HHO - The Real Story...

[marineprojectgroup]

HHO – The Real Story…

Looking for any input re my findings:

Over the last 3 months I have approached the HHO possibilities as seriously as I can.

My first attempt was July when I sent off a chunk of cash to Melvin Lee of Hydroxmobile, Malaysia for one of their complete kits. Melvin took my money and I have heard nothing since, Melvin does not respond to my subsequent enquiries and he appears to have gone out of business.

Okay, so once bitten, twice shy. Rather than be cheated again with another supplier, best I build my own system.

Since the above bad experience have spent approx $5000 on parts: $800 for two power supplies. $350 for two PWM’s, $400 to US Plastics for tanks, fittings, etc. $800 for sheets of 316L SS + Titanium and another $400 to have the plates and gaskets cut out on a waterjet cutter, $500 for Omega flowmeters, $400 for plastic sheets, plastic tube stock, $300 for chemicals, etc, etc. Everytime I bought something it seemed to be another $400…

This is my first test rig:

6x6 inch 316L SS 7 plate Electrolyser. 1/8 inch thick neoprene gaskets with border 3/16 inch wide making the plate surface area approx 30 sq inches. End covers are 8x8 inch ½ inch thick acrylic. Plates were scoured with 60 grit sandpaper then cleaned with Acetone and handled with medical gloves during assembly. Completed Electrolyser was flushed with 10% by wt Acetic Acid at 65C with a small electric pump for 1 hour. Drained and flushed several times with hot distilled water. Wire ring terminations soldered with heat shrink over, 10AWG, and ring terminations bolted to corner of active plates.

Electrolytic is 10% by wt KOH Flakes in distilled water. The KOH flakes were measured with an $80 electronic scale and accuracy of the scale was confirmed with a precision 100g wt that cost me another $22. After running the cell for 8 hrs, no sign of discolouration or contaminants, the electrolytic remains perfectly white cloudy.

Cell output: After an 8 hour break in the cell stabilized 13.8VDC @ 22amps producing 1.13LPM HHO. Both volts and amps were confirmed with two different meters. I tried the PWM but found that for example at 50% duty cycle the LPM dropped to 35%. Hence the PWM actually made the cell LESS efficient by a wide margin. Varying the frequency 0 to 4000hz had no effect positive or negative on cell LPM output. I discontinued the use of the PWM for the following tests and ran the cell direct from the power supply.

Cell flowrate measurements: The $500 spent on the fancy Omega flowmeter set was useless as I mistakenly bought them calibrated for air. Hydrogen is 14.37 times lighter than air. The Omega flowmeters cannot be used except with a fancy correction calculation so I did not use them in favour of simplicity and to avoid possible calculation errors.
To solve this problem, I fabricated a bubble flowmeter from a 2L graduated measure beaker. The bubble flowmeter works great and is so simple and foolproof. I am confident my flow rate measurements are perfect.

Test Engine:
Onan Diesel Gnerator. 7.5KW / 16.5HP / 70 cu inch (1.147 cu Liter) Displ / Comp Ratio 19:1 / RPM 1800 / Combustion air 31 CFM (878 LPM) Natural Aspiration.

Load was at 500w and 4500w. This is almost no load and a little better than 50% load for simulated real world situations. Load was 500 watt electric lights to ensure consistency as for example if I used a heater then the heater would cycle on/off creating inconsistent loads. HHO injected directly into the intake hole. No air cleaner was fitted. I am absolutely certain the HHO was going into the intake.

Onan Generator Fuel consumption Rate method: This was determined by a 1.5 inch diameter graduated beaker with the fuel injector return going back into the beaker. With this method exact fuel consumption was measured to millilitre accuracy. All external forces example wind resistance to the car driving, uphill/downhill, traffic, oxygen sensor, heavy/easy foot on the accelerator, injection timing, etc all this is not relevant to this method of testing.

Results:

Time Hr:Mins With HHO 2:43 Without HHO 2:39 Diesel Consumption Results +2.5%
Time Hr:Mins With HHO 9:11 Without HHO 9:25 Diesel Consumption Results -2.4%
Time Hr:Mins With HHO 2:39 Without HHO 2:39 Diesel Consumption Results 0%

Above shows the greatest variation with an average of 0%. All other results consistent with above, depending on load.

