Chasing The White Rabbit Down The Hhole

[Bill Bailey]

FONT="Arial"][/FONT]

CHASING THE WHITE RABBIT down the HHOLE sounds a little bit strange , but that is how I now feel after reviewing the results of the tests a couple of friends of mine and myself are conducting . Please keep in mind that this is all anecdotal, as most of our findings are and I invite you to do them your self before you tell me that it doesn’t work.:D

It all started with a revelation bordering on blasphemy to me that we (collectively) have
all been spending thousands of hours and big money trying to make the onboard computer in our car do things that it is trying tooth and nail NOT TO DO.

It’s the O in the HHO that is the problem. The car sees to much O and it’s GAME ON.
We put in a bigger cell with twice the production and the computer try’s to do its thing and maintain the 14 to 1 ratio it was programmed for, so it pumps in more fuel to keep
It’s default setting. We are all aware of this situation aren’t we? So then off we go to bye the latest gismo to fool it. But it don’t fool to easy do it. LOL

One day, I thought to myself, I seas self, what would happen if I was to restrict the air flow into the motor. What would the computer see? How much power and performance would I loose? Will it DAMAGE the motor .?????.

I assumed that the motor would see les air and therefore les oxygen and oblige me by reducing the amount of fuel to the motor and it may or may not make the car slower or sluggish. But the main thing is it would still try and maintain it’s 14 to 1 ratio which means that it should not harm the motor.

So without further ado, a slit was cut in the side of the air inlet hose connecting the air filter to the motor and a length of flat plate inserted.
The car was left as it had been before the experiment started. ½ Lt a min. HOD on / Gismos on / just like it was on its last run which usually meant 24 mpg.

Results 18 mpg …….. ok don’t panic all Gismos off and pull the fuse on the computer so it can go to default.

Result 31 mpg …….OK ……Now pull out the plait and round off the end so it fits better and stops up more of the inlet and try again.

Result 37 mpg ……….BU…R ????????? OK now lets get real series about this.
Take out the small HOD and stick in the SMACH BOOSTER. Now we will see something..

RESULT 18 mpg Thank you Mr. smack booster …….If it hadn’t bean for you we wouldn’t have realized just how critical the introduction of oxygen into the mix is.

This is almost a side issue BUT there wear no perceived changes in performance of the car. We have come to the conclusion that a car is designed with certain performance
Parameters and if you are performing far below its MAX then you will not see a difference. A different story if you won’t to leave rubber …..But then you wouldn’t be interested in saving petrol anyway.

This is why all of those small / hardly anything coming out w4g cells would give a good
Result But when I replaced them with my NEW … ALL SINGING ….ALL DANSING
Cells which produce 1 Lt in 27 seconds, didn’t live up to there IMAGEND POTENTIAL

The tests are continuing and I think we should split this post in 2 so we can discuss the maximum hho in a car and what we found out about reducing the amount of air through the motor

As it is quite obvious that we have ALL bean chasing the white rabbit … but I don’t think we will ever catch him with the BIGGER IS BETTER approach ….. do you ????????.

I will just be out side digging a hole to hide in to save me from the flack. LOL

[Roland Jacques]

Im not sure I follow you.

Are you testing what happens if you restricting air intake? (if so by how much) Can you try to clear up the testing and results?

What's HOD?

[Bill Bailey]

Sorry to be so vague mate, So much to say .... so bad at typing lol

Hear are a couple of posts from the w4g forum where the boys are giving it a try. I hope this helps.

Dave,
Congratulations on your 27.21% gain by restricting the air.... Nice going there!

I have been experimenting also with restricting airflow and varying hho production on my 2003 Chev Venture 3.4 L. All enhansers turned off... No EFIE, IAT, CTS, MAF or MAP

Below are my results, every run 40 miles, at 55 mph, fillup same pump to top of filler pipe.

