h2o hybrid

[coxx]

ahhh F-it! I'm unsubscribing.

 

If this thing actually works it won't stay a secret for long & I'll go pick one up at autozone or pepboys when it's mass produced by some smart businessman that'll make gazillions off of it.

[AKLGT]

The MPG rating for the 4.8l in a Chevy Silverado (2wd, automatic) is 19mpg highway. To get 20mpg on a trip stock (i.e. without the HHO system) sounds very reasonable. Your friend may get 14mpg regularly, but I suspect he's comparing apples to oranges...

That's 2WD. We're in ALASKA. THIS IS 4WD Country. oddly enough, up here, we seem to be more open minded for alternative fuel sources. Seems funny since we produce oil.

 

Even still, the more I work on this "project" the more people come up and tell me they have one or built one, building one, etc and how it works on theirs. However, so far EVERY vehicle I have encountered HERE has been NA.

 

I've installed this system according to the Manufacturer's specs for their "universal" fit and realistically, I don't believe it will produce as good of results. But we'll see. After a couple weeks, we're going to "tweak it" and than run more tests. I think if we run this BEFORE the MAF instead of after, we can tune for it and get better results. As I stated earlier, the 40 miles I've driven from stoplight to stoplight, I can't tell a difference as of yet. *shrug*

[LegGTLT]

Is there a 30 day money back guarantee? There should be...

[schwinn]

... Moreover, it forms the basis for even more widely applied fundamental principles, not the least of which is PV=nRT, the fundamental reason why turbo engines work...

 

Hmm... care to tell me how PV=nRT applies to "why turbo engines work"? I don't see the connection, other than the fact that this equation is used to determine the temperature of the compressed intake air, which is then intercooled. However, this, by itself, doesn't give a reason of "why turbo engines work"... they work because you are adding more air for the air-fuel mixture... it's that simple. What am I missing?

[mwiener2]

Is there a 30 day money back guarantee? There should be...

 

 

yeah, there is. But they won't except returns till after the 30 day break in period

 

 

 

Hmm... care to tell me how PV=nRT applies to "why turbo engines work"? What am I missing?

 

The V is Volume and we're using pressure to add volume.

[DukeTrout]

Hmm... care to tell me how PV=nRT applies to "why turbo engines work"? I don't see the connection, other than the fact that this equation is used to determine the temperature of the compressed intake air, which is then intercooled. However, this, by itself, doesn't give a reason of "why turbo engines work"... they work because you are adding more air for the air-fuel mixture... it's that simple. What am I missing?

 

First, pressure and volume are inversely proportional to each other and jointly proportional to temperature. This explains much of how the hot side works (as air cools between the exhaust manifold and the downpipe, it creates flow (change in volume). It also explains what's going on at the cool side, as the turbine compresses air (thus heating it, requiring the intercooler to lower IATs and maintain density). You can look at the whole system as a way to deliver more volume to the engine, but a better way of looking at it is to use PV=nRT, allowing n to be a variable. The precise description of the purpose is to deliver more mols of oxygen (represented in this equation by n) to the chamber, to combine with more fuel, to get more power from the engine.

 

So the relevance of PV=nRT goes beyond just the volume-pressure-temperature relationship to also describe the real purpose - not just to deliver more air to the engine but specifically more molecules of oxygen to combust with the fuel.

[schwinn]

Ok, I see where you are taking it. I know all about PV=nRT, but it's not the first thing that comes to mind when talking about "why a turbo works"... as I mentioned before, it's easier to simply say that you are altering the mass of air entering the engine, thereby requiring more fuel to maintain proper combustion, and hence delivering more power (Air + fuel = power)... but I suppose PV=nRT is another way to explain it, even if it doesn't have fuel/power in there...

