Just finished the install; here's the kit:

http://i33.tinypic.com/317a5iv.jpg



They did change the kit up a touch, I got a different/better bottle:
http://i37.tinypic.com/2a0mcr4.jpg


Here's the bottle installed:
http://i37.tinypic.com/2wd0h7o.jpg



AND here's the pic of my mileage!
http://i35.tinypic.com/29xugrm.jpg

Next month I'm installing my DEI kit... It's not here yet... ordered it about a month ago. I guess they are waiting on parts; I got an e-mail that said they'll contact me in 1-3 months or so when they finished building my kit. I haven't heard from them yet... E-mailed them about 8 or 9 times, no response... I'm pretty sure they've just been busy building my kit!! I'm excited; it'll totally be worth the $4200 (well, $4195.95). Supposed to give me 30% more mileage and 40% more power!!! Anyway, they sent me a sketch of the system:

http://i33.tinypic.com/10pynh0.jpg

I'm broke right now, but the next thing I getting is a new Coil In Plug set-up... There was a link on the website I got the DEI kit from to a company that makes Coil In Plug systems; supposed to be WAY better than Coil On Plug because it's all one unit. Costs about $100 per plug/coil, but they promised a 45HP gain. So I think it's a fair price!

Lmao!

im lost lol

hahaha!! I remember that DEI thing from awhile back with that 'vette owner lol
I have a friend of mine that is about to do the HHO thing...but for some reason he only has a fraction of the stuff you have..
I have no clue about this stuff

Now that was funny. :D

but it's not April 1st yet :D

I am waiting for my internal port and polish kit. The one you can use while the engine is running. Suppose nto bring out 50 - 75 more HP.

AWESOME!!! I thought about getting that too... but I don't know; I think I'm pushing my luck for what my internals can handle....

The HHO also gave me an additional 100HP; bringing me to about 365RWHP; plus the 40% from the DEI, that's 511 HP plus my 45 I'll get with my coil in plug system... 556 HP at the wheels... I'd be afraid to drive it with the extra 60HP I'd get from the internal P&P. I mean I'll already be able to beat the guy down the street with the brand new Z06 and there's this other guy with a Porsche Carrera GT that is just begging for a whoopin. I just don't want to push my luck.

I might get some better handling with a couple Ferrari and Koni stickers though.

I think with all that HP, you are going to need a big a$$ rear wing on that thing to keep the rear wheels on the pavement.

OH SHYT thats the 2008 edition.. the measuring spoon alone is worth $350

I had to laugh at myself.. At first I thought it was a joke, then I started thinking you were serious when I saw the second post with your "improved bottle" . LOL

:-)

Just wanted to give people a few laughs!

The first time I loaded this page the pictures didn't show so all I could do was read what you typed. I really thought you were a friggin' idiot for a minute there, but then I refreshed the page and was able to see the pictures! Good one! LOL :D

Gave me a laugh. I was wondering if it was serious too until I saw the "direct exhaust injection."

took me along time to figure this post out, but its funny as hell

:slam boy.....do i ever feel stupid. I thought you were serious.
lol now I'm laughing at myself! lol

:-)

Just wanted to give people a few laughs!

Mission accomplished... :) We need threads like this to balance out the :q:q:q:q in that pops up in some of the others.

All puns aside true hydrogen assist systems do work, got a guy here locally that designed his own, hes averaging about 29mpg on an 05 f150 4.6, few inherent problems tho, first and foremost when hydrogen burns it creats large amounts of oxygen, which the o2's then precieve as a lean condition and richen fuel trims lol so all aside the factory pcm has bumped fuel trims to like 24%, even so hes still gettin substantially better fuel economy, just seems like a lot of work for a little, and potentially dangerous to the engine, OO and if there is an arc inside that electrolizer good luck haha hes had three explode and wipe the entire front clip off his truck

My DEI system is amazing. I'm getting at least 500 horses to the rear end with it. Not to mention the amazing gas savings. 50mpg is nothing. I can get that mileage at the track with my setup. I really think the vortex fuel saver and gas magnet are what put my setup over the top.

All puns aside true hydrogen assist systems do work, got a guy here locally that designed his own, hes averaging about 29mpg on an 05 f150 4.6, few inherent problems tho, first and foremost when hydrogen burns it creats large amounts of oxygen, which the o2's then precieve as a lean condition and richen fuel trims lol so all aside the factory pcm has bumped fuel trims to like 24%, even so hes still gettin substantially better fuel economy, just seems like a lot of work for a little, and potentially dangerous to the engine, OO and if there is an arc inside that electrolizer good luck haha hes had three explode and wipe the entire front clip off his truck

i hope you're talking about an external supply of hydrogen and not generated by engine power.

yes of course, well technically its generated from water via electrolisis (spelling) sorry too early in the morning, so technically its from the charging system and ultimatley the engine power lol most existing systems pull more hp from the charging system drag than they relieve in fuel economy but there are a seldom few that are in the green

yes of course, well technically its generated from water via electrolisis (spelling) sorry too early in the morning, so technically its from the charging system and ultimatley the engine power lol most existing systems pull more hp from the charging system drag than they relieve in fuel economy but there are a seldom few that are in the green

sigh.... not again...

