HHO May Benefit Kill Switch System

[t vago]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

The Madyira paper is quite robust compared to the testing that goes on in this forum.

Indeed. In fact, the Madyria paper is sooooo sublime that mere idiot BSEE holders like myself can never hope to understand it.



If only I could grasp the significance of the findings and results of this magical Brown's gas that somehow represents some mystical water plasma, as detailed in this Madyira paper. Hell, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that it takes less energy to add an electron to a water molecule to form a molecule of super-duper Brown's gas, than the energy released when the electron leaves this magical Brown's gas molecule and it turns back into an ordinary water molecule.

I guess it takes the same kind of thinking to state baldly that a ~$3000 ROI out of some $1000 spent on making three different versions of a Styrofoam aerocap, somehow proves that traditional ecomods are not cost effective.

Hell, I guess I should have intelligently coaxed others to make an aerocap for me, instead of foolishly making my own.

[LittleBlackDuck]

Spent lunch going over the Madyira and Harding paper and would like some insight into my comments below.

It states "The air-fuel ratio of the engine was calibrated at 30% load to a value of 14.7"
at what RPM? what was the AFR at other loads / RPMs? This is critical to assess the effect of the HHO with regard to stoichiometric combustion. Also, what is the %load referenced to?

Fig 4a shows significant issues in the graph of power vs RPM - power produced at 2500 RPM is nearly the same as 2000 - is this a problem with carburetion? Similarly, torque vs load (4b) does not look right. 4c & 4D seem to indicate an anomaly at 2000 RPM (is this a lean spot?) Figure 5b seems to confirm this view that there are issues with mixture transition between idle and 2000 RPM at low loads.

"Figure 6(a) indicates that an increase in power can be achieved with the introduction of the hydrogen gas. There is more than 4% increase observed for a dynamometer load of 10% at an HHO inclusion of 0.125%. However, the gain is quickly lost as HHO percentage increases. This reinforces the hypothesis that only a small percentage of hydrogen is required to improve combustion properties." How is this contention supported? The gains at 10-20% load can possibly be explained by the previously mentioned lean transition area.

"It can be seen that the SFC is more than 20% lower under 0% load conditions at 0.2% HHO inclusion." I am at a loss as to how you can calculate SFC for a 0 load condition. I feel it is more likely is that the HHO provided the additional chemical energy to reduce fuel consumption at idle.

I am not trying to be argumentative, just seeking to understand how the conclusions were arrived at and to fathom out whether there is really a gain to be had.

Simon

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

. . . pretty much EVERY mod on this site NEVER returns the time and money spent in the exercise.

So why do it?

HHO is not the all encompassing silver bullet the snake oil salesmen put it out to be, but it does have value, if you are willing to put the effort into it. The Madyira paper shows HHO has promise. There are more papers. The reference footnotes are valuable and are worth looking up.

Understanding is a big part of the exercise and the greatest reward. Learning is too.

At least our usual mods return measurable and repeatable gains.
Trying to increase fuel economy with hho is about like trying to save water by flushing money down the toilet.

[LittleBlackDuck]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

At least our usual mods return measurable and repeatable gains.
Trying to increase fuel economy with hho is about like trying to save water by flushing money down the toilet.

I'm still trying to come to grips with the type of mods that some of the people on this site perform on their vehicles, but to each his own. The cost effectiveness of some of the mods are, in my opinion, dubious if you factor in the total cost including the potential reduction in life that may occur.

Simon

[gumby79]

Such as EOC with a turbo charged rig... $1000-2500 to replace a fryed turbo. How many years is the ROI from warping the shaft 1time .(after the turbine grenades it typically wipes out the rest of the motor) a 5.9l cummins runs $4500 and up...
Yes Diesel Dave is getting 57mpg and saving bu$$ loads on fuel. How much life is going to be stripped when operator choice (not error) frags the turbo/motor the chain reaction could go as far as taking out trans ,cluch, drive shaft, ect ect.

What % of his 57mpg is from EOC under 10% is my guss that puts EOC in the same class as HHO as per OilPan not worth the time of day. (Not picking on you Oil Pan ) but single digit improvements add up. Not evry one has a brick shaped car like me , to throw an Aero Tonto cover on to see a double digit gain.

