Water as Fuel / HHO Technology [Merged Threads]

[dvldoc]

Great more useless youtube videos.

Can anyone post anything else? Or some real testing to show these systems do what they claim?

Anything else other thing besides how you play with HHO

[A121]

Refer back to this page for the formula based on Faraday's Law in one of my posts:
http://tsikot.yehey.com/forums/showt...=52458&page=14

This takes the value in BTUs of the hydrogen in the volume of HHO. Oxygen does not count since it has no value and this is already taken into account here in this formula. Refer to the video for more information on the specifics on this formula and how it is figured:
http://www.youtube.com/user/delvis11#p/u/29/fvfD2Sk86EU

A lot of people post inaccurate or deceptive information on the Internet about their HHO production. The video does help separate fact from fiction and makes it easy to spot someone that may be exaggerating.

Referring from your previous post. How did you measure the rate of the production of hydrogen?

A better method in getting the efficiency would be computing for the actual power input.

Then get the actual molar mass of the produced hydrogen and computing for the internal energy. This results to the actual amount of energy harvested from the process.

You do the usual conversion process and then divide the actual power input by the actual amount of energy and then multiply it to 100 (for percentage).

[artnesmith]

Referring from your previous post. How did you measure the rate of the production of hydrogen?

A better method in getting the efficiency would be computing for the actual power input.

Then get the actual molar mass of the produced hydrogen and computing for the internal energy. This results to the actual amount of energy harvested from the process.

You do the usual conversion process and then divide the actual power input by the actual amount of energy and then multiply it to 100 (for percentage).

The way we measure volume of HHO is with a lung capacity device like they use in hospitals or you can use a bottle and water. For example, if you take a 1 liter bottle full of water and invert it into a bucket of water, the water inside will not be able to run out. If you insert your hose carrying the HHO under the inverted bottle the HHO will displace the water inside. Once the 1 liter bottle has no water, that is one liter of HHO. Of course, I've seen people use 500 ML bottles and multiply the time X 2 to get the time to make one liter.

I think in some of my videos you may see my bottle/volume tester. I made mine with 4 inch PVC and use a one liter bottle. In my video you notice I drilled a hole in the bottom of the bottle and I loosen the cap to let the bottle refill for another test run. The hole in the bottom has a long tube inserted that carries the HHO. This system is good for rough measurements on high output cells. If you are measuring low output you might need a more accurate system like those lung capacity devices. You can pick one up at a medical supply. We have a HHO club member that works for a hospital and that's where we get ours.

We tend to use the 7744 X 100 X HHO volume per minute divided by(watts X 60 seconds) method among ourselves for comparison. I have my doubts as to the validity of Faraday's Law personally, but what else do we have to document? I've seen output of HHO so low that it would take 10 minutes to get sufficient volume to measure using a 1 ohm resistor, 4 neutral plates and strong electrolyte. The Faraday numbers go into the 80% range. Hard to believe that's worth cheering about. Too bad we can't duplicate that at higher amps and get more volume. So far, we're just kicking ideas around with no sense of direction to take this.

I notice some people have actually loaded systems with mild storage containers and get more out of the systems, especially if using solar panels to squeeze a small amount of HHO out while engine is off. Others use batteries to store extra electricity that are independent of the car's electrical system. Either way, they get better mileage averages as long as their trips are not too long. Our club wants to run a car 100% on water for at least 40 miles, much like an electric car. In order to accomplish this we need batteries fully charged to get the volume of HHO we'll need. How far can we go? Remains to be seen. Tomorrow the first leg of the tests include getting data on a 1600 CC VW air cooled engine at low speed to measure battery life at a amp load of at least 10 amps or higher. I think we are sitting at approximately 16 amps right now, so that will be our starting point. The final result will be using 8-12 batteries, like an electric car, to see how far and fast we can go.

When running an engine on HHO, you should NEVER hear a banging sound. I happened to watch some YouTube videos of people tearing up some small engines this way. If you add gasoline and pure oxygen without nitrogen from the atmosphere, you hear a loud hammering or banging noise from the explosions inside the engine. Same goes for hydrogen (HHO). If you open the throttle or carburetor butterfly and allow more air in with the HHO the slower burn you need begins as the nitrogen slows down the burn. Just a safety tip that comes to mind after watching those horrible banging engines tearing up on YouTube. Made my skin crawl!

Check out this hydrogen technology if you get some time:
Nuvera Fuel Cells http://www.nuvera.com/

[niky]

The best way to measure HHO production is to measure water consumption, as this gives you the weight of HHO you're producing, from which you can infer the weight of hydrogen you're producing. (you want the weight of hydrogen because the oxygen doesn't add anything you need to the combustion process).

[dvldoc]

Touching on that.

