HHO gas as automobile fuel

Sorry but we have had a thread on this nearly every day...

The answer is always the same... it's rubbish (although a very small amount of water vapour in the air can aid combustion)

I get real frustrated with the experts/critics/naysayers who "have all the answers", when in reality they don't even know the question. For the record, Hydrogen fuel enhancement was first researched by the Jet Propulsion Labs of the California Institute of Technology in 1974. John Houseman and D.J. Cerini investigated the use of hydrogen technology showing interesting results in emissions and gas mileage. The S. Korean government has mandated that over 100,000 transport trucks be fitted with HHO generators to cut down on pollution. The U. S. Department of Energy lists an HHO generator manufacturer on its website. Another manufacturer has its application in with the California Air Resources Board (CARB). And, the provincial Canadian government is funding the hydrogen fuel injection units that will be placed in the school buses to increase fuel mileage. Finally, the State of Arizona tested for 5 years, on everything from a Ranger pickup to a 14 L Freightliner and found "significant" results (As in ZERO % Particulates!) with Hydrogen induction.
Feel free to e-mail at Fuel_Mizer@mail.com and I'll send you about 150 more SPECIFIC references.
Jerry L. Casebolt

READ my post - You are WRONG! - The State of Arizona - The State of California - The Canadian Government - Over 150 OTR trucking companies - ALL have tested these units and PROVEN that they work!

Get Over It!

Show us the data, please.

One of the most promising water-aided developments is the six-stroke cycle, details of which can be found in many on-line encyclopaediae. The principle is to inject water into the cylinder on stroke 5 and to exhaust steam on stroke six.

'Suck-squeeze-bang-blow-squirt-chuff' would describe it well.

Another interesting variation on the traditional Otto (or, deRochas, if you'd rather) cycle are 'hyper-expansion" working strokes.

The original Atkinson "Cycle" (its name) used linkage to provide 4 strokes, each of different length.

There was, (& i believe that someone's trying it again, now) an arrangement with an additional expansion only cylinder located adjacent to two 4-stroke-cycle cylinders, recieving combustion gasses & expanding + exhausting . Connected alternately to each of its cylinders, to provide additional expansion volume when summed with that of the regular cylinder to which it is currently connected

With injection on stroke 5, I take it you would need to retain more heat to get max exspansion, and need a very clean supply of water or a very stable lubricant to protect the bore and rings?

Bill

You are going to start seeing more evidence that this is viable technology in the coming weeks. Just google hho or hho gas....bookmark the top blogs on the topic. It's easy to dismiss this technology because it sounds ridiculous but a growing number of organizations are building businesses out of it as we speak. The real evidence for whether or not this technology works is to stick a vehicle on a dynamoter before and after the plugin hybrid is attached. The folks at Hydrogen Boost have evidence of this from a study done by Purdue University. Other companies have 3rd party lab validation. The makers of Auygen claim this and a few other companies are also claiming this. Obviously, this is not the forum to air out all the evidence. No time for that anway. Dont worry, it's going to be much harder in the coming months to dismiss this as "rubbish. "

All anybody has to do is show me well-documented, verifiable evidence that this works and I'll be the biggest supporter you ever saw.

Ok all you people who think this about injecting water into the cylinder, please go read a harry potter book and leave this to people with the ability to read the question. first. this is not a scam. NO ONE is claiming free energy. just different and better energy than gasoline. it may not be as easy or even as cheap to produce than gasoline but thats not the point. the HHO gas helps internal combustion engines use less of thier respective fuel. for the same milage. your alternator is already producing more electricity than the car can use. and its already pulling a load on the engine. so if we use the excess electricity that is being produced by the gasoline engine turning the alternator to produce HHO. (which will cause more drag on the engine than without the HHO generator) the HHO then in turn combines with the gasoline and produces more power than gasoline alone, therefor useing LESS gasoline for the same distance. its not free energy, but it uses LESS gasoline made from oil from place with people who want to kill us. ITS NOT FREE ENERGY... BUT IT WILL CUT OUR CONSUMPTION OF FOREIGN OIL.

Guest,

Good response, but it contains a commonly held error. Alternators do not produce excess electricity. I think there might be an argument to be made in support of increased fuel efficiency, but you cannot use the alternator "for free".

Interesting. Here it is, months later, and it is still rubbish. The recent Popular Mechanics test offers indisputable proof that these devices do absloutely nothing beneficial, just as the science predicts.

Well ...

