JES_VFR

Well I'm off to see that emissions crap issue the wife's car has now.

fair enough, I'm trying to get an acquaintance to sign-on for the base tune before HHO boosting, the first tune after switching on the HHO and the later performance and mileage runs. Okay Nate, I have to ask a couple of questions. 1. How many cells are in your dry cell design? 2. What material are you using for your plates? 3. What are you using for electrolyte? 4. What is the surface area of your plates and how large are your gaskets? 5. You are using a bubbler/drier as a backflash arrestor, right?? The reason I'm asking this is I'm trying to figure out why you want to send 20 amps through your cell and why you think that 2.6 volts at 20 amps is going yield gas. If you are using Stainless Steel for both plates, then you should set your voltage drop across each cell gap to roughly 2 volts. So if the bike is charging the battery at say 13.4 volts then run a 6 cell design, but if it regularly runs at 14 to 15 volts then run a seven cell design. And I would not setup the current draw to be more than .5 for every square inch of exposed plate. To much current is just as bad as too much voltage, either one will make the cell run hot and once it heats up your making steam not hho gas. I'd be very cautious of these materials as there are long term issues with the wrong stainless steels (304 is a no-no long term) and issues with Hexavalent chromium leeching. Electrolyte becomes poisoned over time and is a hazardous waste. I am doing brute force electrolysis, using Ti and Ti MMO coated plates. The voltage drop for my plate materials is higher at approximately 3.5V's and my plates have just a little over 22 sq inches of area so my current limit is just over 11 amps. Nothing leeches into the electrolyte to render it ineffective or more dangerous than when it was first mixed. At some later date, I would love to move up to voltrolysis (High voltage/low current gas production through dielectric breakdown of water in the cell). For now though, I am looking at some additional items to add to the cell to increase its production and add more control to it. A variable frequency pwm for current limiting is one of the items that I am considering. Did you consider laying the cell on its side and using a small pump to keep it circulating? It only draws an amp or so while running and the flushing action tends to help make more gas. then the tank only has to be slightly higher than the cell and you can probably fit both under the seat on the rc36. I'd bet I can fit a cell like mine on the RC36. Send me a picture of under the seat and under the rear fairing, as well as one from below looking at the back of the rear fender. I mean I'm seriously considering adding a double stack version of my cell to the underseat/undercowl area on my RC51. That setup would draw nearly 24 amps (11+ amps for each stack plus 1+ for the pump), so I'll have to work out the charging system issues first, but fitting the cell, the main tank and the bubbler would be no sweat. I'll be sharing my results with several forums (including the watercar forum on yahoo) as well as posting to the company website. And I'll be doing lots of videos as I go along discussing each change and its results.

true a supercharger works by packing more fuel and air into the cylinder. It does nothing to extract more power/work from the normal fuel charge. first I did not say that the combustion doesn't finish, it does. Just not in the chamber where it would yield more work. Have you had the exhaust gas analyzed? Smelling rich is not the issue. If you smell much of anything in the exhaust then you have incomplete combustion. All you have to do is have a dyno shop stick their EG Probe into you tailpipe and take a reading. If it lists anything more than 0.00 PPM for HC's, you don't have complete combustion. let me ask you this. If the combustion that occurs in the cylinder is so close to complete, then why oh why do we need the catalytic converters to meet emissions?!?!?!?!

Good try, but not really a good analogy... It would be if you were taking a can of oil off the shelf and oiling the spring. What you are actually trying to do is use the spring to drill, refine, transport and consume the oil by robbing it of it's finite contained energy. Everything you do in that sentence costs you energy. Unless you strike the Well-Full-Of-Oil-That-Violates-The-Second-Law you've wasted a lot of energy moving oil around for nothing. (AKA turning water into water) okay maybe it was too simple an analogy. maybe it would have been better to say I fitted a very small pump to pump oil from a small tank onto the bearings and gears, so that the spring can do a better more efficient job of turning them. that way I'm not making the effect of oil or the delivery of it come from the ether, its done right with in the system using a small amount of the springs potential to make a larger total amount of the springs potential available to move the car. I never said that making the gas or pumping the electrolyte around in the system did not cost me energy. All I have ever said was that the addition of the gas to the combustion in the cylinder, makes more energy available for work from the gasoline.

