, hook it to a HHO generator, pump that HHO into an internal combustion engine (not necessarily a car engine), and have it running an alternator pumping back to the battery, and lets say a radio, that, if I keep a continuous supply of water in that HHO generator, my battery WILL go dead from lack of charge?

Mikedell:  The most you'd be able to do in 'recapturing' the pressure from the radiator is catching what passes OUT into the overflow tank, and then it coming back in when the engine cools.... MAYBE.  it's not like there's an endless supply of on going pressure, the antifreeze will only expand so far...and if you remove the pressure, the antifreeze won't cool as efficiently and your car would overheat....
since no one had any comment on my message below, we can only assume it is all undeniably correct, which would further explain this argument. 

What comment? Where? I've never seen the comment you're talking about. Just because your comment hasn't been replied to doesn't make it correct. What you said could well have been so crazy that it wasn't worth replying to, much like the rest of what you say here...

1) HHO WILL NOT increase fuel efficiency. BUT, WATER IS CHEAPER THAN GAS.  If I can waste 5 gallons of water producing the energy I get from 1 gallon of gas, *I* am happy.  10 gallons?  whatever.  (Ok, at some point it's gunna cost more to fill up with your kitchen sink if it takes too much water, but I think my point is clear.) 

Nobody's concerned about the amount of water required to make a certain amount of hydrogen via electrolysis. It's the amount of energy required to separate the hydrogen from H2O that makes it impractical.

SO, looking at oooobabyoooo's logic....  the gasoline you put in the engine IS NOT 100% efficient.  So, theoretically, you CAN NOT RUN YOUR CAR ON GASOLINE.

You apparently don't understand my logic. I've never made any such claim. This is your nutty idea. Dont' twist my words, mkay? Intellectual dishonsty is ALWAYS a bad look.

1)  Your alternator DOES TOO PRODUCE MORE ENERGY THAN YOUR CAR NEEDS.  (If it didn't, it COULD NOT charge a dead battery, and guess what?  It can.)

False. An alternator produces no more power (mind that term 'power', it's a quantification of an amount of energy, normally in watts) than is drawn by the load attached to the alternator.

2)  No fuel is 100% efficient.  We know this, so it's a matter of efficiency vs. cost.  If I can go 25 miles on $3 worth of gas, or 100 miles on $3 worth of water, guess which is my choice?  (mind you, $3 of gas is 1 gallon, $3 of water is probably 100 gallons.)

Modern petrol powered automobiles with EFI combust 99% of the petrol in the cylinder.

You're never going ANYWHERE in a vehicle 'powered by water' because there has never been one!

I don't CARE about efficiency when it comes to my money.  Don't try to confuse the subject. 

The only one confused here is you!

This is not about HHO making the gas burn better.  BUT how does it NOT make sense that 1 gallon of gas can get you 25 miles, and 1 gallon of water can get you three, 1 gallon of each should get you 28.

One more time- no vehicle ever made has ever been powered by water.

There IS unburnt fuel coming OUT of the pistons. 

Yep, there is! About 1% of the petrol inducted into the engine escapes the cylinders without being combusted. The 1% of unburnt hydrocarbons passing the exhaust valves is combusted in the catalytic converter. Uncombusted hydrocarbons are a big contributor to air pollution.

There are various devices added AFTER the piston to recapture that fuel. 

No devices on petrol burning automobiles "recaptures" unburned hydrocarbons. A cat converter does combust any any unburned hydrocarbons, but the resultant thermal energy is not 'captured' for any purpose. This is wasted heat that is transferred into the air which is passing by the exterior of the cat converter. The purpose of the cat converter is ONLY to burn off the uncombusted hydrocarbons. The thermal energy produced is all waste.

There are devices that detect too much fuel and reduce the fuel coming in. 

Yes, in petrol burning vehicles with EFI, the oxygen sensor tells the computer whether there's too much or too little fuel being inducted and makes adjustments accordingly. Your point?

BUT that fuel they detect IS ALREADY LOST.  Less fuel to begin with means less fuel LOST when the engine detects too much fuel, so there's you've got an improvement. maybe very small, but, lots of small improvements can add up :)

Do you have a clue as to how quickly these adjustments are made by the engine computer? Apparently not. This is a continuous monitoring and adjustment process, which happens in milliseconds.

