Lack of Results

[BDP29]

I've built several cells that produce very efficiently. The most recent 13.9 volts, 32 amps, 110F operating temperature at 2 hrs continuous running, producing 1.4 lpm. I installed the cell in a 1963 Ford (w/ a small block V-8) to avoid any electronic issues of the new cars.
Everything works fine. So I decide to do a road test for mileage savings. I used the exact amounts of gas , went on the highway , traveling the same route up and back at same speed . One round trip w/ the cell running and one trip w/out.
There is no mileage savings. Is anyone getting any results? What am I missing?
Thanks

[smartHHO]

Ok, here is some tid bit of info that you might of forgot. You now don't have the electronics adjusting the amount of gas going into the car. you have the set screws where you adjust the car to run rich or lean. So, if you just add HHO, you have not adjusted the gas input to the carb. So, my reccomendation would be, keep the numbers that you got from the run without HHO. Then, start up the HHO, and try tweaking the carb for a leaner gas. I could be wrong, but that is pretty much what fooling the O2 does for the gas imput on the newer cars. Hope that helps.

[sp1r0]

Remember running your engine lean heats up the engine more. Keep an eye on your coolant temp... Some people say HHO, since it recombines into water when ignited, cools down the burn but on the flip side hydrogen burns hotter. Keep us posted on your MPG and heat issues. Good luck!

[timetowinarace]

I would tend to think you should have seen a difference without leaning out the mix. (hho in the newer cars makes the sencors see a lean condition and they compensate by adding fuel making it rich. Messing with O2 sencors is an attempt to stop that compensation, not to lean out the fuel)

I would be curious to know the condition of the motor. Is it in good running condition?

[BDP29]

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm going to lean it a little and retest.

[Stratous]

Some older engines are pretty efficient as they have not been dumbed down with all the smog controll items. Therefor it is possible that you need more HHO. Also, how sure are you that the HHO is making it to your cylinders?

[Walt]

Before you see a lot of results you have to lean down the carb (as stated before). I have seen old quadrapukes with mixture screws that would not effect anything. Is the carb old? Also where are you injecting the HHo? If you are pre manifold you might be loosing the HHO before it gets sucked down into the engine. Another thing to look at if mileage is your main goal and performance is not so much is the timing, especialy if you are content to run at lower RPMs with a soft foot.

Walt

[buffordboy23]

Remember running your engine lean heats up the engine more.

I disagree because the amount of hydrogen relative to the other gases in the cylinder is very small. In general, the engine should run cooler instead. A lean mixture means a greater quantity of air in the engine cylinders. Therefore, more heat will be absorbed by the gases for expansion, and less heat is transferred to the cylinder walls of the engine.

Running your engine lean does pose risks, such as pre-ignition and knocking. Hydrogen addition to an ICE engine, if in sufficient quantities, is what allows one to operate lean without the large fear of such risks, so be careful that you do not lean out the mixture too much at first.

[smartHHO]

I would tend to think you should have seen a difference without leaning out the mix. (hho in the newer cars makes the sencors see a lean condition and they compensate by adding fuel making it rich. Messing with O2 sencors is an attempt to stop that compensation, not to lean out the fuel)

I would be curious to know the condition of the motor. Is it in good running condition?


He might see a difference in Horsepower, but I doubt that he would see the MPG go up. And yes, the O2 sensor does dump more fuel or lessen it when the voltages are changed. One reason for the O2 sensor is to make sure that the O2 stays constant. Thus if the sensor detects too much O2 then it thinks it's running to lean so dumps more fuel thus not gaining any MPG. So, we put on our O2 adjustment devices, tweak it until we get our nice results without burning up the car. So, since this car is 1963, and only has a carb, and screws, and timing, thus you have to get out the monkey wrenchs and tune the flow into the carb yourself. No smart computer doing it for you.

[timetowinarace]

He might see a difference in Horsepower, but I doubt that he would see the MPG go up. And yes, the O2 sensor does dump more fuel or lessen it when the voltages are changed. One reason for the O2 sensor is to make sure that the O2 stays constant. Thus if the sensor detects too much O2 then it thinks it's running to lean so dumps more fuel thus not gaining any MPG. So, we put on our O2 adjustment devices, tweak it until we get our nice results without burning up the car. So, since this car is 1963, and only has a carb, and screws, and timing, thus you have to get out the monkey wrenchs and tune the flow into the carb yourself. No smart computer doing it for you.

