hydrogen - Page 11

Bassin, you make a valid point, if not for one glaring error.

The reaction is 2H20-(electrolisis-> 2H2 +O2.

The combustion reaction is  2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O + Energy, but not in a gas combustion engine.

Not even close actually. 
Its H2 +13O2 +C8H18 (octane) -> 10H20 + 8CO2 thats in complete combustion, which isnt really possible in real world applications (same for regular gas, if it were attainable there'd be no such thing as an O2 sensor, as all the O2 would be burned up)

Reg. gas is
25O2 + 2C8H18 -> 18H2O +16CO2

Here's the thing that you obviously didn't understand in my last post, if you even read it.  The electrical drain on the system is so low that the extra MECHANICAL energy gained from the combustion of H2 replacing the octane in the engine is negligible. 

The thing from wiki, is a complete system using electricity to produce energy BACK into electrical energy.  The power loss from changing electrical energy into mechanicla energy is probably 6-20%.  But youre changing electrical energy into chemical which then is combusted (with the extra fuels O2 and octane) to create a bigger explosion.

Basically heres the jist of it.  the wiki argument is this

Use electricity to produce H2 to be combusted with only O2 to create mechanical energy to create more electricity.  The flaw with that is, THAT is a perpetual motion machine.
The goal being to create a perpetual motion machine basically.

In the backyardautoindustry, the goal is to replace gas with something that is *close* to being as efficient, when compared to gas prices.  Were not trying to get 100mpg, were trying to reduce fuel costs.  And after a year or so, the booster basically pays for itself with fuel efficiency if youre adding in (basically) free fuel in the form of H2 gas.

Next: "So you see, hydrogen is not a way to produce energy unless you start with a cost free source of hydrogen.  The only feasible way to make your car more fuel efficient by burning hydrogen is to introduce the hydrogen from an outside source, like producing it from household current."

a free source?  such as producing with a slight electrical charge imposed on the engine that its helping to run? where the cost is the drop in GAS economy, but raise in overall FUEL economy plus throw in a the price of a qt of distilled water every few months at $1 a gal? 

Further more, gas isnt 100% efficient either, its around 96% efficient.  And using a perfect combustion of 94% of Hydrogen, (by your efficiency numbers) hydrogen costs are WELL below a 2% drop.  That is the main argument for us trying to attain basically a hybrid fuel engine.

From that wiki article: "Hydrogen is not an energy source,[82] except in the hypothetical context of commercial nuclear fusion power plants using deuterium or tritium, a technology presently far from development.[83] Elemental hydrogen from solar, biological, or electrical sources costs more in energy to make than is obtained by burning it. "

Did you happen to check out that footnote 82?  Lemme drop some quotes from there:

- "The advantage is that [H2] stores approximately 2.6 times the energy per unit mass as gasoline, and the disadvantage is that [H2] needs about 4 times the volume for a given amount of energy. A 15 gallon automobile gasoline tank contains 90 pounds of gasoline. The corresponding hydrogen tank would be 60 gallons, but the hydrogen would weigh only 34 pounds."

- "[The production of hydrogen] requires all the energy you are going to get from burning the hydrogen and a bit more on account of inefficiencies. Therefore, hydrogen is an energy transfer medium rather than a primary source of energy." (this is the thing a booster is used for... to transfer chemical combustion energy to mechanical)

-"Hydrogen has been proposed as both a storage and transmission medium. It should work for these purposes. "

-"Hydrogen can be used as a motor fuel, whereas neither nuclear nor solar energy can be used directly"

-"Hydrogen can be used as a fuel directly in an internal combustion engine not much different from the engines used with gasoline. The problem is that while hydrogen supplies three times the energy per pound of gasoline it has only one tenth the density when the hydrogen is in a liquid form and very much less when it is stored as a compressed gas. This means that hydrogen fuel tanks must be large." (this problem is combatted by a fuel on deman system such as the booster produces)

-"Demonstrations of hydrogen powered vehicles have usually used compressed hydrogen gas. However, because of the low density, compressed hydrogen will not give a car as useful a range as gasoline."  Again, this is combatted by a fuel on demand system rather than a fuel cell system.