It is physically impossible to create energy. The only way hydrogen assisted vehicles can work is if the hydrogen comes from another source of energy besides the engine's (solar, hydrogen stored in tank, etc.). Simply put, you cant expect to break water apart, then get more energy from putting it back together.

Sorry, but since this is my thread, I'll chime in...

There has been absolutely zero evidence that on-board hydrogen production systems work; the energy used to produce the hydrogen is less than what the hydrogen is capable of producing (hydrogen actually has a relatively low capability of energy production). In other words if it were to work, you'd have built a machine that produces matter; impossible.

All evidence points to the mileage gains from a key part of these "kits"; the part which modifies the signal from the O2 sensors. It forces your engine into a lean condition, there by using less fuel. At the same time, causing excess heat, wear and the possibility of detonation.

Think about this for a minute; the contention that having an HHO system installed would push excess oxygen into the exhaust system, there by requiring the need to trim out your O2 sensors is absolutely ridiculous. Water is made up of two molecules of hydrogen, one molecule of oxygen. If you split the two, you'll either make a gas containing two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen... or a gas containing one part hydrogen and one part hydrogen-monoxide (HO). Either way, you're producing a combination which provides two molecules of catalyst for every molecule of oxidizer; to create the reaction that is flame, you generally require much more oxidizer (READ, oxygen) than you do the catalyst.

Most people know that IC engines biggest challenge is getting enough oxygen; not getting enough fuel. So there for, the idea that "excess" oxygen can be found in the exhaust... because it isn't "needed" is totally ludicrous (also, this would mean the engine is running lean). This argument, and the fix for it would be to add more fuel so the oxygen is burned and the lean condition is fixed. If you're adding more fuel to prevent a lean-out condition (which would be required if you're pushing large amounts of oxygen out the exhaust)... you surely are not making your engine more efficient. You would be creating more power, but that's about it.

Think about it like this... NO2... which everyone loves... uses one molecule of nitrogen (an inert gas) and two molecules of oxygen... if you can run NO2 in your engine and not have "excess" oxygen when tuned correctly... how in the world do you explain pumping one less molecule of oxygen but two additional molecules of hydrogen (a catalyst... NOT inert) in place of a molecule of inert gas and suddenly now you have "excess" oxygen?

The answer to all of this is... HHO is a huge load of BS; The O2 sensors are NOT seeing excess oxygen and being adjusted to counter that... rather, they are being adjusted to see a fuel rich condition (which does not really exist), there by cutting back the fuel curves and resulting in a fuel savings. Plain and simple, on board hydrogen production systems DO NOT work; the amount of hydrogen they produce is minuscule and doesn't effect anything.


And lastly... If these systems worked, wouldn't someone reputable be producing them, with purpose built, professionally made parts instead of mason jars, tin cans and compressed air filters normally seen in a shop's air system? Lets not even mention how sales would increase exponentially for a manufacture who's truck was capable of 40mpg from the factory.

If it sounds too good to be true; it is.

Damn... and I just found that there's an updated DEI kit available!!

http://i36.tinypic.com/54g5sj.jpg

sigh.... not again...

It is physically impossible to create energy. The only way hydrogen assisted vehicles can work is if the hydrogen comes from another source of energy besides the engine's (solar, hydrogen stored in tank, etc.). Simply put, you cant expect to break water apart, then get more energy from putting it back together.



Oh you guys need to go back to science class. The HHO systems that people talk about do not claim to create energy. The claim is that Hydrogen is "unlocked" in molecular form from H2O molecules which is totally possible from a scientific standpoint. It is called catalyst for a reason. Use a smaller amount of energy to start a chain reaction that in turn releases a larger amount of energy that was otherwise locked up in molecular form. Ahem, take a look at how nuclear warheads work sometime. I am not saying whether these HHO systems work or not but your reasoning for rebuttal is WAY off. From a purely scientific standpoint HHO systems theoretically make sense. You are also flawed in the thinking that you cannot break a molecule apart and make power and then reassemble something similar to it in another completely separate reaction and generate power also. Look at the basis for nuclear fission and then look at nuclear fusion... Very similar concept. Fission unlocks allot of power and fusion unlocks even more.