What's a source for this claim? I think you are confusing the combustion efficiency with the thermal efficiency. Yes, most of the energy generated by combustion is lost (the thermodynamic conditions are stacked against you from the start) but most of the fuel is burned. Only a small amount is unburned. From this source: Dirk Well I'll have to read that article, but my first question is at what piston speed are they claiming its 1-2 % short of complete? Even the average car's piston speed is from something around 8 ft/s at a 600 rpm idle to something around 90 ft/s at 6000 rpm redline. An that is getting to be a conservative number with today's high rpm engings. The number soars to a heady 180ft/s at 12000 rpm, which is still conservative when it comes to today's motorcycle engines. The flame rate under compression is not that fast, in fact I'd have to check my references again for under compression, but in free atmosphere the experts claim rates from a little over 1 ft/s to 9 ft/s. I have sources that have done their research on IC combustion for master's degrees and they have proven that the flame speed is far too slow. I'll have to get links to their work or pdf copies. Personally, I think I was pretty much sure of this when I saw big gouts of flame coming from an engine running on test stand without a header. I've been working on rough calculations so I can try to predict how much closer to complete reduction of the gasoline charge the HHO is getting us. But finding good equations for rates of combustion under compression are not easy.

I wasn't really all that concerned about step #2. I mean as long as #3 is the same or higher than #1 (because I'm assuming that I'll get at least some mileage and emissions benefits), then I'll be happy with this stage of the research.

Well Tom, I'm not an engineer, and wouldn't claim to know everything there is to know about generating systems. My Father who is a retired Electrical Engineer with 30 plus years of experience with radio power supplies, is someone that I think knows a thing or to about power (hint two different radios that he was part of the design of went up on Atlantis on this its last flight). He sounded a lot like you did until I went to the electrosport website and showed him the following page. Electro's page on how charging systems work Now I'm not saying that I'm now the expert just because I read that (nor is it because I slept in a holiday inn). All I'm saying is the people that make these things and should know a thing or two about how they work wrote. Now they could be wrong and you could be correct, but I still don't think that is a deal breaking issue. I mean we are dealing with liberating and utilizing KW's of additional power, or at the very minimum not wasting them like we were before. a few watts to make the gas is not going to toss over the applecart. once I get the led marker and brake lights and maybe the HID system, then I seriously doubt that it could still be an issue.

It certainly can work with a carbed bike. The work there is going to be dealing with the jetting changes and how much of a compromise you might have to make across the rev range. Still I would expect it to be very effective as carbs are not very efficient at getting gasoline into a true vapor form.

If I learned anything back in college, its that you never get as much out of anything as you put into it. Be it an energy conversion, a sport, a project, cooking a meal or a personal relation ship. But there has to be a point where the result is of a high enough quantity and quality that you say <que heavy german accent> 'Gut Enuf!'. I look at so many things that people do these days and the waste is just about enough to make me scream. The Internal Combustion Engine is just one item. All of them; gasoline piston, diesel piston, wankel rotary, spherical radials and (Yes Trace) even these new opposed piston designs, are all designed wrong. Not a single one of them is optimized to get complete combustion in the chamber. The very best of these designs is only capable of managing about 35% of the combustion in the cylinder, and they have other issues. I'm not saying that a lot of brilliant people are not struggling to say in the performance envelope bordered by power output, emissions and mileage. What I am saying is that someone needs to figure out how to change the envelope.