[SIZE=-1]The amount of hydrogen extracted from a gallon of water can be found very easily using the molecular weight of H20 (water), Hydrogen and Oxygen, along with mass conservation. the molecular weight of water is 2 H (molecular weight 1) + 1 Oxygen (Molecular weight 16) for a total of 18. And for every Molecule of water converted, we would get 2 Molecules of Hydrogen.

So, now the question is, how many molecules of water are there in a gallon of water? The density of water is 1g/(cm3) so in 1 gallon of water ( about 3.785 Liters or 3785 cm3) the mass of the water is, 3785g. 1 mole of 6.02x1023 molecules of water is equal has the mass in grams equal to the molecular weight or 18 grams per mole. so 3785 grams corresponds to about 1.265 x 1026 molecules of water.

Now, if every single one of those molecules were converted into Hydrogen we would get twice as much hydrogen as we had of water. or 2.53 x 1026 molecules of hydrogen. however since hydrogen is a diatomic molecule, meaning that the hydrogen that we talk about is H2, we would get 1.265 x 1026 molecules of hydrogen. at 1 atmospheric pressure and 273K, 1 mole of hydrogen fills approximately 22.4L of volume. so 1.265 x 1026 molecules or about 210 moles, would fill 4707 Liters of volume.

As for the reason that you cannot merely extract hydrogen to continuously power your vehicle, it is due to simple conservation of energy. Simply put, the energy you use to convert the water in your tank into hydrogen would be at most equal to the energy that hydrogen could provide. Of course due to frictional losses, from things like resistance in your apparatus, you would actually end up using up more energy to get the hydrogen than you would gain from using it as a fuel source.[/SIZE]

[artnesmith]

The best way to measure HHO production is to measure water consumption, as this gives you the weight of HHO you're producing, from which you can infer the weight of hydrogen you're producing. (you want the weight of hydrogen because the oxygen doesn't add anything you need to the combustion process).

In the long run, measuring the amount of water used, you could estimate the volume of HHO produced over time.

1 gallon of water makes 4707 Liters of volume in hydrogen alone, 2/3 approximate total volume of HHO.

1 liter of water should make 2689.7 liters of hydrogen by volume.

The only thing you need to consider is evaporation. Some "hot" cells actually produce steam which is water not consumed by electrolysis. Many think that the steam produced by many of these units contribute more to increases in mileage than the actual HHO. Every time I have gone crazy with amps, mileage dropped for me, so I just try to stay within the best amps for the engine size. For example, on the Internet I've actually read where they say you need 1 liter of HHO production per minute for every liter of engine displacement. That would be approximately 2 liters per minute for a 2.0 liter engine or 30+ amps with a HHO generator that is at least 60% efficient. I ran a 3.8 liter engine at 30 amps and mileage dropped. My peak mileage tends to be running at 12-14 amps cold on that size engine. Those are my results.

Another consideration, my VW is equipped with an old style generator. If I over run the unit it will not burn up the generator and at worst ruin my mileage and run down my battery. But I did replace a 45 amp alternator on my other test car to a 100 amp alternator. But you should never run more than 20-25% of total alternator capacity for extended run times. When I ran this system at 30 amps I was slightly over the safe limit. Very high amperage can burn up your alternator while dropping your mileage. If steam from a "hot" HHO generator was a good thing, then using exhaust heat to make the steam would be a more efficient way to achieve this. Better to run these units conservative until you are sure things are working properly.

[dvldoc]

In the long run, measuring the amount of water used, you could estimate the volume of HHO produced over time.

1 gallon of water makes 4707 Liters of volume in hydrogen alone, 2/3 approximate total volume of HHO.

1 liter of water should make 2689.7 liters of hydrogen by volume.

The only thing you need to consider is evaporation. Some "hot" cells actually produce steam which is water not consumed by electrolysis. Many think that the steam produced by many of these units contribute more to increases in mileage than the actual HHO. Every time I have gone crazy with amps, mileage dropped for me, so I just try to stay within the best amps for the engine size. For example, on the Internet I've actually read where they say you need 1 liter of HHO production per minute for every liter of engine displacement. That would be approximately 2 liters per minute for a 2.0 liter engine or 30+ amps with a HHO generator that is at least 60% efficient. I ran a 3.8 liter engine at 30 amps and mileage dropped. My peak mileage tends to be running at 12-14 amps cold on that size engine. Those are my results.

Another consideration, my VW is equipped with an old style generator. If I over run the unit it will not burn up the generator and at worst ruin my mileage and run down my battery. But I did replace a 45 amp alternator on my other test car to a 100 amp alternator. But you should never run more than 20-25% of total alternator capacity for extended run times. When I ran this system at 30 amps I was slightly over the safe limit. Very high amperage can burn up your alternator while dropping your mileage. If steam from a "hot" HHO generator was a good thing, then using exhaust heat to make the steam would be a more efficient way to achieve this. Better to run these units conservative until you are sure things are working properly.

