HHO Gun possibility?

[TurboSuper]

I just use the term HHO as a trade name rather than as a chemical name. Kinda like people who refer to nitrous oxide as "NOS". It just helps differentiate these devices from a wide range of body hair removal devices, which also go under the name "electrolysis".

[boyntonstu]

I just use the term HHO as a trade name rather than as a chemical name. Kinda like people who refer to nitrous oxide as "NOS". It just helps differentiate these devices from a wide range of body hair removal devices, which also go under the name "electrolysis".

Excellent point!

A pistol, a rod, a gat, heat, do you carry?

Have I confused you with these terms?

If you call the tail of a dog a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

BoyntonStu

Yesterday, I spilled some spot remover, and I couldn't find my dog.

I love language!

[Hotwired]

There are such things as associations with words.


Putting load on your car alternator and thus more work for the engine to split water and then burn the subsequent gas back to water and less energy for questionable reasons is what comes with the word HHO.

[boyntonstu]

There are such things as associations with words.


Putting load on your car alternator and thus more work for the engine to split water and then burn the subsequent gas back to water and less energy for questionable reasons is what comes with the word HHO.

How much of a load burden on a 200 HP engine do you think 0.9 HP would be?

Most electrolysis units work at or below 25 A at 13.5 VDC.

I d not consider that a heavy load.

[Technician1002]

There are such things as associations with words.


Putting load on your car alternator and thus more work for the engine to split water and then burn the subsequent gas back to water and less energy for questionable reasons is what comes with the word HHO.

How much of a load burden on a 200 HP engine do you think 0.9 HP would be?

Most electrolysis units work at or below 25 A at 13.5 VDC.

I d not consider that a heavy load.

Most electrolysis units don't put out 240 L/hour.
Most 200 HP engines don't put out 200 HP in normal driving.
Please compare the load as part of the HP demand. Please calculate the load of the proper size cell to meet the requirements.

Next we will do the calculations.

[boyntonstu]

There are such things as associations with words.


Putting load on your car alternator and thus more work for the engine to split water and then burn the subsequent gas back to water and less energy for questionable reasons is what comes with the word HHO.

How much of a load burden on a 200 HP engine do you think 0.9 HP would be?

Most electrolysis units work at or below 25 A at 13.5 VDC.

I d not consider that a heavy load.

Most electrolysis units don't put out 240 L/hour.
Most 200 HP engines don't put out 200 HP in normal driving.
Please compare the load as part of the HP demand. Please calculate the load of the proper size cell to meet the requirements.

Next we will do the calculations.

You are correct. Most electrolysis units put out 0.5 to 2 LPM or 30 to 120 L/hour.

I have no idea of the average load of a 200 HP engine is for city/highway travel.

In any case, less than 1 HP does not appear to be a high percentage load.

[TurboSuper]

Well, here's a "high-output" HHO cell:

http://www.hhoshop.com/blog/ultra-high- ... punch-hho/

It generates 2.5 LPM(150 LH) at 40 amps. I'll assume it's using a car battery voltage of ~13.5V. So that's 540W, or 0.72hp.

So with two of these, you could generate 300 Lph @ 1.44 Hp. Unfortunately, the PDF I linked doesn't mention the net HP gain, so I can't say whether you'd end up pushing >1.44 Hp out of your engine with this system installed.

Of course, spending $1400 on an electrolysis cell doesn't do much for your fuel budget

[Hotwired]

The hhoshop also mentions...

for less than $50 you can build a fuel cell that will increase your mileage by as much as 65% or more and that’s not bad.

Are they trying to take the piss out of people whose interest in science stopped before leaving school?

Come on, 65% increase in mileage and the car industry won't touch it with a barge pole?

[jimmy101]

I have no idea of the average load of a 200 HP engine is for city/highway travel.

In any case, less than 1 HP does not appear to be a high percentage load.

The average horsepower required when cruising, even at say 60 MPH, is pretty low. Figure something in the vicinity of 20 to 30 HP. The other 170 to 180 HP is needed to accelerate the car. So 1 HP to the alternator represents 3.3% to 5% of the total power the engine is producing at cruising speeds. A 1 HP additional load on the engine will decrease the fuel efficiency at highway speeds by 1 to 2 MPG (for a 30 MPG highway mileage vehicle).

So, a "HHO" system must add at least 1 to 2 MPG to the vehicles mileage just to break even with the electrical requirements. That doesn't include the power loss in the electrolysis (probably mostly heat loss) and the fundamental inefficiencies of generating power via a combustion process (figure there's a ~70% energy loss in that.)

[boyntonstu]

I have no idea of the average load of a 200 HP engine is for city/highway travel.

In any case, less than 1 HP does not appear to be a high percentage load.