Most people see an initial increase in MPG when they first install their hho units. The ecu has not detected or corrected for a lean condition so at this point fueling has not changed. The initial mpg increase is with the normal a/f ratio. Only after the ecu has compensated for the percieved lean condition does mpg's go back to normal or get worse. Therefore, I have to believe that there needn't be any leaning out of a non ecu engine to see mpg gains. If he was producing much more hho than he is I would agree with you. But for an old small block ford, 1.5L of hho is not allot. A slight retard of the ignition timing might help a little.

As the race car sitting in my driveway is holding a Ford 351W in it, I would hope I know something about old school engine tuning. I don't recomend leaning the carb at this point unless the truck is running rich to begin with.

[Omega]

Before you see a lot of results you have to lean down the carb (as stated before). I have seen old quadrapukes with mixture screws that would not effect anything. Is the carb old? Also where are you injecting the HHo? If you are pre manifold you might be loosing the HHO before it gets sucked down into the engine. Another thing to look at if mileage is your main goal and performance is not so much is the timing, especialy if you are content to run at lower RPMs with a soft foot.

Walt
How do you figure the HHO will be lost??? Going to a vacuum line is usually problematic for several reasons. There is maximum vacuum at the manifold at IDLE, and least when you accelerate. Just the opposite of what you want for feeding HHO into a motor. I think most using HHO go to the air intake, close to the butterfly.

Going to other than a vacuum line or manifold is ok, no HHO will be lost going to the air intake.

[sp1r0]

I disagree because the amount of hydrogen relative to the other gases in the cylinder is very small. In general, the engine should run cooler instead. A lean mixture means a greater quantity of air in the engine cylinders. Therefore, more heat will be absorbed by the gases for expansion, and less heat is transferred to the cylinder walls of the engine.

Running your engine lean does pose risks, such as pre-ignition and knocking. Hydrogen addition to an ICE engine, if in sufficient quantities, is what allows one to operate lean without the large fear of such risks, so be careful that you do not lean out the mixture too much at first.

You can disagree all you want. I am a mechanic before an HHO hobbyist. Here is some info on the matter from another forum, real dangers from running lean: http://hypography.com/forums/chemistry/3149-why-does-lean-engine-run-hot.html

[smartHHO]

From what I know from all I have been told and read, that putting a little bit of Mystery Oil in with your normal oil makes the engine have way less friction, thus less heat. Now, remember, this is what I have read and been told. If you believe different, please state it here. But I know my grandfather was a mechanic on older cars for 50 years before he died. And he always used to drain his car of oil, then put some diesel thru the engine and then added Mystery Oil and normal oil. His cars always ran great and never had any issues with them.

[buffordboy23]

You can disagree all you want. I am a mechanic before an HHO hobbyist. Here is some info on the matter from another forum, real dangers from running lean: http://hypography.com/forums/chemistry/3149-why-does-lean-engine-run-hot.html

Yes, you are right in some regards. Here is a more precise description. At stoichiometric, a large amount of heat is available during combustion, however, not all of the gasoline is combusted. Therefore, if we run leaner, then this extra portion of gasoline is more likely to be combusted, giving off more heat energy than before, so this could result in the scenario which you describe. If we lean the engine out even more, so that the extra air has negligible effect on combusting this extra gasoline, then the role of this extra air is to absorb more heat from combustion so that gases do more work on the piston, and less heat is transferred to cylinder walls. This increases the thermal efficiency of the engine, and is why many people lean their cars to for hydrogen addition.

[timetowinarace]

Yes, you are right in some regards. Here is a more precise description. At stoichiometric, a large amount of heat is available during combustion, however, not all of the gasoline is combusted. Therefore, if we run leaner, then this extra portion of gasoline is more likely to be combusted, giving off more heat energy than before, so this could result in the scenario which you describe. If we lean the engine out even more, so that the extra air has negligible effect on combusting this extra gasoline, then the role of this extra air is to absorb more heat from combustion so that gases do more work on the piston, and less heat is transferred to cylinder walls. This increases the thermal efficiency of the engine, and is why many people lean their cars to for hydrogen addition.

A lean a/f mixture burns hotter than a non-lean or rich mixture. It does not matter so much how much heat is absorbed by the cylinder walls because they are liquid cooled. The pistons, piston rings and valves are what get's burnt in a lean running engine. They are not liquid cooled. Even if the extra air was to absorb more of the heat, it has to pass by the exhaust valves, overheating them in the proccess.