So by your own math you have once again proved what I have been saying, You may be able to ignore the obvious but other people do read.

1 gallon of water makes 4707 Liters of volume in hydrogen alone, 2/3 approximate total volume of HHO.

1 liter of water should make 2689.7 liters of hydrogen by volume.

So since your HHO communities best efforts can't even get 5 liters per minute per (average is 1 to 2 lpm) how long is going to take to make 4707 liters of Hydrogen, how about 2689.7 liters, How many hours is that again? talking about a true fart in a typhoon.

A 2 liter engine at 2000rpms will consume over 450,000 liters of air in 1 hour. So even if you could get through a gallon of water in 1 hour it would still make little to no difference in the percentace of hydrogen added.

And just to make a comparision of how little volume these kits make in volume, You breath on average of 10 liters per minute just sitting.

[artnesmith]

A 2 liter engine at 2000rpms will consume over 450,000 liters of air in 1 hour. So even if you could get through a gallon of water in 1 hour it would still make little to no difference in the percentace of hydrogen added.

That's apples to oranges. Hydrogen more accurately equates to ratios of gasoline or diesel to air since it is comprised of combustible gas.

We've been capable of producing a lot of HHO, but not off of the engine's electrical system. Producing HHO from a separate system, a bank of batteries such as in an vehicle powered solely by an electric motor, can be producing monster amounts of HHO, even capable of powering a small 5.0 liter V8. What we have not been able to test or find good information on is whether this would last long enough to be worthwhile. The best information I can find is where certain individuals have a bank of batteries used solely for HHO production and charge these batteries from household current via of a battery charger. They get remarkable mileage using very little gasoline, but every one of them I've found has a very short daily commute. Still no good information on whether our current HHO club project to run only on battery power will get us very far. Unfortunately we are going to have to build and test that ourselves to find out.

Earlier someone mentioned the "placebo effect" on calculating mileage. I meant to address that at the time, but was distracted and forgot until now. This is a potential problem anytime someone is testing any sort of mileage device and I've often wondered if I have fallen victim to the placebo effect on testing these HHO units. For example, if you go to the consumer advocacy sites for the different states such as Texas or California you'll notice the parameters used to test claims of improved mileage for different types of mileage enhancing products sold on the market. Rarely do they use a dynomometer due to the slight or non existent power improvements some devices claim such as the fuel line magnets. They instead take a test group of cars and let the drivers go about their daily commute and get a baseline. Then they add the device to be tested to half of the cars, and a fake device on the other half. None of the drivers are aware of whether their car has the legitimate device or the fake. They compare mileage increases to determine if the group with the actual device got better mileage than the group without. If you read the information you'll notice the cars without the device also get better mileage! That has to be the placebo effect causing drivers to assume they have the device installed and somehow drive differently.

Along these same lines, another friend came up with some sort of lotion to grow hair for thinning hairlines. He had proof it actually worked. I told him, "Are you sure?" Then I showed him the first clinical trials for Minoxidil. Believe it or not, 11-33% of men on the placebo showed "moderate to strong hair growth." The difference between the placebo and group actually using Minoxidil was only 10%. So you see, even if something doesn't work, it may actually work depending on how it's used. The placebo effect is hard to deny.

[dvldoc]

That's apples to oranges. Hydrogen more accurately equates to ratios of gasoline or diesel to air since it is comprised of combustible gas.

Like I said before you should really learn how a internal combustion engine actually works. If you think 2 liters a minute of not even pure hydrogen will make any measurable effect of the active combustion already going on in the chamber at the time of ignition of the fuel then your dead wrong.

This can easily be proved with thermal imaging of the combustion process, and thermocouplers to measure if there is any increase of decrease in the combustion chambers. No increase means no effect. You only think in theory I think in facts.

Try injecting 2 liters a minute of nitrous through a pressure regulator at 1psi vs the normal 900psi. (HHO kits, none of them make more that 1psi to 2psi if you used 5 batteries you still would not get 3psi)

Like stated before it produces zero effect and you have not in 3 pages of post provided one piece of proof that it does, nor has any company, HHO club, or individual in the last 7 to 8 years. Now how sad is that.

[artnesmith]

Like I said before you should really learn how a internal combustion engine actually works. If you think 2 liters a minute of not even pure hydrogen will make any measurable effect of the active combustion already going on in the chamber at the time of ignition of the fuel then your dead wrong.

This can easily be proved with thermal imaging of the combustion process, and thermocouplers to measure if there is any increase of decrease in the combustion chambers. No increase means no effect. You only think in theory I think in facts.

Try injecting 2 liters a minute of nitrous through a pressure regulator at 1psi vs the normal 900psi. (HHO kits, none of them make more that 1psi to 2psi if you used 5 batteries you still would not get 3psi)

Like stated before it produces zero effect and you have not in 3 pages of post provided one piece of proof that it does, nor has any company, HHO club, or individual in the last 7 to 8 years. Now how sad is that.

