JohnnyC
Long ago TLCA# 2231
x2 ...i love pics
HHO injection generator results (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter sogafarm
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
x2 ...i love pics
Ditto. I'm curious as well. I'll volunteer my rig to be a guinea pig for this if we go in on it. My average mileage is 10-12 MPG, and there's a good hill in Spokane that I use as a seat-of-the-pants gauge for if anything I do increases or reduces my truck's power.
Oh yeah, I also drive 600 mile round-trip across the state once every couple of months too, so that'd be a really good indication of whether or not this system affects mileage and/or power.
here is a link to a site that i have been looking at for a few days now. they dont try to sell you anything ,they all just share there own research info and give directions on how to build your own booster. every thing powderhound just said is everything ive been hearing on that site. im about to build and test my own booster from info i got from them. i wasnt going to but now i will test it on my 78 fj55. the more i hear the more anxious i get to get started. (powder, if you want you can hit me up off list and we can compare notes at ijoelipp@yahoo.com). check the list for cautions for that long ride!
tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/watercar
tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/watercar
- Thread starter
- #64
Just got back into town from stage coach, co. twice over the past week on one tank of petro. Up and down windy mountain road above 7k ft, two snow storms, muddy passes, with 1 passenger, 1 pitbull, and lots of tools. Got 377 miles on 24.48 gal(Had to add out of gas can, I added this into equation) of gas and a few onces of vinegar and distilled water. this comes to my best calculations at 15.4 Mpg. I was getting about 10-11 in similar situation, but it ran like crap without the hho.
I just retarded the timing a couple of degrees from the 10 advance I was running and adjusted the idle a bit. I still need to desmog since my system is defunct anyway and secure a few vacuum leaks. The fj is a work in progress, but I've been pleased with the overall results with the hho so far.
I'll have some pics as soon as I can borrow a digi cam.
82 fj60, stock minus egr leak and custom pitbull chewed sheep covers, hho injected
I just retarded the timing a couple of degrees from the 10 advance I was running and adjusted the idle a bit. I still need to desmog since my system is defunct anyway and secure a few vacuum leaks. The fj is a work in progress, but I've been pleased with the overall results with the hho so far.
I'll have some pics as soon as I can borrow a digi cam.
82 fj60, stock minus egr leak and custom pitbull chewed sheep covers, hho injected
- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Threads
- 12
- Messages
- 122
- Location
- Meridian, Idaho (near Boise)
- Website
- www.billdavisconstruction.com
I built the generator part myself with no specs just out of stainless steel outlet covers bolted together with nylon bolts and seperated with nylon washers just to see how flamable it would be and you can light the bubbles and they sure do pop. A local 4x4 guy here in town is looking into it. I am a skeptic also there has to be a way to retard the gasoline intake and regulate the hydrogen into the motor. It almost seems like a carb motor would work better. I am still interested in seeing more results from real people. I have also heard of just using only hho to run.
I was going to try just hho at first just to see what would happen......how much it produces etc etc.
I will get this kit in the fall
.....i cannot afford not to.
you talking about the wall outlet covers? Got a pic of the generator you built?
I'm curious now. If this can be done up with cheap hardware store parts, I'll definitely give it a go on my rig.
I am also throwing the BS flag.
Your average engine has a combusion efficiency of better than 99%, not 13%. You can tell this is true because if you measure the tailpipe emissions, unburned or incompletely burned fuel is miniscule. Hydrocarbons in the exhaust flow are in the parts per million range and carbon monoxide (incompletely oxidized HC) is less than 1% (usually 0.1%).
What is true is that the thermodynamic efficiency of the average gas engine only delivers about 20% of the power from combustion to the wheels. The theoretical limit is 37% efficiency.
Internal combustion engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This comes mostly from frictional losses, thermal losses (eg engine heat dissipated by the cooling system) and volumetric ineffeciency. These losses are built in to the fundamental design and they don't change by burning something else.
