off topic: HHO

hey folks... I know this has nothing to do with bikes (yet), but...

We just installed a six-pack HHO (hydrogen/oxygen) generator in my buddy's 1986 Ford F150 truck. I think we've at least doubled the gas mileage. It used to get 10-11mpg, which amounted to about 100 miles per tank (10 US gal). right now, the odo. reads 95 miles, and the gauge is at about 2/3 mark.

The engine also ran cooler (I could put my hand on the intake and a valve cover after 70 miles ride at highway speeds).

I'll let you know for sure once he runs this tank dry, and post some pics as soon as I get a chance to snap some.

8O

 

I've been looking to do this. did you buy one off of ebay or something, or did you find plans to make one yourself. If you found plans somewhere good you give me a link.

 

i am working on building my own generator, but its been a slow process because i have NO spare time.

try using ammonia instead of water, you will get higher hydrogen yield for the same input amperage.

definatly post up results!

 

We built every bit from off-the-shelf parts. The only thing we had to order were (GASP!) plastic jar lids, because nobody local carries them.

There's a set of plans floating around called Water4Gas. We built ours by seeing some pictures and videos on youtube.. It's not rocket science...

Zookie, thanks for the tip! Pure ammonia or mixture with distilled water?

 

HHO? As in you're running your engine on water? Explain, if you wouldn't mind...

I know it's possible to get Hydrogen from water with a big enough electrical current, is that what you're talking about? But are you then just running the hydrogen into the engine? I can't imagine that working too well...

And the problem with generating hydrogen with electricity has always been that you'll spend more generating the electricity than you'll save by burning the hydrogen.

Or am I just misunderstanding what you're talking about?

 

Ok, this is what I gather so far (I'm not a chemist, and I'm not very good at physics):

On a typical car, you're only using about 25% of available energy from gasoline, because the combustion process is grossly inefficient. That's why you have to have a catalytic converter -- it breaks down the rest of unburned gasoline into elements that are more eco-friendly.

Somehow adding HHO to the fuel mixture increases the efficiency of the combustion process... Maybe in part because HHO itself is very powerful. We're not running strictly on hydrogen. It would not be possible to create enough volume of HHO on demand to run a motor. But, as a combustion "aid", a little goes a long way.

We do know first hand just how powerful HHO is.. Our first cell disintegrated itself with a little help from a lighter :mrgreen:

Right now our six-cell rig draws 7.6 amps. This is our first attempt, and there's always room for improvement.....

 

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... +generator

 

I have a friend who is sinking some time into this one. He went to a site called "runyourcarwithwater.com" or something to that effect. I'm no brain surgeon, but i was thinking along the same lines as 82XJ in thinking that we all prob seperated H and O in chemistry class in high school, and we all know hyd is flammable, but i thought the energy required to seperate it would offset the gas obtained. My friend has spend about 500 bucks on his, and is having trouble winding what he called a "tesla" coil, which is like a coil wound through a cylinder which i can see would be troublesome. This is very interesting, please post some pics!

 

electrolosys is what you are using to split the water molecules, H2O becomes H-H-O. very little electrical current is needed to make this happen, about 4 volts is all it takes. it does take some amps to get any significant gas production. depending on the generators efficiency and the type of electrolyte you use, 30 amps at 12 volts will get you anywhere from 2-5 liters per minute.

hydrogen is actually lower energy than gasoline, but the HHO you are burning is perfectly stoichiometric so there is zero waste, and the burn is very fast and hot.

this process is NOT energy efficient.....HOWEVER.....it can be $$$ economical $$$. the extra fuel you burn to create the amperage costs money and has more potential energy, but the fuel you save by burning HHO HOPEFULLY will outweigh that cost.

you can use pulse width modulation to adjust the amperage input/generator "throttle", also pwm is supposed to boost efficiency. there is a lot of info, some good some bad, start searching!

 

I bought the "run_a_car_on_water" stuff for $50. 117 pages.

The idea is the circuitry splits the water, and generates a magnetic resonance that also splits the water doubling your water splitting efficiency.
You must also burn gasoline (or diesel) and the HHO makes the fuel burn more completely in the cylinder. This gives a 40% improvement over the, supposedly, NINE PERCENT efficiency of a "normal" car.

XJBikes might be only 5% efficient, and don't have the reserve output to run an HHO generator. This is strictly car and truck stuff.

There's also a tie-in to "zero point energy" which puts this experiment in the "KOOK" category, so watch out for ruthless and undue criticism.