"This increases the thermal efficiency of the engine, and is why many people lean their cars to for hydrogen addition"

Incorrect. The reason many people are leaning out thier cars is because the ecu is detecting a lean condition when hho is used and making their cars run rich. They are returning their cars to the a/f ratio that they ran correctly on before hho. At least this is what they should be doing.

I do not recomend leaning out an engine for the modest amount of hho a 'booster' will put out. The hho increases the burn efficiancy of the current fuel. If a high output hho unit(greater than 5LPM) is to be used then leaning out the a/f mix would be neccisary, however so would valve timing and ignition timing.

[smartHHO]

You brought up a good point of the pistons and what not taking on a lot of the heat. What popped into my mind was an oil cooler. Since the pistons are running up and down in the oil, they are transferring heat to the oil, but the oil is not really cooling down much going thru the filter that is being blown on as your drive. So, if you tossed a mini oil cooler by the radiator, do you think then you would cool down the pistons somewhat? Not for the sake of leaning out, but I am curious if it would work. We are talking about the 63 Ford still, not a newer car for this experiment.

[Westcoastrocks]

So let me get this straight....As a mechanic you suggest that leaning your A/F ratio back to what it would be before the HHO Gen install is okay. But anything beyond that (replacing HHO for Gas) is 100% bad? Are you saying that HHO can't replace gas cause of how you engine would react to it by over heating? I am really curious to hear about this from a mechanic. I am about to do some crazy tests on my really old truck. I don't mind at all if my trucks blows up, but I am doing this to get things perfect before I do it on my better vehicles

[Smith03Jetta]

I do not recomend leaning out an engine for the modest amount of hho a 'booster' will put out. The hho increases the burn efficiancy of the current fuel. If a high output hho unit(greater than 5LPM) is to be used then leaning out the a/f mix would be neccisary, however so would valve timing and ignition timing.

I disagree entirely. In order to get any MPG increase in both my vehicles I had to lean out my fuel mixture. On both my vehicles the MPG went down when I introduced the HHO to the engine.

[timetowinarace]

I disagree entirely. In order to get any MPG increase in both my vehicles I had to lean out my fuel mixture. On both my vehicles the MPG went down when I introduced the HHO to the engine.

Yes, I read your thread. The mpg's went down because your ecu wrongly perceived a lean condition and attempted to correct it by richening the mix, as in, adding more fuel. Thus the decreased mpg's. If I remember correctly, no, on second thought I'll quote your words so my memory is not relied on.

Post 18 in your smith experiment thread:

"I did a 100 mile MPG test. I ran exactly 99.8 miles and pulled in to the Kangaroo Station. The 87 octane fuel cost $3.76 a gallon. I calculated the MPG at 31.5. That does not seem significant but during my test, I was on the interstate doing 75 to 80 with the AC running. I normally get about 25 mpg under those driving conditions. I calculated that I achieved a 25% increase in my gas mileage. The Jetta normally gets 31 mpg driving 60 with the AC off in the winter.

I attribute a 10% increase in my fuel mileage to tampering with the O2 sensor. That is supposed to lean out the fuel consumption. The other 15% has got to be the HHO"

After that the ecu compensation put you on a course to reverse the changes the ecu made. My point is simple. The hho was working with stock a/f ratio untill the ecu compensated. Do you disagree with that statement?

While you did start out with an O2 sencer mod, I believe you found the extender mostly useless as most that have tried it have.

I have read many, many posts of reports of people installing thier units and getting great initial gains only to lose them to the ecu. This tells me gains from hho can be made with the standard stock a/f ratio.

A non-ecu engine will not/can not compensate for a lean condition on it's own. Initial gains that are seen will remain.

[timetowinarace]

So let me get this straight....As a mechanic you suggest that leaning your A/F ratio back to what it would be before the HHO Gen install is okay. But anything beyond that (replacing HHO for Gas) is 100% bad? Are you saying that HHO can't replace gas cause of how you engine would react to it by over heating? I am really curious to hear about this from a mechanic. I am about to do some crazy tests on my really old truck. I don't mind at all if my trucks blows up, but I am doing this to get things perfect before I do it on my better vehicles

If your refering to my post, I'm not a mechanic. That is another member. These are my somewhat educated opinions.

To answer your question, for a booster producing 2L or less you should keep the a/f ratio at pre-hho levels. All you are doing with a booster is getting a complete burn of the fuel in the cylinder rather than having unburnt fuel left over to burn in the catalytic converter. This is why hho works as a booster.

