On 03/17/2009 10:14 AM I posted this message on CR4

Our business is research and development. We have three technicians assigned part time to our HHO project. We entered the project with the assumption that it works but that it just is not safe. Our sole focus up until now was safety. We successfully completed the safety project. See http://www.hhogassavermpg.com/ . Now we are in the middle of confirming the technology and acquiring federal EPA certification. I understand CR4 to say that the technology is unproven which concerns me. Why do people’s informal tests indicate otherwise? And why has nobody convinced CR4 of this? Is the idea that new? Are we at HHOINFO being fooled? Should we drop our projects and move on?

On 03/17/2009 7:05 PM I got this reply. HOW SHOULD I RESPOND TO IT?

Are we being fooled?

That seems like a difficult position to support. Clearly you must know that the very long history of HHO devices has always (or at least since 1918) been surrounded by charges (and some convictions) of fraud. I doubt that you are being fooled.

Is the idea that new?

Even people not engaged in the business know this is not a new idea in any way, shape, or form. The first US patent for a device which functions exactly like today's devices was awarded in 1918. As you know, actually working as advertised is not a requirement for issuing a patent.

Should we drop the project and move on?

Only you can decide that. It depends upon your ethical compass. If you believe these devices work, and if you believe you have a vehicle which can demonstrate that, then go to the EPA. If their tests show that your belief has some foundation, then find out what is unique about your device (because this would be historic) patent that unique aspect, and make a business.

As far as dealing with only the safety aspect of HHO, you'd have to rely on your own market studies. Clearly, even though these devices have never been demonstrated to work by an independent agency such as the EPA, they sell very well. Are the buyers concerned about safety? Who knows? The amount of HHO that these units produce is far too small to have any effect whatsoever on engine performance. But is it possible that H2 (the O2 part simply mixes with the air as soon as the HHO is outside its duct) could accumulate under hood in sufficient concentration to go kaboom? Perhaps in a stationary car. Can you create enough fear to make a business from this aspect? Maybe. Be aware that old batteries with standard vented caps could liberate about as much H2 as an HHO unit, and did not explode frequently enough for people to be too worried.

Even sophisticated investors are not too hard to swindle. Madoff made billions. Imagine how easy it is to fool people about the effect of HHO in a country where 80% of high school graduates cannot even find Chicago on a map, let alone quote facts from a physics or chemistry textbook.

You can read my zillions of posts elsewhere but a brief summary of "reasons" why HHO works as advertised (according to promoters) is here:

1. 15% (or 20% or 30%) of the fuel goes past the exhaust valve unburned: Flat Lie. The percentage is never more than 1% either side of perfect, and is typically closer than that. Catalytic converters are damaged by values outside these limits.

2. HHO improves combustion: Misconception. The NASA study shows that injection amounts must be at least an order of magnitude higher (than HHO units produce) to have enough effect on combustion speed to have any significant effect on energy efficiency. Even this only applies when the H2 is delivered for free thermodynamically. The situation is actually much worse with electrolysis units, which consume engine power.

3. HHO simply adds additional fuel to the engine, which you get for free from the water. Flat Lie. This is the classic perpetual motion scheme, and was the standard HHO promotion lie for years. Water is not a fuel, which should be incredibly obvious to anyone who has put out a camp fire. Making H2 from water requires more energy than you can get from burning the fuel. Always, and by any method. (This is true if even if you use the highest quality electrolysis equipment, and burn the hydrogen in a calorimeter -- which measures its entire heat value. In an engine, the situation is much worse, because you only get 25% the energy converted to mechanical output.) The alternator load, and the fuel used to power it, goes up with the electrical load.

4. There is excess electricity being generated all the time by the alternator. Flat Lie. The greater the draw on the alternator, the more HP required, and the more fuel consumed. This should be obvious to anyone who has seen generators at Home Depot: big ones which (consume a lot of fuel) produce more electricity than small ones. It is also obvious to anyone who has read how a car alternator works, or who has worked on one.

5. I've developed a method for splitting water that is twice, five times or 50 times (yes there really is such a claim!) as efficient as "brute force" electrolysis. Flat Lie. A reasonably efficient HHO unit is 50% efficient. 100% efficiency is not possible, nor is any efficiency over 100%.