The average horsepower required when cruising, even at say 60 MPH, is pretty low. Figure something in the vicinity of 20 to 30 HP. The other 170 to 180 HP is needed to accelerate the car. So 1 HP to the alternator represents 3.3% to 5% of the total power the engine is producing at cruising speeds. A 1 HP additional load on the engine will decrease the fuel efficiency at highway speeds by 1 to 2 MPG (for a 30 MPG highway mileage vehicle).

So, a "HHO" system must add at least 1 to 2 MPG to the vehicles mileage just to break even with the electrical requirements. That doesn't include the power loss in the electrolysis (probably mostly heat loss) and the fundamental inefficiencies of generating power via a combustion process (figure there's a ~70% energy loss in that.)

So, a "HHO" system must add at least 1 to 2 MPG to the vehicles mileage just to break even with the electrical requirements. I agree.



That doesn't include the power loss in the electrolysis (probably mostly heat loss) and the fundamental inefficiencies of generating power via a combustion process (figure there's a ~70% energy loss in that. I disagree. These losses have zero effect on what benefit, if any, the already produced "HHO" does as a catalyst and as an emission reducer.

HHO is NOT a fuel.

As to current draw, I call you attention to a 6+ MMW electrolyzer cell.

MMW stands for mLiter/minute/Watt.


Many have achieve 6 MMW-7MMW efficiencies.

See my cell in action here:

Amoeba cell at 45* video ~2 LPM



I do NOT claim any increase in MPG.


BoyntonStu

[jimmy101]

I disagree. These losses have zero effect on what benefit, if any, the already produced "HHO" does as a catalyst and as an emission reducer.

HHO is NOT a fuel.

Minor nit pick but "HHO" is not a catalyst. It is a fuel and is consumed in the process. A catalyst remains unchanged during a chemical process. A platinum electrode in a fuel cell is a catalyst. It accelerates a reaction that normally occurs much more slowly and the catalysis is unchanged in the process. The contents of a catalytic converter are catalysts and are unchanged and not consumed in the process.

[boyntonstu]

Minor nit pick but "HHO" is not a catalyst. It is a fuel and is consumed in the process. A catalyst remains unchanged during a chemical process. A platinum electrode in a fuel cell is a catalyst. It accelerates a reaction that normally occurs much more slowly and the catalysis is unchanged in the process. The contents of a catalytic converter are catalysts and are unchanged and not consumed in the process.

I thank you for bringing up the correct definition of a catalyst.

May I suggest to you that Hydrogen coming from electrolysis, is an energy carrier and not a fuel?

Yes it is consumed, but a battery is discharged and a battery is not considered a fuel.

Perhaps Hydrogen converted from natural gas MAY be considered a fuel, but I do not accept it. he term "fuel" is often misused. See below.

Back to what Hydrogen may do in an engine.

Hydrogen burns much faster and with a higher temperature than gasoline.

Adding hydrogen may cause the air/fuel/hydrogen mixture to burn faster.

In that sense, a small quantity of Hydrogen affected a much larger quantity of fuel/air. ( almost like a catalyst would act)

Thanks,

BoyntonStu

From Wiki

Hydrogen fuel can be used for its combustive qualities to produce energy. It has potential uses as an energy carrier and can be used to store power generated by other means, and for use as an alternative fuel. Its use is advocated for by proponents of a hydrogen economy, including environmentalists and some scientists.

Hydrogen must first be obtained through electrolysis or steam reforming. Hydrogen cannot be mined or drilled out of deposits in the earth like fossil fuels because hydrogen does not naturally occur in its elemental form and must be separated from compounds such as water (H20) or hydrocarbons. It requires more energy input to produce it than is generated through its combustion. Hydrogen fuel can provide motive power such as cars, boats and airplanes. Smaller devices can also be powered by hydrogen through the use of fuel cells.

[inonickname]

Far out you guys.

An electrolysis cell powered by energy derived from the fossil fuels itself will NOT help the environment and will NOT save you money. It will NOT reduce MPG UNLESS it's using so much energy that it's drawing so much energy from the battery that the alternator can't keep up, meaning the battery goes flat. Which is then recharged by electricity generated from fossil fuel burning power stations. (unless you have a nuclear one near you, which would be good..)

And this rubbish about hydrogen acting as a booster to accelerate how quickly the fuel burns? The duration of combustion in an ICE is a GOOD thing.

Why, you ask? For the same reason we don't use primary high explosives instead of the slower burning gunpowder in weapons. Duration is a GOOD thing.

HHO is rubbish.

[jimmy101]

May I suggest to you that Hydrogen coming from electrolysis, is an energy carrier and not a fuel?

