HHO: Who's first?
07-04-2008, 06:32 PM
#1
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HHO: Who's first? If you don't already know about HHO, now is the time to check it out. For those who don't know, HHO gas can be used to power existing combustion engines. Water undergoes an electrolysis process in order to create HHO gas that is this injected through the intake...pretty much like nitrous in a way. This can double ones fuel efficiency, or even eliminate natural gas usage altogether in some cases!
Youtube for the keyword HHO on youtube for more information. This is real. Who's gonna be the first HHO powered LS4???
91 Ford F150 running on HHO:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hFG7hYdzyj4
Youtube for the keyword HHO on youtube for more information. This is real. Who's gonna be the first HHO powered LS4???
91 Ford F150 running on HHO:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hFG7hYdzyj4
07-04-2008, 08:03 PM
#5
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man, not this again.
You do realize that it takes more energy to electolyze the water in the first place than you can get out of combustion don't you? That energy comes from the alternator, which increases drag on the engine. You actually lose mileage and performance slightly with this.
You do realize that it takes more energy to electolyze the water in the first place than you can get out of combustion don't you? That energy comes from the alternator, which increases drag on the engine. You actually lose mileage and performance slightly with this.
07-04-2008, 09:30 PM
#6
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 1,769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snake oil?
I was watchin 20/20 and they had the tornado guy and some platinum fuel thingy person on saying their **** works, and the consumer reports guy saying not. And the old premium/regular/brandname gas debate.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/PainAtThe...5284194&page=1
I was watchin 20/20 and they had the tornado guy and some platinum fuel thingy person on saying their **** works, and the consumer reports guy saying not. And the old premium/regular/brandname gas debate.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/PainAtThe...5284194&page=1
Last edited by neilownz; 07-04-2008 at 09:41 PM.
07-05-2008, 03:28 AM
#7
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man, not this again.
You do realize that it takes more energy to electolyze the water in the first place than you can get out of combustion don't you? That energy comes from the alternator, which increases drag on the engine. You actually lose mileage and performance slightly with this.
You do realize that it takes more energy to electolyze the water in the first place than you can get out of combustion don't you? That energy comes from the alternator, which increases drag on the engine. You actually lose mileage and performance slightly with this.
Water can be cheaply disassociated into Brown's Gas / HHO gas (monatomic and diatomic Hydrogen and Oxygen) using efficient electrolyzing techniques which require very little power to operate, or sophistication to build. This is directly contrary to current scientific dogma; which teaches that the creation of useful amounts of Hydrogen requires tens of thousands of watts of power, creating high amounts of heat in the process. This is simply not true: Many people all over the world have home-built working devices that create HHO gas using very little power. The terms "Brown Gas" and "HHO" are used in this article as synonymous, although there is some minor technical debate as to the ratios of monatomic and diatomic gas within each, and "HHO" was once a trade name for Brown's Gas (it has now become a generic term like "kleenex", as is written here for this purpose).
http://s13.invisionfree.com/THE_UNHI.../ar/t52513.htm
Last edited by hexxLS4; 07-05-2008 at 03:33 AM.
Trending Topics
07-05-2008, 08:53 AM
#9
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
X 10,000,000
I don't care how efficient the electrolysis process is, to get any benefit it would have to be more than 100% efficient, which isn't going to happen.
Basic chemical principles and the conventional laws of thermodynamics (i.e. the correct ones, not the mumbo jumbo used by scam artists pushing these products) just don't allow you to get something for nothing.
TANSTAAFL.
I don't care how efficient the electrolysis process is, to get any benefit it would have to be more than 100% efficient, which isn't going to happen.
Basic chemical principles and the conventional laws of thermodynamics (i.e. the correct ones, not the mumbo jumbo used by scam artists pushing these products) just don't allow you to get something for nothing.
TANSTAAFL.
07-05-2008, 02:52 PM
#10
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did read some scam articles as a result of this thread. It's hard to tell that the truth is now. I know a few people doing it, so I guess I'll just wait to see their results.