Results claiming an improvement are not necessarily scientifically valid or statistically significant. My mileage can vary from 10 to 13 MPH by changing nothing other than the way I drive and where.
If it really worked, then all the companies would use it and the government would mandate it.
Don't get ripped off by this BS.
Don't unfurl the BS flag too quickly, Pinhead.
Although I'm not saying it works, either.
Apparantly the principle behind this thing is not to make hydrogen to then power the car (which I'm sure you know - it would take more energy than you would see).
however, if the injection of small amounts of hydrogen were to improve the combustion process - then you could see some improvements. The problem is these HHO sites are so filled with BS (just like you pointed out) that it is almost impossible to figure out what is going on.
I will also correct you about the 99% efficiency of the combustion process. You can't measure it by HC emissions alone as many of the HCs are burnt up by the catalytic converter. in addition, how the gasses explode, not just how complete they burn would have an effect on how much usable energy you would see at the rear wheels.
So hopefully as more people try these things we can get some answers. We can also hear about consequences to the engine of doing this (perhaps that's why, IF IT WORKS, car companies don't do it (or it just doesn't work)).
So I agree about all the BS, but I don't think the concept has been shown to have no merit - yet. Maybe we can get some answers.
Although I'm not saying it works, either.
Apparantly the principle behind this thing is not to make hydrogen to then power the car (which I'm sure you know - it would take more energy than you would see).
however, if the injection of small amounts of hydrogen were to improve the combustion process - then you could see some improvements. The problem is these HHO sites are so filled with BS (just like you pointed out) that it is almost impossible to figure out what is going on.
I will also correct you about the 99% efficiency of the combustion process. You can't measure it by HC emissions alone as many of the HCs are burnt up by the catalytic converter. in addition, how the gasses explode, not just how complete they burn would have an effect on how much usable energy you would see at the rear wheels.
So hopefully as more people try these things we can get some answers. We can also hear about consequences to the engine of doing this (perhaps that's why, IF IT WORKS, car companies don't do it (or it just doesn't work)).
So I agree about all the BS, but I don't think the concept has been shown to have no merit - yet. Maybe we can get some answers.
As it has been pointed out, my thought is that if he is seeing mileage change from 10-13 when installing this system, it may just be correcting other problems. The issue I see here, is that the Xado engine treatment may be the fix causing the increase in mileage. However, if this system does work, I would definately buy one. I would imagine if the generator is increasing the 60 to 13 mpg (and not the engine treatment) he would see more gains with a proper tune. Imagine tuning it to get 13 mpg then adding a system that adds another 30% you are then in the 15 range. In 3000 miles, you are saving 30 gallons of gas, at 3.79 a gallon, that is $114 every 3000 miles. In about 15 months it would pay for itself. Now if it can produce more gains than that, it is just gravy. (I will have to see more tests to pony up some cash for my cruiser) Still not sure when the results are on a tired poor running cruiser. Now if no engine treatment was used before, then you are only testing one variable, but currently you are testing two. (Maybe I will just buy some xado)
Also, does it make the internals of the engine really hot like propane or ethanol thus decreasing the life of your engine? Sorry for the ramble.
Also, does it make the internals of the engine really hot like propane or ethanol thus decreasing the life of your engine? Sorry for the ramble.
ok fellow cruiser we @ candograge have read and reread alot of different idea's and design's of a hho generater ............... so we built one the 5 plate using stainless steal blank switch plates we got from home depot feeding the plates with a 12v power source we did produce hho ( very explosive ).......installed one on a 05 dodge cummins truck...... black smoke the use to come out of the tale pipe is no more and the mpg and power did get better we have found we need a larger cell for this truck ............... as soon as i finish rebuilding my 2f i will install one ............. I have an problem with introduceing the hho into a vacumme port under the carb,cause when you give it pedal the vac drops off i think i'll feed the engine from above the carb "ie " the air cleaner just above the carb it's self will keep you informed on the project................... chk out you tube " hho" i might even try using the "FISH CARB" that my late uncle bought many years ago from a place in daytona fla. and left it to one of my older brothers when he past 20 some years ago ................... keep it up...good luck ... and remember you "cando " it ................................ john
Punctuation is totally overrated.
