hho... does it really work? (versus, price, Accord, 1984)

[dubthang]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

Where did you go to school?

32/20 = 60% increase

A 40% increase from 20 would be 8 mpg more, or 28.

Although I doubt his 5 gallons was *exact*. I think you guys need to let this go and try it for yourselves. Then report back.

My bad. 40% would be 20 from 32.

Well, my truck is under warranty so I don't really feel like messing with it until it's past its 72,000 miles. It gets 20 mpg all day long (4.3 v6 w/ a 5 speed) so I'm not really concerned.

[wheelsup]

Then you're arguing theory. Which is kinda (IMO) a waste of time. You asked him to bring proof, what proof do you want other than someone telling you it increased their mileage significantly? Unless you go and do it yourself you're not going to find "proof" that it works or doesn't.

[Ruia]

Originally Posted by JBrown

The H2O injection systems on a WWII fighter aircraft (P51 Mustang comes to mind) have NOTHING to do with HHO except water is involved. The injection of that topic is misinformed at best.

I modified the HHO system over the weekend. I replaced 2 wet cells with 2 dry cells that I got from e-bay, couldn’t make it for the price. I’m thinking that I got my best mileage with my old system which also added a little water vapor in with the HHO.
Test is my wife’s 6,6 which it has propane for hill climbing and pulling (adds 1 to 2 MPG), two dry cells @ 15 amps max and a water injection system that I but together. I also added a water tank with around 5% of the capacity of fuel. I’m still researching for known problems with the use of H2O injection so it will not be used all the time. Please let me know if anyone knows of any issues with water injection.

[Ruia]

Originally Posted by dubthang

Now I'm really confused. 160/5 equals 32 miles per gallon. Dmax's (old ones) get around 18-20 miles per gallon. That is not a 50% increase in millage. It is about a 40% increase (still good.) It is very easy to get less than 18 - 20 with dirty injectors or a bad turbo (very common issues.) What kind of earlier milage are you basing this on?

I'm really not sure how diesels work with HHO compared to gas engines. Since diesels run on compression and not combustion what happens to the HHO? Does it compress like the regular fuel/air mix? Does it add more explosiveness? Could it be adding anything dangerous like premature explosion? I don't know the answers to these questions so that is why I ask.

Never seen it get better then 16MPG on highway, it’s a 2500HD. It was 6 months before I added my first HHO unit and it cost me $50 which I tried it on my John deer first. I admit that I’m in the thousands of dollars but it’s gotten to be a hobby I’m guessing.

[dubthang]

Originally Posted by Ruia

Never seen it get better then 16MPG on highway, it’s a 2500HD. It was 6 months before I added my first HHO unit and it cost me $50 which I tried it on my John deer first. I admit that I’m in the thousands of dollars but it’s gotten to be a hobby I’m guessing.

I used to drive an 04 3500hd dump body. Empty it would get 8 mpg. Turned out to be seriously bad turbo, one of many. That truck ate turbos like a fat kid eats cupcakes. Regardless, when it was running well (and unloaded) we could get 19 mpg. Not saying that 16 is bad, just my experience with the Duramax.

Originally Posted by Ruia

I modified the HHO system over the weekend. I replaced 2 wet cells with 2 dry cells that I got from e-bay, couldn’t make it for the price. I’m thinking that I got my best mileage with my old system which also added a little water vapor in with the HHO.
Test is my wife’s 6,6 which it has propane for hill climbing and pulling (adds 1 to 2 MPG), two dry cells @ 15 amps max and a water injection system that I but together. I also added a water tank with around 5% of the capacity of fuel. I’m still researching for known problems with the use of H2O injection so it will not be used all the time. Please let me know if anyone knows of any issues with water injection.

Water injection as far as I know should be run as a 50/50 water/methanol mix for diesels. It should be run during times of load because the mixture can drown your engine. The water helps cool the compression cycle allowing for more power and less knock. The methanol is to prevent the water from freezing. It also adds some extra kick. The water cools the air mass allowing the turbo to add more air into the chamber (cool air takes up less space than hot air). More air means more power. I don't know if it'll reduce your fuel consumption, but it should reduce your output on NOx.

[Ruia]

Originally Posted by dubthang

Now I'm really confused. 160/5 equals 32 miles per gallon. Dmax's (old ones) get around 18-20 miles per gallon. That is not a 50% increase in millage. It is about a 40% increase (still good.) It is very easy to get less than 18 - 20 with dirty injectors or a bad turbo (very common issues.) What kind of earlier milage are you basing this on?

I'm really not sure how diesels work with HHO compared to gas engines. Since diesels run on compression and not combustion what happens to the HHO? Does it compress like the regular fuel/air mix? Does it add more explosiveness? Could it be adding anything dangerous like premature explosion? I don't know the answers to these questions so that is why I
ask.

