My blog

1-29-10 - HHO can work rebuttal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvJdnpxKJks

Ok this thread has gotten so fractured by all the name calling and other crap that is has become easy to miss something. And the 500 character limit is hard to make clear points. So I wrote this blog entry to try and catch up.

ES2008: NASA showed flame speed improvement with the 231 g/hr too. They also showed an improvement in TE as well. You even posted a quote stating they got a 10 percent fuel enrichment using 231 g/hr. How else do you explain this increase if not for an increase in FS and TE.

In the Popular Mechanics article the guy says he tested all kinds of units that gave up to 1 LPM this is even less than what Silverado says is average.

A1mint is a funny dude…

HHOinfo: In many document places H2 added to gasoline allows for leaner burns and higher compression ratios. It’s just a matter of adding enough H2.

Sliverados1500: The geneset tests were made to show different aspects of HHO.
Here are the reasons that are given to prove HHO cannot work.

1) HHO takes more energy to make than it gives back to the system.

Smack tests he posted a 6 % gain in run time using HHO AND the load required to make it.

Rebuttal: the test is not valid because it was a portable generator and they are not comparable to automobile engines.

But from an energy stand point the energy used to make the HHO was made by the engine and it the engine still ran longer with the same EGT.

2) HHO is an ant fart compared to the BTU energy available in gasoline.

Scarecrow ran his generator on HHO alone on 3 times less BTU per hour compared to the rated gasoline usage.

Rebuttal: the test is not valid because it was a portable generator and they are not comparable to automobile engines.

But from a BTU stand point this test shows that the other factors of increased flame speed and lean burn range are more relevant to engine production than BTU values. An example of this in methanol, it has energy value is only 19.7 MJ/kg but it is used as a racing fuel because it can give more power to the engine through higher compression ratios. Measuring engine output in BTU is wrong and misleading.

3) Just because some in the HHO community believe that gains are possible but they have not seen them yet does not mean it cannot work.

To All: The bottom line here is that all of your arguments against HHO are not proof that it cannot possibly work and that it will never work. These are just your theories and opinions. Again, I have seen it work, I’ve done the math and see that it is possible. I believe those positive dyno tests results are correct.

10-7-09 - 40+ MPG project

With the gas prices as high as they have been this year who would want to improve the gas mileage. For the past couple of years I’ve been looking into ways I could do just that with my old 1994 Ford Ranger. Now I’ve had this POS (term of endearment) 2.3L 4-banger Ranger since it was new. And I’m proud to say that I’ve put all of the 260,000+ miles on it. Now that it’s thoroughly broke in, LOL, it is now my project vehicle. My goal is to get over 40 MPG in with it. First a little background information.

Over the years it’s been a good truck that hasn’t had a major problem with it until about a year ago when it started, on occasion, missing really bad. Since it was an occasional problem I know it had to be a problem with the ignition so I replaced the coil packs, sparkplugs, and sparkplug wires. This helped it a little but the problem was still happening. One night after a very long day at work it started missing more than it ever had before and I barely made it home. Once I got there I notice an orange glow from under the truck, it was my catalytic converter and it was red hot!!! Now it was time to take to a repair shop.

The mechanic at the shop tells me that I did indeed have a ignition problem and at the time of his test it was only firing on 2 cylinders. Turns out I needed a new ICM, catalytic converter, and O2 sensor. I thought this would be a great opportunity to do some testing on my theories of better MPG so I just had the ICM replaced. Actually the shop wanted too much for a catalytic converter so I bought one online and replaced it myself.

Over the next 40+ weeks I tested my MPG by charting my total miles driven and the total gas used, noting changes I did along the way. I discovered my mileage after 14 tanks with the O2 sensor burned out averaged 22.41 MPG; my mileage after 14 tanks with a new O2 sensor averaged 23.01 MPG; and my mileage after 14 tanks after I modified my air intake averaged 23.92 MPG.

You can see my CAI modification at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIbIyd1_SnQ

And my mileage data at:
http://www.neosbiosphere.com/project/mileage.htm

Now the next step will be to lean out the gasoline and add Hydrogen (H2) or possibly Hydrogen (H2) and Oxygen (O2). It should be interesting to see what my mileage will be. Incidentally I could hardly believe the increase in power and responsiveness of my truck after doing my CAI mod. I can’t wait to see what adding H2 will do to the overall power of the truck. With any luck, and lot of trial and error, I should be able to reach my 40 MPG goal.