Conclusion: Best I saw after my best efforts was a 2.5% decrease in fuel consumption with HHO. This is far from the 50% or more decrease you all are claiming.

I really want to make this work and I have invested a considerable sum in this endeavour.

Before I debunk the entire HHO industry –

Any suggestions as to what I am doing wrong ? Where is this 50% increase ?

Christopher Chapman
info@marineprojectgroup.com

[hhoconnection]

I have not played with a generator, but one question that comes to mind... is there any way of leaning out the fuel mixture on this generator? Lean out the fuel and compensate by adding the HHO (while monitoring exhaust temps of course). If the generator has a set amount of fuel being injected (like jets on a carburetor) then adding HHO would only show minimal gains if any at all. The only way to reduce the fuel consumed is to feed it less fuel. The HHO just helps that lesser amount of fuel burn more efficiently.

It really ticks me off that you got burned by HHO scammers. I'm very sorry to hear that. HHO has potential, it is just a lot more hassle than most vendors will lead you to believe. Please keep at it, I'm sure that with the help of the people on this forum, you will see positive results.

Thanks for sharing!

[marineprojectgroup]

Many thanks HHO Connection for your suggestion re leaning out the mixture. Regret this is diesel, the fuel injector pump is set and I cannot change it. I would assume perhaps assuming incorrectly that the mechanical govenor would cut back automatically to reduce the fuel rack flow rate when HHO is injected in.

Many thanks for your suggestion re leaning out the mixture. Pls do not take offense, but I have this sinking feeling in my gut that the fuel gains you all have been claiming is not due to Hydrogen at all but is soley the result of leaning out the fuel mixture on your carb or modifying the injection timing with the EEFI. All great ideas with measureable results but these have nothing to do with HHO.

Regret again, I fail to see how one can accurately determine MPG by just driving around as wind, how many passengers (weight) in the vehicle, subliminal attributes example how heavy/light one is on the gas pedal etc etc would all have a huge effect on consumption.

As all lab type fellows know, in order to determine effects one must change only one variable at a time.

The best way I see to accurately and definitively determine fuel consumption is with a static test with constant known load like I did.

My tests show HHO has zero effect in what I have tried to be a logical and controlled series of tests.

My tests show PWM frequency in the range of 1 to 4000hz has zero effect on HHO output. My tests show PWM duty cycle has no positive and significant negative effects on HHO output.

Last point - On this little Diesel Generator, the combustion air required according to makers specs is 878LPM. I am injecting only 1.13 LPM of HHO which means 2/3 = 0.75 LPM hydrogen = ratio of air to hydrogen of 1 to 1170. I find it hard to beleive this tiny ratio of hydrogen could possibly have any effect overall on the Diesel Generator performance. Perhaps I need to drastically increase the Hydrogen LPM ?

Pls anyone tell me how I have gone wrong here and I am most eager to try your suggestion to find some way to make this work.

Thank you,

C.B. Chapman

[BioFarmer93]

Chris,
We are not "all" claiming a 50% reduction in in fuel use. Actually, I don't know of anyone on this board that has ever made a claim like that.
Some of the things you did wrong:
1. Went offshore for your reactor- but you learned, so won't rub it in.
2. Spent WAY too much money- don't need an $800 sheet of SS for 7 plates.
3. 7 plates makes 6 cells, 8 plates makes 7 cells- what you need for 13.8V.
4. Didn't media blast your plates, sanding doesn't create 1/10th the area.
5. mixed your electrolyte WAY too weak, should be 28% by weight.

Given the combination of these factors, I imagine that a good part of your production was actually steam/water vapor. Did you measure any temperatures in all of this? Weak electrolyte raises resistance/temps and lowers production. There are other things like injection timing- which may or may not be adjustable on the Onan. If it was advanced a little to begin with, it would be too far advanced with the supplementation of HHO and actually be working against you. -Which brings to mind the question of why did your fuel usage actually go UP on that second run? Something changed in your setup, whether you were aware of it or not.

