Mr FIAT - Your #1 source for vintage car parts

Boosting MPG with hydrogen (HHO) cell

Currently reading:
Boosting MPG with hydrogen (HHO) cell

DucatoMiltonKeynes said:
If you'd bothered to read my post, you'd see it was on a turbodiesel - no oxygen sensor. On a diesel, there is no such thing as a lean mixture as they are always supplied with more air than needed. Only the amount of diesel injected is changed.
Do you know anything about diesel engines?
Click to expand...
They's noisy and you've been conned?
 
All this "fuel-saving" stuff, such as HHO, or magnets, or whatever else they come up with is all just hokey "magic beans" for an unfortunately under-informed and gullible public.

What surprises me is that these same people are usually the ones who often won't trust new technologies such as "Stop/Start" or Hybrid drivetrains, despite there being clear and repeatable proof that these systems actually DO improve fuel economy.

I've worked with some of the manufacturers at the heart of this drive to improve vehicle fuel economy. They do spend millions of pounds every year trying to reduce emissions and to increase mpg. They are acutely aware that any improvement in mpg means that people are more likely to choose their car versus their competitors (due to fuel costs, vehicle tax, limits set by governments), so they go to extreme lengths to tweak the mappings etc to try to get the best figures possible.

If all they had to do was strap a tupperware box under the bonnet, fill it with rainwater, and run "spare" electricity through some electrodes to generate HHO, then they would be all over it like fake tan at a Gypsy wedding.

Let's face it, they already try to stretch the truth with low-rolling-resistance tyres (pumped up to max pressure), taped up shut-lines, no consumers switched on (they actually pre-charge the battery to prevent excessive load from the alternator) etc.

On a previous car (Ford C-Max TDCi) I bought a "power-box" which connected into the common rail pressure sensor. It gave the car more power, and seemingly better mpg (due to fooling the ECU), however it blew the injector seals twice in two months. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and if the car manufacturers could increase power AND economy easily, they would certainly make sure that it was done before the car went out of their factory.
 
Interesting that the people replying so far are just offering second hand opinions or bigoted views. None of them have made any test of it for themselves and are just typing their ignorance into a computer. I was able to make it work, but you're very welcome to keep on funding the oil companies while I use 20% less of their products than I used to in the same vehicle on identical trips.
 
DucatoMiltonKeynes said:
Interesting that the people replying so far are just offering second hand opinions or bigoted views. None of them have made any test of it for themselves and are just typing their ignorance into a computer. I was able to make it work, but you're very welcome to keep on funding the oil companies while I use 20% less of their products than I used to in the same vehicle on identical trips.
Click to expand...
How did you measure the fuel usage?
Did you use the on-board computer, or did you brim the tank between each journey?
Did you follow the exact same drive-cycle to the second?

When vehicles are tested for official mpg, they complete a set drive cycle which is timed to the second. They have to keep to set speeds, accelerate and decelerate at the same rates at specified times. Their emissions are checked throughout using calibrated exhaust analysers.
It is by this kind of testing that they provide repeatable results.

Can you show me any examples at all where any similar test has been done with a vehicle using HHO cells?

If it worked, then it would be the biggest breakthrough in thermodynamics that the world has ever seen. The lossless creation of energy would enable the sort of perpetual motion which man has dreamed of for centuries.

The trouble is that it doesn't work. It cannot work. And it certainly did not make your Ducato run 20% more efficiently than standard. At best, you may have improved your driving style. But your actual vehicle is not benefiting from increased thermal efficiency.
 
milesperhour said:
How did you measure the fuel usage?
Did you use the on-board computer, or did you brim the tank between each journey?
Did you follow the exact same drive-cycle to the second?

When vehicles are tested for official mpg, they complete a set drive cycle which is timed to the second. They have to keep to set speeds, accelerate and decelerate at the same rates at specified times. Their emissions are checked throughout using calibrated exhaust analysers.
It is by this kind of testing that they provide repeatable results.

Can you show me any examples at all where any similar test has been done with a vehicle using HHO cells?

If it worked, then it would be the biggest breakthrough in thermodynamics that the world has ever seen. The lossless creation of energy would enable the sort of perpetual motion which man has dreamed of for centuries.

