Hydrogen Generator

As long as the clean fuel is approved by the administrator and the modification does not degrade the operation of the device. In other words, if the modification causes more emissions, you can't legally do it.

Tom

 

Only if you prove to the EPA that your modification does not degrade emissions. I'm not an expert, but I believe this would require performing a standard EPA emissions test (that the manufacturers originally had to perform to certify the vehicle). Are you planning to do that? I think you have to provide the car to a lab that is certified to perform the test. I would look into the cost for this - I don't think it is cheap.

Also, there are state regulations to consider as well. In California, for most vehicles (Prius is currently exempt until 2010) you must have a Smog test performed every two years. Part of the test is visual. If you modify any of the emission controls, the vehicle fails even if the emissions are within the limits and you must return the vehicle to the original condition at your own expense. So, if you spoof the O2 sensor by adding some device, you fail the California test.

 

Perhaps you should call the EPA and ask their opinion. My opinion is that it is not legal to modify the emission system.

You won't know that until you perform the test.

Check your state regulations to see what they say if you want to know if it is legal or not. I'm betting it isn't and the federal regulations say that it isn't legal either.

Yes, the oxygen sensor is part of the emission control system because it maintains the A/F ratio to make sure that the catalytic converter works properly. If you disconnect or alter its reading, you have modified the emission controls. You would fail the visual test in California.

I don't care whether you modify your car or not, but I'm willing to bet money if you call the EPA and ask if you can modify the oxygen sensor reading, they will tell you it isn't legal.

 

...and ask for your name and address.

Tom

 

You can make any modification to your car's emission systems as long as it is certified by EPA or any governing state agency.

If you claim your modification does not affect emissions then you have to take it to state agency and have it tested and certified before you can pass visual inspection for smog test. In California, any modification is not allowed unless you have the certificate and it will automatically fail the smog test.

In states where there is no smog test, you can pretty much do any mod to the emission system you want. But think about the environment every time when you drive.

Last note, why the sellers do not go to have HHO system certified and they can sell hundred of thousands of this "stuff" to save million barrels of oil?

 

Why get hung up on the legality of the issue? Legality has nothing to do with whether or not hydrogen works.

But let's forget about hydrogen for a moment. If there was "an invention" that could make your car run clearner, cheaper, better, and the government made it illegal to use, would you guys let that stop you? Can't you see how that would be tantamount to blindly "obeying" big oil? I seriously don't intend to be inflammatory; I'm truly curious.

I do think Steve Woodruff has made a good first run. It is an interesting topic, and I continue to watch his page for updates.

 

I'm giving you my opinion about the legality because I am not a lawyer.
I'm giving you an informed statement about the oxygen sensor because I am a Mechanical Engineer and I actually used to work for one of the Heavy Duty Class 8 Truck Manufacturers as a Design Engineer. I have read a lot about engine control systems and emission control systems because it is one of my interests. I think that you would have a very hard time convincing an engineer that the oxygen sensor is not part of an OBD-II emission control system.

Here is the part that I think applies to your situation:

I don't believe the loophole for alternative fuel vehicle(s) would apply for your situation unless you are willing to become an aftermarket part manufacturer and apply for an exemption with the EPA. I believe you would then need to submit a car for EPA drive cycle testing. This is just my opinion.

Tom already mentioned this, but this subject has really been beaten into the ground. There are several threads on this which all are quite similar.

Your original post:

Several have offered their thoughts. I am sorry it wasn't what you were hoping for. I did provide a link to some "believers".

Actually, I didn't provide that link, someone else did. I agree with the others who think that the act of "spoofing" the O2 sensor may be the primary reason for the increase. I also find it odd that the page is from 2005 without any recent updates. Is there more data now that he has used it for awhile?

I also agree with the gentleman on the website link below about the need for drive cycle testing to verify mpg gains. You should check this site out - he explains why most of the various add on fuel savers don't work.

Fuel saving gadgets - a professional engineer's view

 

This whole thing would be easy to test, but no one wants to do it. You only need the following items to do a scientific test:

1) A working engine of the type you want to test.

2) A tank of hydrogen gas and a regulator.

3) A dynamometer.

4) Emissions testing equipment.

That's it. For a scientific test, you want to control as many of the variables as possible, and make the test as repeatable as possible. Using this approach eliminates the driver and road conditions, plus any doubt of how much hydrogen is being generated. Doing the testing in a vehicle is just plain ludicrous. There are too many confounding variables:

1) Weather.

2) Road condition.

3) Traffic.

4) Driver.

5) Placebo effect.

Put it on a dyno and see what you get. Let's say you see some positive results; then you can dial it in and find out exactly how much hydrogen you need and under what conditions, and any fiddling that needs to be done with the engine controls. After that, and only after that, you can look at the cost and feasibility of generating hydrogen on the fly. Otherwise it's just a waste of time and resourses.

Tom

 

Because it forces an engine to run too lean. An overly lean setting will give better mileage at the expense of higher emissions and reduced engine life.

Tom

 

If by "they" you mean Toyota, "they" are trying to keep the oxygen content in the catalytic converter in the range where the NOx will be reduced (broken down into N2 and O2). If they run too lean, the NOx will be increased. It is a trade off for emissions vs. fuel economy.

Fuel saving gadgets - a professional engineer's view

 

Some more background info on "lean burn" engines.
Lean burn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General consensus there also seems to be, running lean = better mileage but higher emissions. Last time it was tried was in the MT Insight. The MT version with the lean burn mode was almost 10 mpg better on the highway test, but emissions went from T2B5 for the CVT non-lean burn model to T2B9 for the MT lean burn.
Error Page
Error Page

If the very small amount of Hydrogen generated by one of these devices fixes the emissions problem associated with running lean that would be a big deal. My understanding is that it takes much more hydrogen and a much leaner fuel mix to do that, but thats after only a very cursory look into the papers being selectively quoted by the device's advertisers.