-And a final comment- I'm sorry you didn't see the results you thought you should see, a lot of people don't simply because this stuff is not plug and play. There are a lot of factors involved that are not immediately obvious, and with diesels the timing and fuel delivery rate are fairly critical. Personally, I went from 12mpg to 16mpg on an old 7.3 idi International diesel. Check out Mars1952 on Youtube, he got significant increases on a much newer 7.3 Powerstroke diesel. I know of several people who have received excellent gains on their diesels. Yes, I know you've spent a lot of money, and you're probably aggravated about that -but, poor test results from your rig won't go too far "debunking" the entire HHO industry. We are not an industry, we are individuals and we have had successes, and that IS "HHO, the real story". Unless you are prepared to call every one of us individuals a liar, I would say you might ought to wade in slowly on that one...;):cool:

[myoldyourgold]

This is a classic case of someone expecting to get results without understanding the whole picture. This would take a numerous page book to explain it all and by someone with a lot more knowledge (LOL) so I will just cover a few points. For the amount of money you unnecessarily spent you could have gotten some really trick equipment to help you get some results. Do not feel bad you are not alone. We all learn from experience though. Thanks for sharing yours.


I have this sinking feeling in my gut that the fuel gains you all have been claiming is not due to Hydrogen at all but is soley the result of leaning out the fuel mixture on your carb or modifying the injection timing with the EEFI. All great ideas with measureable results but these have nothing to do with HHO.

If this was the case people would just be using EFIE's and get the same gains. Not possible. An EGT gauge would put this to rest. With HHO and a leaner mixture temperatures stay the same or go down when done right. There are cases where there is a slight increase in temperatures but still well within the safe range and does not effect the ECU. Without HHO and a lean mixture temperatures go up. The increased temperature will cause the ECU controlled system to go richer to help cool.

If you are just going to inject HHO, have no control of the timing, or fuel delivery, you will have to hit exactly the right amount of HHO to see much of any gain at all, but will require an efficient reactor. Max will be about 10% if you do hit the right amount.

On your small diesel you are using slightly more than 303 watts to make 1.13 lpm. A really efficient reactor makes 1 lpm in the range of 130 to 175 watts. You are using way to much energy to expect any gains on that engine.

I would suggest you do a lot more research to get the reactor more efficient and then find out what other things you can do with that engine that will complement the HHO. It is not going to be easy with that engine but not impossible. I doubt it is the amount of HHO but the inefficiency that is holding you back.

[marineprojectgroup]

Update:

I increased the KOH to 25% by wt as advised by myoldyourgold and decreased the voltage to 12Volts as per advice from Biofarmer93.

Electrolyser now running 23 amp @ 12Volt producing 1.36 LPM.
Works out to 203 watts per liter or 4.93MMW.

Ran the Onan Diesel Generator again all day.

The results are amazingly consistent on 6 different runs throughout the day.

All runs show NO EFFECT if HHO was on or not.

Again, The purpose of this exercise was to determine if HHO works or not.
This generator has no electronics, and no modifications of any kind performed to the generator. There was no EFIE nor O2 sensor trickery. This tested the HHO only rather than other parameters that would influence results.

The generator load was constant thoughout the entire day.
Fuel consumption was measured with a graduated beaker to ml accuracy.

My test results are conclusive - HHO has no effect on fuel consumption at these concentrations. Any gains you are seeing is strictly the results of your tuning your ECU or changing timing and has nothing whatsoever with HHO.

HHO simply does not work.

myoldyourgold stated that achieving results from this engine would not be easy. This statement is very confusing to me as the engine is a simple 2 cyl 4 cycle, has no electronics or other things to make complications. Quite the contrary to what myoldyourgold states, if HHO works then it should be very easy and definitive on this engine.

Please let us stop these insane claims of MPG increases based on driving to Atlanta for example. At 2am it takes me 8 minutes to drive across town. That same journey takes me 40 minutes at 5PM due to traffic congestion. I want all of you to look me in the eye and seriously tell me you can determine accurate and definitive MPG by driving to Atlanta with all the variables of weather, traffic, etc etc. Foolishness. Clearly impossible.