6. But my method "jiggles" the molecule apart with pulses of x frequency (or ac) at some frequency. I use "resonance." Flat Lie. This suggests that in the inventors corner of the world the laws of thermodynamics do not apply. It matters not whether you use tweezers or rocks, or high voltage or low, the laws of thermodynamics apply: even assuming 99% efficiency of the electrolysis process, the net loss is still large: for each ounce of fuel you consume to produce HHO, you get back 1/5 oz of energy in HHO (because, at best, the engine and alternator making the HHO is only 20% efficient.)

7. But I'm getting a 50% or 100% improvement despite the fact that you stupid science types think it does not work. Profound misconception, bad test method, mental instability, placebo effect, Flat Lie? Imagine yourself an inventor sitting on a billion dollar device but sitting around making videos on YouTube, or spending your time trying to convince CR4 members, most of whom apply science every day, that science is bogus. Plausible?

8. You stinky meany heads would have kept the Wright Brothers from flying. Profound misconception. The Wright Brothers were classic scientists, and relied heavily on aerodynamics texts by Chanute and others, and on the experience of a very long line of aviation pioneers.

9. Stanley Meyer was convicted of fraud because of the Big Oil conspiracy against him. Profound Misconception. Stanley was convicted because he was a fraud who claimed that you could run a car on water, and that he had a method which produced H2 on an over-unity basis (i.e., in violation of laws of thermodynamics).

10. I'm not proposing any kind of perpetual motion machine. Profound Misconception. For the amount of HHO generated to even creep up any where near close to the point that its effect would be measurable, the process must operate at multiples of over-unity (in which case you have a perpetual motion machine -- just plug the out put into the input and it runs forever.) In a typical engine of today, the electrolysis process would have to operate at 500% efficiency, just to get to the break even point.

11. Well, if these things operate at a net loss, then I'd see my mileage going down, but I don't. Slight Misconception. These units draw about the same current as headlights (100 watts). The effect of 100 watts is very hard to measure on engine of 150,000 watts. (Obviously the potential benefit would be unmeasurable as well.)

12. HHO is monatomic, with completely different properties than H2. Flat Lie or profound ignorance. HHO is similar to oxyacetylene -- if you crack open both valves on a torch when you light it, you get a bang. Ditto for lighting a HHO. However, when you put HHO into the intake airstream in the incredibly tiny amounts produced by an HHO "booster" the two gases separate, and all that is left as an energy difference is the tiny additional amount of H2, surrounded by and intermixed with an incredibly large amount of air with a small amount of gasoline vapor. At the instant that HHO comes out of the common duct, all you have is a tiny amount of hydrogen. Wackos claim that ultra high flame front speeds will prevail, thinking apparently that HHO remains in one place (about the size of a rain drop in the relatively huge volume of a cylinder) but It does not. It simply mixes with everything else. If it did not, it would be impossible to make the other silly claim -- that it has a measurable effect on combustion -- because only one in 500 times would that little chunk of separate HHO be anywhere near to the spark plug.

13. The HHO units makes the ECU "think" the engine is running lean, so the ECU increases the fuel flow. Therefore, you must tamper with your emission system. Flat Lie. These differences are not measurable (just as you'd expect because of the tiny amount of H2 injected) as verified by perhaps the best recent test of HHO devices, that done by Popular Mechanics. The Popular Mechanics test is particular good, because it is easily understandable, but also because it was performed by a body that is beyond independent -- they gain ad revenue from mileage improvement devices, so it is clearly in their best interest to say that these things work, not that they don't work. If you poke around HHO websites, you'll find many "reasons" why HHO can only work if you buy additional stuff: solvents, magnets, fuel heaters, etc. Ironically, some HHO sites which said that their unit worked just fine a year ago, now say that you must buy additional stuff to make them work. ("We were lying then, but now we are telling the truth.") Suckers keep coming, though.

For additional info poke around CR4. Although I thought my last post in this thread was really going to be my last on HHO devices (I've tired of going around in circles, and this seems like a waste of CR4 bandwidth.) perhaps this post will be. I hope you make the right decision regarding going ahead with your plans.

Views: 149

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Initially I thought I could actually try this idea without too much difficulty. But it is maybe not quite so simple. First, it would require a constant input of water via the pipe over a long enough distance to get an accurate MPG. Then there would possibly be the risk that because the water would only run from the oulet manifold, the combustion chamber would still be hot, and if the ECU did lean the AFR the engine would get a lot hotter still.
We're presently testing with adding water vapour to a well tested HHO setup on a number of vehicles, but unfortunately this does put expansion into the equation. One way to tell if it is directly affecting the ECU could be to compare the results with non-ECU vehicles, but it's still a bit hit and miss.