-"Since the insulation [of a fuel cell] can't be perfect, the hydrogen will gradually evaporate, typically 1.7 percent per day. This is too fast for a car to sit for months between uses. A tank of compressed hydrogen holding enough to get to a hydrogen station would solve this.  If the engine is flexible enough to burn gasoline as well as hydrogen, a half gallon gasoline tank would suffice."

-"[Hydrogen] is unlikely to be used as long as gasoline remains so cheap, i.e. as long as oil remains cheap and fear of global warming does not prevent its use."

-"Although the hydrogen storage vessel is large, hydrogen burns 1.33 times more efficiently than gasoline in automobiles ( Bockris and Wass 1988)."

-"In tests a BMW 745h liquid-hydrogen test vehicle with a 75 kg tank and the energy equivalent of 40 liters of gasoline had a cruising range in traffic of 400 km, or a fuel efficiency of 10 km per liter ( Winter 1986)." This is equivalent to 23.5mpg, back in 1986.

-"At present, commercial hydrogen is more expensive than gasoline. Assuming $0.05 per kwh of electricity from a nuclear power plant during low demand, hydrogen would cost $0.09 per kwh ( Bockris and Wass 1988). This is the equivalent of $0.67 per liter of gasoline. Gasoline sells at the pump in the United States for about $0.30 per liter. However, estimates of the real cost of burning a liter of gasoline range from $1.06 to $1.32 when production, pollution, and other external costs are included (Worldwatch Institute 1989). Therefore, based on these calculations hydrogen fuel may eventually become competitive."  I think that "eventually" is now.


*That* is the argument.  The energy efficiency of basically free H2 is comparable to gasoline.  Especially with gas at $4/gal
 
Finally, the cost they are talking about in H2 is to COMMERCIALLY produce it, as in, create it, store it, ship, tax it, add in pump costs and profits....


Also for future's reference, wikipedia, a site where anyone can edit information, is not a bastion of credible information.

You wrote:  "Did you happen to check out that footnote 82? "
 
"Hydrogen is not an energy source,[82] except in the hypothetical context of commercial nuclear fusion power plants using deuterium or tritium, a technology presently far from development.[83] Elemental hydrogen from solar, biological, or electrical sources costs more in energy to make than is obtained by burning it. "

Footnote 82 basically proves my point.  In discussing the hurdles that must be overcome before hydrogen would be a feasible motor fuel the article goes into great length on the fact that it takes a large storage capacity because of the density difference and that there are safety concerns with storing liquified hydrogen.  The footnote ONLY talks about using stored hydrogen as a motor fuel rather than generating it on the fly.  Why is there not a single mention in the footnote about generating hydrogen with the same engine that burns it?
 
I'll tell you why, because it VIOLATES THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS!!
 
Look, we can go round and round on the issue and you aren't going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you.  However, the proof is in the pudding that despite the elegant simplicity of your approach not a single American auto manufacturer is going about it the same way.  The hydrogen fuel cell is a reality but in every instance the hydrogen is being generated out of the system and introduced as stored fuel.
 
So as I see it there are basically three possibilities here:
 
1.  All you backyard mechanics are so much smarter and more motivated than the thousands of highly trained engineers working for the automotive industry. 
 
2.  There is a massive conspiracy to suppress this incredibly simple solution to our energy woes.
 
3.  You're wrong and wasting your time and money and perhaps endangering yourself and other people in the process.
 
I'm done with this.

Ok-I read the tech side of the story.But let's for just and only one moment review what I have posted.
 
1) I remember the gossip back in the 60's about water replacing gas as a fuel and the fact the gas companies bought a island for the inventor to live on.TRUTH IS,the record will show the big three car comapnies looked at this and decided it was not safe for public use.
2) I am a dargerous goods specialist.The presents of the fuel weither not it is used while being produced or not makes placards needed on the car and insurance for the same is needed.
3) I don't think this is a approved fuel by D.O.T.
4)Yrs ago,N.H.R.A. banned the use of this fuel based on their research and the research of their insurance co.Seems even in the aftermarket it was too dangerous.A direct quote was it was unpredictable if or when it would explode.
5) No one here has yet to prove once contacting their insurance compamy,would allow it's use.
6) If you point out to it's use on a let say a bus line or something else,don't think for one moment that you are making a system the is the same as one manufactured.We are shade tree mechanic's and need to face that fact head on.
 