Every saturday I watch all the mechanic type shows on TV. For example when they want to tune an engine they run it on the dyno for a baseline and then try swapping out jets, then run it again, then adjust timing then run it again etc. Yet all of you claim your glorious results from driving to Atlanta... All I can do is shake my head in bewilderment at your foolishness. If you seriously believe your HHO works then why do NONE of you have the balls to show us results on the dyno or a controlled series of tests like I did ?

Again - We want to determine if HHO works. We already know that modifying the ECU or timing has huge influences on fuel consumption. Therefore let us test only the HHO and without electronic trickery.

I entered this task with the belief that HHO works. I so much wanted to believe. I invested a lot of time and money to make it happen. And I am embarrassed that I was so completely taken in. A fool is born every minute – I sure used up my full minute and then some.

I know you all disagree with my findings. Let us stop the unsubstantiated ridiculous claims - My Generator is sitting here waiting. I am waiting for anyone to show me and the rest of the world this HHO works in a series of controlled tests.

[myoldyourgold]

Excuse me Sir, where did I say:


I increased the KOH to 25% by wt as advised by myoldyourgold and decreased the voltage to 12Volts as per advice from Biofarmer93.


Please get your facts straight. I did say:


If you are just going to inject HHO, have no control of the timing, or fuel delivery, you will have to hit exactly the right amount of HHO to see much of any gain at all, but will require an efficient reactor. Max will be about 10% if you do hit the right amount.

On your small diesel you are using slightly more than 303 watts to make 1.13 lpm. A really efficient reactor makes 1 lpm in the range of 130 to 175 watts. You are using way to much energy to expect any gains on that engine.

and I also said:

I would suggest you do a lot more research to get the reactor more efficient and then find out what other things you can do with that engine that will complement the HHO. It is not going to be easy with that engine but not impossible. I doubt it is the amount of HHO but the inefficiency that is holding you back.

You are still using more energy than you can gain by using HHO with your inefficient reactor, this is assuming that you are using energy from the generator and not from some other source. You will not see any results if you do not get a more efficient reactor since you can not change anything on the engine. By this I mean that the fast burn rate of HHO requires retarding the injection in order to take advantage of it. In a small engine it is extremely critical to get it all right or there will be no gains or worse an increase in fuel consumption. You must not be far off if you have no gains at all. If you were using more fuel with the HHO on then you would be way off.

You should do a test where the HHO reactor is powered by a separate source and see if there is any gain. This would eliminate the inefficient reactor problem. In vehicles with carbs and no electronics it still requires retarding the spark to see some gains in most cases and even if you use a separate source to power your reactor, it still might not result in gains unless you can retard the injection timing. If you put to much in it will start consuming more fuel.

Using brute force only 100% Faraday and at your 12v, 23 Amps, would be 1.576 LPM or 5.71 so you are not far off.

I am sorry but the fact still remains that tests by many professionals / scientists have already proven gains can be made by using HHO when done right. If the average backyard builder can..... well that is suspect in a lot of cases.

[Bhakti]

marineproject group..your problem is very simple to solve....you are adding too much HHO for that engine and is breaking the piston. I added 0.6 LPM of HHO on 2L diesel engine and had a 38% of increase in MPG with significant increase in torque and power. You have to proportionally decrease the production of HHO for that engine and repeat measurements, do not touch anything else;)

[myoldyourgold]

marineproject group..your problem is very simple to solve....you are adding too much HHO for that engine and is breaking the piston. I added 0.6 LPM of HHO on 2L diesel engine and had a 38% of increase in MPG with significant increase in torque and power. You have to proportionally decrease the production of HHO for that engine and repeat measurements, do not touch anything else

Bhakti, you are right but marineprogject is now selling all his stuff for half price and claiming that this will never work and that you are a liar along with everyone else who has experienced gains. On small engines it takes very little HHO and an efficient reactor. In his case he should be able to get some gain with the right amount of HHO but that engine might be set up such that it is difficult. I hope if he has really done what he says he has, he does not give up quite so soon. The way he has come across though leads me to have some doubts if he is really legit. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and hope he does get it right before he gives up.

[RustyLugNut]

The HHO results you see on this forum and on other Internet sources is "all over the place". There is almost no real science in the endeavors.

