• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Goodburbon's hydrogen experiment

Chris @ GATR said:
How do you plan to fine tune the HHO intake? increase/decrease the water level.

You do realize that when HHO combusts, it turns back into water? Duh

I hope you have stainless steel valves or your heads will rust terribly.how would stainless valves prevent my head from rusting?
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand proportionally how little water is going to be produced by the combustion process. It is probably less than the equivalent of the engine breathing 100% humidity, which it does anyway because I live in South Louisiana. Any water created will be vapor, and be carried away in the exhaust outflow.

This thread is not for discussion of PVC melting point, OMG what are you gonna do about the waterin your exhaust, etc. I am performing a test by feeding HHO to an engine that I don't care about, to prove or disprove the assumption that Introduction of minute amounts of hydrogen and oxygen into the combustion chamber will improve burn efficiency and therefore overall vehicle MPG.

If everyone continues to crowd this thread with debates about irrelevant crap then the actual results will be lost in a pile of rubbish that no one will bother reading.
 
I will be watching too. I have looked at the baiscs of this and was intrested but always scared. However did you do anything to compensate for the O2 sensors. I have heard that the computer will only correct for the increased O2 in the exhaust and negate any results if a resistor isnt made for the O2 sensor. I think that;s what needs to be done any way. I know there was some electrical work on the O2 suff.

Thanks for doing the experement
 
SeansBlueXJ said:
did you do anything to compensate for the O2 sensors?
Click to expand...


No. Wouldn't make any sense to do that. I am adding a stoich mixture of fuel and air to a stoich mixture of fuel and air. If I had Excess O2 it would be because my unit had a vac leak.

2 days running now with no CEL and no adverse effects. Anecdotally my fuel gauge is not going down any slower than it was before. I'll run through several tanks before drawing any conclusions though.
 
Have you dropped the voltage to your plates yet? In case someone didn't mention it yet, couldn't you use a basic voltage divider? It would get you to what 5.5 to 6.5 volts....
 
Chris @ GATR said:
Do you say that because your tailpipe drips water every once in a while?
Click to expand...

Did you take highschool chemistry?

I did. I hated it. My teacher tried to throw me out on sexual harassment charges.

Anyways, let's just take a simplified hydrocarbon combustion equation to prove how burning a hydrocarbon produces water...

C3H8 + 5(02) ---> 3(CO2) + 4(H20)

That's propane being burned in an environment free of contaminants. I know propane is not gasoline, but I'm much too lazy to look up what a gasoline molecule is. But it is a hyrdrocarbon none the less - they're the same thing with different distributions of hydrogen and carbon.

The water produced will almost always be vapour as a result of the amount of energy released by the chemical reaction. But, sometimes it will condense in the exhaust, and drop out. A dripping tailpipe is that. Yay.

So, it won't rust your engine. At least not anymore than anything else you burn in it.

Away from the sidetrack.
 
DirtyMJ said:
Did you take highschool chemistry?

I did. I hated it. My teacher tried to throw me out on sexual harassment charges.

Anyways, let's just take a simplified hydrocarbon combustion equation to prove how burning a hydrocarbon produces water...

C3H8 + 5(02) ---> 3(CO2) + 4(H20)

That's propane being burned in an environment free of contaminants. I know propane is not gasoline, but I'm much too lazy to look up what a gasoline molecule is. But it is a hyrdrocarbon none the less - they're the same thing with different distributions of hydrogen and carbon.

The water produced will almost always be vapour as a result of the amount of energy released by the chemical reaction. But, sometimes it will condense in the exhaust, and drop out. A dripping tailpipe is that. Yay.

So, it won't rust your engine. At least not anymore than anything else you burn in it.

Away from the sidetrack.
Click to expand...

Thank you dirty. I wasn't gonna go that far into it, but yah that sounds pretty accurate to me and since I have graduated from the Automotive Maintenance course at the big technical school around here and that was one of the things we discussed in engine performance.
 
Intrested in your results but from what i have read you need more to make it work.
 
Gojeep said:
Funny, as I ran water injection on my V8 for 10 years and 100,000 kms and never had any of the problems you mention. It was the cleanest engine and you would never know it had done that sort of mileage.
Click to expand...

my engines professor in college ran water injection for many years, and still does to my knowledge. No carbon build up in his engines to speak of, no rust, no accelerated wear. Engine runs cooler and cleaner.
 
Think about it.

The engine constantly dries the water when it combusts.

The valve stems are soaked in oil.

The cylinder walls have a light coating of oil.

Really the only parts that I'd think might have an accelerated rust issue would be the exhaust system (assuming it's just your standard crappy galvanized). In an old V-8 I'd say that the intake manifold would be at risk too only because of the potential for water to collect in there when you shut it off when cold (so the engine isn't hot enough to burn the water off, I'm really talking about the simple moving your vehicle up a car length).
 
