Browns Gas? For better MPG! Tuning?

[fishbone]

Down, not at the crank

[BAC5.2]

My Yaris puts down 64hp on our dyno. It's plenty

 

Awesome!

 

I'll never forget when Dan at MachV put their golf-cart on the dyno. It was awesome. I think it made 4.

[mwiener2]

I made 0.8hp on a bmx bike

 

 

 

 

 

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a257/mwiener2/001-5.jpg

 

 

I woulda thought my 130lb 2 cylinder 2 stroke would put out a bit more

[fishbone]

That is awesome

[BAC5.2]

That is badass!

 

Maybe I should make an adapter so I can ride my bike on the Dynapak at TurboXS.

[TiredGXP]

^^But what does your fancy mower do on the dyno?

[mwiener2]

Negative horsepower. It takes power from the dyno to run.

[BAC5.2]

Negative horsepower. It takes power from the dyno to run.

 

You should put a pasta sauce jar under the hood so you can make more power!

[mwiener2]

The dyno uses eddy current brakes. I don't want too much science near those.

[qiman]

I'm open minded so I read this article:

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/gas-mileage/1802932

 

That is your big proof that HHO boosters don't work? That article is about

as stupid as dehydrated water.

 

"Essentially, it takes more energy—in the form of the chemical energy in the gasoline you're burning in the engine, to spin the alternator to make the electricity and generate the HHO—than you get back. In fact, it's not even close: Multiply all the inefficiencies in that system and you only get a few percent back, certainly not in excess of 100 percent."

 

This must be where wiener got his false notion that you can't get a net

gain by taking power from the very system that you want to increase

the power in.

 

Mike Allen's reference to excess of 100% is pure stupidity. That has

nothing to do with valid HHO claims being used as a catalyst. I already

pointed out the commons sense distinction for anyone with more

than 2 brain cells to rub together that this over 100% efficient idea only

applies if someone is claiming to run the engine 100% on HHO with no

gas and that the power generated is enough to generate the electricity

to make all the HHO needed - if that was the case, we'd all be driving

cars running on 100% water and a "booster" would be a moot point.

 

At least in his article he does mention that some people are claiming it

only aids combustion - that is a good thing because most skeptics are

too gutless to even suggest the distinction that it

may not be about generating enough hydrogen gas to get power from

that hydrogen but rather in using the HHO to enhance combustion, which

countless university, government, military, SAE, etc... documents show

that TRACE AMOUNTS OF HYDROGEN enhance thermal efficiency in

engines. That is indisputable. Some of these are getting hydrogen from

an on board electrolyzer, some are from a gas reformer cracking H from

the heptane molecule itself, etc...

 

But by this PM article focusing on this 100% efficiency deal, he is either

misdirecting people's attention away from the facts or he is just plain

ignorant of thermodynamics.

 

I have already conclusively proved with Jet Propulsion Laboratory

documents from NASA that a gas reformer that takes a small bit of

gasoline from the car and exposes it to a cracking process releases H

from the gasoline in the form of H2 and reintroduces that to the fuel/air

mixture and this results in a very high efficiency engine! So much so that

they explicitly state that the efficiency is so high that it MORE THAN

makes up for the generator losses that it takes to crack the hydrogen

to begin with. Wiener's comments on that article are pure childish lies

and anyone with common sense can go read that 222 page report themselves

and see that he is outright lying and that what I am saying is the truth.

He is twisting and contorting the facts because he feels stupid that

there are actually references that defeat his and this PM's article claims

that you can't get a gain in a system when you are taking power from the

very system that you want to increase the efficiency in.

 

Also, with the article mentioning 300% claims - that is just to make the

legitimate people look like idiots because nobody in their right mind

that any degree of honesty are making those kind of stupid claims. That

article isn't news - it is a slam attempt, poor journalism and is nothing

but a 3 ring circus.

 

Mike Allen doesn't have the guts to list the "scientific articles" that

everyone has seen. Where are they? Let's see this list so I can show

you ones that you haven't seen!

