Hydrogen Gas injection into Gas and Diesel Motors

If we only consider the case where no damage is done to the engine and where emission controls are not disabled, there are lots of data showing that any effect is certainly less than about 3%. There have been many threads on here about this subject and you might want to search those.

I have a friend who is doing this with good results. Like was already stated, a decent list of modifications must be made before any positive gains can be seen. There are a lot of skeptics out there.

A good deal of electronics must be installed to alter the emmissions system.

Southwest research has performed such studies. There are other papers out there too. Here is a summary:

Injection of pure H2 does lower the emissions of soot and NOx/CO, as would be expected on diesel engines. There was no increase in thermal efficency found within the tolerances of the test equipment. Several of the scammers have taken this to mean that a 3% gain can be achieved, but they forget to take into account that the test were on injection of pure bottled H2. if they added in the energy it takes to make the H2, there would be a net loss. But, if they did that, how could they sell you their products.

What about injecting H2 along with O? ...

I have no intention of ever selling or becoming involved with anyone selling the HHO devices.

That said, I have witnessed significant improvements in fuel mileage with the proper installation and use of one. But it is not as simple as most of the "scammers" let on. And it does pose serious risk to the engine if not carefully done.

I don't have any hard data to back up any gains i have seen, but i have seen quite a few people who have put these things in their cars report good gains in mileage.

I have not put one in mine, because the life of my engine is more important than the fuel saved. (i don't like rusty valves/cylinders/pistons/exhaust) I also don't have a long enough commute to warrant such a device that is only suitable for long duration trips.

I have however been playing around with the HHO generators in my shop for fun. I've made cutting torches that pull about 15A @ 12V. I've also had a bit of fun blowing stuff up. :)

But before i would suggest anyone to put one in their vehicle, i would suggest them to understand the risks, and the intensive amount of modification it takes to really make a difference. In the end, i believe it can make a difference, but for most of us on the road it is of little benefit.

The big exception is the long haul trucking companies. I know of one company in the pacific northwest that has done testing on a 5 truck test group before applying the units to their fleet. They experienced a 5-8 MPG gain with the units installed, but did not move forward retrofitting their fleet, due to the fact that it would void the warranties of all their trucks, which is definitely not worth the risk.

at southwest research it was H2 with air and diesel.

Sending O2 to an ICE engine would be a disater, no one would do that. The internal temperatures would melt the pistons in a NYS (new yourk second).

He was one of the issues SWR saw. Has the amount of H2 went up during their injections, the H2 was flashing, burning so quickly, that "flames" combustion products were exiting the intake before the valves closed cause back fires.

AND again, urban myths on HHO in truckers. Those trucks are lucky to get 5 to 8 MPG to begin with. here are real take it to the bank savings.

http://www.everytime.cummins.com/assets/pdf/MPG_Secrets_Whitepaper.pdf

Thanks. That's a heck of a link! A GA fer ya!

You don't inject the O, Its just part of the process, HOH...H2O you just get 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen. The mixture simply aids in complete combustion of the Gasoline / Diesel, not providing any real power from the H itself.

southwest research refused to extend the test to the HHO mixture. You could call them up and see what they would charge you? They are here. the link goes to the stuff I posted earlier.

http://www.swri.org/PatentsDB/ViewPatent.asp?PatentID=898

I personally have no use for them to test anything.

I've done some playing around with the stuff, putting it in lawn mowers, running cutting torches etc. I think my favorite was filling a big black trash bag up with the mix, lighting bottle rockets aimed at the bag until one of them egnites... and BOOM! fun stuff. I also have a co-worker that built a Oxy-acetylene cannon that it works quite well in.

I have a friend who is really into the stuff, and he might want to test some of his work. I keep telling him that he needs to get some hard data from an independent lab before anyone will take him seriously. I even offered that he could use The lab at Oregon Institute Of Technology Renewable Resources Dept. But he has yet to get back to me.

For me personally it's more just for fun than anything. Its a great show when i turn plain ol' tap water into fire.

I very well may be wrong on the 5-8 numbers, as i did not see the test data first hand, and it easily could have been embelished upon.

One thing i do know for sure is UPS is currently running tests on a few of their trucks. I'll look foreward to see what they come up with.

thousands of people have 'patented' tricks to improve engine performance or milage, the bottom line is that car companies have army's of engineers trying to do exactley that, and over the past decade or so have acheived about 30% improvement in fuel consumption per hourse power. just compare an 80's engine to a modern one and you will see for yourself.

a lot of people spend a lot of money modifying their cars and sometimesthey get better performance, but it comes at the cost of engine life and incresed fuel consumption. the best way to decrease fuel consumption is to have a newer engine. with any engine, you can keep it well tuned, improve fluid flow (better carbs, chllier intercoolers for turbo's, better exhust systems, etc), reduce friction by using better engine oil, etc.

i think that an H2 injection system is a waste of money, which can be spent on improving fuel injection timing and other smart tuning that are well known to produce results.

hrn

I drove a Honda from the 80's which got ~40MPG, Now 30MPG seems the standard "Economy" car. Why in the last 30 years have we not seen any better economy than in the 80's? I have a friend who has been driving a CRX, getting 45 MPG with the standard engine. Today the Honda Civic Hybrid obtains the same results. I would hope with their "army" of engineers they could have done a bit better than they have. But if they get the new cars as fuel efficient as possible, they will loose their comfortable spot in the "back pocket" of the oil companies.

They are more concerned with making profits than making sense

I had someone bring a good point to my attention. During WW2 Fighter piolets used HHO injection in their planes, I'm sure there had to be a good explination for this.