 

Just checking

[DrCloud]

Here's a clarification:

 

Interpreting the "n" in the gas law as an amount of the gas (whether you use moles, molecules, or whatever) is confusing. A better interpretation is to think of it as the molecular weight of the gas, which is used in combination with the universal gas constant R to produce an effective gas constant for the gas mixture in question. Air is different from oxygen is different from nitrogen (and all of the other constituents of the atmosphere) in this regard. In this interpretation, V becomes the specific volume.

 

A more useful way to write the gas law to see its applicability to forced-air injection is to invert the specific volume into a density and to rearrange things a bit:

 

Þ=p/(R'T),

where Þ is density, R' = nR is the effective gas constant for the mixture, and T is temperature.

 

This says that, at constant temperature, increasing the pressure (the turbo or supercharger does this) increases the density, meaning that more molecules of air (and, in the process, oxygen) are stuffed into the combustion chamber. It also says that, at constant pressure, decreasing the temperature (the job of the intercooler) also increases the density. Therefore, the pump (turbo or supercharger) and the intercooler work together to increase the density, meaning more gasoline can be burned, yielding higher power output per stroke.

 

From the perspective of these hydrogen injection gadgets, though, none of this is particularly relevant. Their mechanism appears to be to change the combustion chemistry (particularly the burn speed) of the mixture in the cylinders. And, just to be clear, I'm still on the snake oil side of the discussion. HPH

[DukeTrout]

Good discussion, schwinn and DrCloud. I guess I point to PV=nRT as being representative of how forced induction engines work differently than naturally-aspirated engines (OK, it still applies, but it highlights the important factors of temperature and pressure). I like your translation of the equation to a more specific formulation, DrCloud. I also failed to go into the detail of partial pressures of the components of air, of which oxygen is a minority component, but that might even be getting a bit picky for this discussion.

 

Also agreed that the discussion of PV=nRT doesn't directly factor into the feasibility of these h2o hybrid devices. I was merely using it as a sidebar to counter the assertion that thermodynamics is some poorly understood, emerging science that no one here is qualified to discuss with any authority.

 

Converting water to hydrogen and oxygen through hydrolysis costs energy. Claiming to gain energy or efficiency by that means is a fundamentally flawed assertion. That's a fact, Jack. If there's a way to use small amounts of hydrogen to make combustion more efficient and powerful, then that makes this whole thing interesting. That kind of insight is why I didn't unsubscribe from this thread a long time ago.

[DrCloud]

^^ I'm far from considering myself an expert on this hydrogen stuff, but I do know enough about chemistry and especially thermodynamics to look elsewhere than simple energy considerations for a mechanism for this thing.

 

As much as I hate to admit it, sometimes Wikipedia can be useful. Try it on "hydrogen injection," for example. HPH

[AKLGT]

Is there a 30 day money back guarantee? There should be...

OK, I'm going to admit that I don't like this particular kit. It didn't come complete with everything needed for the install and I'm a little disapointed in how much work was involved in getting this thing operating. Not only that, the sensor LED doesn't even work! So I have to go and BUY one! wtf?? Should have come with everything necessary for at least an under hood install. Now, my genius tech/mad scientist has developed a beautiful unit complete with brain box that will be much more plug and play. This is the one we have on the 04 Chevy truck. So far, working beautifully! Mine, after 100 miles installed according to the Manuf's specs, no difference, no gains, not losses. This weekend, we're going to tap off the filter in the rear and run it (should be done with my tank of gas I'm currently on by then) and run it another week or until I have this tank done. I've been swapping between cars to try and keep some of the miles off of them. Once that's done, we're going to tweak it and tune for it, run it again. I've been doing all city driving, 1-2 mile spurts all day, driving 30-50 miles/day (so you can imagine how much gas I waste driving down to the office then to the bank. then to my store. then to my other store, etc). This is why I am hoping to get better fuel economy. Before the kit, I avg'd about 18-20 mpg depending on if I did any hwy driving (usually take a trip or two out to Eagle River which is 15 miles off the hwy). I'm avg 19.5 mpg now. So imo, I'm doing the same, maybe a SLIGHTLY better gain since I am running purely city only with such short driving intervals, but I didn't get actual numbers for this type of driving (as I said, I've always had to drive out to ER a min of two times while I was taking my testing). I guess the real question will be driving out to Soldotna and back. Maybe I can do that on Sunday..... I think that will really tell me if this thing is doing anything at all.