 

He also states: "Without getting very detailed, these papers all deal with ultralean experimental engines with fuel-delivery systems enhanced with a stream of pure hydrogen, achieving a small improvement. They have nothing to do with retrofitting a conventional engine (with computer-controlled engine management that keeps the mixture near a perfect 14.2:1) with a device that adds a hydrogen-oxygen mix."

 

Yeah, without getting very detailed. LOL - what a testimony to

scientific articles. This is garbage.

 

The DOT reference is valid - it is not their test, they are referencing a

government validated test by a group that DOES do testing. And the

idiotic claim that it is a safety document so therefore it is irrelevant is

asinine - again - it references a valid test. An F150 is a VERY conventional

vehicle - it is NOT ultra lean, it may be a diesel but it was done with an

HHO booster and has nothing to do with a "stream of pure hydrogen"

which would come from a compressed tank of hydrogen.

 

Mike Allen is a liar to claim all these references showing results with

hydrogen are only on ultra lean running engines with compressed hydrogen.

That is pure stupidity. Yes, those tests obviously exist but to claim that

this is where all the results are come from this experimentation is

complete garbage. I have obviously read way more papers than he has

because he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

 

Someone here is a liar. They said this article says he resetted the fuel

computer to do these tests. No he didn't! He said he had some electronics

hooked up to trick the fuel computer! Resetting the fuel computer is

done by disconnecting the battery from the car for x hours so that the

stats that are logged for the o2 sensor, etc... are reset. If that is not

done between tests - each successive test is sabotaged by the previous

test and he appears to be too incompetent to know that this needs to

be done and so is anyone that thinks this article has the slightest

semblance of honesty or science to it. Mike Allen makes this same mistake

in the other "debunking" attempts too. He isn't a scientist, he gets paid

by advertising dollars.

 

At least Mike Allen states the HHO cell was drawing 15 amps, which is

on the low end but realistic end of what the HHO cell draws, which shows

that wieners claims of 50~200amps for an HHO cell is a product of

some whacked out delusion. At least Mike Allen and I agree on a

similar range to what these actually draw.

 

Mike Allen says: "This malarkey boiled down to perpetual motion"

 

LOL - he is a nut case to claim that supplemental hho that gives a boost

is perpetual motion.

 

That article is TRASH - he gives no protocols on what how the tests

were performed - NOTHING - he is basically gives nothing more than

lip service like the skeptics here - just hot air.

 

Those aren't scientific tests and that isn't a scientific article that shows

anything.

 

That JPL document I posted proves you can get more power from an

efficiency boost - more than enough to compensate for the electricity

it takes to generate the losses.

 

So does the DOT article that references the test. 4% may be low but

nevertheless, it defeats all the skeptics garbage.

 

M.I.T. (Mass. Institute of Technologies - that doesn't stand for

microscopic intelligence team) - the Plasmatron increases fuel efficiency

by up to 30% - by using electricity powered by an alternator on a car

and using a small part of the gasoline to get the hydrogen from - defeating

Mike Allen from PM's and weiner's comical claims that it would violate

thermodynamics when it doesn't. The plasmatron draws about 200-250

watts - around 20 amps similar to an HHO booster and increases fuel

efficiency up to 30%. MORE THAN ENOUGH TO COMPENSATE FOR THE

ELECTRICITY USED TO CRACK THE H FROM THE GAS. NOT HHO, but

proves yet another one of the many countless examples you can get

a net gain by smartly using what you ALREADY have within a system

to significantly increase the overall efficiency.

 

Like I said - no stupid dingbat articles or newspaper articles - post

something from a legitimate govt agency, university, military, SAE,

etc... that shows with a REAL scientific test that HHO boosters do not

work - you probably cannot find one single one and choose to resort to

pathetic articles written by a clown.

 

I posted references to DOT, JPL, MIT and the best you all can come

with is a new zealand news story and an idiotic article written by an

imbecile.

 

The average ICE is about 19% efficient and if an HHO booster gives

a nominal increase and you get 21% - any claims that this is violating

thermodynamics are completely out of touch with reality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BAC5.2]

You are anything but open minded. Don't kid yourself.

 

http://papers.sae.org/2010-01-2190

 

Dr. Stephen Samuel has written more than a dozen SAE articles. He is a professor at Oxford Brookes University, whose research focus is on the thermodynamics of internal combustion engines.

