EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   The Unicorn Corral (https://ecomodder.com/forum/unicorn-corral.html)
-   -   Fuel Saver Flash Chip? (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/fuel-saver-flash-chip-18867.html)

suspectnumber961 09-18-2011 06:14 PM

Fuel Saver Flash Chip?
 
Has anyone tried one of these? Supposed to adapt fuel map continually for most efficient operation...HHO or not. Might work with fuel additives also.

Advanced HHO - A Leader in HHO Hydrogen Dry Cell Systems

Are other brands or types available?

HydroJim 09-18-2011 06:58 PM

If you're going to try it, go straight to the manufacturer and save yourself $60.
Volo Performance - Chip Tuning Made Easy

Although most of the people in this forum think using HHO is crazy, I have seen some success with it. I'm not doubling my gas mileage like some people claim, but it does seem to allow you to lean out an engine more than with just gasoline. When I get a new car, I plan on getting my HHO system on a dyno for 100% scientific data. But I won't get into that right now.

I tried using a Volo chip with HHO and I got about a 10%-20% increase in MPG. the car I was using had some mechanical problems, so I had to shut the project down. But I did see some success with the chip. How the chip works, I got no idea. I also don't know how it would work without HHO.

I do know the chip you'll want is the FS3 and they claim 15-18% increase in MPG. If you're interested, I say order a chip, and do some ABA testing. All of us in the forum would like to know the results. Good Luck!

HydroJim 09-18-2011 07:00 PM

Sorry to double post, but I read your second question. this is the only chip of it's kind I have ever seen. All the other ones are resistor chips, but this one actually has a processor in it and onboard ram(I took one apart). I don't know if that means anything, but it gives it more credibility. I think it's worth a shot.

suspectnumber961 09-19-2011 07:02 AM

I've tested my own designed HHO and also have used an EFIE and modified sensors...but one vehicle was carbed...the other was 4x4 and 1st year EFI. Could not claim I saw a gain.

This chip looks to be no more costly than an EFIE...and looks to also "modify the other sensors" at the same time. Fairly easy install and will work with an SG? Not sure what if any changes I would see with the SG readout though. Might try one.

Looks like the FS3 would be best...but the FS2-HHO seems to do the same thing and also adapts to HHO.

thanks

Frank Lee 09-19-2011 08:34 AM

Too bad the EFI on your cars lacks sensors and an ECU to make constant corrections... :rolleyes:

toc 09-19-2011 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 261885)
Too bad the EFI on your cars lacks sensors and an ECU to make constant corrections... :rolleyes:

Well said.

The maps can probably be leaned out - if you can get at them.

Frank Lee 09-19-2011 09:01 AM

The "maps" don't really matter once it gets in closed loop.

suspectnumber961 09-19-2011 01:55 PM

For those whose minds are not running in "closed loop"...here's a link with some reviews...

Volo Performance Chip Results


I MIGHT try one of these and then dust off my old DIY HHO machine and test it next summer.....in her prime she could run 15-25 amps and not blow up! ;-)

HydroJim 09-19-2011 04:46 PM

Suspectnumer-i didnt realize you were using hho. So fs2 would be best.

suspectnumber961 09-19-2011 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HydroJim (Post 261974)
Suspectnumer-i didnt realize you were using hho. So fs2 would be best.

Not using HHO currently...but have a DIY system. Might try the FS2-HHO since I have the HHO unit and it might be more sensitive to the use of fuel additives.

As far as I can tell...these dynamically adjust the air/fuel/timing in closed loop....over-riding the ECU to some extent....with the intention being greater fuel efficiency.

I'd have to see around a 10% gain for payback in 1 year though.

Do have an EFIE and know how to do sensor mods...just hate to start hacking the wiring.....

Frank Lee 09-19-2011 09:36 PM

Thanks for keeping the unicorn corral entertaining.

ChazInMT 09-20-2011 12:55 AM

This post is for the benefit of anyone who's contemplating an HHO system for their car.

You guys do realize that HHO is a chemical version of a perpetual motion device right?

Basics are, you don't use enough water to say you're getting fuel for free. As far as I can tell, you'd be lucky to use a quart of water for every tank of gas you go through, so you are only getting 1 part in 60 (15 Gallon Gas Tank) additional fuel. (Water and Gasoline have about the same amount of hydrogen per gallon) There is nothing "Magic" about the hydrogen that comes from HHO contraptions, it's just fuel.

Since it takes energy to operate the system, and you say it gives you better mileage, that would mean it's giving back substantially more energy than what it takes to run. The energy required to disassociate the water into H2 & O2 is more than the energy you get when you reburn it. So where does the efficiency take place?? You can't say it makes the gasoline burn better in the car because modern engines burn 95% of the fuel any way.

Fact is, it's pure Hocus Pokus muble jumble you use to get people to buy your crap. You are snake oil salesmen preying on the stupidity of people who can't think for themselves. You gotta know dam good and well the stuff you're pushing is rubbish yet you push it anyway. Disgusting.

Answer all these questions.
Show me the chemical reactions that take place to justify the use of an HHO generator?
Show me how much water you use for the number of miles you drive?
Tell me how many amps your HHO generator uses?
Where does the electricity come from to generate the current?
How much additional load is placed on the engine to generate the current?
For the given volume of gas you generate, how many BTU's of energy can be produced from it given 100% efficient combustion?
How much actual gasoline gets used in the amount of time it takes for you to use up a given amount of water?
What temperature does the water get to on a long trip? Does it boil off into steam?
What is the basic chemical reaction of gasoline in the combustion chamber?
How does a paltry amount of additional hydrogen from HHO help the combustion equation?

Don't you dare say another word about this stupid HHO idea until you answer these very basic questions. If you don't know the answers, then clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.

I know the answers. And it adds up to, It Can't Work.

suspectnumber961 09-20-2011 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 262010)
Thanks for keeping the unicorn corral entertaining.

I think we all understand that most of what is posted on ecomodder is posted for your entertainment.

JRMichler 09-20-2011 01:35 PM

HHO is especially entertaining. Especially for those of us who know what we talk about.

Saberj2x 09-25-2011 02:21 PM

+ another one who woke up from the HHO pipe dream

suspectnumber961 10-07-2011 08:46 PM

Bought the Volo_DS2_HHO_Ed chip and am 30 miles or so past the 120 mile dial in period where the chip is supposed to auto-adjust to engine parameters.

impressions? Seems to give more power under acceleration when using warm air intake now at 45-50F above ambient vs the ECU settings. On this last trip I saw the best trip mileage on local backroads with lots of stops and curves that I've seen yet.

Installation was a bit difficult due to the data port being upside down on the Focus and trying to translate the wire positions to the BACK of the port from the front...but I got it wired in.

Have a 30 day return policy.

Expect to have a full tank result this month.

Arragonis 10-08-2011 12:30 PM

I assume you mean the FS2, I couldn't see a DS2 ?

Well done for trying, I wouldn't put one on my own car but I'll wait for the results. Are you running HHO too, as this chip seems to match it.

gone-ot 10-08-2011 02:21 PM

Arragonis -- into the Punic Wars much?--ie: "Cartegena Uno Champ" (Ha,ha)

Arragonis 10-08-2011 02:25 PM

I love history, but nope, I'm the Cartagena Uno champ from our holidays in Spain this summer.

I recommend both the place and the game BTW. The place is gorgeous and the game is simple and complex enough for anyone from 6 to 99 - making it the perfect holiday game. :thumbup:

suspectnumber961 10-09-2011 05:32 AM

The chip I'm using is suitable for using with or without HHO...recommended for anyone who might be upgrading to HHO at some point.

Have my own DIY HHO unit...but won't try it out till next summer earliest.

Not doing the best testing due to 2 other recent mods....upper grill block and front belly pan (not much gained noted over 200 miles)....plus winter gas and variable weather. Should get some idea though.....

Understand this...I could care less whether someone else tries one of these chips...my only responsibility would be to report honestly...my results. I took a chance and tried one and I'll see what I find.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Arragonis (Post 264679)
I assume you mean the FS2, I couldn't see a DS2 ?

