Old to fuel-saving New to here

[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by elhigh

For the sake of your continued welcome here, George, this is my suggestion:...

1) No more defending your results. If they need defending, they aren't results. Facts require no defense.

I so wish that were true, but I understand what you actually mean and I fully appreciate it. You are all looking for independently verifiable proof. I'll look for (and ask for) ways to make that happen.

Originally Posted by elhigh

2) Shorter posts that cut to the chase.

Got it.

Originally Posted by elhigh

3) Do a straight up, head-to-head comparison. Two identical engines, one with HHO and the other as assembled from the factory. Then for every alteration made to the HHO engine, replicate that too on the control, but without the HHO. Let's see how much difference the HHO makes to the performance with literally all other factors being equal.

I wish I could, but I can't afford to have two identical vehicles and I actually use the vehicles I experiment on, so even if I did have two identical vehicles how would I drive them both in exactly the same circumstances?

One way that we save money and fuel is to license and drive only the vehicles we need at the moment, as I would advise any of my customers and, I assume, you'd advise any ecomodder.

My method is to keep fuel mileage logs and average gains out over time in real world conditions.
One of my fuel savers, the HyCO 2DT has been independently tested on two dynos, proving the power gains and fuel reduction.

In any case, I'll work out, with the ecomodders, something that will be practical for us all.

Thank you for your advise.

[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by sarguy01

With 1,000's of customers, ask a few of them to join this site and share their experiences. We'd love to hear from them.

I am not trying to be completely rude, but put yourself in my shoes. I have read your very lengthy posts and even gone to your website to read even more. I find little fact and a lot of filler. I doubt you so much because you have yet to provide quantifiable data. You keep telling us how many customers you have and how you have saved them so much fuel, yet you cannot show us on this forum any proof of that. You make some big claims about 25-100% increases in fuel economy. Show us. Not in another lengthy post that explains next to nothing, in a post that shows some testing.

Thank you for inviting my customers, that's a good idea. They can verify what my technologies have done for them.

Other than that, I'm not sure how to provide the quantifiable data you're asking for. Suggestions are welcome.

My lengthy posts were the result of trying too hard. I apologize. It's been too long since I've talked to anyone but myself about how this stuff works... My customers only care THAT it works. Here I'm hoping that I can find people interested in HOW it works... Sorry if I've offended, it was totally unintentional.

[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by XYZ

Raising tire pressure or installing an air dam won't void a warranty. Some of the things George is suggesting might not only void a warranty, but also do damage to a vehicle, potentially.

But the real issue is that George doesn't show his theory as being put to the test on any of his cars. Until we see that, the discussion amounts to mere smoke and mirrors.

Nothing I suggest will potentially damage a vehicle in any way. In all the years I've modified vehicles I've never voided a warranty.

I'm a mechanic that actually cares more for the vehicles I work on than the customers who drive them, particularly when most people abuse and don't maintain their vehicles.

Also, one of my design criteria is that the vehicle be able to be returned to OEM anytime, even on the side of the road. I learned to do that when my early experiments would fail in some way and my (first) wife didn't want to be stranded anywhere. Ah, yes, my second (and current) wife would second that motion

As for proof sufficient for you fellas, suggestions on how to do that please... And remember that I'm not a millionaire, I'm a middle class guy like most of you likely are. When making suggestions, please consider ways that YOU could do it.

[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

I wouldn't, unless they can offer up credible test results -- no point cluttering up the forum with breathless testimonials.

I don't expect you to take testimonials as credible proof. At most they offer empirical evidence that points to getting independent testing done. I do want my technologies to be independently tested, I've just never had the time or money to do it... And I've never needed to because I simply gave a no questions asked 100% moneyback guarantee to my customers. My refunds are less than 2% and most of those never tried the product.

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

George, this may interest you as well: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...uel-15251.html

Thank you, very well written. I had seen it as I first explored this website but it was appropriate to point it out to me.