Good question, not really sure ether in how HHO works in diesels, I just read so much that I dream it up. Diesels for me look easer to mod thin gas engines. It runs really good and it didn’t cost compared to banks upgrades. No black smoke when I get on it and lot of added of power. I have been to New York twice using an older system and it broke every 500 to 600 miles. It was cheaper to stop at Walarks and buy tubes of plastic repair @ $4.00 x4 then to turn off the system and keep going.
I am also working on a system that is in my Toyota 4x4. I got it to work but what a headache, blew the Trans and just got it back on the rode, no numbers to report.

[Ruia]

Originally Posted by Franklyn

Drover I agree with you pretty much. But I also keep remembering that most automotive performance gains - and increased fuel mileage falls in that category - are proven out on race circuits months and years before they're engineered into production power plants. With the focus on reducing the number of pit stops in longer races there's no way some form of this "technology" wouldn't have already been tried and discarded by circle track and road course racers all over the country. So even IF the numbers work, dubthang, why haven't we heard of this "technology" being recognized as another version of "the racer's edge" before now?

It would be wonderful if it worked. All the time. Everytime. Everywhere. So like you guys, I'm waiting for real proof, not gee whiz claims. But I think I'll keep my day job.

Here you go; “Fuel-economy gain of 20 to 30 percent” it’s called a hydrogen-boosted gas engine. It takes the hydrogen from gas. It’s proof that the automakers know about this technology and rather use gas to add Hydrogen. Is this because it will not freeze? How much energy does it take more or less then a Hydrogen generator? It says 75 watts, for how much hyd does it make?
[SIZE=2][/SIZE][SIZE=2]http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/the-hydrogen-boosted-gasoline-engine-cga.htm[/SIZE]

[Franklyn]

Originally Posted by Ruia

Here you go; “Fuel-economy gain of 20 to 30 percent” it’s called a hydrogen-boosted gas engine. It takes the hydrogen from gas. It’s proof that the automakers know about this technology and rather use gas to add Hydrogen. Is this because it will not freeze? How much energy does it take more or less then a Hydrogen generator? It says 75 watts, for how much hyd does it make?
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/the-hydrogen-boosted-gasoline-engine-cga.htm

This is a great link, Ruia, and goes a long way toward clearing up some of the murkiness of this subject. The author of the article, Bob Brooks, who is a graduate engineer and member of the SAE, apparently has extensive knowledge and history in the automotive field researching and working on fuel economy issues. So his article is informative and seems quite encouraging.

I do note, however, a slight difference between what I think you are saying, and what he says. You say:

Originally Posted by Ruia

It’s proof that the automakers know about this technology and rather use gas to add Hydrogen.

What he is saying is [emphasis is mine]:

This new technology that's just beginning to emerge from the laboratory, however, offers the prospect of an economic way to produce a small amount of hydrogen from gasoline with an on-board reformer. Invented by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and being perfected by auto industry supplier ArvinMeritor in cooperation with the German automotive engineering firm IAV, this system may provide a cost-effective alternative to fuel-cell technology and traditional gasoline- and diesel-combustion engines.

So according to the author you've cited this is emerging technology. To make a blanket claim the manufacturers are refusing to do something they've known about for some time is patently false and unfair. If you want to say in your opinion they are moving too slowly on this is another matter, but it is obviously a technology that while promising, is still under development. Remember, the lead times needed for mfgs to make model changes can be brutal. My advice is to give them a little time, but that's up to you.

One other point. If you read the entire piece the author also says:

It's possible that hydrogen-boosted engines could bridge the gap between today's gasoline-powered vehicles and the fuel-cell vehicles of the future.

Did you get that? The author thinks HHO is probably only going to be a temporary fix until fuel celled vehicles are rolled out in the future. Interesting. He says "its possible". So let's be encouraged but not blindly assume the thing will work entirely as planned. Because you know what happens when we assume, don't you?

Once again, good catch on the link.

[dubthang]

Interesting link. It sent me on a whirlwind of searching for more info. The story is some what old. I'm finding at least 2006 if not earlier, so auto companies do/should know about it.

It's interesting that what they are working on actually uses plasma to breakdown gas into more usable components then put them into the engine. It generates much larger quantities of H2 though than HHO from water.

[Franklyn]

Originally Posted by dubthang

Interesting link. It sent me on a whirlwind of searching for more info. The story is some what old. I'm finding at least 2006 if not earlier, so auto companies do/should know about it.

Yes, I found this publication from ArvinMeritor dated June 11, 2004, predicting commercial availability in the 2010 model year. I've emailed the company asking for updated information so shall hold my breath for their reply. Neither ArvinMentor nor IAV in Germany currently feature the technology on their websites, so my expectations are currently low. More when/if it arrives.