Your hostility toward HHO is well documented. Nitrous oxide is an interesting comparison. This equates to pure oxygen and increases the ability to increase fuel delivery much the same as a turbo or supercharger would do.

Pressure? You see most guys using PVC to encapsulate the HHO units with zero pressure or even using vacuum to pull in the gas. However, if you were to seal a unit in stainless steel, as many have done, without a pressure relief valve the unit would certainly explode if electrolysis continued. The volume of HHO would increase and increase pressure until the rupture point was reached. Most don't want to spend the money on this, but our club has procured a pressure switch that will cut power to the relay at 65 PSI to fabricate a unit that shuts down at pressure. Using a propane/gasoline valve on many engines this will allow the burst of HHO necessary for use in stop and go traffic. Just depends on how you do it.

I have a unit on my work bench right now that belongs to a club member that cannot begin to operate properly below 10 amps and should be operated at 20-150 amps for best efficiency. This unit produces .8 liter to 5 liters per minute in that amp range and should suffice for a starting point to do some engine idling in the absence of gasoline to study battery life under different loads. Electric cars do draw a lot of amperage using a lot of batteries. Once batteries are dead, you're stuck until batteries are charged or vehicle is towed. These cars usually don't go farther than 40 miles at 40 miles per hour. I'm betting we can do better with HHO and when batteries are run down we can actually get home on gasoline.

Dry Cells operate at great efficiency, but tend to leak. A dry cell enclosed in a container submerged in water is called a "submerged dry cell" and can develop great pressure depending on the encapsulating material. PVC probably won't hold more pressure than 80 PSI in the 4 inch ID pipe size. Anything under pressure with a combustible gas and pure oxygen can be very dangerous though.

[A121]

7744 X 100 X [liters per minute HHO] divided by (amps X volts X 60) So the above example would be:
7744 X 100 X .8 divided by (12 X 13.5 X 60) = 63.74% efficient Faraday. Be advised 100% efficiency or above is overunity and never been documented. Best HHO cell documented, to the best of my knowledge, has been 85% and I believe that was on 24 volts if I'm not mistaken, unit built for heavy duty diesel use. Anything you add such as pumps or cooling fans will drop efficiency as they increase electrical consumption.

How would you relate Faraday's law of electrolysis with the numbers you used?

Is there also a specific mixture or ratio of gasoline, hydrogen and air for an internal combustion engine to work? or a better question is, how do you meter or control the amount of these 3 together knowing that there are varying pressures and temperatures?

[niky]

That's apples to oranges. Hydrogen more accurately equates to ratios of gasoline or diesel to air since it is comprised of combustible gas.

Liters of hydrogen doesn't equate to liters of gas. Unless you specify that the energy density of atmospheric hydrogen, which is what you're producing, since your system is unpressurized, is 1/3000th that of gasoline.

Yup. 1 liter of gasoline = 3000 liters of hydrogen gas.

So... 2 liters a minute... 120 liters an hour... 1/9th of that is hydrogen (we don't need extra oxygen, remember?) equivalent to... about 4 milliliters of gasoline. That's to offset how much of the 1000 milliliters (or more... much more for engines above 1.6 liters) of gasoline consumed per hour in a typical automobile? That's 0.4% And if we're looking at it as an octane booster... given that Hydrogen has an effective octane of 130... then that 0.4% is equivalent to +0.5 RON. Still not effective, either as a fuel or as an octane booster.

That's why I said mass is the only factor that counts. And the amount of water consumed will point you directly towards the mass of hydrogen produced... which will point you to how much gasoline usage you can offset with the system.

*Fun facts from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_...nal_components
(yeah, yeah... it's wikipedia... so sue me, I don't have a textbook handy...)

We've been capable of producing a lot of HHO, but not off of the engine's electrical system. Producing HHO from a separate system, a bank of batteries such as in an vehicle powered solely by an electric motor, can be producing monster amounts of HHO, even capable of powering a small 5.0 liter V8. What we have not been able to test or find good information on is whether this would last long enough to be worthwhile. The best information I can find is where certain individuals have a bank of batteries used solely for HHO production and charge these batteries from household current via of a battery charger. They get remarkable mileage using very little gasoline, but every one of them I've found has a very short daily commute. Still no good information on whether our current HHO club project to run only on battery power will get us very far. Unfortunately we are going to have to build and test that ourselves to find out.

Battery banks -> electric motors... seems to work quite fine for the EV conversion community. With effectively zero gasoline usage.