There is no experience better than your own. I mean ... these things are CHEAP to build. Build you one and check it out for yourself.

I mean .. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to build one of these things. A container, some stainless steel, some vinegar (or KOH if you want to go the full monty), a battery, a cheap amp meter at the parts store, and some hoses.

In a nut shell for you, keep your anode and cathode about 1/8 in. apart, add distilled water, then add the vinegar until you are pulling about 10 amps. Plug it in, and let it ride.

One thing I've noticed on all the threads. The "nerds" will break out the thermodynamics rule, even though, the principle doesn't apply, as you are not using the hydrogen to "fuel" the vehicle, but to enhance the burn of the gasoline. I don't see this technology as anything different from a blower. A blower uses the gasoline power to turn the turbines to pack the cylinders full of compressed air = loss of power. However, the resulting increase in compression results in more power in the end. Same for a turbo charger. You are altering the environment within which the gasoline burns .. not providing extra fuel.

But .. like I said ... no experience is better than your own. Try it, then judge it. That's what I'm in the process of doing, because quite frankly, .... you don't know what your getting with an opinion off the internet.

I get real frustrated with the experts/critics/naysayers who "have all the answers", when in reality they don't even know the question. For the record, Hydrogen fuel enhancement was first researched by the Jet Propulsion Labs of the California Institute of Technology in 1974. John Houseman and D.J. Cerini investigated the use of hydrogen technology showing interesting results in emissions and gas mileage. The S. Korean government has mandated that over 100,000 transport trucks be fitted with HHO generators to cut down on pollution. The U. S. Department of Energy lists an HHO generator manufacturer on its website. Another manufacturer has its application in with the California Air Resources Board (CARB). And, the provincial Canadian government is funding the hydrogen fuel injection units that will be placed in the school buses to increase fuel mileage.

Feel free to e-mail at Fuel_Mizer@mail.com and I'll send you about 150 more SPECIFIC references.

Jerry L. Casebolt

Hi SouthPark285,

I'm a critic, so I'll answer. I have read the JPL paper. I do believe that hydrogen fuel enhancement shows enough promise to warrant further work. I do understand the idea of increased speed of combustion. I support DOE funding for research in this technology.

But, I don't believe there is such as a thing as HHO. There are hydrogen and oxygen, but HHO is a madeup term; it does not exist in the real, physical world.

I'll continue to be in favor of hydrogen enhancement research and I'll continue to be skeptical of anything that uses the word "HHO".

Does anyone know if the hydrogen gas (Brown's gas or HHO?) made by electrolysis or by combining chemicals in water be used to run a 2 cycle motor? I was wondering if it would run a 2 cycle model airplane motor. It shouldn't take much hydogen to run one if it would in fact work. You couild have a small generator on board the plane to feed the motor. Anyone have an thoughts on this idea? Don

I was researching the general efficiency of the Otto cycle(4-stroke IC), and I was reminded how poor a thermodynamic process it is, even at its theoretical best, as are many thermodynamic cycles, including the Diesel. On the order of 30~35% efficiency from an energy in/work out capturing mechanism, with most of the heat going out the tailpipe, but alas, that's how it works, in theory and practice.

I would sooner believe that injecting a mixture of something like Brown's Gas has some other effect than adding energy into the system (after filching it from the system), the conservation of energy argument. Most of the tech folks won't be buying into the concept from a pure energy balance standpoint, owing to the various laws of thermo that demand process losses.

The Otto cycle is modeled theoretically on a PV graph (the area looks like a skewed quadrilateral) , and assumes the gas is an ideal gas, and behaves ideally between strokes, but in practice the corners tend to be rounded or blurred (looks like a jellybean) since the ideal gas assumption is made for convenience purposes, otherwise teaching what would otherwise be a very complicated science would be even more difficult, reserved for the masters and doctors. The actual performance of an Otto cycle in practice cannot assume the perfection of the various components of the analysis, but it's where engineers start and ultimately shoot for.

Does this Brown's Gas process provide a way to produce an on-the-fly fuel additive, like STP GAS BOOST (cited as a familiar reference, I don't know if this works either) into your fuel stream that mixes with the fuel, improves combustion, reduces pollutants, cleans your cylinders and and perhaps, unknowingly filling in some of the radiused edges off the actual PV curves found in practice to approach that predicted by the theoretical maximum values predicted by the sharp-edged Otto cycle graphs?

