H² + H²O = 25% More HP

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

I will use an electrolysis device, running on electricity from the engine alternator. I will introduce only pure water - no methanol/ethanol or such mixed in. I will apply these ingredients into the intake manifold. I will make no mechanical changes to the engine between tests.

But, I will manipulate intake air temperature, ignition timing and air/fuel ratio along with the attending electromechanical controls to do so.

Thanks for nailing at least that much detail down.


Assuming it is not a variation of a 6 cycle style ICE ... I'm curious if you realize that with just that much ... you've already put yourself into the corner of needing to produce significantly more than a 20% improvement to BSFC? ... as shown on a good proper dino as I outlined? ... And if you intend on going Lean Burn (as I suspect you are) you may also have to be able to sustain smooth ICE operation bellow 30% ICE Load and above 90% ICE Load and sustain that smooth ICE operation at over 25.8:1 AFR... So I'm curious if you already knew how high you've already set the bar on yourself?

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

You will be the test driver. Distance will be measured, fuel will be weighed, and miles-per-gallon calculated. It was good enough for the Auto Xprize, it is good enough for us.

Bold = NO!

I was clear on this point and explained it previously in 2 previous posts already. It is not 'good enough'.

Your #1 proposed change to the terms is = Rejected.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

It will be the simple A-B-A test on a specified course at a prescribed speed.

See above.
Your #2 proposed change to the terms is = Rejected.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

I propose our bet start with the currency of Ecommoder stickers.

Your #3 Proposed change to the terms is = Rejected.

Bet $ is as was previously outlined , funds needed to perform the proper to tests to actually quantify it.

Both sides , me on mine ... and you on yours ... have to cough up their needed sides of funds prior to the event being accepted and finalized.

Ecommoder stickers are not able to perform the required functions in this context.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

The loser pays for the stickers and hands them out to attendees and guests of the Green Gran Prix. Please contact the Forum mods to make sure you will have the required number of stickers to pass out.

Your #4 Proposed change in terms = Rejected.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

I bet 1000 Ecommoder stickers that the test engine cannot run, or run well, at the modified run settings, without the HHO and water vapor. And further more, that water/HHO does effect the combustion to the point that the engine can run under the set conditions to a measurable efficiency advantage.

This proposal of yours violates points #4 and #5 that I already re-clarified for you previously in post #43 above... as such ...

Your #5 proposed change in terms is = Rejected.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Do you want dynamometer numbers?

Yes ... I've been very clear about this.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

But, we are free to collect our own data if you are willing to pay for it.

Your #6 Proposed change in terms = Rejected.

The financial burden to paying for it is not all on me ... as was outlines previously above... me and my side , cough up in advance our 1/2 of the total 'pot' needed ... you and your side , cough up your 1/2 of the total 'pot' needed in advance as well.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

And neither can I show the white paper. White papers such as this one are used in business proposals to show to prospective investors or buyers that your technology is sound.

That is 100% BS.

No average Business man is going to know science well enough to know if some paper handed to them is full of crap or not ... and there is no way they will sit and read through the 300+ pages you claim this paper is long ... White papers are not used in the method you describe there for only showing to investors behind closed doors etc.

Please indicate the professional peer reviewed journal that the white paper in question has been published in. Or will be published in. And under what title.

If it can't meet the minimum standards needed to get published in a professional peer reviewed journal, that's a major issue for the 'science' in the paper... And ANY 'investor' worth much would know this as well.

Without passing the professional peer review minimum standard ... it's just a bunch of paper ... it could be a 4th grader writing any random thing for 300+ Pages and be 100% gibberish... that's why we have a per review system.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Unless you have some deep pockets, you don't get to see the paper.

If you don't intend to ever publish it in a professional peer reviewed journal. It isn't worth paying for the contents.

And to be blunt , you should have already realized before even posting this ... that this is yet another dodge.

Real Science publishes their work all the time.
Real Business publishes their funded research all the time.

This cloak and dagger stuff has only one reasonable response ... doubt and skepticism ... which is exactly what you should have expected before even typing that kind of effort to again be vague and dodge requests to provide the science you claim you have.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

However, the science is common knowledge and I can remark on that in follow up posts should you decide to accept my challenge.