That is exactly what I have been saying, I'm making an additive to improve the combustion of the gasoline. the toy car reference was a good analogy. Another buddy that used to work as ground staff at the confederate air force stunt shows put it this way. It's like the atom bomb effect. We know that gasoline has all this energy in it but if you just put it in a bucket with a wick, it only gives off some light, a lot of smoke and some heat and takes hours to burn out. But spread the same amount of gas on the flash pan and light it. You get a huge flash, a big fire ball, lots of heat and it burns out in only a couple of minutes. The HHO gas acts as the flash pan to get the gas to burn much quicker that it will in its normal bucket. I was just quoting my local stores prices CVS, Walgreens, Target and "gasp" Walmart all want 2.99 for a gallon of distilled water. But even if it is 2.99 a gallon, I'm spending 2.899 on 87 octane gas around here right now and the summer balloon pricing has not started yet. It won't take much savings of summer priced gasoline to pay for the gallon of water. Plus as I said, I'm Already using RO water filters in the house and will be generating even more RO purified water with another fuel research experiment. How well will the HHO gas change the pump gas?? We will see. Testing is really just getting started, so results are to come. And as for tuning, I have the Power Commander V on the bike already, so I can tune the fuel mixtures to even radically lean numbers if I want. I'm getting the autotune module this week I think- sorry gang, the budget for this right now is my beer and pizza money. When I get that in, I'll be able to tune based on Af ratio targets and let the wideband processing dial it in. To be honest, I find it refreshing that some of you are as impatient to have results as I am. I wish that I had been able to get this all together back in January, but it did not happen. It will.

Please tell me that you don't have an EE. I don't even know where to start to explain where the train left the tracks here... Hey for what it is worth my Dad is a retired EE and told me that I was full of sh!te when I said that were just recovering power wasted as heat in the regulator. That is until I showed him the electrosport web site. Then He said that Honda's rectifier/regulator design the "most cheap-assed piece of crap" he'd ever seen and that I was right any surplus power from the stator (which is supposed to be most of the time) just gets shorted to the frame as heat. This is coming from a man who spent his career building military and space radios, getting down and dirty with their power supplies.

Well, actually I think I DO see the truth, and it does not include conspriacy theories about surpressing promising new technologies just so Big Oil can continue to rule the world. Everybody is working Everything, Everywhere, all the time, so that's why I don't feel that HHO has been "missed" as viable. But that IS the problem everybody from the idiots to the conmen to the real researchers are working on solutions to the energy problem. An every one is so focused on proving JUST their technology that many spend too much time knocking all the others. Have you ever tried to talk about the possible benefits to an electric vehicle nut, Most of them will be shouting at you in about three minutes when you point out that their precious electricity is generated by coal and/or oil fired plants. In fact, the truth that I saw a long time ago was the mania surrounding the Three Mile Island incident (with no resulting radiation leak, as designed!) and the resulting moratorium on nuke power to this day. Now look at the fix we're in....coal and oil to generate electricity, when the best Energy Density available has been staring us in the face for years. Yep, I'm big on nukes. I have no issue with nukes, the navy has successfully used them on carriers and subs for years. I'm just against the letting the private corporations build and run their own plants.. See I remember growing up down wind from TMI and wondering if that next big cloud was rain or radioactive crap for a few years. I don't know what the solution is on how to fix the whole private business/government regulation model to make it work. I've lived near limerick plant and oyster creek and peach bottom, so no I don't think that Nukes are unsafe per se. I just don't think that the public safety should ever oppose corporate greed. Maybe only "Not For Profit" corporations should be allowed to operate Nuclear plants. In fact, do a little research on Traveling Wave Reactors. THAT is the solution for all energy needs, forever. And ever. And it's almost a viable technology. much like current electric vehicles, my issue is that last statement almost viable technology. Well, that may or may not be true. We're nearing the efficiencies of the various Carnot/Rankine/Otto cycle theories of the textbooks....harnessing waste heat and all that. I understand that you're hoping HHO will somehow increase combustion efficiency...but I think you're just changing water to water and losing energy (electricity) in the process. It would be great if I'm wrong. See I have a problem with any process that throws away 65-70% of the potential energy being labeled as efficient. That is plain crap. Now you may be correct, I may just be playing with splitting water and then making reform. But I think that there is something there. I mean if I can whittle some work out of that 10 - 20 % from that big pool of potential energy in gasoline, then I'll feel like I have something. Bending doesn't set well with Mother Nature, but I think that's absolutely great that you're having a go at it. It's very interesting, regardless of my Money Truth and Energy Density Truth rantings! :fing02: No worries there Trace, I've been a skeptic for years of all sorts of energy devices, but the sheer level of wasted energy is ridiculous. Even with Nuclear power all the energy wasted as heat is insane I mean you could use the steam that goes up those cooling stacks for many things (making fuel ethanol, processing other chemicals, heating manufacturing processes and more). the day of single technology solutions to the worlds energy problems is over. Its going to take having multiple technologies overlapping to solve the worlds energy problems. renewable fuels and new generator technologies are going to have to shake hands with better energy storage solutions to drive new hybrid power systems.