[schwinn]

Regarding the PV=nRT discussion - I never said it didn't apply, but, strictly speaking, it really doesn't explain "why a turbo engine works" because it has nothing to do with combustion. But, it certainly does apply.

 

It was a "loaded" question, really... again, being an R&D Engineer (and one that deals ith vacuum systems and thermodynamics issues all the time) I know enough about PV=nRT and other such things. Rather than jumping all over DukeTrout, I figured a less inflammatory post was called for... I'm glad no one took it all out of context. Sometimes it pays to play dumb

 

AK: So, things are operating, for the most part? Good to hear. Looking forward to seeing your results on the longer drive (which is when the alternator is generating more energy anyway, and it also provides a more accurate assessment since city driving has WAY too many variables that are out of your control for an MPG study. I would advise at least recording the temperature and humidty during the two runs of your test... in case future correlations are called for. And, make sure you run the test on the same tank of fuel, if possible.

 

Most importantly, don't leave the MPG indicator on the dash visible during your test... the mind can play terrible tricks on you to make you sway your behavior (based on inherent biases that we ALL have) during testing, if you have an "active feedback" along the way. Collect the data AFTER the trip... and try to use cruise control on the same exact stretch of road, to help eliminate those variables too. The more accurate the data collection, the more accurate the result (and more believable, too).

 

Edit: I wish I could help more directly... but it's a heck of a trip from Massachusetts to Alaska!

[AKLGT]

Well, I plan to do the same trip like I did before:

 

first tank of gas from Anchorage, drive like a jackass, pass cars, very agressive. Calculate the fuel economy and gas up in Soldotna. Then head back to Anchorage at a slower, more even pace, 5 mph over the limit set on cruise control. This is the same route I took before and driving the same style at the same segments. I have found I can get better fuel econ driving one way to a destination vs back the same route. This usually is due to our inclines and hills. go up more hills one way and then down those hills the other way. But you are quite right regarding in town driving, however that's what I do the most of on most days. I really want to get a little better, even 2 mpg is better!

[mwiener2]

2 mpg is within limits of different crap in gas between fillups

[AKLGT]

2 mpg is within limits of different crap in gas between fillups

which is why I try and stick with one station or one brand: Chevron mostly unless there is nothing else. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to go quite so gang busters on this project as I originally hoped.

 

I'm in the process of adding a very large and expensive store to my list of things to do, so my time and energy has been concentrated on that for now and the immediate future (this is a painstakingly long process )

 

However, I need to sell the LGT soon, so that means I have to get this system up and running and tested. I think tomorrow I will take that drive out to Soldotna to get some real test results.

[AKLGT]

Just got back from my Soldotna trip, approx 143 miles each direction. I filled up new distilled water before each trip so I had a fresh batch for the test. Filled up to the first "click." Here's the results:

 

Drive from Anchorage to Soldotna, passing cars, driving like I stole it, etc (passing cars about 95 mph up to 100 mph) and keeping an avg speed of 10 mph over (speed limits were anywhere from 35 mph - 65 mph, mostly 55 mph).

 

143.0 miles

5.30 gal 90 Oct

=26.9811 MPG Actual (trip said 26.4)

Trip Time = 2:19 = 143.0 miles / 2.316 hrs = 61.744 MPH avg speed

 

Return trip (filled up at Fred Meyers Soldotna) and drove at or 3 mph above the speed limit. Had to do some passing (more than I planned) or it would have taken 3 hrs to get back!

