Run your car on water??????

[Holden McGroin]

Posted by CAP1
on most cars, the o2 sensor has nothing to do with oxides of nitrogen.
they're controlled by the egr systems, or by three way catalytic converters.

Nitrogen Oxide is caused by high flame temperature. High temperature combustion allows oxygen and nitrogen to fuse more easily than a low temp flame. Lean mixture yields a high temperature flame.  O2 sensor keeps the AF mixture near 14.7, thus keeping the flame temperature down by staying away from the lean side of thee spectrum. 

So the oxy sensor does play a part in nitrogen oxide control.

Further looking into (not easy, everything i found was on forums or sites of people trying to sell me something) it says it would only be useful (or safe) for cruising. even if it is the entire cause for his noticed improvements, his HHO setup supposedly decreases engine temperatures, this would make it safer for him to run a leaner mix.

OK Vorticon,  Hornet’s system produces 0.0033 lbm / hr of hydrogen.

In that same hour, driving at 60 mph, and now getting 16 mpg,

16 mpg --- 60 mph --- yielding 3.75 GPH fuel burn

3.75 * 6.2 lbm / gal = 23.25 lbs gasoline per hour

0.0033 / 23.25 = 0.000143

0.000143 lbs of hydrogen per lb of gasoline is 1.4/100 of 1% by weight

JPL needed more than 100 times the hydrogen to make 1/3 the difference.

By the way this is all in an air flow thru the engine (at 14.7) of 342 lbs.  That is 4600 cu ft of air blowing thru the engine every hour.

Do you really think the hydrogen bubbler is making all that much difference?[/b]

Here is an abstract of a paper from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers:

Proceedings of ICES2006 ASME Internal Combustion Engine Division 2006 Spring Technical Conference May 2006, Aachen, Germany

Enrico Conte Swiss Federal Institute of Technology

Experimental investigations were carried out to assess the use of hydrogen in a Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) engine. Injection of small amounts of hydrogen (up to 27% on an energy basis) in the intake port creates a reactive homogeneous background for the direct injection of gasoline in the cylinder. In this way, it is possible to operate the engine with high EGR rates and, in certain conditions, to delay the ignition timing as compared to standard GDI operation, in order to reduce NOx and HC emissions to very low levels and possibly soot emissions.

The results confirmed that high EGR rates can be achieved and NOx and HC emissions reduced, showed significant advantage in terms of combustion efficiency[/i] and gave unexpected results relative to the delaying of ignition, which only partly confirmed the expected behavior.

A realistic application would make use of hydrogen-containing reformer gas produced on board the vehicle, but safety restrictions did not allow using carbon monoxide in the test facility. Thus pure hydrogen was used for a best-case investigation. The expected difference in the use of the two gases is briefly discussed.

27% on an energy basis. 

Hornet’s example is 0.0033 lbm per 23.25 lbs of gasoline.

That’s 0.0033 lbm * 55,000 btu/lb … 180 btu

180 btu for every 23.25 lbs * 18550 btu/lb … 431,288 btu gasoline

180/431,288 = .0004 ---- 0.04% on an energy basis

Enrico Conte found “significant advantage in terms of combustion efficiency” using only 675 times more hydrogen.

JPL had to use 120 to 600 times more hydrogen to make their efficiency improvement of 6 to 15%

Now we know we can change the fuel flow by adjusting the mixture from rich (12:1) to lean (17:1) and achieve 40% better fuel efficiency.

Occam's razor says that the most simple explanation is most probably the true explanation.

Either using much less than 1% of the hydrogen that NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory needed this system gets better than three times the results, and using 675 times less than Enrico Conte of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology found necessary to show 'significant advantage in terms of combustion efficiency' this system achieves magnificent reslults, or like probably millions of people have found out since the invention of the internal combustion engine, leaning the mixture results in better fuel economy.

You might need to add around 1/2 liter a month. The water level in mine has only dropped about 6ml since I installed it, but I also have an automatic refill tank on mine so when the booster cools down and creates a negative pressure in the chamber it sucks fresh refill water from the tank through a one way valve. I used a plastic lab container that has ml measurements on the side, and so far I'm down by 6ml on the tank.

So water/mix per mile used is so small it really can't be measured.

6 ml... a far cry from the 27% by energy ratio Enrico Conte found.

I think driving habits and fooling the oxy sensor to create lean mixture are the most probable reasons for the mileage increase and the Hydrogen injection is just the misdirection of the magic trick.

[vorticon]

"Do you really think the hydrogen bubbler is making all that much difference?"

not directly no.


"Now we know we can change the fuel flow by adjusting the mixture from rich (12:1) to lean (17:1) and achieve 40% better fuel efficiency."