Earlier someone mentioned the "placebo effect" on calculating mileage. I meant to address that at the time, but was distracted and forgot until now. This is a potential problem anytime someone is testing any sort of mileage device and I've often wondered if I have fallen victim to the placebo effect on testing these HHO units. For example, if you go to the consumer advocacy sites for the different states such as Texas or California you'll notice the parameters used to test claims of improved mileage for different types of mileage enhancing products sold on the market. Rarely do they use a dynomometer due to the slight or non existent power improvements some devices claim such as the fuel line magnets. They instead take a test group of cars and let the drivers go about their daily commute and get a baseline. Then they add the device to be tested to half of the cars, and a fake device on the other half. None of the drivers are aware of whether their car has the legitimate device or the fake. They compare mileage increases to determine if the group with the actual device got better mileage than the group without. If you read the information you'll notice the cars without the device also get better mileage! That has to be the placebo effect causing drivers to assume they have the device installed and somehow drive differently.

Along these same lines, another friend came up with some sort of lotion to grow hair for thinning hairlines. He had proof it actually worked. I told him, "Are you sure?" Then I showed him the first clinical trials for Minoxidil. Believe it or not, 11-33% of men on the placebo showed "moderate to strong hair growth." The difference between the placebo and group actually using Minoxidil was only 10%. So you see, even if something doesn't work, it may actually work depending on how it's used. The placebo effect is hard to deny.

Again... a dynamometer can accurately measure steady state fuel economy. This is how the EPA measures fuel economy. This is how European countries measure fuel economy. As someone who's intimately familiar with dynos, I wish you'd stop making the assumption that measuring fuel efficiency on the dyno is impossible, because it isn't.

Your hostility toward HHO is well documented. Nitrous oxide is an interesting comparison. This equates to pure oxygen and increases the ability to increase fuel delivery much the same as a turbo or supercharger would do.

Nitrous oxide's effect is not just extra oxygen... otherwise you'd inject oxygen alone. The decomposition of N2O into nitrogen and oxygen absorbs heat energy and cools down the air charge, providing a denser air-fuel mixture and better efficiency.

Pressure? You see most guys using PVC to encapsulate the HHO units with zero pressure or even using vacuum to pull in the gas. However, if you were to seal a unit in stainless steel, as many have done, without a pressure relief valve the unit would certainly explode if electrolysis continued. The volume of HHO would increase and increase pressure until the rupture point was reached. Most don't want to spend the money on this, but our club has procured a pressure switch that will cut power to the relay at 65 PSI to fabricate a unit that shuts down at pressure. Using a propane/gasoline valve on many engines this will allow the burst of HHO necessary for use in stop and go traffic. Just depends on how you do it.

I have a unit on my work bench right now that belongs to a club member that cannot begin to operate properly below 10 amps and should be operated at 20-150 amps for best efficiency. This unit produces .8 liter to 5 liters per minute in that amp range and should suffice for a starting point to do some engine idling in the absence of gasoline to study battery life under different loads. Electric cars do draw a lot of amperage using a lot of batteries. Once batteries are dead, you're stuck until batteries are charged or vehicle is towed. These cars usually don't go farther than 40 miles at 40 miles per hour. I'm betting we can do better with HHO and when batteries are run down we can actually get home on gasoline.

Dry Cells operate at great efficiency, but tend to leak. A dry cell enclosed in a container submerged in water is called a "submerged dry cell" and can develop great pressure depending on the encapsulating material. PVC probably won't hold more pressure than 80 PSI in the 4 inch ID pipe size. Anything under pressure with a combustible gas and pure oxygen can be very dangerous though.

The question is still how long does it take to produce a meaningful amount of gas. And meaningful, as in, you have enough hydrogen, by mass, to run the car for a certain amount of time.

[dvldoc]

Originally Posted by artnesmith
Your hostility toward HHO is well documented. Nitrous oxide is an interesting comparison. This equates to pure oxygen and increases the ability to increase fuel delivery much the same as a turbo or supercharger would do.

Once again the lack of knowing how internal combustion works is stunning. I'm not hostile towards HHO if hostility is asking for proof that it works than I'm a god of war. So far you cannot do such a simple thing. All you have is theory even though it's been proven not to do as claimed.

Now back on Nitrous oxide. [SIZE=2]Nitrous oxide has this effect because it has a higher percentage of oxygen content than does the air in the atmosphere. Nitrous has 36% oxygen by weight and the atmosphere has 23%. Additionally, nitrous oxide is 50% more dense than air at the same pressure. Thus, a cubic foot of nitrous oxide contains 2.3 times as much oxygen as a cubic foot of air. Just do a bit of math in your head and you can see if we substitute some nitrous oxide for some of the air going into an engine than add the appropriate amount of additional fuel, the engine is going to put out more power.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2]It dramatically increase the dynamic cylinder pressure in the engine.[/SIZE]

But as stated 2 liters per minute of nitrous oxide would yield as little effect as your 2 liters of HHO system produced gas which is not even pure hydrogen.

Why is this so hard to accept to you guys.

