HHO ( hydrogen ) for cars true/false

[Peder]

Hello

Some of you might have seen the commercials regarding installing an HHO ( water-hydrogen ) system in your car that can make it use less gazoline/diesel so you can drive further.

Example..:  http://www.oktanplus.com/hho-en

Well my question is... Is HHO system Real or a scam ?

- about 7 years ago i installed such a system in my "toyota aygo" with mixed results.
First of all when the system run the car have to generate more electricity to send electricity though the water that then split into Hydrogen and Oxygen.
What I try to say is when something use more power in the car it also use more energy, so I wonder a bit if the Hydrogen compensate for this and add more power than the car uses to produce it.
Well my own experience is that HHO is not good for short distance traveling since it take a while to generate enough HHO ( at least in the system i had ) and I rarely drive long trips, so at some point i uninstall everything and that was it.

A few times I tried to mesure how far I can run the car, and as standard with system off the car drive like 22km pr lite gazoline.  But if i remember correclty I could make it run like 32km pr lite gazoline with the system on, when it was working.
I do however think a bit about if I made mistakes back then and if I really saw any improvement at all.

Well I ask since I might try HHO again in the future, but would like to know more about if this is actual a waste of money or if will help my car.  ;-)

Thank you for answer and debate below in advance.

[magnemoe]

I don't see how this could save energy even if 100% effective, say you convert all the water in the air to hydrogen and oxygen, this is then burned in the engine together with the gas at 100% efficiency not the 40% or something in normal engines, the engine has to run harder as the dynamo has more load because of the electrolysis.
On an very rainy day this system should let you gain energy from nothing

In short an pretty obvious scam. Now add that car manufacturers uses billions trying to make more efficient engines 

[Red Iron Crown]

IMO: Scam.

I've read about such systems, as described they would seem to violate the conservation of energy. How can burning hydrogen with oxygen produce more energy than was used to electrolyze the water in the first place? Thermodynamics would imply that this must always be a losing game.

[p1t1o]

Scam.

Scam scam scam.

 

24 minutes ago, Peder said:

...if the Hydrogen compensate for this and add more power than the car uses to produce it.

This would be a violation of the conservation of energy, and the crux of the scam. 

This one is quite sneaky, as obviously adding more fuel and oxidiser to your combustion will result in some increase in power output. Whether or not this is good for your engine (or even actually true, as it seems like catastrophic engine failure might be a real concern if you just start adding more reactants willy-nilly) or even if it works with any efficiency at all (fuel-air cycles in modern engines are quite finely tuned and are not necessarily friendly to extra stuff in the cylinder.)

But of course, even in a best-case scenario, your car is *certain* to consume more energy splitting water into "HHO gas..." than it gains in engine power, simply due to heat loss. And no, there is no fancy way of splitting water into HHO without using the energy required by physical law.

 

My bet is that it *does* do what it says - in that it electrolyses water into hydrogen+oxygen - but I would wager that it just adds some negligible amount of gas to your intake, and benefits are likely a placebo effect.

 

**edit**

Ah, I found the focus of the deception -

"The flow rate of HHO gas was measured by using various amounts of KOH, NaOH, NaCl (catalysts). These catalysts were added into the water to diminish hydrogen and oxygen bonds and NaOH was specified as the most appropriate catalyst. It was observed that if the molality of NaOH in solution exceeded 1% by mass, electrical current supplied from the battery increased dramatically due to the too much reduction of electrical resistance."

Which is completely made up nonsense, which if true, would have immediate and highly obvious effects in a great deal of chemistry. 

Edited August 31, 2016 by p1t1o

[Nibb31]

It's the famous "Pantone" scam, invented by Paul Pantone, who ended up in jail for fraud and then pleaded mental issues to end up in a psychiatric hospital instead. The only folks who promote this are either people selling "kits" to convert your car or conspiracists.

Believe me, if this worked, car manufacturers would be the first to fit it on every car they make instead of spending billions on R&D for cleaner engines.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Nibb31

[p1t1o]

1 minute ago, Nibb31 said:

Believe me, if this worked, car manufacturers would be the first to fit it on every car they make instead of spending billions on R&D for cleaner engines.

Heck, if it worked, we would be living in a post-scarcity society...

[steve_v]

5 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Thermodynamics would imply that this must always be a losing game.

Yeah, what he said. Even a basic understanding of physics says this is pure BS.
It's a scam, and an obvious one at that... yet from time to time I still run into people who claim it works.

[Green Baron]

:-)

Be it the ultimate fuel-saving-solution (noone else has discovered), the ultimate battery-life-prolonging solution (no charger can provide) or the ultimate cleaning-chemistry (you can't buy in a store) ... if it serves you and you're happy than use it :-)

Says a friendly Green Baron

Edited August 31, 2016 by Green Baron

[Nefrums]

so by burning 2H+O that turns it to H2O (water) you get more energy out then the energy you put in to separate the H2O into 2H+O,  logical and absolutely not violating any of the most basic physical laws at all....