Hey Trace you bring up a good point, but I think you don't see the real truth. None of the breakthroughs in the alternate energy arena started with these big industry leaders, Its all these small little companies that design and develop the technology, then GM, Ford, Exxon, LUK or even the USAF comes along and wants to buy out the patent. Some of the stuff the try and produce, a lot of it they just bury. Add in all the scammers, liars and idiot, it quickly becomes apparent that this industry has major credibility issues. Hell I'm employed in it now and I'm still a skeptic when it comes to other technologies. You are 100% correct it is all about Money and Energy Density. Gasoline has just about the highest density out there. That's why we have been using for all these years. The problem I have is that we never mastered efficiently combusting it. Heck that is why we don't and can't use something like methane is energy density is so low that you have to use a supercharger to compress enough of it into our inefficient combustion chamber to make close to the same power as gasoline. All I'm trying to do with this is add my own additive to the gasoline and make it burn more completely while still in the cylinder. I don't know that I'm trying to break any laws of science, I'm just trying to bend the equations in my favor for a change.

Forget about the oil, but yeah your right NO tap or spring water. Distilled or other wise purified water (I'm using Reverse Osmosis purified water as always for a couple of reasons) 1. I already have a filter setup attached to a faucet, for filling a medium size fish tank, as my tap water is that bad. 2. Over the long run the cost of using filter is cheaper by the gallon than buying distilled (its about 1.00/gal as opposed to 2.99/gal). Out on the road I suppose I'll just hit a drug store if I needed it desperately. 3. Since I'm doing some work on a renewable bio-mass based fuel process, one of the by products is RO water. So for me its just more serendipity. by the way I'm using KOH (Potasium Hydroxide) as the electrolyte right now, but that may be changing.

Well at that rate, you will have 1700 L * (2 min/ 1L) = 3400 minutes. Again that is a bit of a conservative figure, from the company (better to under quote the output than over quote it). With the pump, I'm getting a little more than .75 lpm. I'm not sure why, but I've measured using the old displacement method and consistantly gotten about .75 l of gas in a minute. It may have something to do with pump generating pressure flow and the flow scrubbing small bubbles off the plates, which clears the plate to form more gas. I do know that units without the pumps make fairly large bubbles that rise in the tubes like bubbles in soda, cling side wall of the tube. My unit even when it was setup on a bench test, makes white froth in the output tubes more like the bubbles rising in draft pint of guiness (ie. there are no recognizable bubbles until the gas rises to the surface). based on what I saw on the bench a liter of water will last 1833 L * (4 min/3L) = 2444 minutes or more than 40 hours. The question now is if that tiny bit of hydrogen and oxygen is going to really change the thermodynamic conditions inside the cylinder enough to realize any gain. I mean we are talking about ~640 parts per million or 0.064% HHO. Hmmm.... Well, nothing to do but wait for data, seeing as how you already have the stuff installed. I guess I now have some reservations about the efficacy of this system. I'd have to look up the number of liters of liguid gasoline you would need to make the number of liters of gas vapor you would need, assuming you need 1 mole of gasoline for every 14.7 moles of O2 (which is what % by volume of a liter of atmosphere?). but here is a rough equation. if the motor displaces 1560 L/min at 4000 rpm, then its pumping 280 L/min of O2, and so if we assume an ideal set of conditions use a stoich air fuel ratio, we need 19.1 liters of gas vapor. .75 liters of HHO is not as far away from the quantity of gasoline vapor as it seems at first. Now I know that equation is not 100%, but it gives you some other idea into how much gasoline is needed to make and engine run and also how little HHO would be needed to have an effect. As you say its installed, so we will see how it does when I get the tuning finished. And I have some other things to try to improve the hho production as well.