"Finally there is lean cruise mode. In this mode the ECM commands a leaner than 14.7 A/F ratio or less fuel. This mode can only used be used at light loads when the vehicle speed is above a certain value, in other words, hiway cruise. In this mode, the ECM commands the leaner A/F ratio, increases spark advance, and occasionally returns to closed loop mode to double check itself. There is one problem with this mode. GM ultimately did not enable this mode since it allowed them to circumvent the emissions laws to achieve better gas mileage. This mode is only used by GM EFI tuning experts with enough knowledge to make it work without damaging their engine. If the engine is run too lean, spark plugs, valves, and pistons can be damaged. However, when done correctly, up to 10% in mileage gains are possible above the already excellent mileage from closed loop mode.""
 http://www.customefis.com/GMEFI.html

we also know this massively increases the risk of his engine getting severely damaged.

and we know that the HHO decreases running temperature.

IF the HHO is making it so he can safely run a slightly leaner mix, then it is working. not the way anyone expected, but its working.


i dont have much faith in these but assuming they are correct...


"

So why is a certain amount of gas needed? It is a disturbing fact that around 25% of the gas that is injected is used to quench and cool combustion. The extra fuel cannot be burned because there is not enough oxygen.The only purpose for this extra fuel is to put out the flame and cool the explosion. That part of the fuel is wasted. It passes through the exhaust pipes and is burned in the catalytic convertor. "
http://www.fuelmileagespecialists.com/Air_Fuel_Ratio_Myth.htm

and assuming the HHO does enough of a job cooling the explosion to replace at least partially the supposed extra gas entering the cylinder then...

no major loss in power would be seen, engine running temps. would not increase to a unsafe amount, and the HHO would be working exactly the way it is supposed to - replacing gas in the cylinder...but not power producing gas soooo...laws of physics are not broken.

again, i don't have much faith in that.


you need to understand that i'm in this thread because a lot of it is interesting, and i think i can learn something. I do not know, or even care much if his HHO generator works - if it does, then understanding why is important.

[Holden McGroin]

we also know this massively increases the risk of his engine getting severely damaged.

Yup

and we know that the HHO decreases running temperature.

Well we know that Hydrogen does, at 100 to 675 times the levels this system provides.  We have several independent labs that confirm this. HHO, on the other hand...  JPL and the Swiss strip hydrogen from fuel or use pure hydrogen they do not make HHO. 

21% of the atmosphere sucking into the engine is Oxygen and in the engine I run professionally, a Siemens 501 Gas Turbine, the O2 in the exhaust is about 16%.  That is amazingly close to the % you breathe out.

So 23.25 lbs/hr of fuel, at 14.7 requires 345 lbs of air, of which 21% is Oxygen by volume, about 30% by weight. So 23.25 x 30% = 6.98 lbs of oxygen Now we add 0.0264 / hr of O2 from the bubbler.  That's a measly 4/10 of a % increase in oxygen mass flow.  That's going to be tough to measure, let alone see any difference in flame temperature or efficiency improvement due to the O2.

IF the HHO is making it so he can safely run a slightly leaner mix, then it is working. not the way anyone expected, but its working.

But it is my contention that the piddly amount provided by this electrolysis system doesn't do squat.  It's a match struck amidst a raging forest fire.  Yes it adds to the fire, but not as much as would make a difference.

6 ml is 6 grams of water.  6 grams of water = 6 grams of HHO.  What's that... the mass of a few sheets of paper?

you need to understand that I'm in this thread because a lot of it is interesting, and i think i can learn something. I do not know, or even care much if his HHO generator works - if it does, then understanding why is important.

That's cool. 

[vorticon]

Well we know that Hydrogen does, at 100 to 675 times the levels this system provides.  We have several independant labs that confirm this. HHO, on the other hand...  JPL and the Swiss strip hydrogen from fuel or use pure hydrogen they do not make HHO. 

21% of the atmosphere sucking into the engine is Oxygen and in the engine I run professionally, a Siemens 501 Gas Turbine, the O2 in the exhaust is about 16%.  That is amazingly close to the % you breathe out.

So 23.25 lbs/hr of fuel, at 14.7 requires 345 lbs of air, of which 21% is Oxygen by volume, about 30% by weight. So 23.25 x 30% = 6.98 lbs of oxygen Now we add 0.0264 / hr of O2 from the bubbler.  That's a measly 4/10 of a % increase in oxygen mass flow.  That's going to be tough to measure, let alone see any difference in flame tempereature or efficiency improvement due to the O2.

But it is my contention that the piddly amount provided by this electrolysis system doesn't do squat.  It's a match struck amidst a raging forest fire.  Yes it adds to the fire, but not as much as would make a difference.

6 ml is 6 grams of water.  6 grams of water = 6 grams of HHO.   What's that... the mass of a few sheets of paper?

