quote Originally posted by AP2k: If the engine runs with a carb or mechanical fuel injection, sure. But an O2 sensor is going to pick up on any extra oxygen you put into it.

Well...sure, in theory. (Who does that sound like?)

The idea is that you're putting more oxygen into the cylinders so that the mixture will burn more completely, same sort of idea as forced injection. So there will actually be less O2 in the exhaust, it will be in various other forms, such as CO2, H2O and NOx.

EDIT: I own page 2.

[This message has been edited by AntiKev (edited 04-22-2008).]

quote Originally posted by AntiKev: Well...sure, in theory. (Who does that sound like?) The idea is that you're putting more oxygen into the cylinders so that the mixture will burn more completely, same sort of idea as forced injection. So there will actually be less O2 in the exhaust, it will be in various other forms, such as CO2, H2O and NOx.

Yea, but that assumes that more oxygen will mean a better burn, and that simply is not the case. Burn quality running your car right now and right after you turn on the oxygen is the same, once the transient O2 spike and lean condition is cleared out by the O2 sensor. Burn quality is dependant on fuel trim and induction, and intake, head, and piston design. It is also dependant on air quality, but it is assumed that the air is well-mixed by the time it gets to the combustion chamber due to the design of the intake path, thus it is statistically negligible. Adding O2 is just diluting the other gases. If you want to take it to the extreme with all intake air being O2, you are still not guaranteed a complete burn.

Forced induction does also not get more power because of a better burn. It gets more power because it has more oxygen available and thus it will have to inject more fuel. It will also have to enrich the trim in order to not detonate, which effectively reduces burn quality anyway.

Your implication is correct; that is, a better burn quality does result in better power. However, the arguement you use to make that statement is not exceptionally accurate, at least with electronic fuel injected engines.

quote Originally posted by AP2k: Forced induction does also not get more power because of a better burn. It gets more power because it has more oxygen available and thus it will have to inject more fuel.

That's what I was getting at.

quote Your implication is correct; that is, a better burn quality does result in better power. However, the arguement you use to make that statement is not exceptionally accurate, at least with electronic fuel injected engines.

Fair enough. I don't really deal with EFI that much, although I'll need to start with all the new aircraft being FADEC.

quote Originally posted by Oreif: Another negative is the system requires more standard maintenance. Finally it requires straight water, You cannot mix anything in the water or the HHO output is reduced. Hence those of us that live in the north will have a freezing issue.

actually, you can add alcohol or other things like that to it to keep it from freezing...

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-05-2008).]

Jazzman,

You have ABSOLUTELY convinced me!! To stop posting about HHO HERE. UNTIL I try it myself.

And I ABSOLUTELY promise to post EXACTLY what happens when I BUILD one of these things--IF I build one.

I'm sure you are an intelligent person and truly have the best interest of the Forum when you post what you post. And I must say, if Wikipedia says it's a scam, I am beginning to believe it WITHOUT any experience.

HOWEVER.....(Didn't you know that was coming?) I have seen the experiment with radio waves making salt water burn. So did 4 TV stations report on it. IT BURNS!!! Water does not but salt water does. Of course, this has nothing to do with HHO but it is interesting that Wikipedia pronounces it a scam, when investigative reporters saw it and were impressed by it. And the guy who invented it was looking NOT for a way to burn salt water but a cure for cancer.

OK....enough of this. As Arnold Schartzenegger said, "I'll be back!" But no more about this until I prove it TO ME!

John

quote Originally posted by THE REAL Fieronut: You have ABSOLUTELY convinced me!! To stop posting about HHO HERE. UNTIL I try it myself. And I ABSOLUTELY promise to post EXACTLY what happens when I BUILD one of these things--IF I build one.

Good...some of us are watching intently to see your results. I hope you'll have an O2/H2 concentration gauge handy.

quote And I must say, if Wikipedia says it's a scam, I am beginning to believe it WITHOUT any experience.

Well if Wikipedia says it it must be true right? Hello? Sorry...that's a weak argument. I sense a hint of sarcasm here.

quote HOWEVER.....(Didn't you know that was coming?) I have seen the experiment with radio waves making salt water burn. So did 4 TV stations report on it. IT BURNS!!! Water does not but salt water does. Of course, this has nothing to do with HHO but it is interesting that Wikipedia pronounces it a scam, when investigative reporters saw it and were impressed by it. And the guy who invented it was looking NOT for a way to burn salt water but a cure for cancer. OK....enough of this. As Arnold Schartzenegger said, "I'll be back!" But no more about this until I prove it TO ME! John

John, I've got some swampland in Florida to sell you, and there's a suspension bridge across it that I will gladly sell you too.

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-05-2008).]

OOp, I'm cutting in here, i didn't read much except the last few posts.

Jazzman: that is true, there will be more energy to disassociate water into H and O then recomining into water, not necessarily if recombined into other products. If they combine to a procuct with shorter bond lengths than water you will have given off more energy. I can see this happening if the O from the HHO combines with more C from the fuel or N in the air than H's.

Anyways, there is MUCH to be learned about the actual combustion process to be able to properly predict what will occure. Maybe there are studies out there showing energy comparisons with gas+air compared to gas+hho+air.

As a side note, could people not reference Wiki when making their point? Anyone can change that to read whatever they want. I would rather be seeing some .edu sites, or other technical sites.