Why don't you demand courtesy from any and all topics?

[RustyLugNut]

I say this to the mods and the long time members of this forum.

The fact that HHO scammers deal in Unicorn Stuff doesn't mean the topic in and of itself is utterly without value.

The fact that any mention of HHO results in the right to bash a poster or sidetrack a thread makes it difficult to even lay the groundwork to show there is merit in limited applications. If I want to pursue investigation into those limited applications I don't need the thread filled with the continuous arguments that do not apply. Arguments such as "you can't run on water", "you will never make enough HHO to run your vehicle" or "you can't make enough HHO to fuel your car", are not even the points in discussion but, they continue to cascade down flooding the logic of the thread. If I say there is basic chemical pathways to make it work on a limited basis, then please discuss the chemistry and not demand numbers for numbers sake or some such.

Other topics such as tribology of nano lubricants gets smothered because there are salesmen pitching them. But they do have merit and are worth looking into. But they have much the same stigma and thus get the same treatment as such and thus no posters even consider them.

These areas become holes in the ecomodder knowledge base.

I am not without fault when it comes to these arguments, but frustration is pretty much the norm with the usual outcomes if one tries to even broach such subjects on these forums.

I get that I don't "have pictures and logs". Is that the basis to be entered into the gentleman's club? If that is the case, I can provide pictures and logs. I have doubts that, that will be enough for some. Thus, my offer to meet at the Green Grand Prix.

[t vago]

With regard to treating members with courtesy, with regard to a given topic: You, RustyLugNut, burned that bridge with me two years ago.

You, RustyLugNut, treated my topic of EGR with tactics that you claimed that people treat anything regarding HHO.

You, RustyLugNut, deliberately misconstrued my data and drew false conclusions, and littered my EGR thread with them.

You, RustyLugNut, appeared not to listen to anything I had to say on the matter of EGR, but you did do a fine job of doing personal attacks.

You, RustyLugNut, even mentioned as much with your supposed "apology" thread. Here, let me quote it for you:

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Apologies first of all to T Vago for the thread jack. It is a good sound build. And I used it as an example of what happens when extemporaneous and unthoughtful postings are interjected into a thread.

I am not one to engage in flippant repartee or vulgar banter, but even without that approach, I can be very damaging.

The first thing to remember is, it is T Vago's thread and respect must be given to his train of thought as well as to his standing as the author.

So, what do I do? I undermine his authority as the original poster (OP). I make veiled or direct references to his lack of understanding of the subject and continually do so throughout. This is a basic tactic of arguments whether consciously done or not.

Next I attack his train of thought by simply arguing point after point, nit-picking around the edges, waxing pedantic about the smallest points, obfuscating his original intent. It has the same effect of burying a thread in stupid postings.

Then I jump to conclusions. I lead the reader off the path by making an ending that may be plausible or not but has not been reached by the OP's build.

And I continuously needle the OP to get a reaction. Making him uncomfortable and defensive.

Does any of this seem familiar to you? It should, because this is exactly what happens to pretty much any build that starts here in the Corral.

The point is, RustyLugNut, is that you did all of the behaviors you claimed to abhor, then you fall back on "victim status" when things don't go your way.

I do also like the fact, RustyLugNut, that you deleted your crap posts out of my thread, in a dishonest attempt to cover your tracks. However, you will of course notice that you can't delete the material I quoted.

Let's get one thing clear: The meaningful discussion and exchange of ideas to improve fuel economy is harmed by all of the behaviors that YOU YOURSELF, RustyLugNut, exhibited.

For reference, here is your "apology" thread, RustyLugNut -> EcoModder.Com: This is in reference to the EGR build that T Vago was presenting.

And here's my thread that you shat all over -> EcoModder.Com: EGR experiment (Increase EGR flow for fuel economy)

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by t vago

With regard to treating members with courtesy, with regard to a given topic: You, RustyLugNut, burned that bridge with me two years ago.

You, RustyLugNut, treated my topic of EGR with tactics that you claimed that people treat anything regarding HHO.

You, RustyLugNut, deliberately misconstrued my data and drew false conclusions, and littered my EGR thread with them.

You, RustyLugNut, appeared not to listen to anything I had to say on the matter of EGR, but you did do a fine job of doing personal attacks.

