Run your car on water??????

[CAP1]

well I havent read the entire thread, yet, but I'm just curious about how this modification affects the other engine components.  I would think that adding something to the combustion chamber would increase pressure to some degree.  How does this mod affect pistons, rings, cylinders, valve guides and seals, gaskets, sparkplugs, EGR valves, etc.    Damage would necessarily show right away either but may take months to show up. 

I'm interest and will read up more but I would like to see long term results too

ok...i understand what you're getting at now..........

i THINK it will raise combustion pressure a small amount. it would stand to reason, just from more effecient combustion.

 also keep in mind though, most engines can take some extra pressures. most v8's from ford, chevy, and chrysler, can have a 150hp shot of nitrous added on stock engnes without any detrimental effects. they can take 8 to 10 lbs of boost from either a turbo or a supercharger the same. this shouldn;t be putting anywhere near as much extra load on the engine as those systems do.

 hell, the ford and chevy v8's are nearly indestructable. the chrysler ones.....put a few miles on em, and then convert em to boat anchors.

[Holden McGroin]

Did you even read the last sentance in my post?

Yes I did.

I was commenting on this,

Prior to install my six month MPG average for routine driving was 11.6 MPG  I would get roughly 250 miles from a tank of gas and the average gas purchase over the six month period was 21 gallons to fill the tank. I would wait until the "your almost out of gas dummy" light would come on before filling up. I topped off the tank and reset my trip meter right after I installed the booster.

When I filled it up today it took 20.8 gallons of gas and the trip meter was showing 349. That's 16.7 MPG!!!!! A 5 MPG increase on my first tank of gas using the booster is pretty good.

Which means nothing as it was not a scientific test.

and this,

I haven't changed my driving habits

Which is undoubtedly false, as you are paying attention to your efficiency and you want it to work.  Nothing personal on that, but the reason that road driving is not a good measure of engine efficiency is because we are so much a piece of the efficiency pie and we are not the best measure of our own habits.  Our behavior must be taken completely out of the test.

posted by CAP1
aawww nowwww, c'mon hornet,

we already established that the extra money in your wallet does not count as proof that this works

You are correct.  Driving behavior could account for extra money in your pocket.

In the 1980's, people were taping cow magnets to their gaslines and swearing they were getting a 5 mpg increase.  The magnets did nothing, driving behavior was the only difference... even though ppl swore they did not change their driving habits.

[CAP1]

You are correct.  Driving behavior could account for extra money in your pocket.

In the 1980's, people were taping cow magnets to their gaslines and swearing they were getting a 5 mpg increase.  The magnets did nothing, driving behavior was the only difference... even though ppl swore they did not change their driving habits.

well, i can tell ya.....when i finally get the time to finish mine, and install it, it will be an honest judgement. i'm an impatient love muffin when i'm driving. i'm the guy that wants all you slow drivers off the road so i can get where i'm going and get there now........with my geo, if i'm accelerating, my foot's in the floor. throttle's either open all the way or cruising. no inbetween.

[mensa180]

So what are the results?

[Elfie]

So what are the results?

He said he got over 16 mpg......but he hasn't done another dyno test yet, he's waiting a month to do that.

[CAP1]

He said he got over 16 mpg......but he hasn't done another dyno test yet, he's waiting a month to do that.

i could be misjudging.....but from what i read of hornet's stuff on these boards, i'd agree with him.

i think the numbers will back up what his wallet says.\

[Holden McGroin]

So what are the results?

Here's a guy doing another test with HHO injection: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4276846.html?series=19

Water-Powered Cars: Hydrogen Electrolyzer Mod Can't Up MPGs

After batting down the hype over startups and DIYers claiming they could run a car on water, PM's senior automotive editor installs a hand-built HHO kit—only to find he was right the first time. Can bad chemistry keep the myth of the water car alive? More heavy testing in the PM garage will tell.

By Mike Allen Popular Mechanics
Published on: August 7, 2008

Water-powered cars continue to be the largest single topic taking over my in box—and the Comments section of this Web site. And it's not just my recent column on the truth about water-chugging prototypes. This trend has become an obsession with many backyard inventors, and some of them have become quite strident, insisting that if I knew anything at all about cars, I'd be embracing this technology. They say it could help change the world as we know it. They even say it could eliminate the energy crisis altogether. For this sentiment, I applaud them. And honestly, I hope it's all true.