Lets see what I can do with this
As per Crazy's request.Hello fellow cruiserheads. Those of us working(?) at Cando Garage (?) have read a lot on different designs for HHO generators. We have built one, it is a 5 plate design and we used blank wall switch plates from Home Depot as the source stock. When we feed 12v to it, it did indeed produce H2 and O2, and we found this to be very explosive
We used a 2005 dodge cummins diesels as the testbed for this set up. While it reduced the production of black smoke (over fueling) and we noted an increase in milage, we feel that this unit is too small for the application.
I am rebuilding a 2F, and when done, I plan to build a HHO generator for it as well. The problem I see with this it that the vacuum available downstream of the carb will decrease when the throttle plate opens, and thus provide an inverse signal (to what is needed to draw/produce more HHO on hard throttle) to the generator. So I am planning to hook the feed from the HHO generator upstream of the carb, so that the pressure decreases on throttle application, drawing more of the H2 and O2. I'll keep you up on how it works.
Youtube has some good stuff on HHO. I might try using a "Fish Carb." (that would stink, burning fish :whoops
that my late uncle bought many years ago. Good to see others are experimenting with this stuff, keep it up! Remember, you Cando-it (play on name of business.....)
Last edited:
My '76 2F has a combustion efficiency of 99% and it has no catalyst. With a catalyst it would be 99.9%.
Hogwash.
The temperature at which it burns has an effect on the total energy released, but this is a relativley small component. This is the "TdeltaS" entropic part of the Gibbs free energy equation, but it is much lower than the deltaH (enthalpy or heat) part.
Gibbs free energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
PT Barnum: There is a sucker born every minute.
Last edited:
Lets see what I can do with this
Hello fellow cruiserheads. Those of us working(?) at Cando Garage (?) have read a lot on different designs for HHO generators. We have built one, it is a 5 plate design and we used blank wall switch plates from Home Depot as the source stock. When we feed 12v to it, it did indeed produce H2 and O2, and we found this to be very explosive
We used a 2005 dodge cummins diesels as the testbed for this set up. While it reduced the production of black smoke (over fueling) and we noted an increase in milage, we feel that this unit is too small for the application.
I am rebuilding a 2F, and when done, I plan to build a HHO generator for it as well. The problem I see with this it that the vacuum available downstream of the carb will decrease when the throttle plate opens, and thus provide an inverse signal (to what is needed to draw/produce more HHO on hard throttle) to the generator. So I am planning to hook the feed from the HHO generator upstream of the carb, so that the pressure decreases on throttle application, drawing more of the H2 and O2. I'll keep you up on how it works.
Youtube has some good stuff on HHO. I might try using a "Fish Carb." (that would stink, burning fish :whoops
LOL! nice work, you clearly have a knack for hieroglyphics!
Cherry front drum brake.
I will throw this in, my 84 FJ-60 has 221000 miles, compression in the 115 range, with a low #6 cylinder. Bones tock running gear, etc... On the same stretch of highway that Powderhound references getting 15 MPG, I regularly get that also. It is not the best stretch of highway of fuel economy that is for sure, so he did well. But for my daily drive to work my 60 gets 14-15 MPG every day, week after week. It is tired and not at optimal effecincy, however, I rebuilt the carb several years ago, keep the cooling system properly maintianed, tires inflated, timed correctly, plugs good etc...
A 60 should get 14-15 all the time. For 400 bucks, I could do a lot of tuning to keep the normal mileage. On my best trips, I sometimes got 17MPG. I also have a good complete emission system, which probably helps. But I don't think the system is the total reason the rig is doing better, and it you are not accomplsihing anything more than what that engine should do.