EPA Combined Rating / % over rating: 18.237 mpg (US) / 24.5% (based on 90-day fuel economy)
Total fills: 33

The 18.237 is my naked average.
Gumby Stay Flexible

[LittleBlackDuck]

Originally Posted by gumby79

Such as EOC with a turbo charged rig... $1000-2500 to replace a fryed turbo. How many years is the ROI from warping the shaft 1time .(after the turbine grenades it typically wipes out the rest of the motor) a 5.9l cummins runs $4500 and up...
Yes Diesel Dave is getting 57mpg and saving bu$$ loads on fuel. How much life is going to be stripped when operator choice (not error) frags the turbo/motor the chain reaction could go as far as taking out trans ,cluch, drive shaft, ect ect.

What % of his 57mpg is from EOC under 10% is my guss that puts EOC in the same class as HHO as per OilPan not worth the time of day. (Not picking on you Oil Pan ) but single digit improvements add up. Not evry one has a brick shaped car like me , to throw an Aero Tonto cover on to see a double digit gain.

The 18.237 is my naked average.
Gumby Stay Flexible

Yep, relatively small short term gain for larger, longer term pain does not make sense to me.

One of the reasons I chose the Lexus hybrids is their great reliability coupled with much better economy. Despite trying really hard in the RX450h I have struggled to use more than 9L/100km, which is more than 30% better than its normal engined brethren. The best I have achieved was just over 6L/100km driving slowly near home. I see this as sustainable without having to *******ise any parts of the car. It also allows me to drive to the conditions and concentrate on safety instead of remembering to kill the fuel, pop the trans into neutral, hope the brakes don't run out of boost, wrestle with no power steering and still maintain situational awareness of all of the other idiots on the road.

One mod that I have not seen on this forum is the addition of an aftermarket TPMS to alert if a tyre loses air. This cost me about $80USD and would have saved a $200+ tyre. I have set the lower limit really tight, warning me if I am losing fuel economy from under inflation.

Simon

[gumby79]

Originally Posted by LittleBlackDuck

One mod that I have not seen on this forum is the addition of an aftermarket TPMS to alert if a tyre loses air. This cost me about $80USD and would have saved a $200+ tyre. I have set the lower limit really tight, warning me if I am losing fuel economy from under inflation.

Simon

Gota link to the aftermarket TPMS grate Idea

[LittleBlackDuck]

Ebay item number 291727810625 is what I bought. The display firs perfectly into a spare switch spot in the CT200h and the sensors are inside the wheels. It is a Careud T912. They also have models that use sensors that screw in place of the valve cap and mount in the lighter socket. They display pressure and temperature and alert if the pressure goes too high or low.

Simon

[oil pan 4]

Turning an engine on and off is not going to hurt a turbo charger.

For example flight line used ford F350 super duty trucks with 6.4L diesel engine can be started and turned off 100 times per day 5 to 7 days per week because of the idiotic rules the air force comes up with.
In all that time I only know of 1 turbo charger failure. It failed because it was gunked up from being driven at 15mph or less (the flight line speed limit) during the winter on bio diesel. The effect on engine starters is surprisingly lacking. Starting the trucks 100 times per day maybe cuts the life of the starter maybe in half.
Before the fords we had 90 and 91 dodge rams with 5.9L. Those were more solid than the fords for sure.

Then there is the fact that EOC isn't a vehicle modification. But unlike HHO, EOC actually works. It would take my 7.4L gas suburban from 9 to 10 MPG and bring it up to 12 to 13 MPG. I only use the EOC going to stop signs and stop lights that have turned. I don't know what other people are doing.

I don't have power steering on my 3/4 ton suburban. It must be nice.

The one mod I see people doing that will end up costing more later on is over inflating their new tires. The middle of the tire will be showing cord when the shoulders still have 3/32 inch of tread. I will do a max inflation on a set of tires only after they are ready for replacement.

[gumby79]

What happens when oil is exposed to temperatures in the 500-700° f range? Sounds like a cooked bering to me

As my turbo can and will do after shutdown with out a cool down cycle. This is why I only cost in Neutral. As well as EOC at 70-85mph for 7yes 7mi will cook the bearings in my auto transmission. trans =1$$$'s what is the ROI on a cooked trans?