You, RustyLugNut, even mentioned as much with your supposed "apology" thread. Here, let me quote it for you:



The point is, RustyLugNut, is that you did all of the behaviors you claimed to abhor, then you fall back on "victim status" when things don't go your way.

I do also like the fact, RustyLugNut, that you deleted your crap posts out of my thread, in a dishonest attempt to cover your tracks. However, you will of course notice that you can't delete the material I quoted.

Let's get one thing clear: The meaningful discussion and exchange of ideas to improve fuel economy is harmed by all of the behaviors that YOU YOURSELF, RustyLugNut, exhibited.

For reference, here is your "apology" thread, RustyLugNut -> EcoModder.Com: This is in reference to the EGR build that T Vago was presenting.

And here's my thread that you shat all over -> EcoModder.Com: EGR experiment (Increase EGR flow for fuel economy)

I OFFERED myself as the example of such horrid behavior. Do you not understand that? I chose your thread because you do an excellent job of producing valuable information. I expected you to be miffed and stand your ground and it should have been a perfect example of bad behavior in a valuable thread. People did learn from it and there was considerably less buffoonery. I do not apologize for that. I do apologize for using you as an example. Your work is admirable, and if you do not know that in your own being, I can't help that.

But, maybe I should follow in the footsteps of pgfPro and step away from this forum. Cutting edge topics was what this forum used to be about at it's inception. This forum has lost it's focus what with the low cost of fuel and the failure of the AutoXprize. I can always disseminate my work in another format. But, this forum has lost, and will lose valuable members if there continues to be a knee jerk reaction to certain topics only because it has proven to be volatile in the past. Our membership has shrunk to only the most avid of hobbyists, but that should not stop us from at least placing the offending topic in the Coral and kindly telling the poster to have at it. I do not consider thermochemistry a coral topic, but if electro-mechanical proof is needed then, there it stays until I bring you that proof. I offer to experiment and show firsthand the work. Along the way, I expect enough restraint from the opposition such that the information can be disseminated in a logical manner.

It takes a big man to take a blow. It takes a bigger man to forgive the blow. What kind of man are you?

[oil pan 4]

HHO believers are cancer to the DIY fuel economy improvement community.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

HHO believers are cancer to the DIY fuel economy improvement community.

However, all I'm asking is the right to produce a logical discussion without the interjection of the rabble. I am willing to prove that HHO does NOT work as the salesmen claim as well as any small gains that can be found in specific applications. Is that not worth some discussion?

Otherwise, you are relegating this forum to the dark ages mentality that all there is to know is known.

Keep it in the coral if you must, but be open enough to admit honest research and questioning. Otherwise, we have what we see repeatedly in any HHO related thread . . . nothing of value.

I put out the basic chemical reality that a small seeding of hydrogen and oxygen can affect the combustion profile ( water vapor too). If you have anything to say about that, please reply on topic whether you are for or against or maybe. If you don't have the chemistry background then don't post. Simple. Once we have established that possibility, ChazInMT's question about producing it on board via electrolysis from the alternator becomes relevant. Can an exceedingly small volume of electrolytically produced gas affect the combustion? I say it can as I have done some work in the past that shows it is possible with certain caveats. 140 watts maximum. Less power than some folks car stereos. And as the engine warms, some of the wasted engine heat in the coolant can be used to reduce that wattage to the electrolysis device. Now, all I have to do is redo the work I did almost 20 years ago and do a proof on a gasoline powered vehicle. This will take time and effort for no reason other than to prove how HHO will not work, and how it can work in a narrow way.

Now, when the HHO scammers come trotting in, or some visitor with an honest inquiry to the subject, then we as a forum have an answer that is definite and authoritative. Otherwise, it stays a political issue instead of a technical. It should be a technical answer. It either doesn't work, does, or kinda does.

That is all I am offering and all I require is some semblance of order when the topic arises.

[ME_Andy]

This forum has lost it's focus what with the low cost of fuel and the failure of the AutoXprize

I think you're onto something. It's about low fuel prices, and electric cars, and new vehicles that are actually decently engineered- well enough that the home mechanic can't improve much without going too extreme.

[ChazInMT]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

However, all I'm asking is the right to produce a logical discussion without the interjection of the rabble.