'your engine isn't built to detect the right amount of fuel and water, so this will not work!'  there you may be right.  Didn't say this idea was perfect.  It's developing.  OBVIOUSLY a $5 device added to a $10,000(no one out there is adding this to their $50,000 car I'm sure.) car PROBABLY isn't tuned as well as the car (then again.... :) )

WTF? Fuel and water?

So, please, I'm dieing to accept your logic, I WANT to believe this WON'T WORK.  But, all you're telling me is 'converting fuel is going to lose energy'  WE KNOW THIS.  YOU CAN NOT CHANGE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!  WE KNOW WE'RE (NOT PROPERLY UTILIZING ALL THE) ENERGY.

I'll make it deadset easy for you. "HHO" systems consume more energy to produce hydrogen than they return when the hydrogen is burned. This means that they are a net energy LOSER. 

I DO KNOW, from my own experiments, I can make a good deal of HHO with a NINE VOLT BATTERY.  I don't have the facts and figures in front of me, but, from what you're telling me is:

If I take a rechargeable battery, hook it to a HHO generator, pump that HHO into an internal combustion engine (not necessarily a car engine), and have it running an alternator pumping back to the battery, and lets say a radio, that, if I keep a continuous supply of water in that HHO generator, my battery WILL go dead from lack of charge?

If your engine is using only hydrogen from your electrolyser as a fuel, the engine will stop- right away. First and foremost, you're drastically underestimating the amount of hydrogen these toy electrolysers make.

An electrolyser based in a jam jar and running off a typical automobile's charging system will produce just a few litres of hydrogen (certainly less than 10L, more like 2-5L) PER HOUR. Compare that to the airflow through a typical auto engine; a 2 litre, 4-stroke engine draws in 2 litres of atmospheric air with every other crankshaft revolution. Thus, at 2500RPM, this engine is flowing 5000L of air per minute, 300,000L per hour. 2-5L/hr of hydrogen out of 300,000L/hr is a fart in a hurricane.

If your engine is running on another fuel (i.e. petrol) and you're piping the hydrogen into the engine's intake, since the hydrogen generation system takes more energy off the crankshaft than you get back when the hydrogen is burned in the cylinder/s, you're simply increasing the amount of petrol the engine burns.

Remember, the alternator belt loses 30% of the energy taken from the crankshaft as heat, via friction. The alternator loses 40% of the mechanical energy transferred from the belt, as heat from friction in the armature bearings themselves, heat generated from eddy currents in the iron laminations and heat in the copper windings from I^2*R (current squared times resistance) losses, and finally, 50% of the energy put into the electrolyser itself is wasted as heat.  If you feel like bothering, you can also enter the energy wasted by the vehicle merely by carrying around the weight of the hydrogen generating apparatus.

"HHO" is a fuel waster. Can't possibly do anything else. If you think otherwise, you've failed to consider all the losses in the system.


Old thread, but I just came across it. OOOOoooowhoever is wack MUst be a petroleum industry shill. Most alternators provide peak output at 800-1000 rpm. There would be no additional fuel consumption to draw 9 volts from the electrical system to make gas. So no extra fuel costs to produce Hydrogen. Any gains from hydrogen are made from electrical energy ALREADY BEING PRODUCED!!!!!

"

Remember, the alternator belt loses 30% of the energy taken from the
crankshaft as heat, via friction. The alternator loses 40% of the
mechanical energy transferred from the belt, as heat from friction in
the armature bearings themselves, heat generated from eddy currents in
the iron laminations and heat in the copper windings from I^2*R (current
squared times resistance) losses,"

These are losses that are occurring with or without the addition of Hydrogen gas, regardless of how it is being produced. What a gish gallop....if you cant dazzle them with brilliance.......

My previous post is still visible a few messages back…  And I don’t know anything on any of this, I’m simply trying to understand your logic and ‘facts’

But first, I must ask, who/what are you that qualifies you?  Are these just opinions, things you’ve ‘learned’ (cause you know everything everyone ‘learns’ is always 100% truthful), or do you/have you dealt with this stuff in real life?

Physics SEEMS to have laws that ‘prove’ everything, but every so often, something doesn’t follow those laws EXACTLY, so, they make other laws to ‘fill the gaps’.  Water is one of those not-quite-right items.