First run: nothing running at all , no restriction of air = 27.27 mpg
Second run: Just the HOD running = 30.89 mpg
Third run: HOD (.5 LPM) running and air flow restricted about 80% = 32.45 mpg
Fourth run: 2 HOD cells (.5 LPM and 1.7 LPM = 2.2 LPM) running and air flow restricted more to about 88 to 90% = 27.14 mpg
Fifth run: Back to smaller cell only running .5 LPM and airflow restricted as in fourth run = 34.16 mpg

Running the .5 LPM HOD and restricting the air flow gave me 25.27 % increase in mileage..... not bad! Now to see if this is consistent, as northing I have done before has been.....

Ted


--- On Sun, 9/21/08, dave geert <gerberley@yahoo. com> wrote:

From: dave geert <gerberley@yahoo. com>
Subject: [Water4Gas] results 99' 5.7 ltr suburban
To: Water4Gas@yahoogrou ps.com
Received: Sunday, September 21, 2008, 12:43 AM

No sensor adjustments made , Air filter 96% blocked and an hho cell attached pulling 10 amps.

I have been Fucking with adjustments on this car for a year and twice i have seen numbers like this.
average MPG = 14.7 tonight i filled up and MPG was 18.7.
blocked filter IS the key!

I also found out after i filled up tonight that my hho cell line was missing the tension clamp and was leaking, so this was not a perfect test but still improved .

I'll let you know how much the hose clamp helps .

The only change is the weather and A/C off , its been cooler this fill up...

dave g

[HiTechRedNeck73]

now this is confirmation of an idea I've been thinking about... in stead of using efie and other control devices that are fooling the ECU (can't be used anyway here in CA because we have rules about tampering with emission controls), you restrict the air flow coming into the engine by blocking a % of the inlet before the throttle body... that would reduce the air coming in, and the result would be less o2 in the exhaust...

and according to the results above... we've all been dumping in too much HHO, too much fuel, and too much air - and we've still been seeing gains... you need to keep adjusting and playing with combinations to find the sweat spot, so to say...

now that gives me an idea for a device that could be an adjustable diaphragm that can mount in the intake tube between the filter and throttle body and can be adjusted to restrict the air flow and reduce the injection of gasoline into the engine...

[Bill Bailey]

Hi RED HI HYGEAR
This is my take on the situation. If we have a dash mounted ajustement hear
we are going to play with it , Wright, Human nature. And I see a situation were we are trying to find the " sweat spot " But the motor has
just moved it because of our last adjustment. Which will end up in a circular
argument with the fool thing , and for shore we will give it to many adjustments for it to cope with ...... that is when the trouble will start.

SO ..... I have come up with a shape / design / thing that we can install
and then forget all about . but it will just sit there saving you money.
But NO.... you wont be able to fiddle with it lol

The shape is called a VENTURI and has bean around as long as sin , but
by using it in this position , we not only cause a restriction in the air inlet,
we also have the perfect spot to introduce a vacuum.......That we can use to draw our hho into the motor.
And this low pressure area or vacuum is influenced by the rpm of the motor.

At low speed .... so is the vacuum but as the motor starts to rev the
air passing through the venturi creates a stronger vacuum. This is the ideal spot for your HOD connection.

This is still a work in progres so results will be a bit slow , as it is happening over 3 countries Aust. USA and Canada.
Finding the restriction (sweat spot) size will take some trial and error,
so be pashent and you will get it. lol In the mean time I am posting 5 photos for you to get the feel of the thing. They say a picture saves a
thousand words.

PS This development is stage one ..... there is another stage after this one LOL
Enjoy.

[Roland Jacques]

Sorry, I’m a little slow here. This is very interesting and I’m still trying to understand this a little better. Can you help me fill in some of these blanks? This may be helpful to many people Thanks.

1. Car model and year------------------------------ ___________
2 LPM of HHO your unit produces------------------- ___________
3. Baseline MPG------------------------------------ ___________ HHO or EFIEs off
4. MPG with HHO on-------------------------------- ___________ EFIEs off
5. MPG with EFIEs on------------------------------- ___________ HHO off
6. MPG with HHO & EFIEs on------------------------ ___________
7. What percentage of air restriction are you doing? - ___________
8. MPG with air restriction on------------------------ ___________ HHO and EFIEs off
9. MPG with air restriction & HHO on----------------- ___________ EFIEs off
10. MPG with air restriction & EFIEs on--------------- ___________ HHO off
11. MPG with air restriction & HHO & EFIEs on-------- ___________

[hygear]

I see what you mean Bill no fiddling with that being etched in glass,or is that acrylic.You just have to swipe more of Mamas wine glasses If you need a different size venturi LOL.That also might work as a water vapor atomizer(just a thought)being as it will decrease pressure and increase velocity of the air flow.
When you get a chance Roland's questions have my interest as well.
Don't forget to post the data,this thread has my attention.