You consistently have proven yourself incapable of logical discussion because you refuse to answer questions directly. How is a person supposed to have a logical discussion with someone that does not provide the information asked? I would like to understand how your system is supposed to work but you only speak the language of pseudoscience. This is why you raise the ire of those of us here.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

You consistently have proven yourself incapable of logical discussion because you refuse to answer questions directly. How is a person supposed to have a logical discussion with someone that does not provide the information asked? I would like to understand how your system is supposed to work but you only speak the language of pseudoscience. This is why you raise the ire of those of us here.

It is of such a basic nature and the words are such I CANNOT make it any more simple!

A very small amount of HHO can affect combustion. That HHO may not be created in an efficient manner, but it can help contract the combustion curve and net more power than is lost in it's creation. There is nothing untoward in what I have said. Can you not see that the LOSSES in an engine is where the net "energy" is coming from?

You even stated that hydrocarbons are full of hydrogen! All thermochemistry tells us is, a small seeding amount of hydrogen and oxygen can cause a domino effect and release that hydrogen so that classic hydrogen research in the 4% range becomes viable. Go pull up numerous papers on the subject . They are all over the internet. Yes, they can be boring and very technical, but you can just go to the summaries. Hydrogen is fast burning because it does not get trapped in side reactions. It can't. Carbon can. Even the simplest fuel, CH4 is almost an order of magnitude slower in flame propagation because it starts to get sidetracked and produces compounds. Depending on your flame test, CH4 will burn at a rate of 30 cm per second while hydrogen does so at 300 cm per second. But, the minuscule amount H2 is not burning at an accelerated rate! It is chopping up the CH4 and preventing much of the compound formations that would sidetrack the thermodynamics of the combustion. The Carbon can oxidize and form CO2 more rapidly. It may only accelerate that flame front from 30 cm per second to 35 cm per sec, but it is enough to take a few degrees ignition lead away while producing more torque.

Look at a classic ignition/pressure curve. That pressure rise BEFORE top dead center (TDC) is lost work. Reducing that area by faster burn NETS you that lost work by moving it into the area AFTER TDC. This is a basic concept of internal combustion engines. Nothing is pseudoscience. Engine designers strive for this. Thus we have high swirl ports and squish and tumble. These all accelerate and move that flame front along reducing the need for ignition lead. This is why HHO will fail in most modern vehicles that already have accelerated combustion capable cylinder heads.

I introduced the idea of brake mean effective pressure (BMEP) and did a calculation that showed how just a few PSI gain can net several horsepower. The average passenger car engine cruises at peak pressures of a few hundred PSI with BMEP at a less than 100 PSI. Shifting any pressure losses from the negative to the positive nets you the few PSI gain needed to produce more power with the same amount of fuel. This is such a basic concept of mechanical engineering, I don't know how to make it even more understandable.

Well, now you say, the electrolysis efficiency is too low to net any gains. True, if you are just using gobs of electricity to produce that HHO gas. But, if you have an engine that already likes to knock ( older iron head, iron block with high compression ) a very small amount of HHO is needed. I used the number 230 cc per minute. That is not all gas as I explained as a large amount is also steam. But, 140 Watts using Coulombic calcs gives us enough hydrogen to start the domino effect going. The amount of gas needed to start the pre-combustion depolymerization of the hydrocarbon fuel is dependent on the energy of the combustion mix (temperature, pressure, kinetic energy - swirl and tumble). Some engines need a relatively small amount. Some engines are so insensitive, you cannot produce enough HHO without bogging the engine down with alternator load. I use 303/304 Stainless steel in my electrolyzer only because there is a ton of it in the scrap pile out back of the shop. It has a large over-voltage. That is the voltage needed to get any useful electrolysis going. It needs about 2.5v per cell to get my 230 cc/min. But, configuring the cells to have a water jacket with hot water running through it at 80 deg C, reduces the voltage to 1.7V to get the same volume of electrolytic gasses. That gain in efficiency comes from the heat lost in the engine coolant. This actually allows us to stack not 4, but 6 cells in the series. We could get 50% more gas output for the same power. But, that is not necessarily needed. Just play with your engine design and the parameters of operation. PfgPro's engine would have been ideal for this. He can add heat, and compression via a change in boost pressure at cruise as he showed he could do. He could reduce his ignition lead via a "leaky N2O2 injector". HHO will not have as large an effect but with some juggling of intake heat as well as cruise boost, you could see some measurable changes, I predict. Again, since the ignition lead in a lean burn engine is quite long, reducing this lead nets more torque for the same amount of fuel used.