 

Next, how much energy DOES it take to separate the hydrogen?  I don’t feel like reading back, and I don’t study this stuff, so you may be totally correct, BUT, can you agree with me on the FACT that hydrogen, when burned produces MORE energy than gasoline?

 

You never made such a claim as to ‘....  the gasoline you put in the engine IS NOT 100% efficient.  So, theoretically, you CAN NOT RUN YOUR CAR ON GASOLINE’?

I believe (according to my copy and paste keys) you said :

 

"HHO" systems are 100% guaranteed to use more energy than they return to the system, you'll similarly understand my recalcitrance to build a device which is 100% guaranteed to fail!

is what you said.  But, previously, in the same post, you said ICE’s are only 30% efficient, which, in MY BOOK, means they use more energy than they return to the system.

 

An alternator doesn’t produce more than it needs, huh?  I will concede this point, having read more about the electrical system in the car.

 
ok, I GUESS my statement #2 didn’t really make sense, did it?  Fuel not 100% efficient?  Well ok, NOTHING is 100% efficient, but, not really what I meant.  What I should have said is more along the lines of it should be cost vs. mpg…. My bad J  (This is an unchecked rant about stuff I don’t have a lot of background on, like MOST of us here, I’m trying to learn more… thank GOD we have self appointed geniuses such as yourself to help us along our way J )

 

Modern cars burn 99% of the fuel….  Ok, so, if we could make that 99.5%, that would be better, right?  I’m sure that comment was because of my ‘fuel not 100% efficient’, but we’re past that…


You're never going ANYWHERE in a vehicle 'powered by water' because there has never been one!

Ok, NOONE is trying to build a car ‘powered by water’, we’re trying to ASSIST a gasoline engine with HYDROGEN.


 One more time- no one is trying to run the vehicle on water.


“No devices on petrol burning automobiles "recaptures" unburned hydrocarbons”

 

what does a PCV valve do?  OHH! That’s right!  The PCV valve is a control device which sends partially burned gases that come from the engine's crankcase to the combustion chamber. Its name, PCV means Positive Crankcase Ventilation and is one of the oldest and most used emission control devices


“Do you have a clue as to how quickly these adjustments are made by the engine computer? Apparently not. This is a continuous monitoring and adjustment process, which happens in milliseconds.”

 

If I can save .0001 gallons of gas 10,000 times in 100 miles, what does that do for my MPH?

“WTF? Fuel and water?”
exactly, but I HAVE see you nay-sayers say that in other comments about HHO, brown gas, etc….  Did the guy who build the first engine have pcv valves, and efi?  His engine PROBABLY didn’t get very good mileage at all, huh?  It took time for people to learn HOW they could make it more efficient….

 
“I'll make it deadset easy for you. "HHO" systems consume more energy to produce hydrogen than they return when the hydrogen is burned. This means that they are a net energy LOSER.  “

UNFORTUNATELY, that does not make it deadest easy.  PROOF, give me some facts or some point of reference that I can research, because from the (limited) research I’ve done, I have not found that to be true. 

 

“An electrolyser based in a jam jar and running off a typical automobile's charging system will produce just a few litres of hydrogen (certainly less than 10L, more like 2-5L) PER HOUR. Compare that to the airflow through a typical auto engine; a 2 litre, 4-stroke engine draws in 2 litres of atmospheric air with every other crankshaft revolution. Thus, at 2500RPM, this engine is flowing 5000L of air per minute, 300,000L per hour. 2-5L/hr of hydrogen out of 300,000L/hr is a fart in a hurricane.”

WHO CARES ABOUT AIRFLOW?!  WE’RE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE AIRFLOW.  THE AIRFLOW WILL STILL BE THE SAME WITH OR WITHOUT THE HYDROGEN.  ***HOW MUCH GAS DOES THE CAR USE PER MINUTE?  GAS AND HYDROGEN IS WHAT WE ARE COMPARING.***


“If your engine is running on another fuel (i.e. petrol) and you're piping the hydrogen into the engine's intake, since the hydrogen generation system takes more energy off the crankshaft than you get back when the hydrogen is burned in the cylinder/s, you're simply increasing the amount of petrol the engine burns. “

 

See here is where we have the problem.  How do you think you know, where did your facts come from, that it takes more energy to split the hydrogen from H2O than can be recaptured?  (you may be right, I just know, for the good of all involved, I can’t take some text on my screen as fact without something to back it up.)

