Thoughts on HHO?

[vtferret]

Hey T4R.

So, my friend posted something on facebook about a HHO system. You basicially install a 150 buck kit into your car, add distilled water and baking soda, and the system takes energy from your battery and converts said water and baking soda into hydrogen and oxygen, which it sucks into your intake and causes a more efficient combustion process, blah blah blah.

Even simpler version: You put in water, and end up burning less gas.

I have done a bit of research on this, and the chemistry of turning water into hydrogen is solid, but the other side of things, the whole putting it through your engine.... That part sounds a bit like black magic or "Oh my god, gluten is bad for you". In other words, not really all that sound. Plus physicists have been saying it actually takes more energy to create the gas than the gas puts into your engine.

Has anyone tried this/know anyone who tried it/talked to a crazy hobo who is a doctor on this? There are claims from boosting efficiency anywhere from 50 to 200 percent. We all know how much our T4Rs love gas, so even a 50% boost would bring us closer to 30mpg if it worked. I'm almost tempted to drop the 150 bucks on the kit just to see if it actually works.

 

[Kryptoroxx]

Nope...look at some of the laws of physics and you will see the errors. I believe it is the never get more energy than you put in one.

Now if you are discussing the energy requirements of making hydrogen as a fuel vs. producing gasoline then you have something there.

 

[sandracer33]

Hey vtferret! First, be prepared to get flamed on this one. For most people HHO ranks right up there with alchemy... That being said, I had an HHO system on my RSX for a while as a school science project for my son. It does work, however not to the extent that most claim. I did however pick up 4 - 5 mpg consistently when I was running it. Had it on the car for about 5K miles. This was on a 240 HP RSX Type-S. I didn't have a chance to dyno it with it on there, but I didn't really notice any performance gains. Overall, I did get better mileage, did not have any adverse effects, and my son got an A+ on his science project. If he still has the system I may give it a try on the 4Runner. Better mileage wouldn't be a bad thing!

 

[Nelsonmd]

There have been several threads on this before where despite the flaming that does go on (well deserved flaming in this case), several people have taken the time to write out detailed explanations as to why, based on the laws of thermodynamics, systems like HHO don't work. Ultimately, it can be summed up in 1 simple statement: "If you put water in and get water out, you did not extract any energy from that water". That is a re-statement of the first law of thermodynamics (read the wiki here).

Oh, and don't buy the argument that you get less water out than you put in, so that is where the energy came from. Your engine is not a nuclear reactor. No nuclear fusion => no loss of mass.

People may be fooled by efficiency gains, but there are MANY other factors that can alter your fuel economy that are't taken into account by the people who reject the first law and decide to build/advocate these systems. Believe me, if the car companies could put a little system on the engine and get 4-5 more MPG's, they would have. They are squeezed by various governments to meet arbitrary efficiency requirements and spend many millions of dollars to meet them, and make much bigger sacrifices than just adding a little electrolysis device. If HHO worked, it could make them money; they would do it; someone would do it. Nobody does it.

Oh, and hydrogen doesn't cause the gas to burn better either, gasoline is a hydro-carbon fuel, so it is made up of hydrogen and carbon. It uses oxygen to burn, changing from HC + O2 -> H2O + CO2. This reaction is balanced already and is not capable of using additional atoms of anything, either hydrogen or oxygen. Besides, the hydrogen and oxygen from the water cumbust themselves to turn back into water, and you get back exactly what you put in, expect that now you have wasted a bunch of electricity from your alternator for the inefficient electrolysis step.

And also, not to insult sandracer or his son (his science project was probably great, and well deserving of the A+), but school science projects are not graded on the validity/correctness of the conclusion, they are graded on the implementation of the scientific process at a high school level. He may have done a very good job of using the scientific process at a high school level, but that doesn't mean his results are correct. There are MANY factors that affected his measurements that he didn't account for. Some of them won't materially change the results, some will. When he gets to college he'll learn about more of those factors (if he studies engineering or science), and if he goes into the industry, he will learn a tremendous amount more about it. Great learning experience, but not scientific rigor.

