Oxygen sensors for use with HHO
The oxygen, or lambda, sensor.
An oxygen sensor, or lambda sensor, is an electronic device that measures the proportion of oxygen (O2) in a gas or liquid.
Automotive oxygen sensors, also known as O2 sensors, measure the oxygen content of the engine’s exhaust gasses. They are what makes modern electronic fuel injection and emission control possible by determining if the engine’s air-fuel ratio, its mixture, is too rich or too lean.
The O2 sensor enables electronic fuel injection to control the air-fuel mixture which enables the engine to run at its most efficient. This in turn reduces the amount of both unburned fuel and oxides of nitrogen from entering the atmosphere.
Unburned fuel is pollution in the form of air-borne hydrocarbons, while oxides of nitrogen (NOx) gases contribute to smog and acid rain.
Information on oxygen concentration in the exhust is sent to the engine management computer (the ECU) which adjusts the amount of fuel injected into the engine to compensate for excess air or excess fuel.
The ECU attempts to maintain an average air-fuel ratio by interpreting the information it gains from the oxygen sensor with the primary goal of compromise between power, fuel economy, and emissions. In most cases this is achieved by an air-fuel-ratio close to the “stoichiometric-ratio” and ensures complete combustion.
The three types of emissions we are concerned about are:
- hydrocarbons
(incompletely burnt fuel caused by misfiring or running rich). - carbon monoxide
(the result of running rich). - oxides of nitrogen, NOx.
( are the result of running lean).
Deliberately running lean
If modifications cause the engine to run lean there will be a slight increase in fuel economy. However this will be at the expense of increased NOx emissions, a higher exhaust gas temperatures and a loss of power.
At ultra-lean air-to-fuel ratios engine damage is inevitable.
Deliberately running rich
If modifications cause the engine to run rich then there will be a slight increase in power to a point, after which the engine starts “flooding”. However this will be at the cost of decrease in fuel economy and an increase in unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust which causes backfire and overheating of the catalytic converter.
Prolonged operation at rich mixtures will cause failure of the catalytic converter.
Timing
The ECU also controls the spark engine timing along with the fuel injector pulse width, so modifications which alter the engine to operate either too lean or too rich may result in inefficient fuel consumption whenever fuel is ignited too soon or too late in the combustion cycle.
The EFIE
An EFIE (electronic fuel injection enhancer) as a small electronic device which fits between the O2 sensor and the ECU. It modifies the signal sent to the ECU to fool it into running the engine too rich (greater power) or too lean (greater economy).
However using an EFIE will be detrimental to the emissions control, may well damage the engine and is almost certainly illegal.
Oxygen sensors and HHO
Pedallers of HHO or “hydrogen hybrid” “technology” will often tell their customers that the reason the HHO machine is not saving any fuel is not because HHO is bullshit but because the engine is “too modern” and the ECU is compensating against the HHO unit.
They say that an EFIE is needed in addition to the HHO to allow the HHO work.
Of course this is bullshit and all part of the scam, it is the EFIE which is saving you fuel (at the expense of performance, the environment and your engine’s life) and nothing to do with the HHO unit at all.
In fact the HHO unit, with or without an EFIE, does nothing to improve your vehicle’s fuel economy. In fact because the HHO unit consumes energy while having no positive impact it will actually result in a reduction in fuel economy, an increase in consumption!
Michael:
Hi Jon
thanks for a clear explanation that even I could understand. Just been reading a lot about HHO. Seems a lot of hype and confusion. Yet underneath there seems a core of credible amateur and professionals who are making real world claims.
Some seem to say that using HHO improves power and hence fuel consumption and cleans the emissions.
My understanding is that the power required to drive the electrolysis that produces the HHO is not taking power from the engine since the engine will turn the generator regardless of what electricity is being produced. I.e. the generator charges the battery that turns round and says “whoa mate that’s enough for me I’m full up”. Where does this excess electricity go? I know that if you drive with all electric’s on then this would drain the battery but as long as the engine is turning and everything is in good order the battery should be continually topped up by the generator. And the mechanical resistance from the generator to the engine is constant. It doesn’t fluctuate according to how much electricity is being produced. And the power required to drive the electrolysis that produces the HHO is coming from the battery.
The gains in power that come from the HHO are actually coming from the fact that the split water (hydrogen & oxygen) improves the combustion process. This is what I found. The fuel is not a gas but a vapour made up of droplets. Droplets burn from the outside in. The fuel is set on the rich side by manufacturers to allow for different operating conditions even with the help of electronic management. (That’s why modern cars have catalytic convertors)
Diesel and petrol burn slower than hydrogen or oxygen gases. And gas molecules are much smaller, i.e. the hydrogen and oxygen molecules are tiny in comparison to the fuel molecules and burn much faster. The example I read was throwing a large piece of coal on a fire or pulverising it first. Same substance but in the latter case burns much much quicker.