That's cool. 

all right.

 i'm going to wait on his dyno results...and i DO want to see the results with the system turned off.

[Airscrew]

well, I'm following this thread for a couple of reasons...

1.  I want to see what the results are and what Hornet finds out testing his

2.  I want to find out about engine damage.

this below I pulled from the comment section on that Popular Mechanics article

I have a buddy that has been fiddling with this for a couple of years now. He began with the now famous water 4 gas.com and has the "PICC" and all the other modifications listed on the website that go with it. We both have the same GMC truck 4wd with the 5.3 liter engine. I challenged him to a round trip fuel mileage contest to Kingman, az and back (we live in Victorvile, ca) We drove together and the only rule was we had to go at least 55mph. Away we went and when we tanked in Kingman, him 25.5mpg, me 23.5 mgp. Whoops, I need a different stratety. I did think 25.5 was really impressive for the trucks we were driving, it was disapointing to him as all the money he has spent and my only non-stock item was a K & N air filter. My only trick to the 23.5 was not to use the cruise control. My ticket to better fuel mileage was to keep a steady throttle opening, not a steady speed. It did look like I was going to lose this, and a little better attention to my throttle action and I appeared to be using less fuel on the way back, but I radioed my buddy and he thought he was doing about the same, but his engine was running a little rough. Then it happened. About Barstow, his truck began to misfire and smoke. We parked, I went home and got my trailer and towed him home. We opened the engine and found holes in #2 and #5 pistons and several exhaust valves in various stages of being burnt. I might add that my friends truck, while the same year only has 72,000 miles on it, while mine is at 112,000. So the bottom line to this experiment was maybe it does save some fuel, but considering that you will need to replace your engine more often, will it really pay for itself? This damage occurred in about 20,000 miles. I went to the demonstrations in Los Angeles, I talked to people who have claim double the fuel mileage or more, but I can't seem to find one who has more than a few thousand miles on. So who out there has been using this system for more than 20,000 miles will let me take a look at their vehicle and report on it? I need documentation of the mileage. Perhaps a carfax report listing the last smog check. Any takers? Email me at spnkybnky@verizon.net

[CAP1]

Nitrogen Oxide is caused by high flame temperature. High temperature combustion allows oxygen and nitrogen to fuse more easily than a low temp flame. Lean mixture yields a high temperature flame.  O2 sensor keeps the AF mixture near 14.7, thus keeping the flame temperature down by staying away from the lean side of thee spectrum. 

So the oxy sensor does play a part in nitrogen oxide control.

OK Vorticon,  Hornet’s system produces 0.0033 lbm / hr of hydrogen.

In that same hour, driving at 60 mph, and now getting 16 mpg,

16 mpg --- 60 mph --- yielding 3.75 GPH fuel burn

3.75 * 6.2 lbm / gal = 23.25 lbs gasoline per hour

0.0033 / 23.25 = 0.000143

0.000143 lbs of hydrogen per lb of gasoline is 1.4/100 of 1% by weight

JPL needed more than 100 times the hydrogen to make 1/3 the difference.

By the way this is all in an air flow thru the engine (at 14.7) of 342 lbs.  That is 4600 cu ft of air blowing thru the engine every hour.

Do you really think the hydrogen bubbler is making all that much difference?[/b]

Here is an abstract of a paper from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers:

27% on an energy basis. 

Hornet’s example is 0.0033 lbm per 23.25 lbs of gasoline.

That’s 0.0033 lbm * 55,000 btu/lb … 180 btu

180 btu for every 23.25 lbs * 18550 btu/lb … 431,288 btu gasoline

180/431,288 = .0004 ---- 0.04% on an energy basis

Enrico Conte found “significant advantage in terms of combustion efficiency” using only 675 times more hydrogen.

JPL had to use 120 to 600 times more hydrogen to make their efficiency improvement of 6 to 15%

Now we know we can change the fuel flow by adjusting the mixture from rich (12:1) to lean (17:1) and achieve 40% better fuel efficiency.

Occam's razor says that the most simple explanation is most probably the true explanation.

Either using much less than 1% of the hydrogen that NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory needed this system gets better than three times the results, and using 675 times less than Enrico Conte of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology found necessary to show 'significant advantage in terms of combustion efficiency' this system achieves magnificent reslults, or like probably millions of people have found out since the invention of the internal combustion engine, leaning the mixture results in better fuel economy.

6 ml... a far cry from the 27% by energy ratio Enrico Conte found.