Also Please learn how a dyno works for measuring fuel economy. It is beyond amazing that a whole cult claiming to be dedicated to increase fuel economy but don't even know how to get proper testing done to show the results of there hard work. What other area of automoive research does anyone know that is this blaitantly ignorant of how to do proper test procedures to provide results.

OH wait a minute I forgot because it's been proven by these very procedures not to work. That's why the FTC lawsuits and prision time for some of the bigest of the scammers which you and others have tried to use as credible referance sources.

Here's how real fuel economy is checked by the EPA.


(1) Degree of improvement in fuel economy
(2) Effect on exhaust emissions
(3) Vehicle applicability
(b) The Administrator may determine that, in certain cases, tests using engine dynamometers are adequate for determining the effect of a device. Examples of such cases are given below.


(1) Long-term effects. In some cases, it may be necessary for the engine to operate for several thousand miles before the effectiveness can be adequately measured. In such cases an engine dynamometer will permit a less expensive and better controlled durability and economy test than one in which a vehicle must be driven on a durability route and then tested on a chassis dynamometer or test track.


(2) Durability requirements. Aspects of engine durability can be efficiently determined using specialized engine testing rather than through durability mileage accumulation in a vehicle. A number of standard engine tests are presently used which can be incorporated into this requirement.


(c) When in the judgment of the Administrator a device cannot satisfactorily be evaluated using either dynamometer or track versions of the City Fuel Economy Test and the Highway Fuel Economy Test, the Administrator will select or design other procedures.


The Administrator will choose a test procedure or procedures from various engine dynamometer durability test procedures used by research organizations in government, the oil industry, engine manufacturing companies, and independent laboratories.
Driveability tests.

Driveability assessment (at normal ambient temperatures) of the baseline configuration, of the adjusted configuration (if required by the Administrator), and of the fully retrofitted configuration may be conducted at zero device-miles for all vehicles included in the durability fleet, and at approximately zero device-miles at low ambient temperatures (0 °F–20 °F). Driveability evaluation procedures will be provided by the Administrator when necessary.
Performance tests.

The effect of a device on a vehicle's performance will be determined by performing wide-open-throttle 0 to 60 mph acceleration tests (at normal ambient temperatures) on the baseline vehicle configuration, on the adjusted configuration (if required), and on the fully retrofitted configuration. Tests will be conducted on a dry, level, smooth-surfaced test track, with appropriate speed-time measuring equipment, on as many vehicles as determined to be necessary.



Track test procedures.
(a) Cases may arise where it will be necessary to evaluate the fuel economy effects of a retrofit device on a test track, because the effect of the device cannot be adequately tested using the chassis dynamometer procedures. (An obvious example is a device that changes the aerodynamic drag of the test vehicle.) In such cases, testing will be performed on a dry, level, smooth-surfaced test track for such dimensions that the speeds required by the city and highway fuel economy tests may be safely achieved.


(1) Because aerodynamic drag is not a linear function of velocity, it will be necessary to limit testing to times when the wind velocity is less than 5 mph, with gusts less than 10 mph.


(2) Testing will also be limited to ambient temperatures between 60° and 90 °F, and to times when the ambient temperature remains reasonably constant during individual tests. Temperature differences between tests of baseline and retrofit configurations will also be minimized.


(3) Exhaust emissions will not be measured during track testing.
(4) Fuel economy of a vehicle running on a track will be measured using either a volumetric or gravimetric procedure approved by the Administrator.


(5) Vehicle speed and distance will be measured with a “fifth wheel” type of device. Suitable apparatus will be used to generate a permanent record (strip chart recorder, etc.) of the vehicle speed versus time.


(b) City fuel economy test. Although essentially the same procedures will be used for track testing as for dynamometer testing, some modifications will be necessary to insure safe operation of the test vehicle and to adjust to the requirements of track testing.


(1) An assistant to the driver will be necessary to steer the vehicle, so that the driver will not be distracted from following the speed-time schedules used in the Federal test procedure.


(2) The test vehicle will be preconditioned within the same time constraints given in §610.43(a)(1)(ii). Preconditioning may take place either on the track or on a dynamometer. The 12-hour soak after preconditioning will take place in an area where the ambient temperature will remain within the 60° to 90 °F range, indoors, if necessary.


(3) The vehicle will be transported to the test track without being started. If the distance from soak area to track is no greater than one-quarter mile, then the vehicle may be pushed or towed to the track. Otherwise the vehicle must be transported by truck or trailer.


(4) Fuel economy will be determined by either a gravimetric or volumetric method.


(c) Highway fuel economy test. The highway test will follow the city fuel economy test in the same manner as in dynamometer tests (§610.43(b)). Fuel economy will be measured by gravimetric or volumetric methods.


(d) Steady state tests. Steady state tests on the track will be run in the same manner as on the dynamometer except that fuel economy will be measured by gravimetric or volumetric methods.


Like I said it's almost laughable HHO claims are still around even though they have been subjected to these test to prove it had no effect. I'm sure none of you even knew how the testing is even done.

