Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Misc. > Alternative Fuels, Hybrids & Mileage
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!





 
Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 08-14-2008, 10:39 PM
christcorp's Avatar
christcorp christcorp is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 194
christcorp is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
HHO, Water injection, side bar question

I'm tired of arguing the thermodynamic issue when it has no bearing. And I'm also regretting having unintentionally taking the HHO thread off topic. But I do have a question that has concerned me.

I have over the years experimented with many different things with cars. But, my question is; Whether you use water injection or HHO and inject it through the vacuum line into the intake manifold (On a traditional Carburetor vehicle through the vacuum line feeding the advance on the distributor). Won't the intake recognize this injection as a "VACUUM LEAK". Granted, the vacuum line connected to the PCV valve is not maintaining vacuum, but the vacuum line to the advance on the distributor normally does. Will doing wanter injection or HHO injection to the vacuum line connected to the advance on the carb create a vacuum leak affect and therefor NOT have the vacuum available/necessary for the advance on the distributor.

If so, would it make more sense to inject water/HHO via the vacuum line from from the PCV valve to the main intake manifold vacuum connection??? Thx... Mike....
__________________
The Ford Family:
2000 Ford Focus - 143,000 miles
1994 Ford Explorer (4.0l V6) - 114.000 miles
1994 Ford F250 (460 V8) - 65,100 miles
1966 Ford Mustang (289 V8) - 141,200 miles

"Born Wild; Raised Proud"
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-15-2008, 09:55 AM
jimandmandy jimandmandy is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Running Springs CA
Posts: 5,228
jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.
There is a problem with using manifold vacuum to "inject" water or hydrogen. Manifold vacuum is highest at idle and decel, lowest (almost zero) at full throttle. Some very old engines from the 1940s to maybe early 1960s had a vacuum port at the carburator venturi for distributor advance. Those would work better because ported vacuum goes up with engine rpms.

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-15-2008, 11:54 AM
christcorp's Avatar
christcorp christcorp is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 194
christcorp is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Thanks for the response Jim. You are correct that in the older carb vehicles, vacuum on the line to the advance on the distributor goes up with higher RPMs. That is good. That is what we want. Especially with water injection. However, I am wondering if the vaccum available is adequate enough to run the injection, PLUS have enough vacuum for the advance on the distributor. OR, would there not be enough resistance, and the intake manifold would see it as a vacuum leak????

As for the PCV line to intake, I am not sure if that vacuum is highest at idle or at higher RPM's. Something to look at this weekend. If the vacuum increases at higher RPM's, then I would prefer to inject water or Hydrogen at that point, because it would leave the vacuum for the advance on the distributor undisturbed. On a fuel injector car, it can be totally different. Thx... mike....
__________________
The Ford Family:
2000 Ford Focus - 143,000 miles
1994 Ford Explorer (4.0l V6) - 114.000 miles
1994 Ford F250 (460 V8) - 65,100 miles
1966 Ford Mustang (289 V8) - 141,200 miles

"Born Wild; Raised Proud"
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-15-2008, 07:29 PM
AG4.0's Avatar
AG4.0 AG4.0 is online now
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 1,190
AG4.0 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
I have tried the HHO injection using the PCV and didn't like the way it was sucking excess moisture into the engine because of the vaccuum. I have switched, and would also recomend routing it into your intake tube instead. If you build a good HHO generator, it will produce enough gas that you won't need any vaccuum to make it work.
__________________
Adam
1996 F150 4x4
2001 Ford Windstar
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-15-2008, 10:43 PM
christcorp's Avatar
christcorp christcorp is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 194
christcorp is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
AG4; thanks for the response. Could you clarify something however. You said "I have tried the HHO injection using the PCV and didn't like the way it was sucking excess moisture into the engine because of the vaccuum." What excess moisture are you referring too? Are you saying that the vacuum was so powerful, that it was taking moisture out of the HHO generator in addition to the Hydrogen?

Also; when you say "recomend routing it into your intake tube instead." Are you referring to the vacuum line to the distributor? Or, are you talking about the AIR INTAKE in line with the air filter?

