Hafc Install Thread! (mpg Increase?!) (1 Viewer)

[ETD66SS]

My dad bought one of these for his 1999 GMC 1/2 ton. I have been installing it for him, however do not have the installation finalized yet.

Hooking up the computer is a bit tricky, as it seems like every vehicle, make & model has it's own issues. There is a lot of cutting wires here, soldering in resistors here, etc. I'm a Mechanical Engineer, not an Electrical one, lol...

Anyways, I have been listening to these:

teleconference

I'm skeptical too, but my dad has seen a 3 MPG increase since I put the fuel heater on it.

Hell, even if he only gets a 5 MPG increase it's worth it IMO. I can't ever see him getting 30 MPG in his truck, but we'll see...

My last task is to tie the 2 sensors into the Optimizer unit.

There is one misconception I see in this thread. The unit is not designed to have your engine burn Hydrogen as a fuel, totally incorrect.

The HHO gas prolongs the combustion of the vaporized gasoline, making the engine burn more of it in the alloted time the piston is in the firing position.

The covalizer supposedly manipulates the covalent bonds of the gas molecules to allow it to burn more effeciently when combined with the HHO gas.

Esentially, this kit is a bunch of tricks ppl have been doing for years all rolled into one. None of this is actually new, it's just a kit of known tricks. The biggest issues seem to be related to the ECM's and how the factory doesn't want you tweaking your car. Very un-American to say to ppl hands off... Pretty soon only the dealership will be able to open the damn hood of your vehicle.

I'm a skeptic, but my Father bought one and I'm installing it. The instructions do not give you enough info, and every time I listen to the teleconferences I learn something new.

Either there are a huge number of ppl lying about the results they are getting, or they actually do work to some extent.

If oil can go up $11 in one f'ing day, then this is worth a shot. It has been a great learning experience for me as well concernng ECM's

An OBDII scanner would help immensly with this project, but alas I don't have one.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
My pond project: My Pond Project - TractorByNet.com

 

[Ebag333]

There is one misconception I see in this thread. The unit is not designed to have your engine burn Hydrogen as a fuel, totally incorrect.

The HHO gas prolongs the combustion of the vaporized gasoline, making the engine burn more of it in the alloted time the piston is in the firing position.

That actually makes a certain amount of sense as hydrogen has a higher ignition point than gasoline (as ignition point for hydrogen is ~900* and gasoline is ~500*).

The engine still is burning hydrogen as a fuel, albiet a very high octane fuel. You could do similar by moving to aviation fuel and advancing the timing.

I would imagine that adding some injectors (similar to the fuel injectors) so you could meter out the hydrogen on a known quantity, then advancing your timing to match (hmm...Doug's post about the advanced timing features of the 80 comes to mind here) would be far more effective than simply dropping unmetered hydrogen into the air intake.

And unless hydrogen is coming out of your tail-pipe (flame kit anyone?), your engine is burning it.

Either there are a huge number of ppl lying about the results they are getting, or they actually do work to some extent.

Problem is that there is a huge number of people saying that the kits don't work (among other things). Are all of them lying?

I'm not saying I don't believe this kit can work. There are some concepts in it that I find quite interesting, and I believe that at least the basic ideas of it could work. There are several large flaws in it, however, and not the least of which is the results of dumping an unknown quanity of fuel (and yes, hydrogen is fuel) into your engine after 100k miles.

I've come across several people who have toasted their engines from running too lean after a relatively short period of time with running the kit. I've also seen several very plausible posts/threads/pages of where the kit appears to work. Which is why I'm very curious to see exactly what happens here.

 

[ETD66SS]

I would imagine that adding some injectors (similar to the fuel injectors) so you could meter out the hydrogen on a known quantity, then advancing your timing to match (hmm...Doug's post about the advanced timing features of the 80 comes to mind here) would be far more effective than simply dropping unmetered hydrogen into the air intake.

I think it all comes down to tuning.

You have a hose, it has a flow rate, your engine sucks in a certain CFM, to me that is metered. You don't need injectors, just put a flow control on the HHO line to the air cleaner if you want less HHO flow.

I can see how a lot of ppl can't get the systems to work. There are no good instructions, and a lot of conflicting information. If you listen to the teleconferences, it seems every week the advice is changing, new tricks are found, old tricks determined no good, etc.

Also, yes, if you run too lean, guess what, you will damage your engine. Maybe we need to be happy with a 50% increase and not 100% Anything is better than getting it up the ass by the oil companies.

As I said, I'm a skeptic of the kit, but after installing one (partially, still waiting on computer installation help) and learning about the system, I hardly think it's a scam when listening to the technicians & other mechanics working with them. It's too much info to simply pull out of your ass to make a scam out of it. If others want to believe it's a scam, I really don't care, you're free to believe what you want...

At first I told my Dad he got ripped off, but now that I have been working on it, I have been getting more & more interested in it, and thinking about ways to improve it, build my own and install it on my truck...

I hope to have the computer installation finalized soon, and hope to get some results. The Dutchman tech support email seems to be very slow at responding, guess I'll have to call...