Soooooo,if all these known facts don't give you second thoughts,please don't install one of these near where I live.Or at the very least,don't tell me you did.I at 60yrs old like sleep at night.I couldn't sleep well knowing that.LOL!!!!!.  

There seems to be a ton of negativity on this lately.  Thats ok it is a topic open for discussion and all points of view are welcome however I still believe it is a viable option.  However the safety factor has become more obvious and I am concerned about it. 
Yes we are backyard mechanics and no we dont even come close to matching the qualifications of major corporate engineering standards.
But that does not mean that can not invent a safe system if we take the time to do it right.  I am an engineer, but does that qualifly me to make this type of system?  Probably not I dont have the technology, equiptment nor the facilities of GM.  But I can make a safe system and mine is almost done and I do believe it will work.
The naysayers have just as much right ot talk about this as us.  And if you read with an open mind it probably will help in your thinking and design.  So keep bashing on me - LOL!!!!!

Cool down guys... Opinons are like buttholes, everyone has one.  Take it with a grain of salt.

I don't quite understand the negativity surrounding HHO gas and it's ability to perform in a combustion chamber.  When used in conjunction with a MAP sensor enhancer which allows you to manually lean your fuel to your engine and allow the HHO gas to supplement, it has been proven to inhance one's fuel mileage and horsepower.  Negatively, engine heat can become a problem due to the lower rate of lubrication from the dry gas however a simple fuel additive rectifies that.  With the cost of gas soaring to levels that seem to reach no ceiling, I see HHO as a viable supplement to deaden the impact of the greed that is bleeding America of hard earned bucks.  Why not just wish everybody luck for their efforts instead of being a nay sayer much like the folks that thought the Earth was flat.  Many things that "just can't be done" have been done even though it doesn't add up. 

Well said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuDaBa

I don't quite understand the negativity surrounding HHO gas and it's ability to perform in a combustion chamber.  When used in conjunction with a MAP sensor enhancer which allows you to manually lean your fuel to your engine and allow the HHO gas to supplement, it has been proven to inhance one's fuel mileage and horsepower.  Negatively, engine heat can become a problem due to the lower rate of lubrication from the dry gas however a simple fuel additive rectifies that.  With the cost of gas soaring to levels that seem to reach no ceiling, I see HHO as a viable supplement to deaden the impact of the greed that is bleeding America of hard earned bucks.  Why not just wish everybody luck for their efforts instead of being a nay sayer much like the folks that thought the Earth was flat.  Many things that "just can't be done" have been done even though it doesn't add up. 

 
 
Old man looks at his grandson.Tells him the world has changed."Well grasshopper it use to be old men could tell the youth about matters we have already learned.That way it kept them from making the same mistakes."Grandson says:" It sure has grandpa,it sure has".Old man say's:"Well the subject isn't really any different,just named it something else".
 
 
BTW-you really don't think it is a flat world do ya???.Man!!!.LOL
 
J/K,J/K.

Hey Bassinprof, Since I can't really be sure if you've read/understood anything I've actually written, let me spell it out for you.  The booster is being used to use CHEAPER FUEL ALTERNATIVES TO GASOLINE.  WE ARE NOT TRYING TO CREATE ENERGY.  Make sense? Or are you just dense?

1.) It doesn't violate any of the laws of thermodynamics.  The system isnt being used to "create" energy as you seem to think.  It's being used to release the energy in H2 by breaking its bonds with O.  Why don't you tell me which law it "violates" and I'll tell you why you're an idiot.

2.) It doesn't prove your point at all.  And the reason I think it doesn't talk about generation on the fly is because, and this is a guess, maybe they had tried a fuel on demand system?

3.) "1.  All you backyard mechanics are so much smarter and more motivated than the thousands of highly trained engineers working for the automotive industry."  I actually have no doubt that there are people much smarter and more motivated than the engineers at the automakers, whether were them or not, I really can't attest to. 
    
But radical change sometimes occurs when people throw convention into the wind and pursue things that "experts" deem impossible.