But I caution you to not make sweeping conclusions. There is something to this HHO idea. It just has not been nailed down. It also is not a simple back yard hack for people to conduct research into the possible theoretical workings of HHO. The university research has focused on hydrogen augmentation with bottled gases at concentrations that electrolysis devices cannot hope to produce from engine only power. The only dynamo meter test I know of is from an American college Senior paper whose results have not been completely published outside of the claims filtered through the maker who supplied the HHO device. That was on a 4 cylinder diesel engine. And it did show improvements - though very moderate.

Almost 2 decades ago, I conducted a very similar experiment you just did, but with a gasoline generator. Ignition timing was a fixed curve with the centrifugal advance. Fuel mix was the only factor that could be adjusted. A heated O2 sensor and EGT guage were the only engine instruments we had. A map of fuel run times ( 1000 ml graduated cylinder ) for various loading points was collected. The electrolysis cells had a variable current control. Cell power came from the generator output and was included in the load. At singular points, a 50% increase in run times was seen. I stress, at singular points. Most gains were far below that and at some points, the changes were up to 50% negative!

What we took away from all this effort was that HHO could stabilize the flame ignition point well beyond the classic lean limits of the usual lean burn systems ( Chrysler's 80's era ran at about 18:1 while Honda's later system ran 21:1 - 24:1 ). Of course, these points were at very low power loadings.

So, in a way you are correct in that the gasoline fuel use improvements are based on fooling with EFIE's and such. This explains why some people see no improvements while some see slight negative or positive improvements. Then, there are those who with a perfect storm of variables are able to see dramatic improvements. Couple this with unintentional hyper-miling and post excitement claims, and then you start getting the 50-100% improvement testimonies.

Diesels are another story all together. The theory of flame front combustion and the interaction of the HHO gas is not all that clear. I use a 1985, 4 cylinder Mercedes diesel as my test bed as it allows considerable leeway in adjusting the injection timing ( with some modifications to the injection pump mount). Single injection events along with the IdI configuration and 21:1 compression ratio seem to provide ideal basis for improvements with the addition of HHO. Verification of the theories is pending the procurement of pressure sensing glow plugs.

In summary, the research is limited from the standpoint of the scientific method. Dynamo-meter testing is only done once a way forward is clearly seen and the costs can be justified. HHO researchers have not reached that point. Most garage researchers never will, nor do they desire to, since their singular vehicle is all they care about. The "Manufacturers" seen on the Internet fall largely into the same category, being nothing more than garage tinkerers selling their wares on Ebay with nothing more than testimonials as their "research".

We long ago abandoned electrolysis as a platform upon which to build a viable business as it is just too limited in it's capabilities for reliable output in a commercial product for on board hydrogen generators. However, the HHO concept does have merits and it does bear more investigation.

You, Sir, have started upon a difficult path and issued a difficult challenge.

Good luck to you.

Good luck to everyone.

[myoldyourgold]

Mr, Chapman, I am going to try and be constructive here. First it would be helpful if you could post some pictures of your setup. This would give us a much clear picture so to speak.

There will be other very respectable knowledgeable people that might disagree with me on this but I would suggest you drop your electrolyte to 2% by weight and work up from there and do not use a PWM. You need just a very little HHO for this engine especially since you can not adjust anything. Somewhere between 250 mlpm to 500 mlpm. This will also bring up the efficiency your reactor. You should be able to do at least a few more tests before you throw in the rag. I would not be so persistent if I was not absolutely sure that some gain is possible. Please do not take this as a personal attack but your claims that this is all bogus, when a lot of us know for a fact it isn't is hard to take.

RustyLugNut, I posted this not seeing yours. Excellent post.

