Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > The Unicorn Corral
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-13-2013, 04:57 PM   #31 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 907
Thanks: 196
Thanked 320 Times in 225 Posts
Some corrections if I may . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by esnap View Post
I think folks that are high on HHO forget that any power you get from recombining H and O (burning it) can not be greater than the struggle (HP used ) their ICE had in turning the alternator to separate the two, less line loses (which are a lot)
This is true on the surface, but it does not realize the discussion of precursor radicals in combustion.

Quote:
The problem is that some folks may see gains but that is more likely due to the moisture that it induced in to the cylinders which actually does produce more efficient combustion. It is a classic case of "mis-attribution of causation"
This is correct. SOME of the positive gains seen by HHO supporters could be attributed to the thermolysis effect of the water vapors adding to the concentration of precursor radicals.

Quote:
An EFIE that would lean out your burn will gain you incredible MPGs but at the cost of burning up your head (s) and causing havoc.
This is incorrect. Lean burn does not in and of itself destroy your engine. Chrysler lean burn engines ran 20:1 air fuel ratios. Honda's run 22:1 AFR's.

Quote:
If there was a way to inject water and variably lean out your fuel in a balanced way, I think we could see some great MPG numbers and not destroy our engine.

In other words HHO generators are just very messy and inefficient water injection devices.
Injection of water alone would quench the combustion of the low temperature lean burn mix resulting in miss-fire.

HHO is not as simple as the supporters say it is. And it is not as simple as the detractors say it is.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 07-13-2013, 05:06 PM   #32 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 907
Thanks: 196
Thanked 320 Times in 225 Posts
This paper is a synopsis of a report not a peer reviewed publication.

Quote:
Originally Posted by suspectnumber961 View Post
Over-unity hydrogen generation using high voltage plasma....

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTconfirmatib.pdf


In same graph, the current efficiency of hydrogen gas generation are shown; the efficiency reached 8 (that is, 800% of the expected Faradic value), and it continued during plasma electrolysis at 230 V. Faraday’s law predicts that 2440 cc should have been produced during the entire test run, but 5100 cc was measured (2662 cc excess). When we consider only hydrogen produced during periods when plasma formed, Faraday’s law predicts 905 cc, and the measured amount was 3240 cc (2335 cc excess; 2.6 times the predicted value).
They clearly state the questions they have and how they expect to move forward. This was done in 2003 and the final publication would be the definitive paper - not this one.

Their definition of Faraday Unity is electrolysis at standard temperature and pressure (STP). They are saying they have exceeded THAT definition of unity. They do not produce MORE power than they are putting into the system - the traditional OVERUNITY holy grail. They make it clear that they have identified streams of energy losses that were not accounted for in their efficiency calculations and their 103% efficiency would certainly be below 100% once all is said and done.

This paper does NOT support over-unity.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 01:53 PM   #33 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
justme1969's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: ff
Posts: 459
Thanks: 59
Thanked 38 Times in 30 Posts
Wow I musta got lost the thread is about flash chip. this does save tremendous fuel in most cases but all that I am reading here is about another hydrogen generator?
Then it gives reference to snow that to my knowledge has nothing to do with either of the above Snow is methanol water mix direct injection to cool and stabilize precharged air temps stabilizing it to lower detonation for Highly tuned super and turbo charged vehicle running upwards of 20 boost Pre nitro etc. etc.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 11:21 AM   #34 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 586
Thanks: 4
Thanked 20 Times in 16 Posts
I will take shot on this:

As I understand HHO and my tests with it:

Answer all these questions.

Show me the chemical reactions that take place to justify the use of an HHO generator? Not chemist, But the idea is the HHO explodes and helps brake up gas droplets.

Show me how much water you use for the number of miles you drive? A Qt per 300 miles avg.

Tell me how many amps your HHO generator uses? 5 amp. I have tested up to 30amps

Where does the electricity come from to generate the current? Battery and ALT. No recordable change in gal.per hour.

How much additional load is placed on the engine to generate the current? [B][B]Unreadable. Note I have a Scan gauge II and it shows the gals per hour and I have a set of readouts reading the injector duty cycle..so I tested the load on a car with nothing on… read .55GPH, turn on all lights .55GPH, turn on HHO gen pulling even 30 amps, .55GPH, try on a/c change .65GPH note I saw no change in the duty cycles either.

For the given volume of gas you generate, how many BTU's of energy can be produced from it given 100% efficient combustion? Unknown

How much actual gasoline gets used in the amount of time it takes for you to use up a given amount of water? 19 gal.

What temperature does the water get to on a long trip? 190 Does it boil off into steam? No.

What is the basic chemical reaction of gasoline in the combustion chamber? Come on not a chemist, gas VAPOR burns, 20/30% makes power, the rest burns after power stoke and is waste heat that burns on way out of motor and in cat.

How does a paltry amount of additional hydrogen from HHO help the combustion equation? By the shock wave from its burn braking down more gas droplets.


