JES_VFR

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.

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:

However, unburned fuel and fuel-derived organic combustion products representing ~1–2% of the HC mass in the initial fuel mixture are present in the engine-out exhaust. These emissions are subsequently reduced by 95–99% by the exhaust catalyst.

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.

It would be easy to tell if the Stator caused more work when under a load...check the HP output with and without a huge load applied.

As part of the testing it would make sense to dyno tune it as best you can on just gas, and measure the HP. Then hookup the HHO setup, but only the generation part, and measure the HP, then connect the HHO gas and tune it the best you can and measure again.

The difference between reading 1 and 2 would be the additional work the Stator might be doing...lost HP if any. The difference between 1 and 3 would be the benefit (or lack of) of using the HHO.

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.

Serenity_VFR

Actully I do have a Degree in Electrical Engineering, And I have spent the past 30 years working with power electronics and with very large DC and AC Machines, (up to 30 MW) and, I might add, very successfull at getting them to work, and fixing them when they break in places all over the world.

I am correct in what I say, and just because You do not have the working knowledge of this type of equipment to fully understand it, does not mean that you have to start getting personal and throwing insults around.

You said, .....

It's just math -but if you don't understand the equations and know how to mix I=E/R with P=IE then it's never going to work out. Mix in a little bit of 3-phase AC theory and most people get totally lost.........

Yes, you are dead right, But 3 phase and DC power are my native environment, I LOVE IT, If you want to tell me I am full of shit, then you better come up with a better line then

".......I don't even know where to start to explain where the train left the tracks here......" Specifics Please !!!!

Tom

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.

This generator-setup we call a permanent magnet generator. This is because the flywheel contains magnets that are magnetic all the time. The output of a certain stator is depending on the engine-speed (the higher the speed of the magnetic-field variation, the higher the stator-output), and the force of the magnetic field (which is constant) Basically the stator produces a certain output at a certain rpm.

Then the AC-current is led through the rectifier inside the regulator-rectifier-unit. The rectifier converts the three AC-phases to a single 14.4 Vdc output, a ground and a positive. Because the stator is producing power according to the engine-speed the stator-output is too high all the time. This would mean the output voltage of the regulator-rectifier would be way over 14.4 Vdc all the time, which would result in an overcharged battery and blowing electrical components on the bike that were meant to run on a voltage between 12 and 15 Vdc.

Luckily there is also a regulator-part inside a regulator-rectifier. The regulator looks at the DC-voltage across the battery-terminals and short-circuits a certain amount of power that is produced by the stator to ground. This is regulated constantly, so the output-voltage of the regulator-rectifier (which ideallyis the same as the voltage across the battery-terminals) stays at 14.4 Vdc all the time.The permanent magnet generator-setup is not very efficient, but it is very simple and quite reliable. This explains why it is the most commonly used system on motorcycles.One of the problems with these systems is the short-circuiting of the excess power itself. This is done by the regulator-rectifier and this part has to dissipate the power that it shorts to ground, meaning it will get very hot. This is mostly because of the regulator and partly by the rectifier-diodes themselves that get hot just because of the current flowing through it. The regulator-rectifier internals need to be built so that the heat is transferred efficiently from the electronical components themselves to the housing of the unit, mostly equipped with cooling-fins. This is the most important bit in designing a regulator-rectifier for use in a permanent-magnet generator-setup.

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.

I'm looking forward to your continued testing, and wondering how such a system might work (or not) with earlier carbed bikes.

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.

Thank you, JES_VFR!! That has got to be one of the most sensible statements I've ever heard. Unfortunately, most people seem to grab at the first solution offered rather than the best one. Fast and easy just does not fit every problem.

I'm looking forward to your continued testing, and wondering how such a system might work (or not) with earlier carbed bikes.

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.

I think this is an interesting concept. If the generated gas can act as an effective additive which increases the burn efficiency of the gasoline then there are no laws of thermodynamics being violated. I don't think this should be a difficult concept for many to grasp here, but reading this thread it seems that it really is. Perhaps it is a critical reading deficiency? He's not trying to produce a primary fuel source here -just produce an additive that might increase the amount of energy the ICE is extracting from the gasoline.

This isn't a perpetual motion machine. He's still using gas. Think of the system as a wind-up toy car. He's not going to replace the wind-up mainspring -just oil it so that it moves better when it is unwinding. He's not trying to get any real energy out of the "oil" (hydroxy gas) -just using it to lube and improve the efficiency of the "spring" (the gasoline-powered ICE engine).

About the only issue I can see with the whole idea so far is the statement that distilled water is $2.99/gallon. I can buy it at the little local grocery store across the street for about $1.50 gallon. In a time when some people on this board are paying $6-8/quart (or even more) for boutique synthetic crank oil I would think that $1.50 for a gallon of clean/pure water isn't really a big deal. It's practically free. Since he's got a good water filter on his tap, it's even less of an issue. Every grocery store in the USA sells distilled water. It's not unobtanium or very expensive. What is the issue?

But what do I know...

The real question is; hHow well will the additive change the burn properties of the pump gas? And can the EFI map be changed to take advantage of these changes to increase HP and/or fuel mileage. I think it's worth the effort for someone to find out -especially as the only effort I personally have to put into the experiment is to wait for the dyno charts to be made and posted online.

Yes, it's worth the wait.

Oh, the humanity!

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.

The R/R shunting is not really a power soak, just a current soak, You need both Current AND Voltage (from resistance) before you get power.

Tom

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Indeed, some fast processors and a wideband setup is about the limit for the enthusiast. Even then, you are only altering a basic fuel/RPM/throttle position table. To really optimize the system would require mega $$$ mass air rig with the necessary sensors to adjust injection, cam, and ignition timing. If preliminary testing shows a good return on investment, a corporation, government agency, or research lab certainly has more resources at their disposal. Of course there also has to be a certain scalability factor on both the microlevel (781cc -> 3.0L engine size) and the macrolevel (hand made -> industrially produced and distributed) for any consideration of serious research/funding.

Well I can scale the 5x5 cell to an 8x8 and even package them as single/double and triple parallel stacks.

we have put an 8x8 double on a 6.6 duramax diesel and had it yet large gains in city mileage (about 40% increase)

It pulls 40 amps of power into a dual 8x8 stacks without the pump.

That really does sum it up, you are generating a gas phase additive in situ. Something that cannot be bottled up and poured into the tank (well...technically you could pour water in the tank but that isn't really the point here). Alright, now get off the forums and get to work

yes Sir, loading a test map into the pc tonight and riding tomorrow.

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?).

18-22% depending where you are and who you ask. 14.7:1 is a mass ratio, not a mole or volume ratio. You need to figure in the density of air to determine how much fuel you will use (assuming stoich, of course). THEN, you would need to figure out the composition of gasoline (or some idealized test fuel) and you could then plug all the individual component information into a gas law equation of some kind to figure out the volume of gasoline vapor generated from a given mass of gasoline (see what I mean about complicated). Not to mention that there are generally oxygenating agents in gasoline as well....MTBE, EtOH, etc...

By George, I think he's got it :idea3: :idea3: :idea3:

:warranty: :bliss: :bliss: :goofy:

By bad on the mass ratio versus molar or volume equation, but my points are the following.

1. Atmosphere is not oxygen, its mostly nitrogen and even the experts can agree on what percentage of oxygen is in the ambient atmosphere. Never mind what happens when you in a location that is being pointedly altered (like say behind that car or bus at a stoplight, near a power plant or factory, or something as simple as near a waterfall or the shore. Its all over the place.

And gasoline is not a single hydrocarbon, nor even the basic variations of a single hc like say the variances in bottle of reference octane. Its some mixture of 87 HC's and god knows how many additives. Calculations with ethanol are easy compared to trying handle all the possibilities of Gasoline.

2. Everything in these calculations are equations, almost nothing is a constant. The mathematical model is a nightmare to layout and requires a lot of computing power. That is why a self tuning pcm needs a wideband sensor as it cannot compute all the variables at once and needs to look at the results of the last combustion to try and adjust for next event.

The other thing I haven't mentioned is how throttle position effects the ratios. I'm guessing everything suggested so far is more equivalent to WOT conditions. If you are at part throttle, the HHO tank is still generating the same amount of gas as at WOT and the throttle plates are letting less air in. I would assume then that the concentration of HHO in each cylinder would be greater than that at WOT. This is probably why little HP gain would be seen, as the engine is pumping a LOT of air at 10k+ rpms and the HHO will be very dilute. However, at part throttle with the higher concentrations, some thermodynamic changes may be more easily affected.

At this point, this is all mental masturbation. Get this thing running, inquiring minds want to know.

I believe that the technology to make great quantities of HHO is coming soon, then there will need to be controls adjust the HHO production to match it into lockstep with the fuel demand curves of the oem pcm. At that point the efficiency of the combustion will make a quantum leap and going a hundred miles on a gallon the primary fuel will be common place.

Note I did not say gasoline, I don't know that we will be able to afford gasoline by then.

That is why I'm working on this stuff.

You and I could probably for days about this and the issues with trying to model all of it and more.

but it is running, so now we test and tune and test some more.

As I said earlier build it, prove it, then explain it with mathematics.

Science has blasted a huge hole in the HHO theory of "something for almost nothing". But let's look at something that is FAR more important that science: MONEY!

With all the bazillions of dollars (yen, marks) being invested by auto makers, independent research institutions (and colleges) AND the oil companies in hybrids and battery technology, direct fuel injection, variable displacement, diesel-two-stroke-opposed-piston engines and ALL the other endeavors over the past 40 years to increase mileage and reduce emissions.....does anyone really think that all these very smart and motivated researchers have overlooked something as simple and effective as HHO is proclaimed to be?

Hardly.

I recently had an email conversation with Neil Cavuto (Fox News Channel) when he had Pat Boone on his show, pushing a silly "compressed air" car. [You gotta watch this dingbat Boone talk about saving the world with this air car]-- http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fv%2F4028558%2Fpat-boone-pushing-air-cars%2F%3Fplaylist_id%3D87249&rct=j&q=pat+boone+air+car&ei=W3HrS5aIIIK78gbfpdSxBA&usg=AFQjCNH53Sw_o-IqLfcND8W1ip__XoYeeA Cavuto is no engineer and thus didn't know to toss some basic technical questions to Boone to debunk the air car. I wrote to him and discussed two simple things to keep in mind when he has to evaluate crank concepts in future interviews: Energy density and MONEY. Energy density is why we've been using gasoline (and diesel) for 100 years....and MONEY is why we've been using gasoline (and diesel) for 100 years.

Hey Pat...how do you MAKE the compressed air, huh? Perhaps in an enormously inefficient air compressor run by electricity produced from coal? What a dingbat!

Anyway, science is good......the 2nd Law of Thermo is immutable. But MONEY is an easier theory to follow. It's quite simple--money talks. Period. :cheerleader:

I applaud JES for all his hard and clever work, and I hope he somehow proves science wrong.

:lurk:

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.

Not sure about oil, but I am going to assume that one would not want to run tap/natural source water in this setup? As it will introduce dirt, sediment, minerals, and other contaminates to the system? So we are also talking about the additional(marginal) cost of filtering the water used(or buying distilled bottled water?).

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.

Uhh, 1700 liters you say. That is not really very much.

The 1700 was a conservative figure as you can find many references to 1833 liters of gas from a single liter of water and even some claims that it is 2037 liters per liter of water. I just check some of my notes and I have been using the 1833 figure for most of my calculations.

Well lets assume 4 revolutions = 1 intake event on each cylinder = ~.780 liters/4 revs

close, two cylinders fire every time the crank turns, (assuming no pumping losses or a Volumetric efficiency of more than 1), its .782 liters/2 revs or 391 liters/rev

At 4000 rpm ->

(4000 rev/min) * (.780 L/4 revs) = 780 L/min

At 4000 rpm, the engine displaces 1560L/min

if we were trying to run the engine entirely on HHO that means a liter of water would last 1.18 minutes at 4000 rpm.

You can easily say that it is good fortune that we are not trying to run the engine solely on HHO.

So, lets safely say the engine will consume every bit of HHO gas as fast as it is made.

That it does..

From smacksboosters:

The rated output of this 5" x 5" 4 cell unit is .5LPM of high potency HHO gas

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.

Being a chemist (though more into the biochemical aspects rather than physics/thermodynamics) I understand the principals here, though the system is slightly more complex than throwing LeChatlier and the laws of conservation at it.

We Have:

1) Excess oxygen to begin with (more hydrocarbons than stoich.)

Don't you mean a lack of oxygen or a rich mixture. I don't know of any ICE that is ever tuned to be leaner than stoich under load, as that is just begging for detonation. Most fuel tables that I see never closer than 13.7, when stoich is 14.7 (or that's the accepted stoic ratio for regular gasoline

2) A power source that shunts waste energy to heat (stator->R/R)

Right, so really the electical power that the cell uses is normally wasted so its not 'free', but I am recovering it.

3) Inefficient extraction of energy (loss as heat or incomplete reaction)

All you have to do is look at a video of an ice running higher rev's with the exhaust header off the head. What do you see, flashes of flame. Who here has never seen a picture of an engine running on test stand with the exhaust headers glowing cherry red? The heat in them is not being used to make power to do work, it's just being wasted heating the exhaust.

4) Fuel injection system that will deliver a quantity of HCs independent of what is in the gas phase (air, HHO)

You are adding:

1) More oxygen (since you are not pressurizing above atmospheric -that I can see- this will displace air that is ~18% oxygen with HHO that is 33% oxygen at best (complete electrolysis))

well not really as the hydrogen needs that same amount of oxygen to burn completely so its kind of a wash as far as that goes.

2) Hydrogen (which is also a combustible fuel, already in the gas phase) yeah that's going in for its reactivity

3) Water?

actually this is the one thing that we don't want. In this case. That is the point of the bubbler/drier to condense out any water vapor that may have escaped the cell and keep it out of the intake.

Possible Outcomes:

1) The oxygen and hydrogen recombine upon ignition and create water vapor (gas phase). This may occur before any HC fuel has a chance to react with the added oxygen. This would do 2 things:

A) Move some of the heat energy that would be lost anyway at the R/R into the cylinder. We do not gain any volume expansion from the combustion of hydrogen except through heating something else (like air or the water vapor product). 2 mol H2 + 1 mol O2 -> 2 mol H2O + heat -- a net 1 mol loss of a gas.

B) Increases the kinetic energy of the HC fuel (the chemical energy is fixed in the bonds), allowing it to volatilize quicker to the gas phase (which we want anyway) from the liquid phase. This would give a quicker, more even combustion if the result is a more homogeneous and highly concentrated charge of HC vapor. (This is also why finer "atomization" of fuel leads to increases efficiency)

The benefit to this is that the increasing the temperature increases the reaction rate (Arrhenius equation) no matter what order the reaction. This is good, but the amount of energy you add will be less than that generated by the rotor/stator. True, but the energy taken from the stator and used to produce the gas is not the only effect here. As you point out the gas increases the volatility of the gasoline charge, resulting in more even combustion as well as an increase in rate of combustion

2) (Unlikely, but possible) The added oxygen is present long enough to react with HC fuel. - This only applies if the HC combustion is at least 1st order in oxygen (I would guess it is). Thus more reactant = faster reaction...I don't know if any of this occurs or if it even matters as the hydrogen is going to need oxygen to balance its combustion reaction and if it must 'filter' it out the atmosphere its reaction is going to slow down.

3) (Bad News?) The HHO system delivers mainly water vapor (or some other non-combustible vapor?) Sure this might expand a bit, but nothing like water injection.Well since I've yet to see the gas recombine on its own in any short period of time, and I've even had the gas sit in a sealed soda bottle for a few hours with out condensing out and water, I doubt that there is any significant amount of water vapor being introduced into the gas stream

Now I didn't go looking up the reaction rate equations/constants for any of the combustion reactions that are taking place (well, what did you expect for free) so most of what I figured is just assuming that the reactions are 1st order in all species.

What I am curious about is why wouldn't they use a variable field exciter like an automotive alternator? Seems like a lot of energy to dissipate continuously as heat.

That is a question for the motorcycle manufacturers not me. I'm just trying to take advantage of it.

If this is the case, the only way that you will get any energy back from this type of system would be if you increased k (the reaction rate) to a point where the energy gained by more efficient combustion (reaction in the cylinder) would offset the energy lost to power the electrolysis cell.

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.

Where are you mounting a water supply? I didn't see that in your pictures.

Good luck!

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.

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.

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.

At a guess I would think it should be a non-issue. Plenty of people out there have run water injection on engines. Makes no difference (corrosion/wear wise). If anything running water injection helps get rid of carbon build-up in the combustion chamber and exhaust valves. Think of steam cleaning something. Appearently on the tear down of water injected engines, the combustion chambers are as clean as a whistle.

Now, granted, this isn't a water injection setup. The Oxygen and the Hydrogen are seperated at the begining, but they are being recombined into water, so I should think the end product is similar. If anything I wonder if that is where the cylinder cooling claim is coming from, possibly. Water has a fairly high thermal mass, so it suckes up alot of the heat from the combustion process, flashes to steam (which if I remember correctly has expansion rate of like 1600 times - say you had one cubic inch of water and flashed it to steam, it would now occupy 1600 cubic inches) which in turn helps push the piston.

Or I could be completely wrong, because I have no idea how the extra O's and H's are going to react to the rest of the combustion process. Chemistry was never my strong suit but, I would like to see a bit more detailed explanation of what is actually happening in the combustion chamber.

This is great, your thinking about this not just spouting "it can't". And your not too far off either.

The gases (because that is what HHO really is two gases that would love to react with each other) when ignited burn, recombining to water vapor (not steam). The change of state from liquid to vapor takes a large amount of energy, but since we are only dealing with a gas to gas combustion there is no latent heat of vaporization. So the heat lost to vaporization and steam expansion does not apply.

I guess my problem is with this statement:

"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."

No offense, but last I checked, we really don't want to speed up the combustion process because that is what happens in detonation. A proper air/fuel ratio in a combustion chamber at the proper temperature *burns* rapidly and smoothly pushing down nicely on the piston. When it gets too hot (either through compression or a hot spot in the combustion chamber) or the A/F ratio goes too lean, the mixture detonates and literally explodes which is too sudden of a shock for the piston and rotating assembly. This is why we have higher octane fuels. To raise the ignition point of the fuel when need be.

Well we don't want detonation, that is true. But thanks to the buildup of heat in the cylinder Stoichiometric mixtures can and do detonate. Now that is violent uncontrolled burning, essentially explosions in the chamber, traveling at greater than the speed of sound.

HHO 'boosting' does not increase the rate of combustion to those speeds, but it is much faster than the speed of un-assisted gasoline combustion.

That does allow the tuning of fuel ratios to get much closer to the 14.7:1 AF ratios that are accepted as stoichiometric for gasoline.

Also it would seem by your statement that somehow by adding this extra fuel to the combustion process raises the pressure of the combustion event, but does not raise the overall temperature. That would seem to be a direct violation of Charles's Law. For a given volume, if pressure goes up, the temperature goes up. Simple as that. Heck, that's how a diesel engine works. Compress the snot out of A/F mix until it heats up to a point where it ignites on its own. No spark needed.

Not quite what I was saying, what I said was that since the combustion rate is so much faster the heat generated in combustion does not get time to soak into the walls of the cylinder, piston and head.

Just think about it a blow torch makes enough heat to melt metal, but it can't do it quickly.

However. In the case of the water injection, volume goes up, pressure goes up, but the water is being used to absorb the heat - since it is not actually being combusted, less heat is transfered to the cylinder and combustion chamber. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. I'm thinking its a glorified water injection system, but I could be wrong. As is frequently the case.

As to Lee's comment about added system ineffiency - Maybe I misread it, but during one of the discussions a while back on the operation of the electrical supply system, basically it generates full power all the time, and sends left over to the R/R to be turned into waste heat anyways. If that is right, he would just be using potentially wasted energy anyways. Kind of like running a turbocharger as opposed to a supercharger.

That has always been my undertanding of the stator, it always operates at full output and the Rectifier Regulator is left to clean up and control the voltage and current.

That's why the r&r has so many issues with heat.

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.

Jes,

I am very much interested in seeing the numbers.

Like wera, I wouldn't put this system on the bike, 'coz the ROE just doesn't pan out IMHO.

BUT my truck sure can use an improvement in MPG and it's got plenty of room to install pretty much what ever I want in the engine bay.

I've read a lot on HHO conversions and there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus. Some claim up to 300% gains in MPG, some claim 5-15% and some just say that it will kill your engine.

It looks like the 300% crowd are a bunch of lunatics while the 'kill your engine' crowd are sponsored by the oil companies.

So I would realistically expect about 5-15% gain in MPG. Dyno run would show the power gain/loss.

Can't wait for the results!

And kudos for trying this :lurk:

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.

I liked this post, I featured it. Are you at all concerned about the bubble dryer placement being in a position to get crushed and perhaps catch fire if the bike should crash on it?

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.

:lurk:

I am sceptic too but look forward to seeing some numbers.

Nice...

Great !!!! Keep pushing forward on your ideas....ignore the doubters.....go to you tube and watch "The Power of Dreams" , failure is the key to success .....realize you can never fail, many prototypes & problems sure but eventually you will get there.

Thinking this way is THE KEY to HONDA DEVELOPMENT. Best Wishes on your project...remember Mother HONDA had millions of set backs just to get that 2 wheeled machine in your driveway, they did not quit. When I ride I am always thinking "what an amazing machine" We all get to enjoy the benefits of these machines, we just turn the key and go....nobody thinks about the thousand of hours it took to design something. Good Luck, I am with you, now get back to work, DOUG

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.

You, sir, are one brave soul. Do you have a name for your bike? May I suggest a little "german sounding" moniker...like "Hindenburg"?:fing02:

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.

Normally I have a comment for just about everything.

This is one of those rare moments when I am speechless.

Hey I feel that way about a lot of your stuff.

I would like to see a dyno run with and without the hho

They will come.

I'm going to switch to blue color here just so that it is easier to spot my comments

Its a perfect stoichiometric blend of H2 and O2. If ignited it will rapidly burn and produce WATER!!!!. ...... and less unburned hydrocarbon fuel going out the exhaust port.

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.

Amazing stuff, John. Looking forward to ride impressions and dyno.

So it warms up slow because the HHO is a cooler burn than petrol?

The thinking is that since the combustion is so accelerated that the combustion heat gets used to effect expansion of the gas and raise cylinder pressures, instead of having the time to transfer into the metal of piston, block and head.

You are wearing your best Nomex undies when you ride it, right? :wub:

Nope, with all the testing of the cell and the installation, I feel safe on the bike. Much safer than I would be with a huge gas cylinder at 600 Psi behind me!!

I've been reading up on WVO and Bio-diesel lately, going to have to have a good look at this. A colleague is right into it, I didn't understand when he explained it but it's a lot clearer now :fing02:

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

how will the valves, ports and exhaust fare with the contact with the water by-product?

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)

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. A motorcycle that has less power than it did before. And a motorcycle that is mechanically more complicated and argueably less safe than it was before.

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

A friend of mine put HHO on his Caravan and reported he went from 18 mpg to something like 25 mpg. Maybe he is just driving it different?? Not sure.

Anyways, I was talking to him about it and he said he had to put something else on it to trick the computer. Something about the O2 sensor doesn't read the richened up mixture because of the HHO?? So maybe he is just running leaner now then he was, hence the increase in fuel mileage?

Not sure I would go through the trouble on the VFR for extra fuel mileage. Now my 11.5 mpg truck or 7.75 mpg motor home is a different story.

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.

That sounds good. Anyone have any idea if the auto tune module will work with the PC III and Wideband Comander ? That way I could use what I have and just add the Autotune module.

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.

Oh so the injector/TPS connector harness is the same? That's good news!

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

got my PCV for my 01 today, can't wait to get it installed.

Hopefully I'll get it in this weekend.

Did not get the autotune yet. Only one tuning farkle at a time right now.

Might want to try an aquarium store?

Something like this (quick google search of 4 into 1 air hose aquarium)

Yeah I was thinking about something like this 4 into 1 manifold

I just wasn't sure of the sizes, so I was asking what others have used.

I wish that someone had a cut away of the throttle bodies that could show where all air passages enter into the intake tract.

Coderighter dumped his EVAP system and ran that vacuum plumbing to the switch. The EVAP plumbing is a 4 into 1 with the 1 now being used to link to the switch. On my non-EVAP model, I'm going to unplug those four vacuum hoses that connect to the sides (2 each side) of the airbox, and T those into a 4 into 1. Then I'll run a hose from that to the switch.

Okay I'm following that. My question was were did you find the 4 into 1 "T"??

Auto parts store or somewhere else??

Here is a shot of the Autotune sensor. I've located it here as it is the only place that won't foul the suspension linkage, and I can route the harness up and near the driver's peg holder.

<.....>

Coderighter and the boys down under have kept up with the PCV testing. Once I get the bung welded on, I too will jump into this. Coderighter was kind enough to assist with the vacuum switch I'll be using to turn the Autotune on and off depending on load/no load.

I can't install the PCV yet as the bike is at the pipe dude for the custom up pipe/ Y to connect to the Laser cans. I hope to have it back mid next week.

Well I see you are putting the bung in the tail end of the collector. I'm just going to swap out one of my stock o2's for now.

Where did you find the 4 into 1 for the vacuum switch?

I already have the switch from Coderighter, but was waiting on the PC V and autotune to arrive before installing it.

I'm sitting here waiting for my pcv to arrive, and I should have already had the autotune in hand (damm ebay copyright policies).

My underseat area is going to be a solid mass of equipment by the time I get all the stuff installed.