The trouble is that it doesn't work. It cannot work. And it certainly did not make your Ducato run 20% more efficiently than standard. At best, you may have improved your driving style. But your actual vehicle is not benefiting from increased thermal efficiency.
Click to expand...

I measured the fuel usage by filling the tank to the top of the filler neck each time and taking the odometer reading. Same for both outward journey of 1500 miles and the 1500 back. I used the cruise control at a steady 60mph both ways except for short periods of overtaking and the sections of villages/mountain passes. Different mpg there if you read my post again. Also, no mpg improvement on the way there with the wrong hydrogen flow, but average 20% improvement on the way back with reduced flow (exactly the same route). You can probably find many reports from people who have tried it online and have lucked into the correct flow settings for their engine. Understand that all I'm trying to say is that I got it to work for me after finding the correct flow rate. I'm not trying to make any claims other than that. It's just a report of what happened.
It's not a breakthrough in thermodynamics, as the amount of hydrogen I use wouldn't even run a 10cc engine. There is negligible power from the hydrogen combustion. There are theories that it creates better or more complete combustion. To suggest that combustion can't ever be improved would be crazy. If that were believed, we wouldn't have fuel injection, ECU controlled engines or VVT.
The reason for my post was to find out if anyone else had tried it and what their results were. I'm not interested in the "can't be done" crowd.
 
Last edited:
Place I used to work for were looking into various ways of saving on our fuel bills. Bio diesel was one, 'dribbling' gas into the engine as a way of improving fuel consumption was another.
These were also fiat Ducatos but due to the adaptions, these beasts weighed way too much for the standard engines to realistically cope with & consequently, we only saw a return of around 18 - 20mpg (this was all town driving as well!). And down to around 15mpg in winter when we switched on the [eber-thingy] cabin heater.

There were also discussions about using the heat from the exhaust to create steam in order to power all the electrics - so taking more of the load off the engine - AND also about injecting this steam into the engine to improve [things] iirc, there was talk about steam 'cleaning' the insides as well as improving performance/combustion ?.

This wasn't discussions amongst keyboard jockeys, these were the hierarchy of the organisation discussing with diesel specialists.
And our managers were quite serious about the initial outlay for these projects since we could quickly recover much of the cost (and, I guess there would be ways of offsetting the spends?)

Nothing ever came of this since the company folded & we were made redundant, but there must be something in the tech?
 
Car engine efficiency has improved immensely over the past few years but fuel economy hasn't improved as much as it could have I think. Joe Public may moan about the cost of fuel but he is still more concerned with 0-60 times and top speeds.
The car manufacturers could probably produce something with the performance of a Mk1 Panda that could achieve 100mpg but no-one would buy it.
Fiat have the Twin Air, a marvel of modern engineering, but it produces 85bhp or more, Ford have the 1 litre Ecoboost and that produces 125bhp.
Cars are bigger now due to crumple zones etc but science and computer aided design means that the body panels are thinner and lighter so surely something producing the 55bhp of a Mk1 Punto would provide enough real world performance for most people, unfortunately most people seem to live in a fantasy world.
 
in reply to this i did a huge amount of maths to show that the claims being made are essentially rubbish, however i knew this would go unread yet furiously contested

so DucatoMiltonKeynes why not post up some more info

it would be nice to see some pictures of your setup and some links to what you actually bought and fitted.

in truth the amount of hydrogen being added would be less than than one hundredth of a percent of the total volume of induction gasses and equal a 20% improvement in economy

its not that this isn't understood the Scientific explanation is that this doesn't work.
 
AndyRKett said:
in reply to this i did a huge amount of maths to show that the claims being made are essentially rubbish, however i knew this would go unread yet furiously contested

so @DucatoMiltonKeynes why not post up some more info

it would be nice to see some pictures of your setup and some links to what you actually bought and fitted.

in truth the amount of hydrogen being added would be less than than one hundredth of a percent of the total volume of induction gasses and equal a 20% improvement in economy

its not that this isn't understood the Scientific explanation is that this doesn't work.
Click to expand...


