Studies Supporting HHO Boosting

No luck from my end as the only actual and verifiable studies I have seen even remotely applicable are for power boosting using water injection.

Was a link to this Livermore study (or any others mentioned) given for us to peer review (it sounds familiar but i could find no links on CR4)?

After reading a few of the comments on the thread (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/49156/Feasibility-Discussion-on-Modular-Vehicles) it appears that DoughRH was possibly discussing actual research using additions of pure Oxygen and Hydrogen injection and mixing it with onboard HHO claims and testimonials (not actual research). Two separate things that so commonly get mixed together and are used to justify HHO claims and scams.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/530387/Re-Diesel-and-Ethanol-in-gasoline-engines

I have not read all the comments, but if this is the case then this has been mentioned before in other threads on CR4. Small additions of (bottled) oxygen, hydrogen or diesel/petrol ratios have been proven to indeed give a performance and/or fuel efficiency increase (of varying degrees depending on the ratio, application, etc!

HOWEVER the use of a water electrolyser to create said hydrogen and oxygen has been throughly dis-proven because the process of electrolysis using the vehicle alternator always produces a far greater power and fuel efficiency decrease than any benefit created by the measly amount of oxygen and hydrogen released from the water. This has been covered so many times.

So in conclusion, you and DougRH are both right to some extent. I look forward to seeing actual research specifically relating to onboard water electrolysers as everything I have ever found or been shown has been either hopelessly wrong or a scam.

As has been said before - extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence, and fundamentals in chemistry, physics, electricity and the laws of energy conservation don't just change overnight (although they can be bent to some extent, for example the interaction between physics and quantum physics).

I await with an open mind.

Hi Jack,

Was a link to this Livermore study (or any others mentioned) given for us to peer review (it sounds familiar but i could find no links on CR4)?

No, not to a Livermore study, as far as I know. The study often mentioned by HHO scammers is the 1977 NASA study (which I wrote about in this post). (It was done out of the Lewis Research, now Glenn, center) None of the scammers appear to have read the study, because it does anything but support their claim than onboard electrolysis works as a fuel booster.

So in conclusion, you and DougRH are both right to some extent.

How so? Doug claims that Lawrence Livermore labs has proven HHO injection increases efficiency by up to 65%. I say that's bunk. How can we both be right?

Until I see the study, I have to side with John Heywood, the FTC's expert witness who is known to essentially every automotive combustion engineer here and in much of the world. By dyno test, he determined that, in line with the scientific theory, HHO injection has no effect at all. John is a sharp cookie, and runs the Sloan Automotive Lab at MIT.

But I am certainly willing to read another study, as soon as Doug or any other HHO enthusiast provides the link.

I have read the NASA study previously and agree.

So in conclusion, you and DougRH are both right to some extent.

How so? Doug claims that Lawrence Livermore labs has proven HHO injection increases efficiency by up to 65%. I say that's bunk. How can we both be right?

Only in that, as DougRH claimed, small additions of (bottled) oxygen, hydrogen or diesel/petrol ratios have been proven to indeed give a performance and/or fuel efficiency increase (of varying degrees depending on the ratio, application, etc. That part has been scientifically proven, however this in no way validates any HHO onboard water electrolysis claims (as I have said and explained both here and in previous threads).

Hi Folks, I was skeptical myself, since I come form engine development from MB in Stuttgart (Germany). I came over to the US converted a Ford V10 with the latest technology and see a gas milage increase of % 30+. The testdata are from test runs in all areas of the US. 10'000 miles. The data show seven different setups with a saving from 0 - 35%. For all skeptical folks, I advice to build a small unit for themselves and prove it. The experience will amazing. A

Please post the data, we're interested

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hho+generator+plans&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&redir_esc=&ei=hV6NS9roI5bKjAft-7TXDA

DOZENS OF SITES ABOUT HHO oops sorry caps lock on

Dozens??? Hundreds.

You've missed the point of this thread. We want real studies, showing differences in BSFC as a result of onboard HHO injection. As a society, we are already at the point where if you google hydrogen injection (a viable technique for powering engines, etc) that more than 50% of the returns are scams, related to HHO injection, for which there has been no study that supports the outlandish claims made. This is an opportunity for the claimants to produce real studies. The only real studies I've seen suggested by scammers show (if actually read) that the device cannot work as claimed.

