off topic: HHO

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.