I have done some 14 installs into cars, and have seen a couple produce 60MPG+.

Sadly these seem to have been flukes. None the less a 20 to 30% improvement seems possible.

Sadly I have been doing most of my testing on a 2000 OBDII Ford, and the Volo Chip also failed to do anything as well.

Rich
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 02:24 PM   #35 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
mikeyjd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 838

Matchbox - '93 Ford Festiva L
Team Ford
Last 3: 70.16 mpg (US)

Salamander - '99 Chrysler Concorde LXI
Team Dodge
90 day: 30.3 mpg (US)

Urquhart - '97 Toyota Tacoma 4x4 V6 3.4L DLX
Pickups
90 day: 25.81 mpg (US)

Smudge - '98 Toyota Tacoma
90 day: 40.65 mpg (US)

Calebro - '15 Renault Trafic 1.25 dci
90 day: 39.39 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,380
Thanked 209 Times in 155 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by racprops View Post
Sadly these seem to have been flukes. None the less a 20 to 30% improvement seems possible.

Sadly I have been doing most of my testing on a 2000 OBDII Ford, and the Volo Chip also failed to do anything as well.

Rich
Conclusion: It doesn't work, and you don't know why, but you still think it should?
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 02:55 PM   #36 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 586
Thanks: 4
Thanked 20 Times in 16 Posts
Yes there are too many good hearted people that believe in it and I feel my lack of deep knowledge should not complete comdem it.

I returned to this thread looking into rather US OBDII is too well programed to keep a cap on MPG.

One possible showing of that is how my Ford will NOT idle out of gear coasting, it will rev up higher that it was running in gear.

My 93 Van and 91 Toyota don't do that.

And every thing I try failed...

YET We did get a Toyota to get a reading of 73 MPG and a Hundia to 76 MPG.

The Toyota was not retest as the owner left for his home state, and the next day called to complain that he had driven from Phoenix to Flagstaff (UP HILL) and ONLY got 56MPG...

The Hunday idle motor was stuck the next day and after repairs the owner left for Cal. and tried to do his own tuning and messed things up.

These two events haunt me to this day.

Rich
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 03:10 PM   #37 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
mikeyjd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 838

Matchbox - '93 Ford Festiva L
Team Ford
Last 3: 70.16 mpg (US)

Salamander - '99 Chrysler Concorde LXI
Team Dodge
90 day: 30.3 mpg (US)

Urquhart - '97 Toyota Tacoma 4x4 V6 3.4L DLX
Pickups
90 day: 25.81 mpg (US)

Smudge - '98 Toyota Tacoma
90 day: 40.65 mpg (US)

Calebro - '15 Renault Trafic 1.25 dci
90 day: 39.39 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,380
Thanked 209 Times in 155 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by racprops View Post
YET We did get a Toyota to get a reading of 73 MPG and a Hundia to 76 MPG.

The Toyota was not retest as the owner left for his home state, and the next day called to complain that he had driven from Phoenix to Flagstaff (UP HILL) and ONLY got 56MPG...

The Hunday idle motor was stuck the next day and after repairs the owner left for Cal. and tried to do his own tuning and messed things up.

These two events haunt me to this day.

Rich
Quote:
Originally Posted by racprops View Post
OH FYI I HAVE seen a Toyota and Hyundai get over 60MPG on HHO.

And we did the full test, 100 miles: 50 Miles one way and then back same day full tank.

Rich
So can we assume are the same events? You concluded that a 100 mile round trip testing was good evidence? Why not make the claim over 70mpg initially if that is what was found in the supporting cases? Do you think that the reason for mixed results might have been unrepeatable conditions, and tank fill errors when only 2 of 14 experiments "seemed" to have produced a result?

Edit: Read this before posting further if you want to know what we here at ecomodder expect from testing criteria. http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ery-11445.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 03:57 PM   #38 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 586
Thanks: 4
Thanked 20 Times in 16 Posts
Look I have found that you guys are not able to help me in my quest.

BUT to answer here is what we did for our testing.

1) Customers were asked to fill the car on its way to us, to have full tank when we started. We once did a test on a car that we filled up adn then tested for 50 miles and when we retuned we had more gas than when we start out...Thermo expansion of the gas in the tank...

2) We then checked the car over and then drove on Cruse Control @ 65 MPH 50 miles out on I 10 to a truck stop and had lunch and drive back and then filled the tank and calculate the MPG, IE these cars both got 32 MPG Stock.

3) We would do the HHO Kit install.

4) do the tuning and adjustments.

5) fill the tank and do the same road test again.

6) As we were not looking for small improvements but big ones we did not worry the small MPGs.

7) One problem was of the two cars that did so well was the lack of what we wanted, a long road test of some 300+ miles, both times the owners pulled out at this point.

We then when ahead and bought two systems of our own and then tried to find suitable cars to test them on.

We lacked any good OBDII cars.