You are definitely on the right track here. That is pretty much what we are doing altering the gasoline's reaction rate to a point where we not only gain back the relatively small amount of power to make the HHO gas, but we also get more usable power. The energy is there in the gasoline, its just that with the current ICE technology up this point, were just throwing most of it away.

here are the shots of where main tank is and the fittings running to and from it. first the rear view then the view from below It doesn't need a large tank as one liter of H2O will make around 1700 liters of gas.

I could be wrong here (wouldn't be the first time) but I thought you were using a PC with Autotune?? Doesn't that have an O2 sensor?? The 2001 VFR also has an O2 sensor even if you aren't using the Autotune and that would cause issues with the PC. Or did are you using a different header? I have the PC V with zero map in it, I've added the o2 eliminators so the PCM is not having issues with the sensor output. I don't have the autotune in my hands,... Yet. I may grab a short dyno tune, until the autotune arrives, but so far it seems to be running okay.

First off let me say that someone poked me on an aside and said "don't promise things" So let me make myself clear, I'm not guaranteeing that this cell, or any cell I can build today can or would be able to get us to the point where we are doubling the work that we can get out of the potential energy locked in a liter of gasoline... Maybe I should have said instead of the 7 MJ that a current ICE can get work from what if we could alter the combustion enough to get 10 MJ of energy from the pool of 34.2 instead?? I mean spending even 300 watts to allow the combustion to utilize release an additional 3 MJ from the gasoline combustion would be a huge win. I intend to research this and experiment with it to find out just how much can I gain. Well as I wrote earlier, I don't have a big pickup, I ride my VFR as my primary vehicle(I'm hovering around 38 mpg with all the around town running I do). The next vehicle in the family is wife's car which gets 14 mpg gallon in city driving and I can't remember what it gets highway as it has been that long since it had a day trip on it. Its next on my list to get an HHO cell. Realistically, I'm expecting about a 20% increase in mileage on the VFR and something more on the wife's. Remember that this cell has no flow control, so it only makes gas at a fixed rate, therefore the effects are the greatest at low rev's. So my bike which sees a large range of rpm is going to have smaller results compared to my wife's car that has a usable rev range of less than 6000 rpm. Testing will give real numbers. No I'm not concerned about the drier's placement. If I go down on that side and actually crack the drier, the gas in it will vent to the atmosphere. In order for it to burn I would have to have a fire going already right near the damage. Second when the bike is shut down, the cell is shut down so only the gas that is already in the lines could possibly be an issue. The last point to address is just this, HHO by itself burns very very rapidly, it gone an a flash. So it would need something like a large quantity of gas vapor to incite a major fire. Nice... Oh I'm okay with the doubters as I was a major skeptic when I started looking at this. But I've done a bunch of research and looked at a lot of sincere individual's efforts, and I cannot believe that they are all just hokus pokus frauds.