Just in the interest of entertainment, here are a few quotes:
"The bomb will never go off.  I speak as an expert in explosives." - Admiral William Leahy, US Atomic Bomb Project

"There is no likehood  man can ever tap the power of the atom" Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923 

"Heavy-than-air flying machines are impossible" Lord Kelvin, president of the Royal society 1895

"If I have thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment.  The literature was full of examples that said you cant do this" Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for Post-It Notes.

"640KB should be enough [memory] for anybody." Bill Gates, 1981, speaking of the personal computer (and in case you're not aware, 640KB is about 1/125th of a CD)

2.) "There is a massive conspiracy to suppress this incredibly simple solution to our energy woes. "  you mean like... oil companies working with automanufacturers?  http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/11/Autos/chrysler_oil/index.htm 

If you think for one second that during those partnerships that Oil companies aren't helping to fund automakers, you're more gullible than you realize.

3.) "You're wrong and wasting your time and money and perhaps endangering yourself and other people in the process."  thats entirely a possibility (not for me, since I have nothing invested but time while I'm getting paid at work), but lets see what the real world results show.  I personally think its a health hazard, I don't want some 16 yr old kid in a ricer thinking hes a drift racer slamming into me at 80 mph with a tank fuel of H2, but thats me.

But since you brought up thermodynamics, lets talk about that for a little bit (and any of you mechanics out there, I'm gonna need your help further down).

Gibbs free energy (G) is the total amount of work that can be done on a system.

G = enthalpy (H) - temp(t)XEntropy(s)

The G of gas in a combustion engine is as follows (note, here I used known values of G instead of doing all the math)
C8H18 + 12.5 02->9H20 + 8CO2
G = 9(-228.6) + 8(-394.4) - (17.3) - 12.5(0)
= -5229.3 J/mol^-1K^-1

(people unfirmiliar with this concept, the minus sign doesn't indicate a negative value, it just means the reaction taking place is spontaneous, which, for our purposes means combustion)

the G for a gas-h2 mixture is:
C8H18 + H2 + 13O2 -> 8CO2 + 10H20
G = 8(-394.4) + 10(-228.6) - [(17.3) + 1(0) + 13(0)]
  = -5458.5 J/mol^-1K^-1
Which is only a 4.4% increase.  However thats with a mole to mole ratio of 1:1 but H2 doesn't need octane to combust.  If you add more H2 such as:

C8H18 + 11H2 + 18O2 -> 8CO2 + 20H20
G = 8(-394.4) +20(-228.6) - [(17.3) + 11(0) + 18(0)]
  = -7744.5 J/mol^-1K^-1

Which is a 41.9% increase in work to be done on the system.  And if you think thats alot of H2 to pump into the system, its only 20g more (thats less than 3/4oz).  Your engine already has excess O2 (the reason for O2 sensors.)

Now, for those mechanics, heres where I need comfirmation.  If you find a happy medium between H2 and O2 coming into your intake, and the H2 burns up all of the O2 (with the gas), the O2 sensors will read that your engine is running rich or close to it and it will start pumping less gas to the engine?
 
*Edit* wow, did 2 people just post while I was typing that out? lol, Well said guys, CuDaBa, thats pretty much exactly what I was trying to say (albeit with numbers and such). 
 
and just for 1Gary: www.theflatearthsociety.org

Good gosh....
 
Lets just make this simple for the people that think you will USE more energy to make HHO than it will benefit....
 
You are ONLY using  a portion of the addtional capacity of your alternator to make HHO.   If what you are saying were true.. John Q with a godzilla watt amp for his stereo would get 2 miles to the gallon...  NOT true.. why?  Because the alternator already has that addtional capacity....  if if not.. you can always buy a bigger (higher capacity) alternator !
 
Simple as that...
 
As to the hazard....  why not call your insurance agent up and ask them if its ok if you add NOS  to your daily driver?????  me thinks they would frown on that too.....
 
What if I had 20 bottles of vodka in my back seat and got into and accident ???   (oh ya.. and they are in GLASS containers).. ? 
 
The conversation is a good one.... but those that are vehemently against such things  because "Why havent the automakers already done it ?"   ahem.. well...  automakers  could be doing ALOT of things to improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions... but they dont...
 