As for larger amounts of hho, I don't consider it a booster anymore. When hho levels increase to the point that engine parameters need to be adjusted such as a/f ratio, we are beyond the 'booster' level and are using hho as a fuel. I did not say this is bad. If done correctly it will not hurt the engine. My opinion is that ignition timing will be the first change needed as increasing amounts of hho are introduced.

I also have an older vehicle and at some point will run it on as much hho as I can produce on board. This will be done in steps. As I increase hho, I will make timing adjustments, then begin to 'wean' it off of gasoline. While the ultimate goal will be to run on 100% hho or hydrogen I'm not convinced I can achieve it, so I'm interested to know how little gasoline I can run on.

[buffordboy23]

A lean a/f mixture burns hotter than a non-lean or rich mixture. It does not matter so much how much heat is absorbed by the cylinder walls because they are liquid cooled. The pistons, piston rings and valves are what get's burnt in a lean running engine. They are not liquid cooled. Even if the extra air was to absorb more of the heat, it has to pass by the exhaust valves, overheating them in the proccess.

Yes, I agree that a lean a/f mixture burns hotter because more gasoline is combusted and more heat is released. But if you keep adding air beyond the ideal point where all of the gasoline is combusted, this burn temperature cannot get any hotter, because there is no extra chemical energy to be released. However, the engine parts may get hotter because the compression stroke must compress more gases, so this is not a result of combustion.

Sure, it matters how much heat is absorbed by the cylinder walls. I will try to give a simple scientific explanation. There are two main components of our system during combustion: (1) combustion gases and (2) engine parts, such as cylinder, pistons, valves, etc. During combustion, a certain amount of heat is produced. This heat must go somewhere. Now for two hypothetical and unreal scenarios: If all of this heat was transferred to only the gases then the engine would be 100% efficient--the temperature of the engine would be the same as the ambient air temperature in this case since no heat was transferred to it. In contrast, if all of the heat was transferred only to the engine parts, then the engine would be 0% efficient--the gas received no energy, therefore its temperature remains the same, resulting in no expansion to move the piston. So based on these two extreme boundary scenarios, one must conclude that we want more heat energy transferred to the gases, so that our engine efficiency improves.

This explanation for a lean-operating engine is consistent with what many people report, a cooler running engine. More heat to gases, means greater engine efficiency and less heat to cylinder walls, which means less heat to coolant, which means lower temperature gauge reading.



Incorrect. The reason many people are leaning out thier cars is because the ecu is detecting a lean condition when hho is used and making their cars run rich. They are returning their cars to the a/f ratio that they ran correctly on before hho. At least this is what they should be doing.

I do not recomend leaning out an engine for the modest amount of hho a 'booster' will put out. The hho increases the burn efficiancy of the current fuel. If a high output hho unit(greater than 5LPM) is to be used then leaning out the a/f mix would be neccisary, however so would valve timing and ignition timing.


This does not make sense. First, let's assume that a vehicle is stoichiometric without the device attached and that perfect combustion takes place in the engine. This means that no excess oxygen is detected by the O2 (lambda) sensors, and the pulse-width for fuel injection stays the same.

Now, let's attach an HHO device, and assume that it produce a large amount, 5L, of gases per minute, which is about 0.083 L per second. From wikipedia, the density of hydrogen is 0.08988 g/L, so assuming that all of this 0.083 L is hydrogen, which it is not, gives

(0.083 L) * (0.08988 g/L) = 0.00749 grams of hydrogen per second

Since oxygen and hydrogen are produced in a 2:1 ratio,

2(H2O) --> 2(H2) + 1(O2)

32 grams of oxygen are produced with every 4 grams of hydrogen for every two moles of H20. The mass of oxygen produced relative to hydrogen is always 8 times as much. So the mass of oxygen is

0.00749 * 8 = 0.05992 grams of oxygen.

A good assumption for cars running at 60 mph is that they use 1.5 grams of gasoline per second. So at stoichiometric, about 15:1, this means that 22.5 grams of air is used each second, 20% or 4.5 grams of which is oxygen. The ratio of oxygen produced from electrolysis versus that taken through the intake is

0.05992 / 4.5 = 1.3%

Now, the combustion of hydrogen requires oxygen, so the extra oxygen produced from the electrolysis is very likely to be used up, so this percentage would have to be much smaller, or there really is no point in using HHO.

Further, you claim that HHO increases the burn efficiency of the gasoline. I agree with you on this, but there is not much extra gas to be burned anyways, maybe 1% from what I've heard from many people. However, the important point is that if extra gasoline is burned, then more oxygen will be used, further lowering the oxygen present at the O2 sensor. Therefore, the only way that the O2 sensors would sense more oxygen is if the emissions were modified drastically, but this will depend on one's quantity of hydrogen production and A/F ratio, so the sensor problem only makes sense in this regard.