First off thank you one and all. Well my teeange son wanted to name it "fawkes, the Pheonix" from the Potter series after the it was rebuilt from the hit and run two almost three years ago. I just tend to use the military alphabet VICTOR FRANK ROMEO. Hey I feel that way about a lot of your stuff. They will come. I'm going to switch to blue color here just so that it is easier to spot my comments What are you trying to accomplish? Better mileage? More power? I never did read a clear explanation of goals. Explain to me again how adding a stoichiometric mixture of one fuel is going to reduce the unburned portion of the primary fuel. I am not seeing the change in the amount of free oxygen available to burn off the original excess primary fuel. The oxygen is there already or the o2 sensors would not have anything to "sense" and the catalytic converter would not have the oxygen it needs to finish combusting the primary fuel. My point with the monofuel statement was that it does not need any of the atmosphere that is being drawn through the intake to burn so its not taking any of the oxygen away from the primary fuel Electrolizing water = 2H2O --> 2H2 + O2 (with the input of electrical energy from your motorcycle) Combusting those gasses = 2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O (with the creation of heat energy lost to the atmosphere) You're converting water into gasses then converting them back into water, correct? But you've used electrical energy from your motorcycle to do it. Unfortunately you don't receive all that power back, thanks to the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. A good point and a correct one, At this point and time with the unit that I put on the VFR, I need more watts of electricity to make gas than I can get back from the gas. As some more features get worked out and added I'll get much closer to unity (that is when power in - power out. Then maybe I may be able to convert the VFR to run on hydroxy gas as the primary fuel Plus, you are taking up the finite space in the cylinder that could be filled with gasoline and air and substituting in a fuel that has a lower specific energy. It has been a long time since I have sat through a Chem lecture, so please feel free to point out any error in my understanding. Add in the pump that you are also running and what I'm seeing is a motorcycle that is less efficient than it was before. Again you make good points, but the two things to remember are what does the HHO do to the combustion of the gasoline mixture and how inefficient is the combustion of gas before. The combustion in just about every ICE out in the world today is so slow that most of it goes out the exhaust port unburned. That is why the government mandates catalytic converters on vehicles. If the combustion was nearly complete when the exhaust valve opened, then there would be no hydrocarbons for the catalyst to reduce the emissions. And don't even fool yourself into thinking that today's ices are even close to efficient, they waste the majority of the energy in gasoline. It does take power in watts to make HHO, but the amount we need to make enough gas to effect combustion is a drop in the bucket compared to the MegaWatts it will liberate when it accelerates the combustion. I mean when you have 34.2 MJ of potential energy available in a liter of gasoline and a current engine only liberates about 7 MJ. If I spend a few watts (less than we use on the headlights) to release another 20-25% of the total potential within the cylinder then what's the difference. I mean if the combustion efficiency jumps to the point where we able get 14-15 MJ out of that liter of gasoline, How much will we miss the 120 watts it takes to do it? A motorcycle that has less power than it did before. Well I'm expecting the bike to make the same power as before or maybe a little more. Tuning with the power commander could be biased to make more power or gain more mileage. Dyno testing will give us the proof in this case. And a motorcycle that is mechanically more complicated and argueably less safe than it was before. I don't really see how it is so much more mechanically complicated as all I have to do to effectively return the bike to stock is pull the fuse powering the cell. As for safety issues, I've deliberately tested the backflash arrestor and it works containing the flash. The electrolyte is a non-issue as well as its of such low concentration that is at the bottom of the irritating chemicals list. the battery acid, the engine coolant, heck even the gasoline are all more irritating. Anyone who wants more info or to join a hho forum PM me and I'll send you links for you to seed your own research the valves and ports are only going to see a bit more water vapor than they normally do and since its not condensing on those surfaces when running should not effect them. Ihe exhaust is constructed of something other than mild steel or is other wise protected internally (like its ceramic dipped) it will not be a major factor. Now that being said, my VFR exhaust is already and ugly carbuncled mess, so I won't know until I get a new header in ss (I'd lover to spring for Ti, where is toro when you need him) harsh. give him a chance to tidy things up and come back with some real results. Or just go and read all the scientific papers that clarify HHO gas is pseudoscience waffle. I read a lot of that and there are a lot of Con-men, Charlatans and just plain honest idiots out there. So designs are over driven and make steam not HHO gas. Some use materials that leech out toxins that poison the gas produced. Some just make pretty bubbles that won't even burn because of what the doped the water with. There is a lot of crap out there and anyone interested in this needs to be careful and try to get either a vet'ed design or buy kit from a valid company. HHO gas is not a scam, water can be separated into H2 and O2 and then burned to release energy. This combustion process can have positive effects on other fuels and make for more effect combustion in them as well. Seeing that article on elsevier site is interesting since the also have peer reviewed articles like this one Peer review Well, I'm sure that anyone who puts a unit like this on their vehicle rides (or drives) it differently. That's just human nature, but over the long term a person will fall back to their normal driving style. What happens when you install an HHO cell on a modern EFI vehicle (and by modern, I mean any OEM EFI system that uses an o2 sensor and is either OBD I or OBD II equipped), is that since the combustion is so much more complete the O2 sensor gives a reading that is read as lean. This false lean reading (I say false lean because the initially the same amount of fuel has been sent to the cylinder with the same amount of air, but is it more completely completely burned so the resulting exhaust is different) causes the ecm to start adding fuel to the mixture to get back to its target value. Yeah, the computer is actually programmed to dial the mixture back to a particular level of emissions and waste. In order to stop this you have to do something to alter the either the computers allowed fuel ratios (with a chip or reflash fuel map), intercept/alter the signal of the o2 sensor itself or install a power commander type device between the computer and the fuel injectors to override the fuel demands of the pcm. On my bike I'm using the power commander. When I fit the next cell on my wife's car, I will use a reflash tool to change the ecm's mapping. And I put it on the VFR for 3 reasons, one to show that this technology does not have to enormous to work, two to show that even a bike can benefit from it and last because my bike is my primary vehicle. I'm sure that you would see noticable gains on your truck and on your RV the larger version of this cell (I have the 5x5 inch plate sized unit, but there is an 8x8 size unit as well). be sure to bring your ear plugs if you get the chance to see this cell demonstrated.