Guys it totally cool if you want to debate this stuff till the cows come home but please at least have a general understanding of the science behind it when telling others they are wrong. Many people only half-slept through science class in high school and tend to misinterpret the wording behind some of the common "laws" of it.

Nate you are mistaken in a few items you mentioned also. I am sorry to tell you guys but unless you have a very full understanding of how custom tuning works it is kind of hard for you to debate how the tuning is affected by extra Hydrogen being injected into the system. What most average users view as hard law when it comes to tuning is not that black and white once you have a full understanding of it.

One other thing you guys may want to remember when discussing the Oxygen versus Hydrogen is that they are TOTALLY different. Huge difference because they are on two totally separate sides of the fire triangle. Oxygen is an oxidizer whereas Hydrogen is a fuel. Nitrous oxide is on the same side of the fire triangle (oxidizer) as oxygen. Hydrogen is on the same side of the fire triangle (fuel) as gasoline. When extra oxygen (or other oxidizer) is introduced into an otherwise stoich IC environment then AFR's will drift more lean (above 1.0 Lambda) unless otherwise actively corrected. When extra Hydrogen (or other fuel) is introduced into an otherwise stoich IC environment then AFR's will drift rich (below 1.0 Lambda) unless otherwise actively corrected. This CAN and has been tuned out through custom tuning so that stoich is achieved again even when in closed loop fueling mode (part throttle...fueling data pulled from O2's). It is a much different approach to performance WOT tuning because you are only seeking stoich and dealing with only part throttle AFR's but the tuning is there if you know how to do it.

I know some of you guys will not like the idea of someone like myself telling you that you can only truly understand how and why this stuff can or cannot work unless you are a custom tuner. It would appear at first glance that I am trying to be some sort of know-it-all. That is not the case here. I just want to make it clear that most average joes that are debating this stuff do not have anywhere near the scientific background or tuning background to be properly armed to debate this stuff with any sort of accuracy. Good luck with everything but you guys will probably be chasing your tails without even realizing it.

Oh you guys need to go back to science class. The HHO systems that people talk about do not claim to create energy. The claim is that Hydrogen is "unlocked" in molecular form from H2O molecules which is totally possible from a scientific standpoint. It is called catalyst for a reason. Use a smaller amount of energy to start a chain reaction that in turn releases a larger amount of energy that was otherwise locked up in molecular form. I am not saying whether these HHO systems work or not but your reasoning for rebuttal is WAY off. From a purely scientific standpoint HHO systems theoretically make sense. You are also flawed in the thinking that you cannot break a molecule apart and make power and then reassemble something similar to it in another completely separate reaction and generate power also. Look at the basis for nuclear fission and then look at nuclear fusion... Very similar concept. Fission unlocks allot of power and fusion unlocks even more.

Guys it totally cool if you want to debate this stuff till the cows come home but please at least have a general understanding of the science behind it when telling others they are wrong. Many people only half-slept through science class in high school and tend to misinterpret the wording behind some of the common "laws" of it.

Im sorry ILLS, you know more about tuning cars and racing than i ever will but i know what im talking about. We are not talking about fission or fusion, we're talking about combustion. The reaction goes something like this:

2 H20 --> 2 H2 + 02 --> 2 H20

You get the same amount of product as there is reactant. No energy is created, no energy is destroyed. In this reaction, the energy required to break apart H20 is returned when the hydrogen is combusted. The heat of enthalpy must be conserved. Thus, engines being somewhat inefficient (energy lost as heat), it actually will use more energy to introduce hydrogen into the combustion system.

You are correct in your fission/fusion statement, however this is not free energy. In the case of fission (think nuclear power) energy is released when a element is broken down into other elements. However, the products do not return to the reactants (because the products are more stable) so no energy has to be returned.

Im not spouting this off because i have missed some highschool chemistry. Its from years of studying chemistry at MSU.

Okay... simple science...

To burn two volumes of hydrogen requires one volume of oxygen; the resulting byproduct... water. So, to burn water, you must use the same amount of energy which the components produce to separate the molecules. This means that unless your system is 100% efficient, right off the bat an HHO system is a loser; you continue you consume more energy in the electrolysis process than you will be able to produce. In simple terms, the science says in order to keep this HHO system running at peak production, you will require additional energy from the very supply you're trying to reduce consumption of: gasoline.

Now, due to the fact that splitting the molecules of water and then burning them produces... water... oxygen sensors shouldn't detect any change as a result of the introduction of H2O; there is no left over oxygen from the H2O. What kind of results this has on the fuel mapping of the tune, I don't know. But it would seem that your fuel mapping should be fine as-is since the added catalyst and oxidizer's actually cancel each other out.