 

[jjcobm]

ETD66,

i see you posted that you have a kit that ties into the pcm. I am just curious into how it works, such as what you are actually tying into the pcm to give it input from the hho generator and what not.

you also stated: "You have a hose, it has a flow rate, your engine sucks in a certain CFM, to me that is metered. You don't need injectors, just put a flow control on the HHO line to the air cleaner if you want less HHO flow."

I just want to point out that alot of the hho generators I have seen cannot generate enough HHO to keep up with the demands of the engine (WOT, hard acceleration), so really it is a matter of making sure you have enough supply of HHO to have a consistent measurement if you are just using the theoretical measurement you listed above. This would not work in a real world situation. You wouldn't need injectors either, but I was just pointing out that it would be best to have a way for the pcm to meter, then release or stop the flow of HHO just as it does with gasonline.

 

[ETD66SS]

jj, here is how the Optomizer ties into the ECM: New Page 1

As far as having the ECM meter the HHO, it does so, it meters the air flow. You tie in the HHO in front of the MAF.

Since the HHO is a combustion aid and not the primary fuel, I fail to see why you have to meter it as precisely as the combustive fuel...

 

[landtank]

I have to imagine that the exhaust gases produced from a 1% HHO charge and one of a 3% charge would be different. That difference will be seen by the O2 sensors and the ECM will try and adjust for it. That's why you need a consistent mix of the two.

The only way a hose stuck in an air stream will yield any kind of consistent delivery is if the supply of HHO is constant. If the cell maintains 3 PSI at idle it then also needs to be able to maintain 3 PSI at WOT for that system to deliver consistently. If it can't do that than you will get varying readings from the sensors and you'll be trying to tune to a moving target and that can't be done.

You guys have seen these systems, do they have that kind of ability to monitor and adjust their output? Because that is what you need. Are these a 1 size fits all? The demands for a 1.8L engine are a whole lot less that one of a 4.5L one.

 

[SS_Storm]

havent had time to do another orange test but now according to my latest fillup I got 18 mpg CITY

 

[jonheld]

You have a hose, it has a flow rate, your engine sucks in a certain CFM, to me that is metered.

Correction. You have a hose and it has a MAXIMUM flow rate. The CFM that the engine sucks is dynamic depending on throttle input. If it wasn't we could all throw away our AFM and MAF sensors.

I mantain there is too much pseudo-science and pretend physics going on here. Some of it may be based in reality and distorted by marketing hype, but it still looks, smells, and tastes like BS to me. Glad I didn't step in it.

 

[IdahoDoug]

The debate here on this thread seems to be skipping one of the basic questions. From what little reading and research I've done, the 20 amp draw (or whatever the number is) takes power from your engine (which turns the alternator). That is what creates the hydrogen gas which then goes into the engine. Unless this process is a true perpetual motion process (creates more energy than the process to make it uses) that has eluded science since the dawn of man, it simply cannot work. The energy put INTO the process is greater than the energy you're getting OUT OF it. So let me rephrase from "it cannot work" to "it works just fine but basic physics says you're using MORE energy, not less."

All the debates about tuning, delivery, etc are moot unless this point is settled. Anyone?

DougM

 

[e9999]

The debate here on this thread seems to be skipping one of the basic questions. From what little reading and research I've done, the 20 amp draw (or whatever the number is) takes power from your engine (which turns the alternator). That is what creates the hydrogen gas which then goes into the engine. Unless this process is a true perpetual motion process (creates more energy than the process to make it uses) that has eluded science since the dawn of man, it simply cannot work. The energy put INTO the process is greater than the energy you're getting OUT OF it. So let me rephrase from "it cannot work" to "it works just fine but basic physics says you're using MORE energy, not less."

All the debates about tuning, delivery, etc are moot unless this point is settled. Anyone?

DougM

I put some efficiency numbers on all that in another thread.

 

[landtank]

If the energy to create HHO from water is a kin to perpetual energy

Then the energy to create gasoline from crude oil is also.

For this process to be perpetual the by product of cumbusting HHO would have to be water in the exact amount used to create the HHO in the first place. If that were the case then it would be a perpetual situation as a single charge of water would last forever.

 

[Beowulf]

I put some efficiency numbers on all that in another thread.

Link?

All the debates about tuning, delivery, etc are moot unless this point is settled. Anyone?

IMHO,
The HHO piece is just voodoo science.
The magnets are just voodoo science.

The "covalizer" additive is possibly a real product that can positively affect the engine. I will try to find out how much this costs on a per/gallon basis. They are not saying what is in it; only that it is a hydrocarbon based additive.

The "optimizer" is where any fuel economy will be achieved as SS has discovered and as many others have reported. Adding the 3 other bits is a placebo. The "optimizer" has potential for real fuel savings but a big question is "At what cost do we get this fuel economy?"

* Engine power?
* Engine life?
* Emission testing?
* Consistently running lean?

Why do we hear "the tuning is a secret and if we tell you how its done we'll have to kill you." (Paraphrased and embellished)
Gimme a break.

