Oh. My. God.

Let me start by saying you are obviously way over your head. I suggest you just stop digging.

Your explanation/clarification of how “...HHO increases air...” is gibberish and your use of the term 'heat of fusion' is laughably incorrect in this context. Maybe you should look it up.

Your tale of lighting the output of your wondercell is nothing more than a simple science experiment demonstrating electrolysis and the flammability of hydrogen gas. Big deal - I first saw this demonstration in Jr. High.

Look, I never said hydrogen isn't flammable. I did say the amount of hydrogen produced by your wondercell is insignificant and is not flammable in the concentrations that would be present in your engine at a 2 L/min flow rate. The lower flammability limit of hydrogen is 4% by volume in air. Your 2 L/min would result in about 0.044% assuming 100% hydrogen gas, which it is not.

You provided energy density numbers for gasoline and liquid hydrogen. Is your wondercell producing liquid hydrogen? No? Hmmm. Maybe you have an onboard cryogenic cooling plant to liquify it. No? You stated your wondercell is producing gas at a rate of 2 L/min. I hate to break this, but liters are a unit of volume. You do know the difference between mass and volume don't you? To compare apples to apples (SAME SAME BRO!!!) you should use the energy density values on a volume basis. As I stated previously:

gasoline - 34.2 megajoules/liter
gaseous hydrogen (room temp) - 0.01079 megajoules/liter

But hey, you want to use mass, fine. It all works out the same in the end either way. Lets do some converting.

Hydrogen has a density of 0.08988 gms/L. A little basic math results in your 2 L/min becoming 0.0001796 kg/min. Wow. That's not much mass.

Let's go on, shall we?

There are 3600 joules in 1 watthour. Therefore 39,000 watthours equals 140 megajoules so your energy density becomes 140 MJ/kg.

After a little more basic math we find that the 2 L/min generated by your wondercell is worth 420 watts. Once it's burned in your engine, assuming 30% efficiency, you get a grand total of 126 watts output.

126 watts = .17 HP

Oh my, that's not very much. It's actually even less, but I made some assumptions to simplify things a bit.

But wait, there's more.

Your alternator takes power from the engine to generate the electric current needed to run the wondercell. Depending on the assumptions used regarding conversion efficiencies – the alternator and your wondercell don't operate at 100% efficiency after all – you can easily calculate the minimum HP drain on your engine to be about 0.8 HP.

So, in order to add 0.17 HP to the engine output in the form of 2 L/min H2/O2 gas from your wondercell, you must first subtract 0.8 HP to drive the alternator.

0.17 – 0.8 is a net loss of 0.53 HP.

Of course, a basic knowledge of thermodynamics would have saved a little time. The amount of H2/O2 generated by the electrolysis of water will never release as much energy when burnt as it took to create it in the first place.

So maybe you'd like to explain how your engine is running so much more efficiently on a trivial amount of hydrogen that actually puts more load on the engine. Please refrain from using miracles, magic pixie dust or fairy tales in your explanation.

----------

“...have you gotten the feeling that your (sic) seconds from the world's biggest idiot calling you a dumb a$$?”

Don't be so hard on yourself. I will state emphatically I don't think you're the world's biggest idiot.

 

Dan Jarvis with Ford sent a brief email reply Monday, said to call Jennifer Moore at 313-248-2335.

I spoke with Jennifer and emailed her the same few simple questions about the Dutchman claims.

Her initial reply was vague: 'We are not aware of any discussions or meetings or plans to partner any technology with Dutchman' and 'We have so notified Dutchman.'

One more try, I asked her to simply confirm or deny whether or not:
* Clifton Lambreth and/or a team of Ford engineers met with Dutchman dealers in NJ the week of Sept 14.
* Ford is conducting testing of Dutchman HAFC units.
* Ford gave permission to Dutchman to 'tell the public' that Ford & Dutchman are discussing possible partnership.

Her reply fully degraded into corporate nonsense. 'our policy is not to confirm, deny or discuss private business discussions or transactions. ..we have not announced any partnership or working relationship with this company. We are aware of what Dutchman has been saying and are looking into that issue at this time.'

Oh well. Goes to show that Corporate Communications is an oxymoron.
These guys want to talk about any association with Dennis Lee like Barack Obama wants with William Ayers!

 

srauner - Although your wrong, it's a pointless argument.

Your saying that the H2 being produced is reducing the engine's overall efficentcy? Due to the Alt? How about a high energy ignition system, like Jacob's for example? Why is it that you can get better fuel econ and proformance with this ingnition system than with stock? Your burning the fuel (GAS) more efficent. How, hotter spark, more of it?

The minor amount of H2/O2 going into the air intake is mixing with the air and being introduced into the engine as a gas, your right. The fuel (GAS) is being introduced as a spray, but the maj of the GAS is not burnt in combustion, only the vapor is being used for combustion. **** and moan all you want, you can't change that.

By leaning out the amount of liquid GAS injected into the engine and increasing the reaction temp (H2 and O2 give off more heat in their reaction) more GAS is burnt in the combustion chamber than in the CAT. Since we've leaned out the fuel, then were looking at a gain in mileage. Since the reaction is sup with H2, the process has no change in power.

Now lastly, the fuel mileage improvements I've seen in my own truck spell it out for me. Get as nasty as you want, your not going to get any of my "pixie dust".