It should be noted that Hydrogen contains a good deal more energy density than gasoline. However, the difference in the energy volume of gasoline and hydrogen is HUGE... and it's in gasoline's favor. What this means is a "gallon" of hydrogen has only around 350BTU's of energy in a standard atmospheric condition. A gallon of gasoline contains something on the order of 120,000BTU's per gallon. What this means is you would require MASSIVE volumes of hydrogen to make any significant change in the fuel consumption... and due to the inefficiency of the engine in extracting full use of energy contained in it's fuel mixed with the inefficiency of the alternator, resistance in the wires and belt drive, and the natural built in inefficiency of the electrolysis process... you would never be able to reach a state where the HHO system reduces fuel consumption.

If you're running a system that uses 30 amps at 14.5v DC (the typical output of an automotive alternator), and assuming this HHO system is actually a perpetual motion machine (All energy going in comes out: 100% efficient), that means your little device will produce an electrical energy equivalent of 435 watts of power in the form of hydrogen. 1HP=746watts... That means you're producing 3/5ths of a horsepower from your little cluster of junk. The average car requires 20HP to cruise at 65MPH... Assuming all is 100% efficient, you're producing about 3% of that requirement to cruise at 65MPH from the HHO system.

Now for the fun... since an IC engine is only about 30% efficient (I'll totally disregard the lack of efficiency in the belt drive, alternator, resistance in wiring and the electrolysis process itself)... you're now only really making about 1/5 of a HP from the hydrogen produced by the HHO system... OR 1% of the required HP to move that vehicle 65mph. The rest comes from gasoline... and lets not forget the diminishing returns due to the fact that you will consume more raw energy to produce hydrogen than the imperfect process will be capable of supplying.


I'm sure Chris has a much better understanding of all of this; these are just things I REMEMBERED from high school chemistry, and results from research. I stand by my previous statement that any gains from HHO systems are as a result of the modified O2 sensor signals leaning out the engine.

I should hope that you as a tuner is not advocating these kits and should know that sniping the wires to your O2 and tossing in a resistor is only asking for damage; in and of itself should be a reason to steer people away from these kits. I'm sure you know better than I do; installing a resister in-line with the O2's will give a constant reduction in signal in accordance with Ohm's law. This would be fine if you were introducing the exact same amount of hydrogen and oxygen into the engine every intake stroke; in this case, you'd have a finite formula in which proportions could be made to cancel each other out. But due to the fact that the HHO system will only produce a certain amount of hydrogen in a given time and as RPM's increase, the engine will see a smaller and smaller amount of hydrogen per intake stroke, they are trying to solve in infinitely variable problem with a finite solution.

Now, one last thing... Were you inducing a size-able amount of hydrogen and oxygen in a 2-to-1 ratio into the engine... I could very well see how the sensors could be a problem. The volume taken up by the mixture of hydrogen and oxygen you're introducing into the intake is less volume for normal air. Meaning, you're taking away from the available oxygen for the engine to use in burning the gasoline... because as said before, the hydrogen and oxygen you're adding will fully burn together. So in this manor, you would be dumping too much fuel and the sensors would see a fuel rich condition... But, again... as stated earlier... the amount of hydrogen and oxygen these system produces would not require any sort of tuning because they aren't producing enough product to make any real impact. Now for a hydrogen injection system using liquid or high pressure hydrogen... I fully understand the need to adjust the tune. But it's just not possible to produce any significant amount of hydrogen on-board.

good read:
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam.shtml

btw... just to clarify...
Nuclear Fission is the splitting of an atomic nucleus resulting in the release of large amounts of energy when a heavy nucleus is present...

Nuclear Fusion is the union of atomic nuclei to form heavier nuclei resulting in the release of enormous quantities of energy when certain light elements unite

A key thing to note here is that Fusion is the inverse to fission. Fission is splitting a single nucleus where fusion is uniting two or more "nucleuses" (nuclei is the correct plural word)... However, the weight of the nuclei involved determine weather one of the processes will absorb or produce energy. Meaning, in Fusion if X and Y creates energy... fission to split the resulting nucleus, it will absorb energy. Hence fourth the laws of matter still apply 100%; you aren't able to split a nucleus and get energy... then put it back together again... and get energy. Doesn't work like that.

Combustion on the other hand is rapid oxidation.


Fission and Fusion are simply the inverse of each other, not only in terms of splitting and uniting... but also in terms of energy production and energy absorption... combustion isn't even remotely related to the two as it is a chemical reaction where whole molecules are exchanged... in tact and unchanged... unlike the other two which are nuclear reactions happening at an atomic level creating massive changes to the elements involved.



Eric, if I'm off on any of this stuff... let me know; I'm just a trigger puller... not a scientist!