 

[sandracer33]

No insult taken. I was just the mule for his project. I am a professional mechanic. I am in no way an engineer, I'm just paying for a future one. I do know however that my car averaged 31 mpg every tank, driven 115 miles per day for 6 years. It was a K24/K20 hybrid all motor car that made 243 hp at the wheels. All I know is that when the HHO system was installed my fuel mileage went from 31 to 35/36 mpg, and when we took it off it returned to 31. There were no changes made to the tuning, which I have to admit I was very nervous about. I was not thrilled about the thought of having my $4K motor melt down in the name of high school science. I monitored the AFR pretty closely while it was on the car & it did go from 13.2 % to 13.5% at highway cruise. I do not know all the scientific factors involved, but I did know that little car, and it did improve the mileage.

 

[IBallEngineer]

And also, not to insult sandracer or his son (his science project was probably great, and well deserving of the A+), but school science projects are not graded on the validity/correctness of the conclusion, they are graded on the implementation of the scientific process at a high school level. He may have done a very good job of using the scientific process at a high school level, but that doesn't mean his results are correct. There are MANY factors that affected his measurements that he didn't account for. Some of them won't materially change the results, some will. When he gets to college he'll learn about more of those factors (if he studies engineering or science), and if he goes into the industry, he will learn a tremendous amount more about it. Great learning experience, but not scientific rigor.

I really wanted to flame here, but as Nelson said, the intent is not to insult anyone. But 10 years ago I tried this too. And yes it is a neat little gizmo that did absolutely nothing for me, or my truck. Running the 5.3 in my 7000 pound pig nets me around 10.5 mpg. When I first installed my mason jar I saw that jump to around 11.1. But after I stopped "trying" to get better mileage, it went right back down. In other words, light pedal did more than the jar.

When I was in trade school right after Ronnie Raygun got elected, there was a guy named Smokey Yunick who was telling the magazines his new invention was going to revolutionize the internal combustion engine. He made some thing that looked like a turbo, but actually blended air and fuel before forcing it into the engine. He called it a homogenizer. At the time I was enthralled, thought for sure now the 'merkins were gonna beat back the red tide into the Pacific.

When I showed an article to one of my instructors whom I respected greatly. He glanced at the heading, turned to me and said, "Believe only half of what you read, and NONE of what you hear."

Words to live by.

:typing:

 

[KidVermicious]

There have been several threads on this before where despite the flaming that does go on (well deserved flaming in this case), several people have taken the time to write out detailed explanations as to why, based on the laws of thermodynamics, systems like HHO don't work. Ultimately, it can be summed up in 1 simple statement: "If you put water in and get water out, you did not extract any energy from that water". That is a re-statement of the first law of thermodynamics (read the wiki here).

Oh, and don't buy the argument that you get less water out than you put in, so that is where the energy came from. Your engine is not a nuclear reactor. No nuclear fusion => no loss of mass.

People may be fooled by efficiency gains, but there are MANY other factors that can alter your fuel economy that are't taken into account by the people who reject the first law and decide to build/advocate these systems. Believe me, if the car companies could put a little system on the engine and get 4-5 more MPG's, they would have. They are squeezed by various governments to meet arbitrary efficiency requirements and spend many millions of dollars to meet them, and make much bigger sacrifices than just adding a little electrolysis device. If HHO worked, it could make them money; they would do it; someone would do it. Nobody does it.

Oh, and hydrogen doesn't cause the gas to burn better either, gasoline is a hydro-carbon fuel, so it is made up of hydrogen and carbon. It uses oxygen to burn, changing from HC + O2 -> H2O + CO2. This reaction is balanced already and is not capable of using additional atoms of anything, either hydrogen or oxygen. Besides, the hydrogen and oxygen from the water cumbust themselves to turn back into water, and you get back exactly what you put in, expect that now you have wasted a bunch of electricity from your alternator for the inefficient electrolysis step.