Your 1.5 volt problem is solved in most HHO boosters by putting plates in series, just as done in car batteries, the cells of which operate at roughly 2V. (Incidentally, you can overcharge your batery to produce H2, much of which would get sucked in by your engine.)

Hey guys, this study was sent to me from another forum that was at least written within the criteria of some sense of professionalism. From the university of Kocaeli University in Turkey. So it says. The test results aren't super stupid outrageous. Something to look at and add to this thread Blink. It doesn't give much information as to some of the methods and criteria of testing and lacking other information. (to be expected I guess) . http://www.climtechsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/fueleconomyimprovementonboardhydrogenproduction-dulgerozcelik-turkey-2000.pdf

I meant to add this one as well. (they are both related to diesel only) This had more information overall. It was at least interesting:

http://smacksboosters.110mb.com/HHOdiesel.pdf

This study is interesting in that it uses a large water electrolyser to produce the gas to prove that adding H2/02 increases performance and fuel efficiency, but the study is not valid for onboard water electrolysers for two simple reasons that I can see.

1) the figures are for a H2/02 flow rate of between about 3 and 32 litres per minute. That is a huge amount of gas and much, much greater than what any onboard water electrolyser I have ever seen can produce (bubbles of gas do not equate to litres of gas per minute). For example in the study mentioned in post #3 the maximum flow rate was 0.3 litres per minute and required about 270W to produce that small amount.

2) The oxy-hydrogen generator in the test was powered from an external source and then fed into the air intake. It also appears that the gas flow was not produced on demand (as in car electrolysers), and that the power required by the oxy-hydrogen generator was calculated and added rather than being directly measured. To get the 32 litres per minute it must have been quite big and fitted with a large gas storage.

It doesn't seem valid to me, rather yet another proof that adding hydrogen or oxygen can increase power and fuel economy (which we already know).

This is an excellent study! I'll have to come back when I have more time, but it shows clearly that HHO units have little beneficial effect on fuel efficiency even in diesels, and even when the HHO source is not onboard, the critical issue. Although the people running this study claim to have adjusted for the fact that the HHO unit was not onboard, they appear to have done so incorrectly.

The fuel consumed in running an HHO unit has the energy value of the HHO output divided by the system efficiency of the HHO production. So in this case, if the engine is 33% efficient and (the missing) alternator is 67% efficient (typical in automotive alternators, which are stunningly inefficient in comparison to other electric machines) and the electrolysis process is 75% efficient (the very top edge of real electrolysis units)... then the HHO production system is 16.6% efficient. The fuel energy value consumed per unit of HHO is then is 6 times the HHO output. So their energy input adjustment appears to be off by a factor of 6: running the system requires not the energy value of the output, but 6 times that.

I haven't done the math, but it appears that if the correct adjustment were made that the overall system would operate at a loss in comparison to a standard engine.

There are other flaws, and there would be profound problems in applying this study to the HHO world in the US, were virtually all of the units are installed on petrol engines equipped with closed loop fuel injection, and for which the dynamics are much different (and even less favorable for HHO having a beneficial effect).

Although John Heywood has the triple strikes against him of being logical, well-respected, and working for one of the world's most respected engineering schools*, I nevertheless will go out on a limb and say that I think his results are probably pretty close: HHO boosters operate in accord with science, which is to say that they have no beneficial effect.

I'll come back however, when I have time, because this is an excellent study that shows the implausibility of using onboard generation of HHO (even in a diesel, where injecting a flammable gas would have the the expected result of increasing power, rather than having in a spark ignition engine, where gas injection displaces needed air), yet is exactly the sort of study that HHO scammers use as evidence that their scam works. Telling, I think, that Smackboosters (among the best known of these scams) was the source.

But even without any of these disclaimers, the "improvement" shown is not remotely close to the 65% claimed by Doug, or the 200% claimed by some promoters (with Lee setting a record of, if I recall, 900%).