[Bill Bailey]

Roland ... What can I say

Perhaps .... would you like chips and a Coke with your order sir ???????
I thought that I made it clear that this is a NEW CONSEPT which I am
bringing before this forum . I DONT have all of the answers yet. I thought it was too important to try and do on my own , so hear it is in its infancy
with lots of room for us ALL to contribute. If you just want to sit back and
weight until all of the work is done and then decide weather you will be
bothered giving it a try , Then watch this space " -----------------
------------------------------------------------------------------- " !!!.
If on the other hand you want to be involved in something new that has
some great potential , Then welcome aboard , how can I help .

A friend of mine who watches all of the other groups out there told me this morning that it is now the hot topic in 7 other forums, and that interest is spreading expidentially.

He seas that " of course " there is the usual smattering of cereal fantasists
and arm chair experts and knockers , but it is being picked up by a lot of guys who can see that " if it works" it will answer a whole lot of the problems they are facing trying to introduce HHO into their fuel supply WITHOUT triggering an adverse reaction from there motor control systems.

So what can I say. Make one your self. Try it. Tell us how you
did it and how it performed. Isn't that what this forum is all about.???
:confused: Relax .... No body is trying to SELL you anything.

[precaster1@msn.com]

To avoid another blast like that,I think I prefer to not make any more posts and just sit back and collect the mail!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm with you lowgear- instead of taking the heat I'll just watch too. At least you tried, the chart would have made it simple. And we still don't know what a HOD is.

[HiTechRedNeck73]

wow, let's just let that smoke clear for a moment...

if we want to talk like we're helping people, we should be willing to share info rather than everyone starting from scratch and not getting anywhere...

he was merely asking what the test data has been so far...

there were going to be some blanks, of course... but that was no reason to submarine the guy... he and a few others have a general concept and yet no place to begin. if I had a working system in my car, I'd get the info out there so maybe someone that has a bit more foresight than myself could lend a wise word or two... I consider myself a pretty bright guy, and I had to read the misaligned gibberish that started this thread several times before I was able to fully understand what it was that you were doing... sometimes it takes a fresh set of eyes to see a better picture...

even yourself, you could possibly benefit from putting all your data on a paper in front of you, organized... you may see something you missed that would knock this whole idea wide open...

well, enough of all that...

here is my view on the subject, hopefully it helps someone...

I have been studying hydrogen production for about 3mo now... one of the first questions I asked of a few people was why they were adding all that fuel and air if hydrogen is truly 3x more energy than a comparable volume of gasoline, then we are adding too much of everything... by my calcs, I should be able to run my 2004 Dodge Intrepid SE 2.7L v6 with <1lpm of only hydrogen and mix it with the appropriate amount of oxygen to get the same bang that I get with gasoline now, but with no gasoline at all...

now I know that modifications need be made to the engine to complete that task... but I believe it is possible without modifications if the engine is setup right as a stock engine. my v6 has a higher compression ratio than most cars out on the road... that makes for a good start considering hydrogen works better in a higher compression ratio (so I've been told)... so we need to find the ratio that makes hydrogen replace gas... I've not found this number anywhere... my 2.7 is going to be different then someone's 5.0, and even different years of my 2.7 may be different...