ILLS... I've got to get my digs in when I can... But it looks like you're the one that needs to go back to science class! :-P

I'm not going to argue semantics on this forum, there are too many people that immediatly shut down the possibility that something new works becuase their friend who might know someone who teches chemistry or electrical engineering at the local college says no, so basically I dont care what people say about hho systems, most of them are crap believe me, the system in question from my earlier post created by a customer of mine does yeild better fuel economy, its not "creating" matter or energy, its breaking down water into a burnable substance, that DISPLACES a small amount of fuel, true hydrogen doesnt produce near the energetic response that petrolium does, but it does off-set of air/fuel ratio enough to reduce the need for it - slightly, and so far this particular system is functioning as theorized, over the last 15 (20g) tanks of fuel his truck has averaged about 21-22 mpg, thus a raise from 14-15, its doing something, not much but something, and I assure you this particular system is Far more complex than those jank ass kits you see on ebay lol

and so far this particular system is functioning as theorized, over the last 15 (20g) tanks of fuel his truck has averaged about 21-22 mpg, thus a raise from 14-15, its doing something, not much but something, and I assure you this particular system is Far more complex than those jank ass kits you see on ebay lol


So let's do some quick math here....

15 (tanks) x 20 (gallons) x 22 (mpg) = 6,600 miles
15 (tanks) x 20 (gallons) x 15 (mpg) = 4,500 miles

Gas is cheaper right now but just for the sake of the discussion let's round it up to $3 per gallon.

15 (tanks) x 20 (gallons) x $3 = $900 spent on gasoline

$/mile with the "far more complex" HHO system = $0.13637 per mile driven
$/mile with the factory setup = $0.20 per mile driven

which represents a savings of $0.06364 per mile driven

How much did this "far more complex than those jank ass kits you see on ebay" cost? $200? $500? $1000? $2000
And how about maintenance? Do you to add anything to the "kit" other than just tap water?

Assuming that nothing but tap water is required for proper operation the "kit" will break even in 3,142mi (for a $200 investment), 7,856 mi ($500), 15,713mi ($1000), or 31,426mi ($2000).....

So how about it? How much did your boy's kit cost? does it require any additional purchases? Has he really saved anything yet?

These points are the same used in disuading people from buying the hybrid verision of the car they are interested in. The fuel savings relative to initial cost is not cost effective.

the kit cost him about 100 bucks to build, then again he has a fabrication facility so ya basically according to your math he would have saved roughly 300 bux over an oil change interval, which in his particular case is good for him, I never said that it was cost effective, which in this case it happens to be, bearly, I simply stated that this particular conglomeration of parts actually produces about 20-25% better fuel economy, and complex as it may be it was still manufactured with crap he had layin around his shop lol

its not "creating" matter or energy, its breaking down water into a burnable substance, that DISPLACES a small amount of fuel

please, tell me where the energy comes from to "break water down."

Also, i am not saying that hydrogen assisted systems cant help fuel economy. They can, with hydrogen generated from some external source. Im saying that you cant gain fuel efficiency by generating the hydrogen from the engines power. And please dont say it comes from "the extra energy generated by the alternator," there is no such thing and im sure you are smart enough to understand that.

O no I agree it takes energy to break down the water, usually quite a bit, however the electrolizers are getting more effecient, this particular system uses about 10 amps to run 8 cells, so ya it takes some to make some no doubt but the system is still comming out in the green for the time being, personally i think its a dead end technology but to each his own

do you understand that in a 100% efficient system, you can only get the same amount of energy out as you put in?

your absolutely correct, and to that note the energy transfer from the combustion process, into electrical energy from the charging system, and into a combustable product in this case hydrogen, is at a loss in this system thus in-efficient due to the reduced energy release of hydrogen compaired to gasoline however its manifesting itself differently, insted of directly off-setting any gain in fuel economy its resulting in my opinion in a loss of engine torque output more than likeley, even having said that its still producing roughly a 20% gain in fuel economy even though there is a loss in the system, true it is in-effecient but the result is the same, its displacing petrolium as a burnable fuel, now place the same system in a situation with set variables where the engine is at max torque output and it will be completley pointless but as it stands its functioning as its functioning, resulting in less petrolium fuel burned, even at a loss

anyway to clarify the garbled up mess of a post above this one, its not that the system isnt losing any energy, it is, but the energy that isnt lost and that it is transfering is being transformed into a burnable substance that isnt gasoline, hence, the vehicle probably does use more "fuel" but 100 of that fuel is no longer gasoline

true it is in-effecient but the result is the same, its displacing petrolium as a burnable fuel

yes you are right, the hydrogen is displacing gas, but it costs gas to make the hydrogen in the first place.