I think driving habits and fooling the oxy sensor to create lean mixture are the most probable reasons for the mileage increase and the Hydrogen injection is just the misdirection of the magic trick.

at the normal air/fuel ratio that most cars run at, without an egr system, the average combustion temp. goes above 2500F. this is when oxides of nitrogen are created in an automotive engine.

 what the egr system does is to re-circulate small amounts of exhaust gas back into the combustion process, thus lowering the combustion temp. below the 2500F threshold.

 out of ALL of the NOX failure i've diagnosed(been doing this for 23 years) i think maybe.......half a dozen were caused by bad o2 sensors, maybe 1 or 2 bad cats, and virtually every other one(and i've diagnosed quite a few in my 23 years) has been something in the egr system.

 all the o2 does is create a sine wave for running from .1 to .9 of a volt.....1 being lean, .9 being rich. this gives the ecm the needed information to fire the injectors on the right duty cycle. most all ecm's will run the engine very fat during hard acceleration. some will shut down the injectors randomly under closed throttle de-acceleration.

 on the other hand though, there are some out there that are eliminating the egr systems. these are using the three way catalytic converters though.

[Maverick]

This brings up another possible test variable. That would be the performance for the vehicle with the reset sensor modification both with and without a hydrogen gas emitter active on the vehicle. In other words defining what the mileage performance change is really due to, the gas or a reprogrammed fuel management system.

[Airscrew]

heres an idea to test,  why not just test this on a pre 1968 car, remove all the computers and sensors...

[DieAz]

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/me3.html

"water injection" using 4 parts water 1 part alcohol.

[CAP1]

heres an idea to test,  why not just test this on a pre 1968 car, remove all the computers and sensors...

if i still owned any carbeurated cars, i would do that.....but even my race care is EFI

[Maverick]

It's now the end of September, what was the results of the testing? I hadn't heard anything so went looking for the thread to check it out. Nothing posted yet.

[Megalodon]

It's now the end of September, what was the results of the testing? I hadn't heard anything so went looking for the thread to check it out. Nothing posted yet.

Agreed where are the results? Even the 1st Dyno Test? Post it.

[Hornet33]

Sorry guys, been busy with my new girlfriend and haven't been back for the second test, nor really even thought about it. The results from the before run I have but posting those wouldn't tell you anything other than how an almost stock 5.9L MOPAR engine with 78,000 miles on it runs. I say an almost stock engine because I do have a K&N cold air intake on it, but other than that she was pure stock for the first run. No booster or EFIE electronics installed.

Now the readings I have been taking have shown a decent increase in milage. I've recorded every drop of gas that I've put into the truck along with the odometer readings at those fill ups and accourding to my handy little calculator and basic math, I've managed an average of 7.2mpg increase since I installed the booster. I haven't really noticed any additional horse power but then again my truck is so light in the rear end anyway, I never really get in it all that hard because even before the booster went in I could break the tires loose with no problem. I also haven't towed anything since I put it in.

I did go camping last weekend though and it was about 240 miles from my house to the campsite. I topped off right before we left Friday and then had to stop on the way home. On the interstate at 65-70mph cruising for most of the trip I was getting just over 18mpg. That's up from an average of 13mpg before I installed the booster and EFIE. I ran the booster the entire time, around 4 hours and it was still running pretty cool when we got there, under 140 degrees. I had to add about 18Fl.oz of water to my refill tank when I got home and that only holds 30Fl.oz so for around 8 hours of driving time on the highway I used half my spare water supply, and that is pretty darn good.

Guess I need to get off my butt and see about getting my second dyno run done though so you whinners will get off my back   If my girl gets mad though because I'm wasting time in a garage instead of hanging with her, I'm pointing her in your direction.

[CAP1]

heres an idea to test,  why not just test this on a pre 1968 car, remove all the computers and sensors...

ya know........i'm glad someone kicked this thread.
i completley forgot about my 85 E350 cargo van parked on the side of my garage. i'll install mine on that first.

it's a 351W with a holley 600 vac secondary carb. everything else is bone stock on this van. it used to get around 12 miles/gallon.

i'll top the tank up, drive it through, see what it gets, then install the booster.

[Holden McGroin]

September 29, 2008, 12:36:18 PM

Well this thread has been dormant for six months.  I expected some amazing dyno data, and all I hear are crickets.

Ford, GM and Chrysler could all save their tulips with SUV's that get double the milage with only a few hundred dollars worth of mason jars and copper wire, but they stubbornly refuse to make their cars efficient. (Even Toyota is losing money)  The payoffs from the oil companies don't seem to show on the auto companies ledgers, even though they must be enormous for GM to lose billions and still somehow make money through oil company payoffs.

NBC Dateline is going to go on the air this Sunday with a show on HHO:

Sunday, March 29:  Promises, Promises
With the economy in freefall and unemployment reaching record highs, Hansen investigates two schemes that sound too good to be true. One involves scams targeting people desperately searching for jobs, and the other, a self-professed visionary who claims he can increase gas mileage by 50 percent. Airs at 7 p.m. ET, 6 p.m. CT.