 

HHO / BROWNS GAS is a by-product of electrolysis. when making your generators uses high grade stainless steel as your plates and insulate them from eachother makeing half of them - the other half + ( the more plates the more current needed, but, output becomes greater DUH right?).submerse them in a plastic container with water then put some dc power to them an voila your making HHO/BROWNS GAS. now to harness it enclose your container and use a hose to go into what we call a bubbler. (another bottle filled with water that the hose goes into and has an output hose off the top) THIS IS FOR SAFETY!!!! KEEPS ANY FLASHBACK TO A MINIMUM!!! AND REALLY IT IS THAT EASY!!!

youtube does have many videos on the subject.

BTW this same process can be used to remove rust from your tank if ya ask me i would be more than happy to tell how.

 

WOW. Technology sure advances.

Back in the 70s when gas first got high you could buy devices to squirt water into the engine to make it run more efficiently.

Now you can use the alternator to split water into 2H2 + O2 and burn it in the cylinder to make 2H2O (water) to improve your combustion efficiency.

No more cumbersome pump!

Of course, you have the losses in the splitting process......

 

I have some pretty thorough plans if anyone is interested.
This one is called Hydrostar
PM your email address if interested. It's about a 5Mb pdf file, 93 pages

 

I have made a low amp hho generator. It is wired into my 1986 maxim xj700. it isn't a great gain, but i went from 50.1mpg to 66.8mpg.

 

you got pics of that wolf?

 

A friend did the same on his KLR, only his pulled more amps than his alternator was able to produce. He ended up running the battery flat. Got good mileage, though.

And that's the lesson here, folks. You can get some gains from HHO on your bikes, just make sure you're below your charging system's output threshhold (which IIRC is 19 Amps on most or our bikes). As a plus, the air box on these bikes is large enough to put a small electrolyser inside. Again, just watch your current draw.

On a side note, I've been experimenting with an electrolyzer design myself since about 2003. It's completely different from anything that's out there on the net. I found someone with a little extra money to help me out, and we have a new power supply coming next week for a new, larger scale test. If it's successful, this thing will hopefully produce a decent amount of hydrogen/oxygen from very little current. As I said, it's very different from what's already been done. Faraday will probably roll in his grave! 8)

 

when your battery charges it makes some H, might as well plumb that in there too

 

Well, here's the semi-official result on the 5.0L F-150 truck:

Mileage without HHO: 10-11mpg
Mileage with HHO: 17-18mpg

Current draw: 7.6 amps.

not an out-of-this world result, but still very noticeable. Next step: using 316L stainless plating for electrodes instead of wire.

We're building an electrolyzer for my Crown Vic next, to see how HHO will work in a more modern EFI system.

 

It may be "not out of this world", but you've increased your fuel mileage by over 75 percent. That's not too bad for 7.6 Amps. Not bad at all. I'd like to see pictures of your rig. Post 'em up.

 

How's everyone that requested the book liking it?

Any builds happening yet? Post up pics!!!

 

Here are free plans on the 'net, not the $50 plans that I bought:

Goto. . . Question@evolutioncult . com

There's pictures, and instructions on building one.
When the hydrogen is liberated, it is in the free, atomic form H , not the molecular form H2, which has already used up a "bond".
Free Hydrogen can burn itself without oxygen.

 

I havent done a thing with my plans, paulT. got too many projects now. want to see one of you guys run a bike (or car)strictly off water, then sell me the kit, lol...

While your at it, hook GM, Ford, and Chrysler up with one too.

 

I'm curious. How many of you that have built these things used what they're calling a neutral plate between your anodes and cathodes? And, if so, why? What's the reasoning behind their inclusion?

 

but then, big oil would kidnap us and take us away!!!

 

Haven't started yet to many other projects half finished.

 

It is not physically possible to "Burn" or be on fire without oxygen. Burning (outside of a nuclear reactor) is a chemical process that requires oxygen.

This link helps

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=242

I hate to be picky, but this whole HHO thing is so full of holes it drives me crazy!

 

Yeah, i think if it really worked well, you'd be going to the autoparts store and getting kits. There's a catch somewhere, somewhere....

I do enjoy reading that stuff though...

And who doesnt like a good conspiracy theory?

 

Hydrogen and oxygen are both very reactive. They don't stay in their molecular state long. When you perform electrolysis on water the reaction is NOT:

H2O + Energy = H + H + O

It is:

2(H2O) + Energy = 2(H2) + O2.

When you "burn" hydrogen the reaction is:

2(H2) + O2 - Energy = 2(H2O)

What you get back when you "burn" the hydrogen is the same amount of energy it took to break the bonds in the first place. Conservation of energy is a natural law (mass-energy for the Einstein crowd).