 

He says, within that article, that Hydrogen injection from electrolysis does work to reduce fuel consumption on a diesel engine. He goes on to say that the 5.3% gain seen, would be impossible to replicate using an onboard "HHO" generator.

 

Why?

 

Because it required 2.8L/min of hydrogen.

 

To make that much hydrogen, that quickly, takes an absurd amount of power.

 

Actually, it takes 192970 coulombs to produce a mole of hydrogen at STP (24.8L). That's 192,970 amps per second. Since we are only interested in 2.8 of those 24.8L, that requires 21,786 amps per second. Since we have a whole minute, we can spread that out a little. That's 368 amps continuously minute.

 

And that's assuming you are generating hydrogen in a laboratory, with 100% efficiency. Neither of those apply on the road, but lets go at it for S's and G's. I hope you have a big ass pasta sauce jar.

 

Fortunately, you can rent generators that size: http://www.starpowergenerators.com/500_amp.htm

 

Oh, and the Oxford Brookes professor whose specialty is internal combustion engines, still disagrees with you about "hydrogen being a catalyst". It's function during hydrogen injection is to act as a fuel supplement. I'm not convinced you actually know what a catalyst is. And it shocks me that you would actually believe that a catalyst will create energy from nothing.

 

And don't babble on in your non-word-wrapped reply that will undoubtedly follow, about how the internal combustion engine is not a "closed loop" or how the hydrogen combustion "opens" the loop. Because you'd be wrong.

 

This test, performed at an Oxford University and submitted to the SAE by an extremely qualified professor, lays it out quite simply. There are two direct energy sources involved in this test. Diesel fuel, and Hydrogen produced via electrolysis powered by a plug in the wall. The combination of the two nets a decrease in fuel consumption. The power consumed by the electrolysis device, however, exceeds the increase in power generated by the engine it's attached to. If it didn't, it would violate the second law of thermodynamics, and the pasta sauce industry would never be able to keep up with demand for jars.

 

I heard that you can strap a dyson to the front of your car, and get better gas mileage that way.

[thefultonhow]

I have already conclusively proved with Jet Propulsion Laboratory

documents from NASA that a gas reformer that takes a small bit of

gasoline from the car and exposes it to a cracking process releases H

from the gasoline in the form of H2 and reintroduces that to the fuel/air

mixture and this results in a very high efficiency engine! So much so that

they explicitly state that the efficiency is so high that it MORE THAN

makes up for the generator losses that it takes to crack the hydrogen

to begin with. Wiener's comments on that article are pure childish lies

and anyone with common sense can go read that 222 page report themselves

 

Once again, you are misinterpreting that document. You haven't refuted that yet.

 

He also states: "Without getting very detailed, these papers all deal with ultralean experimental engines with fuel-delivery systems enhanced with a stream of pure hydrogen, achieving a small improvement. They have nothing to do with retrofitting a conventional engine (with computer-controlled engine management that keeps the mixture near a perfect 14.2:1) with a device that adds a hydrogen-oxygen mix."

 

Yeah, without getting very detailed. LOL - what a testimony to

scientific articles. This is garbage.

 

The DOT reference is valid - it is not their test, they are referencing a

government validated test by a group that DOES do testing. And the

idiotic claim that it is a safety document so therefore it is irrelevant is

asinine - again - it references a valid test. An F150 is a VERY conventional

vehicle - it is NOT ultra lean, it may be a diesel but it was done with an

HHO booster and has nothing to do with a "stream of pure hydrogen"

which would come from a compressed tank of hydrogen.

 

Mike Allen is a liar to claim all these references showing results with

hydrogen are only on ultra lean running engines with compressed hydrogen.

That is pure stupidity. Yes, those tests obviously exist but to claim that

this is where all the results are come from this experimentation is

complete garbage. I have obviously read way more papers than he has

because he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

 

It's what's known as summarizing a long document in a paragraph. Ever heard of summarization?

