Thanks Oznog.. This is your own opinion. I am not yet convinced about HHO myself that is why I want to give it a fair go before I give up and call it a scam
Well, if you mess with the computer, you MAY well see a marginal gain, thus appearing to be evidence HHO "works". But you won't be able to see what it's doing to your engine and emissions. And it has nothing really to do with the introduction of HHO.
From what I have understood.. the amount of energy extracted from the hydrogen will be less than the energy from the alternator and therefore drag on the engine than what it took to create it. However it is supposed to create a better and faster burn of the fuel in the cylinder by acting as a catalyst. This uses up more of the unburnt fuel to create power and produce less wasted energy such as heat that dissipates in the engine. If the efficiency of the normal ICE cycle is at best 20% then the hydrogen catalyst only needs to increase that by 2% to get an overall 10% gain in economy.
Which is unfortunately rubbish. Lemme explain.
Fuel burn does not need to be "faster". In fact, a primary concern of a piston engine is ensuring combustion is SLOW enough. If fuel combusts too quickly, it's explosive and this is called
detonation or
knocking. It provides little or no additional energy but it's extremely stressful on pistons and valves. The WHOLE reason for octane is to actually ensure a slow, controlled combustion flame front. In higher compression engines, that's a major problem, so they
need high octane to slow the burn.
There's not a lot of unburned fuel at the end of the cycle in a properly working engine. AFAIK this is not a major loss to begin with. The figure of an ICE being only 20% efficient is irrelevant because the hypothesis is only about improving on unburned fuel, and unburned fuel should not be such a huge part of the loss.
This is the mainstream brute force method of creating hydrogen..If you want to get into some freaky stuff then you can "supposedly" generate up to 100Ltrs of hho/min using resonance with the hex controller board. This will allow you to run the car without any fuel at all.. Google D9.pdf
Impossible. There is plenty of industrial work on creating hydrogen. There is no "resonance" to the process and "pulsing" does nothing but generally reduce the efficiency. They're total fiction. It's impossible to make more H2 and O2 than the energy you put into it! Nor is there any magic catalyst which can make energy out>energy in.
Production of H2 and O2 can be massively effective when using platinum electrodes and very strong potassium hydroxide electrolyte (this will eat your skin off, and unfortunately amateurs have appalling poor safety practices)- and adding distilled H2O, because minerals in tap water (even "filtered") will build up and quickly poison it. However, won't change the energy out<energy in rule.
There IS actually one exception, and that's that electrolyzing water into H2 and O2, as electrolyte temp is increased, will actually use thermal energy- heat- as part of the energy. Thus it IS possible that the potential energy of H2 and O2 can be somewhat greater than the
electrical energy put in,
if the solution is kept heated by an external source, like the catalytic converter, which is "wasted" anyways! It's free energy! Yes, but don't get too crazy about it. Because the amount of energy recovered from heat this way is not large, the temp must be quite high- so high it requires remarkable materials, the vessel must be highly pressurized so the electrolyte doesn't boil, and there's a technical problem of H2 and O2 spontaneously recombining into H2O in the solution as temps increase. Then the fact remains that burning H2 and O2 in an engine only returns like 20% of the energy put into it anyways. So even if you were to get a 200% electrical efficiency: 1000W of electricity, 1000W of heat to make 2KW of energy stored in H2 and O2 you'd only get 400W of extra shaft HP, for a net
loss of 600W.
Unless you're gonna rely on the theory of hydrogen being some sort of aid to improve combustion- which has never been scientifically justified that I've seen. And, since it would be a very scientifically observable effect and the world is full of chemical engineers who deal in combustion, it SHOULD have readily available technical papers on that effect. If it were real.
If a peer-reviewed paper shows up, I'll readily believe it for what it says. If you've got a link to a technical paper, I'd love to read it. But the anecdotal claims (and amateur-made charts) are worthless- people claim their fuel increased to 100mpg by "magnetizing" the fuel, or use a "spinner" on the intake air- few believe that. But claim it increases by 10% or 20% and people WILL believe it. And people will claim they did it.
BTW, I did try adding the prescribed amount of acetone to my fuel once in my '87 van. Didn't improve the mpg that I could see, but it failed emissions. Ran that tank out, did some minor maintenance (air filter, spark plug wires) which probably wouldn't affect the emissions, but anyhow, took it back when the acetone got flushed out it passed just fine!