I will try to get to the bottom of it eventually.

Gary said:
Buster said:

It is certainly worth more investigation as it could be a very big factor to understanding what works best and could herald a cheaper and more effective way of dealing with the ECU problem.
Simple enough to test. First, there were the O2 extenders which didn't work. Then I personally tried them into a plug antifouler, which took the O2 sensor far out of the exhaust, protected it from most of the heat, and still didn't work...and built up carbon inside the extender/antifouler cage - uh, that's probably a BAD thing...
So others thought that wrapping the sensor with tinfoil would do something...did nothing on our vehicles...
and I now propose that we run a hose to the manifold and drive with WATER running down on the pipe, cooling the sensor. That should change the A/F ratio if it's a temp sensor.
That is not a bad idea Gary. I guess it isn't just the muscles that grow when you use them, the brain becomes better to :-) NOT saying that you didn't have a brain before HHO times!! Oh, I don't get this right anyway... ;-)
Christer Dirfeldt said:
That is not a bad idea Gary. I guess it isn't just the muscles that grow when you use them, the brain becomes better to :-) NOT saying that you didn't have a brain before HHO times!! Oh, I don't get this right anyway... ;-)

Keep going, Christer. You're doing fine. heheheh. :-)
In my opinion, you are wasting your time by trying to convince anyone at CR4 about water fuel technology. These are guys that would rather use large vocabularies and textbook scientific definitions to intimidate and propagate static viewpoints rather than actually participating actively in any research. They are often very conceded individuals that consider themselves so well "educated" that they see no logic in thinking outside the box. These are the people that will not believe in anything until the government, some large institution of social or political influential power, or corporation tell them to do so.
On the oxygen sensors. The sensor is supposed to measure the difference in oxygen concentration between the exhaust gas and the outside air. A quick way to test this would be to blow some oxygen from a tank onto the outside of the sensor, and look for a voltage change on the signal wire. A concentration jump from roughly 20 % in atmospheric air to near 100% pure oxygen should trigger a massive voltage change if the sensor truly measures oxygen. I'm guessing this would be enough to stall the engine or set an error code. If they really measure temperature, the small amount of cooling from the oxy breeze should only show a very small voltage change if any.

Temperature IS the key according to this article on how O2 sensors work (it's actually oxygen pressure, but increased heat increases oxygen pressure): 

SST Sensing Zirconium Based O2 Sensors

I know this is long dead, but a quick search on how O2's work interestingly has pulled up a document detailing how Zirconium based O2's work.  I know my Jeep Cherokee 2000 uses a zirconia based O2, but an old Chrysler mechanic once told me it also references O2 through the wires as a reference.  I'm not sure how much faith I can put in his description, but if such a thing were true (if your particular exhaust O2 sensors measured ambient O2 through the wires) simple finding a way to submerge them in a slight gas vapor, or something like vinegar that steals oxygen, would be enough to spoof them.  

However, if what this article says is true for the majority of O2 sensors out there, then O2 pressure (which will be increased with increased exhaust gas temperatures, IE running leaner) would be how it works, not actual O2 percentages.  That means simply using water vapor to scavenge heat from the combustion is the real key.

In the article it even shows how 32% humidity reduces the O2 pressure readings in the exhaust.  You have to be careful with using water vapor though if you get into injecting raw ambient temperature (IE 80F) as it will also cool the gas reducing vaporization, reducing power and mileage (this can happen with diesel systems using water injection beyond the maximum levels and is seen as white smoke and reduced power).  HOWEVER, if the water was pre-heated from 80F to say 130-140, you could put more water in without that happening, and have more steam-engine benefits as a result to push the piston on the power stroke.  This is a concept I have been thinking about for about a year now. 

I have a hydrogen setup that gets hot and produces mucho water vapor as a result.  With that setup I have been able to attain 60-80% increases in mileage on a 4.5L engine.  I would average 60% with lots of short trips where it barely had time to warm up, but one day I did a test with lots of non-stop driving and experienced an 80% boost.  As you can imagine with water being both vapored and electrolyzed it goes through the water pretty quick, but it certainly works.  

Reply to Discussion


*** Translate HODINFO ***

© 2019   Created by gabet123.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service

Live Chat