I so wish I could do the EPA testing, but when I looked into it (and CARB testing) I just couldn't afford the time or money to do it. My products HAVE been tested, by various government agencies, but they won't tell me the results. The tests were done to see if they would prosecute me for fraud, and the result was that the 'case' was dropped (all 7 times so far). If I'm allowed to continue here, I'll endeavor to generate proof that is independent of myself.

I think it's appropriate for me to restate that I'm not here to sell anything. I will gift my eBooks to the ecomodders (for a limited time) and I'd hope to then help anyone interested to apply the information to their own vehicles. The projects do not cost much if home built...
The Carburetor Enhancer, for example, is $15 of parts that you can get in a hardware store and typically gives 25%+ gain of 75% of the downdraft carburetors it's applied to. Easy to do and I'll help people do it with NO money to me!

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

You're welcome to offer your books for free to EcoModder members -- the admins here have no problem with that.

Thank you. I'll work on getting it set up. Whom do I notify when it's ready?

[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by Gasoline Fumes

So does a propane conversion inject liquid or vapor fuel? Can I convert to propane and reduce my fuel consumption by 90%? Or does it only work with gasoline vapors? Either way, I really hope to get 500+ MPG this summer with your help! I can't wait until you can find the time to compose some longer posts with more information.

Propane is typically vaporized before being fed into the airstream going into the engine. But, if you read my blog again, you'll see that simply converting from gasoline to propane won't give you a great gain (most people get a loss of power).

Propane is a different fuel, like gasoline and diesel are different. You wouldn't put diesel in a gasoline engine or gasoline into a diesel engine.

Propane WILL burn in an engine designed for gasoline without damaging the engine, but if you actually want a mileage and power gain you need to rebuild the engine to optimize propane characteristics. Higher compression and changes in valve timing are two examples.

Propane is a very 'light' fuel, with few atomic bonds, so Brown's Gas won't give you much gain either, say about 5%. Ditto with water injection; although both will help more with higher compression.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman

I think you'll find, as we proceed, that I know a lot more about combustion than the average mechanic.

The average mechanic doesn't know that much about combustion. He doesn't have to. Scientists on the other hand have to know much more and continually seek to know more. They speak in terms of internal energies, enthalpy, specific heats, etc. They apply basic laws such as the ideal gas law, Dalton's and Amagat's laws on additive pressures and volumes and extend them into the thermochemistry of combustion. You have done none of this and yet you say you "know a lot".

Ouch. I think I've been doing nothing but speaking in terms of science and technology.

No you have not. You just tell stories. No proper discussion. No verifiable data. All new science builds on the old in some way. You need to make that connection in your presentation. Once you do, your logic then will come under scrutiny as is only proper. But without that logical start, there can be no proper discussion.

Just because I'm pointing out that there is a different way to do things does NOT mean that I do not know science and technology! I'm pretty sure that few here could match my mechanical IQ (tested off the chart).

I assert that you DO NOT know science and technology. You will have much to prove. At this point in the discussion, my statement holds just as much validity as yours.

I'm multi-skilled and have accomplishments that NASA can't duplicate (like an electrolyzer design, independently tested, at near 100% Faraday efficiency).

Please tell us why you would not just build a Faraday device and get 100% efficiency?

And back to the issue of the "Lie", please use common science terms and calculate for us how your vehicle that travels 60 mph and gets 20 mpg results in an AFR of 36:1 and change? You made that calculation based on a "full throttle" setting then you go on to say air is "stretchy". Please use science to describe what you mean by "stretchy".

This presentation of a "Lie" is the basis for your technology so you MUST defend this point or the rest of your dissertation holds little value. Even if your test data shows a positive gain for your system, understanding of how and why it works is important if you attempt to extrapolate the device to other applications.

[sarguy01]

Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman

Thank you for inviting my customers, that's a good idea. They can verify what my technologies have done for them.

Other than that, I'm not sure how to provide the quantifiable data you're asking for. Suggestions are welcome.

My lengthy posts were the result of trying too hard. I apologize. It's been too long since I've talked to anyone but myself about how this stuff works... My customers only care THAT it works. Here I'm hoping that I can find people interested in HOW it works... Sorry if I've offended, it was totally unintentional.