The actual time available for the combustion is not very long. Milliseconds I suppose. Anyway, the hydrogen flame travels through the mixture like a runner running through a forest torching it as he goes. So the fuel furthest away from the flame front doesn’t have to hang around waiting for the burning fuel to reach it as the burning hydrogen will ignite it way before it’s kindred burning fuel molecules get to it. Coupled to this the extra oxygen in the mix in a gas form helps the combustion process.
So the outcome is a much cleaner more efficient combustion and cleaner emissions. However, a modern cars engine management system checks the exhaust emissions and notices that it is cleaner, i.e. the engine must be running leaner, therefore the management system enriches the fuel mixture and all the gains are lost.
Hence the need for the EFIE (Electronic Fuel Injection Enhancer) that tricks the management system into not enriching the fuel and the gains are regained.
So the HHO is actually a fuel additive but a very good one. If the claims are genuine a decent HHO system can increase considerably the fuel efficiency and hence mpg of a diesel/petrol engine. The power required to split the water by electrolysis is much smaller than the power gained - not from the energy in the HHO per se - but by the fact that the actual combustion process is so dramatically improved. Before writing this it never occurred to me why we have catalytic convertors but now I get it. Because the fuel is not being burnt efficiently enough. If the fuel was to be burnt really efficiently then the exhaust would be much cleaner. This is also something the HHO enthusiasts claim.
Finally, I am reading a book called “Politics in Healing” about the suppression of medical breakthroughs in the USA by their own medical establishment which is a real eye opener. So I suspect that likewise there will be vested interests in keeping the status quo with regard to fuel technology. Not least the tax man since a 25% reduction in fuel consumption would really hit the governments revenues, yet also lower our import bill.
So I don’t think it is just about technology but also politics and business.
Finally, as Karl Popper pointed out the laws of physics are descriptive and not prescriptive. Science kneels to Nature and not vice versa. So even though the universe is impossible here we are!
Anyway thanks for your clear exposition that has helped me a lot.
Michael
10 February 2010, 2:50 pmJon:
Thanks for your long comment Michael.
I seriously mean you no disrespect, but every single thing you say in your comment is nonsense. I don’t know where to begin in pointing out how wrong you are about everything, you are talking rubbish, making statements that have no foundation whatsoever in reality.
In fact you parrot so much misinformation and confused nonsense that I stronly suspect you are trying to muddy the waters that I am trying to clear; in other words you sell HHO.
Put down”Politics in Healing” (Burzynski is a dangerous quack) and pick up a simple physics text book and look up “conservation of energy” and then tell me again that “the mechanical resistance from the generator to the engine is constant. It doesn’t fluctuate according to how much electricity is being produced. And the power required to drive the electrolysis that produces the HHO is coming from the battery.”
10 February 2010, 6:23 pmAndy:
What a very blinkered view Jon. In the great scheme of things i think it wasn’t all that long ago that our scientists KNEW the world was flat!!! They are learning new stuff and blowing old theories out of the water everyday.
It is also extremely nieve to believe that the powers that be and major corperations will not do anything they can, supression of information and even killing to protect their political and financial positions.
All i know is i fitted a single cell Electrolizer to a ‘95 4litre Jeep Cherokee and i now put less fuel in it. I don’t care how many people tell me it can’t possibly work …. it does period!
14 April 2010, 12:32 pmJon:
Andy, no scientist ever said the world was flat, name me just one. This is no more real then homeopathy, practiced by millions despite overwhelming evidence it is nonsense. You want to believe in magic and fairies then be my guest, but don’t tell lies about it to extract money from naive people because that is a scam.
15 April 2010, 2:08 amRoger:
RE. HHO and all the arguments on either side - I have no axe to grind.I don’t sell it or make money in any shape or form out of it.Nor will I in the future.But purely for interest I have built and installed this system on my car.It works.Anybody who doesn’t believe me I’m happy to show you.I understand engineering - most of those that criticize these systems try to avoid real evidence and show arrogance in scathing “critic”.Well enough with your “soapbox” I can show you for FREE
23 May 2010, 10:26 amSteve:
Hi Guys,
Been following your thread on this and thought I could shed some light on the matter! I have tried several ‘HHO systems’ over the past year or so. It has cost me a lot of money and more importantly time………some from the states, some from the UK, most of them do not make any difference at all to my vehicle ( 2009 my vw caddy diesel) but I have found one that does
So 6 failures and 1 decent result! Has it been worth it? Probably not……..
27 July 2010, 9:24 pm