Unfortunately, I have to indict their physics. The entire concept of running your car on water is based on bad science. The idea is to use electricity from the car's alternator to electrolyze water into HHO, a mixture of pure hydrogen and oxygen. This mix is fed into the intake air, where it is burned along with gasoline, thereby increasing your fuel economy anywhere from 15 to 100 percent—depending on which Web site you're visiting. Believe the hype, and those 1 to 2 liters of HHO streamed into the engine will double the fuel economy, clean the engine out, and maybe even grow hair. Plenty of these budget sites even claim their devices are efficient enough for a version that would run a car entirely on water—no gasoline at all.

If this sounds like it's too good to be true, it is. And I've discussed it in this column too many times to go over again, so I won't. I've tested way too many bogus gas savers and miracle fuel-saving gadgets over the years to buy in to this one. So it's time to put up or shut up, and do what we do best around here—test drive, generate real-world numbers, and come up with realistic answers.

So, last month I received an electrolyzer, fabricated by my old Monster Garage partner, Steve Rumore at Avalanche Engineering out in Colorado. Steve cleverly designed the device into a steel toolbox, making it portable—just the ticket for someone tinkering with HHO/water/hydrogen/Brown's Gas­powered conveyances. Steve isn't a gadget geek—his company fabricates championship off-road vehicles. But he was talked into making a couple of HHO units by one of his customers. And why not? The plans are all over the Internet, and the tech isn't very complicated. The unit consists of eight plastic bottles with stainless-steel electrodes, connected up in series—parallel to the vehicle's battery. The cells are filled with plain ol' water and a small amount of potassium hydroxide electrolyte to conduct electricity. A hose conveys the HHO output to the engine.

It took me a few days of puttering around in my shop to get the electrolyzer up and running. I'm using an HKS Camp 2 onboard computer, hooked into an LCD monitor that's suction-cupped to the windscreen, to check things like mass airflow, fuel-injector pulse width, battery voltage and, of course, fuel economy. The Camp 2 took a little debugging, but now I've got the whole science-fiction mess installed in one of our long-term test cars, complete with wires and hoses everywhere and a back-flash trap/flow meter bubbling away on the dash like Dr. Frankenstein's hookah. This fiendish device prevents any backfire-related explosion in the HHO line from propagating back into the electrolyzer. It also provides instant visual feedback of HHO delivery to the intake, as bubbles scurry from the bottom to the top of the water column. Yes, I have it mounted inside the car.

But guess what? My fuel economy is exactly the same, whether the HHO generator is turned on or not. And that's exactly what I expected. This isn't anecdotal evidence from several tankfuls of gasoline. It's steady-state, flat-road testing, and I don't even pretend to have actual economy numbers. I'm using fuel-injector pulse widths directly from the OBD II port. That means I'm measuring the actual time the injectors are open and delivering fuel. When the HHO generator is toggled on, there's no change. And when it's turned back off, there's no change. Well, the computer's system voltage sags a couple of tenths of a volt, indicating the current drain to run the electrolyzer.

Before you HHO proponents start bombarding me with hate mail, chill. You may have some amazing anecdotal evidence that these systems work. But I'm not swayed by over-the-road proof unless the conditions are constant—the variables are too, well, variable. And that includes my own testing. There's too much noise in the data collection, statistically speaking, and quite a bit of room for experimenter bias. From considerable experience with other gas savers, I know even the subtlest change in driving habits can influence the results. I won't be convinced of any fuel savings until I see results on a dynamometer, where I can control everything except the HHO.

I spent a good hour on the phone yesterday with Fran Giroux of hydrogen-boost.com. He tells me that the HHO injection is only an enabler for other devices and changes. The fuel savings doesn't come from the energy contained in the hydrogen as it's burned, which is what I've asserted all along was implausible. Giroux sells a system of modifications that disables the engine management's computer and makes the engine run extremely lean—as lean as 20:1. That's far from the normal 14.7:1. The hydrogen is necessary to let the ultralean mix burn completely, he claims. There's also a heater for the fuel to promote complete vaporization, and some additives for the fuel and oil to complete his system.

Interesting? Why, yes. But there's a catch.

These mods come under the category of tampering with a federally-mandated emissions control system, making it impossible to pass the underhood visual inspection component of many state smog inspections. To pass this underhood check, no part of the emissions control system can appear to have been modified or disabled. Add in the OBD II pass-fail to the smog check, and odds are these modifications will keep you from getting a smog sticker. That means you might have to disable—and perhaps remove—the system to pass the annual test. Just don't get caught in between.

