First I build them at Sikorsky Aircraft in Stratford, I can't ethically reveal anything I know about the construction of the aircraft on this forum, and Second there are plenty of reasons you saw those changes in your car, not the least being you changed your driving habits. You're not doing anything different than the people who use it as a fuel supplement, just calling it by a different name.

 

No worries, I've toured that plant many times. Yes, the name has evolved many times. I guess, playing with this process pushed my credential as a "gear Head" one level up. Similar to using the T-62 APU on the H-60, as the power-plant of a Ford Fiesta. Yes, I strapped one on a car to prove a point. Getting an mechanical engineering degree will only get you a fancy diploma to hang on the wall, but can't apply what it.

 

by chance do either of you know the name of the fellow that can spin straw into GOLD?

I am truly sorry. Just could not help myself!!!

 

As always- if these gadgets actually gave even 1/10 of a mpg better economy the OEMs would be all over it. How come they aren't?

 

Obviously, Mike, he is smarter than they are.


Scott

 

Car companies only care about MPG if it sells more cars. Currently caring about MPG is in vogue so the car companies "have" to care.

I personally believe there should be mandatory yearly driving re-tests to keep idiots off of the road so I can convert their share of gas into noise and burnt rubber...it's only fair, right?

Then again as a helicopter pilot AND Corvette driver I think I'm more deserving of the Earth's supply of fossil fuels than the average bubba...

I'm sorry, was that off topic?

Hodge,

Whatever you're paying your comedy-writing staff...reduce it by one half...

 

Yes, I've never seen it marketed in a kit form either. Maybe in the back pages of comic books next to the X-Ray glasses?

 

Actually, I was a maintainer of the SH-60B for years, starting with actually bringing the aircraft into the fleet (long time ago!). As far as helos are concerend, and from a maintenance perspective, it was leaps and bounds ahead of others that were in the inventory at that time, singnificantly reducing maint. hrs per flight hour. As far as operating on small boys, did that too. Biggest issue was it really filled the hangar!!

As for the HOD, seems it's a good idea, generating hydrogen to support combustion, but I'd think you'd need to know how much is being produced, and how much is needed to have an appreciable impact on combustion efficiency. I know there are tons of variables, but seems you could put some measurable parameters on the system and prove or disprove it's effect?

 

I remember in grade 10 science class separating H2O into H and O. I seem to recall that we let it run overnight and we were using 110volts. The next day there was a small amount of each gas in test tubes. Based on my observations and recollections, a system in a vehicle will not be able to produce enough of each gas while running to create any measurable improvement in fuel economy.

However, I am open minded and interested in alternative fuels so I would love to see one of these systems working so effectively that they aren't perceived as a scam.

 

If it weren't for nutty ideas, there would be no progress. Folks like Smokey Yunick and Burt Rutan proved that all the time. Lots of garbage and a few pearls...but they never stopped trying new ideas.

It's a mildly interesting science project that needs some serious, focused and heavily instrumented dyno time to show some validation.

 

I'd agree with Billla if the OP was doing something new or different but this is the same old hydrogen generator device that's been around for decades. The electric energy consumed by producing hydrogen through electrolysis is greater than the energy available from the hydrogen itself. Claiming that it acts as a catalyst to help burn the gasoline is just another spin that essentially changes nothing.

A REAL breakthrough would be a more efficient way of producing (not consuming) hydrogen. As yet this remains undiscovered. This OPs device offers nothing new. Sorry.

 

The test bed that the OP has used is surely producing a result that is misinterpreted and as an improvement. His engine is running so poorly that just about anything added to the air stream could just possibly lean the effective A/F ratio to show a change, maybe but this is a big stretch for sure but possible, but bottom line the OP's test is completely unusable with a test mule so far out of calibration that any result is useless at best!!

OP fix your test mule and then try again and let us know what you have!

 

Will someone close this thread.
I like to know how to get a door spring in the driver’s door of my C3.
To blame every auto maker for only offering 40 GPM car when there is someone who needs to improve on junk engine that gets 9 mpg with black magic. Seems to be a waste of time.

 

Years ago there was a system out that did result in improved mileage and cleaner valves by injecting a fine water mist into the incoming air stream. This is the same sort of thing you find when you take the car out on a cool foggy morning and it seems to run great. The problem they found was that it also produced bearing failure and internal rust in the engine over time. Result: small improvement, large problems.

 

Methanol / water injection is routinely used on high boost motors to cool the intake charge on non-intercooled motors with over about 7 PSI. I have read about methanol-water injection for several years, nothing about HOD / H2O / O2 / or anything else but NO2.
I've never noticed a change in performance on a cool foggy morning as opposed to a dry warm morning on any car I've ever driven in the past 35 years. My butt dyno must need a major re-calibration.

 

I purchased a new in the box old stock water injection kit made by Edelbrock in the 70's at a swap meet last year, it was just unique, had to have it. It can be programed to deliver a pressurized mist of water at a selected RPM over 2000.
In the 60's I divised a similar system to deliver a pressured shot of AA model airplane fuel at near full throttle. It did produce a noticeable boost, just enough to push pass many cars that I shouldn't have. So it was, street racing in the day.

 

Rain water blowing under my hood, I knew that was doing my motor good, Cadillac looking like its sitting still, caught Maybellene at the top of the hill.

 

For those of us who are engineers, could you translate that sentence into English please?

 

I believe he was trying to point out that just because someone has a engineering degree, doesn't mean they could apply it. Which is sometime true with some people, but it also doesn't mean that just because you think something works that your right. Cars have internal combustion engines that work on a thermodynamic process, they dont run on your hopes and dreams. Dont believe me? Fill your tank with hopes and dreams, and see how far that gets you.

Now,

The internal combustion process is a thermodynamic process that relies on state properties, such as density and internal energy, and the path quantities, such as heat and work. Hydrogen like the OP is using, does indeed contain properties that enhance this thermodynamic process and adding a sufficient quantity would alter the baseline of a thermodynamic engines internal combustion process. As a result, you could actually lean a engine out to its lean combustion limit, decreasing the minimum-energy-consumption equivalence ratio. Doing so increase the thermodynamic efficiency, by increasing flame speed, and reducing the combustion temperatures, resulting in less energy wasted especially to the cooling system.

Sounds good right? This is how they sell people, but they are neglecting the important parts, and this is why the OP is wrong, and any gains he is seeing, is either in error, or a external influence on his fuel economy.

Using the OP's own claims, the system requires 23 amps to power the Electrolysis process. I don't have to tell any of you, that anything drawing 23 amps is a considerable draw on your alternator. Now the alternator does produce voltage whenever it is turning, but they only draws as needed. Electrical power, is defined as Power=Potentional Difference(Volts)*Current(Amps) so while the alternator is always producing "Power", the current would be extremely low. If the alternators load is increased, the voltage drops momentarily, and the field current is raised by the alternators internal regulator. This increases the Power output from the alternator by increasing the current side of the equation resulting in more "power". Because we have increased the field forces inside the alternator, a increase in mechanical power need to make the same rotation required would directly respond with a increase in mechanical load placed on engine. This increase in load would result in a RPM drop, however, so to achieve the same engine speed, more fuel (Gasoline) must be burned to maintain the same RPMS.

Above I mentioned that you decreased the minimum-energy-consumption equivalence ratio, which is true. By adding hydrogen, your lowering the total energy required to complete the combustion process by increasing its overall efficiency, however you did not alter the minimum energy consumption. You only lowered the ratio because Hydrogen, even is its liquid form has only 20% of the volumetric energetic storage of gasoline, gas form is much less.

Here is what it boils down to:

Energy, regardless of its form is energy, it could be electrical, thermal, kinetic, ect. You can never transfer any of these at a 1:1 ratio, a modern 4 cylinder engine is at best, 40% efficient as transferring the energy from gasoline into horse power. Well over 60% of the energy is lost to various sources such as heat. (Realistically, I would be amazed if our engines were 30% efficient.) Now because your not changing the minimum energy required, but only the ratio of energy, your not actually getting gaining anything, in fact your loosing. Your spending energy(Gasoline) to produce another type of energy (Hydrogen) at a net loss. If you were somehow reclaiming truely "lost" energy, IE, the momentum or heat energy lost from braking similar to hybrids do, you hypothetically could produce a "net gain" in the equation.

Even if a net gain were present, it would not and could not be a ~25% gain as your claiming, especially from a system such as that. I'm sorry OP, but you cannot argue with the math or science. Not only does your system not provide any benefit at all, it actually harms the efficiency of the system by inducing a loss loop into the equation. Your application does no more for your vehicle than a ricers AEM stickers give him horsepower.

 

By my calculation, 23 amps is less than 1/2 horsepower, and I don't have to tell you that modern alternators can easily put out over 100 amps, so this is no strain on them. (He could save 1/2 hp at speed by improving aerodynamics.)

If he only increased efficiency by few percent, he could he could be ahead. It only took a little bit of MTBE in the gas to reduce my mileage by 2 mpg.