Hi gang. Well, I've been telling a few of you that I was going to install an on demand Hydroxy gas Generator unit onto my 5ht gen VFR. I've had conversations with tightwad about how many additional watts can the 5th gen's charging system put out to power the Cell. Codewriter along with a couple of othes have been a godsend with PC V information. This last Sunday, I finally got 99% of the installation finished and my VFR is back on the street. I can already hear the questions. What is HHO or Hydroxy gas? Why would you want the generator on your bike? Why/How did you get involved with this stuff? So let me lay out a little history and cover some of the basics. I was a Mechanical Engineering major in college, one of the Senior design teams that I Schlepped parts and turned wrenches for was doing research into Hydrogen powered cars. I had many conversations with the team Mentor and a couple of the smarter members of the team about what was wrong with both gasoline (and diesel) fuels, as well as ethanol fuel and hydrogen. The issues all boiled down to this handful of issues. One gasoline was originally a waste product in the petroleum refining, but it has high energy density (34.2 Mega Joules/liter, consumed in one second that's potential to do 45863hp of work). When oil was more available, it seemed like a good choice for fuel even though most IC engines waste 75-80% of the energy. Thanks to its high energy density, it's relatively slow burning, so it's easy to design a safe transport vessel for a mobile vehicle. Pump gas these days is a blend of up to 87 various hydrocarbons and other additives (most additives are more waste products from the refining column). Ethanol is not as dense (its only 24 Mega Joules/liter, which is about 32185 hp), but has the features of being a renewable natural product and it is a single hydrocarbon. The downsides are that it takes a lot of energy to distill the fuel, which drives up its unit cost. Its a less energy dense fuel compared to gas/diesel as well. There is also no infra-structure to supply it to the average consumer. Slow Stable burning, single compound, but hard to make and harder to find a commercial supplier. Hydrogen on the other hand is a rapidly burning clean fuel, explosive is how some people would describe it. Its hard to store since it has to be highly compressed (like 600+ psi) or chilled to a liquid (-435 F approximately). So tank for carrying Hydrogen is either very large and thick to withstand the pressures or its large due to is extreme levels of insulation. Even recent breakthroughs in storage with metal matrices have issues with repeatedly filling and discharging cycles. The simplest process to produce Hydrogen is electrolysis. You take a tank and fill it with water and a source of ions (something as simple as some table salt can work), install two plates and close the tank except for 2 ports over each plate to release the gas produced. Run direct electrical current through the "cell" and it will produce Hydrogen gas at one plate and oxygen at the other. Still that takes a precise voltage and current for the design of this two plate cell and its not very efficient. So Hydrogen is almost unstable, its hard and expensive to make in quantity, it takes more power to make than it gives back when burned and god help you figuring out how to put it in a tank for the car or bike!!! BUT just wait a minute, what happens if we allow the two gases to be collected at a common port?? Well now you have very reactive "monofuel" called HHO or hydroxy gas. Its a perfect stoichiometric blend of H2 and O2. If ignited it will rapidly burn and produce WATER!!!!. So if you change your generator cell design to a common outlet port, you can stack cells like a battery. Essentially planning the required input voltage and currents based on the plate materials, the area of the plates and the number of cell in a stack. And now these cells are still a bit more than you want to try to fit to entirely provide fuel to an ICE. But wait a minute. Adding a moderate amount of Hydroxy gas to a gasoline or diesel engine, can radically change the rate of combustion in the cylinder. It accelerates the rate of combustion of the primary hydrocarbon fuel (Gas, Diesel, Ethanol, etc). This leads to more pressure on the piston on the power stroke so there is more torque, less