kiker wires amazing!!!!
 

/

I don't understand a couple of things on their website: (this was also e-mailed to them and I'll post the response)

How does coiling the wire make for enough EMI filtering to run these wires in an EFI vehicle?

What is the core of the wires made of that enables a magnetic field to travel down the wire? and how does that help the spark?

How does the wire create multiple sparks?

How does reducing the resistance of the wires help when still using resistor-type plugs? 60 ohms over even 6 feet is 360 ohms and your normal resistor spark plug is about 4.5k ohms for a combined 4,860 vs 4,500. Even as the plugs get hot and their resistor values drop it still isn't a big difference.

FWIW, the last thread about these:
https://www.gassavers.org/showthread.php?t=8696

Gaslog with and without or it didn't happen. :)

Response to my email questions I posted above:

From Pat Kiker:

I'm not sure where to begin responding to that...

Could start with the fact that wires don't produce energy. That "Tessla" is spelled "Tesla." That most of the energy your ignition coil puts out gets dissipated in the spark, and not the cable, so low resistance cables are moot in the first place. Plug wires wont make multiple sparks. Multiple spark ignition systems make multiple sparks.

The only truth I see in the entire thing is that properly coiling of a ground wire around the plug wires could reduce noise. That's about it, it's called RF shielding and it's nothing new.

The placebo effect is strong with this one.

Hmmm...

I'm trying to figure out how a small amount of lost inefficiency in a gas combustion engine could be converted to close to doubling my mileage of a similar Focus. Is Reardon Metal used in the wires?

No, they're half Unobtainium, half Impossibilium, and half element 115. From a UFO. Really.

:D

Actually, automotive ignition systems are pretty wasteful. Only around 0.2%(yes .2) of electrical energy used to fire the ignition system gets turned into actual spark. The rest is converted into heat.

Oooo! I might have some of that. And I was looking for employment! I'm in! :thumbup:

Hehe, I've been looking for employment too. Maybe we should get together and make up some stupid FE related scam. Scams seem to be where the money is these days.... :P

0.2%? I'ma need to see a reference (a damn good one at that) for this. Unless you're counting the heat produced by the spark... which is what we want... Where is the 99.8% of the heat going?

G.J. Rohwein, "An Efficient, Power Enhanced Ignition System", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 25, No. 2, April 1997.

Can be seen here but you have to buy it. I imagine that someone in an engineering class could access it for free if they ask the right instructor.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/lo...rnumber=602504

So, the real question is: if efficiency were doubled in the ignition spark, would that lead to doubling of MPG? Doubling of power?

Use two plugs?

Some manufacturers have used two plugs (My 1984 Nissan 200sx had two plugs). I think Ford did this on a few engines too. I can see how this would be very useful with lean mixes since they burn slower than mixes that are stoich. correct.

Maybe one stronger spark could better ignite a slightly lean mix- but IMHO, unless you are having misfires, changing plug wires to get a stronger spark wouldn't change fuel economy because all that matters is that the mixture gets ignited.

My grandmother had a old Datsun pickup with dual plugs, I assumed it was for reliability. And, that truck was REALLY reliable. Ran great till the chassis was worn completely out, and after sitting for over a year it still started, without even jumping the battery.

If I remember correctly the dual plugs in the Nissan trucks were for a power boost when needed. When you needed the extra power all 8 plugs fired and when on the open road cruising only 4 of them fired.

I fail to see how extra plugs boost power, and if they did, wouldn't you want them on all the time to boost your economy? Since the amount of fuel being burned isn't changing....

I'm pretty sure I remember a Ford Ranger 4 cylinder engine, maybe from the late 1990s, that had DOHC and dual spark plugs per cylinder. IIRC the spark plugs were configured differently to be used along with the different cam configurations.

The Nissan engine was called a NAP-Z and the dual plugs were more for emissions than power, although they ran good and got excellent mileage. Plugs were on opposite sides with single intake and exhaust valves, in a Hemi head configuration.

Something very similar is the honda idsi engine which uses two valves and dual plugs. Seems to be similar.

The NAP-Z Nissan engines first came out with carburetors, which also had heated screens in the base plates to help with fuel atomization. Used a suction operated reed valve arrangement to eliminate the air pump.

This was the last stages of development before fuel injection. FI started out in the 1986.5 Hardbody pickups with throttle body 3 valve engines then went to port injection and DOHC in 1991 I think.

regards
gary

There are many aftermarket ignition systems on the market that produce multiple sparks across a longer degree of crank rotation. In fact, I have one on my car (necessary for converting to distributor-less ignition). It doesn't give you any measurable increase in FE.

We can't just accept everything everyone says without having some science behind it. If we did, we'd spend all our time and crazy amounts of money on wild goose chases and never get anywhere. Skepticism is necessary in FE discussions, doubly so when there's a commercial product being discussed (almost ALL of which do absolutely nothing for anyone who does decently accurate testing).

I count 23 posts in this thread. Of those 23, I count 5 posts from only 2 users that could be construed as mocking, though they appeared to be mainly making tangent jokes about nonexistent metals and employment in the nonexistent metals industry (though there were at least 2 comments that did seem potentially offensive). The rest of the posts were by 6 other users (and you) and discussed it seriously.

Data, data, data.

While only a certain amount of combustion is converted into motion, the rest is heat, etc. We all understand that. I fail to see where something is created out of the very small amount of fuel that isn't used up in the combustion process.

I'd be happy to buy a set of wires if I could go from 30MPG average to 40, but data would actually be necessary.

Quite simply, Ford still sells almost a half a million F150's in the current year of high gas prices, and, obviously, the F150 is a "problem" for it's CAFE. Wires that would change that on any one of their vehicle would be important.

Skepticism is the nature of science, is it not? "Look at this" isn't really a discussion, it has a real feeling of marketing hype.

In the interest of racing, I've tried a lot of products. I've failed to recognize any substantial gains in power, etc. from products that have made promises in power, performance, economy from ignitions, plugs, wires.

In the midst of a lot of talk about HHO gains, there seems to be at least a similar number of individuals that talk about no gains from HHO. Usually, in my experience, the individuals with no gains seem to be better at recording data.

If there was data, again, I'm willing to listen.

I am interested in seeing your results as well, but I think it needs to be a blind test with at least 10 repetitions for the control (no HHO) and 10 for the HHO.

So, have your neighbor ride with you as a passenger. He will decide whether the HHO switch will be on or off (tape a garbage bag over it so you can't see whether it's flipped on or off) and he will not tell you whether it's on of off until all 20 trips are finished.

If it's not a blind test, then it's validity will be questioned- even if you do 10 repetitions because you may subconsciously accelerate slower or faster etc. based on what you think is supposed to happen.

Better yet- remove the "ON/OFF" HHO switch label and not tell your neighbor which way was on or off. He can secretly record the total distances driven in position A or position B and then you can analyze the data at the end of the experiment. Still the switch position needs to be kept secret from the driver at all times.

That's an interesting test procedure. A similar but more common technique is to use a separate small container for a specified marked distance and weigh the container before/after. For your idea, it might be worthwhile to use odometer readings in addition to the water balloon marker (which could be difficult to do accurately).

2 suggestions: That B2000 better get better than 25mpg, as a friend of mine got 32mpg on the highway at 70-75mph.
Second, dropping the water ballon at Xmph, it'll still be moving forward, somewhat skewing the result (albeit very small amount). If you have a paintball gun, or something like that, I'd recommend that more for accuracy.

Certainly looking forward to your results, as I don't have the time or materials (money) to test all these things I don't believe work. I'd love to be proven wrong!

If the road was flat, I think you should coast to a stop and then record that distance, because the momentum the truck had was due to the gasoline that was burning.

Besides that, the truck will sputter and buck a little bit as it's running out of gas- so when do you throw the ballon or shoot the paintball? when it sputters or when it completely dies?

To begin the test- I think you should pick a road sign and while moving at 55mph, switch the selector valve to the small gas container as you pass the road sign. Yes- you might end turning the valve up a half second early or late, but this would only represent about 100 feet of travel.

It seems like too many variables if you were to switch to the small gas container while stopped (how fast you accelerate, how much you slip the clutch etc.) and begin the test from a stop.

I use to drive an '84 Mazda B-2000 w/5speed and it averaged somewhere right around 30 MPG if it was tuned properly. This should give you some basis as what to expect as far as distance. That was on a US gallon.

They had me wondering how well they'd work until he said it enhances electrical systems like the radio and brakes. I'm very open to new ideas, i just like knowing how they work before I hand over money for something.

If he just said it doesn't interfere with that stuff then I'd be fine.

If the HHO inventors wouldn't say I could double my gas mileage by building their unit, I'd be more inclined to build one.

If Joe Cell people didn't say things like this:
And that the gasses pass though metal to get inside the combustion chamber, I'd be more accepting of what it could do too.

It's the WAY out there stuff that people THINK we want to hear, or have convinced themselves of, that we have a hard time believing.

LOL, antigravity effects....where did you find that gem?

https://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Joe_Cell

Nice website, has some stuff that's really cool, like the hydroelectric generator below, but there is some off the wall stuff on there too. (obviously)

https://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...ex_Power_Plant

Marty has been on here long enough for us to know that he actually tests and reports. Marty - we WOULD LOVE to see gaslogs.

Here is my take: 1) could have had bad wires previously - new wires CAN increase mileage. Can you get ahold of another set of standardish to nicer wires to see if they change mileage? A/B/A testing.

2) Gasoline mixture - same or different gas station, winter / summer mix, etc. Can you tell us more about this?

I know Marty seems like one of our more out there members at times to some, but he DOES try to report honestly, and this is commendable. Lots of people think I'm crazy when I get 40+ MPG in my automatic CRX, but I can reproduce it. Can't hit 70 when I do it, either. I am working on a vehicle that will get 100+ - but likely cannot exceed 60 or 65 to do it, but that is okay with me.

Marty - get us more reproducible data. Remember that your driving style may account for 5% or more of your increase in mileage, new wires some - gas blend some - this may be more than one factor.

The truth is that we would all LOVE to be able to put together a vehicle that got AMAZING mileage. Remember that the Toyota Prius has been shown to be able to effectively get 186 MPG (albeit with an exhausted battery). So Marty's claims are not wrong - just not substantiated enough with gaslogs and such to satisfy us all. Marty - keep reporting - we do like hearing about things that help!

Good, because they're full of it.

I pulled this from their website...

For the impatient, please read only the bold text.

I'm sorry guys, I don't have the patience to do a line-by-line refute of every claim they made. Sorry for the let-down. I started, then decided it wasn't worth it, because they can't even use proper grammar or spelling.

If they would just stick to real-world stuff they might find some people that might not see right through it. The self-inductance part, fine, the higher energy giving you better combustion, duh. But talking about space time and how voltage isn't what fires the plug, current is and that it makes 3 sparks from one? Please.

Your gas log shows a couple of ridiculous half gallon fills. Since you even bother to do that, I'd wager your "testing" procedures aren't any better or any more valid.

The amount of proof required varies from person to person. It can vary from idea to idea, too -- for me, a product for sale that claims to improve fuel economy requires a whole lot more than something DIY or free (like a WAI or driving technique). This is doubly so when testimonials provide difficult to believe numbers, like your 164% (39mpg to 64mpg) result. And, admittedly, if you provided a 5% increase I'd dismiss it as statistically insignificant, placebo that caused your driving to change, or just not enough to be worth money.

To start with, the product would have to be based on an idea that I can understand and believe. I do have to know and believe how and why it works. Oh, and it is standard practice for me to try to figure out what makes everything that I use tick...I generally don't just turn stuff on without having some understanding of the scientific explanation behind it. However, even if I don't fully understand how a microwave oven works, the demonstation is free, done right in front of my eyes, and the results are unarguable.

Fuel-saving commecial products usually have a very difficult burden of proof to convince me. It's not unreasonable, because I don't have money to risk and I don't want to encourage the very large business of selling false hope.

Your gaslog doesn't even contain the data you're claiming. It has a total of 176.25 miles driven on a total of 3.66 gallons, at no time did it dip to 39mpg or raise to 64mpg, and only has extremely short fills that can't be depended on for an accurate measure of fuel usage. One 2-gallon fill and 3 half-gallon fills do not a gaslog make. It's easy enough to get a half gallon pump error.

Perhaps other folks are more easily convinced.

Naming yourself after acetone does wonders for credibility as well! :thumbup:

What? I thought we were just supposed to accept, there is no need to understand. :rolleyes:

64 is 164% of 39. 64 is 64% larger than 39. I didn't say a 164% improvement, I said a 164% result. Perhaps my math was off slightly and it's 166% of 39 and 66% larger than 39.

If you want to use data to convince people, you have to provide that data. Your gaslog has no credible data, and doesn't even show any of the data you claim (credibly or otherwise).

The ScanGauge is a great tool but it is not accurate. It can't even measure fuel usage; it must calculate it approximately by measuring airflow and O2 sensor readings, and it doesn't get that data in a constant stream but rather in samples every 1 to 3 seconds. I have one, it's great, but it's a supplemental tool for instant feedback and monitoring other sensors, not a primary measurement of accurate results.

Some whitespace would make your posts easier to read.

64 is 164% of 39

39mpg to 64mpg results in a 56% increase

39 is 39% less than 64

Pick your number.