They could be making 2 or 3 cyl turbo charged diesel engines that get 60mpg .. but they dont....   Or  use water injection ?  or .....  the list goes on...
 
Suffice it to say... the automakers are not in the business of fuel efficiency....  they are only marginally influenced by the epa in that regard...    
 
Perhaps that will change now that gasoline approaches $4 a gallon... we shall see... until then....  I think the HHO idea is very feasible....  I would just like to see more numbers on efficiency increases.... thats all..
 
Have fun...
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: WayCoolKennel

Good gosh....

Lets just make this simple for the people that think you will USE more energy to make HHO than it will benefit....

You are ONLY using  a portion of the addtional capacity of your alternator to make HHO.   If what you are saying were true.. John Q with a godzilla watt amp for his stereo would get 2 miles to the gallon...  NOT true.. why?  Because the alternator already has that addtional capacity....  if if not.. you can always buy a bigger (higher capacity) alternator !

Simple as that...

As to the hazard....  why not call your insurance agent up and ask them if its ok if you add NOS  to your daily driver?????  me thinks they would frown on that too.....

What if I had 20 bottles of vodka in my back seat and got into and accident ???   (oh ya.. and they are in GLASS containers).. ? 

The conversation is a good one.... but those that are vehemently against such things  because "Why havent the automakers already done it ?"   ahem.. well...  automakers  could be doing ALOT of things to improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions... but they dont...

They could be making 2 or 3 cyl turbo charged diesel engines that get 60mpg .. but they dont....   Or  use water injection ?  or .....  the list goes on...

Suffice it to say... the automakers are not in the business of fuel efficiency....  they are only marginally influenced by the epa in that regard...    

Perhaps that will change now that gasoline approaches $4 a gallon... we shall see... until then....  I think the HHO idea is very feasible....  I would just like to see more numbers on efficiency increases.... thats all..

Have fun...

 
 
In as so much the insurer's are concerned it's all a matter of intent.Transporting a propane tank home from Lowes or a bottle of boose it one thing and installing a fuel system in your car is quite another.The moral thing to do is not to do it for the sake of the firemen,cops,emt's who wouldn't know it's there while trying to save you in the aftermat of a crash.
 
I have been a drag racer for over 20 yrs.We are always pushing the outer limits of the rules there.I trust the given the outlaw classes,300mph speeds,4second times and alike,when NHRA says a fuel is NOT safe,it isn't.Try to think about all the equipment that is use in a "off road racing situation".Firesuits,rollbars,etc and still they say the fuel isn't safe.Btw-none of which is in use on a street driven car for the most part.Your kidding yourself if you think NHRA isn't being used to sell products by manufactures.If there was any way NHRA "could" get new dollars from a "new fuel" ,they would.
 
Chevy has a 50yr running program to attrack young designers.(you remember see clay models when you where a kid)They pay for college costs and all the trimmings.I wouldn't sell short the R&D done there. 
 
 
Increased power output always includes a hotter flame,more pressure,increased stresses.The N.O.S. systems used properly still for long life require engine builds for it's use.You say it is a matter of degree's of use.(smaller cheater systems are ok without a engine build for it's use)I agree,but it is not without long term increase wear.We have proven that even the smaller systems shorten the engines life alot.So it isn't as the ad's say it is.Bottom line-with the increased flame,how much do you really think cast pistons,cast cranks,stock rods are going to put up with?.
 
 
No guys and gals-the world is not flat.Nor has this old guy's mind stop accepting good idea's.This is a old idea the was dug up again and all we are doing here is passing on what we already know to all you good folks to benefit from.
 
Gary   
 
 

Let me preface this by saying: My engineering degree had VERY little chemistry involved, lol so I hope someone strong in chem can back me, or prove me wrong here.  My guess is that Im using 100% octane, not accounting for pump gas being (generally) 87% octane and 13% heptane.  But I'm not going to run through those numbers.  If anyone wants to try, I suggest using excel.  And I appologize in advance if none of this makes sense.  Anyways....
 