I tried a Cad Catara and found I could not retune the computer, and found a few flaws with the system we were trying to install, so all of this fell apart.

Every hear of Dutchman and the HAFC?

Later I hooked up with a backer and thought a 2000 Ford was a good bet.

It is rigged with as many gauges I could think of getting, from a Exhust gas temp readout,, Air Fuel ratios read outs, Injector duty cycle read outs, a Scan Gauge Ii, a MPGunio. and Vacuum Gauge, a Tach, and I have two OBDII Scanners one in a lap top and the other a hand held unit that will also read OBDI, I also added two digital amp meters to really watch the amp draws of the HHO systems.

I even bought a portable weather station so I could check weather conductions should I have some results.

I took the car on a 300+ road trip and check its MPG and on the out run recorder 30 MPG and on the return trip was detoured off I 10 and had to take some back roads and ended up with 27 total.

Then before any testing I had the car dynoed and we ALSO ran the full driven NOT the OBDII Computer test..DRIVER ON THE DYNO SMOG TEST for the record so I could return and retest and compare.

Then and only then did I start trying things.

First up was the stories of resetting the car's A/F Rations, as I had devices that would allow me to reset them and I found the best was around 16.7 to 17.4 which was 34 to 36 MPG after which MPG dropped again, and I watched my exhaust temps to see if the lean burn would cause any temp problems, it didn't.

These test were mostly done on the same 100 mile run on I 10.

Next was a better HHO cell and test around 15 amps per bank for a total of 30 maps.

I was unable to get any improvements, even running lean.

My funding ran out and I set these projects aside for a couple of years.

I restarted with new info on HHO and again failed to get any improvement and took it back out and tried a additive and although the car feels more powerful, got no MPG improvement which led me to my now famous is OBDII Smarted that us, thread.

And here we are.

Rich




Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyjd View Post
So can we assume are the same events? You concluded that a 100 mile round trip testing was good evidence? Why not make the claim over 70mpg initially if that is what was found in the supporting cases? Do you think that the reason for mixed results might have been unrepeatable conditions, and tank fill errors when only 2 of 14 experiments "seemed" to have produced a result?

Edit: Read this before posting further if you want to know what we here at ecomodder expect from testing criteria. http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ery-11445.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2013, 04:20 PM   #39 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 907
Thanks: 196
Thanked 320 Times in 225 Posts
I applaud your efforts, but your methodology and process is scatter shot leading you here.

But, keep at it, there is a place for such as you.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2013, 03:27 PM   #40 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 586
Thanks: 4
Thanked 20 Times in 16 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyjd View Post
So can we assume are the same events? You concluded that a 100 mile round trip testing was good evidence? Why not make the claim over 70mpg initially if that is what was found in the supporting cases? Do you think that the reason for mixed results might have been unrepeatable conditions, and tank fill errors when only 2 of 14 experiments "seemed" to have produced a result?

Edit: Read this before posting further if you want to know what we here at ecomodder expect from testing criteria. http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ery-11445.html
First I have read the how-properly-test-modifications

Second I used 100 Mile test run as a proofing run, to see if we were seeing any improvements.

And as we were NOT trying to prove a 10 to 30% change but looking for 50 to 1005 changes we felt these short runs showed if we were getting there.

The major frustration WAS that in both cases the car's owner took off the next day and did not allow us to do a 300 plus round trip to Blithe CA and back to Phoenix as real test.

And the one that hunts me to this day was the one that drove to Flagstaff from Phoenix after we got two readings of 56 and 76 MPG and called to complain he did not get great MPG, that he ONLY got 56MPG driving UPHILL, and threaten to stop payment on his check. When I pointed out he had driven UPHILL he said he will try again.

He then drove to Albuquerque New Mexico and called again with the same complaint and threat, (56 MPG and stop payment) but when I talked with him we found out he was running low of water in his HHO system.

He then shame faced said he was sorry. he had forgotten to refill the water tank when he got gas in Flagstaff.

We sadly never hear back from him. His check cleared.

The second car when from 32 MPG to a reading of 76 MPG, but the next day it would not run due to a stuck idle motor and once repaired the owner also took off, and he tried to improve on what his in car gauge said and totally mess things up. But the time he got back to CA his 32 MPG we now 26 MPG...

Oh well. At that point we had our own HAFCs to try but we did not have any suitable cars.

"Do you think that the reason for mixed results might have been unrepeatable conditions, and tank fill errors when only 2 of 14 experiments "seemed" to have produced a result?"

Yes we did we were using dip sticks to fill the tank to a point that we could mark on the dip sticks put into the tank by the filler tube so we believed we got the same "fill" each time.

And we used the same road and time of day within a couple of days apart that we first test the same car and proved it got 32 MPG Stock.

As we did not have a dymo this was the best we could do.

And again we got very large results...

And if we were fooling ourselves, then we should have gotten better results from more of the other cars, but we didn't we even saw lower MPG due to our work on one or two cars, which I feel proved we were doing thing right.

Rich

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com