 

Someone here is a liar. They said this article says he resetted the fuel

computer to do these tests. No he didn't! He said he had some electronics

hooked up to trick the fuel computer! Resetting the fuel computer is

done by disconnecting the battery from the car for x hours so that the

stats that are logged for the o2 sensor, etc... are reset. If that is not

done between tests - each successive test is sabotaged by the previous

test and he appears to be too incompetent to know that this needs to

be done and so is anyone that thinks this article has the slightest

semblance of honesty or science to it.

 

This by itself shows that you are ignorant of the subject you claim to know so much about. On many cars, the battery disconnect dance does not work, because the ECU has a battery backup. Resetting the ECU using a simple OBDII code reader, though, resets long-term fuel trims.

 

At least Mike Allen states the HHO cell was drawing 15 amps, which is

on the low end but realistic end of what the HHO cell draws, which shows

that wieners claims of 50~200amps for an HHO cell is a product of

some whacked out delusion. At least Mike Allen and I agree on a

similar range to what these actually draw.

 

mweiner is saying, as Mike Allen does, that 15 amps is an insufficient amount of power to generate enough hydrogen to have any effect on mileage.

 

That article is TRASH - he gives no protocols on what how the tests

were performed - NOTHING - he is basically gives nothing more than

lip service like the skeptics here - just hot air.

 

Those aren't scientific tests and that isn't a scientific article that shows

anything.

 

Wrong. He contracted with an independent testing lab, who used the EPA method for testing both before and after.

 

That JPL document I posted proves you can get more power from an

efficiency boost - more than enough to compensate for the electricity

it takes to generate the losses.

 

Once again, the JPL document is talking about something completely different.

 

M.I.T. (Mass. Institute of Technologies - that doesn't stand for

microscopic intelligence team) - the Plasmatron increases fuel efficiency

by up to 30% - by using electricity powered by an alternator on a car

and using a small part of the gasoline to get the hydrogen from - defeating

Mike Allen from PM's and weiner's comical claims that it would violate

thermodynamics when it doesn't. The plasmatron draws about 200-250

watts - around 20 amps similar to an HHO booster and increases fuel

efficiency up to 30%. MORE THAN ENOUGH TO COMPENSATE FOR THE

ELECTRICITY USED TO CRACK THE H FROM THE GAS. NOT HHO, but

proves yet another one of the many countless examples you can get

a net gain by smartly using what you ALREADY have within a system

to significantly increase the overall efficiency.

 

I know what MIT is, you dumbface -- I was on campus to see my girlfriend graduate from it yesterday, in fact. Once again, the plasmotron is designed to reduce emissions of NOx, not to reduce fuel consumption.

 

Like I said - no stupid dingbat articles or newspaper articles - post

something from a legitimate govt agency, university, military, SAE,

etc... that shows with a REAL scientific test that HHO boosters do not

work - you probably cannot find one single one and choose to resort to

pathetic articles written by a clown.

 

I posted references to DOT, JPL, MIT and the best you all can come

with is a new zealand news story and an idiotic article written by an

imbecile.

 

All of the articles from DOT, JPL, and MIT that you have posted have been proven irrelevant. In contrast, you have failed to disprove the logic in the PM and Aardvark articles, and you have definitely failed to discredit the instrumented testing performed by PM and NBC. Until you prove that the EPA tests are bogus and have no bearing on fuel economy whatsoever, I think you are going to be out of luck on winning this argument.

[mwiener2]

I would also like to point out that just about everything qiman posts, has nothing to do with the kit you can buy that is the topic of this post. That kit does not include plasma anythings, ultra-lean running conditions (although they are caused), any documentation from Nobel peace prize winners. The source of the hydrogen is water, not a petroleum product.

 

You CAN make hydrogen injection work, but the kits sold online, are not one of those ways.

[ehsnils]

And hydrogen itself is rather messy to work with - very prone to leaks and an extreme fire hazard. Liquid fuels are relatively convenient in both handling and safety. Batteries are more dangerous.

 

And if you want more efficiency there are better ways to go than this technology.

[BAC5.2]

I would also like to point out that just about everything qiman posts, has nothing to do with the kit you can buy that is the topic of this post. That kit does not include plasma anythings, ultra-lean running conditions (although they are caused), any documentation from Nobel peace prize winners. The source of the hydrogen is water, not a petroleum product.