GSequoia said:
Really the only parts that I'd think might have an accelerated rust issue would be the exhaust system (assuming it's just your standard crappy galvanized). In an old V-8 I'd say that the intake manifold would be at risk too only because of the potential for water to collect in there when you shut it off when cold (so the engine isn't hot enough to burn the water off, I'm really talking about the simple moving your vehicle up a car length).
Click to expand...


There's no 'water' on the intake side of this apparatus, just hydrogen and oxygen. Unless you're talking about the issue of sucking the electrolytic solution through the hose - which I doubt happens.

Regardless, I think it produces so little hydrogen and oxygen that the produced water from combustion is very much irrelevent. At the rate of consumption that was stated, it's going to be very little. After all, the water consumption from the electrolytic solution is going to be equal to the water produced by the hydrogen/oxygen burning. Or, at least largely so. And I'd be quite willing to bet there is a LOT more water produced by the combustion of the gasoline fuel and ambient oxygen.

And who runs cast iron intake manifolds anyways? Junk.

I await the results of this test. Just for the sake of curiosity. After all, I don't own a gasoline vehicle (well, one, but I've never driven it farther than the length of the driveway) so it is rather irrelevnt to me.
 
210.8 miles traveled 8.919 gallons added to fill tank

23.63 mpg.

Though I have not noticed a change in the way the car runs, I think something may be wrong.
 
goodburbon said:
Other than those 2 problems the car runs well and gets from 25 mpg city to 31 mpg Highway. Average mpg is around 27.5, the car has never gotten over 31 mpg and never gotten under 25 mpg.
Click to expand...



goodburbon said:
210.8 miles traveled 8.919 gallons added to fill tank

23.63 mpg.
Click to expand...

I was having a shitty morning. You just made my day.

;)
 
cal said:
I was having a shitty morning. You just made my day.

;)
Click to expand...

I think there are several issues here. First and foremost, you can't get something for nothing. As blown 20 amp fuses indicate, there is a significant current draw penalty for the electrolytic process. Second, as the jar contents testify, there is a significant amount of water left at the end of the drive period. So hardly any water is being converted to gaseous hydrogen and oxygen. You can gain no more power than that available from the recombination of the water you split in the first place. But no process is 100% efficient. To me, that means you're unable to get as much eenrgy back from burning the hydrogen as you did in producing it. That there is a net loss in calculated mpg though H2 is being produced and not lost indicates to me that my assertion here is correct. The system is actually a net drain. If it wasn't, you could theoretically jump start a car powered only on water to get the initital H2 output to run it and it would be a perpetual motion machine if you condensed the gaseous water back to liquid and routed it back into the jar. The key here is the enormous current drain that is required to do the work of splitting the water into its component hydrogen and oxygen. In the perfect world example, you would actually produce nothing since at 100% efficiency, you only produce enough energy from burning one molecule of H2 as you would need to split one molecule of water into H2 and 1/2 O2. We all know engines are far from 100% efficient, so this doesn't seem like it could ever work.

--wavingpine
 
I'm curious about the required current- how much does amperage vary with units of different sizes? Is it proportional to the numbers of plates, volume of solutions, etc? Could you produce more gas at the same current with a bigger cell?
 
Hubs97xj: The amp draw on one of these units varies with plate size, distance between plates, and electrolytic solution type and strength. I don't thing the overall volume of solution available makes much difference as long as the plate is covered(but I could be wrong)

wavingpine11: Not to but chops, but go over to the OEM tec. board and read through the "updated HHO" thread: http://www.naxja.org/forum/showthread.php?t=959203
All of this has been beaten to death, resurrected, spindled, and beaten again. No one's trying to beat thermodynamics here.
The grain of sand at the base of the cloud of hydrogen gas mis-information appears to be this:
Adding a small percentage of Hydrogen to conventional fuel in the engine speeds the flame front in the cylinder. The faster ignition allows(or causes, not sure) a more efficient burn. The efficiency gain is bigger then the power draw to make the H2. That's what Goodburbon's trying to test.

Cal: Don't bust on him man. 285 posts over on the HHO thread and 45 here say there's at least a little interest in this. Goodburbon "put up" He's willing to try. The rest of us should probably be positive, be constructive, or as the saying goes, "shut up"

Goodburbon: Good luck with it, and I hope it works. I'm at the pipe glue sniffing phase on one of these turkeys, and plan to post up results when available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Projext "V8 XJ" Build
44 45 46
Replies
915
Views
196K
PhotoJared
P
Squarecat
FS 1993 4 door 4.0 auto - $2500
Replies
6
Views
627
Squarecat
Squarecat
jakeWI
2000 Mercury Sable FS/FT
Replies
1
Views
444
jakeWI
jakeWI
Seiler
For Sale - 1998 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX
Replies
2
Views
72
Seiler
Seiler
x2elite
This guy knows how to sell a jeep....
Replies
8
Views
1K
greenjeep93
G
Back
Top