Run your car on water??????

[Hornet33]

Yeah I read that PM artical. Guess what he didn't install? He didn't have an EFIE installed. He was also using a waterforgas design and those have been proven to be junk. No wonder he didn't see any changes. That's the problem with all the folks trying to debunk the things. They don't know what they are doing and end up with a halfassed install, then claim, "It doesn't work."  Well duh. There is alot more to these things than just slapping a booster together and tossing it in the trunk.

Oh and as far as my driving habits go, I really haven't changed anything about how I drive. I still run at 65mph on the interstate just like I always have. I leave the line fast and stop hard. Oh and six months of collecting data on how far I've driven on each tank of gas, logging everything, and then doing the math to get a 6 month baseline average is hard data, but whatever. I know it works because I'm seeing the results.

[Holden McGroin]

you got lab reports to verify this?

you could duplicate your old and new driving habits on a dyno with equipment hooked up.

As the reason for the dyno is to remove the human factors, to me your sarcasm seems thin.

[Holden McGroin]

I know you hate math Hornet, but here goes anyway.

I’ve gone through these numbers several times now, and they say this:

From this thread, I think I have found that your hydrogen generator produces 2 liters per minute. 
I will assume it is at a pressure of say 20 psi absolute pressure.  5.3 psia over atmospheric.  If this pressure is too high, the bottom line number in this post is too low.

The stoichiometric mixture of gasses you produce is by MW, 1:8 Hydrogen to Oxygen. 
MW of H2 is 2.016 and O2 is 16.

So by the method of partial pressure, hydrogen is 2.23 psi, and the O2 is the rest.

From the perfect gas law, you produce 0.003331 lbm / hr of hydrogen.

From the JPL reports, from catalytic stripping of fuel, not splitting of water, they produced Hydrogen output flow rates of 0.4 to 2.1 lbm /hr.

This is 120 to 630 times your hydrogen output.

JPL brake specific fuel consumption (including the losses associated with the gas generator) decreases of 6 - 15% from the stock engine were observed over most of the engine BMEP - RPM operating- regime.

Your 11 to 16 mpg is a 45% increase in efficiency.

JPL achieved 6 to 15% with 120 to 630 times the hydrogen production, and produced it in a more energy efficient manner.

JPL produced 1/3 your improvement with 120 to 630 times the effort.

[CAP1]

As the reason for the dyno is to remove the human factors, to me your sarcasm seems thin.

actually, it's not.
you can manually run a car on the dyno, with a tach hooked up, exhasut probe, fuel gauges, and load it to any specific load you want.

[CAP1]

I know you hate math Hornet, but here goes anyway.

I’ve gone through these numbers several times now, and they say this:

From this thread, I think I have found that your hydrogen generator produces 2 liters per minute. 
I will assume it is at a pressure of say 20 psi absolute pressure.  5.3 psia over atmospheric.  If this pressure is too high, the bottom line number in this post is too low.

The stoichiometric mixture of gasses you produce is by MW, 1:8 Hydrogen to Oxygen. 
MW of H2 is 2.016 and O2 is 16.

So by the method of partial pressure, hydrogen is 2.23 psi, and the O2 is the rest.

From the perfect gas law, you produce 0.003331 lbm / hr of hydrogen.

From the JPL reports, from catalytic stripping of fuel, not splitting of water, they produced Hydrogen output flow rates of 0.4 to 2.1 lbm /hr.

This is 120 to 630 times your hydrogen output.

JPL brake specific fuel consumption (including the losses associated with the gas generator) decreases of 6 - 15% from the stock engine were observed over most of the engine BMEP - RPM operating- regime.

Your 11 to 16 mpg is a 45% increase in efficiency.

JPL achieved 6 to 15% with 120 to 630 times the hydrogen production, and produced it in a more energy efficient manner.

JPL produced 1/3 your improvement with 120 to 630 times the effort.

dude,

forget reports. they're like politics. they can and will be swayed one way or another.

you've heard of it working. hornet is showing it to work.

 do you think any of the great minds of the past just said "it's impossible, and here's why?""
or possibly they said something more like " i wonder what will happen if i try this""?

 when hornet runs on the dyno, and it proves out, what then? faulty dyno run?

i'm not tryin to be wise asss...nevermind, i am......but anyway, open your friggin mind dude. unlearn a little, and you might learn something

[Holden McGroin]

you've heard of it working. hornet is showing it to work.

Hornet is running his vehicle and is getting better milage.

That is what we know.  As to why, well that what science is all about.  If it weren't for skepticism, we would still believe that the sun returned to the east on the back of a turtle.

Science requires skepticism and incredible results require incredible proof. That proof requires incredible scrutiny.

I am giving him scrutiny, and that is part of the process.  You are believing unquestionably: that is religion, not science.

As for forgetting about reports, well those who forget about the past are doomed to repeat it.

[CAP1]

Hornet is running his vehicle and is getting better milage.

That is what we know.  As to why, well that what science is all about.  If it weren't for skepticism, we would still believe that the sun returned to the east on the back of a turtle.

Science requires skepticism and incredible results require incredible proof. That proof requires incredible scrutiny.

I am giving him scrutiny, and that is part of the process.  You are believing unquestionably: that is religion, not science.

As for forgetting about reports, well those who forget about the past are doomed to repeat it.

 nosir,
i am not believing unquestionably.

 i know what goes on inside the combustion chamber when you mix air, fuel, and a little spark. i know how that process makes power. i know how that process is  almost the cause of its own in-effeciency. i know that by adding this in, we're creating a situation that allows us to burn the mixture faster, thus burn the mixture more effeciently, and completley before the exhaust valve opens, thus using less fuel to create the same power.

 that is why i believe hornett, and not your un-disputable numbers. there are times when you need to look at things from a different perspective.

 as for not believing the reports you mentioned? as hornet mentioned......they used the crappy jar one with baking soda and tap water. that would skew the results.
 almost any results in almost any report, especially from a magazine reporter can, and quite often will be skewed to favor what they want it to favor.

 so....if this guy has been on record saying these units don't work, then he tests one and finds it to work, don't you think he's going to look kind of bad?

[Holden McGroin]

as for not believing the reports you mentioned? as hornet mentioned......they used the crappy jar one with baking soda and tap water. that would skew the results.

I believe that NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory used only excellent quality Mason(r) jars and only MIL spec 3M duct tape in the last study I quoted.

[Hornet33]

Well since we have gotton back to this whole thing about testing and reports. Holden several other people and myself have posted articals from a bunch of major universities written by proffesors and engineers on this very subject and ALL of them have stated that the introduction of tiny amounts of HHO gas to the fuel air mix of an ICE WILL increase the thermal efficiancy of that engine. With that increase the amount of fuel needed to produce the same amount of power with the HHO will be less, hence the engine will use less gasoline for the same amount of power.

That is the science behind the entire process. Yes, you have to add an EFIE device or some other device to change the fuel air mixture. Why? Because most people don't want to spend the large amounts of money to have their vehicles ECU reprogramed. It's easier to fool it by sending a "modified" signal from the O2 sensor. OK no big deal. The outcome is the same.

I've agreed that you can't get more out than you put in, 2nd law of thermodynamics and all. All the electrical power used to generate the gas IS wasted. No doubt about that, but when the HHO gas is added to the F/A mix and the thermal efficiancy of the engine is increased, that overcomes the miniscule loss of power from generating the gas via the battery and alternator resulting in a net gain in fuel used for a set amount of power output from the engine itself. That is were the savings come into play. The thermal efficiancy of the engine, alternator and booster are NOT directly proportional so an over all gain in total efficiancy of the system (engine, alternator, battery, booster) can be achieved.

That's basic science right there telling me that, and backed up by scientists and engineers.

[Elfie]

Hornet I am really anticipating seeing the results of both dyno tests.

[SD67]

x2

[CAP1]

I believe that NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory used only excellent quality Mason(r) jars and only MIL spec 3M duct tape in the last study I quoted.

OOOOOO....government scientists?? suuuurrrreeeeeee, we can definitly believe them. i must now apologize for doubting you, go bury my head in the sand, as government scientists are never ever wrong, and never ever change their findings to suit the political climate.

[SNO]

Here ya go, have you seen this one
http://www.preignitioncc.com/default/index.htm

[SD67]

Now THOSE claims seem a little inflated to be sure.
If they were trading here in Oz the ACCC would be all over them like a Nigerian on an eBay newbie.

[Holden McGroin]

Yes, you have to add an EFIE device or some other device to change the fuel air mixture.

Lets see... so if I fool the oxy sensor so I can run a leaner fuel air mixture...  that would mean I would burn less fuel per revolution of the engine...