And that's all idealized. In a real life system you'll have losses from the electrical resistance of the apparatus, Hydrogen and Oxygen recombining before they reach the combustion chamber, and Hydrogen and Oxygen that don't recombine in the combustion chamber (incomplete burn).

Now, there may be benefits from having water in the combustion mix (see my post about water injection systems available during the 70s fuel crisis). If so, it would be much more efficient to just squirt the water into the fuel/air mix.

If either type of apparatus had any benefit I can't imagine that the OEMs wouldn't be elbowing each other aside to get this into production.

 

My father was Army for 25 years, he said that they used to have a setup to spray water into plane engines to increase mileage.

Then big oil would lose out and we know they're in cahoots. :wink:

 

I seem to remember seeing something on TV about that; might be an old episode of Wings. Something to do with water injection in B17 bombers. The good news: it helped the engines perform better. The bad news: the resulting contrails made it easy for the Germans to track them.

Doing a subsequent google search showed nothing about the B-17 using it, but apparently the P-47 did, and some Me-109s.

 

My recollection on water injection on fighter planes was that it was used only in an emergency to get an extra boost of power to get away from trouble. The reason being is that too much use would damage the engine. But, I think they weren't burning it, but utilizing its expansive power when water flashes to steam.

If we're going to put on our tinfoil hats and speculate on why the big three aren't mass producing cars that are "water injected", I'd say it is because the government told them not to. You see, for every mile driven on water alone, that's a mile driven tax free. And we all know how much our greedy politicians just hate us not paying our "fair share", right? So, that's my version of this conspiracy theory.

 

:roll:

 

I love how everyone gets up in arms saying this whole concept is bunk, but nobody has any reason WHY. I understand completely that "perpetual energy" or whatever you want to call it is not possible, but if theres the potential to make older (and therefore less efficient) engines more efficient, I dont get why people immediately scream "SCAM!" when theres no hard proof really one way or the other.

In all honesty, the information I've read about these HHO generators seems plausible, if not practical in all applications. I wouldnt expect 200% increases, but 70% is massive, all said and done. I'd even be chasing this for a 50% gain, personally.

So far, the evidence (and results) provided here and that are all over the itnernet seem, like i said, plausible, if not spectacular.

 

ok, I'll be posting pics soon of the F-150 rig. It's not my truck, so I don't have access to it 24/7...

We're also close to finishing the rig for my Crown Vic. It will be trunk-mounted, as I have virtually no space under the hood. Also, it's OBD-II, so I can hook up a scangauge to it to monitor the engine in realtime... It will be the most accurate way to determine whether the HHO unit works or not. Now I just have to sell some blood for the scangauge :mrgreen:

 

Haha, do it man. I'm seriously considering fabbing up a small-scale unit to try out on my seca, but I'd love to have some serious hard data to go off of first!

 

The internet phenoms like this that continue to circulate do so because they SEEM plausable.

However, in this thread alone, we've given solid facts that disprove the idea. The internet also has a TON of information that disproves these HHO generators. Every article or forum post or how-to is filled with people talking about the conservation of energy, the laws of physics, the real science behind this, and all of those things go against this working. Then, sprinkled in are a few people that say "But I heard of someone who did it" or "Why not give it a chance" or the like. Mythbusters even dealt with this.

This is NOT a new idea or promise or "silver bullet" its the same thing, hashed over and over that never pans out.

If you want to save money on fuel, change your driving habits and use common sense. It works.. I'm living proof.

 

I believe that was the case with the Messerschmidt -- it could... oh, here. Read for yourself.

--------

The Bf 109G-6 could as well be equipped with the MW 50 methanol water injection system. This system brought 4 per cent the performance about normal and a switch was activating in the cockpit to inject the methanol water mixture of a tank behind the pilot seat over tubes into the turbocharger for some minutes. After this had happened, the pilot had to wait up to the next injection for at least five minutes. Although the MW 50 system of the machine gave a large speed thrust, it used up fuel rapidly anyway and the range therefore reduced.

--------

http://www.b17bomber.de/eng/jagdflugzeuge/bf109.php

It must be true. I read it on the Internet!

 

MrShake, thats the thing. I've YET to see any information that solidly disproves this. At all. I fully understand all the conservation of energy and laws of physics as they pertain to this. I guess I just dont see why everyone immediately ties this in with "zero-point energy" and all that nonsense. If these "HHO" generators (I know that isnt the right chemical build of what these actually do, so don't bother pointing that out again) actually have the potential to improve the efficiency of an engine, especially one as old as in a lot of our bikes, I dont see why everyone has to rain on my parade without providing any real information as to WHY they're NOT helpful.