yes underneith it all it does take fuel to seperate hydrogen from water but the gasoline off-set, meaning the gasoline it takes to produce x amount of hydrogen is less than x amount of hydrogen displaces in fuel, so say, x = 100% of the liquid fuel volume required to run the vehicle, and the amount of x used to create the electrical system amperage to seperate water into hydrogen is 1% so now you have more than the origional amount of fuel x required to run the vehicle so in reality you have x+1 percent of fuel going into the chambers, well that 1% of fuel required to seperate the water yields H amount of hydrogen, so lets say volumetricly H is equal to roughly 10% of x, because hydrogen is a gas so your still x-9 in the green, because gas Per cc has a higher potential energy release than hydrogen, so assuming for :q:q:q:qs n grins that gasoline has 3 times the potential energy release of hydrogen meaning 1cc of gas = 3cc of hydrogen for the same chemical energy release 1% gas used = 3% hydrogen offered to burn, yielding the same energy release from the combustion event, yielding a 20% reduction in the amount of gasoline used, even though the combustion event is the same, and there is gasoline used, the vaporous hydrogen displaces more fuel volume than the liquid fuel.... or maybe it could be that the vaporous hydrogen displaces oxygen in the cylinders thus resulting in a rich condition, allowing the pcm to pull back fuel trims lol

Revolutionaryconcepts, I congratulate you. Your posts are even funnier than the original poster.

yes underneith it all it does take fuel to seperate hydrogen from water but the gasoline off-set, meaning the gasoline it takes to produce x amount of hydrogen is less than x amount of hydrogen displaces in fuel, so say, x = 100% of the liquid fuel volume required to run the vehicle, and the amount of x used to create the electrical system amperage to seperate water into hydrogen is 1% so now you have more than the origional amount of fuel x required to run the vehicle so in reality you have x+1 percent of fuel going into the chambers, well that 1% of fuel required to seperate the water yields H amount of hydrogen, so lets say volumetricly H is equal to roughly 10% of x, because hydrogen is a gas so your still x-9 in the green, because gas Per cc has a higher potential energy release than hydrogen, so assuming for :q:q:q:qs n grins that gasoline has 3 times the potential energy release of hydrogen meaning 1cc of gas = 3cc of hydrogen for the same chemical energy release 1% gas used = 3% hydrogen offered to burn, yielding the same energy release from the combustion event, yielding a 20% reduction in the amount of gasoline used, even though the combustion event is the same, and there is gasoline used, the vaporous hydrogen displaces more fuel volume than the liquid fuel.... or maybe it could be that the vaporous hydrogen displaces oxygen in the cylinders thus resulting in a rich condition, allowing the pcm to pull back fuel trims lol

Please enlighten me how what you are saying is not:
a. creating energy from nothing
b. the hydrogen is just causing the engine to run lean
c. 2H20 --> 2H2 + O2 --> 2H20 + energy

thank you

burning hydrogen doesnt make engines run lean, hydrogen is a fuel, if the air charge remains constant it will actually result in a rich condition, the o2 sensors are a different story, a byproduct of hydrogen being burned is oxygen which makes the 02 sensors read lean lol so its a downward spiral

energy is not being created in this system, energy from the combustion process is transfered into mechanical energy, at a huge loss btw, then into electrical energy, which changes the state of the water (potential energy thats been added to the equation) and then returns to the electrical system, hence the reason everything needs a ground, the stored energy that is released from the water is then burned, in the form of hydrogen, so basically your taking energy, using it to seperate water into h & o, and then returning it in the form of a fuel, that isnt gasoline.

a byproduct of hydrogen being burned is oxygen
untrue, oxygen is consumed in hydrogen combustion. See equation:
2H2 + O2 -->2H20

the stored energy that is released from the water is then burned, in the form of hydrogen

There is no "stored energy" in water. Water is extremely stable, thats why it takes so much energy to seperate it. Why do you think most of the surface of the planet is water? Any why there isnt much hydrogen in the atmosphere? Because water is more stable.

so basically your taking energy, using it to seperate water into h & o, and then returning it in the form of a fuel, that isnt gasoline.

So what your saying is: you take a certain amount of energy to break apart water into "h & o" and then burn it to make even more energy? This violates the first law of thermodynamics.

1W=3.4BTU
30Ah x 14.5V=435

3.4x435=1479BTU/hr

This means at 30Ah, being 100% efficient, you can make 1479BTU's worth of HHO gas in an hour. This is simple science and is undisputable.

1HP=746W
3.4 x 746=2536.4 BTU
2536.4 x 1.7=4311.88BTU

Here I'm converting the power output of an IC engine in HP to Watts, then from watts to BTU's. Because it is the output and engines are only about 30% efficient, I'm multiplying the output by 1.7 to determine approx BTU input.