07-05-2008, 08:25 PM
#11
I found this interesting:
Myth busters did this test and did they not get better mpg with the ac on vs. with the windows down? I watch the show. I could be mistaken.
Roll the windows down -- turn off the air conditioner. Some people believe that at highway speeds, there's so much drag from an open window that you'd save gas by putting the windows up and using the air conditioner. But that's a myth. Consumer Reports ran tests and found that at any speed, using the air conditioner burns more gas
07-05-2008, 08:40 PM
#12
TECH Fanatic
Yea it also goes to people who remove there truck beds and put the ones with the holes in it or leaving there truck tail down saves gas it dosn't . with the bed up it creates a vortex "bubble of air". So little air contributes to the rotation of the vortex while the rest of the air glides over it with little drag.
Most of these.... ploys are common sence it really mind boggles me how people can't see this. If gas mileage was increased enough and done at a cheap enough price don't you think auto makers would be doing it?? This is just one part of the common sence factor theres many others. I think a majority of you i don't have to explain this too. The rest of you i ask what the hell are you thinking ???????????????
Most of these.... ploys are common sence it really mind boggles me how people can't see this. If gas mileage was increased enough and done at a cheap enough price don't you think auto makers would be doing it?? This is just one part of the common sence factor theres many others. I think a majority of you i don't have to explain this too. The rest of you i ask what the hell are you thinking ???????????????
07-07-2008, 12:02 AM
#13
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea it also goes to people who remove there truck beds and put the ones with the holes in it or leaving there truck tail down saves gas it dosn't . with the bed up it creates a vortex "bubble of air". So little air contributes to the rotation of the vortex while the rest of the air glides over it with little drag.
Most of these.... ploys are common sence it really mind boggles me how people can't see this. If gas mileage was increased enough and done at a cheap enough price don't you think auto makers would be doing it?? This is just one part of the common sence factor theres many others. I think a majority of you i don't have to explain this too. The rest of you i ask what the hell are you thinking ???????????????
Most of these.... ploys are common sence it really mind boggles me how people can't see this. If gas mileage was increased enough and done at a cheap enough price don't you think auto makers would be doing it?? This is just one part of the common sence factor theres many others. I think a majority of you i don't have to explain this too. The rest of you i ask what the hell are you thinking ???????????????
You don't have to be condescending about it. We're just having a discussion here. There are a lot of politics that happen with automakers that could make them hesitant to adopt any sort of new technology.
There is nothing wrong with an intellectual conversation about alternate methods of conserving gas. Common sense would be to explore possibilities and discuss them with others...which is what I did. Sorry if it's old news to some of you...woopdeedoo..I'm sure you all got excited when you first heard it too.
Whether or not HHO is a viable mod doesn't really matter. The fact is, it's a technology that might just be in it's primitive stages. It obviously works to some extent. As technology gets better, it might be a viable alternative or a good supplement to combustion\electric hybrids. Maybe it's not cost effective...Time will tell.
Any technology thats gonna save this sorry planets *** from fuel starvation will have to have "in between" steps for people who cannot afford hybrids or any kind of hydrogen fuel cell car in the future. It makes "common sense" to discuss these kinds of things.
PS: Common senSe has an S in it...not a C
Sorry had to say it lol. Now we're even. 
07-07-2008, 01:50 PM
#15
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wind drag increases exponentially as speed increases. Savings with the windows down only works up to speeds around 40-45 the drag is still less than the A/C, however as speed goes up and drag increases, the A/C will win out.
07-23-2008, 06:37 PM
#16
Man, not this again.
You do realize that it takes more energy to electolyze the water in the first place than you can get out of combustion don't you? That energy comes from the alternator, which increases drag on the engine. You actually lose mileage and performance slightly with this.
You do realize that it takes more energy to electolyze the water in the first place than you can get out of combustion don't you? That energy comes from the alternator, which increases drag on the engine. You actually lose mileage and performance slightly with this.
07-23-2008, 06:39 PM
#17
X 10,000,000
I don't care how efficient the electrolysis process is, to get any benefit it would have to be more than 100% efficient, which isn't going to happen.