“Remember, the alternator belt loses 30% of the energy taken from…”

 

So, YOUR stance on this is that EVERYONE of these people that claim they get MORE MILES PER TANK OF GAS with this added to their car are lying, or just too stupid to figure out that 200 miles on a tank of gas without the HHO thing is the same as 300 miles on a tank of gas and a bottle of water?

 

And, as an FYI, there ARE PLENTY of hydrogen powered engines.  IT IS POSSIBLE that one may not be able to use such a simple device to efficiently produce the necessary hydrogen, but, I’ll state again, the first gas engine didn’t run very efficiently.  The BIG car companies DO produce hydrogen powered cars, they DO produce (well, starting to) cars that RUN ON WATER.  They use FUEL CELLS, maybe you’ve heard of those?  So, don’t say it’s not possible.  Yes, I understand, ‘fuel cells are not the same thing!’ no, they are a progression.  Learning starts SOMEWHERE.

 

Please, if you haven’t already, scroll down and read my post from a month or so ago..  I could be 100% wrong with everything, and I’m not afraid to admit that.  I’m here to learn.  I wanna know WHY what I think is wrong, not just ‘because I said so!’  Everything in that post while (quickly) researched was put together from information *I BELIEVE* to be factual. Nothing I have said in this message has be proof read, verified, or validated.  Again, bare with us while we try to absorb as much knowledge from said geniuses as we can (and I say that in the friendliest smart ass way I can cause I thought it was cute, not case I am trying to be mean)

But first, I must ask, who/what are you that qualifies you?  Are these just opinions, things you’ve ‘learned’ (cause you know everything everyone ‘learns’ is always 100% truthful), or do you/have you dealt with this stuff in real life?

Throughout my commentary on this Instructable, I have deliberately avoided discussion of myself, for one very simple reason- I am immaterial. I could sit here and make all manner of claims about who I am and my educational and employment background, but none of it would make one whit of difference regarding the pertinent science. To ask someone to believe me over anyone else merely on cause of my background would be committing the fallacy of authority.

Physics SEEMS to have laws that ‘prove’ everything, but every so often, something doesn’t follow those laws EXACTLY, so, they make other laws to ‘fill the gaps’.  Water is one of those not-quite-right items.

Who is 'they'? Since when does water defy physics?

Next, how much energy DOES it take to separate the hydrogen?  I don’t feel like reading back, and I don’t study this stuff, so you may be totally correct,

I don't feel like reading back, either.

Why don't you study this stuff?

BUT, can you agree with me on the FACT that hydrogen, when burned produces MORE energy than gasoline?  

No, I can't agree with you because you're just plain wrong.

Hydrogen at STP releases MUCH less energy per litre than petrol. I linked you to the figures on a Princeton University site. Go look at them again. From my memory, hydrogen releases about 10kj (10,000j) per litre, petrol releases 31Mj (31,000,000j) per litre.

You never made such a claim as to ‘....  the gasoline you put in the engine IS NOT 100% efficient.  So, theoretically, you CAN NOT RUN YOUR CAR ON GASOLINE’?

That's correct, I never made any such claim. That's you being confused.

I believe (according to my copy and paste keys) you said :

  "HHO" systems are 100% guaranteed to use more energy than they return to the system, you'll similarly understand my recalcitrance to build a device which is 100% guaranteed to fail!

is what you said. 

Yep, I said that and it's correct.

For an "HHO" system to break even, it must be at least 100% efficient, meaning that at least as much energy is imparted to the crankshaft via combustion of any hydrogen produced as is taken from the crankshaft to produce the hydrogen.

If you expect an "HHO" system to improve fuel economy, it must generate more energy from combusting the hydrogen it produces than it takes off the crankshaft to make the hydrogen. This is a physical impossibility- you will never, ever get more energy out of a system than you put into it.

But, previously, in the same post, you said ICE’s are only 30% efficient, which, in MY BOOK, means they use more energy than they return to the system.