I am still running some numbers and look forward to testing it out. heck, I look forward to building my hydrogen device... I'm almost ready to start buying parts... I've been refining my design, and have a great tool to bench test with... I'm going to use my power supply from my CB radio... it can supply 12-15volts and adjust from 0-35amps... a perfect bench tool to test a h-device (IMO). well, I plan on joining all the fun brigade very soon, and plan to share what I learn...

so, take it for what you will, I plan on contributing, but first I want to say thanks, publicly... if some of you were to not share as much, I would not have my eye on a goal of a working system the first time out... I'd be testing, and testing, and may have even given up before finding enough answers to keep marching on... we all need more contributors... that's the only way we will over come the problems before us and able to help those behind us...

just my $.02

[HiTechRedNeck73]

oh, one more thing... I do believe that HOD = Hydrogen On Demand... in other words, his hho generator...

[HiTechRedNeck73]

Sorry, I’m a little slow here. This is very interesting and I’m still trying to understand this a little better. Can you help me fill in some of these blanks? This may be helpful to many people Thanks.

1. Car model and year------------------------------ 2003 Chev Venture 3.4 L (i think... from another post, so not sure)
2 LPM of HHO your unit produces------------------- 1 Lt in 27 seconds
3. Baseline MPG------------------------------------ 18 mpg
4. MPG with HHO on-------------------------------- ___________ EFIEs off
5. MPG with EFIEs on------------------------------- ___________ HHO off
6. MPG with HHO & EFIEs on------------------------ 24 mpg
7. What percentage of air restriction are you doing? - ___________
8. MPG with air restriction on------------------------ ___________ HHO and EFIEs off
9. MPG with air restriction & HHO on----------------- 37 mpg EFIEs off
10. MPG with air restriction & EFIEs on--------------- ___________ HHO off
11. MPG with air restriction & HHO & EFIEs on-------- ___________

this is what I could make out, but he talks about a smack booster and HOD separately... I think he switched units somewhere in there...

[Bill Bailey]

Please excuse my bad manners and rantings.
I seem to be taking hits from every were at the moment. and Trying to
defend something that I was trying to share in good faith.
It sure don't pay to put your head up does it.
AH WELL there you go.!!!

[Bill Bailey]

This shot was still to large to up load . I just managed to shrink it so would.

I started with 2 Hi impact acrylic wine glasses from the local super market.
That cost about 8 Bucks. Next I cet through / across the bottom of the
glass so there was a small hole in the base from the way it was moulded.

Then under the drill press , and using a high speed hole saw at LOW speed I
cut a plug out to suet the tube I had decided to try first. The small hole that was already there helps to keep the saw centred.

When you are cutting this stuff it will get hot and try to re glue itself together and I found that I had to lift the saw from time to time to let the job cool down.

When you finally get through it will look a mess , But it cleans up with a round file and some sand paper OK .

The s/s tube is 1 1/4" OD and about 3/4"long. Next..... drill a 1/8" hole
all the way through both sides of the ring in approximately the center of
the 3/4" side . Now use a 1/4" drill to enlarge one hole only for the hho feeder tube to go through. I used a 1/4" ridged plastic tube that they use for drip feeders in watering systems for this. But use what ever you have at hand. cut this 1/4" to about 4" long and drill a 1/8" hole all the way through it 1/2" from one end and remove all traces of tailing's with a sharp knife.

Now insert this tube into the 1/4 " hole you drilled in the ring. It should be a very snug fit. Push it all the way to the opposite wall of the ring and center it over the 1/8" hole. now take a SHORT self taper screw and
drive it through the opposite wall of the ring so it goes into the shaft of the 1/4" tube. Make sure you can still see through the 1/8" hole you drilled in this 1/4" tube.

Now rotate the smaller tube until you CAN NOT see the holes.

For a venturi to work properly the air flow through the venturi must be at 90% to the smaller holes in the tube. So if you can look through the small holes when you look through the Ring then you must rotate the smaller tube so you have one on ether side of it.

I used epoxy glue to set the glasses into the s/s ring and cut them of
to an overall length of 5 1/2" . but you can cut them to suet your situation.

Now I am NOT saying that that this 1 1/4 s/s the is the perfect diameter for all cars . You may have to go down to 1" ..... or 3/4" ...... or even 1/2" to get the results you want , we started very conservatively at first
with a view to going smaller in the future.

[BoyntonStu]

Bill,

Thanks for sharing and for you clear explanation and photos.