With thousands of customers, none of them ever asked how your devices work? They just install them on their car and go?

Quantifiable data. Before and after numbers of your MPGs. http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ery-11445.html This thread explains testing in detail.

I want to see the how you came up with a 25-100% increase in mileage claim. Surely you have this data already compiled somewhere since you have claimed increase on all of your products. You didn't just guess at the increases, right? What was you testing criteria? What test vehicles were used?

I think it's appropriate for me to restate that I'm not here to sell anything. I will gift my eBooks to the ecomodders (for a limited time) and I'd hope to then help anyone interested to apply the information to their own vehicles. The projects do not cost much if home built...
The Carburetor Enhancer, for example, is $15 of parts that you can get in a hardware store and typically gives 25%+ gain of 75% of the downdraft carburetors it's applied to. Easy to do and I'll help people do it with NO money to me!

How is 25% typical? How many carbureted vehicles have you personally tested before and after in controlled situations? If you know that it works in 75% of carbs, you must have collected data to come up with such a figure. Why won't this work in 25% of carbureted vehicles?

[Frank Lee]

Re: Carb "Enhancer" and other carb mods: Seriously, how many of us have carb'd daily drivers?

Speaking of daily drivers (see post #10) I wanted to know what you drive, it's mods, and it's fuel efficiency. Why bother putting up your wife's car with no data? Come on. You have thousands of satisfied customers with your successful 30-year-old business- that according to what you put on Manta, brings in $250,000/year and only gets divided up between two people. You said you have spent tens of thousands of dollars on R&D on one project alone. You said you have mpg records. Surely you have been able to drive your own vehicle and are able to provide records on something.

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman

I don't need or want your money.

Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman

(for a limited time)

This fails to put me at ease.

Regarding offering your e-books to forum members...

I'll work on getting it set up. Whom do I notify when it's ready?

Seems easy to just post in this thread.

Re: your Aveo...

I've been fighting with GM for years now, because the car does NOT get anywhere closer to the sticker mileage

If there was no significant mechanical issue with the car, this statement is a big red flag to me. I hope you'll clarify...

because I'm a mechanic with a scan gauge and the service manuals, I've gotten them to correct a few things.

I would really love to know what you had them correct. I assume these were items that affected fuel economy. Might be extremely helpful to other Aveo owners.

[Frank Lee]

Bump

Originally Posted by George Wiseman
YES! Exactly, I think I was only a little above 700 rpm at 45 mph, if I had a tailwind, (on the prairies) I got as high as 36 mpg (average 32 at 45 mph).

The 361 ci engine had the torque to start out OK with those high gear ratios but I could only spin the tires on gravel, not pavement. Once it got up into the higher rpms (highway speeds) went into its true power curve, which is why I could accelerate so fast at highway speeds. I did pretty well against a lot of hot cars, even with the poor aerodynamics, until I needed to corner... It would also catch air as I'd come over the top of hills at 120+ mph... I was young and lucky...

So, for fuel economy with larger engines, gear them up any way you can to make use of the torque and keep the engine rpm low. Larger diameter tires are one way.

So if I have it all correctly figured out, ALL the extraordinary mpgs this Ford got were due to the extreme gearing, as there are no modded fuel "systems" or really, anything modded that would impact fuel efficiency, other than the gearing. So the truck has pretty much standard weight, standard aerodynamics, maybe a little better than average rolling resistance from the ball bearing axle but standard- not even oversized- tires (not needed because of that extreme axle)... and possibly because you were always in there wrenching on it, it had a high state of stock engine tune, right?

Originally Posted by George Wiseman elsewhere on the web
My prototype took a 1973 GMC 3/4 ton pickup with a 292 ci engine and a 4 speed manual transmission well over 200 mpg. Took my brother and I over a year to build and $16,000 cash out of pocket for components we couldn’t build ourselves (see my book, “Extreme Mileage, 101?.

What are the particulars on this one?