[TimCollins]

WOW what a thread… I do see validity in one of his points. To ‘prove’ HHO introduction into the fuel system by itself has any ‘real’ effect at all (good or bad) we have to perform a simple test. Using a dyno run a car with HHO then without making any other adjustments, run the same test without HHO injection. If HHO gas by itself is really doing anything at all (and not the electronics trickery) that test should prove it and put to rest the debate forever. Correct? Surely there have been at least two or three reputable institutions (not HHO vendors and not individuals) that have performed this test (A university, auto manufacturer, government or impartial study, etc…)? I think that would remove the notion that HHO is magical and move it into the realm of how does each person really make it work for them. Until we have the unbiased dyno results I think it is very wise for all of us to be extremely skeptical whether the HHO gas itself is doing anything at all given all the other required adjustments. Personally I enjoy the science of it and I continue to work on HHO as a hobby, but I am not sold on the simple suggestion that adding HHO to my trucks fuel system will improve my millage. Finally, this is not a new technology so where is the proof this user is asking for? There should be tons of it out there right? Do ‘reputable’ unbiased dyno type testing results exist? If not, then considering the age of the science we should all be a bit skeptical as to whether the HHO or the electronics is really causing improvements... Please dont banish me for my views at this time LOL... I do enjoy working on this as a hobby...

[lhazleton]

Damn Rusty, where've you been? Thought you fell off the end of the earth!:rolleyes:

[RustyLugNut]

The Mythbuster and Popular Mechanics "TESTS" aside, you will not see a scramble to test HHO systems on Dyna-mometers. Each system on each car needs time to tune. Have you priced the hourly rate on Dyno time? Most tinkerers cannot afford the several hundred to several thousand dollar price tag. Sure, you can get a 40 dollar power pull that gives you a power curve at full throttle and climbing rpms. But this is not what we are looking for in testing an HHO application. Multiple pulls at multiple load/rpm and throttle settings are needed to "map" the results of HHO effects. If an HHO aficionado has already determined an ideal setting to test the effects of his system, it would have been after countless hours tuning his set up on a dyno! As such, seat of the pants dynos are what most can afford, and that is what they use.

Why aren't manufacturers looking into this? They probably have and have discounted it based on how small the gains are for all the trouble to match an HHO system to each application and to make it fool proof ( fools do operate vehicles ). Manufactures work to make money. HHO systems are not profitable in comparison to VVT, stop-start and hybrid systems, to name a few. En mass, these improvements are solid, warrant-able devices. HHO devices are finicky and slow reacting. After millions of research dollars expended on a new vehicle model, HHO systems would not meet the economic requirements of manufacturing.

University research is largely Grant Driven. Unless someone is providing a grant whose scope might include HHO research, Universities will not do the research.

But, individuals, groups and colleges are doing some research on HHO and it is starting to compile. Europe, America, Australian and Far Eastern research papers are starting to pop up. The reading is sticky and technical, and may not be your cup of tea, but it is there.

It all boils down to money. Electrolysis HHO generators pale in comparison to other technologies for increasing internal combustion efficiency and decreasing emissions.

This should not stop the individual from tinkering with it and applying it to his or her own vehicle or engine.

[RustyLugNut]

Just could not find time to post. Family, work and my own research get in the way. That's life.

[myoldyourgold]

A university, auto manufacturer, government

You can take these off the list of impartial!! I have seen tests by all of the above showing how it will not work. They all have giant flaws in them. Everything from glass jars to crazy reactors that are using 500 plus watts to make less than a liter not to mention who pays for these tests. The real problem is there are so many variables. Just the moisture in the air could mess up the the test and end up showing gains which were not there on a dry day. I was hoping the Mr. Chapman would spend some more time and exhaust all avenues before he gave up. Lets say he did get a gain then I guess nobody is going to believe him either. This is a cruel world and I can say one thing, the farmers and truckers I know that are running systems and saving tons of money quietly are good enough for me. I think in the end everyone is going to have to prove it to themselves. There are dyno tests out there that show some gain but even they are suspect because of the poor systems they are running. There are lots of smog tests that show cleaner exhaust and this shows that there is a more complete burn which must have some gain that goes along with it. California CARB has even licensed some showing reduction in pollution. A better burn has to mean better mileage. How much is debatable. Every so often this comes up and because all the answers are still not there you end up throwing the baby out with the bath water. Keep digging/experimenting you will eventually find the answers. You have to remember that brute force is not the only way to brake the bonds.

[BioFarmer93]

Carter,
Frankly I think the timing on that little Onan diesel is advanced a bit. I can't really think of any other reason that Chris would not see at least some improvement.