-B-

 

[e9999]

Link?


snip

-B-

https://forum.ih8mud.com/80-series-tech/219062-hho-gas.html

 

[WildHare]

Here's e9999's specific comment in that thread:

IH8MUD™ Forums - View Single Post - HHO gas?

He states:

the electrolysis process takes energy -not releasing it- and the efficiency is significantly below 100%. Typically, like 50-70% at room temperature.

I agree. It's what I've read elsewhere (wikipedia, etc.)

Also,

the energy put INTO the process is greater than the energy you're getting OUT OF it. So let me rephrase from "it cannot work" to "it works just fine but basic physics says you're using MORE energy, not less."

This is accordance to the laws of thermodynamics.

IMHO,
The HHO piece is just voodoo science.
The magnets are just voodoo science.

The "covalizer" additive is possibly a real product that can positively affect the engine. ...They are not saying what is in it; only that it is a hydrocarbon based additive.

The "optimizer" is where any fuel economy will be achieved as SS has discovered and as many others have reported. Adding the 3 other bits is a placebo. The "optimizer" has potential for real fuel savings but a big question is "At what cost do we get this fuel economy?"

I agree with this also, and this is where I have been since I read the basic system description.

 

[alex4640]

I just want to make sure everyone understands that there is NO Hydrogen in HHO gas !! That's right, NO Hydrogen . . . Zero. Chemistry is not like baking a cookie. Hydrogen is HH (H2). If you add an oxygen it is not hydrogen with added oxygen it is water!

I don't know what adding steam to engines does to them. If it gives you more MPG or more horse power then great. I just want to clarify HHO (H2O) is now, and always will be WATER.

 

[Ebag333]

I just want to make sure everyone understands that there is NO Hydrogen in HHO gas !! That's right, NO Hydrogen . . . Zero. Chemistry is not like baking a cookie. Hydrogen is HH (H2). If you add an oxygen it is not hydrogen with added oxygen it is water!

I don't know what adding steam to engines does to them. If it gives you more MPG or more horse power then great. I just want to clarify HHO (H2O) is now, and always will be WATER.

Two questions then.

1) Why does that "steam" burn?

2) Why is it advertised as producing hydrogen?


If all you were looking for was to inject water into the engine (which has been done for ages) there are far better ways of doing it.

From my research, it seems to be producing a combination of hydrogen and oxygen, which is what you would expect from extracting gas from water. Two hydrogen and one Oxygen, hence HHO (as opposed to H2O).

If it was just simply steam, you'd see that very clearly in the different demonstrations (filling up a bag, the 1 liter water test, etc). And when someone set a match to it, the match would go out (not have a nice whoosh and flames).

Hydrogen is HH (H2).

No, hydrogen is H.

Hydrogen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[alex4640]

No, hydrogen is H.

Hydrogen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hydrogen, as an element is H. Hydrogen, as a gas molecule, is H2. Oxygen as an element in O. Oxygen we breath (gas molecule) is O2. HHO is one covalently bonded molecule. It is not a mixture of parts. HHO (H2O) as a molecule, is water - period, end of story.

If you were to use the element hydrogen (H) as a fuel, you would be standing on the surface of the sun. Good luck with that.

 

[alex4640]

Here's the best case scenario I can give you.

Electrolysis of water (H2O) will give you H2 and O2 in a 2:1 molar ratio. There is nothing else this reaction can possibly give you, at least not on this planet.

So, if I consider HHO simply a "misnomer" and give you the benefit of a 2:1 ratio of H2 and O2, then all you are doing is creating a highly volatile gas mixture which does not need any "air" to burn. That point is key to all the AFM and MAF meter questions/confusion in this tread. These sensors detect gas movement and/or volume. They don't do a chemical analysis on said gas. The engineers have assumed that these meters are measuring "air" which is roughly 20% O2. The "misnomer" gas is 33% O2 so there's one part of the problem. The other part, of course, is that the 66% remaining gas is fuel and not an inert gas mix (N2, CO2).

Bottom line is this. If you create this 2:1 gas combination through electrolysis and then burn it, you will have a net negative energy. This is because of the car's imperfect production and transmission of the electrical energy back to the electrolysis device.

If I were to use electrolysis in an auto engine, I would separate the gasses, discard the H2 and send the O2 to help burn the gasoline more fully. This is what nitrous oxide (NO2) systems do. However, I'm not sure this would yield a net increase in energy either.

 

[hj60]

If you were to use the element hydrogen (H) as a fuel, you would be standing on the surface of the sun. Good luck with that.

I'm sure you didn't mean to do this, but please, let's not add further confusion to this thread.
The sun doesn't "burn" hydrogen. It fuses hydrogen nucleii to form helium nucleii. Using hydrogen as a fuel in an oxidation reaction burns orders of magnitude cooler. .)

 

[concretejungle]

good lord guys, don't you know i barely passed chemistry in college?! I squeezed through balancing equations...... i don't need to make this harder than it alreay is.