1479 x 4311.88= 0.343

The above equation is stating that in one hour, if the electrolysis process were 100% efficient, a 30A cell would provide you with 0.343 HP in an hour of operation.

Hydrogen
270 BTU/cu.ft. @ 14 PSI or 1 BAR (atmosphere) @ 60 degrees F.
1 cu.ft. = 28.3L

270BTUs/28.3L= 9.54BTU/L


Because this is pure hydrogen and what we are seeing is 2:1 hydrogen/oxygen, we must decrease the BTU/L by 30%
9.54BTU/L x .7= 6.678 BTU/L HHO

1479BTU/hr of HHO /6.678= 221.74L of HHO produced at 100% efficiency in one hour from a 30Ah cell.


Now lets look at the air intake of a 4 cycle, 4L displacement IC engine running at 2500RPM:
4Lx2500/2=5000L/min
5000x60= 300,000L/hr

Now, lets examine how what percentage of air intake would be occupied by the HHO gas while the engine is running at 2500RPM:

221.74 HHO Lhr /300,000=0.000739 OR 0.074%.


NOW I'M NOT A TUNER, BUT THAT SEEMS AN INSIGNIFICANT CHANGE AS TO EFFECT THE READOUT FROM THE 02 SENSORS.

It should also be noted that since the HHO will burn itself, the volume it is occupying will actually decrease the volume available for air in the intake cycle. Were you inducing a large amount of HHO into the intake... lets say a full 10%, that would be 10% less oxygen available for the burning of gas.

Air is about 21% oxygen.

We'll say an engine takes in 10 cubic ft of air on it's intake stroke. 2.1 cubic foot will be oxygen available for combustion with the gasoline. If you introduce 1 cubic foot of the HHO mixture into the intake, that displaces 1 cubic foot of air. Because the HHO gas will burn itself, leaving neither oxygen or hydrogen left over for combustion, you are decreasing the available oxygen for use in combusting the gasoline by 10%... you now have available 1.89 cubic foot of oxygen available to burn the same amount of gasoline. In this situation, you have a resulting rich condition; there is not enough available oxygen to burn all of the fuel that the engine was tuned to use. Keep in mind this was extremely simplified.

End result, 0.074%... or 74 hundreths of a percent at 2500 RPM is not displacing enough oxygen in the intake to warrant any tuning. It's not even enough to give a noticeable mileage increase.

Revolution... I'm sorry to say it, but your arguments break so many rules of science that its crazy

First, oxygen is never a bi-product of combustion; combustion is rapid oxidation (you must have not read my previous post)... oxidation consumes oxygen... it doesn't release it! Were that the case, everyone would be setting fires so they could "clean the air"... resulting in oxygen instead of carbons, hydrocarbons and such.

You keep arguing that you're making water into fuel for the engine, then that fuel is make electricity to make more fuel... In the most basic of terms I can see how you're looking at this and not understanding what we are saying. What you seem to be missing is the fact of diminishing returns; the reason science says a perpetual motion machine is impossible is because there is always lost energy; no process is 100% efficient.

So, we'll start from the output of an electrolysis cell:
Say that cell puts out enough product to produce 10HP if an engine were 100% efficient...
Since it's really only 30% efficient, you produce 3HP...
If there were no loss in the process of converting that HP into product from your cell, you'll be putting 3HP worth of product into the engine. BUT... again... the engine is only 30% efficient... so now that product is giving 1HP... next time around, you'll get 1/3HP... and the cycle continues over and over and over.

That is called diminishing returns; you lose energy potential because the process isn't capable of converting without loss. Whatever you put into an engine, you only get 30% back out in the form of rotational power.

This is why it's impossible for these systems to truly work.

As I illustrated earlier... because of the very low output of these systems in comparison to the air intake requirements of an IC engine, there is zero need to alter the tune of the engine. So kits that come with something to change the signal of the oxygen sensors are showing a mileage gain simply through leaning out the fuel supply, which is dangerous.

An engine tuned to run on a percentage of hydrogen as it's fuel (or even all hydrogen), stored in either HP tanks or liquid hydrogen have shown positive results, but one would need to do a cost comparison between what the hydrogen would cost and what the extra gasoline would cost.

I should hope that you as a tuner is not advocating these kits and should know that sniping the wires to your O2 and tossing in a resistor is only asking for damage; in and of itself should be a reason to steer people away from these kits.


Did you ever read anything in my previous posts that resembled me advocating the use of the HHO systems or the other "ghetto" mods that some people do in hopes of seeking better MPG???

I will reply to the rest of your post later when I have more free time.

btw... just to clarify...
Nuclear Fission is the splitting of an atomic nucleus resulting in the release of large amounts of energy when a heavy nucleus is present...