And also, not to insult sandracer or his son (his science project was probably great, and well deserving of the A+), but school science projects are not graded on the validity/correctness of the conclusion, they are graded on the implementation of the scientific process at a high school level. He may have done a very good job of using the scientific process at a high school level, but that doesn't mean his results are correct. There are MANY factors that affected his measurements that he didn't account for. Some of them won't materially change the results, some will. When he gets to college he'll learn about more of those factors (if he studies engineering or science), and if he goes into the industry, he will learn a tremendous amount more about it. Great learning experience, but not scientific rigor.

*applause*

 

[19963.4lsr5]

No insult taken. I was just the mule for his project. I am a professional mechanic. I am in no way an engineer, I'm just paying for a future one. I do know however that my car averaged 31 mpg every tank, driven 115 miles per day for 6 years. It was a K24/K20 hybrid all motor car that made 243 hp at the wheels. All I know is that when the HHO system was installed my fuel mileage went from 31 to 35/36 mpg, and when we took it off it returned to 31. There were no changes made to the tuning, which I have to admit I was very nervous about. I was not thrilled about the thought of having my $4K motor melt down in the name of high school science. I monitored the AFR pretty closely while it was on the car & it did go from 13.2 % to 13.5% at highway cruise. I do not know all the scientific factors involved, but I did know that little car, and it did improve the mileage.

I believe you

 

[Nelsonmd]

No insult taken. I was just the mule for his project. I am a professional mechanic. I am in no way an engineer, I'm just paying for a future one. I do know however that my car averaged 31 mpg every tank, driven 115 miles per day for 6 years. It was a K24/K20 hybrid all motor car that made 243 hp at the wheels. All I know is that when the HHO system was installed my fuel mileage went from 31 to 35/36 mpg, and when we took it off it returned to 31. There were no changes made to the tuning, which I have to admit I was very nervous about. I was not thrilled about the thought of having my $4K motor melt down in the name of high school science. I monitored the AFR pretty closely while it was on the car & it did go from 13.2 % to 13.5% at highway cruise. I do not know all the scientific factors involved, but I did know that little car, and it did improve the mileage.

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt and not being insulted, it is alot harder to convey respectful disagreement over the internet than it is sarcastic insult...

I hope your son does become an engineer, and if he does, tell him to pay attention to his measurement systems and statistics class. They are 2 classes often considered the most boring and candidates for coasting through with a C so you can sleep in or get lunch, but they are 2 of the most important classes he will ever take and will change his life both professionally and intellectually (if you look at econ and politics from a standpoint of statistical rigor and measurement analysis, it will magically reveal all the BS that gets people elected that will ruin the country). Plus he will be a big leg up on his competition if he knows both and can apply them to the real world, in fact all engineering development depends on it. I was amazed how few engineers understood stats and MSA, even in a big successful company like I came into out of college (within a year I was considered a stats expert and had directors asking for my help with tough customers). They've picked up on it more now and the new guys know it better, but not many did when I started 8 years ago.

I really wanted to flame here, but as Nelson said, the intent is not to insult anyone. But 10 years ago I tried this too. And yes it is a neat little gizmo that did absolutely nothing for me, or my truck. Running the 5.3 in my 7000 pound pig nets me around 10.5 mpg. When I first installed my mason jar I saw that jump to around 11.1. But after I stopped "trying" to get better mileage, it went right back down. In other words, light pedal did more than the jar.

When I was in trade school right after Ronnie Raygun got elected, there was a guy named Smokey Yunick who was telling the magazines his new invention was going to revolutionize the internal combustion engine. He made some thing that looked like a turbo, but actually blended air and fuel before forcing it into the engine. He called it a homogenizer. At the time I was enthralled, thought for sure now the 'merkins were gonna beat back the red tide into the Pacific.

When I showed an article to one of my instructors whom I respected greatly. He glanced at the heading, turned to me and said, "Believe only half of what you read, and NONE of what you hear."

Words to live by.

:typing:

This is what I would guess is the #1 factor that affects the mileages people see in anecdotal stories. When they install something like this, they watch their driving habits more closely, or if they have a live readout of the MPG's, they watch it closely, and this changes their driving patterns in subtle but significant ways even if they aren't trying to. I know that my MPG's went up by 2-3 just by getting a scangauge and having a real-time readout. In this case, you would have to perform at very least a single blind DOE to convince me that driving habits weren't affected (double blind would be better, but without money riding on it, I'd accept single). There are lots of other factors that play in, but driving habits are probably the biggest one.

And remember, 4-5 MPG's gained on a 35 MPG vehicle is almost 15%; that is HUGE! IBall's prof's advice is tailor made for this kind of claim. Nobody in it for the money will walk away from 15% improvement in ANYTHING. If they do, they won't be in business long.

 

[IBallEngineer]

I love this forum!

 

[1985taylor1925]

I don't know anything about this discussion, but Ive stated this before on the forum and its still true. I just add a bit unicorn urine with each refill, and I get 60mpg.

 

[98OzarksRunner]

I don't know anything about this discussion, but Ive stated this before on the forum and its still true. I just add a bit unicorn urine with each refill, and I get 60mpg.

The hard part for me has been finding the unicorns. I'm guessing the automakers are having the same problem (must be that big oil has bought them all and is hiding them to keep profits up).

 

[Ed_C]

Anyone try NNO (dinitrogen monoxide) as a power adder? Definite horsepower gains,but most states require a permit to transport it. Depending on the desired power gains you may need to plumb gasoline into the NNO system to act as an oxidizer. I've installed quite a few but not on a 4Runner yet.

 

[Nelsonmd]

Anyone try NNO (dinitrogen monoxide) as a power adder? Definite horsepower gains,but most states require a permit to transport it. Depending on the desired power gains you may need to plumb gasoline into the NNO system to act as an oxidizer. I've installed quite a few but not on a 4Runner yet.

That's just nitrous. That is a different animal than HHO. HHO systems, when produced on board, provide a minuscule amount of oxygen, and the free hydrogen then combusts with the oxygen to turn back into H2O (thus robbing those oxygens from the gasoline). N2O breaks down into N2 and O2 and provides significant quantities of additional oxygen, allowing a higher percentage for the HC's in the gasoline to combust. IIRC from my physics classes many years ago, the triple bond of N2 is a shorter bond, and a lower energy state than when it's bonded with oxygen, so it's preferred, which means the O2's remain free to combust with the gasoline.

You dont' need to pump the gas into the N2O system, you can mix in the intake, or you can direct inject the N2O. There might be different efficiencies by injection method, but I'm not sure what they are.

The main difference between the 2 in how they affect HP is that HHO is a gas that when it combusts, turns into water, which is FAR more dense than the HHO gas you started with, so it will not make a positive contribution to expansion. In fact if you injected LOTS of HHO, it would counteract the expansion of the combusted HC's and hurt HP. N2O is more dense than N2, so you end up with a net expansion, which support driving the piston, though it is miniscule. The real aid to expansion is the additional O2 combusting with more HC's.

On top of that, N2O doesn't really improve efficiency in the grand scheme of things. It takes energy to produce the N2O gas, and you basically take that energy and put it into the vehicle, same as for the gasoline, so it's kind of like a supplemental fuel, except that it is just providing oxygen.

 

[Ed_C]

That's just nitrous. That is a different animal than HHO. HHO systems, when produced on board, provide a minuscule amount of oxygen, and the free hydrogen then combusts with the oxygen to turn back into H2O (thus robbing those oxygens from the gasoline). N2O breaks down into N2 and O2 and provides significant quantities of additional oxygen, allowing a higher percentage for the HC's in the gasoline to combust. IIRC from my physics classes many years ago, the triple bond of N2 is a shorter bond, and a lower energy state than when it's bonded with oxygen, so it's preferred, which means the O2's remain free to combust with the gasoline.