My take on this is that it is a SUPPLEMENT to an existing standard internal-combustion engine. Obviously the electrolosys on the water requires energy, which comes from the alternator (in the case of adding said generator to a running engine). The engine produces the energy via the alternator, by burning gasoline (and then this HHO mixture after the generator is started up).

I guess I really just don't understand why everyone immediately tries to tie this in to conspiracy theories and zero-point energy when that is obviously not the point here, I'm simply chasing a (seemingly) inexpensive and surprisingly beneficial way to improve a machine I'm already in love with.

Now if someone can show that the amperage load vs efficiency gain isn't worth it, or something like that, then I completely understand and will most likely abandon the project. But why should I abandon something that could really be helpful just because people think its stupid?

And FYI, if you're gonna throw crap out like 'change your driving habits and use common sense' you need to know your targets a little better. I drive less than 15 miles a WEEK on average. My fuel consumption is just about as low as I can get it and still live a semi-normal life. I'm just looking to cut that number down some more, and I really dont see why that upsets people so badly that so many of us want to try.

/rant off

 

But Switch, that is the point.

The HHO generator breaks water into hydrogen and oxygen. They are then recombined in the engine where they re-form water.

Conservation of energy says that the energy out = the energy in. Period. The end. (Assuming you have no additional losses, which you will).

Now, if having that water in the burn is a good idea (and I'm skeptical that there is a long term benefit), then you would use less energy by just introducing it in the induction system.

 

Carl, I do agree with that, although the concept of introducing water in the induction system involves carrying around large quantities of water which obviously isn't too practical on a motorcycle. I guess what I'm having trouble getting my head around, and finding proof one way or the other, is what having the 2(h2) o2 mix in the cylinder at the time of combustion does to the "normal" process. I get that theres no real energy gained (hence that conservation of energy thing) but it seems to make the gasoline burn more effectively, which IS a good thing.

 

I don't think that the HHO kit works by simply adding more fuel to the fire, so to speak. I think that it changes the way regular gasoline burns (which we know is grossly inefficient). Which, if it's true, pretty much makes the Laws of Thermodynamics argument take a back seat.

For me, the only way to find out whether it works or not is to try it. If it does, great. If it does not, I'm out about 80 bucks and some knowledge... The beautiful thing is that there's no permanent mods done to the car.

 

my problem with this, is unless you drive an old clunker, if you put this kit in your car you void any warranty.
years ago we were all hanging a wet wick in front of the air intake, that seemed to make the engine run better, where did that idea go?

 

In the US, according to the Magnusson-Moss warranty act, a car manufacturer would have to prove that an aftermarket performance upgrade has caused damage before they can void the warranty. I'm not sure if there's anything equivalent overseas.

 

We were? I've not heard of this before.

 

either i'm showing my age, or you should get out more, :wink:

 

"We can’t bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don’t go anywhere—like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. 'Give me five bees for a quarter,' you’d say.

"Now where were we? Oh yeah—the important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones..."

 

hey Homer, Google search "water vapour and internal combustion engine"
report back asap. Wiz.

 

http://www.mysanantonio.com/multimedia/ ... 1564557037

Until I get out in the garage and build one of these myself, I can't actually say "it works!" , by the same token, a guy can't say "it doesn't work" just by citing the "conservation of energy law" because that's not HOW it works.

It works like a continuously consumed catalyst, for lack of a simpler explanation. You might only consume 4 OZ of water per 100 miles.

Those who call it a Joe Cell are trying to use resonance frequencies and zero point energy to increase the gas output beyond regular electrolysis.
In regular electrolysis, one electron = one hydrogen atom.

 

using a hydrogen generator is NOT ENERGY EFFICIENT. you cannot make energy, it takes more energy to produce the elemental hydrogen and oxygen than you get back from burning the mix.

HOWEVER............

I dont care if its energy efficient. is it $$$$$ efficient? that is the question that needs to be answered, and i havent seen anyone build a generator, and post up negative results. i have a sheet of stainless, and someday soon i will be cutting it up into plates and building my generator for my truck. i also plan on making one for the bike, but thats a winter project, and after i chop/bob it.

 

I understand what is being said here about energy in= energy out.
But the motor is already turning, it's already spinning the alternator.
So the electricity used is free, so any thing that is produced is a bonus.
Maybe I'm missing something here.
:?: