HHO vs water vapor injection

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

If I was gonna do water vapor....

I'd make a "cooling tower" type evaporator, these have been used for water cooling by overclockers where they are known as "bong coolers"

Basically, I'd strap a 4" dia 3ft long pipe to my firewall... I'd connect the top to the air intake, then I'd have a T fitting on the bottom, with a pipe cap on the bottom end. The bottom would hold about a litre, but could be tube fed from a sealed reservoir mounted somewhere else. The other end of the T fitting would go to wherever you wanted to pull air from, maybe behind the grille, maybe behind the rad, it's up to you. There would be a sprayer mounted in the top of the tube, aimed downwards... the pump would pull from the bottom of the tube... filters may be necessary... the drops are flowing counter to the airstream due to gravity and will have a long time to evaporate... mostly you'll just get vapor in the intake, you might pull droplets at WOT, but at WOT it won't matter. Fill with methanol/water washer fluid to avoid freeze up problems. (Which might happen at up to 10C with regular water since you're supercooling the droplets)

If it don't put enough water in, loop the sprayer feed line around the exhaust downpipe a few times, or move the intake to warm air behind the rad, or use a finer spray head, or use a higher flow pump.

Anyway, this works as an on-demand system to a certain extent because at low airflow, not much water will be evaporated and more droplets will fall to the bottom to be recycled, whereas at higher airflow rates, more will be evaporated. Ideally you'd get it rigged so that at WOT on a warm day, droplets have just stopped being caught at the bottom of the tube. i.e. you're getting as much water in as the air can hold without using forced steam injection or something.

[maxxgraphix]

What I meant was to add a small venturi before the throttle plate. A small PCV coupler has a rounded bevel and would work. The holley I mentioned was an 850 double pumper that had small venturis in the main body. The accelarator pump also squirted though these. One the air velocity increased they sprayed fuel also from the power valve (or maybe the main jets).

I think as long as you get a mist of water it will turn to steam once at the intake valve. I might try this, since I have full control over my ECU. The parts to build this would be less than $10.

For those with carbs, you would have to lean it out by replacing jets. but when you ran out of water, this would be bad for the engine.

I have a switch on my dash so I can flip between stock programing and modded. So if I ran out of water, just flip back to normal. Or heck, place a float switch in the tank!

[GasSavers_Dust]

If anyone uses the stock washer tank, most have a low level switch that turns on a light. It is one of the simple safety nets for those who use WI for power.

[hvyironfr8dog]

Flapdoodle and Roadwarrior:

I am a fellow HHO experimentor. However I am not in your league. I am just getting started on acquiring the parts to build several HHO cells similar to the ones seen on Ozzie Freedoms website "water4gas.com".

I highly encourage everyone to look this site over. It makes a lot of sense to me. I recently bought his downloadable book for $97 which gives you easy to follow instructions on how to do it yourself with easy to find, off the hardware store shelf stuff. You can buy kits from fellow affiliates too. I am considering doing that, but want to prove it to myself first.

I met Ozzie in LA. A large group of HHO enthusiasts meet every Saturday. The directions to where they meet are on his web site. Ozzie gets 61 mpg using the combined HHO system and the water injection system on his Toyota Corolla.

I am just getting started on this stuff but I really value what you and "roadwarrior" has to say. I have enjoyed reading your experimentation with HHO so far and find it most interesting. I also value roadwarriors comments about HHO.

Roadwarrier says that a short-stroke engine would not do as well as a long-stroke engine for HHO. I am not sure of the difference since I am not that mechanically inclined to know the difference. But I assume my 1999 2.0L VW Jetta is a short stoke engine design?? I don't know. Maybe you or roadwarrior can enlighten me on that.

Anyways...I look forward towards reading your daily exploits with HHO and encourage you to look at water4gas.com. They put together a package that includes a simple HHO on-demand system, and a water injection system...both systems using mason jars, and other off the shelf technology such as preheating your gas line via routing it next to the top radiator hose, a PVC enhancer, MAP sensor enhancer and others. Look at the Free marketplace link on the website for people making kits around the country. Ozzie only sells the information of how to do it, not the kits.

Please check it out and let me know what you think. I will report my results with my experimentation over the next several months. Thanks and please keep me informed of your results so that I can learn from your past experience. Thanks again...

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

I guess there's more to it than short stroke vs long stroke, it's more to do with running compression and expansion ratio... if making enough H to speed up the burn substantially, then shorter stroke motors or lower compression motors may benefit from that, whereas if it's more the displacement of Nitrogen by steam as a "working fluid" that counts then longer stroke or higher compression motors are more likely to benefit more.

If Jetta motors are detuned from Euro spec to work better on lower octane gas here though, the cams might be set up to give a lower running than static compression ratio, which is favorable for HHO or water injection, because there's a better compression to expansion ratio, like in the Atkinson cycle, so effects of a "working fluid" that has better expansion might be a little greater.

[hvyironfr8dog]

Roadwarrior: On an earlier post about HHO you said this:

"So maybe on the perfect vehicle for it, long stroke, late closing, alternator always running, the gains may be quite impressive. However on the flip side, vehicles with shorter strokes, earlier intake closing, and ECU modulated alternators, you may see nothing at all, or maybe worse MPG".

I'm confused. You seem to be saying just the opposite now. I am not the gearhead you are....just trying to understand in layman terms what you are saying.

First off..give me an example of a short stroke vs long stroke engine...dont tell me "atkinsons" or whatever cause I don't know what that is my friend. Give me something concrete like a small bore 2.0L engine like my jetta vs. a big bore Chysler Hemi. Is that what you mean? What do I have specifically...my jetta?

Not being a smart aleck. I just don't know and I am trying to get a working knowledge before I jump into HHO with both feet. Thanks.

[flapdoodle]

An engine that has a stroke that is the same as the piston diameter is said to be square. If the stroke is greater than the bore, it is long stroke, and if the stroke is shorter than bore diameter it is said to be short stroke.

I am wondering now if cylinder swept volume is a big factor, since there is (usually) just one spark plug and the flame will have to travel farther in (relatively) the the same amount of time.

This may be why some folks have to retard the ignition more than others when hydrogen is used.

My second water injection unit should be finished tonight. Maybe I will know a little more when it is tested. (BTW, big engine, short stroke)

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

Hmmm, yeah I keep trying to generalise.... so here's a try at clearing up what I mean...

In a shorter stroke motor, it's more likely that at lowish "normal driving" RPMs the expansion of the exhaust gases cannot move the piston fast enough, due to lack of leverage against the engine's inertia. At lower RPMs piston speeds are low, so adding more push at this point barely helps for fuel economy purposes. They become more efficient at higher RPMs and "rev high" because they can turn more RPMs before the piston is out accelerating the mixture.

Conversely in a longer stroke motor, the piston moves relatively faster at lower RPM and enhancing the ability of the burning/expanding mixture to keep up with it, would probably show more gains, and less stress is placed on the engine in the process.

Static compression is the theoretical compression that would result if the cylinder was sealed at bottom dead center. Running compression is what you actually get, due to valve timing (intake or exhaust closing late or early) The expansion ratio, is what you actually get out of the motor after combustion, this could be the same or higher as the running compression, but not higher than static compression. So if the motor is 11:1 static, and the intake closes when the piston is on the way up, some mixture is blown back out again, and the actual amount of mixture compressed may only be equivalent to 9:1, however, if the exhaust stays closed all the way to BDC, the expansion ratio could be 11:1. This can be more efficient because the engine does less work in compressing the mixture... So in an engine set up thus, with more expansion than compression, enhancing expansion of the combustion gases may have greater effect.

[flapdoodle]

I may have found the optimal water injection rate for my car at least. The engine is lean as I dare at the moment. When the HHO is turned on, the idle increases, when the water injection (with methanol) is added, the idle increases some more and no ping.


I marked off ounces on the side of an olive jar (because it is tall and thin to give a slightly more accurate reading). 4 ounces of Walmart windshield washer fluid ($1.48/gallon) was added and I timed how long it took to drop the level an appreciable amount, then measured and calculated the following:
.516 ounces/minute
$.0059/minute
248 minutes per gallon
$.35 per hour

[GasSavers_Dust]

Are you spraying the WWF or sucking it?