 

[steve_v]

I once had an engineering tutor who delighted in debunking gizmos like this... and had access to a dynamometer & exhaust gas analyser.
I don't have hard data (any more), but HHO was one we played about with. According to our semi-scientific testing it actually hurts both power output and economy.

Others I recall:
Magnetic fuel conditioner: No measurable effect.
Passive intake "mixer" (I forget the marketing name): Decreases performance.
Aftermarket air cleaners: Mixed results, I do recall the [brand redacted] recomended by local auto shop was significantly worse than standard unit.
Concentrated "fuel additives": several tested, no measurable effect from any.

There were many more, but alas, it was long ago now.

Of course you don't have to take my word for it, just take your vehicle to your nearest auto-tuner and have them put it on the dyno.
 

[Tex_NL]

SCAM! Without a doubt 100% guaranteed.

If it was actually possible to achieve a 30% reduction in fuel consumption car manufacturers would be fighting over it to install it in every car by default.

[steve_v]

Just now, Tex_NL said:

If it was actually possible to achieve a 30% reduction in fuel consumption car manufacturers would be fighting over it to install it in every car by default.

Maybe the car manufacturers are in cahoots with the oil producers, and they want you to burn more oil...

[Red Iron Crown]

@steve_v I wouldn't blanket dismiss all those types of modifications though. Less restrictive exhaust or intake can have positive effects on both power and economy at the cost of greater noise (manufacturers are legislatively limited as well as having to meet customer expectations). If the ECU is accessible making the mixture richer can improve both as well, production cars almost without exception run leaner than stochiometric for emissions reasons. Such improvements are generally small, but don't violate thermodynamics.  

[Tex_NL]

Just now, steve_v said:

Maybe the car manufacturers are in cahoots with the oil producers, and they want you to burn more oil...

Possible. But by law they are required to meet certain emission standards. Currently manufactures struggle in meeting those standards. It is too expensive. Instead they turn to fraud and scams. By installing a simple, small and cheap device like they would save billions. IF it actually worked that is.

[steve_v]

@Red Iron Crown
Indeed, of the air cleaners we tested, some did indeed improve performance. The negatives were likely due to the stock intake arrangement on the vehicle we were testing being pretty good already. Car manufacturers often do know what they're doing after all. Point was: big-name bolt on bits don't automatically mean better performance.

There are a great many things one can do to improve performance and efficiency, but all of them are trading agianst something else (as you say, usually noise or emissions), and most need to be tuned for the engine in question. If it boasts 30% and you can mail order it for "any vehicle" I'd be very dubious.

Case in point: Modifying the exhaust to reduce restriction can actually hurt performance on some engines, unless you also remap the ECU to account for it.
Many high performance 2-stroke engines have tuned exhaust systems and won't run properly without a certain amount of back-pressure.

 

@Tex_NL
I was just trolling, I'm pretty sure there's no conspiracy to supress this 'HHO' technology.

Edited August 31, 2016 by steve_v

[magnemoe]

3 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

@steve_v I wouldn't blanket dismiss all those types of modifications though. Less restrictive exhaust or intake can have positive effects on both power and economy at the cost of greater noise (manufacturers are legislatively limited as well as having to meet customer expectations). If the ECU is accessible making the mixture richer can improve both as well, production cars almost without exception run leaner than stochiometric for emissions reasons. Such improvements are generally small, but don't violate thermodynamics.  

Yes, trimming will improve your performance, but at an cost like more noise or higher fuel use. 
Again its an exception here, an good chip trimming might change your 100 horsepower car to an 125 one with the same performance and fuel use as the 125 horsepower model. 
This work if the two models uses the same engine but with different settings, here the reason is just marked segmentation and that the more powerful version might have higher taxes. 
Note that doing so will void the guarantee on the car and if you save taxes it might be illegal.
 

[p1t1o]

19 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Maybe the car manufacturers are in cahoots with the oil producers, and they want you to burn more oil...

Why would car manufacturers sacrifice profit so that other companies can get more profit? Plus, its not as if oil consumption is dropping or anything...

[steve_v]

1 minute ago, p1t1o said:

Why would car manufacturers sacrifice profit so that other companies can get more profit? Plus, its not as if oil consumption is dropping or anything...

They wouldn't.

[Tex_NL]

@steve_v
I know. I just  wanted to point out any such conspiracy would not make any sense.

[magnemoe]

13 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

Why would car manufacturers sacrifice profit so that other companies can get more profit? Plus, its not as if oil consumption is dropping or anything...

This, fuel use in cars has not fallen as much as it should as much of the increased efficiency is eaten by heavier cars and larger engines. 
The US is an special case as heavy cars have other emission rules.