Chris, could I have the year and model number of that engine please, I need to look a couple of things up. If you are basing your conclusion on a series of flawed tests then even though you may be following the scientific method in your testing, your testing is incomplete.

[myoldyourgold]

Gus, you could be right about the timing. I was under the impression that there was no adjustment available. If that is the case then my recommendation of decreasing the HHO would be the only way to go to find the sweat spot for both the engine and the reactor. If it is adjustable then that is a different ball game. It is still my opinion that he will need less than a LPM to show a gain but with retarded timing he could step it up.

[BioFarmer93]

Gus, you could be right about the timing. I was under the impression that there was no adjustment available. If that is the case then my recommendation of decreasing the HHO would be the only way to go to find the sweat spot for both the engine and the reactor. If it is adjustable then that is a different ball game. It is still my opinion that he will need less than a LPM to show a gain but with retarded timing he could step it up.

Carter,
I agree completely, if it's not adjustable then any increase at all in combustion speed is going to be working against him not for him, and finding the sweet spot is going to be near impossible- most likely not worth the effort for what will only be minimal gains in economy. It's almost like he deliberately choose the worst possible diesel candidate for his tests. We should turn him on to Ben's Amish clients with the sawmill and the stationary 6-71 screamin' Jimmy's. But I guess those dirty rotten lying old Amish guys can't be trusted to tell the truth either..:rolleyes:;)

[myoldyourgold]

Did a simple search on youtube "dyno HHO test" and here is one I found. There is others.

Who really knows if these are real but I can not believe that everyone is lying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVQn4DKrn_w

[Hydrogenius]

I see you guys have more experience in this area.

Is there a group of HHO experts who can test a HHO generator I made? I don't know it's production but when I tested it at 110V dc, the switch tripped with a rating of 125V 15A and I could see a very good HHO production before it tripped. I used distilled water (2 qts) and 1/8 tsp of lye.

Can you recommend the right power supply and flow measurement system.

[lhazleton]

110VDC? How about posting some pictures & information on this one!

[Hydrogenius]

110VDC? How about posting some pictures & information on this one!

I don't have a picture. I intend to apply a patent for it but here's an almost similar production from youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzULkAOvris.

At 30V dc, the variac starts to hum but the production is still good. I am trying to max out the capacity at 110V dc and I produce foam since I started cold. When the water gets hot, there's less foam produced but the foam is primarily from the rapid production of bubbles.

[Bhakti]

I don't have a picture. I intend to apply a patent for it but here's an almost similar production from youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzULkAOvris.

At 30V dc, the variac starts to hum but the production is still good. I am trying to max out the capacity at 110V dc and I produce foam since I started cold. When the water gets hot, there's less foam produced but the foam is primarily from the rapid production of bubbles.This is steam generator, not HHO generator.

[Hydrogenius]

This is steam generator, not HHO generator.

Is steam produced in cold water?

Oh are you referring to that video? It could be but mine is producing bubbles in cold water.

[lhazleton]

How is yours built? How many plates/size, etc.?

[Hydrogenius]

How is yours built? How many plates/size, etc.?

I stopped using plates, am using SS tubing also with a length from 8 to 10 inches.

[lhazleton]

How many tubes within each other?

[ultra_efficient]

HHO – The Real Story…

Looking for any input re my findings:

Over the last 3 months I have approached the HHO possibilities as seriously as I can.

My first attempt was July when I sent off a chunk of cash to Melvin Lee of Hydroxmobile, Malaysia for one of their complete kits. Melvin took my money and I have heard nothing since, Melvin does not respond to my subsequent enquiries and he appears to have gone out of business.

Okay, so once bitten, twice shy. Rather than be cheated again with another supplier, best I build my own system.