Well done for trying, I wouldn't put one on my own car but I'll wait for the results. Are you running HHO too, as this chip seems to match it.


hondo434 10-10-2011 11:22 PM

Suspectnumber, I'm the owner of the other thread in the "Unicorn section". I see you believe that hho has promise. Myself, I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but you should try for yourself and make your own discoveries. Just ignore the bullies who think everyone is a mutton head and can't think for themselves. I tried my experiment and I was pleasantly surprized, so don't give up trying, some is watching and is interested.

suspectnumber961 10-21-2011 07:40 AM

Unfortunately...I'll be returning the Volo chip. Did not see an mpg gain. I would have been happy with a 3 to 5% gain...but no go.

To be fair they mention issues with Ford ECUs....and the ISO "protocol" is not one they recommend...both of which were involved in this test. Also 2 changes previous to testing the chip...front belly pan and upper grill block with increased intake temps.

from my notes:

Installed Volo chip and reset it warm at idle....seems to be working OK. ....ready for the 120 mile break in.

Had issues with the connectors and getting the right wires figured out due to the port being upside down and the wires coming out the back...etc.

Seems to give more power under acceleration when using warm air intake now at 45-50F above ambient vs the ECU settings. On this last trip I saw the best trip mileage on local backroads with lots of stops and curves that I've seen yet.

After installing chip on 10/3/11...I drove the car around 110 miles until refilling it on 10/7/11. Over the next 422 miles I got an avg of 34 mpg...where the previous 3 tank avg was 34.8 mpg....a loss of 0.8 mpg. Avg temp over this 2 week period ranged from 65F to 55F....similar to the temps during the previous 3 tanks. Driving technique was about the same as with the previous 3 tanks using the Scangauge. One difference might be the change over to winter gas around the start of Oct (?) and higher intake temps due to the upper grill block.

Arragonis 10-21-2011 03:08 PM

Well done - at least you tried it and they have that money back warranty so no loss. :D

broski499 03-20-2012 02:52 PM

Just got the FS3 installed in my 1999 camry 4 banger, I have a ultragauge set up and just filled up to a full tank. Last tank with just the ultragauge I got 26 mpg, I have the same driving schedule lined up for the next tank so I will let you all know how it goes. It says its takes 160miles to optimize, I usually get over 400 a tank so even with that I should see a difference.

Ecky 03-22-2012 01:25 AM

I could imagine something like this working if the chip is smart enough - a poor man's "lean burn". I'd rather have a manual controller that would allow me to lean out my mix (without throwing a CEL or causing other problems) rather than rely on an algorithm though.

justing 04-05-2012 02:56 PM

I have the HHO version of the VOLO chip I dont have my HHO dry cell on yet, with the chip alone I went from 22.5 to 27.3, this gain has held for about 6 months. I added a warm air intake and went up to 28.2.

broski499 04-05-2012 07:43 PM

I recently took a long trip up to Bakersfield with the Volo installed, now mind you I have never broke 30 MPG prior to this trip. I hit 35.8 MPG, if it were not for one bathroom stop I think I could have hit 36 or even 37. I really feel like the Volo Chip is doing something. I use a ultragauge and noticed that my car now idles at a lower usage of fuel. I cruised at 62 mpg most of the trip and was getting 40 MPG at that speed.

broski499 06-04-2012 07:55 PM

Been only doing around town driving lately and have been using hypermiling techniques but have not seen any real mpg gains then what I'm used to with just hypermiling, I'm going to say save your 60 bucks and buy a ultraguage or a scanguage. the volo chip is not an affective way to save gas at all.

esnap 07-12-2013 11:57 AM

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)

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"

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.

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.

suspectnumber961 07-13-2013 09:27 AM

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).

RustyLugNut 07-13-2013 04:57 PM

Some corrections if I may . . .
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by esnap (Post 380216)
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.

RustyLugNut 07-13-2013 05:06 PM

This paper is a synopsis of a report not a peer reviewed publication.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961 (Post 380320)
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.

justme1969 07-18-2013 01:53 PM

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.

racprops 09-10-2013 11:21 AM

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

mikeyjd 09-10-2013 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by racprops (Post 389729)
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?

racprops 09-10-2013 02:55 PM

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

mikeyjd 09-10-2013 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by racprops (Post 389769)
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 (Post 389550)
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

racprops 09-10-2013 03:57 PM

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 (Post 389771)
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


RustyLugNut 09-13-2013 04:20 PM

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.

racprops 09-14-2013 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeyjd (Post 389771)
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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com