It's obvious and at once provable with simple maths that the energy from burning that tiny amount of hydrogen makes no measurable difference to the engine output. The amount I'm using wouldn't even power a model aeroplane. The best explanation I've seen is that the super fast HHO flame helps to ignite all of the fuel as it spreads (explodes) throughout the combustion chamber at the start of ignition. The most obvious proof that more rapid and complete combustion gives more power is the use of twin spark plugs. Ducati fitted it to their Mutistrada engine in 2012 and reported 5% torque increase and 10% greater fuel economy. Ducati aren't going to go to all the effort of new cylinder heads and ignition systems for no reason. This was probably found out scores of years ago from aeroplane engines, which use twin spark plugs for safety reasons.
Another clue that the HHO is affecting something combustion-wise is that my diesel engine runs a lot quieter. The mechanics at the garage next door to my business can't believe how quiet it is. When cruising at 60, I can just hear it if I concentrate on it. The tyre roar inside the van is a lot louder than the engine. The engine was definitely louder before. I don't have the radio on much, so I get to hear the engine more than most people.
My cell is buried behind the radiator grille for cooling, so I can't easily take pictures of it. A quick internet image search for HHO dry cell will give you hundreds of examples. The only difference on my system is that I built a pure DC power mosfet power controller instead of the more usual pulse width modulation controller and added a digital ammeter. I doubt that made any difference at all. Being an engineer, I like designing and building things, so I just had to be different.
I'll be doing the same trip across Europe and back in the spring, so I'll be able to re-check the mpg then. It's pretty obvious across 3,000 miles if something has changed.
 
staffordmike said:
Car engine efficiency has improved immensely over the past few years but fuel economy hasn't improved as much as it could have I think. Joe Public may moan about the cost of fuel but he is still more concerned with 0-60 times and top speeds.
The car manufacturers could probably produce something with the performance of a Mk1 Panda that could achieve 100mpg but no-one would buy it.
Fiat have the Twin Air, a marvel of modern engineering, but it produces 85bhp or more, Ford have the 1 litre Ecoboost and that produces 125bhp.
Cars are bigger now due to crumple zones etc but science and computer aided design means that the body panels are thinner and lighter so surely something producing the 55bhp of a Mk1 Punto would provide enough real world performance for most people, unfortunately most people seem to live in a fantasy world.
Click to expand...

While this is nothing to do with hydrogen...I have to echo the sentiments earlier in the thread that if the tech had any merit manufacturers would be all over it given all the money they've spent on chasing figures that cannot be achieved in day to day use.

However I wouldn't say people are in fantasy world when the want more than 55bhp. With modern safety tech it would be very difficult to make a car lighter than a mk1 without resorting to expensive materials, it is enough to move a small car around at the legal limit, but ignoring traffic light grand prixs there are several reasons its not enough. First of all people expect their small cars to cruise like a big car on the motorway at 80 plus. Second there are several situations you find yourself in while not driving like a plonker where it will make you feel very very vulnerable. A few that I remember from my time as a 55s pilot would be, overtaking anything, joining a busy motorway from a dead stop (not not everywhere has a slip road), joining a motorway with a short slip road. Ok if you never leave the city these are unlikely but modern superminis are supposed to work everywhere.
 
306maxi said:
Nothing and I mean nothing scientific even remotely agrees with you

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/gas-mileage/4310717

I suspect there's some stupidly simple thing that you've overlooked which can account for what you've seen. But if it makes you happy......
Click to expand...

that link says "Multiply all the inefficiencies in that system and you only get a few percent back, certainly not in excess of 100 percent.

some thing is better than nothing.

nothing scientific even remotely agrees with any religions out there not even a few percent
 
DucatoMiltonKeynes said:
The amount I'm using wouldn't even power a model aeroplane. The best explanation I've seen is that the super fast HHO flame helps to ignite all of the fuel as it spreads (explodes) throughout the combustion chamber at the start of ignition. The most obvious proof that more rapid and complete combustion gives more power is the use of twin spark plugs. Ducati fitted it to their Mutistrada engine in 2012 and reported 5% torque increase and 10% greater fuel economy. Ducati aren't going to go to all the effort of new cylinder heads and ignition systems for no reason. This was probably found out scores of years ago from aeroplane engines, which use twin spark plugs for safety reasons.
Another clue that the HHO is affecting something combustion-wise is that my diesel engine runs a lot quieter.