I'd like to see (I'll be on the lookout for) more discussion as to how Brown's Gas may be "idealizing" the fuel mix, and thus improving the thermodynamic cycle. Viewed mathematically, and based loosely on what I'm reading, if this fuel additive can improve the practical results of Otto cycle's base efficiency from say 30% to 40%, that would mean a perceived gain of 10%/30% or 33%, sort of in the range of these claims (25-50%). Improving the efficiency of an already thermodynamically poor system, even a little, could lead to these big gains being broadly claimed, because the denominator is so small.

It's in those nasty little complicated corners of the actual cycle that I think we are going to find some of the answers as to why or where this process may be making things more ideal, and may be something of a combustion lubricant working in concert with what's already there, or otherwise simply fooling what the car's computer was expecting to burn to make it burn "better" by running leaner, or some trick of timing or whatever.

I think many folks are mislead by the claims that the HHO systems are really adding that much more energy into the system, and summarily dismiss the claims based on that alone.

Based on the mass flow of the gases alone, one can see that the liters per minute generated by these HHO generators pale in comparison (<1%) to the volume swept by an engine (liters per revolution). I can't see how that much energy could possibly be introduced by that little water. (I've lived in cold regions where the combustion byproducts cloud out of your tailpipe on some chilly mornings, or drip from the end while your scraping the ice off the windshield.) There's a lot more moisture in car exhaust than a few ounces per 100 miles. So I don't buy that one on conservation of mass principles either.

I'd like to invite back those engineers that, like myself, are in "denial" based on the energy argument and suggest to those with thoughts on the Otto cycle (practical vs. theoretical), continue to have go at this. There just has to be some other explanation other than "and then a miracle happens".

USA Jim

Jim,

Good response. I think most of us who refuse to "buy" the HHO claims are not blind to the possibilities of improved performance (though I intuitively think rounding the PV corners will lower efficiency rather than raise it). To be quite clear, and I speak only for myself, I do not accept that thermodynamics is wrong, I do not accept that the burden of proof to show HHO claims false is on me, and I do not accept that there has to be any explanation for what is often only a hoax. Show me some hard data that I can verify (the standard scientific way of doing things) and I'll be glad to enter into considerations of how this works. But, the answer always is, "Try it and then you'll see.". No.

You're right & I agree, rounded PV corners are bad. Just to clarify, I feel the corners on the PV curve are already rounded due to normal and identifiable process losses. I am suggesting the addition of HHO is somehow sharpening those radiuses, moving the entire efficiency closer to that of theoretical for an ideal gas cycle. So, if I used the term shaving, perhaps I meant to say "spackling".

The mechanism of this magical feat has not been stated as the actual reason, for if it were, I feel the tone of the pitch on HHO sites might actually move away from "and then a miracle happens" and onto something a little more techie.

Let's consider the marketing and advertising position of keeping the sales pitch as simple as possible, e.g. new and improved, relying on 'testimonials' and avoiding the heavy-hitting techno-jargon understood only by the engineers (a turn-off for the "larger" share of the market that just wants to believe it works) relative to what's working for them right now, fuel price increases. That's an incredibly strong purchase motivator, particularly when the alternative fuel is water (and it's "free".)

Realistically, it's the group of engineers that are probably be the most resistant of all to this process. If they could cross over, what a great opportunity this could be in terms of "boosting their testimonial octane" (please excuse anything that approaches an 'anti-knock' pun). And if it were true, and I could be made to understand it, I would be getting into this business without further delay.

I cracked open my book on Classical Thermodynamics, (Van Wylan/Sonntag) (c)1976, and brushed off about 30 years of dust, oh boy, so it deals with the hard-core fundamentals, but does not cover anything that has been advanced in the last 30 years!

Under the Otto cycle, there were several suggestions as to how an actual cycle might deviate from theoretical, which I will paraphase for brevity, including:

1) Specific heats of the actual gases increase with an increase in temperature.

2) The combustion process replaces the heat-transfer process at high temperature, and combustion may be incomplete.

3) Friction losses at the cylinder inlet and outlets cause work to be lost. (Port and polish, please. )

4) Heat transfer loss between the cylinder and cylinder walls. (enter ceramics)

5) Irreversibilities associated with the pressure and temperature gradients. (these processes approach, but can not really be considered isentropic.)

A straight HHO retrofit with no other engine mods rule out the radical engine changes suggested by 3 & 4. The ads state the HHO changeover is an easy, simple bolt-on, low-cost, easily reversed one. Let's focus on what remains.