144.6 Miles

5.188 gal 90 Oct

= 27.872 MPG Actual (trip: 28.5 MPG)

Trip Time = 2:34 = 144.6 Miles / 2.566 Hrs = 56.352 MPH avg speed

 

In comparison to my previous test on 6/29-6/30:

 

Anchorage to Soldotna, drive it like you stole it philosophy gave me 22.776 MPG Actual without HHO kit vs 26.981 MPG Actual with HHO kit installed. Difference is 4.205 MPG gain or 18% increase in fuel economy. Not as much as I was hoping for, however still pretty impressive considering I was driving like a complete idiot and getting quite a few nasty looks and one finger waves.

 

On the trip back (previous test was from Homer vs Soldotna, about 83 more miles of 55 mph hwy) driving conservatively, at or 3 mph above the speed limit, I avg 26.956 MPG Actual without HHO vs 27.882 MPG Actual with HHO. This really surprised me because I was expecting to see about the same gains here driving conservatively (or so I thought?). This is not even 1 mpg gain driving like a granny. I don't know why this is, I changed the water out at Fred Meyers as well, just to make sure I had a clean tank of water as well as gas? Maybe it's just Fred Meyer has crappy gas?? I don't really know, just expected to see much better results. Perhaps it just means I should drive it like I stole it since I get just about the same fuel economy with the kit running! :lol:

 

I did not alter the kit any way. It is still running exactly the way the manufacturer suggests and I'm running about 9-10 amps (hard to tell on the little ammeter). I plan to tap off the air filter in the trunk and turn the kit to pressurized like other kits, see if I notice a better mpg increase in the city. I only avg 18.905 MPG Actual on that first tank of gas, however that was strictly city, no hwy miles what so ever. usually I have to take a few trips out to Eagle River (hwy) or the Valley per tank but this time I didn't (since I'm alternating the LGT and the STI). This next tank of mostly city, I'll try to get a few runs out to Eagle River like I usually do for a better comparison. I did not run any tanks of gas prior to the install with city ONLY, so I cannot really compare this one. However, it seems it's doing the same if I can remember from way back when.

 

In conclusion from this trip today and the week of testing:

 

A. City driving: for 1-5 mile trips, it doesn't appear to take effect since it's not enough time for Hydrolosis to occur (this is my guess as to why it seems to do nothing). I don't believe I'm getting worse mpg, but I'm not seeing better either from what I can tell. This seems to be better for commuters who drive a good 30 mins or more to work or back per trip.

B. Driving longer distances seems to work much better, not necessarily making huge differences on how you drive. Perhaps the car just reaches a plateau of fuel economy at certain speeds or distances. I don't really know.

C. Driving slow and boring for long distances only netted me a gain of 0.901 MPG verse enjoying my drive and smiling as I passed campers and slow moving vehicles at 100 mph up hills.

[schwinn]

I would say that the difference in your data is likely due to differences in fuel load (ie, the age, quality, brand, etc of the fuel in your tank), driving events (driving "like you stole it" is not a good metric, really... and you can't control road events, so you may have passed more cars one day, and fewer the other), and weather effects (again, out of your control).

 

The return trip is probably the most driving-style accurate method, since it's more controlled, for the most part... but the other effects still take over.

 

In the end, as I was afraid of before, the tests are going to be inconclusive, due to the large variation in test methodologies.

 

You wouldn't happen to have a dyno accessible to you up there, would you? That would be the perfect environment to test such a device... since EVERYTHING can be controlled, and you can run both tests back to back on the same tank of gas.

 

For that matter, if you have a way to datalog, or if you're really careful, you can use the MPG display on the trip, if properly reset. Basically, run the car on a 10-mile (or so) section of road... down and back, under cruise control (ie, get the car moving before starting the test). Then repeat with the kit turned-on, on the same road, at nearly the same time (and the same fuel load). That should give you a reasonable method (again, not including accel time or decel time at the start or end of the test distance)...