My cell is buried behind the radiator grille for cooling, so I can't easily take pictures of it. A quick internet image search for HHO dry cell will give you hundreds of examples. The only difference on my system is that I built a pure DC power mosfet power controller instead of the more usual pulse width modulation controller and added a digital ammeter. I doubt that made any difference at all. Being an engineer, I like designing and building things, so I just had to be different.
Click to expand...

But the composition so air already has a small percentage of hydrogen in it along with a bit of methane too, so if this 'more complete burn theory was correct then it would already occur without a HHO generator as for comparing a twin spark in a petrol engine which only sees a 10% increase in economy to a Diesel engine which uses compression ignition that whole comparison is a bit pointless having twin spark plugs in a petrol engine is bound to have an effect but that's not how a Diesel engine works

Runs a lot quieter? Well that could be easily demonstrated with a 30second YouTube video, perhaps turn on the HHO generator half way through and show how the engine's sound changes.

Now obviously I could do a google image search however what I wanted was to see what you have fitted, and asked for links to what you bought from eBay, my point being people who claim they've done this are often not keen to back up their claims at the moment you're just spouting numbers. Which in all honesty I could claim I farted in the fuel tank and got an increase of 10mpg, doesn't mean its true. You say its not easy to photograph but 'not easy' doesn't mean impossible.

Currently my car is averaging 63.28mpg which is based on over a year of fill ups and 11,300miles in all weathers different times of the day night and year, I've seen anything from 46mpg up 87mpg between fill ups.

So a one off 3000 mile trip compared to a previous year isn't going to take account of things like atmospheric pressure, quality of the fuel being used, style of driving based on attitude and tiredness, do you put your van on a weigh bridge for each journey to ensure that it is scientifically accurate for each test you're doing

Basically you need to show your working and start backing up your claims
 
Last edited:
StevenRB45 said:
However I wouldn't say people are in fantasy world when the want more than 55bhp. With modern safety tech it would be very difficult to make a car lighter than a mk1 without resorting to expensive materials, it is enough to move a small car around at the legal limit, but ignoring traffic light grand prixs there are several reasons its not enough. First of all people expect their small cars to cruise like a big car on the motorway at 80 plus. Second there are several situations you find yourself in while not driving like a plonker where it will make you feel very very vulnerable. A few that I remember from my time as a 55s pilot would be, overtaking anything, joining a busy motorway from a dead stop (not not everywhere has a slip road), joining a motorway with a short slip road. Ok if you never leave the city these are unlikely but modern superminis are supposed to work everywhere.
Click to expand...

Having a bit of grunt can get you out of sticky situations sometimes, I'd agree around 80bhp for a car weighing around 1100kg (pretty much the average hatchback now) seems perfectly adequate but if every small car had the same amount of power then everyone in theory is joining the motorway at roughly the same speed, not sure if this would make things better or worse :confused:
Then again modern engines can afford to have more power because they are always becoming more efficient, compare my 1.4 8v Fiat Punto to my 769cc Fiat Panda. The Punto had 77bhp and could pull its weight on a motorway comfortably and still return about 43 - 45mpg if you were sensible. On the other hand the Panda has 34hp and you really have to build up speed for any sort of incline, however it weighs far less than the Punto and therefore returns about 45 - 47mpg on the same motorway journey.
The point of all this rambling means that basically, the far heavier Punto has more power yet has very similar efficiency to the underpowered Panda therefore why give everyone a Punto 55 when you can have more power but with the same economy?

.... I can't say that any of this information is very accurate but its just some of my thoughts... :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AnthonyH
Car battery repair with de-sulfator?
Replies
15
Views
809
Pugglt Auld Jock
Pugglt Auld Jock
AnthonyH
Battery booster / jump starter?
2
Replies
23
Views
896
Pugglt Auld Jock
Pugglt Auld Jock
Bonefish Blues
Music server with CD storage - advice on storage/backup
Replies
8
Views
944
the green vanper
the green vanper
AnthonyH
Driving with one winter and one summer tyre on the same axle
Replies
17
Views
3K
AnthonyH
AnthonyH
Pugglt Auld Jock
My Farm Jack - and what I do with it.
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
bugsymike
B
Back
Top