First off water4gas, runyourcaronwater, etc.. are all scams, you spend $50 bucks and get a whole lot of info on an e-book that you could get on the net.

But water electrolosys is truth. I am currently experimenting with an 8 quart capacity made out of a 5.56mm military ammo box.

1 gallon of water can produce 3800 gallons of HHO

The amount of amps that it takes to split water is not enough to hurt your motors efficiency. Saying that this is going to hurt mileage would be like saying you get worse gas mileage while driving at night

HHO has 3 more energy per gallon than ga$

 

you're joking... Otherwise, prove it.

Exactly, how many BTUs of thermal energy can be extracted from a gallon of "HHO"???

 

Its even better than that. If properly designed, heat energy from the exhaust is used, so no back pressure otherwise reduces the efficiency of the engine. Overall, a net gain.

A good way to explain how adding power can cost more net energy is to look at how a supercharger works. Yes it is a net gain in horsepower, but a net loss as far as fuel mileage is concerned. That is because the supercharger draws horsepower directly from the engine (like an alternator) and wastes some of it as friction and some in the compression heating of the air.

Jim

 

I kinda doubt he'll reply, but using his 'facts' it would come out to a cool 360,000 or so BTU/gallon 'HHO', and 13,680,000 BTU from a gallon of water.

Here's a link to a not so unreal answer: WikiAnswers - How many btu in one litre of hydrogen

 

"1 gallon of water can produce 3800 gallons of HHO"

Wrong unit of measure. Gas quantity is measured by cubic units at a given pressure.
A "gallon" is a unit of LIQUID measure. You can turn a "gallon" of a gas into "3800 gallons" of the same gas merely by giving it a greater volume in which to expand. It will
of course be less dense.

Boyle's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Boyle's Law .. Animated
Universal Industrial Gases, Inc. ... Unit of Measure Converters

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/226...r-car-on-water

 

Not to be picky, but a gallon is a unit of volume, even though it is not one commonly used for gaseous measurement.

 

You really all look pretty stupid sitting at your keyboards naysaying what you don't seem to be able to dissprove or understand. You assume I've got something to gain by getting you to buy into this system. I don't and I could care less if you do. Just trying to give everyone a chance to keep a little more money in your pocket. Some people I'm sure would appreciate a little more cash in their pocket instead of in the pocket of the oil companies and futures traders. I'll admit, I was somewhat skeptical when I looked at this technology, but the facts don't lie and my investment has already paid for itself...

Fact of the matter is, I've got fuel logs, emissions test results, and air-fuel ratio measurements that confirm the that this thing works and is doing something to make the truck use fuel more efficiently. I never claimed that it was making engergy from nothing, it is just making energy that already exists in the water molecules available to the combustion process. The end results are lower emissions (which would indicate more complete combustion), better mileage and better acceleration. A bonus is that it is also cleaning the combustion chamber and reducing engine knock which happens in all engines to some extent.

Before the system was installed, I was getting 12-13 miles per gallon combined driving on a consistant basis even after a tuneup. Since installing the system, I'm seeing just over 20 MPG and sometimes better. This truck has never done this well since I've owned it and especially since E-10 was mandated in my state.

The EPA estimated HWY MPG for this truck when it was new was nowhere near what I'm seeing when measuring my combined mileage. The 4-speed standard tranmission was not really designed to cruise at 70-75 MPH and get decent MPG. 3000 RPM is not in the economy range on the 5.0 powerband.

For the question on how I'm monitoring the air-fuel ratio, I've installed an Autometer guage that monitors an independent heated oxygen sensor located in proximity to the OEM sensor. Running slightly less than Stoich under most conditions.

The MAP Sensor is only mildly manipulated to compensate for the additional o2 in the exhaust, and the OEM o2 sensor is partially removed from the exhaust stream with an oxyisolator. Even on a 90 degree day in traffic, the warmest the temp gauge gets is 180 and it does not knock/ping under any driving condition that I can duplicate. Pretty good evidence that the engine is not lean and the timing is where it needs to be. I haven't manipulated the timing.

I guess I was mistaken to think that the purpose of this forum was the productive/positive exchange of ideas to help other Ford Truck owners.

 

You kind of contradicted yourself in your description. If your fuel/air is less than stioch then, by definition, your engine is running lean, you also state that the MAP sensor is manipulated to compensate for the extra O2 that is present due to the lean condition. Yet you also state that the engine is not running lean, im confused?
What it sounds like you have done is forced the engine to run as lean as possible for the elevation that you live, and the reason your engine has no carbon buildup is due to the lean condition, the way you can tell how an engine is running is to pull the spark plugs if the plug is light brown it is running lean. Although I do not doubt your fuel mileage increase because you are forcing the lean condition which means less fuel usage, and maybe a burnt piston later.

 

Yes, ideal Stoich is 14.7:1 but all internal combustion engines run lean from the factory. It is an attempt to save fuel by the manufacturer so they can more easily meet the emissions standards and the fleet mileage requirements. In reality, an engine will run acceptably within a range around 14.7:1. That is born out from the fact that the internal combustion engine is less than 50% efficient from the start.

If you had read and tried to understand any of the systems advertised and knew enough about the ECM and programming design you would know that the stock programming will try to counter the higher oxygen levels in the exhaust by adding more fuel thus defeating the added HHO benefits. The manipulation is to counter that programming. If you would read the earlier posts I stated that it is not running excessively lean causing a rise in engine or cylinder head temperature. In fact, the temp has been at it's highest about 185 on a warm day in traffic. Stock Thermostat is 195. Also, how do you explain that a lower temperature would cause better mileage? The CT and/or the IAT sensor would probably the fuel air ratio for cooler running due to what it senses as a denser air charge. Remember, engines burn more fuel when they run below the spec temp to stay within an acceptable fuel/air ratio.

Also, if you would look a little more objectively at the concept, you'd realize that there is H2O vapor that is produced when the HHO is combusted it produces water vapor. Water vapor/Steam in the combustion chamber which helps absorb heat and take it away from the engine. The steam also works to remove carbon deposits from the valves, cylinder heads and pistons. All of which contribute to problems with engine performance and poor mileage.

I know what plugs look like that have been run lean. I don't have that problem. There is not even much in the way of fuel additive deposits on the plugs after 10,000 miles.

I'll remind you, this motor has in excess of 240,000 miles and it has never been torn down. Oil pump was replaced when the timing chain was replaced along with the front seal and pan gasket as preventative maintenance. All original bearings, valve seals and other internals. Cylinder walls and rings have never been touched and the heads have never been off.

 

If you only inject O2, it would lean out the mixture. But by injecting HHO enough hydrogen is added to exactly offset the oxygen, so the mixture doesn't have excess O2.

 

If you reprogram your ECM to run lean-of-peak, you will increase mileage and run cooler, not hotter CHT. The only downside is a slight drop in power and increase in NOx emissions that the reduction part of the cat may be able to clean up. That "lean runs hot" myth has been dispelled a long time ago. When people thought they were running "lean" in the old carburated days, they were actually running just slightly rich, which is the danger zone.

http://www.avweb.com/newspics/tcm_mixture_sweep.jpg

http://www.avweb.com/newspics/194816...raph-basic.gif

Adding a little H2 and O2 is not the key here, as much as you would like to believe it.

Jim

 

I know I'm not running lean, but the ECM would see the exhaust as lean so it is necessary to lean out the fuel curve that is is controlled by the ECM to prevent it from adding fuel to compensate for what it senses is happening.

I have experienced no loss of power, no hesitation, no pinging underload, and the emissions test did not reveal increased NOX emissions. If I was running too lean, I seriously doubt that I would have been able to do what I did last night. I am a volunteer FF and last night I had a run over 15 miles all of which was on the open highway with speeds exceeding the capabilities of the speedometer of the vehicle and the engine RPMs during acceleration approached 4000. - No pinging, no hesitation, no popping throught the intake from take-off, and definitely no loss of power and the engine temp did not even reach 190 as it used to.

So basically you are trying to tell me that the injection of Hydrogen and oxygen into the combustion chamber has no effect. I call bull++!# All you've done is naysay and try to explain away what you don't have any experience with. I've got the numbers to prove it. I know I'm producing hydrogen. I've been able to ignite the gas during test runs of the electrolyzer, and the gas is lighter than air. When the gas is ignited, it produces water. Hmmmm. Sound like way to much like Hydrogen and oxygen combining to form water.

Also, if this doesn't work, how do you explain the prototype car that made it's debut in Japan recently that runs on a hydrogen-on-demand system? The fuel cell on that car produces Hydrogen from electrolysis w/ an accumulator to power a small gas engine. That is basically what I am doing except that their PCM programming has been written to compensate for the changes.

 

This information is from a textbook with a publication date of 2007.

Air / Fuel Mixture
“A lean fuel mixture (too little fuel for the amount of air in the cylinder) can cause an engine to stumble or give a rough idle as well as to run too hot, overheat, and cause a lack of power as well as engine failure. A rich fuel mixture (too much fuel for the amount of air in the cylinder) can cause an engine to “load up” at idle, foul the spark plugs, and also lack power or run sluggish...An optional method of checking air fuel mixtures is by using a wide band oxygen sensor installed into the exhaust header, the wide band oxygen sensor is read using a digital air/fuel meter. This method looks at the oxygen/unburned combustibles in the engine’s exhaust and then the unit supplies an air/fuel mixture reading; the readings are very accurate...

 

More recently published information:

"Lean mixtures improve the fuel economy but also cause sharp rises in the amount of nitrogen oxides (NOX). If the mixture becomes too lean, the engine may fail to ignite, causing misfire and a large increase in unburned hydrocarbon (HC) emissions. Lean mixtures burn hotter and may cause rough idle, hard starting and stalling, and can even damage the catalytic converter, or burn valves in the engine. The risk of spark knock/engine knocking (detonation) is also increased when the engine is under load.
Mixtures that are richer than stoichometric allow for greater peak engine power when using gaseous fuels, due to the cooling effect of the evaporating fuel. This increases the intake oxygen density, allowing for more fuel to be combusted and more power developed. The ideal mixture in this type of operation depends on the individual engine. For example, engines using forms of forced induction such as turbochargers and superchargers typically require a richer mixture under wide open throttle than naturally aspirated engines.
Cold engines also typically require more fuel and a richer mixture when first started, because fuel does not vaporize as well when cold and therefore requires more fuel to properly "saturate" the air. Rich mixtures also burn slower and decrease the risk of spark knock/engine knocking (detonation) when the engine is under load. However, rich mixtures sharply increase carbon monoxide (CO) emissions."

If you'll remember from my previous post, when Brown's gas combusts, it produces water, but at combustion chamber temperatures, this water remains in a super-heated steam state which has additional benefits as demonstrated in the past in fighter planes and more recently in some automobiles by subaru, saab, and chrysler.

"In a piston engine, the initial injection of water cools the fuel-air mixture somewhat, which increases its density and hence the amount of mixture that enters the cylinder. But the greater effect comes later during combustion when the water takes in significant amounts of heat energy as it converts from liquid to gas (steam). This increases piston pressure (torque), reduces peak temperature and resultant NOx formation, and reduces the amount of heat energy absorbed into the cylinder walls. The alcohol in the mixture burns, but at a much slower rate than gasoline. The net result is that the combustion process happens slower, preventing the destructive supersonic shockwave characteristic of detonation." (The previous describes a injection system that utilizes water and alchohol in a 50/50 mix. The alchohol is not a necessary component)

 

I'm not sure who was publishing that information, but the hottest combustion temperatures occur just rich of stoich. Temperatures decrease as the mixture is enriched or enleaned from that point. If I could scan and host pictures I would show you the graph from my engineering textbook. Power output also follows this curve, such that maximum brake torque occurs at slightly rich mixtures. Simply adding more fuel will not produce more power beyond that point.

Also, turbocharging and supercharging do not require a richer mixture, but do require more fuel flow to maintain the same mixture. Often richer is a little safer with pressure charging, but actual mixture should be tuned for maximum brake torque at wide open throttle.

link? Perpetual motion machines violate the first law of thermodynamics, which would be the case if an engine was generating power to split water to fuel the engine that is splitting the water and so on...