And thanks for letting me down easy on the idiot thing. It wasn't the brightest move I've made.

I'm still looking to meet with igotoneforya for a verification test ride. I wish we could've already done one. Of course, that might make him one of the targeted instead.

 

"The fuel (GAS) is being introduced as a spray, but the maj of the GAS is not burnt in combustion, only the vapor is being used for combustion."

"By leaning out the amount of liquid GAS injected into the engine and increasing the reaction temp (H2 and O2 give off more heat in their reaction) more GAS is burnt in the combustion chamber than in the CAT."

If I'm reading this right, you're saying the majority of fuel you put in your gas tank is not being consumed inside the engine but is instead passing thru to the catalytic converter. This is a fairly common claim on the numerous HAFC scam sites - I've seen claims that up to 80% of the fuel passes thru - and is absolutely wrong. In the real world, 99+% of the gasoline is burnt in the cylinder. Most of it is converted to heat, a small amount goes toward overcoming friction, and the remainder, 20-25% goes toward useable work output.



"Since we've leaned out the fuel, then were looking at a gain in mileage."

Precisely. It's no secret that leaning out the fuel mix will increase mileage. This is exactly where any gains you're seeing are coming from. Turn off the wondercell while driving - you'll probably be surprised at what happens.




-----------------

"And when such claims are extraordinary, that is, revolutionary in their implications for established scientific generalizations already accumulated and verified, we must demand extraordinary proof." -- Marcello Truzzi

 

Oh boy...you just don't get it do you? MIT? Really? Does your little HHO generator thingy work off the alternator?

You're a MECHANICAL ENGINEER that graduated for MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), right? What are the dangers of running an engine lean & hot?

 

Monsta - The engine hasn't ran hot. I said this before. Lean yes. is running lean bad for an engine, not really. There are some that say "you'll burn holes in your pistons". In some cases I think you can. In this case, I haven't.

My point, most ME's will tell you this HAFC won't work. Why? As you can see, it dosen't fit in our neat little world. I'm one that started out with all the same reasons why it wouldn't work with out looking at the reasons it would.

I've shut down the H-gen and the truck didn't run very good. Don't you think I would've tried that? DA.

The idea that the net energy it produces is neglected by the alt power is laughable. I also thought the same thing.... it must be the pixie dust. Look at the system as an combustion enhancement, like a high energy ignition system or even a better spark plug.

Hell, you could even compair it to 87oct vs 89 oct GAS. I've always gotten better MPG from 89, why? Good question, better combustion with 89, no pre-det.

Now if your trying to make the H2 the fuel in the process, your going to run into, alt taking too much power from the system. Yes the amount of H2 is small Vs the amount of air... no ****... so why are we talking about the alt energy at all?

the 2% change in oct in the fuel gives me better gas mileage. Small change, big impact.

 

"The idea that the net energy it produces is neglected by the alt power is laughable."

It's only laughable if you don't understand how these things work.


"Hell, you could even compair it to 87oct vs 89 oct GAS. I've always gotten better MPG from 89, why? Good question, better combustion with 89, no pre-det."

"the 2% change in oct in the fuel gives me better gas mileage. Small change, big impact."

You're wrong about octane here as well. Octane is a measure of detonation resistance, it has nothing to do with power or energy content. If your engine is designed to run on 87 octane, 89 will not improve mileage or performance. If it does, you have a problem that needs attention and using higher octane is a poor band-aid.

 

So, what is the short version of this thread?

Last I heard there was supposed to be a meeting and figuring going on....

 

So did we ever have the meeting??

 

Why is this thread still going? The guy asked a very simple question. Can and Excursion get 100mpg? No. It may be posible for a car to one day get 100mpg but not by todays standards of safety, emissions, design.

 

So Sorry!! I just wondered if IGOTONEFORYA and HTRF150 ever had there little test drive to prove whether his (HTRs) claims were true or not. I wasn't the one that made the thread evolve from that question to the discussion that it did. You can always not read it, if you don't like it.

 

no meeting yet....if ever.

I kinda put it to rest since we learned that he is leaning out the fuel mixture which will be a majority of the reported gains. If there is still a need or an answer I could get for everyone, Im down...but I thought there was no point since leaning out a/f could result in similar gains...am I missing something?


I would never trade HP for economy....I am currently still looking for a turbo or something...a buddy of mine works on LS6 motors and such in his performance shop...has over 1200HP in an RX7 with a TT LS6 in it...if he can do that, should be easy to give me 80hp with a turbo...he figures I would lose 25% mileage or more putting me into the 8-9range...tempting...and expensive...

 

I gave up on meeting with Igotoneforya. I really thought the A/F was the answer to the "why does it work".

Although, I didn't loose HP Igotoneforya.

Hey, with the current price of gas down to $1.61 in my area, the 33% gains isn't as impressive. The HAFC did get me through a rough gas price spike, but I'm not very conserned with MPG now.

I think I'm going to shut it off and put it on the shelf for now, maybe switch over to some HO parts.

 

Yeah...funny what happens to folks thinking when gas spikes at $4+.

I kinda feel sorry for those folks who bought Chrysler products when they were pitching the $2.99 a gallon gas for 3 years. Now gas is well below $2 and those folks have a worthless promotion.

I notice all the HAFC pitchmen crawled back in their holes as well...waiting for the next "catastrophe" I suppose.

 

What is your MPG with the system, 100mpg maybe 80mpg?