Please explain how did you mount your venturi into your vehicle.

Wonderful work!

Warmest regards,

BoyntonStu

[HiTechRedNeck73]

hey Bill,

How's it going today?

I am curious, what elevation are you at? I ask because I've started making some calculations with regard to your ideas, and I see a problem when the vehicle is a MAP-based (Manifold Absolute Pressure) engine... I assume your chevy is MAF (Mass Air Flow)... are you placing the venturi between the MAF and throttle body?

I ask, because some of my quick calculations suggest that the air pressure in the manifold will be much lower than the ECU (Engine Control Unit) expects. basically the ECU will be using the MAP to look up the proper fuel table and will be looking at an altitude much higher than the car is truly at (higher altitude, thinner/less air). now the real trick is whether the ECU will be ok, or if it will start throwing OBD (On Board Diagnostics) codes and lighting up the CEL (Check Engine Light).

for example, my altitude is 300 ft... my car with this setup may be looking at the fuel table for 2000 ft... so if I got into the mountains and go to 10k ft (my favorite hunting spot), then my ECU may be looking at a fuel table for 12-13000 ft... or does it have a fuel table that goes that high?? if there is a reduction of air equivalent to 70%, my numbers are on a very low side... I will crunch some more numbers...

this may no work for all vehicles... unless I missed something...

if your vehicle is MAF, excuse my rambling... I'm thinking out loud to see if anyone has an idea with regard to MAP-based systems...

[Roland Jacques]

Yeah I know those were a lot of questions. So no big deal on any rants. It is just good to know what has been covered and what has not. This way we know where we may want to start at, in conducting any further testing/experiments...



I’m just thinking out loud. This is what I see right now, correct me if im wrong. A few things happen when we restrict the air intake.

1. Basically by restricting air intake you are lowering the compression ratio. (lower VE the compression goes down)

Seems counterproductive (who knows in this circumstance)

2. You MAY be also be creating a major vacuum on the HHO/HOD system (depending on where your HHO intake line is placed in relationship to the restrictor. and whether your HOD system is vented or not)

Not sure, but from what ive read vac/low pressure on HOD does not help production.

3. It should lower the MAP sensor reading (by raising vac) that would be telling the CPU that the air intake has been reduced and to lean out the fuel.

This makes since to me in increasing the MPG. But if this is the only thing that is happening then the EFIE we may be using may not be doing the job we want them to.

4. ??? ...

[Bill Bailey]

Hi Red

That first report was from a friend of mine in Canada and he didn't tell me
what his altitude was. ??? sorry.

He placed the restriction before the MAF in his rig. What you say about the map sounds logical but every car that fits a HHO cell seams to suffer the same problem.
The motor sees the extra oxygen and assumes it is air density and tries to
maintain the 14 to 1 ratio for the correct mix.
Now when you think about it , it must think the car is 2,000 or 3,000 ft. below sea level.
Now that doesn't make much sense ether. But then when we put in the air restriction , some part - or the whole thing decides that we are now much higher and reduces the amount of petrol it is providing for that
altitude.
I can only guess what sort of arguments are going on under the hood lol
Just as long as it reduces the amount of fuel to the motor I will be happy

Now if all this is true, and I believe it is , then driving into the mountains
with the restrict in place shouldn't be a problem, AS LONG AS YOU ARE
USING A HHO CELL AS WELL. This should make the car think you are lower than you really are.
But of course I cant try this out as the tallest mountain with a road to the top in Australia is about 4,000 ft. We still have LOTS to find out

[HiTechRedNeck73]

Hi Red

That first report was from a friend of mine in Canada and he didn't tell me
what his altitude was. ??? sorry.

