HHO Dyno results
HHO Dyno results
08-11-2010, 08:46 AM
#51
1987 300D Sturmmachine
1991 300D Nearly Perfect
1985 300D Weekend/Camping/Dog car
1974 L508D Motoroam Monarch "NightMare"
OBK #42
I just want to see one controlled environment test with identical engines running next to each other over sustained periods of times. AKA a real test that does not involve your right foot. Then I will believe it.
1987 300D Sturmmachine
1991 300D Nearly Perfect
1985 300D Weekend/Camping/Dog car
1974 L508D Motoroam Monarch "NightMare"
OBK #42
08-11-2010, 12:39 PM
#52
One thing to note is, just installing a system on a gas or diesel will not yield the gain I am sharing. Several factors you have to consider, for gas installing an EFIE to fool the ECU and for the diesel (in this case I am playing with the ALDA) and now I am trying to learn how to adjust the IP timing to retard timing to see if the faster flame can be accommodated. On my 2009 F-150 with a Triton engine the timing is automatically adjusted, the same for the Harley Davidson (one test got 52 mpg and ran cool).
Unless you guys try this and experience the result you’ll keep throwing these negative comments. I was in your shoes for a long time until I decided to get a plan and build my own cell. No, I did not get these results instantly it took some time and a lot of experiments and test drives. This 1985 300SD I happen to buy just to see what this process will do to it and how much gain, since most of the test result I’ve read from multiple test done that diesel reacts better with HHO.
Now I am sharing with you what I am experiencing I can share with you what my Town Car is doing, which 48% mpg increase and 33% on the highway on the F-150. As mentioned this process defies every theory including everyone favorite, thermodynamics. But hey, every aeronautical engineer I know tells me the CH-53 should not fly considering its massive airframe and the power plant install, but it flies.
As far, as a control environment I am working on that as well. The EPA conducts test and getting them to test a common person’s theory is like cutting a rock with a plastic knife. As it stands all that I share is being experience by people who decided to take a chance on the process, like a single mom with limited income that drives a 1988 Olds Cutlass Supreme with V-6 engine. A consistent 27 mpg from her 16-18 she said she use to get.
Raise all the BS flags all you want. Bottom line install a system to fit your car or truck combat the ECU if it’s a gas and for diesel adjust what ever limits fuel delivery and take a ride. I’ve been following this process for years when it first started some of the initial pioneer of builders did not do the image any justice. Yes, people’s money was being taking for device that blew up and did not show any gain at all. Because they did not do their researches to combat the modernization of the fuel and computer system cars these days have? They are smarter, they adjust to the changing environment HHO is doing. One of the most complicated one I’ve experienced is Toyota system from 2004 and present. But with determination and constants testing I was successful in combating a Scion tc that gets 30 mpg easy but the owner wanted more due her daily driving of 100+ miles. By the time I finished the configuration she was telling me about her 42 mpg car and the power she was experiencing. So I took it to a dyno to see, the power she felt during her drive could not be duplicated but you can feel it during acceleration between low to mid range. I took the system off the car prior to her shipping it to her son in another state.
One thing I was going to do was offer a system to a volunteer close to me, but with all the negative feedback I hear from here and another forum I decided not to continue with the idea. I don’t push this process people, people come to me and asked because they see the “Hybrid’ logo on all my vehicles and soon they will see one on this 1985 300SD once my test is done.
Sorry I got winded I am passionate about this I’ve been looking for something to add to an ICE that produce a smooth acceleration and faster throttle response for years. As I said I was in your shoes for years until decided to experiment on my own.
Another thing, my 2007 RKC and 2007 Altra Classic are Hybrid and several other Harley in my area. One guy was going to get a big bore kit and 6 speed trans. He called me to install one on this bike. The only thing he had to say after his 100 mile ride the first day he picked his bike. Thank you, you saved me 4k.
I don’t have a sophisticated highly advance control environment to use and test my system. Just using the basic fundamental concept of electrolysis using some tolerable material 316L SS and Titanium as the Anode and Cathode with Bi-Polar plates in between and 12V DC drawing 25 amps with KOH as the electrolyte. Install the system in a vehicle producing the right percentage of HHO as per the engine displacement take the vehicle for and drive in the same condition (I drive or what the clients drive) on an average 150 miles then calculate the gas used per the amount of miles travel.
One thing to note is, just installing a system on a gas or diesel will not yield the gain I am sharing. Several factors you have to consider, for gas installing an EFIE to fool the ECU and for the diesel (in this case I am playing with the ALDA) and now I am trying to learn how to adjust the IP timing to retard timing to see if the faster flame can be accommodated. On my 2009 F-150 with a Triton engine the timing is automatically adjusted, the same for the Harley Davidson (one test got 52 mpg and ran cool).
Unless you guys try this and experience the result you’ll keep throwing these negative comments. I was in your shoes for a long time until I decided to get a plan and build my own cell. No, I did not get these results instantly it took some time and a lot of experiments and test drives. This 1985 300SD I happen to buy just to see what this process will do to it and how much gain, since most of the test result I’ve read from multiple test done that diesel reacts better with HHO.
Now I am sharing with you what I am experiencing I can share with you what my Town Car is doing, which 48% mpg increase and 33% on the highway on the F-150. As mentioned this process defies every theory including everyone favorite, thermodynamics. But hey, every aeronautical engineer I know tells me the CH-53 should not fly considering its massive airframe and the power plant install, but it flies.
As far, as a control environment I am working on that as well. The EPA conducts test and getting them to test a common person’s theory is like cutting a rock with a plastic knife. As it stands all that I share is being experience by people who decided to take a chance on the process, like a single mom with limited income that drives a 1988 Olds Cutlass Supreme with V-6 engine. A consistent 27 mpg from her 16-18 she said she use to get.
Raise all the BS flags all you want. Bottom line install a system to fit your car or truck combat the ECU if it’s a gas and for diesel adjust what ever limits fuel delivery and take a ride. I’ve been following this process for years when it first started some of the initial pioneer of builders did not do the image any justice. Yes, people’s money was being taking for device that blew up and did not show any gain at all. Because they did not do their researches to combat the modernization of the fuel and computer system cars these days have? They are smarter, they adjust to the changing environment HHO is doing. One of the most complicated one I’ve experienced is Toyota system from 2004 and present. But with determination and constants testing I was successful in combating a Scion tc that gets 30 mpg easy but the owner wanted more due her daily driving of 100+ miles. By the time I finished the configuration she was telling me about her 42 mpg car and the power she was experiencing. So I took it to a dyno to see, the power she felt during her drive could not be duplicated but you can feel it during acceleration between low to mid range. I took the system off the car prior to her shipping it to her son in another state.
One thing I was going to do was offer a system to a volunteer close to me, but with all the negative feedback I hear from here and another forum I decided not to continue with the idea. I don’t push this process people, people come to me and asked because they see the “Hybrid’ logo on all my vehicles and soon they will see one on this 1985 300SD once my test is done.
Sorry I got winded I am passionate about this I’ve been looking for something to add to an ICE that produce a smooth acceleration and faster throttle response for years. As I said I was in your shoes for years until decided to experiment on my own.
Another thing, my 2007 RKC and 2007 Altra Classic are Hybrid and several other Harley in my area. One guy was going to get a big bore kit and 6 speed trans. He called me to install one on this bike. The only thing he had to say after his 100 mile ride the first day he picked his bike. Thank you, you saved me 4k.
08-18-2010, 12:57 PM
#54
meareweird
08-18-2010, 12:57 PM #54Tell you what let me borrow the car with an on off switch for the system I will alternate every fuel fillup running the hho and not running it. foot to the floor or no throttle at all that will be my constant. I will keep picture s and very close documentation.
08-20-2010, 07:50 PM
#55
(08-11-2010, 12:57 PM)winmutt Controlled experiments and I will be a believer.
i hear ya. you're not the only one waiting on the experiments. from this forum alone, i've learned a lot about limitations and what to expect and not expect with regard to aerodynamics and weight and such. i amped the unit i have up this week to pull about 16 amps, which runs just under 2 liters a minute of hydroxy fuel. i have my fuel regulator turned just about all the way on my td because i live where i will get run over if not. mileage this morning on a work run was 31.5 with some idle time...not bad, but always wishing for more. seeing 25 to 27 in the city. when the hydroxy is off, the exhaust smell is barely tolerable.
i have a 4-gas emissions test set of results from an 07 dodge 1500 hemi that shows reductions in all 4 categories, to include a carbon monoxide reading with the hydroxy "on" of .0000 from .7117. i will post before and after emissions tests. i don't see a lot of "believers" posting any testing reports to help the "non-believers," so i'll post whatever i've done and learn from the feedback. not that there are many who really want to reduce the poisons over gains in mileage, but it's here to see. still more power and torque, but no real mileage gains that stick, as you will find of most any computer controlled car. i also have dyno results from a mitsubishi showing the same increase in power and torque on the site.
as stated above, mileage gains are hard to come by in newer gasoline cars where computers are in control. it's a fine line messing with all the computer controlled devices independently. maybe a mapping and a new chip, but that's another $800 on top of the cost of the fuel supplement system.
b
h2hypoddotcom
This post was last modified: 08-20-2010, 08:03 PM by tiptopsaidhe.
Attached Files
Image(s)
tiptopsaidhe
08-20-2010, 07:50 PM #55(08-11-2010, 12:57 PM)winmutt Controlled experiments and I will be a believer.
i hear ya. you're not the only one waiting on the experiments. from this forum alone, i've learned a lot about limitations and what to expect and not expect with regard to aerodynamics and weight and such. i amped the unit i have up this week to pull about 16 amps, which runs just under 2 liters a minute of hydroxy fuel. i have my fuel regulator turned just about all the way on my td because i live where i will get run over if not. mileage this morning on a work run was 31.5 with some idle time...not bad, but always wishing for more. seeing 25 to 27 in the city. when the hydroxy is off, the exhaust smell is barely tolerable.
i have a 4-gas emissions test set of results from an 07 dodge 1500 hemi that shows reductions in all 4 categories, to include a carbon monoxide reading with the hydroxy "on" of .0000 from .7117. i will post before and after emissions tests. i don't see a lot of "believers" posting any testing reports to help the "non-believers," so i'll post whatever i've done and learn from the feedback. not that there are many who really want to reduce the poisons over gains in mileage, but it's here to see. still more power and torque, but no real mileage gains that stick, as you will find of most any computer controlled car. i also have dyno results from a mitsubishi showing the same increase in power and torque on the site.
as stated above, mileage gains are hard to come by in newer gasoline cars where computers are in control. it's a fine line messing with all the computer controlled devices independently. maybe a mapping and a new chip, but that's another $800 on top of the cost of the fuel supplement system.
b
h2hypoddotcom
Attached Files
Image(s)
08-21-2010, 07:34 PM
#56
I have over half dozen of emision test ranging from Oregon which is one of the most strict on emission, TX. CA. MD in the area that requires it with those I been called a liar and a computer expert because it was assumed I altered the numbers.
meareweird,
Since you leave in Balt, and probably close to me I will offer to install a unit on your car drive it in the manner you drive, to work, to the grocery store. If you do not experience and power gain, better accel, mileage gain and lower the black smoke from your tail pipe I will get on this forum and admit this does not work.
If it does I would like a complete Par. with detail write up of your experience with the system on your car, post it here with you admitting it how well it works. I'll even let you keep the system. It will be the same configuration as the one on mind and make adjustment as I did on mine.
Tiptop.
I have over half dozen of emision test ranging from Oregon which is one of the most strict on emission, TX. CA. MD in the area that requires it with those I been called a liar and a computer expert because it was assumed I altered the numbers.
meareweird,
Since you leave in Balt, and probably close to me I will offer to install a unit on your car drive it in the manner you drive, to work, to the grocery store. If you do not experience and power gain, better accel, mileage gain and lower the black smoke from your tail pipe I will get on this forum and admit this does not work.
If it does I would like a complete Par. with detail write up of your experience with the system on your car, post it here with you admitting it how well it works. I'll even let you keep the system. It will be the same configuration as the one on mind and make adjustment as I did on mine.
meareweird
08-21-2010, 10:54 PM #57If your hydroxy system was able to do that for my car I would be amazed
![[Image: BILD0129.jpg]](http://i884.photobucket.com/albums/ac41/meareweird/album%201/BILD0129.jpg)
![[Image: BILD0172.jpg]](http://i884.photobucket.com/albums/ac41/meareweird/album%201/BILD0172.jpg)
08-22-2010, 02:41 PM
#58
I still see nothing at all that changes the proven fact hydrogen generators don't work.
This post was last modified: 08-22-2010, 02:42 PM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
08-22-2010, 02:41 PM
#58
The only significant change I see between the two is CO, and the difference is very small.
I still see nothing at all that changes the proven fact hydrogen generators don't work.
08-23-2010, 03:54 PM
#59
(08-22-2010, 02:41 PM)ForcedInduction The only significant change I see between the two is CO, and the difference is very small.there hasn't been any proof shown yet that they don't work. yes, they don't improve mpg in cars with o2 sensors and programmed ecu's that monitor various temp sensors, but our mercedes' don't have those. that's the hidden beauty gg. no mpg gain doesn't prove the hydroxy isn't working with the fuel. it improves overall brake thermal efficiency and reduces pollution on every vehicle on the road.
I still see nothing at all that changes the proven fact hydrogen generators don't work.
it can be difficult when you choose not to see. it's not going to turn your diesel into an electric hybrid with 1000 hp. it just makes your diesel car a better version of itself. what would be wrong with improved torque, less soot, and increased mpg? so what if you move from 18 to 22 and feel more power? it's still improvement.
as to the emissions tests provided, i am in total agreement that catalytic converters on gas engines are highly efficient. they are intended to be. the emissions tests just show that supplemental hydrogen systems can improve them all. it also has been proven in studies to reduce the ammonia that is emitted by the all-too-efficient catalytic converter.
i don't have testimonials about 50 or 75 mpg cars. i have a 300d turbo that gets 31 mpg on the highway, 26 in the city, emits less soot than it did before, and has more torque and power than it did prior. the only addition to the car is supplemental hydroxy fuel from a system that my company manufactures. i have an agenda to sell them to others who would like the same. everything i have learned has been provided here for your scrutiny, which i have learned from, appreciate, and used to improve my efforts.
b
h2hypoddotcom
tiptopsaidhe
08-23-2010, 03:54 PM #59(08-22-2010, 02:41 PM)ForcedInduction The only significant change I see between the two is CO, and the difference is very small.there hasn't been any proof shown yet that they don't work. yes, they don't improve mpg in cars with o2 sensors and programmed ecu's that monitor various temp sensors, but our mercedes' don't have those. that's the hidden beauty gg. no mpg gain doesn't prove the hydroxy isn't working with the fuel. it improves overall brake thermal efficiency and reduces pollution on every vehicle on the road.
I still see nothing at all that changes the proven fact hydrogen generators don't work.
it can be difficult when you choose not to see. it's not going to turn your diesel into an electric hybrid with 1000 hp. it just makes your diesel car a better version of itself. what would be wrong with improved torque, less soot, and increased mpg? so what if you move from 18 to 22 and feel more power? it's still improvement.
as to the emissions tests provided, i am in total agreement that catalytic converters on gas engines are highly efficient. they are intended to be. the emissions tests just show that supplemental hydrogen systems can improve them all. it also has been proven in studies to reduce the ammonia that is emitted by the all-too-efficient catalytic converter.
i don't have testimonials about 50 or 75 mpg cars. i have a 300d turbo that gets 31 mpg on the highway, 26 in the city, emits less soot than it did before, and has more torque and power than it did prior. the only addition to the car is supplemental hydroxy fuel from a system that my company manufactures. i have an agenda to sell them to others who would like the same. everything i have learned has been provided here for your scrutiny, which i have learned from, appreciate, and used to improve my efforts.
b
h2hypoddotcom
08-23-2010, 05:25 PM
#60
1982 300SD: 304,xxx Super M-pump with 7.5mm elements, 265 Nozzles, GT35 water cooled turbo, M90 Supercharger, A/W Intercooler, Serpentine drive belt, 3" SS exhaust with Magnaflow muffler, 240 breather, AEM dry Filter, Manual Boost Control, EGT / Boost / EMP gauges....Moved on to other projects
1995 F-350 7.3L PSD: 230,xxx 6.0 IC, DIY Stage 1 Injectors, 17* hpop, Tony Wildman Chip, John Wood Trans, 6.4L TC, 3" down pipe, 4" straight exhaust, 310 HP on wheel dyno - 8500# dually: 0-60 in 6.98
Suzuki Samurai: VW 1.9L TD, Trackick doubler transfer case (made by me) 5.8:1 transfer case gears, YJ springs front and rear with rear missing links, wheel base extended 14", diffs welded, some day a VNT.
Rudolf_Diesel
08-23-2010, 05:25 PM #60Maybe you could help me market my newest project...
1982 300SD: 304,xxx Super M-pump with 7.5mm elements, 265 Nozzles, GT35 water cooled turbo, M90 Supercharger, A/W Intercooler, Serpentine drive belt, 3" SS exhaust with Magnaflow muffler, 240 breather, AEM dry Filter, Manual Boost Control, EGT / Boost / EMP gauges....Moved on to other projects
1995 F-350 7.3L PSD: 230,xxx 6.0 IC, DIY Stage 1 Injectors, 17* hpop, Tony Wildman Chip, John Wood Trans, 6.4L TC, 3" down pipe, 4" straight exhaust, 310 HP on wheel dyno - 8500# dually: 0-60 in 6.98
Suzuki Samurai: VW 1.9L TD, Trackick doubler transfer case (made by me) 5.8:1 transfer case gears, YJ springs front and rear with rear missing links, wheel base extended 14", diffs welded, some day a VNT.
08-24-2010, 01:28 PM
#62
(08-24-2010, 01:15 PM)winmutt Divining rod?
Think Napolean Dynamite...
1982 300SD: 304,xxx Super M-pump with 7.5mm elements, 265 Nozzles, GT35 water cooled turbo, M90 Supercharger, A/W Intercooler, Serpentine drive belt, 3" SS exhaust with Magnaflow muffler, 240 breather, AEM dry Filter, Manual Boost Control, EGT / Boost / EMP gauges....Moved on to other projects
1995 F-350 7.3L PSD: 230,xxx 6.0 IC, DIY Stage 1 Injectors, 17* hpop, Tony Wildman Chip, John Wood Trans, 6.4L TC, 3" down pipe, 4" straight exhaust, 310 HP on wheel dyno - 8500# dually: 0-60 in 6.98
Suzuki Samurai: VW 1.9L TD, Trackick doubler transfer case (made by me) 5.8:1 transfer case gears, YJ springs front and rear with rear missing links, wheel base extended 14", diffs welded, some day a VNT.
Rudolf_Diesel
08-24-2010, 01:28 PM #62(08-24-2010, 01:15 PM)winmutt Divining rod?
Think Napolean Dynamite...
1982 300SD: 304,xxx Super M-pump with 7.5mm elements, 265 Nozzles, GT35 water cooled turbo, M90 Supercharger, A/W Intercooler, Serpentine drive belt, 3" SS exhaust with Magnaflow muffler, 240 breather, AEM dry Filter, Manual Boost Control, EGT / Boost / EMP gauges....Moved on to other projects
1995 F-350 7.3L PSD: 230,xxx 6.0 IC, DIY Stage 1 Injectors, 17* hpop, Tony Wildman Chip, John Wood Trans, 6.4L TC, 3" down pipe, 4" straight exhaust, 310 HP on wheel dyno - 8500# dually: 0-60 in 6.98
Suzuki Samurai: VW 1.9L TD, Trackick doubler transfer case (made by me) 5.8:1 transfer case gears, YJ springs front and rear with rear missing links, wheel base extended 14", diffs welded, some day a VNT.
08-24-2010, 07:19 PM
#64
(08-23-2010, 03:54 PM)tiptopsaidhe there hasn't been any proof shown yet that they don't work.Just 200 years of people unable to make a single one work.
ForcedInduction
08-24-2010, 07:19 PM
#64
(08-23-2010, 03:54 PM)tiptopsaidhe there hasn't been any proof shown yet that they don't work.Just 200 years of people unable to make a single one work.
08-24-2010, 07:54 PM
#65
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
willbhere4u
08-24-2010, 07:54 PM #65Where did i put my Crystal?
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
08-26-2010, 03:09 PM
#66
(08-24-2010, 07:54 PM)willbhere4u Where did i put my Crystal?
I've got a bucket of Meth... and a ladle...
1982 300D Turbo ... 3,6xxlbs, No fan, No AC, Hood Stack, No ALDA, No rear bumper and stuffed front, A/W Intercooled, Injectors by Greezer and HUGE Pre-Chambers with help from OM616 & Simpler=Better, Fuel Cranked up, 60 Trim Compressor wheel, EGT, EMP, Boost 50" Rigid Radius bar on roof Aux tank for a total of 48 Gal Of Diesel! Odyssey PC-1750 Battery in trunk, 27"x8.5"/R14 Maxxis BigHorn Mud Terrains, In June '14 issue of Off Road Mag
AX15 Jeep Trans swap in progress....
Captain America
08-26-2010, 03:09 PM #66(08-24-2010, 07:54 PM)willbhere4u Where did i put my Crystal?
I've got a bucket of Meth... and a ladle...
1982 300D Turbo ... 3,6xxlbs, No fan, No AC, Hood Stack, No ALDA, No rear bumper and stuffed front, A/W Intercooled, Injectors by Greezer and HUGE Pre-Chambers with help from OM616 & Simpler=Better, Fuel Cranked up, 60 Trim Compressor wheel, EGT, EMP, Boost 50" Rigid Radius bar on roof Aux tank for a total of 48 Gal Of Diesel! Odyssey PC-1750 Battery in trunk, 27"x8.5"/R14 Maxxis BigHorn Mud Terrains, In June '14 issue of Off Road Mag
AX15 Jeep Trans swap in progress....
08-26-2010, 04:10 PM
#67
(08-24-2010, 07:19 PM)ForcedInduction(08-23-2010, 03:54 PM)tiptopsaidhe there hasn't been any proof shown yet that they don't work.Just 200 years of people unable to make a single one work.
Actually, there are numerous examples of these so called HHO devices working! OK, I'm being facetious.
Electrolysis hydrogen generators have been in use for centuries. As applied to internal combustion engines, not so long and with varied success as to the goals of improved combustion and efficiency. In a previous post, I gave word clues to research papers on the undergrad, graduate and post grad levels that deal directly or indirectly with hydrogen augmented combustion. The increasing cost of fuel is driving research. If you add the corporate research that is not openly published, you would see the trend to uncover any stone that will allow the internal combustion engine to run cleaner and more efficiently.
Electrolysis generators aside, hydrogen augmentation from on board production is a growing field of study.
Just because you say it, does not make it so FI. This is a subject that is well outside your field of expertise.
RustyLugNut
08-26-2010, 04:10 PM #67(08-24-2010, 07:19 PM)ForcedInduction(08-23-2010, 03:54 PM)tiptopsaidhe there hasn't been any proof shown yet that they don't work.Just 200 years of people unable to make a single one work.
Actually, there are numerous examples of these so called HHO devices working! OK, I'm being facetious.
Electrolysis hydrogen generators have been in use for centuries. As applied to internal combustion engines, not so long and with varied success as to the goals of improved combustion and efficiency. In a previous post, I gave word clues to research papers on the undergrad, graduate and post grad levels that deal directly or indirectly with hydrogen augmented combustion. The increasing cost of fuel is driving research. If you add the corporate research that is not openly published, you would see the trend to uncover any stone that will allow the internal combustion engine to run cleaner and more efficiently.
Electrolysis generators aside, hydrogen augmentation from on board production is a growing field of study.
Just because you say it, does not make it so FI. This is a subject that is well outside your field of expertise.
08-26-2010, 05:31 PM
#68
(08-26-2010, 04:10 PM)RustyLugNut Just because you say it, does not make it so FI.Actually it does since its backed up by hoards of verified science, physics AND the complete failure of any devices to become used in the mass market. Even the Tornado, a completely worthless and well debunked scam, is still sold on store shelves at $65 a pop!
Quote:This is a subject that is well outside your field of expertise.That is false information.
This post was last modified: 08-26-2010, 05:32 PM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
08-26-2010, 05:31 PM
#68
(08-26-2010, 04:10 PM)RustyLugNut Just because you say it, does not make it so FI.Actually it does since its backed up by hoards of verified science, physics AND the complete failure of any devices to become used in the mass market. Even the Tornado, a completely worthless and well debunked scam, is still sold on store shelves at $65 a pop!
Quote:This is a subject that is well outside your field of expertise.That is false information.
08-26-2010, 07:37 PM
#69
(08-26-2010, 05:31 PM)ForcedInduction(08-26-2010, 04:10 PM)RustyLugNut Just because you say it, does not make it so FI.Actually it does since its backed up by hoards of verified science, physics AND the complete failure of any devices to become used in the mass market. Even the Tornado, a completely worthless and well debunked scam, is still sold on store shelves at $65 a pop!
Quote:This is a subject that is well outside your field of expertise.That is false information.
Last time I checked, there were hoards of devices and systems that flat out worked, and never made it into the market. Marketability is not a measure of scientific and engineering soundness. During the Reagen era cold war race, I was part of a team that built laser systems, nuclear accelerators and particle beams. They all worked. Just because they didn't go into common use doesn't change that.
In a previous post, I went into a simplified explanation of the science that supports the mechanism that would allow an electrolysis generator to improve the combustion efficiency of an IC engine via hydrogen augmentation. I also pointed out the fact this mechanism will not improve your efficiency "100% or more!" as we see in scam ads. 10 - 30% and maybe 50% under the right variables is a possibility for older diesel engines.
The point I am driving home is the one that states that though science may provide the possibility of gains from an electrolysis hydrogen generator in augmenting a CI engine, the devices that are seen on the market do not adequately take advantage of this science and thus they perform not at all, or with highly variable range of performance.
You blatantly state that there is no research backing up the science behind HHO devices. I beg to differ and science does, and will continue to differ with you. I pointed the reader to google key words from the undergraduate research done at Purdue University, Graduate work presented at the EU Energy Symposium in Spain, and work done at MIT and Cambridge University. Even though some of the research seems unrelated, they provide an understanding into the combustion process in a hydrogen augmented engine. Even the seemingly unrelated work by a company called Transonic here in Camarillo California gives clues to build on.
As to my statement that you are not qualified? You have still to prove to anyone on these forums that you have a deep understanding of combustion pathways and the effect on the output of the internal combustion engine. Go ahead and prove me wrong. Start with the thermal de-polymerization of the diesel hydrocarbon. Work from there.
RustyLugNut
08-26-2010, 07:37 PM #69(08-26-2010, 05:31 PM)ForcedInduction(08-26-2010, 04:10 PM)RustyLugNut Just because you say it, does not make it so FI.Actually it does since its backed up by hoards of verified science, physics AND the complete failure of any devices to become used in the mass market. Even the Tornado, a completely worthless and well debunked scam, is still sold on store shelves at $65 a pop!
Quote:This is a subject that is well outside your field of expertise.That is false information.
Last time I checked, there were hoards of devices and systems that flat out worked, and never made it into the market. Marketability is not a measure of scientific and engineering soundness. During the Reagen era cold war race, I was part of a team that built laser systems, nuclear accelerators and particle beams. They all worked. Just because they didn't go into common use doesn't change that.
In a previous post, I went into a simplified explanation of the science that supports the mechanism that would allow an electrolysis generator to improve the combustion efficiency of an IC engine via hydrogen augmentation. I also pointed out the fact this mechanism will not improve your efficiency "100% or more!" as we see in scam ads. 10 - 30% and maybe 50% under the right variables is a possibility for older diesel engines.
The point I am driving home is the one that states that though science may provide the possibility of gains from an electrolysis hydrogen generator in augmenting a CI engine, the devices that are seen on the market do not adequately take advantage of this science and thus they perform not at all, or with highly variable range of performance.
You blatantly state that there is no research backing up the science behind HHO devices. I beg to differ and science does, and will continue to differ with you. I pointed the reader to google key words from the undergraduate research done at Purdue University, Graduate work presented at the EU Energy Symposium in Spain, and work done at MIT and Cambridge University. Even though some of the research seems unrelated, they provide an understanding into the combustion process in a hydrogen augmented engine. Even the seemingly unrelated work by a company called Transonic here in Camarillo California gives clues to build on.
As to my statement that you are not qualified? You have still to prove to anyone on these forums that you have a deep understanding of combustion pathways and the effect on the output of the internal combustion engine. Go ahead and prove me wrong. Start with the thermal de-polymerization of the diesel hydrocarbon. Work from there.
08-27-2010, 06:19 AM
#70
(08-26-2010, 07:37 PM)RustyLugNut Last time I checked, there were hoards of devices and systems that flat out worked, and never made it into the market.Show us one that has been proven scientifically to work.
Quote:Marketability is not a measure of scientific and engineering soundness.Obviously. Its a measure of the market's gullibility. Thats why countless Tornados, fuel line magnets and recreational fuel/oil additives are sold every day.
Quote:I was part of a team that built laser systems, nuclear accelerators and particle beams. They all worked. Just because they didn't go into common use doesn't change that.Yes, they worked. Not a single hydrogen generator has been made that works as claimed.
Fission works very well too, but how many people have a reactor in their trunk?
Quote:In a previous post, I went into a simplified explanation of the science that supports the mechanism that would allow an electrolysis generator to improve the combustion efficiency of an IC engine via hydrogen augmentation.Hydrogen augmentation is well known and proven. The problem for these scammers is that NASA (a well referenced source) used hydrogen flow many times greater than any little pickle jar with a few feet of wire can produce. They used a pre-made source (bottle), not generated by the engine's charging system.
Quote:I also pointed out the fact this mechanism will not improve your efficiency "100% or more!" as we see in scam ads. 10 - 30% and maybe 50% under the right variables is a possibility for older diesel engines.50% is far beyond physical possibilities, especially "for older diesel engines".
You're talking getting into the 75-85% efficiency range. That kind of thermal efficiency is difficult to reach even for modern turbines.
A 50% thermal efficiency increase would revolutionize the world, and anything involving combustion. Somebody with that kind of information would be a billionaire from patent royalties alone, not selling junk from a $9/year cookie-cutter website to a people on a specialty forum.
Quote:You blatantly state that there is no research backing up the science behind HHO devices.Wrong. I state that there is years of research debunking HHO devices, setting aside the fact that thermodynamics neuters the device's claims before they were even tested.
Quote:I pointed the reader to google key wordsWorthless. Link to them yourself. Saying "google it" leaves us guessing as to exactly which sources you're referencing and leaves a back-door for you to wiggle out of if (when) we debunk your claims.
Quote:Even though some of the research seems unrelatedHow convenient for you. Can't you link to any direct testing of HHO devices in the applications they are intended to be used for? Got any tests of your HHO device from independent laboratories?
Quote:they provide an understanding into the combustion process in a hydrogen augmented engineThat is well understood given the fact they apply high flow rates and gas from external sources.
Quote:As to my statement that you are not qualified? You have still to prove to anyone on these forums that you have a deep understanding of combustion pathways and the effect on the output of the internal combustion engine.Right back at you. Where is your degree? I'm not the one trying to sell people something. I'm not the one saying (paraphrased) "my device alone works where thousands of other devices over 200 years have failed".
So far, the only thing you've conclusively proven is that you're a scammer with an agenda to sell your crap to people that have already clearly shown they don't believe a word you've said.
This post was last modified: 08-27-2010, 06:28 AM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
08-27-2010, 06:19 AM
#70
(08-26-2010, 07:37 PM)RustyLugNut Last time I checked, there were hoards of devices and systems that flat out worked, and never made it into the market.Show us one that has been proven scientifically to work.
Quote:Marketability is not a measure of scientific and engineering soundness.Obviously. Its a measure of the market's gullibility. Thats why countless Tornados, fuel line magnets and recreational fuel/oil additives are sold every day.
Quote:I was part of a team that built laser systems, nuclear accelerators and particle beams. They all worked. Just because they didn't go into common use doesn't change that.Yes, they worked. Not a single hydrogen generator has been made that works as claimed.
Fission works very well too, but how many people have a reactor in their trunk?
Quote:In a previous post, I went into a simplified explanation of the science that supports the mechanism that would allow an electrolysis generator to improve the combustion efficiency of an IC engine via hydrogen augmentation.Hydrogen augmentation is well known and proven. The problem for these scammers is that NASA (a well referenced source) used hydrogen flow many times greater than any little pickle jar with a few feet of wire can produce. They used a pre-made source (bottle), not generated by the engine's charging system.
Quote:I also pointed out the fact this mechanism will not improve your efficiency "100% or more!" as we see in scam ads. 10 - 30% and maybe 50% under the right variables is a possibility for older diesel engines.50% is far beyond physical possibilities, especially "for older diesel engines".
You're talking getting into the 75-85% efficiency range. That kind of thermal efficiency is difficult to reach even for modern turbines.
A 50% thermal efficiency increase would revolutionize the world, and anything involving combustion. Somebody with that kind of information would be a billionaire from patent royalties alone, not selling junk from a $9/year cookie-cutter website to a people on a specialty forum.
Quote:You blatantly state that there is no research backing up the science behind HHO devices.Wrong. I state that there is years of research debunking HHO devices, setting aside the fact that thermodynamics neuters the device's claims before they were even tested.
Quote:I pointed the reader to google key wordsWorthless. Link to them yourself. Saying "google it" leaves us guessing as to exactly which sources you're referencing and leaves a back-door for you to wiggle out of if (when) we debunk your claims.
Quote:Even though some of the research seems unrelatedHow convenient for you. Can't you link to any direct testing of HHO devices in the applications they are intended to be used for? Got any tests of your HHO device from independent laboratories?
Quote:they provide an understanding into the combustion process in a hydrogen augmented engineThat is well understood given the fact they apply high flow rates and gas from external sources.
Quote:As to my statement that you are not qualified? You have still to prove to anyone on these forums that you have a deep understanding of combustion pathways and the effect on the output of the internal combustion engine.Right back at you. Where is your degree? I'm not the one trying to sell people something. I'm not the one saying (paraphrased) "my device alone works where thousands of other devices over 200 years have failed".
So far, the only thing you've conclusively proven is that you're a scammer with an agenda to sell your crap to people that have already clearly shown they don't believe a word you've said.
08-28-2010, 01:17 AM
#71
(08-27-2010, 06:19 AM)ForcedInduction(08-26-2010, 07:37 PM)RustyLugNut Last time I checked, there were hoards of devices and systems that flat out worked, and never made it into the market.Show us one that has been proven scientifically to work.
Quote:Marketability is not a measure of scientific and engineering soundness.Obviously. Its a measure of the market's gullibility. Thats why countless Tornados, fuel line magnets and recreational fuel/oil additives are sold every day.
Quote:I was part of a team that built laser systems, nuclear accelerators and particle beams. They all worked. Just because they didn't go into common use doesn't change that.Yes, they worked. Not a single hydrogen generator has been made that works as claimed.
Fission works very well too, but how many people have a reactor in their trunk?
Quote:In a previous post, I went into a simplified explanation of the science that supports the mechanism that would allow an electrolysis generator to improve the combustion efficiency of an IC engine via hydrogen augmentation.Hydrogen augmentation is well known and proven. The problem for these scammers is that NASA (a well referenced source) used hydrogen flow many times greater than any little pickle jar with a few feet of wire can produce. They used a pre-made source (bottle), not generated by the engine's charging system.
Quote:I also pointed out the fact this mechanism will not improve your efficiency "100% or more!" as we see in scam ads. 10 - 30% and maybe 50% under the right variables is a possibility for older diesel engines.50% is far beyond physical possibilities, especially "for older diesel engines".
You're talking getting into the 75-85% efficiency range. That kind of thermal efficiency is difficult to reach even for modern turbines.
A 50% thermal efficiency increase would revolutionize the world, and anything involving combustion. Somebody with that kind of information would be a billionaire from patent royalties alone, not selling junk from a $9/year cookie-cutter website to a people on a specialty forum.
Quote:You blatantly state that there is no research backing up the science behind HHO devices.Wrong. I state that there is years of research debunking HHO devices, setting aside the fact that thermodynamics neuters the device's claims before they were even tested.
Quote:I pointed the reader to google key wordsWorthless. Link to them yourself. Saying "google it" leaves us guessing as to exactly which sources you're referencing and leaves a back-door for you to wiggle out of if (when) we debunk your claims.
Quote:Even though some of the research seems unrelatedHow convenient for you. Can't you link to any direct testing of HHO devices in the applications they are intended to be used for? Got any tests of your HHO device from independent laboratories?
Quote:they provide an understanding into the combustion process in a hydrogen augmented engineThat is well understood given the fact they apply high flow rates and gas from external sources.
Quote:As to my statement that you are not qualified? You have still to prove to anyone on these forums that you have a deep understanding of combustion pathways and the effect on the output of the internal combustion engine.Right back at you. Where is your degree? I'm not the one trying to sell people something. I'm not the one saying (paraphrased) "my device alone works where thousands of other devices over 200 years have failed".
So far, the only thing you've conclusively proven is that you're a scammer with an agenda to sell your crap to people that have already clearly shown they don't believe a word you've said.
Scammer? I am not selling a hydrogen generator running off of the electrolysis process for use in the general automotive market. I am only defending the fact that there is scientific basis for relatively small amounts of hydrogen to affect the combustion process to advantage in the internal combustion engine.
You turn around and ask me for my degrees, engineering license and background? On a public forum? I have them. And what would it profit? You would still be unable to carry on a viable discussion of hydrogen augmented combustion! I present to the reader your posted reply above. The hack and paste job you call argument show an inability to focus on the salient points of the discussion. Out of context quotes, tangent rants and "straw man" arguments? You throw in your "years of debunking" as your resume to argue advanced combustion concepts? You look at the research papers by well known Universities and say "it has no bearing"! All the while ignoring the treasure a research paper provides in the footnotes and resources! This gives you bountiful roots to follow in divining answers to your own questions!
I could continue down this path of arguing with you but this forum exists to provide information and learning and your method of argument leaves no recourse but to devolve to your level. I have answered your tedious hack posts in other thread lines and you continue with the heavy handed answers or simply leave off when it suits you. The reader can see this. So can I. So, I will start anew the discussion in another post. I will preface the post here. It involves some very basic mathematics and some "googleFu" skills.
Please no help from the crowd.
This is a two part question.
Please take the published peak horsepower value for a 1985 Mercedes 190D 2.2, normally aspirated diesel, and calculate the BMEP.
Take that value you have calculated for the BMEP and add 1% to it and recalculate the resulting horsepower.
BMEP = Brake Mean Effective Pressure.
I will be back from vacation in roughly two weeks so you have some time to sharpen your math skills.
I will explain the significance of this little exercise when I return.
Incidentally, automotive diesels are generally rated at 35% thermal efficiency (conversion of heat to power) and turbo diesels are in the area of 42%. Class 8 trucks with their low rpm turbo diesels can exceed 45%. Large power units found in ships and power generators can reach 52% with very low 300 rpm operating speeds. The Toyota Prius with it's Atkinson Cycle engine has published figures of 35-38% efficiency. But note, all these percentages are PEAK numbers. The BSFC varies greatly, and is much lower at certain points. If one can improve the efficiency by 50% of an rpm/load point that is only at 28%, the resultant efficiency stands at 42% - well within plausibility - not at the 85% figure arrived at above. Again, if efficiency gains can be made at all the common rpm/load points where an engine is operated at, an overall percentage gain will be achieved, though not as dramatic as seen at some singular points. An acquaintance, who is a physicist that resides in FI's neck of the world, published a white paper that mathematically describes the application of the Atkinson Cycle to a normally aspirated diesel and came up with a theoretical maximum efficiency that exceeds 60%! He was sorely tempted to try his hand at the PIAXP!
BSFC = Brake Specific Fuel Consumption.
This post was last modified: 08-28-2010, 03:07 AM by RustyLugNut.
RustyLugNut
08-28-2010, 01:17 AM #71(08-27-2010, 06:19 AM)ForcedInduction(08-26-2010, 07:37 PM)RustyLugNut Last time I checked, there were hoards of devices and systems that flat out worked, and never made it into the market.Show us one that has been proven scientifically to work.
Quote:Marketability is not a measure of scientific and engineering soundness.Obviously. Its a measure of the market's gullibility. Thats why countless Tornados, fuel line magnets and recreational fuel/oil additives are sold every day.
Quote:I was part of a team that built laser systems, nuclear accelerators and particle beams. They all worked. Just because they didn't go into common use doesn't change that.Yes, they worked. Not a single hydrogen generator has been made that works as claimed.
Fission works very well too, but how many people have a reactor in their trunk?
Quote:In a previous post, I went into a simplified explanation of the science that supports the mechanism that would allow an electrolysis generator to improve the combustion efficiency of an IC engine via hydrogen augmentation.Hydrogen augmentation is well known and proven. The problem for these scammers is that NASA (a well referenced source) used hydrogen flow many times greater than any little pickle jar with a few feet of wire can produce. They used a pre-made source (bottle), not generated by the engine's charging system.
Quote:I also pointed out the fact this mechanism will not improve your efficiency "100% or more!" as we see in scam ads. 10 - 30% and maybe 50% under the right variables is a possibility for older diesel engines.50% is far beyond physical possibilities, especially "for older diesel engines".
You're talking getting into the 75-85% efficiency range. That kind of thermal efficiency is difficult to reach even for modern turbines.
A 50% thermal efficiency increase would revolutionize the world, and anything involving combustion. Somebody with that kind of information would be a billionaire from patent royalties alone, not selling junk from a $9/year cookie-cutter website to a people on a specialty forum.
Quote:You blatantly state that there is no research backing up the science behind HHO devices.Wrong. I state that there is years of research debunking HHO devices, setting aside the fact that thermodynamics neuters the device's claims before they were even tested.
Quote:I pointed the reader to google key wordsWorthless. Link to them yourself. Saying "google it" leaves us guessing as to exactly which sources you're referencing and leaves a back-door for you to wiggle out of if (when) we debunk your claims.
Quote:Even though some of the research seems unrelatedHow convenient for you. Can't you link to any direct testing of HHO devices in the applications they are intended to be used for? Got any tests of your HHO device from independent laboratories?
Quote:they provide an understanding into the combustion process in a hydrogen augmented engineThat is well understood given the fact they apply high flow rates and gas from external sources.
Quote:As to my statement that you are not qualified? You have still to prove to anyone on these forums that you have a deep understanding of combustion pathways and the effect on the output of the internal combustion engine.Right back at you. Where is your degree? I'm not the one trying to sell people something. I'm not the one saying (paraphrased) "my device alone works where thousands of other devices over 200 years have failed".
So far, the only thing you've conclusively proven is that you're a scammer with an agenda to sell your crap to people that have already clearly shown they don't believe a word you've said.
Scammer? I am not selling a hydrogen generator running off of the electrolysis process for use in the general automotive market. I am only defending the fact that there is scientific basis for relatively small amounts of hydrogen to affect the combustion process to advantage in the internal combustion engine.
You turn around and ask me for my degrees, engineering license and background? On a public forum? I have them. And what would it profit? You would still be unable to carry on a viable discussion of hydrogen augmented combustion! I present to the reader your posted reply above. The hack and paste job you call argument show an inability to focus on the salient points of the discussion. Out of context quotes, tangent rants and "straw man" arguments? You throw in your "years of debunking" as your resume to argue advanced combustion concepts? You look at the research papers by well known Universities and say "it has no bearing"! All the while ignoring the treasure a research paper provides in the footnotes and resources! This gives you bountiful roots to follow in divining answers to your own questions!
I could continue down this path of arguing with you but this forum exists to provide information and learning and your method of argument leaves no recourse but to devolve to your level. I have answered your tedious hack posts in other thread lines and you continue with the heavy handed answers or simply leave off when it suits you. The reader can see this. So can I. So, I will start anew the discussion in another post. I will preface the post here. It involves some very basic mathematics and some "googleFu" skills.
Please no help from the crowd.
This is a two part question.
Please take the published peak horsepower value for a 1985 Mercedes 190D 2.2, normally aspirated diesel, and calculate the BMEP.
Take that value you have calculated for the BMEP and add 1% to it and recalculate the resulting horsepower.
BMEP = Brake Mean Effective Pressure.
I will be back from vacation in roughly two weeks so you have some time to sharpen your math skills.
I will explain the significance of this little exercise when I return.
Incidentally, automotive diesels are generally rated at 35% thermal efficiency (conversion of heat to power) and turbo diesels are in the area of 42%. Class 8 trucks with their low rpm turbo diesels can exceed 45%. Large power units found in ships and power generators can reach 52% with very low 300 rpm operating speeds. The Toyota Prius with it's Atkinson Cycle engine has published figures of 35-38% efficiency. But note, all these percentages are PEAK numbers. The BSFC varies greatly, and is much lower at certain points. If one can improve the efficiency by 50% of an rpm/load point that is only at 28%, the resultant efficiency stands at 42% - well within plausibility - not at the 85% figure arrived at above. Again, if efficiency gains can be made at all the common rpm/load points where an engine is operated at, an overall percentage gain will be achieved, though not as dramatic as seen at some singular points. An acquaintance, who is a physicist that resides in FI's neck of the world, published a white paper that mathematically describes the application of the Atkinson Cycle to a normally aspirated diesel and came up with a theoretical maximum efficiency that exceeds 60%! He was sorely tempted to try his hand at the PIAXP!
BSFC = Brake Specific Fuel Consumption.
Users browsing this thread:
8 Guest(s)
8 Guest(s)
Users browsing this thread:
8 Guest(s)
8 Guest(s)