Since the above bad experience have spent approx $5000 on parts: $800 for two power supplies. $350 for two PWM’s, $400 to US Plastics for tanks, fittings, etc. $800 for sheets of 316L SS + Titanium and another $400 to have the plates and gaskets cut out on a waterjet cutter, $500 for Omega flowmeters, $400 for plastic sheets, plastic tube stock, $300 for chemicals, etc, etc. Everytime I bought something it seemed to be another $400…

This is my first test rig:

6x6 inch 316L SS 7 plate Electrolyser. 1/8 inch thick neoprene gaskets with border 3/16 inch wide making the plate surface area approx 30 sq inches. End covers are 8x8 inch ½ inch thick acrylic. Plates were scoured with 60 grit sandpaper then cleaned with Acetone and handled with medical gloves during assembly. Completed Electrolyser was flushed with 10% by wt Acetic Acid at 65C with a small electric pump for 1 hour. Drained and flushed several times with hot distilled water. Wire ring terminations soldered with heat shrink over, 10AWG, and ring terminations bolted to corner of active plates.

Electrolytic is 10% by wt KOH Flakes in distilled water. The KOH flakes were measured with an $80 electronic scale and accuracy of the scale was confirmed with a precision 100g wt that cost me another $22. After running the cell for 8 hrs, no sign of discolouration or contaminants, the electrolytic remains perfectly white cloudy.

Cell output: After an 8 hour break in the cell stabilized 13.8VDC @ 22amps producing 1.13LPM HHO. Both volts and amps were confirmed with two different meters. I tried the PWM but found that for example at 50% duty cycle the LPM dropped to 35%. Hence the PWM actually made the cell LESS efficient by a wide margin. Varying the frequency 0 to 4000hz had no effect positive or negative on cell LPM output. I discontinued the use of the PWM for the following tests and ran the cell direct from the power supply.

Cell flowrate measurements: The $500 spent on the fancy Omega flowmeter set was useless as I mistakenly bought them calibrated for air. Hydrogen is 14.37 times lighter than air. The Omega flowmeters cannot be used except with a fancy correction calculation so I did not use them in favour of simplicity and to avoid possible calculation errors.
To solve this problem, I fabricated a bubble flowmeter from a 2L graduated measure beaker. The bubble flowmeter works great and is so simple and foolproof. I am confident my flow rate measurements are perfect.

Test Engine:
Onan Diesel Gnerator. 7.5KW / 16.5HP / 70 cu inch (1.147 cu Liter) Displ / Comp Ratio 19:1 / RPM 1800 / Combustion air 31 CFM (878 LPM) Natural Aspiration.

Load was at 500w and 4500w. This is almost no load and a little better than 50% load for simulated real world situations. Load was 500 watt electric lights to ensure consistency as for example if I used a heater then the heater would cycle on/off creating inconsistent loads. HHO injected directly into the intake hole. No air cleaner was fitted. I am absolutely certain the HHO was going into the intake.

Onan Generator Fuel consumption Rate method: This was determined by a 1.5 inch diameter graduated beaker with the fuel injector return going back into the beaker. With this method exact fuel consumption was measured to millilitre accuracy. All external forces example wind resistance to the car driving, uphill/downhill, traffic, oxygen sensor, heavy/easy foot on the accelerator, injection timing, etc all this is not relevant to this method of testing.

Results:

Time Hr:Mins With HHO 2:43 Without HHO 2:39 Diesel Consumption Results +2.5%
Time Hr:Mins With HHO 9:11 Without HHO 9:25 Diesel Consumption Results -2.4%
Time Hr:Mins With HHO 2:39 Without HHO 2:39 Diesel Consumption Results 0%

Above shows the greatest variation with an average of 0%. All other results consistent with above, depending on load.

Conclusion: Best I saw after my best efforts was a 2.5% decrease in fuel consumption with HHO. This is far from the 50% or more decrease you all are claiming.

I really want to make this work and I have invested a considerable sum in this endeavour.

Before I debunk the entire HHO industry –

Any suggestions as to what I am doing wrong ? Where is this 50% increase ?

Christopher Chapman
info@marineprojectgroup.com

re-tune your vehicle. if you all more fuel and not re-tune your car to utilize it then you will be stuck with little or no change. you want change when you made none? :rolleyes:

add HHO closest to you cylinders so you wont dilute it too much then lean back your fuel and allow the HHO to compensate for the leaning back on fuel.

http://www.hhoforums.com/showthread.php?t=6885&highlight=richard_lyew