Rob

 

They do. It's called a diesel engine.

 

um...it's been a while since I've messed with any real engine tuning, but if I remember correctly, leaning out Your engine too much is going to cause detonation/

detonation=bad

 

I have had the entertaining and, at times, enlightening exercise of reading through this thread in one sitting. I will not take the time to join in on the scientific debate beyond this observation: If this hydrogen generator can be shown to be economically viable (in a total benefit/cost analysis taking into account the engine/HSD lifespan) and at least environmentally neutral (no NOx increase not offset by HC decreases and approved by EPA), then I would be very interested in adding it as soon as Toyota verifies that it will not void my warranty. (Yes, I am a skeptic. Why not just call this a water dissociator?)

The purpose of this post is to provide comment on the question of whether the addition of a hydrogen generator violates the Clean Air Act (the “CAAâ€). This is not offered as legal opinion and may not be relied upon as such, whether by the OP or any other reader.

Section 203(a)(3)(B) clearly prohibits anyone from installing anything that would “bypass, defeat, or render inoperative†any car part that was installed in compliance with CAA regulations. The Heated Oxygen Sensor is part of the Prius’ Emission Control System. If you have any doubt, please review the Toyota diagrams excerpted on Steve Woodruff’s website.

The OP has referred readers to the exceptions to the Section 203 prohibitions, but I must disagree with his opinion. First, the proposal to use a hydrogen generator does not rise to the level of creating a clean alternative fuel vehicle. This device provides an additive to the conventional fuel. It does not provide a replacement. Further, even if it could qualify for the first part of the exception, it fails the final part, in that the installation does not allow for a return to use of the original equipment when returning to conventional fuel.

The second opinion offered is that Section 215 provides an appropriate exception without placing a burden of proof on the one doing the modification. This is simply not the case. The exception applies only if the one doing the modification fulfills the high altitude adjustment instructions of Section 215 AND has the action approved by EPA.

I do not mean to rain on anyone’s parade, but fooling around with the car’s emissions control system is not something to be entered into lightly. There are significant penalties EPA may assess for non-compliant actions.

For the benefit [?] of the reader, I have provided the appropriate excerpts of the CAA below.

Sec. 203. (a) The following acts and the causing thereof are prohibited-

* * *

(3)(A). . . or (B) for any person to manufacture or sell, or offer to sell, or install, any part or component intended for use with, or as part of, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine, where a principal effect of the part or component is to bypass, defeat, or render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine in compliance with regulations under this title, and where the person knows or should know that such part or component is being offered for sale or installed for such use or put to such use; or . . .

* * *
(5) for any person to violate section 218, 219, or part C of this title or any regulations under section 218, 219, or part C.

​

No action with respect to any element of design referred to in paragraph (3) (including any adjustment or alteration of such element) shall be treated as a prohibited act under such paragraph (3) if such action is in accordance with section 215. Nothing in paragraph (3) shall be construed to require the use of manufacturer parts in maintaining or . . . . . .. No action with respect to any device or element of design referred to in paragraph (3) shall be treated as a prohibited act under that paragraph if (i) the action is for the purpose of repair or replacement of the device or element, or is a necessary and temporary procedure to repair or replace any other item and the device or element is replaced upon completion of the procedure,and (ii) such action thereafter results in the proper functioning of the device or element referred to in paragraph (3). No action with respect to any device or element of design referred to in paragraph (3) shall be treated as a prohibited act under that paragraph if the action is for the purpose of a conversion of a motor vehicle for use of a clean alternative fuel (as defined in this title) and if such vehicle complies with the applicable standard under section 202 when operating on such fuel, and if in the case of a clean alternative fuel vehicle (as defined by rule by the Administrator), the device or element is replaced upon completion of the conversion procedure and such action results in proper functioning of the device or element when the motor vehicle operates on conventional fuel.

* * *
[42 U.S.C. 7522]

Sec. 215. (a)(1) Any action taken with respect to any element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine in compliance with regulations under this title (including any alteration or adjustment of such element), shall be treated as not in violation of section 203(a) if such action is performed in accordance with high altitude adjustment instructions provided by the manufacturer under subsection (b) and approved by the Administrator.

* * *
[42 U.S.C. 7549]

 

Adding more fuel to the mixture will result in less unburned oxygen, not more. In the scenario you describe above, the controller should back off on the amount of fuel, not increase it, so the argument is backward.

My intention isn't to argue with you, so I'll stop flogging this horse. My only intention is to dispel and refute junk science. There may be some nugget of truth to the hydrogen claims, but it will never be proved unless properly tested, and that doesn't seem likely. It's not likely because the people selling these things are making money from snake oil, and real testing will hurt their profits.

There have been a few real studies. MIT did one, which shows some promise, but it's not the same system as these "water for gas" scams.

It's your money and car. I really don't care one way or the other. You asked for people's opinions, and you got them. Many of these opinions are from scientists and engineers. Is it possible that we are all wrong? Yes, certainly. Is it likely? No. Every shred of evidence to date says "SNAKE OIL!" in big capital letters. Spend your money and time if you like, but don't be surprised if the results are disappointing. On the other hand, you will probably be delighted with your results. Never underestimate the power of the placebo effect. I know my car always feels better after I have the oil changed. It runs smoother and corners better. There is, of course, no correlation, but it does feel better.

Best of luck in your endeavor,
Tom