I was thinking last night, a 1:11 ratio of octane and H2 is pretty ridiculous (do able, but its nuts.)  So heres what I'm thinking, since the boosters are supposed to pull 1.5L/min (right?) that works out to 90L/hr or 4 mol of H2.  Thats in an hr, if gas weighs 6.15lbs/gal and theres 114g of gas/mol that means theres ~24.6mol of gas/gal.  Now, if you burn 4 gallons /hr (60mph at 15mpg) you burn 100mol of gas. and only produce 4 mol of H2 (with one booster). 
 
Heres the thing, thats a 1 : 0.04 ratio, and if my knowledge of eletrcity is good (which it isnt) you'd need 25 boosters running to get a 4.4% increase (the 1:1 ratio).  which mean's you'd need to run these things in series to keep the amperage down, but your voltage would skyrocket.
 
I hope I made a glaring error somewhere, but heres the math I did (skip down to the line break for anyone with engine experience, tell me if I'm missing something):
 
1 mol C8H18 = 114g = .25lb of gas
6.15lbs / gal = 24.6mol/gal of gas
 
 

@60mph, a 6L V8 15mpg vehicle will burn ~100 mol of gas/hr
therefore, in one hour, the chem equation is
100C8H18 + 1250O2-> 800CO2 + 900H2O
G = 800(-394.4) + 900(-228.6) - 100(17.3) - 2500(0)
  = -315520 - 205740 - 1730
  = -522990 J/(mol*K*hr)

@60mph, a 6L V8 20mpg vehicle will burn ~75 mol of gas/hr
therefore, in one hour, the chem equation is
75C8H18 + 937.5O2-> 600CO2 + 675H2O
G = 600(-394.4) + 675(-228.6) - 75(17.3) - 937.5(0)
  = -236640 - 154305 - 1297.5
  = -392242.5J/(mol*K*hr) (75% energy as 15mpg)

@60mph, a 6L V8 15mpg vehicle will burn ~100 mol of gas/hr

6 l/min (6 boosters producing 1.5L/min, as I seem to remember someone saying you need 1 booster for every L of engine displacement) = 480L H2 / hr
480L = 22.4l/mol (ideal gas law) = 29.8 mol H2/hr
100C8H18 + 29.8H2 + 1265O2 -> 800CO2 + 929.8H2O
G = 800(-394.4) +929.8(-228.6) - [100(17.3) + 29.8(0) + 1265(0)]
315520 + 212552.28 +1730 = 529802.28 J(mol^-1)(K^-1)(hr^-1)
= (529802.28-522990)/522990 =
1.30% increase

@60mph, a 20mpg vehicle will burn ~75 mol of gas/hr
 
6 l/min (6 boosters producing 1.5L/min) = 480L H2 / hr
480L = 22.4l/mol (ideal gas law) = 29.8 mol H2/hr
75C8H18 + 29.8H2 + 952.4O2 -> 600CO2 + 704.8H20
 
G = 600(-394.4) +704.8(-228.6) - [75(17.3) + 29.8(0) + 952.4(0)]
-399055(mol^-1)(K^-1)
[-399055-(-392242.5)]/392242.5
= 1.74% increase
 
 
***********************HOWEVER**********************
 
This doesn't take into account the H2 displacing the octane filling the pistons.  Here's what I figure:
 @ 15mpg and 60mph you burn 4gal per hr
4 gal/hr = 15.2L/hr
the chem equation is:
C8H18 + 12.5O2 -> 8CO2 + 9H20
 
so the gas:O2 ratio is 1:12.5
so, if you burn 15.2L of gas, you must also burn 190 L of O2

For a total mixture of 205.2L/hr
or 3.42L/min
 
This is disregarding excess air.  But notice, if you have one booster for every L of engine displacement, that makes 480L/hr which is more than your engine can take(205 by my calculations).  By my calcs, even 1 booster for every 2L of displacement is too much.
Maybe 1 for every 3-5 L of displacement? I honestly don't know. I don't know, its too early for this, haha.
 
 

So, I'm a tard, the numbers I was getting were work increases, not fuel efficiency, that I guess is going to have to be realworld results.  As I can't find out the amount of guel/gas/air that goes into an engine over a given amount of time.

Well since this entire thing does not work. I am am sure you haters out there would not like to hear this.
I ran my new setup with MAF, MAP, ATS, O2 Enhancers with the HHO setup and I just got my best ever.
 