Basic chemical principles and the conventional laws of thermodynamics (i.e. the correct ones, not the mumbo jumbo used by scam artists pushing these products) just don't allow you to get something for nothing.
TANSTAAFL.
I don't care how efficient the electrolysis process is, to get any benefit it would have to be more than 100% efficient, which isn't going to happen.
Basic chemical principles and the conventional laws of thermodynamics (i.e. the correct ones, not the mumbo jumbo used by scam artists pushing these products) just don't allow you to get something for nothing.
TANSTAAFL.
07-23-2008, 07:05 PM
#18
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bullshit, if a thousand dollar kit and some water was all it took to double fuel econ GM, Ford, Chrysler and all the foreign companies would be offering this **** straight from the factory.
07-23-2008, 09:16 PM
#19
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW - you are not CREATING energy, you are separating molecules that in water form cannot be used efficiently. 25 watts to work the generator to separate the molecules that are ingested by the engine doesn't seem like much loss to me considering the properties of HHO are over 3x that of petroleum gas/volume.
Yes, hydrogen gas has over three times the energy of gasoline.
You obviously don't understand the physics or chemistry involved in producing hydrogen. 25 watts produces essentially zero hydrogen
It takes 286 kJ/mol to produce hydrogen from water - at 100% efficiecy.
The only problem is that alternators are usually <70% efficient, and the electrolytic cells used in commercial production of hydrogen are usually only 70% efficient.
Stack these up, and you only have, at best, 49% efficiecy, which means that the alternator leeched at least 584 kJ/mol worth of energy to produce that hydrogen. When you burn hydrogen, you recover 240 kJ/mol (well, there would be another 46 kJ/mol if the water vapour produced condensed in the cylinder, but that doesn't happen). Since you only get back less than half the energy you expend, fuel economy cannot possibly increase.
But wait, an engine is only, at best, 40% efficient in converting fuel to power at the crank. This means that we actually burned 584,000/0.4 = 1,460 kJ/mol to produce fuel with 240 kJ/mol of energy.
Just FYI, a Joule (J) is one Watt per second. 746 Watts is the electrical equivalent of one horsepower. One mole (mol) of hydrogen weighs 2.017 (edit, it's actually 2.0158) grams. It takes a drain of 973 Watts (1.3 horsepower) from the crank to power the alternator sufficiently to produce 2.017 grams of hydrogen in ten minutes. At a nominal 12.7 Volts, that means that the current draw would have to be 76.6 Amps.
Where the hell does 25 watts come from? Wishful thinking?
How about just leaving the HHO generator off the engine and maintaining whatever fuel economy you already have instead of giving some up some fuel economy to power that worthless contraption.
Another edit: at 27 MPG (which is what I get on the highway), it takes 49.6 MJ of energy to drive for 10 minutes at 65 mph. If I hooked up a HHO generator that could produce that much hydrogen, my fuel economy would drop by 1.22/49.6*100 = 2.46 %.
Last edited by TiredGXP; 07-23-2008 at 09:50 PM.
07-24-2008, 08:37 PM
#20
It is a SCAM. Put it on your car and enlighten me (unless you are selling the junk). I am not trying to sound rude or condescending, but if you take it that way it is because I am tired of hearing this crappy scam over and over at work and various car forums.
Don't bother responding to this post till you put the junk on your car and prove me wrong. HHO is a scam, the proof is in the smog laws in the U.S.A.
YOU do some research, IF the HHO was the real deal it would be MANDITORY on ALL internal combustion engines sold in the U.S.A. This scam has been around for YEARS. Don't be a FOOL and think this crap is new technology.
BILLIONS of dollars would be saved if it were real and the auto manufacturers would brag about a better fuel saver on there cars if they were using HHO systems on there cars. Guess how many companies are bragging about HHO on there cars......................................NONE. WHY? IT'S A SCAM, it would emberace them out of business if they put the crap in there cars as a fuel saving device.
Done with my rant, thank you for your kind and much appreciated INTELIGANT responses.
Last edited by LS4 swap; 07-24-2008 at 09:56 PM.