(I think is was Smackboosters who put up a video showing the "gosh golly sure enough, HHO burns" as if to suggest that such is the issue, and that therefore, having proved that HHO burns, all the skeptics are wrong.)

* rather than being the noble savage, out-of-the-box thinker we all admire

Hey Blink, do you have a link to that study? I looked under the Sloan School and under his name and I didn't see one directly related to an on board or off hydrogen generator. They have done quite a few studies related to hydrogen of course. I went through rather quickly then realized you probably could supply the link. I'd like to read that.

The testing was done by Compliance and Research Services in New Jersey. Heywood served as expert witness. I found the FTC briefs re their first court action, but have not looked for the more recent ones. There is not a "study" as such, just competent dyno testing showing the the unit didn't work. Here's a news paper article.

Interesting side note: it is very easy to find articles about Lee "winning" the first volley with the FTC (because the judge would not accept the physics as sufficient proof). It is very hard to find articles about Lee's subsequent loss. Go figure.

Wow, $1,900 dollars for that piece of s*#t!!! I didn't realize he was charging that much for those things.

Fairly recently a friend of mine bought a "unit" from a different company and I finally talked him into letting me take it apart. (after him letting me drive his Toyota and getting no mileage change with a scan gauge, to which he still didn't believe me). After taking it apart we were to find only two six inch bolts inside. That was it. They were not even Grade 8!! (yes I realize that means nothing other than they even bought the cheapest bolts!) Finally he believed and was upset. The cost was $350 for two bolts and some plastic pieces!

It is so disappointing to read crap like that article, but thanks for the link!

"Fairly recently a friend of mine bought a "unit" from a different company and I finally talked him into letting me take it apart. ... After taking it apart we were to find only two six inch bolts inside. That was it."

Please tell me you have photos of it!?!? 

In spark ignition engines, these things operate at a net loss. So the most ethical vendor would sell a completely empty container. This would: 1. ensure an open circuit to remove the slight draw of an electrolysis unit, and 2. avoid the extra weight of the bolts and the energy loss entailed in moving them around.

(This has me thinking... One could build (or better, buy) a very large electrolysis unit, that actually has a measurable effect on the engine, with that effect being, of course, a net loss. (The standard units are so tiny that the loss cannot be reliably measured.) Then, build an empty unit. Compare the two, using a small engine dynamometer. If the purchased unit is large enough, then the empty unit would produce more hp and would consume less fuel. That would make the empty unit appear to "work". This could be the first "HHO unit demonstrated to "work" [at least better than the other] by real dyno test.)

Yes, this is the place. The post numbering is just a little off to keep things confusing. Just add four digits or so before the existing 2. Holy Cow, reading War and Peace is easier than breaking baths.

Here's a suggestion. 2 or 3 drums of gas gelled with soap powder, poured into the bathtub, and then set alight. Add LOX if process too slow.

Alternative method. Drill holes in the corners of the bottom and at random along the sides and base of the tub. Plug holes with dynamite. Connect dynamite sticks together, set fuses, and connect to detonate set at safe distance away. Push down hard on detonator handle and enjoy the show.

Disclaimer: These methods tend to attract large scale public attention, and videos of them tend to end up on Youtube. Oh, and the geniuses who try them out generally end up winning internationally recognized awards (Darwin, not Nobel).

You mean you haven't been?

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/13355/Bath-Breaking-Technique

Actually, I usually levitate & chop up single bathtubs with my lightsaber, or strafe large groups of them from my TIE fighter. It's very therapeutic you know.

Pardon my bad pun, but if you read the paper from Turkey, you realize quickly these guys are ....s.

Here's the problem. Modern IC engines do not, and can not, leave a lot of fuel unburned. There's a simple experiment to show this. Disconnect one spark plug wire on a 6 cylinder engine that has a catalytic converter. That will produce something like 17% unburned fuel (unless you have really high compression or lots of gunk in the cylinder). Drive around for a couple weeks. Hook the plug back up and have the car checked for emissions. Some cars have "smart" enough on board computers that they will shut you down before you can destroy the converter; some don't.

But, the problem always is this: You cannot start with the untrue assumption that there is lots of unburned fuel going out the tail pipe.