By the way this testing is not even expensive folks, The dyno fuel economy testing is less than 1000USD but these companies are spending Tens of Thousands of USD in marketing but some how can't afford a simple test to provide proof.

In my book that equals a con period.

[artnesmith]

How would you relate Faraday's law of electrolysis with the numbers you used?

Is there also a specific mixture or ratio of gasoline, hydrogen and air for an internal combustion engine to work? or a better question is, how do you meter or control the amount of these 3 together knowing that there are varying pressures and temperatures?

For more reference on Faraday's Law see this link:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Faradays_law.aspx

Most information on Michael Faraday's Law tend to revolve around his laws of induction for magnetism which can be confusing for those trying to understand the big picture. Basically, going by Faraday's Law, you just cannot get out more than you put in something. Many have claimed "overunity" or getting out more than they put in, but nothing yet documented. There are some electromagnetic coils being tested now for validity that tend to show overunity, but nothing verified at this time. According to Faraday you cannot use one BTU of gasoline to generate more than one BTU of production. There would always be a loss unless you are using geothermal, nuclear or gravity for example.

So Faraday's Law could apply to electric cars, for just one example, that even if they turn generators while driving, the generators will not produce as much power as is consumed by the electric motors meaning eventually the batteries will run down. In our case, the gasoline used to generator one watt is more than the energy value of the hydrogen we produce.

If you take our formula, you'll notice there are values already established to evaluate the amount of energy necessary to produce one watt. Then this is figured in to the value in BTUs of hydrogen we produce. If we break even, or unity, then we get 100% efficiency. Some people on the Internet show exaggerated figures on HHO production and amps. When you figure this up according to Faraday's Law you have more than 100% efficiency or overunity. If you have overunity, then this means you gain or run ahead the more you use or produce. If so, then why in the world would you ever need a gas tank? Clearly they are exaggerating, dishonest or just unable to measure volumes and amps properly.

Our formula 7744 X 100 X HHO produced in one minute divided by (Watts X 60 seconds) is taking the energy necessary to make the hydrogen (Watts X test period in seconds) and dividing that into the value of the HHO produced. So basically we are taking a standard measure of energy necessary to produce electricity compared to the energy value of the hydrogen produced in BTUs of energy. Faraday's Law can be applied to many other technologies including electric motors and hydrogen fuel cells that turn hydrogen into electricity. You just need to have the energy value of what you make compared to the energy value of what was consumed to make that volume.

The reason most formulas on the Internet take the BTU value of hydrogen by weight, then transfered to volume at sea level is because the volume of a gas at sea level will be less than the same weight of that gas at much higher altitude. I could take a cell making 1 liter per minute in Manila (sea level) and take it to Mexico City (more than 2 kilometers above sea level) and the same volume of hydrogen will occupy more space making it appear to be larger. So guys testing their HHO generators at high altitude may appear to be more efficient than the rest of us, but actually just making the same amount of gas in mass/weight even if it is more in volume.

This is why when you over run a HHO generator your mileage goes down. If run at lower amps, this depends on the engine size and whether diesel of gasoline fueled, you tend to be within the "flywheel effect" of that engine. This is the area where the engine's momentum carries it, to a point. If you pass this area mileage will drop as you must burn more fuel to push the extra amperage. More HHO does not equate to better mileage if amps run away beyond the engine's ability to carry those amps. I don't remember seeing this on the Internet, but it's a factor you will run into if you tinker around with different strengths of electrolyte, especially on small engines.

[artnesmith]

Nitrous oxide's effect is not just extra oxygen... otherwise you'd inject oxygen alone. The decomposition of N2O into nitrogen and oxygen absorbs heat energy and cools down the air charge, providing a denser air-fuel mixture and better efficiency.

Actually, the molecular compound for nitrous oxide is very simple, and it is not fuel. If you inject pure oxygen into an engine, this has already been addressed throughout the Internet, you will not get a slow burn, but a piston shattering explosion. This is the problem I am concerned with at the moment with the HHO, in that we need to meter in air, which is mostly nitrogen to prevent the horrible banging that occurs when you put pure HHO in an engine without sufficient inert gases such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide. Nitrous oxide brings its own nitrogen (nitrous) and accomplishes this very well. This is why so many racers worry about improper fuel delivery at full throttle with nitrous oxide as the oxygen will create a lean condition without the proper fuel mixture increase. Nitrous packs in more dense air, like the boost from a turbo or supercharger, so extra fuel can be added for more power.

Whether a battery connected to an electric motor is more efficient than the same battery being used for electrolysis to make HHO to be burned by an internal combustion engine remains to be seen. There is no information on this that I can find, so I plan to actually do it and time battery drain at different engine speeds. I have no idea how well this will work. Not going to be easy. Today I blew a 40 amp fuse and burned up a pulser just trying to find out how long I could run something like this. I keep forgetting how many amps electric cars use, and need to up the wiring to handle it before I continue.