With the introduction of the HHO, perhaps the stoichiometric balance or flame front behavior causes favorable improvment in the specific heats of the gases(1), or as a few of the threads I've read have suggested, aids to more complete combustion(2), perhaps through a catalytic effect akin to a stratified charge, an improvement of the ignition/sparks speed at lighting the fuel mix, or reducing FI atomization lagtime, yeilding a more complete burn. Eeking a little more out of what's already there would suggest potential for a cycle improvement. As to how much, I'd like to find out more. Claims that HHO lowers emissions are much easier to verify, and may be the real reasons why the HHO systems are being adopted by large governments and their agencies, fuel efficiency claims notwithstanding. Having one benefit doesn't substantiate the others, but may present a clue to a related effect.

We seek a more advanced technical explanation that does not break down under the more/less energy in, more efficiency out analysis. All things being equal, if this process does in fact work, it has to go beyond the "rob Peter to pay Paul" reasons.

If anyone can advance thoughts along the "rob Peter, pay Paul, (and accept that loss) and parlay what you have (HHO) into some yet-to-be-explained technological air-cycle process refinement, which then yeilds higher efficiency.", well, I'd be all ears.

Here is a partial list of "Published Research Papers" on the HHO concept. These papers "justify", if you would, the premise and blow out all of the naysayers. Hope this helps, Jer P.S. I've got more if you want them Because these articles are typically privy to only the scientific community, the general public does not read them or see them on the news. Justification of technological viability must come from mainstream authorities!

It would be nice if CNN would do an Documentary about these articles!! They all are about the concept of