Just FYI I'm in no way supporting any hho crap or anything remotely relating to over unity. I work to push real science and the reasoning behind it all with those in my community who are willing to listen. I will do research to satisfy my curiosities at times and thus run into studies like this that do nothing more than give hho supporters some "university" type studies to lean on. Of course there are and should be those to try and apply real testing methods to see what the real results are under different conditions, with real equipment, as any curiosity would exists. We know from many top manufactures and companies that Hydrogen is a viable fuel source to utilize in the ICE. It's just not real practical on a few levels, obviously. It's always been so tempting to see Hydrogen sitting there in water just waiting to be utilized yet so difficult to extract with any real efficiency.

I think that's what is so elusive for people who initially get involved with extracting the hydrogen from water as it seems so easy and logical. Yet the real world dictates that way to damn much energy is needed for any real usable volume in an automobile engine. Plain and simple. Especially utilizing a cars alternator and battery.

Especially utilizing a cars alternator and battery.

This might better read: especially using a car's engine, alternator and battery.

Even if you plug in 100% efficiency for the electrolysis process, the energy value of the fuel consumed is still the reciprocal of the system efficiency for the total process (100% x 67% x 25% = 16.75%) times the output energy. In actual driving, the engine is typically less than 25% efficient, so this considerably overstates the case in favor of the HHO enthusiast. But the absolute best one could hope for is 6 times (1/.1675) as much fuel consumed as the process produces in energy value. In actual practice, many of the HHO electrolysis units are a long, long way from 100% efficient -- but it doesn't matter.

Water is no better at storing energy than ashes are at storing the energy in wood.

Hi Blink, we all appreciate your good intentions but personally I think you should just let the HHO believing crackpots to continue deluding themselves. There's nothing anybody can say or do to make them change their mind. On the contrary, even when confronted by first person testimony claiming it to be a failure, they will immediately claim that the unit wasn't properly installed, the engine wasn't properly tuned, the computer wasn't properly reprogramed yada yada yada.

Just look at the number of overunity crap we all get to see here every now and then.

Excellent advice. I am actually headed in that direction. (I wrote a long reply having to do with my particular issues with pseudo-science. That response disappeared into the vapors, but the gist was that your advice is quite good, although I nevertheless have a knee-jerk response that draws me in.)

ive looked on the site in question re HHO and there is nothing

https://www.llnl.gov/

Ive had a thought (and yes i have had a lye down) theres one simple was to disprove the HHO thing

question how much gas both H and O does one litre of water produce?

somwhere in this section its mentioned that 32 litres of gas was used, it should be possible if you know how much gas is produced by one litre to work out how much water you would need to carry

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_hydrogen_and_oxygen_is_in_water

Well, the formula for water is H₂O, which means there is two hydrogen atoms for every one oxygen atom. If this doesn't answer your question, then maybe you're looking for percentages.

To do this you need the atomic masses of the elements involved and the sum of those masses to find the molecular mass of water.

Hydrogen = 1.0 × 2 atoms = 2.0 grams
Oxygen = 16.0 grams
^{----------------------------------}
Water = 18.0 grams

To find the percentage of each element in water, take the mass and divide it by the total mass.

2.00 grams ÷ 18.0 grams = .111 = 11.1% water is hydrogen
16.0 grams ÷ 18.0 grams = .889 = 88.9% water is oxygen

Also http://www.kanabona.com/kanabona/?q=science_local_engineer_makes_engine_run_water

Water is used to generate hydrogen

The engine is a standard gasoline (petrol) engine, but the fuel is hydrogen. That is where the water comes in. Hydrogen is generated from water.

The principle is simple. An electronic device breaks the hydrogen-oxygen bonds in water separating hydrogen from oxygen. It is similar to electrolysis but requires less power apparently.

The news article does not say much about how the system works.

• If the unit is installed in the car then where does it get the electrical power from?
• If its from the alternator then this is a case of a perpetual motion machine, from a thermodynamics point of view.
• If the hydrogen generating device gets power from another source then what is it?
• How much energy does it require to convert 1 liter of water to hydrogen gas?

CR4 Admin: Modified Post

Copyright Violation: Reduced copied text according to copyright law. Please see Section 13 of the CR4 FAQ about posting copyrighted material.