The vehicle I am dealing with is a carburetor and NOT fuel injection, so taking it in through the normal air intake is a little difficult being it's not a sealed system. A vacuum line is the more practical. I'm just trying to determin if I use the vacuum line to the distributor's advance system, will I be reducing the vacuum ON THE ADVANCE, and adversely affecting my timing. Whereas, if I go through the PCV line to the carb; is that a vacuum that will be created at idle or at higher RPM's? (I can determine that by removing the line to the pcv and testing the vacuum). My biggest concern with the line to the vacuum advance on the distributor was if I tap into it with water or HHO, if I'm going to affect my timing by losing vaccum to the advance. Thx... mike.....
__________________
The Ford Family:
2000 Ford Focus - 143,000 miles
1994 Ford Explorer (4.0l V6) - 114.000 miles
1994 Ford F250 (460 V8) - 65,100 miles
1966 Ford Mustang (289 V8) - 141,200 miles

"Born Wild; Raised Proud"
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-16-2008, 05:27 PM
AG4.0's Avatar
AG4.0 AG4.0 is online now
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 1,190
AG4.0 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
When the H and O bubbles pop as they reach the surface, it creates water vapor, which the vaccuum from the PVC was strong enough to pull in. You could see the moisture being pulled through the system. I was talking inline with the air filter, but being carburated, with a less than air tight intake changes things. I'm no mechanic so I couldn't tell you anything about how the vaccuum would affect advance. I have seen where some people have routed their HHO tubing to feed through the top center of the air filter housing so that the gas exits as close to the carburetor as possible. I don't know if you would lose much/any Hydrogen since it is so much lighter than air, to the atmostphere this way or not.
__________________
Adam
1996 F150 4x4
2001 Ford Windstar
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-26-2008, 12:35 PM
jimandmandy jimandmandy is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Running Springs CA
Posts: 5,228
jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by christcorp View Post
Thanks for the response Jim. You are correct that in the older carb vehicles, vacuum on the line to the advance on the distributor goes up with higher RPMs. That is good. That is what we want. Especially with water injection. However, I am wondering if the vaccum available is adequate enough to run the injection, PLUS have enough vacuum for the advance on the distributor. OR, would there not be enough resistance, and the intake manifold would see it as a vacuum leak????

As for the PCV line to intake, I am not sure if that vacuum is highest at idle or at higher RPM's. Something to look at this weekend. If the vacuum increases at higher RPM's, then I would prefer to inject water or Hydrogen at that point, because it would leave the vacuum for the advance on the distributor undisturbed. On a fuel injector car, it can be totally different. Thx... mike....
Did you take your vacuum readings? Manifold vacuum is always highest with a closed throttle. If it is your 1966 Mustang that you are using for this experiment, I dont know if the distributor vacuum is venturi or manifold, that is, the signal is taken above or below the throttle plate. Both types were used in the 1960's.

A small vacuum leak may actually help mileage quite a bit without HHO or water injection. On the other hand, no vacuum signal to the distributor will hurt mileage. So be careful and honest about your tests. Cars were jetted way too rich and had lots of spark advance before emission controls. Gas was cheap and they just wanted them to run smooth.

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-26-2008, 11:23 PM
christcorp's Avatar
christcorp christcorp is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 194
christcorp is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Yes, I was thinking of experimenting with the 66 mustang/289. Carbs are easier to work with than fuel injection. I've been doing a lot of tests and experiments this week with vacuum. Mostly for best timing, but also for things like HHO and Water Injection.

Manifold pressure is definitely highest at idle. It doesn't ever really reach "0" at higher RPM's however. It would however not be enough vacuum for say water injection that requires enough vacuum to suck air through and create the air bubbles and the water mist. However, it looks like manifold vacuum would be OK for an HHO setup. The HHO setup doesn't use air to create the hydrogen. It is created with electrolosys. So, even with a low level of vacuum, it would be enough to pull the hydrogen into the intake.

Using timed/ported vacuum (Side of carb usually going to distributor) is a catch-22. It depends on the type of distributor you are using and to what extent you use vacuum advance. There are basically 2 types of timing advance. (Doesn't matter if it's a traditional points distributor or a newer HEI style). You can have a lot of mechanical/centrifugal advance in the weights of the distributor; e.g. 15L each which is 30 degrees of advance; plus your static/initial timing of say 6 degrees BTDC; giving you the 36 degrees total timing you want; in my case with my 289 engine. Then, you would probably use the manifold vacuum for that distributor because at idle, the weights haven't kicked in yet, and as you excellerate, the vacuum assists advancing timing until high enough rpms where vacuum decreases and the weights in the mechanical/centrifugal take over. This would free up the timed/ported to be used for the HHO and everyone would be happy.

However, if you had a stock distributor with vacuum advance, or a new HEI like I have, then you need to use the ported/timed vacuum. That's because the mechanical/centrifugal advance is only about 20 degrees. Plus the 6 degrees btdc for static/initial. Your vacuum advance is either a fixed amount of about 10 degrees, or if it's adjustable like mine, I adjust the vacuum advance for about 10-12 degrees. This way, as you accelerate, you get full vacuum, and your total advance goes to about 36-38 degrees which is what I want. As I drive, the ported/timed vacuum maintains vacuum and I maintain my timing advance for the car to run most efficiently.