I did say that and it's correct, though you don't seem to understand what I said. 70% of the energy from petrol inducted into a piston engine is wasted as heat, instead of contributing to spinning the crankshaft.

An alternator doesn’t produce more than it needs, huh?  I will concede this point, having read more about the electrical system in the car.

Just goes to show you should read more, donit? ;)
 
ok, I GUESS my statement #2 didn’t really make sense, did it?  Fuel not 100% efficient?  Well ok, NOTHING is 100% efficient, but, not really what I meant.  What I should have said is more along the lines of it should be cost vs. mpg…. My bad J  (This is an unchecked rant about stuff I don’t have a lot of background on, like MOST of us here, I’m trying to learn more… thank GOD we have self appointed geniuses such as yourself to help us along our way J )

Your smartarsed remark about 'self-appointed geniuses' is offensive. If you intend to offend, I intend to ignore you. I am not a genius, never claimed to be.

Ok, NOONE is trying to build a car ‘powered by water’, we’re trying to ASSIST a gasoline engine with HYDROGEN.

I suggest you go back and read what you wrote. You compared running a car on petrol to running a car on water.

One more time- no one is trying to run the vehicle on water.

“No devices on petrol burning automobiles "recaptures" unburned hydrocarbons”

 what does a PCV valve do?  OHH! That’s right!  The PCV valve is a control device which sends partially burned gases that come from the engine's crankcase to the combustion chamber. Its name, PCV means Positive Crankcase Ventilation and is one of the oldest and most used emission control devices

The purpose of PCV is not to capture energy from hydrocarbons. It is to prevent the release of unburned hydrocarbons to atmosphere to reduce emissions- as you just said. The amount of energy to be recovered in the hydrocarbons which get past the piston rings is negligible.

“I'll make it deadset easy for you. "HHO" systems consume more energy to produce hydrogen than they return when the hydrogen is burned. This means that they are a net energy LOSER.  “

UNFORTUNATELY, that does not make it deadest easy.  PROOF, give me some facts or some point of reference that I can research, because from the (limited) research I’ve done, I have not found that to be true. 

If you 'haven't found that to be true,' you haven't looked very hard.  HOW many times must I say that alternator belts, alternators and electrolysers are not 100% efficient? Unless every component in an "HHO" system is at least 100% efficient, the "HHO" system will take more energy from the engine than is recovered by burning the hydrogen that is produced.

Now- you run off and find some data on 100% efficient alternator belts, 100% efficient alternators and 100% electrolysers. Come back when you've found them, but until then, kindly don't. 
I said: "you're drastically underestimating the amount of hydrogen these toy electrolysers make." 

Correction: I meant overestimating.

These "HHO" toys do not make enough hydrogen to make any difference to the operation of any engine whatsoever.

We now return to our regularly scheduled cup of coffee. :)
mikedell, I am replying to you from the 'backtalk' area. I have not seen your other posts. Where are they? They're definitely not in here. I do have a big quibble with the way Instructables is set up- it's very poorly and confusingly organised.

Yes, wasted thermal energy is a good place to look for energy to recover and turn into motive force, but given the configuration of the typical ICE, this wasted heat is escaping all over the place- from the radiator, the engine block surfaces and in the exhaust gas flow. If you want to recover any significant portion of this energy, all heat emitting surfaces will have to have thermocouples (or Peltier effect devices) incorporated into those surfaces.

Pressure in the radiator is not a usable source of energy and the amount of energy spent spinning the water pump is negligible.


"I've said it over and over but I'll say it again: I don't need to jump off a cliff to prove I can't fly- and neither do you."

This is inherently non-scientific. The truth is that you do. That's why we perform scientific experiments in the first place. Your analogy is simply a fallacy of equivocation; you are comparing the production and testing of a piece of equipment to the dangerous and illogical practice of attempting to fly through willpower.

Or, perhaps that isn't what you assume? Perhaps you assume that all the testimonials from these people who have clearly tested this system, (and claim it works [do note that while you could claim they are lying, I have no more reason to believe you than them]), are simply figments of willpower. Perhaps they have simply willed into creation a device which allows them to disregard the laws of Thermodynamics, much as one might will themselves to fly after jumping off a cliff? Mind over matter and all that, right?