He placed the restriction before the MAF in his rig. What you say about the map sounds logical but every car that fits a HHO cell seams to suffer the same problem.
The motor sees the extra oxygen and assumes it is air density and tries to
maintain the 14 to 1 ratio for the correct mix.
Now when you think about it , it must think the car is 2,000 or 3,000 ft. below sea level.
Now that doesn't make much sense ether. But then when we put in the air restriction , some part - or the whole thing decides that we are now much higher and reduces the amount of petrol it is providing for that
altitude.
I can only guess what sort of arguments are going on under the hood lol
Just as long as it reduces the amount of fuel to the motor I will be happy

Now if all this is true, and I believe it is , then driving into the mountains
with the restrict in place shouldn't be a problem, AS LONG AS YOU ARE
USING A HHO CELL AS WELL. This should make the car think you are lower than you really are.
But of course I cant try this out as the tallest mountain with a road to the top in Australia is about 4,000 ft. We still have LOTS to find out

you know, I didn't even look at it from the other side of the coin... with too much o2, the car is adding fuel, yes... so that means the table is simply based on the sensor reading and doesn't really care about altitude...

well, hopefully I will have my cell running by the middle of next month... so I can give it a wirl...

[Roland Jacques]

Can restricting the air also be retarding timing?

[Bill Bailey]

Hi Roland
I agree with all 3 points. Let me deal with point 1 last and start with
2 This will in dead cause a considerable vacuum in the HHO cell.
There mas bean a lot said about the prows and cons of this issue and this is only my take on the mater. I personally don't believe that a vacuum will give
you more production . How can it, It is an electrical proses and I don't think sucking on it will make the atoms move any faster. lol But I like to run a
vacuum to all of my cells for 2 reasons. 1 if there are any leaks in the cell
then running it in a vacuum means the leak is INTO the cell and not out of it. 2 This is a HOD system , at any given moment there is only a small amount of hho in the system and running a vacuum ensures that it is all going into the motor and not pooling anywhere else.

3 This restriction does seam to fool the computer into thinking it is at a higher altitude and therefore reduce the fuel. As to why and how ??? I will leave to much smarter minds than mine to nut out. lol

1 As you say , it will lower the compression but I believe it will only be felt
or noticed if the car is approaching the top end of its performance curve.
Let me ramble on hear and tell you why I think this.

Way back in am silly days (1973) I got involved in a fringe sport called Bath Tub Racing. Sounds quite silly and probably started out that way, but by the time I got involved it was a very strongly contested sport in dead. With
very stringent rules enforced by non smiling scrutineers and all.
Long story short every body was limited to 6 hp motors, Which at the time was Evinrude-Johnson-Mercury. And when you consider that OMC
made the first 2 and the only difference was the point and the transfers,
then you can see that we were all preity equally matched.
UNTIL Mercury came out with a new range of small hp motors.
6 hp 7.5 hp 10 hp That was it game over you just couldn't catch
the new Merck's, It was all the same motor. To make the 3 different models they had just placed a plate with a smaller hole under the carburetor to DE tune it. We were trying to keep up with a 10 hp motor
at 3/4 throttle and that was imposable. once you took out the restricted plate it was once again a 10 hp .
So all the way through is throttle range it handled like a 10 and it wasn't until it got to its top end and ran out of air it thought it was a 10 hp.

The same thing will happen in the car. you shouldn't notice any difference
unless you push it real hard and that is when you will notice it just wont quite do what it did.
But we are concerned with economy and not flat out performance.
I hope this was of some help.

[precaster1@msn.com]

Makes sense to me but does a ecu go by air pressure, air volume or air speed? Maybe all of the above indeed.

[Roland Jacques]

Wow, Bill that is an awesome explanation. Very informative, Thank you

I'll be making a point to insure a negative pressure on my HOD installs.

I’ll be testing this further. Do you have the links to the other threads on this subject?

I’ve heard of De-tuning but never really knew what it meant. As to the rest here’s my guess (maybe some one smarter will help me out).
I’m guessing that the restriction is keeping the MAP sensor thinking the engine is at idle, all the time. Manifold vac is 28-29HG when at idle, and normally decreases to 15 hg or so at cursing, and less vac at acceleration. With this restriction the VAC probably stays around 28 hg Vac at most all RPMS. IF the MAP sensor also controls the ignition timing, it would keep the timing from advancing. This would be a huge benefit IMO, because I believe with the addition of HHO we should have substantial timing retarding for the engine to see maximuim benifit of HHO, and this might be accomplishing that also.