[artnesmith]

Now back on Nitrous oxide. [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Nitrous oxide has this effect because it has a higher percentage of oxygen content than does the air in the atmosphere. Nitrous has 36% oxygen by weight and the atmosphere has 23%.

At sea level the oxygen content is 20.95%. It gets thinner as you go up in altitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere

[juntzo]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...o/4336109.html

[ghosthunter]

At sea level the oxygen content is 20.95%. It gets thinner as you go up in altitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere

I would like to point out that wikipedia entries aren't really acceptable as a reference source because entries can easily be altered/manipulated by anyone.

[ghosthunter]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...o/4336109.html

Just posting the article's contents:

[SIZE="4"]Hydrogen Gadgets at SEMA: Cars Still Can't Run on Water[/SIZE]
By Mike Allen
Published on: November 6, 2009

Since I did my last story debunking hydrogen-on-demand, documenting an NBC Dateline story I participated in, my e-mail has been relatively free of the hydrogen-gadget feeding frenzy. Within a few weeks of that story last spring, the number of people vilifying me and accusing me of being in the employ of Big Oil was remarkably high.

Now, maybe because the price of gasoline has come down, people aren't so desperate. And as everyone is trying to weather the economic storm, it seems there's no time or energy left over to try to circumvent the laws of physics.

The SEMA show this year is also blissfully short on bogus gas-saving gadgets. Few seem to be peddling fuel-line magnets, intake-tract vortex generators, vapor injectors or other stuff that doesn't work. It's actually a refreshing change. Unfortunately, there are still some throwbacks selling additives and chemicals that claim improved fuel economy. Sigh. P.T. Barnum was right. There's a sucker born every minute.

And, of course, there are still die-hard hydrogen-on-demand holdouts out there, claiming dramatic improvements in fuel economy by burning water in your car. On the floor I even found a couple of vendors selling systems. Not just backyard systems, either. I'm talking engineered systems with remote water reservoirs and electronic controllers.

I heard one pitchman trot out the same old blarney: "Your engine only burns 80 percent of the gasoline you're paying for. Our hydrogen-enrichment device will let you burn 100 percent!" Rubbish. The level of unburned and partially burned hydrocarbons in the exhaust stream is only a few hundred parts per million. The percentage of carbon monoxide is less than 1 percent, all measured before the catalytic converter, which cleans up the rest. There's a long way from a few hundred parts per million—or even from 1 percent—to 20 percent. Even if injecting hydrogen could make the combustion event perfect, there still couldn't be a 20 percent improvement.

I looked at one system from MPE Performance that sells for $1700, uninstalled. (MPE makes money selling custom exhaust systems.) It's really intended for big-rig truckers, so it produces a lot of HHO—they claim 3 to 4 liters of product per minute. To make that much gas, the system sucks up 60 amps of 12-volt electricity. That's more than half the alternator's output on most vehicles. A spokesman for MPE claimed that rarely would that much current be a problem. Let's see: 60 amps at a nominal 14 volts when the engine is running is 840 watts, more than a horsepower of extra load on the engine. In spite of claims, that's extra fuel consumed: MPE's staff asserted that the alternator "produces all that electricity anyway, so we're just using it instead of wasting it." Doesn't work that way, folks.

MPE plans to improve the performance of its next-generation hydrogen generator by using a DC-to-DC converter to up the voltage to 24 or 48 volts. Wrong again. One of the first things I learned in fooling around with HHO devices is that it takes only a couple of volts to disassociate the hydrogen from the oxygen in water. Using any more than 3 volts across an individual electrolysis cell just heats up the water more; it won't produce any more hydrogen. A few minutes into a conversation with MPE reinforced what I've learned in years of debunking these devices: The people making and pitching them don't really understand the physics behind their claims. Or if they do, they hope their customers don't.

We did find one decent gas-saver at the show, the T-Max transmission thermostat. Simple, really. It bypasses the transmission cooler in the radiator until the transmission reaches normal operating temperature. Hotter automatic transmission fluid (ATF) is less viscous than cold ATF, and has less hydrostatic drag. In the kind of urban driving cycle most people have, 30 minutes or so of stop-and-go driving followed by a cool-down, the reduced drag means reduced fuel consumption, and they have wind tunnel and dynamometer data to back up their claims. The T-Max received a PM Editor's Choice award.

Still, most gas savers I've investigated don't come with credible test results, just anecdotal testimonials. Caveat emptor, readers!

[artnesmith]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...o/4336109.html

Good article. Like I've been saying, most of the guys selling these are not credible. Does anyone here on this thread actually sell these?

Another good point not touched upon in this article, is the high cost to purchase of some devices. If a car saves 300 dollars in fuel, just for an example, but spends 1,500 dollars, hardly worth the effort.