heating of the block, and less unburned hydrocarbon fuel going out the exhaust port. Less waste, less heating of the block and even some more power. OKAY Now That the science lecture is out of the way, on to the installation. Well I got my hands on One of these cells In fact the cell in top pictures IS my cell. The main tank for my bike was custom fabricated and I knew I'd need a small pump owing to the orientation of the cell to the tank. So I set out to install it under the seat on my 5th gen. I guess it was pretty typical as I had not done a much under there. the back and toward the front Well played around with it a bit and eventually ended up with this rough mock up (sorry the picture is blurry but I was holding parts with one hand and trying to snap a quick picture with the other. you'll see better in a moment. The first order of business was moving the relay I had installed to switch power to the heated grips. That went well and I ended up re-using it to switch a BlueSea's fuseblock on with the ignition. Next was moving the pcm forward Here the pcm is up and out, the great wiring harness unwrapping begins Onward we went. Trimming pretty much all the plastic ribs, the bump and most of the bottom of the pcm pocket from the undertray. Gotta love those oscillating flush cutters. Some carefully pushing and shoving, a little bit of drilling and lots and lots of wire dragging and I got to this point. here is where I located the pump, and right below it the new relay for the new stebel horn. Well there the cell sits roughly in the middle of undertray, right where the tool kit and a u-lock were supposed to go. Its strapped well down and the seat's hooks have been slightly trimmed at this point to allow it to sit there Now from the side you can see how high in the undertray the cell sits and you can also wonder where the main tank is as it's not visible from this angle. here are the shots of where main tank is and the fitting running to and from it. first the rear view then the view from below Note one large fitting to fill the tank, one large fitting running out to the pump and four small lines returning from the cell. This is four cell unit and each small hose runs all the way back to the tank to prevent current leakage between cells. Moving around to and up to the left side you can see the intake supply hose as it leaves on its journey to the bubbler/drier as heads to intake. you can also see the pcm relocated to just behind the battery along with the bluesea's fuseblock. The powercommander is stuck up under rubber skirt hanging off the tank hinge and will share that space with the autotune module when it arrives. Note the cables to the fuseblock are from my battery charger, I was using that to test out the cell for output and to search for leaks. these next four photos show just how little space is left between the cell and seat. Now lets head towards the front and you can see where I mounted the bubbler/drier. This has two purposes, one it scrubs any water vapor and/or traces of electrolyte out of the gas before it goes to the intake. Two, it acts as a backflash arrestor, HHO a very reactive gas and in a back fire will go all the way back to the main tank and possibly blow it up. If you have ever seen a nitrous oxide backfire, that's the kind of sudden reaction we don't want. So we put this inline. I'll make a nice bracket for it down line a bit (Like a couple of other things), but for now that's were it is going. Here is the final money shot, all buttoned up and idling away with HHO flowing When I did fire it up with the cell running (its drawing about 9.5 amps, that's counting the 1.2-1.5 amps that pump draws as well), the idle when warmed up is about 650 rpm higher than before and it takes for ever to get really warm. I'm thinking I have to bump the PCV's engagement temperature down from 165F. I still have to get the autotune installed and I need to work on a few other little bits. I also think I'm going to be going with a bunch of led bulbs to keep the power requirements down, but for now, I'm just trying to get out ride it. Mileage and dyno numbers will follow.

Sorry but, No, the autotune only works on the PC V. The PC V also adds features like Gear by Gear fuel mapping, and some other stuff.

Yup I have my PCV plugged in on my 5th gen, but the autotune module is not here yet.