Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
You will have to ask the scammers. Birk1 wasn't scamming. Hypermiler wasn't either. I certainly am not.
Then there is the other question. "Could there be any trace of truth to their claims"?
Why don't we try to find out. Let us be truthful. No one on here has even tried and stayed to report. Why don't we take a closer look?
How about you James? What do you think? Can a small amount of HHO mixed into the combustion chamber under the right conditions cause a domino effect to produce a change in the combustion profile? I have given my postulations. But short of a test engine with a boro-silicate view port and laser interferometry analysis as well as a complete exhaust gas analysis, I really won't know. Be that as it may, we can test pressure, temperature and fuel use quite easily.
|
An engine on a dyno could be configured to have various fuels introduced while monitoring the power output. With known quantities of HHO, or hydrogen, methane, or any other fuel chosen then would not the power output reflect Rusty's belief that combustion was enhanced by the introduction of additional hydrogen.
You mentioned 4%. By volume, weight, or energy content? Even if we assume that your postion is correct, Rusty, which is the simplest way to get past the "idiots" (post title) or the 60% savings (claimed by birk) or any other individual whose objective is to USE the credibility of the forum to SELL something which evidence does not support their claims, then you could calculate the energy cost of production of the additional fuel.
Separation of the supply system by using tanks of the material in question from the production using the vehicles charging system would allow precision measurements of output.
HCCI claims an ideal 25% increase inefficiency. I think that is a theoretical maximum, but one of great significance, if it can be achieved under real world conditions and I definitely believe it can be achieved.
Lean burn is as close as we have come to this point, but sadly those who control the regulatory environment made NOX the killer of lean burn. In my opinion The issue is non homogenous mixture, which means you have to get the fuel into the cylinder with better atomization. Preheating the fuel ("free" energy othewise wasted) and injecting it at much higher pressures seems to be the logical pathway at this time.
Even if you succeed in a laboratory, it may never see mass production and distribution unless the system is virtually idiot proof. With product liability attorneys and govt regulators just waiting to pounce and your corporations financial life on the line in every class action suit, most rational people would understand the reluctance to innovate at anything more than a snails pace.
regards
mech