Hi there, I have just one simple question ? Can I use a steel container for the probes and the mixture or must it be a plastic container. If I build this I want it to be a neat setup and out of the eye. (Like Private) I can not believe this setup. I have tried water vapor before. Rolled a copper tubing around the manifold and that way created a vacuum for the vapor to be sucked into the engine. This gave me improvement on power and fuel consumption but not much.

RobC311 months ago

Been playing with this for about three months on 2007 Mitsubishi 380 (or Gallant in USA) Advertised combined fuel usage 12.1/100k's achieved 10.4/100 k's using HHO.(18amps) and Volo chip.

Issues faced ....using KOH as electrolite had issues with residue in throttle body , Air flow sensor has since failed ....pinging required change of plugs to colder firing plugs.

Current configuration with airflow meter disconnected and Volo disconnected delivers 10.6 k per 100 litres but lacks throttle responsivess.

Next move is to try adjustable EFIE's on PRE Oxy sensors.

eddieriver RobC310 months ago

RobC3

I have had a hho generator on my 2.2 diesel van for about 12 months. I had the same problem with 2 failed air flow meters but I think I have solved the problem by putting an extra bottle between the bubbler and the air box. This catches any spills and splashes of the caustic and does,nt allow it to get any further.

For the record my van used to return 32 mpg. With gas I am getting 40 mpg.

Roarke1 year ago

this is a lot cheaper than most of the other instructibles and guides out there. I applaud you for an awesome writeup on how to test this for pennies to the dollar of the others! well done

jbaker221 year ago

There are better alternatives than to power the electrolysis off of the battery or the alternator. Look at this web site. http://hydrogenreality.webs.com/

kurshiukas1 year ago

Ok, Now, I may be a bit off here, but according to my calculations .. burning H in your burning chamber would produce water (steam), now I do understand that its steam and it is usually blown off with 4th stage, BUT my question is would it really no harm feeding your engine with water?

Search for Stanley Meyer Water Fuel Cell, or Stan Meyer H20 Car

jea7241 year ago
SIR/MS: Sierra Club adherents and Biomass Supporters need to solicit our Senators and Congress to alter the new "Biomass Thermal Utilization Act (BTU ACT) to include large tax credits ($1.00 per gallon) for gas stations to sell Butanol Gas Blends (24%), Hydrogen Gas, Bio Deisel, CNG (Propane & Natural Gas) and installation of related kits for both Cars and Trucks. And tax credits for individuals whom get engine conversions to burn Bio Diesels and other alternate energy fuels. Likewise, and local state EPA supported coal to liquids or gas conversion plants should be Federally EPA approved automatically. And the largest Ethanol Plants (production over 20 million gallons per year) should be given Federal Funding to convert to Butanol Production (Cost is $15 Million each). This is needed to make the United States energy self sufficient and to give every American some relief from high Fuel & Energy costs and costs associated with transportation of goods via truck.

sorry but, 3.652 USD per galon (this was the price I found for West coast today. Where I live (eastern EU) we pay 6.62 per gallon. Your transportation is cheap as hell :D

Fox321 year ago
I read the whole comment and i pray for the day when you could punch somone through the monitor. So much nonsesn from oooobabyooo and lucek, makes a man wanna do that. So bottom line, how efective is it?
lucek Fox321 year ago
Yeah Ignoring the snipe.