25mpg.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f.jsp?year=2002&make=Chevrolet&model=Blazer%202WD&hiddenField=Findacar
that is 81.3miles on 3.25gallons of gas.
 
Not to mention it was city driving.
 
The entire thing is efficiency.
 
See I can have a setup that produces 200ml per minute using 15amps or like the new system I will put together in the next couple of weeks. 2-3liters per minute using the same voltage and amps.
 
If you look at the fues box under the hood standing on hte drivers side, I put the relay power off the fuel pump relay. The bottom right hand corner. THen I snaked the wire through the the fuses and out the side. THe relays are located behind the fuse box and fender.

could you take some pics of your installed setup? I wanna do this this summer.

Yes of course but you can see some here. freewebs.com/hhosurfer still working on it.
 
Bassinprof, and all about saftey. Here is a guy that blows his cell up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWpdtC6TJ8k
 
food for thoughts

Wow, you got a 30% increase on 200ml/min? I'm not sure adding 2/3L per min is a great idea, I wonder if theres a way you can figure out how much air you're pulling in, adding more H2 isn't going to make a difference if you dont have the O2 to combust it.  Heres the thing, if you make 2 boosters that produce 1-1.5L/min, and you connect the in series the amperage (and therefore temperature) will stay down BUT your voltage is going to double, so, I dont know, you might need another battery.
 
Edit: On a similar note, are there are companies selling double headed intakes? or rather a double intake (you'd need the extra tubing as well)?  That would pull in enough air to combust a decent amount of fuel.  That'd probably be a custom job.

No No No,
 
What I was talking about was efficiency. You see people talking hey just do this. but it is more then just wrapping a stainless steel cable (wire) arround plastic and add juice get better gas mileage.
 
You can make a cell produce 200ml per minute @ 15amps or you can make a cell that can produce 2-3liter per minute on that same juice.
 
My cell produces 1.1liters per minute warm. And in a week or 2 I will have made a cell 2-3liters in a minute.

Ahhhh, excuse my terrible reading (dyslexia's a b****).  Are you gonna run a single cell that pulls 2-3L or multiple1L/min cells?  It would seem to me, with my rudimentary knowledge of this subject, that adding more surface area (more plates) would accomplish the task of producing more, right?  But that would require a larger cell, so what you're going for is a larger cell with more plates?

*launguage*
 
*whoops*

rtsurfer,
Have you ruled out whether it is your sensor mods or the HHO bringing up your gas mileage? That would provide better proof for those who are unsure whether to beleive this. If you could run it one fill-up without the HHO generator and one fill-up with and measure that would be great.

If this works, I'm going to put a HHO generator on the Sonoma utility and see what I get with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ax7221

Ahhhh, excuse my terrible reading (dyslexia's a b****).  Are you gonna run a single cell that pulls 2-3L or multiple1L/min cells?  It would seem to me, with my rudimentary knowledge of this subject, that adding more surface area (more plates) would accomplish the task of producing more, right?  But that would require a larger cell, so what you're going for is a larger cell with more plates?

*launguage*

*whoops*

 
I did not mean it sound like I was jumping down you throat. Just meant that efficiency is the key to get production and great production.
 
As it turns out that if you run 2 systems does not mean better. I ran 2 for like 3 days. Each close to the same size weight etc. Both ran 12v @15-20amp. My gas mileage went down. Excessive drain on the engine I guessed. So that used 40amps total, 12v each and gave me 1.8ml per minute.
 
But if you can make a cell that produces 1.8L to 3l using 25amps and only 12v that is much better. The new cell will be about the same size but more surface area and more neutral plates.
 
EuroGoldLS
All the mods work in conjunction of one another. I would not try a lean out the fuel if I was not adding a different fuel in it’s place.
 
But when I first started I did not have the MAP,MAF, ATS, O2 sensor mods and I have been recording everything every step of my way.
 
When I first started I was making about 500ml per 45sec. That alone gave me an increase to 20.4mpg

Ah ok. So the engine will not function without HHO. I don't want to do it if is dependant on the HHO to run. I want to be able to take it off in a matter of minutes.

I think what he is saying that the engine will run without the HHO, he just doesn’t want to run lean (using the sensor adjustments and no HHO).