I’m still thinking out loud. I think one thing may be concluded so far. That is, we may only want to restrict the intake to the point of 28 HG (Idle vac) at cruse speed. (1500 -2000 RPMs or so depending on the car). That way we still may keep some top end. Not too much restriction not too little.


I totally laughing at the thought of men racing bathtubs with outboards on them :p

[Stevo]

IF the MAP sensor also controls the ignition timing, it would keep the timing from advancing.

MAP sensor signal can affect ignition timing and so can these:

MAF (Mass Air Flow)
IAT (Intake Air Temperature)
TPS (Throttle Position Sensor)

Changes in these also can affect how much and how often the IACV (Idle Air Control Valve) works as well.

I would say that IF you have one (Tornado Fuel Saver). <laugh>:D Then this will definitely restrict some airflow and I would actually promote using this to try to achieve the restriction effect.

[precaster1@msn.com]

I'm thinking if its sucking that much harder thru a small section of filter it will suck in bigger dirt particles than it should.

[countryboy18]

that's the good thing about old cars that don't have a computer telling the engine what to do just more gas more speed. easy stuff nothing to trick to make it think something else!

[Bill Bailey]

Thanks Roland
This is a link..... to the other forum that Bob Foreman and I suggested this idea to .http://www.water4ga sforum.com/ Topic4493- 5-8.aspx >.

It was first posted on the 24/8/08 and has had 4,700 views and 82 replies
as of this morning, this has broken the record for views on this forum which
was 3,600 and it has bean running since 2/08.
There have bean 2 radio interviews on the subject which lasted about 19
minutes each. you will find the links to them in the body of the replies.

it is in General discussions under " No more FOOLING THE COMPUTER "

Enjoy By the way thinking about bath tub raising has started to bring it all back to me lol lol So I googled it and guess what, They are still at it lol.
I will include a few photos I found so you can try ti imagine what it is like to be siting in a flimsy hull ( usually 1 layer of 250 gsm chopped strand mat) at 34 mph , off shore in 20' swells with a 4' chop running across it
in the freezing cold while it feels like somebody is hitting you with a stick. lol lol lol.
Definitely for staunch harts or weak minds. I think I am the later.:D

[Bill Bailey]

God job Hi gear
That's the way to go , Just jump in and Block the sucker up a bit and see how your car responds. Just a few thoughts on the subject first.

When you tape - or stick something over the inlet hole to the motor, That the air will RUSH past this obstruction and then find itself in a space much bIger than the inlet you just partially blocked. What will happen next is the air will start to tumble, trying to fill the bigger space. This is called TERBULANCE and can cause the air to dam up. this is probably what happened to you mate.

When you use a VENTURI the air compresses slightly and accelerates through the gap and then decelerates at the same rate as it entered, Thats why its the same shape front and back, which will stop this happening.

Also this means that you can reduce the in-flow more., As more air will pass through the VENTURI than the taped up box.

If any body out there has a background in aerodinamic , Just feal free to jump in hear at any time. LOL LOL

My suggestions for a successful test.!!!!

NUMBER ONE Shut down all the devises you have bean using to fool the computer, and re-set the computer, by taking out it's fuse or disconnecting one of the battery leads. This will reset your computer to its default position.
Tape up your hole or insert a plate or what ever you wear going to do .

Start the motor and turn on your HHO cell . Give it a moment or two for
the computer to get its legs under it, and decide that theas are the conditions that prevailed in the place , and then start to drive normally.

Its no good holding back at this point , that wont be a real test, Just drive as you usually do until you fill up next.

IF it feels bad, then just stop and open the obstruction more until it is handling as usual.

At the next fill up tell us how much it saved you , and then try and sell
all of your now usless add on equipment. LOL LOL LOL

Happy savings. Please excuse me atrocious spelling ,

IT has bean a long long time since school.:o Lyall

[Bill Bailey]

This just came in. I thought you may be interested

Hello Robert,
> How are you?
>
> A friend of mine tired blocking off his air intake and it worked, he is now getting 50% better mileage!
>
> We installed a booster and he tried the map knob and then bought a scangauge and tried disconnecting the oxy sensor and clear the code, and he was so frustrated. He ws not getting any difference in preformance or mpg savings nothing. See photo.