We've asked numerous times already. You haven't yet. What evidence is there that you would do as you write this time?

As described above , I reject your 6 different changes you have proposed above.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

If the costs are too high for you, feel free to ask Old Tele man and the other nay-sayers to help fund the 1000 sticker pot you will need to see my engine work. It will be fun for all and will benefit our community.

So, what do you say IamIan? Do you feel lucky?

Luck has nothing to do with this.
The Science is Solid... and it is not on your side in this case.

If you were as certain of the science as you've claimed to be ... Than you don't need to try and make it easier for you or stack the deck in your favor or water it down with the 6 proposed changes I rejected above.

[niky]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

But, I will manipulate intake air temperature, ignition timing and air/fuel ratio along with the attending electromechanical controls to do so.

This alone invalidates a simple A-B-A test.

You need to have full instrumentation showing EGT as well as NOx and HC emissions, to show that any improvements are not simply due to changes to the car's electronics.

Therefore, you need several sets of data: stock, stock system optimized by adjusting IAT, ignition timing and AFR, system on with changes, system on with further electronic changes and second electronics changes only.

Because, as being discussed in another thread, optimizing the electronics can and does result in fuel savings over the typically rough and "safe" stock settings of the car.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

And welcome to the discussion ChazInMT.

Do you want to join IamIan and Old Tele man in raising money to pay off their bet? I am thinking of inviting Old Mech since he has offered prize money in the past. Tvago has challenged me to put my money where my mouth was, and since I already have, I invite him to be part of the bet payout. Oh, UFO too since he is so sure and has been a most vociferous opponent of this technology.

I am going for a walk along the beach. It's a beautiful night in San Diego.

And H202 is a wonderful oxidizer.

I am given to understand that you're actually going to try to make hydrolysis work for you. From what you've been told in this thread by niky, Old Tele Man, IamIan, and presumably others; I also presume to understand that you somehow desire to prove yourself right and all of us wrong. Good luck with that.

As for me - I will not fund your gimmick. Not one red cent, not one thin dime. It is all on YOU to get it to work.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Thanks for nailing at least that much detail down.


Assuming it is not a variation of a 6 cycle style ICE ... I'm curious if you realize that with just that much ... you've already put yourself into the corner of needing to produce significantly more than a 20% improvement to BSFC? ... as shown on a good proper dino as I outlined? ... And if you intend on going Lean Burn (as I suspect you are) you may also have to be able to sustain smooth ICE operation bellow 30% ICE Load and above 90% ICE Load and sustain that smooth ICE operation at over 25.8:1 AFR... So I'm curious if you already knew how high you've already set the bar on yourself?



Bold = NO!

I was clear on this point and explained it previously in 2 previous posts already. It is not 'good enough'.

Your #1 proposed change to the terms is = Rejected.



See above.
Your #2 proposed change to the terms is = Rejected.



Your #3 Proposed change to the terms is = Rejected.

Bet $ is as was previously outlined , funds needed to perform the proper to tests to actually quantify it.

Both sides , me on mine ... and you on yours ... have to cough up their needed sides of funds prior to the event being accepted and finalized.

Ecommoder stickers are not able to perform the required functions in this context.



Your #4 Proposed change in terms = Rejected.



This proposal of yours violates points #4 and #5 that I already re-clarified for you previously in post #43 above... as such ...

Your #5 proposed change in terms is = Rejected.



Yes ... I've been very clear about this.



Your #6 Proposed change in terms = Rejected.

The financial burden to paying for it is not all on me ... as was outlines previously above... me and my side , cough up in advance our 1/2 of the total 'pot' needed ... you and your side , cough up your 1/2 of the total 'pot' needed in advance as well.



That is 100% BS.

No average Business man is going to know science well enough to know if some paper handed to them is full of crap or not ... and there is no way they will sit and read through the 300+ pages you claim this paper is long ... White papers are not used in the method you describe there for only showing to investors behind closed doors etc.

Please indicate the professional peer reviewed journal that the white paper in question has been published in. Or will be published in. And under what title.