If however I tap into this vacuum line, I would have to regulate the amount of vacuum that I would allow to be used by the HHO. It shouldn't be a problem, but definitely has to be factored in. For instance. My manifold produces a max vacuum of approximtely 17 hg. For my vacuum advance, set to 10-12 degrees to function properly, I need approximately 12-13 hg of vacuum minimum. So, that means I have about 4 hg of vacuum left. If that's enough for the HHO to be brought into the intake, (WHICH I THINK IT IS), then that's fine. But, you would have to regulate it with a small regulator like used in a fish tank to regulate the air circuilator. If you don't regulate it, then the vacuum with equalize pressure between the HHO Browns generator and the distributor's vacuum advance. The HHO generator would be fine, but I wouldn't have enough vacuum to advance my distributor far enough, and would totally defeat the purpose of the HHO because I would be running the car to far retarded. Without regulating the vacuum to the HHO, the equalized balance would be about 8 hg to each of the HHO and the distributor. Experimenting showed that 8 hg of vacuum on my vacuum advance, even if adjusted to the most forgiving, would only provide about 3 degrees of advance.

Without regulating the vacuum, I would either have to change my distributor weights and go with manifold vacuum and use the ported/timed for the HHO; or, I would have to change the weights in the distributor and take in account of only about 3-4 degrees of vacuum advance. This would be counter productive. The whole purpose of vacuum advance is to produce more advance during acceleration, loads, hills, etc... and thus giving a much better fuel economy. Not too much of a problem if you live in Kansas or Nebraska living in the flat lands. But, a simple $2 adjustable air valve for a fish tank in line between the HHO output and the vacuum line is simple to do. All you have to do is to get a vacuum gauge, open the distributor cap, manually pull vacuum on the vacuum advance and measure how much vacuum is required to make the vacuum advance open 100% of whatever it's set at. (It will stop moving). Then read the amount. Then, take the vacuum line that normally goes to the vacuum assist and with the engine running, measure the max amount of vacuum at high rpm. If it's considerable MORE than what was required to activate the vacuum advance; the us a adjustable valve on the HHO side to allow more than enough to the distributor and the remainder to the HHO generator. Good luck.... Mike.....
__________________
The Ford Family:
2000 Ford Focus - 143,000 miles
1994 Ford Explorer (4.0l V6) - 114.000 miles
1994 Ford F250 (460 V8) - 65,100 miles
1966 Ford Mustang (289 V8) - 141,200 miles

"Born Wild; Raised Proud"
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-21-2008, 02:59 PM
maxc maxc is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11
maxc is starting off with a positive reputation.
If your car has an EGR valve one of the best places too inject water is in the EGR tube.
The proper "type" and amount of water injected in an engine can speed up the oxidation of CO. Therefore the overall flame front can move faster. http://www.not2fast.com/NACA/naca-report-531.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-22-2008, 10:07 AM
jimandmandy jimandmandy is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Running Springs CA
Posts: 5,228
jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.
But he is talking about a 1966 car. EGR started in the 1970's.

Actually vacuum advance is not for loads, acceleration and hills, but just the opposite. It is extra advance for fuel economy at part-throttle cruise. Too much advance under load leads to detonation.

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-28-2008, 03:37 PM
maxc maxc is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11
maxc is starting off with a positive reputation.
Think out side the box. water injection
Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2008, 03:37 PM
 
 
 
Reply

Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Misc. > Alternative Fuels, Hybrids & Mileage

Tags
2005, 460, cheyenne, engine, explorer, ford, good, hho, hydrogen, injection, make, system, truck, v6, vacuum, water, wyoming

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HHO Generator - 2007 SD 6.0L justshootme84 Bio-diesel, Propane & Alternative Diesel Engine Fuels 124 11-10-2013 03:11 AM
Help - Vacuum hookup for distributor advance bigwalt1 Big Block V8 - 385 Series (6.1/370, 7.0/429, 7.5/460) 20 06-18-2010 08:11 PM
2001 F-150 5.4 no ignition... TommySz 1997 - 2003 F150 2 11-24-2009 04:44 AM
Has anyone tried HHO? go6.0go 6.0L Power Stroke Diesel 13 01-29-2009 08:51 PM
Vacuum questions youngguy 1980 - 1986 Bullnose F100, F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 13 03-24-2004 09:01 AM



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup