So explain how H injection doesn't work again? - Page 6 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 09-02-2009, 03:07 PM   #51
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
i) Wrong. They provide a consistent baseline for all. Fuels vary by region and even time of year so they gotta pick something. Even they don't claim that everybody will get exactly THAT mpg; they give you a likely RANGE.

ii) Wrong. Acetone doesn't work. Besides, don't let your A.D.D. kick in so soon- FOCUS. Now you have me wasting my time trying to figure out why he said that about the valve interference.

iii) Wrong. The ho ho ho system was "pro built" from plans, so it's safe to say the system was as good as the plans could make it be... even though in the end it's still junk. His test section was flat road, steady speed, and the result of switching the ho ho ho on and off was no change in pulsewidth. If ho ho hoo worked the pulsewidth should have reduced in that condition.

Now what about the other links I provided?
__________________

__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2009, 04:44 PM   #52
Registered Member
 
bowtieguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,873
Country: United States
Location: orlando, florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by theclencher View Post
Is that anything like the Uranium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator?



i'm going to blow up the earth because it blocks my view of the moon!
__________________

bowtieguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2009, 06:37 PM   #53
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_RoadWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by theclencher View Post
Now what about the other links I provided?
What about them? If I spent thousands developing something I'd get the PR that makes it sound like its the only thing that will work too.
__________________
I remember The RoadWarrior..To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time..the world was powered by the black fuel & the desert sprouted great cities..Gone now, swept away..two mighty warrior tribes went to war & touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel, they were nothing..thundering machines sputtered & stopped..Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice
GasSavers_RoadWarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2009, 06:54 PM   #54
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States


Oh I see now. You are resistant to any and all logic.

That's OK; I can work with that.

Now the onus is on YOU to prove it DOES work.

Make a system, run it, do a LEGITIMATE test (third party!), report it, and there we are.

__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 06:21 AM   #55
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_RoadWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,652
The logic there is only of the form of saying, "I've invented jet propelled aircraft and look they work, which means piston engined aircraft don't."

95% of the designs on the market, most of the free, eBay or $$$ plans are absolute crap, I'll give you that, if buddy there could see individual bubbles on his in car bubbler as he implies in his other HHO article, it wasn't making near enough on that one. Most designs come nowhere near the practical optimum electrolysis efficiency of 80%, very few are getting into the production range where they should start working, which IMO is at least the same CCs per minute as the capacity of the motor you're using it on. Even then it's only barely enough for a limited range of operation, which would be higher vacuum driving conditions. I called the EPA tests useless because they have very little higher vacuum low load operation. It's one of the reasons Ford never deployed it's '80s DOD project, they had it working, they got great steady state mileage, but it only cut in for seconds on the EPA test schedule.

For across the board improvement, right up to high RPM and in WOT, yes you need a huge volume of H2 and you need to optimise the engine configuration. Then you get the overall 20-30% of those MIT and Arvin Merritor studies... and that's probably on an EPA cycle... however, it would not surprise me in the least if low load economy was stellar, you'd get people managing huge percentages over EPA in a production vehicle deploying that system.

Those indicate that the practical maximum efficiency of a motor has been improved from around 30% overall to around 40% overall, a 10% overall increase is a 33% mpg gain. However, no-one except Basjoos, Diamond Larry etc is getting near their 30% engine efficiency. Most of us are getting 10-15% which is because, counter intuitively, the most fuel efficient steady speed usually has the motor at near it's most inefficient. 1% change in overall efficiency can mean a 10% gain here. Conversely a 1% loss in overall efficiency should show a 10% loss here. You'd think someone would notice a drop to 27mpg from 30mpg right? But apparently skeptic tests don't follow through, because they would claim less than 50% conversion efficiency of the HHO, and less than 30% efficiency in burning it, which would mean that they would expect a 15% efficiency from it, meaning only 15% goes back into the crank from what they took out. In which case, why do we get statements such as "If anything a slight decrease in FE" or "FE the same" because with skeptic math, a 15A at 12V cell would take 1/2HP from the crank, in a 100HP car that's a .5% loss overall, whereas in low load high vacuum it's a 5% loss of mpg, which should be noticable and repeatable enough they'd be crowing about it. "Maybe a slight drop" makes it sound like it's in the 1% repeatability error, and "mileage the same" means of course, nothing measurable. The lack of a larger drop under low load high vacuum actually invalidates their arguments about how it doesn't work, because if their math was right, it would be a larger more demonstrable loss. They're not even looking back at it to say "Hey that's weird, how come it looks like I've got damn near 100% back again", which would imply that they have a "nearly working" system, that could show a gain with some changes.


PM buddy is right that it's difficult for any device to alter fuel economy when the ECU is boneheadely trying to maintain a constant AFR, according to it's O2 sensor. In a perfect world it would be in actual control of HHO induction. Anecdotally the ECU "tunes out" any modifications to this end, however sensible application of a system would have it tuning it in... which is why I propose to have mine activated by the evap system, an ECUs programming is typically far more amenable to reducing injector pulse width during evap recovery than at other times.
__________________
I remember The RoadWarrior..To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time..the world was powered by the black fuel & the desert sprouted great cities..Gone now, swept away..two mighty warrior tribes went to war & touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel, they were nothing..thundering machines sputtered & stopped..Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice
GasSavers_RoadWarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 02:10 PM   #56
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
Yeah sure. Just do it already.

Entities that don't stand to make a buck, lying about it. Right.

Tell us which are in the 5% of successful designs. Then we can look into them.
__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2009, 10:18 AM   #57
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_RoadWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,652
Well I'm "doing" in that I've been collecting parts and equipment for a while and am in the middle of getting Marvin driveable again which is a turning into a bit of a project. I'm going to use Marvin because he's running nearer the top of the mpg range for vehicles of his type than Wile-E is, and has quite a bit more engine bay room. With Wile-E, there's too much "quibble factor" in that manual wagons have been reported to get into the 40s mpg, and despite constant tinkering I can't seem to break out of the low 30s, with a lot of highway running in lockup.


Yup there's entities that make a buck lying about it, the 2 bolts in a jar or twist of wire shysters, there's entities not making a buck that are indoctrinated in the emotional gut response to anything different by a highly conservative scientific establishment* that don't even realise they're lying. In testing some ideas, they work on the self-fulfilling prophecy principle, i.e. "I don't believe that bit works, so I'll leave that out, and I don't believe that's really necessary so I'll scrap that... " and end up building straw man experiments. It's often more like incompetence due to mental inflexibility than outright intention to deceive.


Designs that are most likely to work well will have a large plate area, greater than homeopathic electrolyte concentration, will have a voltage per cell commensurate with their electrode potentials, are likely to use a reasonably large amount of amps (i.e. greater than homeopathic level charge dilution) and tee into vacuum in sensible places, rather than suggesting you just hang a hose somewhere in front of the air filter, and will have some minimum method of protecting you and your motor.

There's actually a bogus way for the bad designs to work on old vehicles, this would be by running very hot and producing a mist of water, steam and powdered electrolyte, typically lye, this goes down a hose draped into the airbox... does it get sucked into the engine? Yes... by the crankcase vent... whereupon it reacts with oil mist and vapor in the crankcase due to various catalytic processes, a combo of hydro cracking, thermal and catalytic cracking (Lye is a good catalyst for reforming oils, ask the biodiesel folks) and comes back out the PCV valve as a mixture of hydrocarbon vapors... and finally into the combustion chamber. Due to copious blowby and pre-existing oil high consumption, it kind of escapes notice that the motor is sucking a quart a hundred miles now. For similar reasons PCV jars show larger gains on these vehicles, but don't create extra oil consumption. Typically though if the blowby was caused by stuck rings, the removal of liquid particulate oil from the induction stream will mean that the motor can clean itself up over a period... Then you get results like "I was getting 12mpg, then I used HHO and it went up to 24mpg, but after a while it went down to 18mpg, and I took it off, and I still get 18mpg"
__________________
I remember The RoadWarrior..To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time..the world was powered by the black fuel & the desert sprouted great cities..Gone now, swept away..two mighty warrior tribes went to war & touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel, they were nothing..thundering machines sputtered & stopped..Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice
GasSavers_RoadWarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2009, 01:03 PM   #58
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
Somebody has made it work right? Who is it?

Now who's the "tinkerer"- does that make you an idiot too? LMAO
__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 12:08 AM   #59
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 08:58 AM   #60
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 261
Country: United States
Location: The slums of Beverly Hills
The tittle of this thread is stupid.
__________________

dieselbenz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is this stat? cavale Fuelly Web Support and Community News 1 09-03-2008 08:23 AM
ScanGauge feedback wanted mathowie General Fuel Topics 1 08-08-2008 07:02 AM
Visual representation of airflow behind car landspeed Aerodynamics 6 12-04-2006 02:58 PM
Whats your concentration factor. zpiloto General Fuel Topics 15 09-30-2006 05:28 PM
Crazy Spark Plugs Claim Increase of 50% in Gas Mileage SVOboy General Fuel Topics 13 12-29-2005 06:36 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.