I had another long talk yesterday with Steve Rumore, my off-road buddy turned HHO donater. He's experimenting with several vehicles, and actually getting some consistent results—fuel-economy improvements to the tune of 10 to 12 percent on diesel trucks pulling trailers. He's tinkering with some of the same things Giroux is suggesting. We're looking into ways to refine both his and my experimental methods. But I'm convinced there's a lot of placebo effect. I also think that these mods may be increasing fuel economy independently of the HHO injection. So stay tuned, because we're still testing. Once we get some more data onboard, we'll be dyno testing.

[Airscrew]

So he says "doesnt work" then he says "maybe, still testing"?

[Holden McGroin]

This is just too easy, too good to be true.*

So he says "doesnt work" then he says "maybe, still testing"?

He says, ''''I got nothing, my buddy says he got something, but I'm convinced there is some placebo, we are looking at the testing procedure and will get back to you"

GM lost... what... $6 Billion last year because they did not have efficient vehicle fleet to sell?

All they had to do was muck up a few mason jars, some surgical tubing, some wire and some duct tape and they could have increased the fleet MPG by 50%?

And they refused to do it? Somehow it was worth $6 billion to them not to do it?

No car company in the world has seen it to be a profitable idea to be the first to do it?

come on...



*if it seems to good to be true, it is.

 

[SD67]

This is just too easy, too good to be true.*

He says, ''''I got nothing, my buddy says he got something, but I'm convinced there is some placebo, we are looking at the testing procedure and will get back to you"

GM lost... what... $6 Billion last year because they did not have efficient vehicle fleet to sell?

All they had to do was muck up a few mason jars, some surgical tubing, some wire and some duct tape and they could have increased the fleet MPG by 50%?

And they refused to do it? Somehow it was worth $6 billion to them not to do it?

No car company in the world has seen it to be a profitable idea to be the first to do it?

come on...



*if it seems to good to be true, it is.

 

The reason GM didn't do something like this is it is extremely HIGH MAINTENANCE. It's not something that they can let run off the factory floor and expect it to still be working at the next service.
I know some people who don't even know how to top up their windscreen washer bottle, and yet you seriously expect GM to sell a whole FLEET of cars with an extremely high maintenance gas generator in it that requires daily attention to electrolyte levels in order to operate?
You must be nuts.
I think it's entirely plausible that real savings can be had by those willing to build and install such a thing in their vehicles. I personally would not have the patience to maintain it, and since I already have a dual fuel vehicle I'm really not feeling the fuel bite as much as some others.

[Holden McGroin]

The reason GM didn't do something like this is it is extremely HIGH MAINTENANCE.

Extremely high maintenance?  Just fill it with water and some electrolyte?  Whew.. I'm bushed just thinking about it..  I need a Gatorade.  I'll just take the powdered gatorade and mix it with some water here and drink it down...  that's better.  Now, how do I fill this with water and electrolyte?

High maintenance ... $38.7 Billion '07 Loss, GM Plans More Buyouts

High maintenance ... $38.7 Billion '07 Loss, GM Plans More Buyouts

Yeah, I'll choose $38.7 Billion '07 Loss --- GM CEO Rick Wagoner

Yeah I'm sure thats the reason.   

[CAP1]

Extremely high maintenance?  Just fill it with water and some electrolyte?  Whew.. I'm bushed just thinking about it..  I need a Gatorade.  I'll just take the powdered gatorade and mix it with some water here and drink it down...  that's better.  Now, how do I fill this with water and electrolyte?
 
Yeah I'm sure thats the reason.   

i think more of what he's getting at is that it requires any maintenance at all.
 look at how many people run their cars low on coolant, oil, tranny fluid, etc. hell....i just had a guy brought me a van the other day. it was knocking its brains out. i checked the oil. it was 4 1/2 quarts low. 5.8L ford.

if people can't check their oil once a month, how could gm expect them to open the hood, and pour the proper mis of electrolyte and water in?

[CAP1]

I changed my driving habits and have achieved a 38% increase in efficiency.

The only way to test without driving habits or environmental factors weighing in is to run it on a dyno. 

Run a scientific test and then get back to us.

you got lab reports to verify this?

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

 we can't trust your 38% without lab reports.....unless you have other proof?

[Bronk]

you got lab reports to verify this?

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

 we can't trust your 38% without lab reports.....unless you have other proof?

Damn it, just broke another sarcasm detector. Cap, I'm sending you the bill.

[CAP1]

Damn it, just broke another sarcasm detector. Cap, I'm sending you the bill.

uum.....sorry? nah....no i'm not!