 

You CAN make hydrogen injection work, but the kits sold online, are not one of those ways.

 

Bingo. And the fact that onboard hydrogen generation won't allow a net increase in fuel economy.

 

A jam jar under the hood isn't going to do much more than make you look like an idiot. You can say that you'll be laughing all the way to the fuel pump, but you'd better remember to put your tinfoil hat back on before you get out of the car so the aliens don't find out about your Smuckers Fuel mod!

[fahr_side]

A jam jar under the hood isn't going to do much more than make you look like an idiot.

I don't think the jam jar is strictly necessary in this case.

[NSFW]

And it shocks me that you would actually believe that a catalyst will create energy from nothing.

 

I don't see him making that claim.

 

Here's a charitable interpretation of the "catalyst" theory:

 

You get the most torque from an intake charge with the AFR at around 12.5:1. Having extra fuel in the mixture helps you burn more of the available oxygen. A stoichiometric mixture theoretically allows for all fuel to burn with all oxygen, but in practice, some of the oxygen won't find fuel to combust with - unless you spray some extra fuel.

 

It's hard to get more oxygen into a motor, but it's easy to spray more fuel. The additional fuel goes unburned, but that's OK with people who are more interested in power than economy.

 

So perhaps what qiman is saying is that hydrogen helps at 14.7:1 mixture burn more completely - thus approaching the yield of a 12.5:1 mixture, but without the extra fuel.

[NSFW]

I don't think the jam jar is strictly necessary in this case.

 

[LuckyBob]

I don't see him making that claim.

 

Here's a charitable interpretation of the "catalyst" theory:

 

You get the most torque from an intake charge with the AFR at around 12.5:1. Having extra fuel in the mixture helps you burn more of the available oxygen. A stoichiometric mixture theoretically allows for all fuel to burn with all oxygen, but in practice, some of the oxygen won't find fuel to combust with - unless you spray some extra fuel.

 

It's hard to get more oxygen into a motor, but it's easy to spray more fuel. The additional fuel goes unburned, but that's OK with people who are more interested in power than economy.

 

So perhaps what qiman is saying is that hydrogen helps at 14.7:1 mixture burn more completely - thus approaching the yield of a 12.5:1 mixture, but without the extra fuel.

 

As all of his sources that I've seen thus far - granted, I've only scanned his posts because they're terribly written for a number of reasons - seem to focus on engines made in the 1970s. I'm willing to bet that if the "burn the extra fuel" angle is his "catalyst," there's a damn simple explanation to the whole thing:

 

Cars did a shitty job of managing their fuel mixture back then. I'd be willing to bet 99.99999% of the vehicles on the road back then weren't running at their ideal fuel mix (stoich or not) at all times and at all RPMs. This is a conjecture, but I'd bet a lot of them were biased rich in order to prevent engine damage, too. Leaning out the mix via HHO injection probably did help gas mileage (especially when the reported improvement is barely above statistically insignificant, regardless of controlled driving environments or not), but we wouldn't know of other side effects without wideband AFR and long term, large sample engine health tests.

 

Cars do a much better job today. HHO injection won't be able to "catalyze" the extra gas because there (almost always) isn't any. Sure, our turbo 2.5 motor likes 12.5 AFR, but would adding HHO truly be a benefit? Leaning out the mixture via forcing HHO in there would provide a more complete burn, but what about that extra gas's cooling effects? [Rhetorical]Have there been 100k+ mile engine tests to determine if 12.5 AFR plus HHO cause long term damage? Is there a side effect with the piston coatings we have? Does HHO somehow interfere with emissions gear? Who tunes for HHO and where can I load a map onto my AccessPort?[/Rhetorical] There's millions of questions that none of us are truly qualified to answer.

 

Final thought:

 

IF THIS ACTUALLY WORKED, WHY ISN'T IT IN USE IN ALL VEHICLES TODAY?

 

PS: Y'all can **** off if you think there's some conspiracy out there to keep functional technology down. Automaker A finds that technology X improves gas mileage and/or performance, implements it, and outsells automaker B for a few years until they can reverse engineer/work around patents/license the technology and implement it. Direct injection is a perfect example of this.

 

PPS to NSFW: Remember just before the start of the last race when we intentionally introduced an intake leak in our running-way-too-rich Chump? Car ran way better at idle. I'm sure we can inject HHO with the exact same result as all those engines from the '70s.

[LuckyBob]

Also regarding the "where are the 75+MPG cars!??!??!one!11!?" gangbang, here's another nice little thought:

 

• Imperial gallons are larger than US gallons. All those awesome MPG figures over there aren't quite as awesome as we think.
  
• MPG testing standards vary. Just a bit. OK, a whole ******* lot. So much so that it skips right past the old idiom; it's an apples to bicycles comparison.
  

[BAC5.2]

I don't see him making that claim.

 

Here's a charitable interpretation of the "catalyst" theory:

 

You get the most torque from an intake charge with the AFR at around 12.5:1. Having extra fuel in the mixture helps you burn more of the available oxygen. A stoichiometric mixture theoretically allows for all fuel to burn with all oxygen, but in practice, some of the oxygen won't find fuel to combust with - unless you spray some extra fuel.

 

It's hard to get more oxygen into a motor, but it's easy to spray more fuel. The additional fuel goes unburned, but that's OK with people who are more interested in power than economy.

 

So perhaps what qiman is saying is that hydrogen helps at 14.7:1 mixture burn more completely - thus approaching the yield of a 12.5:1 mixture, but without the extra fuel.

 

Qiman is saying, under no veiled terms, that this "HHO" generator takes energy (in the form of electricity generated by the alternator), produces hydrogen (through electrolysis), injects the hydrogen, and the engine makes more power than was required to make the hydrogen in the first place plus enough power to tangibly increase fuel economy.

 

This, simply, isn't correct. You can't just create energy. Even if you try and pass it off as non-equilibrium thermodynamics that "you just don't understand", you still can't create energy from nothing.

 

He also keeps saying that "hydrogen is a catalyst", which means he probably doesn't know the definition of a catalyst. If hydrogen were a catalyst, then you'd be able to measure its increase in the exhaust. A catalyst, after all, is not consumed during the reaction it helps facilitate.

[fishbone]

You are anything but open minded. Don't kid yourself.

Exactly, and as further proof I already explained how to do proper word wrap but still won't do it.

[fishbone]

This by itself shows that you are ignorant of the subject you claim to know so much about. On many cars, the battery disconnect dance does not work, because the ECU has a battery backup. Resetting the ECU using a simple OBDII code reader, though, resets long-term fuel trims.

Oh, and to add on to what you already told him, the notion that the battery needs to be disconnected for X hours is also stupid. No. All you need to do is drain the charge. It takes seconds. Disconnect the battery and press the brake pedal and hold it in until the lights dim to nothing

But that would mean applying some common sense to a given problem, which seems to be problematic for some. In other words, he can't seem to be able to think for himself past some words in an article.

[mwiener2]

Hydrogen IS a catalyst. Gasoline has a stoichiometric burn of 14.7:1, but other fuels have different ratios. By adding hydrogen, you can change the ratio. It's not quite that simple, but it does make the combustion happen better.

 

The problem is that the amount of hydrogen required to make a difference is far greater than what can be produced on-board using electrolysis. Most of the articles Qiman linked to use other methods of providing the hydrogen, which is why they show minimal gains. Most of the these other methods only work in the lab and are simply not feasible to put on a production car.

 

 

 

 

 

What will hydrogen injection do for my E85 powered car?

[NSFW]

Qiman is saying, under no veiled terms, that this "HHO" generator takes energy (in the form of electricity generated by the alternator), produces hydrogen (through electrolysis), injects the hydrogen, and the engine makes more power than was required to make the hydrogen in the first place plus enough power to tangibly increase fuel economy.

 

This, simply, isn't correct. You can't just create energy. Even if you try and pass it off as non-equilibrium thermodynamics that "you just don't understand", you still can't create energy from nothing.

 

Actually, he's said a couple times that's not how it works.

 

And then he goes on to claim the 2nd law is bogus anyway, just to mess with you.