Nuclear Fusion is the union of atomic nuclei to form heavier nuclei resulting in the release of enormous quantities of energy when certain light elements unite

A key thing to note here is that Fusion is the inverse to fission. Fission is splitting a single nucleus where fusion is uniting two or more "nucleuses" (nuclei is the correct plural word)... However, the weight of the nuclei involved determine weather one of the processes will absorb or produce energy. Meaning, in Fusion if X and Y creates energy... fission to split the resulting nucleus, it will absorb energy. Hence fourth the laws of matter still apply 100%; you aren't able to split a nucleus and get energy... then put it back together again... and get energy. Doesn't work like that.

Combustion on the other hand is rapid oxidation.


Fission and Fusion are simply the inverse of each other, not only in terms of splitting and uniting... but also in terms of energy production and energy absorption... combustion isn't even remotely related to the two as it is a chemical reaction where whole molecules are exchanged... in tact and unchanged... unlike the other two which are nuclear reactions happening at an atomic level creating massive changes to the elements involved.



Eric, if I'm off on any of this stuff... let me know; I'm just a trigger puller... not a scientist!

ILLS... I've got to get my digs in when I can... But it looks like you're the one that needs to go back to science class! :-P




Nate the concepts are similar enough to have made a comparison like I did. As for your explanation of fusion and fission...well tell us something we don't know. You are stating the obvious with your explanation of how they both work. I would hope that anyone seriously discussing this stuff would have enough of an understanding of that.

is not displacing enough oxygen in the intake to warrant any tuning. It's not even enough to give a noticeable mileage increase.



Until you have tested this in person then you are just guessing. I will tell you from personal experience looking at datalogs of another persons vehicle that a HHO system does indeed affect the AFR's and makes them read more rich at part throttle. Now I do not trust many other peoples personal vehicle testing because not many practice repeatable methods but the fella who did the testing and those logs is very methodical with his MPG testing. I can assure you that the AFR's can and have been richened a noticeable amount with JUST the addition of one of those HHO devices. I decided to give the guy a little tuning advice for how to tune a vehicle with the outside introduction of additional fuel when doing closed loop runs. After the retuning the AFR's layed back down at their new stoich (by volume) calculated by AFR offset. MPG's were gained even after recalibration. Threads like this interest me but at the same time bore me as well. It is nice to see people in a heated debate about something but after repeat sessions of "research on google, post on LVC" stuff it gets old. Anyone can do an internet search and yield information, whether accurate or not, on whatever they want. You guys keep plugging the keyboard and crunching the numbers.

Nate the concepts are similar enough to have made a comparison like I did. As for your explanation of fusion and fission...well tell us something we don't know. You are stating the obvious with your explanation of how they both work. I would hope that anyone seriously discussing this stuff would have enough of an understanding of that.

The reason I wrote that is in response to the quote below:

You are also flawed in the thinking that you cannot break a molecule apart and make power and then reassemble something similar to it in another completely separate reaction and generate power also. Look at the basis for nuclear fission and then look at nuclear fusion...

This is all good reading and all , but it is getting very hard to continue. I remeber a guy back in the early 70's that developed a way to make the gasoline into more of a gas thana liquid. with that he made 6 cyl Dodge get over 75 mpg. Rumor has it that the oil company's made him an offer he could not refide. Maybe urban legand, I don't know. I think I will do some more research and get back to you guys.

Until you have tested this in person then you are just guessing. I will tell you from personal experience looking at datalogs of another persons vehicle that a HHO system does indeed affect the AFR's and makes them read more rich at part throttle. Now I do not trust many other peoples personal vehicle testing because not many practice repeatable methods but the fella who did the testing and those logs is very methodical with his MPG testing. I can assure you that the AFR's can and have been richened a noticeable amount with JUST the addition of one of those HHO devices. I decided to give the guy a little tuning advice for how to tune a vehicle with the outside introduction of additional fuel when doing closed loop runs. After the retuning the AFR's layed back down at their new stoich (by volume) calculated by AFR offset. MPG's were gained even after recalibration. Threads like this interest me but at the same time bore me as well. It is nice to see people in a heated debate about something but after repeat sessions of "research on google, post on LVC" stuff it gets old. Anyone can do an internet search and yield information, whether accurate or not, on whatever they want. You guys keep plugging the keyboard and crunching the numbers.


Well, I can tell you that the math are facts; it's pure science, and typically it's best case numbers; real life would be less.

As far as the effect on the tune from 0.074% of the intake charge being the product of HHO (less at higher RPMs, more at lower); that was simply common sense speculation. If you say you've seen it change the A/F ratios, I guess I'll just have to take that for what it is.

That's a beautiful set up man. Great job!:shifty:

If HHO is so great why don't they do it at the factory?

The factory is now allowed to break the laws of physics (or emissions regulations).