Just to clarify, I’m not yet ready or willing to say that HHO does or does not enhance fuel mileage. I was previously only approaching this on the terms of energy released, and that vantage point has been beaten to death now. I have not considered the potential for Hydrogen to improve combustion (I remain skeptical, but I need to research this more).
It may simply come down to my own trial. Perhaps I’ll have to simply build one of these devices and see what it does for myself. Certainly not on my brand new Kia, but I have several beaters that might serve the purpose (my 1981 Dodge 1/2 ton with a slant-6 seems the best choice). We’ll see…
JLeather, that’s the page I’m on. I’m intrigued with something that seems it could/maybe/possibly provide better MPG. Your '81 Dodge seems an excellent trial vehicle. Think I’ll try it on my '85 Civic. Just be careful to monitor the water level and not to run the a/f mixture too lean for too long. Please let me know what happens, WhyArts@juno.com.
i am not criticizing anyone, or the opinions. however, until you posted those articles and actually have evidence i have seen nothing BUT opinion on this topic.
THEN, mikeinnh stated that came from a company ad! WOW, who to believe. after reading the post, the university/ college and scientific studies ALL stated increases in combustion. they ALL stated lowering of exhaust gas, pollution or chemicals. BUT NOT ONE stated increased MPG. where is that connection made…
by the advertiser who is marketing these gizmos.
re reading your post you can see exactly where the science, scientific evidence/study leaves off, and the AD starts.
i for one, and probably more around too, have a hard time reaching the same conclusions with NO real evidence. except for the souce you did a good job locating this, but finding real honest sources of the truth seems to be pretty hard, huh?
I apologize for the title… If I could redo the title I’d use something like… “Do the HHO products work?”, Or “Can you get better fuel economy through electroylsis?”.
WhyArts, I appreciate you finding the references. I know some of the people from JPL who started this analysis, and they do excellent work. Possibly I wasn’t aware of it because it is so old. I dug through some of the details, and here is a quote based on diesel truck fleet testing: “The high flame speed of the hydrogen causes the crank angle duration of combustion to be reduced by several degrees, resulting in a 3% increase in horsepower and torque and a more complete combustion of the fuel.” Well, there you have it. It gives about the benefit I estimated for the reason I gave. So, if you want to gain 3% in power, which means roughly a similar improvement in fuel efficiency, and you are willing to risk damaging your engine from increasing the thermal and mechanical loads from the shortened combustion period, then it’s your choice. At least it’s clear what is based on sound theory and testing and what is marketing hype. Personally I don’t drive nearly enough to go through all that to improve my gas mileage by less than 1 mpg.
Probably you’lll have to contact someone from another planet, because there will always be negative people who lack real communication skills all over the I-net. Back to the hydrogen device; I would think putting pure O2 into the engine would promote rust or burn out or rapid aging of some parts. Personally, I would bet there are a lot of devices out there that work marginally, but the trade-offs of constant tweaking and other unknowns associated with new home spun gadgets would eliminate or even reverse any benefits attained. The reciprocating gasoline engine is, in my opinion, one of the best creations ever. If we were allowed to have straight gasoline for our vehicles instead of gasoline diluted with unnecessarily subsidized ethanol the search for fuel increasing devices and gimics would go greatly diminish. Ethanol actually decreases mpg.
It’s not the quantity of water added it’s the temperature. The Water Vapor produced from the combustion itself is at a very high temperature, and as such does not pose a threat of rapid cooling to the hot metal surfaces of the valves and pistons. Injected water mist, however, is at a much lower temperature and may damage the hot engine components through the aforementioned heat cycling process. If you were to superheat the water before injecting it the risk would be mitigated, but then the gains are also diminished. It is through the reduction in temperature that water-mist causes in the combustion chamber that horsepower is increased, but it is that same rapid and repeated reduction in temperature that may damage the engine.
Those who believe manufacturers can’t tell the truth about their products should disregard the information in my posting. Others should investigate the attributed sources and form their own opinions. I’m in the latter category.
Here’s the problem…They didn’t post the scientific publications (Vol and number) that it was published in. If the documents were real why didn’t post that??? It’s easy to do. Pretty much every scientific journal is on-line these days.
Sorry…there is no scientific proof what-so-ever. Myself and others are skeptical…because we’ve seen this EXACT TYPE OF ADVERTISING before. Slick-50 for one. It’s ALL JUNK SCIENCE. If we were to investigate everything like this that comes along we’d be spending all our spare time just investigating this junk. So please do waste your time on investigating this. Let us know what you find. I for one am NOT wasting my time.
i for one, and probably more around too, have a hard time reaching the same conclusions with NO real evidence. except for the souce you did a good job locating this, but finding real honest sources of the truth seems to be pretty hard, huh?
I’ll go a step further…it’s IMPOSSIBLE to find…because there is none.
Having read thru the messages on this subject, two items stood out. First is that they are patented devices which deliver more efficient fuel consumption and that water is not a likely source of combustible material. That being said, our present use of fuel is based upong the CARBON cycle of combustion which provides expansion at a rate of 75 to 1; i.e. each carbon atom when combusted, expands to a volume at a power of 75; when HYDROGEN combusts, it expands at the rate of 2000 to 1, so the developed volume is 2000 times greater than the fuel used. I humbly hope that the raamifications of this is obvious.
Anyway, Russ Bourke received a patent from the United States Patent Office for an engine that uses the hydrogen cylce to work. Incindentally, his device has only THREE moving parts. Since it’s fuel efficiency is so great and the lack of moving parts to break are present, many folks would be forced to change streams of income if the engine were widely used.
If you are interested, as I am not the source of the material collected, although in the 1970’s I did have the pleasure to meet Lois Bourke & have seen a letter from a Captain Baker of the Army department to his superiors reccommending immediate utilization of this invention, dated December, 1941.
If it’s all right with Tome & Ray, here is the best venue for comprehensive information: www.projectbourke.com
Hope this will open a few eyes to the simple fact that the best way to get a machine to work most efficeintly is to go back to square one., NOT to add another gadget to the RubeGoldbergesque monstrosities we aare devouring our fuel with presently.
MikeinNH and cappy 208, it won’t be hard, expensive or time-consuming to experiment and find out for myself if a tiny, continuous stream of bubbles of HHO from water electrolyzed by the car battery added to the gasoline through a tube to the riser plate orifice at the base of my '85 Civic’s carburetor makes any significant difference in the way the engine runs. Then I’ll see if the a/f mixture can be set to a leaner setting without diminishing performance. If so, I’ll realize better MPG. If not, I won’t.
MikeinNH and cappy 208, it won’t be hard, expensive or time-consuming to experiment and find out for myself if a tiny, continuous stream of bubbles of HHO from water electrolyzed by the car battery added to the gasoline through a tube to the riser plate orifice at the base of my '85 Civic’s carburetor makes any significant difference in the way the engine runs. Then I’ll see if the a/f mixture can be set to a leaner setting without diminishing performance. If so, I’ll realize better MPG. If not, I won’t.
WRONG WRONG WRONG…It will be very very expensive and time consuming. Obviously you have no scientific or engineering training. You can’t take ONE car and see if it makes a difference. You need to take a wide sample of data. You need to setup repeatable controlled tests. It is NOT simple to come with VALID REPEATABLE tests. If you think it’s NOT a waste of time…GREAT…Go Ahead…what’s stopping you.
Sometimes, to learn the truth, you have to venture out of the theoretical and into the actual. It won’t be hard, expensive or time-consuming for me to experiment and find out for myself if a continuous stream of bubbles of HHO from water electrolyzed by the car battery added to the gasoline through a tube to the riser plate orifice at the base of my '85 Civic’s carburetor makes any significant difference in the way the engine runs. Then I’ll see if the a/f mixture can be set to a leaner setting without diminishing performance. If so, I’ll realize better MPG. If not, I won’t.
Then I’ll see if the a/f mixture can be set to a leaner setting without diminishing performance.
How would you change the air/fuel mixture? The a/f screws you have on your 85 Civic carburetor only work at idle. At anything above idle, they are not used at all.
You would need to rejet the main jets in the carburetor to affect the a/f ratio above idle.
Besides, if you really want to change your air/fuel ratio to improve your gas mileage and power, then make your air/fuel ratio 10% richer with fuel for better power and mileage, or up to 16% richer where the power begins to drop off.
As of the EPA requirements in the mid 1970s, all cars have to run at a “14.7:1 stociometric air/fuel ratio”. Prior to that, they all typically ran a mixture 10% richer, and up to 16% richer on performance cars. The reason why a richer mixture delivers better performance and mpg is because there is so little time in a power stroke to properly mix the air/fuel mixture to ensure that every oxygen molecule was mated to a fuel molecule. By providing a 110% mixture, it increased the chances of having every precious oxygen molecule have a gas molecule adjacent to it. This was well documented.