The end is this doesn't work.
dgt19731 year ago
used a similar rig back in 2010 on a '08 renault megane. DID NOT improve gas mileage and ended up needing a new cylinder head
I am looking to do this on 2 cars. 1 is a Nissan frontier 5 speed 4 cylinder. This is more the test subject before I do it to my 2500. I would like to know how or if you need to tune the car. Because it doesn't make sense that the car can adapt to the hydrogen. Any info will help thanks.
lucek1 year ago
@ jbaker22 then be careful. Hydrogen isn't just something you store in any pressure vessel. It will make you're fire extinguisher more brittle, Next you defiantly don't want to be using brown gas. The fact that it can spontaneously react with it's self kinda makes it dangerous. Finally just sticking thee pipe in the corroborator will work but if you are actually injecting a good amount of fuel in there is a chance for blow back.
jbaker222 years ago
Take a look at the link below. When your oxygen sensor reads too much oxogen, it will dump more fuel in the engine this site has enough information to improve you system and get better gas milage.
http://www.hydroxypower.co.za/the%20beginning.htm
lucek jbaker221 year ago
That site was just like so many others. I guy dicking round with electrolysis and thinking he's saving money but not ever actually finding out that he's loosing badly. Again The physics of this say no.
jbaker22 lucek1 year ago
I am more interested in storing hydrogen generated with a power outlet and storing it in a fire extinguisher. Then it can be injected into the air intake.
thegsmiths6 years ago
New to site. So if this is an ignorant comment, please excuse. One of the points that most seem to miss is that the hydrogen is not used to replace gasoline, it is used to supplement it. By adding the hydrogen to the fuel system (via air intake, like NOS) you are then able to decrease the amount of gasoline needed (i.e. make the engine run leaner). The hydrogen makes up the difference so you don't lose power or cause engine knocks. I've used it on a 1990 Ranger with the same results as Jalakohops and have not had any problems with the truck's charging system. It may be because I am only producing a small amount of hydrogen, enough to decrease the amount of fuel needed thereby increasing my gas mileage. The only problem I have is with my electrodes. They do have to be replaced fairly often. It can be a pain, but the amount I save on gas is worth it.
I've covered this over and over and over in this thread. Hydrogen has no catalytic effect; that is to say that it does not improve the efficiency of combusting petrol in a piston engine. If there's a benefit to be obtained, it must come from the thermal energy yielded from combusting a certain volume of hydrogen produced by the electrolyser. Your truck's 80A charging system connected to an electrolyser will produce completely insignificant amounts of hydrogen. In actual fact, due to system losses (described many, many times in this thread), any electrolyser arrangement will REDUCE fuel economy. One thing is certain, you don't want to run the engine leaner than it is designed for. You risk serious and expensive engine damage (burned valves, holed piston crowns etc) if you do. If you're seeing an increase in fuel economy, you've made an error in measuring fuel consumption, have fixed simple problems like tyre inflation, are altering your driving habits, or something else easily explicable yet so far unaccounted for. I hope you're not simply lying. "HHO" systems will always consume more energy than they can return to the system.
Finally. We are getting to the point. Your statement here: One thing is certain, you don't want to run the engine leaner than it is designed for. You risk serious and expensive engine damage (burned valves, holed piston crowns etc) if you do. is the key. Because of the properties of the Hydrogen the HHO and Gasoline blend the engine can run much leaner without pinging. This is why people who use HHO on carb motors don't usually see a benefit but EFI cars do. The O2 sensors on the car measure only for stoichiometric. Gasoline is 14.7:1, H2 is 34:1. when mixed the final ration is somewhere much leaner than just gasoline. So an EFI car will adapt to the new fuel by pulling gasoline and allowing the car to run very lean. Under load the EFI system normally would add gasoline to get the ratio down as low as 12:1 to help cool the cylinders to increase the amount of air able to fit in. At high load EFI systems go into open Loop mode where they just work off of their programmed number rather than feedback from the sensors. So you still get that cooling effect. With an engine programmer you can pull some fuel out here if you are confident in your oil and cooling system. The flame speed of the blended fuel is much faster too, so you get more power by essentially adding "more timing" I think that these are the effects that are present when people talk of the catalytic effect of HHO. It is not a catalyst in a test tube, but is in an four stroke EFI motor. Even more so if you can reprogram the efi.
Sorry, this is complete nonsense. An electrolyser system running off a common automobile charging system will not provide anywhere near the amount of hydrogen necessary to make any difference whatsoever to the combustion temps.

On top of that, given the losses in converting mechanical energy to hydrogen (which I've covered so many times that I'm not going to cover them again), these systems will always, always, always produce a drop in fuel economy.

...and if you can't produce a catalytic effect from hydrogen 'in a test tube' you're never going to produce one in a 4-stroke engine.

You can fool yourself if you like- but don't try to fool anyone else, mkay?
You are really becoming a pain. Have you tried to use one or not
I don't have to jump off a cliff to prove I can't fly.
I was just explaining what some of the "Catalytic" effects are. HHO may not be a chemical catalyst that you would be able to find by doing analysis only on the BTUs generated. I totally agree that there is no free energy. But there are also a lot of inefficiencies in our gasoline engines that putting in a little more energy may rectify.
1-40 of 549Next »