It is with these reasons I say that people make there engine run lean. Also, scientific research shows that fuel economy is increased when a vehicle is operated lean and with proper hydrogen addition with low concern engine knocking, pre-ignition, etc.

Sorry for getting off the topic of this thread, but I strongly disagree.

[buffordboy23]

While the ultimate goal will be to run on 100% hho or hydrogen I'm not convinced I can achieve it, so I'm interested to know how little gasoline I can run on.

This is impossible, since it violates the laws of physics. See the link for videos that show something similar to your goal and reasoning for why it is impossible:

http://www.hhoforums.com/showpost.php?p=9117&postcount=34

Your other goal is, lessening gasoline usage, is more realistic and obtainable. Good luck.

[timetowinarace]

Yes, I agree that a lean a/f mixture burns hotter because more gasoline is combusted and more heat is released. But if you keep adding air beyond the ideal point where all of the gasoline is combusted, this burn temperature cannot get any hotter, because there is no extra chemical energy to be released. However, the engine parts may get hotter because the compression stroke must compress more gases, so this is not a result of combustion.

Sure, it matters how much heat is absorbed by the cylinder walls. I will try to give a simple scientific explanation. There are two main components of our system during combustion: (1) combustion gases and (2) engine parts, such as cylinder, pistons, valves, etc. During combustion, a certain amount of heat is produced. This heat must go somewhere. Now for two hypothetical and unreal scenarios: If all of this heat was transferred to only the gases then the engine would be 100% efficient--the temperature of the engine would be the same as the ambient air temperature in this case since no heat was transferred to it. In contrast, if all of the heat was transferred only to the engine parts, then the engine would be 0% efficient--the gas received no energy, therefore its temperature remains the same, resulting in no expansion to move the piston. So based on these two extreme boundary scenarios, one must conclude that we want more heat energy transferred to the gases, so that our engine efficiency improves.




This does not make sense. First, let's assume that a vehicle is stoichiometric without the device attached and that perfect combustion takes place in the engine. This means that no excess oxygen is detected by the O2 (lambda) sensors, and the pulse-width for fuel injection stays the same.

Now, let's attach an HHO device, and assume that it produce a large amount, 5L, of gases per minute, which is about 0.083 L per second. From wikipedia, the density of hydrogen is 0.08988 g/L, so assuming that all of this 0.083 L is hydrogen, which it is not, gives

(0.083 L) * (0.08988 g/L) = 0.00749 grams of hydrogen per second

Since oxygen and hydrogen are produced in a 2:1 ratio,

2(H2O) --> 2(H2) + 1(O2)

32 grams of oxygen are produced with every 4 grams of hydrogen for every two moles of H20. The mass of oxygen produced relative to hydrogen is always 8 times as much. So the mass of oxygen is

0.00749 * 8 = 0.05992 grams of oxygen.

A good assumption for cars running at 60 mph is that they use 1.5 grams of gasoline per second. So at stoichiometric, about 15:1, this means that 22.5 grams of air is used each second, 20% or 4.5 grams of which is oxygen. The ratio of oxygen produced from electrolysis versus that taken through the intake is

0.05992 / 4.5 = 1.3%

Now, the combustion of hydrogen requires oxygen, so the extra oxygen produced from the electrolysis is very likely to be used up, so this percentage would have to be much smaller, or there really is no point in using HHO.

Further, you claim that HHO increases the burn efficiency of the gasoline. I agree with you on this, but there is not much extra gas to be burned anyways, maybe 1% from what I've heard from many people. However, the important point is that if extra gasoline is burned, then more oxygen will be used, further lowering the oxygen present at the O2 sensor. Therefore, the only way that the O2 sensors would sense more oxygen is if the emissions were modified drastically, but this will depend on one's quantity of hydrogen production and A/F ratio, so the sensor problem only makes sense in this regard.

It is with these reasons I say that people make there engine run lean. Also, scientific research shows that fuel economy is increased when a vehicle is operated lean and with proper hydrogen addition with low concern engine knocking, pre-ignition, etc.

Sorry for getting off the topic of this thread, but I strongly disagree.