Hi Peter, I appreciate your input. You might peruse this thread for some background. We are looking for real studies -- the theories have been rehashed in CR4 many times and do not support any beneficial effect by HHO units when applied as advertised to spark ignition engines. I have seen no study that supports the claims of HHO promoters. Doug claims that a LL study shows that HHO injection produces a 65% gain in efficiency. I'd like to read over such a study, but cannot find any reference to it.

Thanks for the input, and I apologize if the nature of this thread was unclear.

Brilliant work there. You think there could be a Noble Prize for this somewhere in the future?

What I can never figure out is this. If all these HHO believers are so convinced of the workability of the concept, then why don't they simply replace their sealed car batteries with the older type that needs to be filled with distilled water periodically? After all, the reason why the water gradually disappears as the battery charges is that it is actually being electrolyzed into hydrogen and oxygen, hence the bubbles being formed. All they have to do then is to hook up a couple of tubes and connect them to their carburettors or whatever and let nature take its course. And the best part of it would be that this will not even impose any additional loading upon the engine or alternator since they are simply reclaiming the gas that would otherwise be lost to the atmosphere anyway.

But then again, I'm one of the spoilsport science spouting HHO skeptoids anyway, so what do I know, right?

'Twas Shakespeare who said, "Once more into the breech dear friends, once more,..."

For any heat engine, when you know the combustion temperature and the exhaust temperature, you know the efficiency.

An ICE is a good approximation to a heat engine.

If you don't know why the temperatures define the efficiency, please take a course in thermo.

just found this on coms electronics on cr4

http://www.powerstream.com/

This is a buck converter that reduces a nominal 12 volts to a range between 3 and 5 volts with constant current. The output current is nominally 30 amps, but can be varied with a knob on the front panel.

Since it only takes about 1.5 volts to break down water any excess voltage is turned into heat. This is why when you use an electrolytic cell connected directly to the car's alternator it is difficult to manage the heat.

At 1.5 volts there is very little current accepted, so it helps to boost the voltage above that slightly. Our DC converter sets this compromise at about 4 volts, which allows for maximum gas generation with highly efficient use of electrical power and for reasonable electrolyte concentrations.

Another advantage is that this converter will use only about 12 amps of 13.8 volts from the car's alternator to produce 30 amps worth of hydrogen. This advantage comes from using an efficient switchmode DC converter technology and so is much kinder on the car or truck's electrical system and alternator than trying to run the electrochemical cell off of 12 volts.

What counts in electrochemistry is current. Two electrons are needed to separate the two hydrogen atoms from the oxygen atom in a water molecule. Amps are proportional to electrons per second flowing along a wire or through a liquid. The voltage drives the reaction, but increasing the voltage will not increase the hydrogen generation unless there is also an increase in current.

Therefore, this DC/DC converter is designed to run in constant-current mode. Resistance of the electrolytic cell is dependent on electrolyte concentration and temperature, so a constant voltage source will cause the hydrogen generation (and also the heat dissipated) to vary. In fact the the higher the temperature the more current will be driven through it, making the electrolyte even hotter. This makes the cell impossible to control. Therefore this constant-current converter is designed so that no matter what the temperature or concentration of the electrolyte is it will try to put out a constant 30 amps. When the electrolyte's resistance is outside of the converter's operating mode it will let you know by LED signals (see below).

We only sell the DC converter, we don't have the expertise to help you buy or make the electrolytic cell. There are a lot of web sites on the Internet that will help you to do that.

NOTE: This is not a pulse width modulation scheme (PWM). Although PWMs are easy to design and cheap to build, they are not appropriate for this application. The reason is they still deliver the 14 volts to the electrolyte (albiet in pulses). We take the 14 volts and convert it to 4 volts, in essence multiplying the amps. Since amps are proportional to electrons per second, it is the amps that produce the hydrogen.

This all seems so familiar

This does seem oddly familiar. An HHO guy makes wild claims and references a study that ostensibly supports his claim... and then.... and then... and then... never shows up to present a link to the study. Maybe he's just taking a long nap.

Just waiting for the patent to finalize