Now the area of real interest to the DIY ecomodder is the lean burn range. Most of us can simply look to the threads of the Honda crowd and see they run at 22:1 AFR and with some tweaking they can run up to about 24:1 AFR. At that point, misfire and partial combustion become prevalent and torque drops. PgfPro could run at 28:1 AFR and above! With his "leaky N2O2" he had calculated AFRs in the 30:1 range with torque enough to drive on. Again, his leaky Nitrous valve provides an affect greater than HHO can, but it underlines the fact that classic studies support what he was doing by the introduction of compounds that easily form active radicals. HHO is one of those compounds since the energy of decomposition of the diatomic hydrogen molecule is relatively low and H+ and OH- radicals can be formed before ignition is started, not after.

So, where is the pseudoscience in all of the above? There is none! I dare you to take the above to ANY tech school or university. It violates none of the classic sciences.

Will we see 50% or 100% more fuel economy? Of course not! I've never said that and the science does not support it. In an engine running at stoichiometry, very little gain is expected - if any at all as the fast burn at stoichiometry for modern engines negates any effect HHO can have. In an older engine design, there may be a gain in the single digits. Lean burn is where gains of value can be made. We all know pumping losses at cruise can approach 15% because of throttling. By opening up the throttle and leaning out the mix, we can gain back some of that lost pumping efficiency. But, by using lean burn, we lose some efficiency back because of the exceedingly long lead times needed as mentioned above. The Honda lean burn can net 7-10% more thermal efficiency (TE). If you can extend the AFR while producing the same torque, you can net even more of that 15% and go beyond. At 30:1 AFR, will you net 50% thermal efficiency since you are using only half the fuel at 14.7:1 AFR? No, it's not that simple. But, you can probably see 15-20% increase in thermal efficiency. What does this mean in a practical sense? It just means your average 30% TE engine can climb up to 34.5% TE or so. About the same as the engine found in the Toyota Prius.

All the above is not pseudoscience. JrMichner posted briefly. I don't think he read the thread. He just posted the usual anti HHO answer. I challenge any of the engineering types to discuss the above. It is not without it's holes and opinions but it is real science.

Again, if you don't understand the above, don't post! You just junk up the thread. I'll answer questions if they are germane to the subject.

Chaz, the fact you didn't know that protons reside in your drinking water means you really need to think before posting.

I have to run. The CO2 laser isn't behaving. Yes, I have lasers! No sea bass, but I have lasers!

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by ME_Andy

I think you're onto something. It's about low fuel prices, and electric cars, and new vehicles that are actually decently engineered- well enough that the home mechanic can't improve much without going too extreme.

For the average person.

But, ecomodders are different. We have to fool with things. We have a natural inquisitiveness that makes us what we are. If we weren't fooling with ecomodding our cars, we would find something else.

The next generation may be more equipped to deal with modern cars. I just met a young man in my son's band. He is a mechanic by day. He talks about programming and electronics like he was an EE. I was impressed at his breath of knowledge until I realized, he grew up in this environment. I took classes for a degree in EE back 30 years ago. He grew up with it! He claims most any car can be re-tuned for better performance and economy. I'm going to have to take him up on that claim.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...and, such "re-programmings" are exactly *WHY* both OEM and EPA are NOT happy with owners doing such things...it's too easy for them to: (a) defeat / circumvent EPA emissions (ala' VW) and (b) cause damage to engines while STILL under either factory warranty and/or EPA-mandated emissions warranty!

Almost none of the aero-mods are legal "by the book" definitions. I've been stopped for having zip ties holding my license plate in place.

You can get exemptions for research vehicles used on-road. Schools and universities get it all the time. I have several such vehicles. Perfectly legal if you file your paperwork properly and state your work goals and procedures. Locally, we deal with the AQMD which supersedes the EPA office. Your locality may have a different set of official loops to jump through.

And thanks for that good post. Posts such as this is all I ask.