If it can't meet the minimum standards needed to get published in a professional peer reviewed journal, that's a major issue for the 'science' in the paper... And ANY 'investor' worth much would know this as well.

Without passing the professional peer review minimum standard ... it's just a bunch of paper ... it could be a 4th grader writing any random thing for 300+ Pages and be 100% gibberish... that's why we have a per review system.



If you don't intend to ever publish it in a professional peer reviewed journal. It isn't worth paying for the contents.

And to be blunt , you should have already realized before even posting this ... that this is yet another dodge.

Real Science publishes their work all the time.
Real Business publishes their funded research all the time.

This cloak and dagger stuff has only one reasonable response ... doubt and skepticism ... which is exactly what you should have expected before even typing that kind of effort to again be vague and dodge requests to provide the science you claim you have.



We've asked numerous times already. You haven't yet. What evidence is there that you would do as you write this time?

As described above , I reject your 6 different changes you have proposed above.



Luck has nothing to do with this.
The Science is Solid... and it is not on your side in this case.

If you were as certain of the science as you've claimed to be ... Than you don't need to try and make it easier for you or stack the deck in your favor or water it down with the 6 proposed changes I rejected above.

You can reject this or that, but you in no uncertain terms said "HHO CANNOT WORK".

Look at your posts. You claim with your science, that HHO ABSOLUTELY cannot work. And now you are saying I cannot run the engine lean as evidence of this? I have never made the claims of the scammers. I simply have taken the position that HHO does work - with certain conditions. And the ability to take an engine to 22:1 AFR with degraded VOC ( variability of combustion - basically it's miss firing ) and then stabilize and strengthen the combustion with the addition of HHO and/or water vapor is proof of the effect the additional reactants are having on combustion. If an engine is now able to run in a lean regime it was unable to before, that tells me HHO/water is affecting the combustion. I do not have to meet a specification you arbitrarily define. If HHO stabilizes a ragged flame front, it is affecting that flame front! It is not proof that your simple math is wrong, it is proof that something else is happening that your equations did not account for.

And white papers are published for internal as well as external viewing. My work has been peer reviewed by fellows who are working chemical engineers with masters, as well as mechanical engineers and a doctorate in physics who once chaired on the University of California. I think they are well qualified. Business people with money tend to hire well qualified people to review a technology proposal. Granted, the white paper has very little to do with HHO. HHO may be a marketing dead end. But, it does hint to other things even with it's limited effect.

And the uncertainty? You are uncertain so you won't show up next year at the Green Gran Prix. I will still plan on attending and competing in the open demonstration class.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by niky

This alone invalidates a simple A-B-A test.

You need to have full instrumentation showing EGT as well as NOx and HC emissions, to show that any improvements are not simply due to changes to the car's electronics.

Therefore, you need several sets of data: stock, stock system optimized by adjusting IAT, ignition timing and AFR, system on with changes, system on with further electronic changes and second electronics changes only.

Because, as being discussed in another thread, optimizing the electronics can and does result in fuel savings over the typically rough and "safe" stock settings of the car.

But, you are missing the point of the discussion. IamIan and others have made it clear that HHO has no positive affect on an engine for power and efficiency. I am saying it does under certain conditions. If an engine is sputtering and miss firing heavily at a lean condition but is able to run smoothly and produce power at that same setting with nothing but HHO/water added to the combustion conditions, then what has to be the conclusion? It is a simple example of combustion seeding.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by t vago

I am given to understand that you're actually going to try to make hydrolysis work for you. From what you've been told in this thread by niky, Old Tele Man, IamIan, and presumably others; I also presume to understand that you somehow desire to prove yourself right and all of us wrong. Good luck with that.

As for me - I will not fund your gimmick. Not one red cent, not one thin dime. It is all on YOU to get it to work.

I have done all the work I need to be able to apply hydrolysis effectively.

On the other hand you, along with numerous posters on this forum are guilty of speaking vehemently about things you have never done or studied. I am out to "prove you wrong" simply because this happens to be a topic I have studied and done actual work in. Though it is just one of many, it is one I can address. I have seen a mechanical engineer rage on a visitor about Patent Law! Of course he spoke with great authority! Except he was absolutely wrong about certain legal aspects - as one would expect from an engineer. Another one of our posters was chastising the math of another not realizing the errors in his own math logic. The examples go on and on. Can I stop this kind of behavior? Of course not. This is an open forum on the internet so anything goes! Where is the fun in staying within some arbitrary set of rules? But, be that as it may, here I make a stand. You just happen to be included because you commented about HHO, and you commented vehemently against it with no actual knowledge.

I know HHO doesn't work like the scammers claim, but it can work under certain conditions. I would just like the discussion to be a bit more balanced so I have taken it upon myself to provide an opposing viewpoint to the simple one taken up by most of the vocal forum denizens.

[niky]

Hydrogen works. But you have to prove that the power used by onboard generation is more than offset by the fuel saved.

And since you brought it up, you also have to prove it works better at preventing knock in lean conditions than simply injecting water... Which, IMHO, is a much simpler proposition.

And you have to prove it works better than simply retuning the motor.

If you are doing multiple changes to the powerplant, you have to separate the effects of each change for your data to be credible.

This is the same with power claims from aftermarket tuning parts. You have to show the breakdown of gains from each part in isolation, you can't claim an extra hundred horses from a performance chip if it just happens to come bundled with a turbo kit.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by niky

Hydrogen works. But you have to prove that the power used by onboard generation is more than offset by the fuel saved.

And since you brought it up, you also have to prove it works better at preventing knock in lean conditions than simply injecting water... Which, IMHO, is a much simpler proposition.

And you have to prove it works better than simply retuning the motor.

If you are doing multiple changes to the powerplant, you have to separate the effects of each change for your data to be credible.

This is the same with power claims from aftermarket tuning parts. You have to show the breakdown of gains from each part in isolation, you can't claim an extra hundred horses from a performance chip if it just happens to come bundled with a turbo kit.

But you are missing the point. I can generate the hydrogen on board, and along with the attending oxygen and water vapor, I can stabilize a combustion condition. With the addition of the small amounts I am speaking of, the effects of water alone are negligible. With the addition of HHO, the effect is dramatic. Is the addition of water a must? No, some engines may have enough EGR at the point in question to provide the needed water as well as the humidity from the intake air stream. We are not talking about knocking or detonation here. I am talking about mixtures so lean, the engine cannot run or if it does, it does so very badly. I do not have to have an itemized breakdown of what each part contributes, because simply - the engine cannot run and the parts, in concert, or individually cannot make the engine run. When the addition of one singular change allows the engine to run, that is definitive. That is credible. That is proof of effect. If an engine cannot operate at 20:1 AFR and I stretch the ability to run and still maintain the same torque output but at 22:1 AFR, I don't see why I cannot claim the 10% gain since it is only attributable to the addition of HHO.

Of course we are talking about a system add on, not a simple performance part.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

You can reject this or that

Thanks , I will.
I prefer the scientific type testing I proposed.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

but you in no uncertain terms said "HHO CANNOT WORK".

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Look at your posts. You claim with your science, that HHO ABSOLUTELY cannot work.

I've corrected you on this error previously ... that is not what I claimed.

It might be more productive and useful if you stuck to what I am actually writing, and claiming.

I've already listed other different types of Hydrogen and Water based system that can produce measurable gains.

The system you've proposed , will function ... in that sense it will work ... it will consume electrical energy , it will likely split water into H2 +O2 , etc ... but, not as you've claimed produce "Measurable Gains" ... and it will not as you have claimed "More than compensate for losses"... there is a significant difference between that and what you have incorrectly claimed about me.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

And now you are saying I cannot run the engine lean as evidence of this?

I made no such claim.
Replying to actual claims I do make will be far more productive, and useful.

I've explained this before, but I'll try again.

This is basic stuff. The basis of scientific method taught even at the high school level. A professional researcher should already know this. But anyway.

The corner stone of scientific testing is to change as few variables in a before and after as possible. If you change 10 or more things you will have a very hard time to scientifically know which one of those is the cause of the resulting change being measured.