Aircraft didn't use HHO injectors. They used strait water, here's why:

http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/WaterInjection.html

"The sole function of water injection is avoiding detonation."

good info, thank you bricktop.

define standard engine, n the 80's a 1.2 liter today honda has a 3 liter. you wanted HP, that takes fuel

I believe its a 1.5L stock, (except intake/exhaust upgrades) The same motor in the civic's for years. I drove a 4 door 1986 honda civic for a few years and got a reliable 30+ mpg with the 1.5L. The reason the CRX gets such good milage is it's a small aerodynamic lightweight car, and the 1.5L motor has plenty of power for it, all while getting ~40MPG. It's too bad honda stopped making them.

going back, in 1973 the 1.2 liter was rated at 40 mpg hiway.The 1975 version got less mileage as the HP was increased from 50 to 53 HP, and lower mileage, but cleaner emissions. In 1982 the mileage crept back up wiyh a Fuel efficient engine, I believe it was lean burn that created more NOx and required a catconverter.

By 1992, the engine went to 192 HP and the car gained a lot of weight. SO, the mileage dropped, weight and HP dictates fuel economy, drag as a smaller part.

Today the vtec 1.6 liter is rated 127 HP and the addition of all the power goodies and antilock brakes makes the car weigh even more.

To get 40 mpg, you need an aluminum car with a 1 liter VVTL engine rated at 60 HP, and that is what smart and toyota makes. A chevy corvette with this arrangement would beat the pants off them with it fiberglass body. For fun, a lotus elise has the light weight body, coming in under 1800 pounds, 1/2 the average car with its 1.8 VVTL engine from toyota rated at 190 HP, it still gets about 40 hiway.

Are you ready to have 0 to 60 in 20 seconds and a 1 star crash rating?

We just installed a HHO "fuel cell", with a computer fuel controller/O2 sensor , with the cell.

Since installed in our '06 KIA Sportage, Our 4cyl., standard tran. has increased our MPG from 27 mpg/hwy to 42-45 mpg/hwy.

The truck has Very noticeable increase in power.

The motor sounds GREAT even quieter than org.

The exhaust pipe is COOL to touch, and now its silver {no more carbon build up}

Can anyone please tell me what neg. effects or damage to the motor that could happen.

That way I will know what to watch for. THANK YOU, SISSY

Do not turn the engine off while the fuel cell is running. You need to purge out all the moisture buildup in the engine by running the engine on straight gas for 10-15 mins before shutting it off. You dont want rusty valves/pistons/cylinders.

then go collect the $1,000,000 prize as no one else on earth has been able to do what you just claimed.

http://aardvark.co.nz/hho_challenge.shtml

I want lab reports and lab photos. In the meantime I'm calling you a liar.

that is 100% incorrect about them being more economical than 80s. I had a 1970 Datsun B10 (economy car) that had a 4 cyl 1.4L and a 4 speed. it got consistantly 40+ mpg on my commute to work, about 60 miles a day at the time. the exact same commute, i later had a 1992 honda civic 1.5L 5 speed, fuel injected and sensers up the wazoo for economy. it got 40 mpg. where was the improvement? all i know is it had 10x as many sensors and vacuum lines, (not that it was excessive, both cars were very simple engine/electrical systems) but there was no differance..

I just got a quick question, what do you do to keep the water in the HHO canning jar from freezing in the winter? I've read volumes on this crap, but not a word about what to do in the winter.

AND again, urban myths on HHO in truckers. Those trucks are lucky to get 5 to 8 MPG to begin with. here are real take it to the bank savings.

BIG points to Vicini!

I had read the Cummins pointers about a year ago, while I commuted weekly between California and New Mexico in a '96 Dodge Ram 2500 diesel, 5.9L and mechanical fuel injection.

I read and read and did some math - then I went to Bridgestone for commercial rib fleet tires with the stiffest sidewall I could get. I also (2 wheel drive) dropped the radius of the front tires lowering the front end by almost 1 inch, and raised the radius of the rears to change my 'at speed' RPM. I then started running them at top pressure rated for the tire.

I changed out my exhaust to a 4" freeflow as no emissions in my home county, and swapped out to a free flow intake filter (S&B), not options available to everyone. My mechanic then turned my fuel flow up, but only slightly. I also switched to lower viscosity engine oil (still within recommendation, but at the bottom end) and ran B20 about every other trip. Until fuel prices fell back down they were almost at parity.

I also started paying serious attention to my driving behavior, including some tips from Cummins as well as some tips from one of the whack-job H2 injection sites. Actively monitored my use of A/C. Coasted down to speed, climbed a little slower, used momentum more, longer gap between me and the next car, greater effort to avoid traffic snarls. I also looked at my standing vehicle weight, and realized that over the years I had accumulated almost 1,000 lbs of generally useful but rarely needed crap I hauled back and forth (snow chains, special tools, extra oil and coolant). I avoided one of the most effective, but irritating and dangerous techniques I know, drafting tractor trailers. ; ) Transferring costs is cheating.

End result: My '96 diesel and I get a consistent 20MPG where we used to get 17 or so. Downsides!: the I-10 within Los Angeles now beats my ass up into my head despite new shocks, I am constantly at odds with the traffic which LIKES bunching up, I have newfound contempt for my fellow drivers that consistently use the throttle to compensate for inattention and failure to anticipate traffic conditions.

Before you run off to the parts house hoping to duplicate my results, understand the intake/exhaust change had more to do with the occasional need for substantial power while dragging trailers, and a severely clogged catalytic converter. Same for my mechanic's bumping to the top-end of allowable on fuel delivery.

UPSHOT: I strongly suspect that while the mechanical changes made some differences, the gross improvement in mileage can be attributed to the WAY I drive, not the equipment I use. Which means I can now offer FREE mileage improvements to any and all! Wonder what I should charge?