"fuel enhancement". Automotive fuel enhancement systems are notorious around the internet. Because of assembly, installation, and tuning requirements the technology has laid dormant relative to society at large. Concluding that the technology is not ready for mainstream is required to justify lack of widespread implementation. The following is a list of Journal Articles in Mainstream Publications that highlight the time and effort that past researchers have put into using hydrogen based fuels to enhance carbon fuel combustion. Update Heavy-Duty Engine Emission Update Heavy-Duty Engine Emission Conversion Factors for Mobile6: Analysis of BSFCs and Calculation of Heavy-Duty Engine Emission Conversion Factors, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA420-P-98-015, May 1998 Lax and Rucker, Medium and Heavy Duty Truck Fuel Economy and Consumption Trends, Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Technical Paper Series, Paper # 810023, February, 1981 Houseman and Cerini, Jet Propulsion Lab., California Institute of Technology, On-Board Hydrogen Generator for a Partial Hydrogen Injection Internal Combustion Engine, August 1974, SAE Paper # 740600 Kong, Crane, Patel and Taylor, NOx Trap Regeneration with an On-Board Hydrogen Generation Device, March 2004, SAE Technical Paper Series, Paper # 2004-01-0582 Welch and Wallace, Ortech International and University of Toronto, Performance Characteristics of a Hydrogen-Fueled Diesel Engine with Ignition Assist , October 1990, SAE Technical Paper Series, Paper # 902070 Hoekstra, Van Blarigan and Mulligan, University of Central Florida, Sandia National Labs and Florida Solar Energy Center, NOx Emissions and Efficiency of Hydrogen, Natural Gas, and Hydrogen/Natural Gas Blended Fuels, , May 1996, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 961103 Tunestal et al., Lund Institute of Technology and Swedish Gas Center, Hydrogen Addition For Improved Lean Burn Capability of Slow and Fast Burning Natural Gas Combustion Chambers, October 2002, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 2002-01-2686 Ochoa, Dwyer, Wallace and Brodrick, University of California at Davis, Emissions from Hydrogen Enriched CHG Production Engines, October 2002, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 2002-01-2687 Fontana, Galloni, Jannelli, and Minutillo, Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Cassino, Performance and Fuel Consumption Estimation of a Hydrogen Enriched Gasoline Engine at Part-Load Operation, July 2002, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 2002-01-2196 Tully and Heywood, General Motors and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lean-Burn Characteristics of a Gasoline Engine Enriched with Hydrogen from a Plasmatron Fuel Reformer, , March 2003, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 2003-01-0630 Natkin et al., Ford Motor Company and University of California-Riverside, Hydrogen IC Engine Boosting Performance and NOx Study, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 2003-01-0631 Conte and Boulouchos, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Influence of Hydrogen-Rich-Gas Addition on Combustion, Pollutant Formation and Efficiency of an IC-SI Engine, March 2004 SAE Technical Paper Series, Paper # 2004-01-0972 Allgeier et al., Robert Bosch Gmbh, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and HTI Biel, Advanced Emission and Fuel Economy Concept Using Combined Injection of Gasoline and Hydrogen in SI-Engines, March 2004, SAE Technical Paper Series, Paper # 2004-01-1270 Tomita, Kawahara, Piao, Fujita, and Hamamato; Hydrogen Combustion and Exhaust Emissions Ignited with Diesel Oil in a Dual Fuel Engine, September 2001, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 2001-01-3503 User's Guide to Mobile6.1 and Mobile6.2, Mobile Source Emission Factor Model, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Section, August 2003, EPA420-R-03-010 Frequently Asked Questions to MOBILE6, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA420-B-013, November 2003 Kihara, Tsukamato, Matsumoto, Kon and Murase; Real-Time On-Board Measurement of Mass Emission of NOx, Fuel Consumption, Road Load, and Engine Output for Diesel Engines, March 2000, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 2000-01-1141 Lenz and Cozzarini; Emissions and Air Quality, Society of Automotive Engineers, 1999, ISBN 0-7680-0248-6, pages 32-33 Taylor and Gagnon, Environment Canada's Proposed Plan for the Canadian Conversion of MOBILE6.2, Environment Canada, Pollution Data Branch and Transportation Systems Branch, July, 2003 Kreucher, Ford Motor Co., Economic, Environmental and Energy Life-Cycle Inventory of Automotive Fuels, SAE Technical Paper Series, December, 1998, Paper # 982218 He and Wang, Argonne National Laboratory, Contribution Feedstock and Fuel Transportation to Total Fuel-Cycle Energy Use and Emissions, October 2000, SAE Technical Paper Series, Paper # 2000-01-2976 Camobreco, Sheehan, Duffield and Graboski, Ecobalance, Inc., DOE National Renewable Energy Lab, USDA and Colorado School of Mines, Understanding the Life-Cycle Costs and Envrionmental Porfile of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Fuel, April 2000, SAE Technical Paper Series, Paper # 2000-01-1487 Joshi, Lave, McLean and Lankey, Michigan State University, Carnegie Mellon University and US EPA, A Life Cycle Comparison of Alternative Transportation Fuels, April 2000, SAE Technical Paper Series, Paper # 2000-01-1516 J.J.J. Louis, Shell Global Solutions, Well-to Wheel Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Various Vehicle Technologies, March 2001, SAE Technical Paper Series, Paper # 2001-01-1343 Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credits, Air Resources Board, California Environmental Protection Agency, State of California, Guidelines for the Generation and Use of Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credits, February, 1996 p.71 Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credits, Air Resources Board, California Environmental Protection Agency, State of California, Guidelines for the Generation and Use of Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credits, February, 1996 p.77 Hsu, Practical Diesel-Engine Combustion Analysis, 2002 SAE International, SAE #R-327 ISBN: 0-7860-0914-6 Fitch, Motor Truck Engineering Handbook, 4th edition, 1994 Society of Automotive Engineers, ISBN: 1-56091-378-9 Holt, Alternative Diesel Fuels, 2004 SAE International, ISBN: 0-7680-1331-3 Ross, Internal Combustion Engine Kit with Electrolysis Cell, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent # 6,209,493 , April 3, 2001 Ross, Electrolysis Cell and Internal Combustion Engine Kit, , Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Patents # 2278917 & 2349508, July 27, 1998 & June 4, 2001 Schlapbach and Zuttel, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Research and Testing, University of Fribourg, Transformation of Hydrogen into Clean Mobility Fuel Using Fuel Cells: the Storage Problem, submitted to Nature, May 29, 2001 Holt, Alternative Diesel Fuels, 2004 SAE International, January 2004, ISBN: 0-7680-1331-3, page 180 982218 Holt, Alternative Diesel Fuels, 2004 SAE International, January 2004, ISBN: 0-7680-1331-3, page 180

SouthPark,

Could you pull out a few that show evidence for HHO and cite them as individual listings? I'm having trouble figuring out which title goes with which author goes with which journal since everything is just separated by commas. I did, however, sort out three and looked at them and I couldn't see anything about HHO in two and the third was from a company selling this kind of technology and was little more than an ad.

Thanks.

I just stumbled in and saw this list. I've already read many of these studies, and most have nothing at all to do with "HHO Boosters", which have been demonstrated not to work. See the recent Popular Mechanics test, which demonstrated, using very precise fuel flow measuring equipment, that the devices act exactly as conventional science would predict: they do nothing useful.