In Science (generally) a result is not significant unless you could not reasonably produce the same result in another 'random fluke' type of event. Scientifically 'reasonable'/'significant' usually means more than 2 standard deviations from the norm.

As soon as you want to change the ATF ratio to a Lean Burn mixture.

The correct scientific approach would be to determine the reasonable (greater than 2 standard deviation) expected limits that would come from just doing that ATF ratio change to lean burn without your Hydrogen and Water device.

Your device has to produce greater results than could be had by just making ATF ratio adjustments to run lean (without your device).

As it so happens , we have an example of that Lean Burning ICE without your device.

Without Hydrogen or Water device a properly adjusted Lean Burn ICE has already been properly documented and tested being able to:
Stable and smooth up to as high as 25.8:1 ATF
Achieve up to a 20% improvement to BSFC
Stable and smooth Lean at less than 30% ICE load... up through to.
Stable and smooth Lean at more than 90% ICE load.
Stable and smooth Lean bellow 1,500 RPMs
Stable and smooth Lean up to 3,000 RPMs

To know for to a scientific reasonable certainty that your device is producing any significant benefit , you have to do better than what the tuned Lean Burn ICE above can do without it.

Just like if you had a rocket engine strapped to the back of the car as well as your device. You have to also scientifically account for that other change (the rocket engine effects) in order to know if your results are from the rocket engine or from your device. You do not get to ignore the other change effects ... be they rocket engine, ATF, ICE Timing, electric motor on rear wheel, etc.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

I have never made the claims of the scammers. I simply have taken the position that HHO does work - with certain conditions. And the ability to take an engine to 22:1 AFR with degraded VOC ( variability of combustion - basically it's miss firing ) and then stabilize and strengthen the combustion with the addition of HHO and/or water vapor is proof of the effect the additional reactants are having on combustion.

22:1 ATF is not enough to scientifically rule out that the gains are all coming from just the Lean Burn adjustment itself ... see above ... with no (Hydrogen or Water injection) device an ICE is able to get up to 25.8:1 ... meaning , scientifically 22:1 is not good enough to be significant.

If you only see 10% improved BSFC you are seeing 1/2 the gains of the 20% improved BSFC for the Lean Burn only (no Hydrogen + Water Device) ... which means that 10% is scientifically NOT good enough to be significant.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

I do not have to meet a specification you arbitrarily define.

I never said you did.
I did define 100% reasonable scientific norms for testing, as the terms for my bet / challenge. Weather you like or accept scientific testing methods is entirely up to you.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

If HHO stabilizes a ragged flame front, it is affecting that flame front! It is not proof that your simple math is wrong, it is proof that something else is happening that your equations did not account for.

What math of mine are you referring to?
I do not recall presenting to you flame front calculations here.

We can get into that science and math as well if you like. Sense a basic literature search is usually the 1st step in any professional research. Which specific ones (citation please) from the literature search you did prior to your research would you like to discuss? The ones I've already read won't offer you much net help here.

Also this claim of 'proof' is an unscientific leap. You need to rule out (to greater than 2 standard deviations) other reasonable explanations ... As long as there is a a Lean Burn ICE that gets 25.8:1 without Hydrogen or Water ... just getting 22:1 is not in itself scientifically significant... no matter how much you might want it to be... It isn't... just like 10% improved BSFC is not itself good enough to be scientifically significant... no matter how much you might want it to be... It isn't.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

And white papers are published for internal as well as external viewing.

As has been asked previously multiple times.
Please list the professional peer reviewed journal it was published in, and under what title.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

And the uncertainty? You are uncertain so you won't show up next year at the Green Gran Prix. I will still plan on attending and competing in the open demonstration class.

I am not uncertain at all.
Despite your repeated attempts to try to twist what I claim into that.

If you are certain of your science... as I am of actual science.

And it has already been published in a peer reviewed publication as you claim. Stop being intentionally vague, and dodging questions. List the Title and professional peer reviewed journal where it (this white paper with the supporting science) is published. Agree to proper scientific testing.

I have not yet seen sufficient reason to justify the trip.

[iveyjh]

I think you mean AFR instead ATF, that's automatic transmission fluid.