On the other hand lots of car companies has a lot of focus on electrical and hybrid cars who has the potential to reduce fuel use to zero or close to it. 

Edited August 31, 2016 by magnemoe

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Believe me, if this worked, car manufacturers would be the first to fit it on every car they make instead of spending billions on R&D for cleaner engines.

Not necessary

R&D is a large business itself, why neglect it?.

On topic: Sounds like a "fan blowing on wind wheel" perpetuum mobile.

Edited August 31, 2016 by kerbiloid

[QuesoExplosivo]

Joining in the chorus, it's a well-known scam.

[wumpus]

2 hours ago, steve_v said:

I once had an engineering tutor who delighted in debunking gizmos like this... and had access to a dynamometer & exhaust gas analyser.
I don't have hard data (any more), but HHO was one we played about with. According to our semi-scientific testing it actually hurts both power output and economy.

Others I recall:
Magnetic fuel conditioner: No measurable effect.
Passive intake "mixer" (I forget the marketing name): Decreases performance.
Aftermarket air cleaners: Mixed results, I do recall the [brand redacted] recomended by local auto shop was significantly worse than standard unit.
Concentrated "fuel additives": several tested, no measurable effect from any.

There were many more, but alas, it was long ago now.

Of course you don't have to take my word for it, just take your vehicle to your nearest auto-tuner and have them put it on the dyno.
 

Mucking with the intake: typically only changes performance (power and efficiency) when floored.  Otherwise you intake losses are dominated by the throttle (includes air filters).  Note that mucking around with the exhaust *should* increase efficiency all the time, but don't expect much (and this doesn't include things like headers used for more power).

Fuel additives: Tetra-ethyl lead *does* work, is typically illegal, and will destroy a catalytic converter.  It also requires tuning and/or significant engine modification* for any effect to happen (it basically increases the octane rating of your car).  The ones that work (and do the same thing) do so by replacing gasoline with a "better" fuel (see E85) and also require the same tuning and are obviously going to be more expensive than gas (unless your gas taxes are sufficiently high and "paint thinner" is actually cheaper).

There are a bunch of "low hanging fruit" out there that either engineers or manufacturing managers don't bother to include in a car.  A few of them simply require owners to perform more maintenance then the public will do (oil catch cans, methanol injectors) and others simply cause more warranty issues than they want (i.e. you should understand that the cost for adding the part may well be much, much higher than the part itself).  But all of them only add a few percent (if that) changes in performance (and all the insanely aggressive tricks, such as including steam turbines to scavenge exhaust heat) seem to give about ~20% improvement in mileage).  Anything more than that is a scam.

* read "changing the compression ratio", especially on non-turbocharged cars.  I knew a hot-rodder who liked to do that in the 1970s, but I suspect that changing a modern combustion chamber isn't going to help (although getting there by increasing the stroke isn't an issue).  If you have to ask what it is, don't even think about trying it yourself.

[magnemoe]

9 minutes ago, wumpus said:

Mucking with the intake: typically only changes performance (power and efficiency) when floored.  Otherwise you intake losses are dominated by the throttle (includes air filters).  Note that mucking around with the exhaust *should* increase efficiency all the time, but don't expect much (and this doesn't include things like headers used for more power).

Fuel additives: Tetra-ethyl lead *does* work, is typically illegal, and will destroy a catalytic converter.  It also requires tuning and/or significant engine modification* for any effect to happen (it basically increases the octane rating of your car).  The ones that work (and do the same thing) do so by replacing gasoline with a "better" fuel (see E85) and also require the same tuning and are obviously going to be more expensive than gas (unless your gas taxes are sufficiently high and "paint thinner" is actually cheaper).

There are a bunch of "low hanging fruit" out there that either engineers or manufacturing managers don't bother to include in a car.  A few of them simply require owners to perform more maintenance then the public will do (oil catch cans, methanol injectors) and others simply cause more warranty issues than they want (i.e. you should understand that the cost for adding the part may well be much, much higher than the part itself).  But all of them only add a few percent (if that) changes in performance (and all the insanely aggressive tricks, such as including steam turbines to scavenge exhaust heat) seem to give about ~20% improvement in mileage).  Anything more than that is a scam.

* read "changing the compression ratio", especially on non-turbocharged cars.  I knew a hot-rodder who liked to do that in the 1970s, but I suspect that changing a modern combustion chamber isn't going to help (although getting there by increasing the stroke isn't an issue).  If you have to ask what it is, don't even think about trying it yourself.

An upcoming car engine will use an movable crankshaft to change the compression ratio while driving. It would also need to change the ignition setting and fuel balance but that is software. I assume this also have movable cams. 
Benefit is to combine high performance and low fuel use. 

[pincushionman]

Thermodynamics. It's not just a good idea, it's The Law!