I can't find a single study in your list that discusses onboard HHO generation by electrolysis and subsequent injection into the intake air stream. Many of these discuss hydrogen injection, using hydrogen created off-board, which is an entirely different situation. In many studies, the amount of hydrogen injected is 100 times that produced by an HHO booster. Please pick one study from your list which demonstrates that "HHO" injection works as advertised by the scammers to improve fuel efficiency.

In your entire list there is not one.

I have little doubt that HHO or Browns gas or whatever you like to call it, works to enhance the burn. And will probably improve your mileage some. That depends on several things including fooling your 02 sensor. I don't know anyone personally that has done this add on but have read enough to be convinced. I also believe that the emissions are much cleaner by way of reading plenty of articles on the subject (not dealers who are selling the add ons) My question is how much cleaner are the emissions? If the percent is high enough maybe it should be required by auto manufacturers to install one on each vehicle made. It could make a hugh difference down the line in say 10-15 years as the older vehicles wear out. So my question is Does anyone know how much cleaner, by percent, are the emissions? Don

Here's the clue. Many of the fine folks who offer the electronic controls (nothing but a little voltage bias) for your oxygen sensor in conjunction with the HHO scams advertise as a feature a "quick disconnect". So why would anybody need a quick disconnect for anything good? Simple - when you go for emissions inspections, you apparently have to disconnect the blasted thing or you won't pass the inspection.

GM is losing money hand over fist right now. They can't move any of the fuel hogs and the lots are full. If there was a simple fix that they could add to a big truck to give 10% better mileage, you can bet your sweet patootie they would.

I've never seen anything about a quick disconnect. Again, I don't think you know anything about it. You'd have to prove it to me that it doesn't lower emissions because everything I've read suggests it does. You just like taking potshots at whoever. GM would have to engineer it so that it is safe and idiot proof and raise the price a bit. It would make things more complicated at first but I think it would be a good idea. What we should be concerned with is cleaning up the exhaust emissions of our gas powered cars since it might be quite awhile before we go to all electric, Hydrogen powered and hybrid cars. Don

You might want to reread some of those articles. There has been research published showing that, with hydrogen enhancement, you can idle at an AFR of close to 30 instead of the 14.7 your car normally operates at. Of course, that much air cools the flame and significantly reduces NOx. But, you can't do much acceleration at that AFR and your don't get much efficiency from the combustion process since the temperature is lower.

Why does the efficiency go down if the temperture is lower? I would think it would be the other way around. It seems to me I remember years ago some backyard tinkerers misted in some water into the combustion chamber and the effieciecy went up because it lowered the temperature of the combustion chamber. What then was that all about? I guess a test would have to be taken with different throttle settings to see what the overall average emission reduction percentage would be. I wonder if anyone has done any of those types of tests. Don

All these tests were done carefully by Tizard and Pye around 1920. A small amount of water injection may improve efficiency if the exhaust has a sizable percentage of CO. The effect of the water is to slow combustion to the point where more of the CO is burned. This seems to depend on engine design, type of fuel introduction, and compression ratio.

Fundamentally an ICE is a heat engine and, for all heat engines, the maximum efficiency will be given by (T_combustion - T_exhaust)/T_combustion. So, lowering T_combustion drops the efficiency, except in the one case where the engine is running hot enough to cause pre-ignition.

I'll try to find an online reference for the Tizard/Pye/Ricardo work and post it.

I did install a generator, and after trial and error I corrected the shortcomings of the generator that I had purchased. I had to build one on my own. I have had the generator in may 2003 Hyundai and I have driven it over 19,000 miles. Under the best conditions I have experienced a savings of approximately 39%. There are many hurdles to overcome to get those results consistently. I did. I am not selling my generator, I have only installed them in my family's automobiles. They have all experienced the same savings as my auto. None have experienced any ill effects to the engine. My solution still rusts but I change the solution regularly.

Raul

HHO will cut your gas by 25%.the car companies have been taken over by big oil thats why they were pushing SUVs.watch who killed the electric car free on YOUTUBE.there are three parts that make an electric car run. very simple no oil no antifreeze.my ford ranger gets 20 mpg it has 8 spark plugs for a 4 cylinder engine.the extra 4 spark plugs are there to burn up the extra gas it wastes.prius no plug in hybrid. an electric car that runs on gas brilliant.no electricity needed.there are many great things being held back today.they say there still testing them.if you read popular mechanics and belive them than you are being mislead then just keep waiting and it will happen somedayin the next 10-20 years.