You dont' need to pump the gas into the N2O system, you can mix in the intake, or you can direct inject the N2O. There might be different efficiencies by injection method, but I'm not sure what they are.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to realize I'm talking about nitrous oxide but I wasn't expecting a science lesson LOL

And yes,you do have to plumb fuel in some setups,I really have installed nitrous oxide systems. Wet/direct-port systems inject a mix of fuel and nitrous through nozzles,while dry systems inject only nitrous and rely on fueling via mechanical means (increasing fuel pressure by pressurizing the vacuum reference port) or electronic (increase injector pulsewidth). http://documents.holley.com/techlibrary_nos_system_types.pdf

 

[csp]

HHO and the debate surrounding it has been around for quite a while now. If it truly delivered the returns that many claimed it would, the debate would be over by now.

 

[MyHigh]

I come to the conclusion
That all of you stayed at a holiday in express last night!:banana:

I wish I could add something of value, but I never heard of the HHO method before, in theory it sounds very cool.

 

[Robb235]

The only way something like this could work is if you had an outside energy source, like a massive solar panel on top of your rig or something, that powered the HHO machine, instead of your alternator (which draws its energy from the engine).

I think the top-of-the-line HHO machines advertise being able to produce 10 liters per minute, or something in that range? If HHO did somehow magically work without any inefficiencies, consider that at cruise your 4Runner can easily consume 80 cubic feet of air per minute, or about 2,300 liters of air. The HHO makes up less than 0.5% of the intake charge...

 

[Nelsonmd]

The only way something like this could work is if you had an outside energy source, like a massive solar panel on top of your rig or something, that powered the HHO machine, instead of your alternator (which draws its energy from the engine).

I think the top-of-the-line HHO machines advertise being able to produce 10 liters per minute, or something in that range? If HHO did somehow magically work without any inefficiencies, consider that at cruise your 4Runner can easily consume 80 cubic feet of air per minute, or about 2,300 liters of air. The HHO makes up less than 0.5% of the intake charge...

Ain't numbers fun? I think you are being conservative too at cruising RPM's, I think the consumption rate is much higher than that. On-board electrolysis is just several orders of magnitude insufficient.

Also, to get any gains from HHO, you'd have to remove the hydrogen to prevent it from combusting back into water, thus taking back all the oxygen it provided.

 

[Nelsonmd]

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to realize I'm talking about nitrous oxide but I wasn't expecting a science lesson LOL

And yes,you do have to plumb fuel in some setups,I really have installed nitrous oxide systems. Wet/direct-port systems inject a mix of fuel and nitrous through nozzles,while dry systems inject only nitrous and rely on fueling via mechanical means (increasing fuel pressure by pressurizing the vacuum reference port) or electronic (increase injector pulsewidth). http://documents.holley.com/techlibrary_nos_system_types.pdf

So I didn't click this link til now, but after reading it, we were saying the same thing (I didn't phrase it very completely). There are of course multiple way you can combine the gasses, and some of them will do a better job of homogeneously mixing the 2 to get a more even distribution of the HC's and the O2's they love so much, which will change the efficiency you get. And of course you then have additional parameters that the ECU has to keep track of in order to keep the reaction stoichiometric.

Also, I re-read my original post and I kind of mis-spoke by saying that the gasoline can' take advantage of additional O2's. It can under the assumption that not all the HC's are combusted (they aren't in real life), and that the O2's aren't taken up by any H2's combusting (like they will be if you just inject HHO and light it)

For anyone wanting to play with HHO despite its complete impotence in an automotive application, one of my favorite chem demo's we did was to split water, bubble the H2 up through soapy water to make H2 bubbles, then hold the bubble in your hand and light it. It pops real loud, and as long as you don't enclose the gas in your hand, it won't blow your hand off. Lots of fun!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d49TzVF1gmY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8okYjpVU2tQ