I do believe that these HHO systems may help an engine, in some way. I am tempted to try one on my 40. I thought the High Altitude Control ports in the top of the carb would be a good spot to inject the hydrogen directly into the air and fuel stream of the main venturis. But, to get a cell large enough to actually produce enough gas for the engine displacement will take far too much power, electrically than you will get back. To run a cell large enough for an F series engine would take about 30 amps. Stock alternators on cruisers are waht 35-55 amps, depending on vintage. Great, you can run your HHO cell, don't count on running your headlights, heater blowers, radio, oh and the ignition and charging circuits.
I suspect a person would have to run a second alternator, and then subsidize the generator with a solar panel on the roof to ever see a free benefit from the gas produced from the generator.
A 60 should get 14-15 all the time. For 400 bucks, I could do a lot of tuning to keep the normal mileage. On my best trips, I sometimes got 17MPG. I also have a good complete emission system, which probably helps. But I don't think the system is the total reason the rig is doing better, and it you are not accomplsihing anything more than what that engine should do.
I do believe that these HHO systems may help an engine, in some way. I am tempted to try one on my 40. I thought the High Altitude Control ports in the top of the carb would be a good spot to inject the hydrogen directly into the air and fuel stream of the main venturis. But, to get a cell large enough to actually produce enough gas for the engine displacement will take far too much power, electrically than you will get back. To run a cell large enough for an F series engine would take about 30 amps. Stock alternators on cruisers are waht 35-55 amps, depending on vintage. Great, you can run your HHO cell, don't count on running your headlights, heater blowers, radio, oh and the ignition and charging circuits.
I suspect a person would have to run a second alternator, and then subsidize the generator with a solar panel on the roof to ever see a free benefit from the gas produced from the generator.
So it wouldn't benefit from Multiport Fuel Injection and Variable Valve Timing? Maybe I am just confusing engine efficiencies and combustion efficiencies - but it seems to me a carbed engine cannot be 99% efficient in burning up the gas into useable power - and certainly not 100% of the time (i.e. cold starts). A carb creates a relatively low pressure mist which then travels through an intake manifold to the combustion chamber. Isn't that the whole rationale for EFI and VVTI - to put the gas in a good state for combustion and combust it at the perfect time? I have a hard time imagining the gas is in a perfect state to be combusted at that point. Moreover, step on the gas and the carb dumps excess fuel into the combustion chambers. I don't know how much more gas pours in at that time (2x, 5x?) but there is certainly no corresponding instantaneous increase in power from that gas that was dumped in there. Now maybe this is just semantics and we're really talking about engine losses, but I don't see how you get 99% efficiency out of that. Again, I'm not saying 99.9% of the gas doesn't burn. I am just saying I don't think it burns at the right rate or time to get 99.9% of the USEABLE energy from it.
Physics and Calculus was 20 years ago for me - that just gave me a headache. And as you appear to be well versed in things mechanical, most equations consider the ideal situation. Reality is never ideal.
Again, I'm not endorsing the product - just saying it hasn't been proven NOT to work yet. Maybe people can show, without bias, that it does work. I can assure you, I am just as skeptical as you are. But I also know I don't know near enough about the process and physics to dismiss the idea off the bat. (although, some of the claims made have been straight up BS - and those CAN be dismissed right off the bat)
Well, it certainly seems like the combustion of the HHO is going to be a wash, since you can't get more energy out of it than you put in to spilt the water in the first place. But I guess it seems conceivable to me (as a non-scientist) that the fact that the HHO would burn first and fastest as compared to the hydrocarbons, and that might change the characteristics of the flame front and the speed/effeciency that the fuel is consumed. I.e., that more fuel is combusted at peak compression.
Just thinking out loud,
Bill
Just thinking out loud,
Bill
Im 2X on the oxygen addition being the help. Nitros oxide injection add's o2 in large ammounts and we know what it does to performance. The extra H2 in the mix just cleans up the extra 02 and ends as water. Any way interesting hope everyone keeps posting real results. That is the best info in the long run.