There really isn't any difference between "energy carrier" and "fuel". Both require an initial energy source and both release energy when utilized. In the case of "HHO" the ultimate energy source is fossil fuels, which in turn trace back to an energy source of either the sun or organic compounds that were present when the earth was formed. Different time scale but same idea and thermodynamics.

Yes it is consumed, but a battery is discharged and a battery is not considered a fuel.

I would consider a battery a fuel. In a battery fuel is consumed. The chemistry of a battery is exactly the same as generic combustive chemistry, the only difference being that the oxidizer is not O2, instead it is a high valent metal (usually). In a fuel cell (which is a type of battery) the fuel is often hydrogen and the hydrogen is burned. It just happens that some batteries can be "operated backwards" and recharged. Recharging always requires an external power source. Some batteries can not be recharged and the "fuel" are the inorganic compounds the battery is constructed from. A significant amount of energy must be consumed to make the compounds that are used in the battery.

Perhaps Hydrogen converted from natural gas MAY be considered a fuel, but I do not accept it. The term "fuel" is often misused. See below.

I disagree, anything that stores energy is fuel. All fuels store energy for later release. Hydrogen in a rocket is fuel, doesn't really matter if the hydrogen is from a natural source or prepared chemically/electrolyticly, it is still fuel.

Back to what Hydrogen may do in an engine.

Hydrogen burns much faster and with a higher temperature than gasoline.

Adding hydrogen may cause the air/fuel/hydrogen mixture to burn faster.

That requires that combustion speed is actually a limiting factor in an ICE. I am aware of no data suggesting that is the case. There are other cheaper and simpler ways to increase the fuel burn speed. Those techniques do not increase the performance of the engine enough to be worthwhile.

From Wiki

Hydrogen fuel can be used for its combustive qualities to produce energy. It has potential uses as an energy carrier and can be used to store power generated by other means, and for use as an alternative fuel. Its use is advocated for by proponents of a hydrogen economy, including environmentalists and some scientists.

Hydrogen must first be obtained through electrolysis or steam reforming. Hydrogen cannot be mined or drilled out of deposits in the earth like fossil fuels because hydrogen does not naturally occur in its elemental form and must be separated from compounds such as water (H20) or hydrocarbons. It requires more energy input to produce it than is generated through its combustion. Hydrogen fuel can provide motive power such as cars, boats and airplanes. Smaller devices can also be powered by hydrogen through the use of fuel cells.

As I said earlier, all fuels are "energy carriers". Doesn't matter if the fuel is H2 and it was made 10 seconds ago or gasoline made in nature 100 million years ago, both are still energy carriers. Diesel can be made chemically in a lab from any number of organic starting materials (corn, beets, grass, hemp...). Diesel is a fuel regardless of how it is created an who "paid" the energy bill. generally though, a fuel is much cheaper if the energy bill was "paid" by the sun and the earth over periods of millions of years.

The whole concept of "energy carrier" is really about trying to convert one fuel into another in the most efficient way possible. To be practical there must be a significant advantage to the created fuel. Furthermore those advantages must outweigh the cost (read inefficiency) of converting one fuel to another. In the case of onboard H2 production I see no thermodynamic or practical advantage. For off-board production (for example using the power grid to make H2 at home or using a fossil fuel powered to plant to produce H2 for bulk distribution) all you are really doing is putting a very long exhaust pipe onto the car. About the same amount of pollution is produced the only difference is the pollution is produced someplace other than where the car is actually operating.

EDIT: The only place where "HHO" makes any sense is when the "energy bill" is being paid by a low energy density "free" source such wind or solar. The low energy density and intermitant nature of the energy source requires an energy storage mechanism. "HHO" would be one way to go and may be more efficient than say traditional batteries or pumping a bunch of water uphill. If the energy source is an ICE than "HHO" is going to be a net loss, the primary fuel will always be more efficient in a vehicle. Vehicles always have the problem that you must carry the fuel and the machinery to utilize the fuel. In a "HHO" making ICE you have to carry the primary fuel, the conversion machinery (internal combustion engine), the secondary conversion machinery (generator + electrolysis cell + plumbing). Adding weight to a vehicle is always a bad thing when it comes to fuel efficience.

[boyntonstu]

Yes it is consumed, but a battery is discharged and a battery is not considered a fuel.
I would consider a battery a fuel. In a battery fuel is consumed. The chemistry of a battery is exactly the same as generic combustive chemistry, the only difference being that the oxidizer is not O2, instead it is a high valent metal (usually).


A storage battery is no more a fuel than a tank of 8,000 PSI Hydrogen or 4,000 psi air. All are energy carriers say most energy mavens.

If you call the tail of a dog a leg, how many legs does a dog have?