Lot's of fact's and figures in there. Good work. Now, I'll start a new thread. Initial Gains in Fuel Economy: Has anyone installed a hho unit with no other modifications and see initial gains in fuel economy BEFORE the ecu made compensations. Is anyone still getting better economy and haven't made any other modifications other than the addition of the hho unit. We'll get some real world answers and go from there. Fair enough? Then you can explain to me how these people have seen fuel economy gains without leaning out thier engines and why do the majority see initial gains and then lose them. And for heavens sake, why, after losing the initial gains due to ecu compensation, can they disconnect the battery and reset the ecu, do the gains return untill the ecu compensates agian? Is it because thier ecu's stock settings are to run lean? I think not.

[Walt]

How do you figure the HHO will be lost??? Going to a vacuum line is usually problematic for several reasons. There is maximum vacuum at the manifold at IDLE, and least when you accelerate. Just the opposite of what you want for feeding HHO into a motor. I think most using HHO go to the air intake, close to the butterfly.

Going to other than a vacuum line or manifold is ok, no HHO will be lost going to the air intake.

I guess my point was that in 1963 they usualy did not have an intake air duct that lead to the intake manifold. This is where many inject the HHO between the MAF and the butterfly. In the olden days they just had a canister on top of the carb. My feeling is simply puting the HHO into this canister, as some have done, is a problem and you have the potential to loose the HHO. I agree there is a big problem with an intake manifold only connection. If your choice is either or it should be the pre butterfly location.

[buffordboy23]

Fair enough? Then you can explain to me how these people have seen fuel economy gains without leaning out thier engines and why do the majority see initial gains and then lose them. And for heavens sake, why, after losing the initial gains due to ecu compensation, can they disconnect the battery and reset the ecu, do the gains return untill the ecu compensates agian? Is it because thier ecu's stock settings are to run lean? I think not.

Yeah, that's fair. This would be a good thread, because it is the most perplexing part.

The ECU's stock setting is not to run lean. You are correct. My guess is that they see fuel economy gains because the device makes the engine run leaner by modifying the sensor data in some fashion, which causes the ECU to shorten the pulse-width for fuel injection. Leaner engine means more air at O2 sensor, and back to evening out the mixture. I have a similar thread that explores this possibility but no participants yet.

http://www.hhoforums.com/showthread.php?t=982

With the efficiency losses (engine, alternator, electrolysis), thermodynamic laws say it is impossible to get more energy back than put into the system--with good assumptions for efficiency losses we need to put in five times as much energy to split water than we get back from recombining it. Sure, a more complete gasoline burn (extra 1%, very little extra energy) and faster burn near TDC helps bridge the gap somewhat, but I am not convinced that it bridges the whole gap and then a whole lot more.

[sp1r0]

Timetowinarace, sounds like a good idea, because the poor chap here who started this thread has an older carbureted engine. He has the potential to see MPG gains with the addition of HHO, since he can physically restrict the amount of fuel the engine needs. Fuel injected cars I think will have to be reprogrammed to see a long lasting difference in fuel mileage. These reprogrammers allow you to reprogram fuel curves, timing advance curves, stoichiometric value, and much more. Now whether or not he can lean his properly is another question, because there is more to it than just turning in your idle mixture screws. That is only good for idle. My suggestion would be to get a book on the carb. I know my 86 Chevy truck has a Quadrojet, and I have a book on it. Unfortunately I am not up on my HHO production yet, plus it is a huge 7.4L engine. I plan on buying one of these for my 97 Geo, which has a 1.0L 3 cyl engine. HHO will have a much more dramatic effect on this car. The $500 I need for the programmer won't be around till next year.

[sp1r0]

My memory returned to me, it's been awhile.BDP29 will have to change his needles and/or jets to lean his mixture out. Jeg's or Summit sells larger needles for Quadrajets not sure about his carb...

[sm0kin]

ok so this may make me look like a pure idiot. does anyone know exactly how much energy is in water? put more energy in then you get out? i believe the hydrogen bomb used tnt originally to split an atom of hydrogen. sure does seem to be alot more energy coming out then what went in.

[buffordboy23]

i believe the hydrogen bomb used tnt originally to split an atom of hydrogen. sure does seem to be alot more energy coming out then what went in.

Your talking about atomic energy being released from the nuclear fission of hydrogen isotopes (hydrogen atoms with extra neutrons). 99.98% of hydrogen in the universe is not of these isotopic forms, so this does not apply to water--bond energies apply to water.

So, if you are only looking at the energy released during hydrogen combustion, then you would get back the same amount of energy put into the system to split the water in the first place, if the process was 100% efficient. This is why people say HHO doesn't work, but there is a deeper side to the topic than this, which explains why HHO can work.