 

In summary, the data you have right now is inconclusive - there are too many variables in the test method.

[AKLGT]

again, we do not have an awd dyno here. that is why I drove 2500 miles each way last year to PDX.

 

As for testing the car on the way out, driving like I stole it, I would disagree. I didn't just pass "a" car. This is a 2 lane highway that winds and curves. there are only a few places that open up to passing lanes, so you have to make the most of it. When you pass on the 2 lane, you better get yourself around the car as quickly as possible, or in some cases, several cars. I counted 5 cars including a semi that I passed in one "passing event" UP a hill doing 100 mph. What you don't see is that once I reach Cooper Landing, for the next 60 miles, the speed limit is 35 MPH due to all the fishing traffic (this is fishing season here) on the Russian River, with cops a plenty. You never see them in the off season, but I saw 4 or 5 of them with customers on the way out and back.

 

Honestly, there is no real way to get PERFECT data here. All I can do is see if I can tell the difference and if my calculations of my driving make any at all. I have spent a lot of time and money on this project, so if anyone else would like to take over, please be my guest! As of right now, I may have even sold my LGT with this kit on it, and I've yet to test my friend's kit he has developed. I knew that people would still doubt any kind of conclusions or testing on real world or even on a dyno like the news crew and Univ of Fl students did. Even on a dyno, you cannot control the air flow and air temp of the engine and if you go up a hill or down a hill. These are things that make a huge difference in our cars, especially trying to stay in and out of boost.

 

Honestly, before this test yesterday, I was completely discouraged. It didn't seem it did anything, however after yesterday, knowing how I drove out and back, knowing that there were a lot of very unhappy campers, trailers, semis, trucks, and cars that I passed, risking a ticket for this (I made very sure there was plenty of passing area) I find myself not being as mad. Jumping up 4 mpg while driving like a jerk at an avg speed of 5 MPH FASTER than on the way back and still getting MUCH better fuel economy shows this system DOES indeed work. Unfortunately, most of MY driving is city and not 144 mile spurts. With only 1 actual tank (and the first one) driven city, I can not say with certainty that this does or doesn't work for ME at this time.

[bosco]

if you drive the car as you normally do and your mileage goes up i would say it 's working

[AKLGT]

but that's not good enough for masses.

 

However, I haven't really had the chance to TEST it how I normally drive, hopefully this week will be better.

[LegGTLT]

I would say if it's not going up 50% like most kits promised... it's not working.

[mwiener2]

I would say that you lost HP and gained MPG.... which is why you could floor it all over the place and still get better MPG

[AKLGT]

I would say that you lost HP and gained MPG.... which is why you could floor it all over the place and still get better MPG

if I did, it was very little. I still drove around the other cars without any issues or problems UP hills at 100 mph, no different from any other time before. I don't believe these systems draw near as much power as people seem to think. We hooked one up on a 9V battery and it started to produce HHO gas. My buddy is working on a set up that will produce more output power and draw less power.... it'll be pretty trick once he's done with the final prototype.

[schwinn]

The issue I have with "drive it like you stole it" is that you don't know how much full-accel time you had. For example, if you had passed 10 cars on one trip, and then 20 on another, you could have had that many more passing-events requiring full-throttle along the way. At the same time, you could have also been caught behind slower cars for longer periods of time, because of a lack of passing opportunity. I guess if you recorded these events (that sounds like a lot of work) it would be more believable that the data is comparable, but as it is now, it's not something I can believe in... too many variables. That's my point...

 

I'm not saying you did anything wrong... just that you can't call this "definitive data" unless you take clear, concious actions to prevent such issues from skewing the data. Of course, I know that everyone would have a complaint with the data... but that's the job of the engineer - to eliminate all such potential for data variance, or be able to show that any such variance is insignificant...

[mwiener2]

Have you made your initial investment back yet? Or did the car explode from built up Hydrogen gasses yet?