> He has a MAF maybe it only works with MAF's ? ?

I have a OBDI truck I will try it on it. I will go listen to James Robey's interview now.

See your blog talk radio interview is working!

Keep up the good works.

Andrew

--

Hydrogen Garage LLC
630 Quintana Road #125
Morro Bay, CAlifornia • 93442
Hydrogen Garage Store
(805) 995-2669


AND MAYBE IT WORKS ON EVERY THING lol

[precaster1@msn.com]

What do you think of doing that on a duramax Bill?

[Roland Jacques]

Thanks for that link Bill. This is awesome reading. I'll be trying this out Satuday, cant wait.

I'll be introducing my HHO before the restictor. i can still get a Negitive pressure of 3 or 4 inches of water by just angling the HHO intake hose. and keep from the higher negivte pressures after the restictor.

[precaster1@msn.com]

Why in the world did that offend you hygear? Mighty touchy aren't ya. He was complementing you.

[Bill Bailey]

:eek::eek::eek:

One of the lads on another forum has partially blocked his MAF sensor in
the belief it will do the same thing ??????????

What he is actually doing is leaving the same amount of air as normal and
fooling the computer into thinking there is LESS AIR.

If he is successful ????? he will be altering the fuel air ratio by an unknown amount. There by risking the motor with a very lean situation.

My restricted air way concept is safe, because the motor will always maintain
a 14 to 1 ratio , no mater what size the restriction.
Wright up to the point of not being able to run at all , whatever air coming in will be met with the correct amount ---- or more --- fuel.

[HiTechRedNeck73]

wow, we are getting into some really good ideas now... good job to all of you... I wish I could contribute sooner, but as I said... I don't have a working HOD device yet...

but I would like to offer this idea...

if any of you are like me, you do a lot of your own vehicle maintenance. so if that's the case... has anyone tried using the sensors in the car to tell you if your air reduction is correct? I know that I'd have my OBDII reader and laptop out there recording sensor readings and looking at live sensor readings to get some idea that the engine was fine... then make adjustments to the air restriction as necessary...

my reader shows all the engine's sensors... so I'd be watching:

intake temp
MAP or MAF
o2 sensors
timing
RPMs
engine load
throttle position
etc...

that's just to start... I'd be watching them all and run logging for later review...

heck, my OBDII software can even monitor fuel consumption if the vehicle has MAF...

seems to me that this would show similarities after just a little bit of watching the engine run... you could even use a camera or screen shots to post here and share results...

anyways... no one was mentioning this, so I thought I'd add it in...

keep it up guys...

[HiTechRedNeck73]

Can restricting the air also be retarding timing?

Roland,

to answer that question, I'd need to know make and model of your vehicle...

but a generic answer is... most of todays cars that are OBDII use more than one sensor reading for timing... but timing is mostly controlled by the knock sensor... it listens for detonation of a cylinder to know when the spark plug has fired... once that data is compared to other sensors, a judgment can be made as to whether the spark was too soon or too late and adjust timing as necessary...

hope this helps...

[Bill Bailey]

This post is just in on the W4G forum :D:D:D



Hello everyone,

The threshold is near now. I've got 1 foot across.

A bit more experimentation, and I have discovered that you do not need the MAF enhancer ANYMORE. (I'm willing to bet you don't need a MAP enhancer either, but I don't have a MAP vehicle, so I can't test that theory...YET)

Interesting, isn't it?

Recent test (yesterday - 148 miles combo HWY/CTY 60/40 split) 40.6 MPG NO MAF ENHANCER USED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Speeds ranged from 60-75mph HWY, (but I tried to keep it at 65.) and city was bumper to bumper, stop and go, with traffic lites, etc. Also, the last 30 miles, (city-35 to 45 MPH), I was hauling a load in my truck that weighed an extra 380 Lbs.

Today's venture is to eliminate EFIE all together. I know I can do it, and I can't wait to try it.

In the end, what I'm setting up is an OBDII vehicle that will only require a Water4Gas electrolyzer, and about $6.00 in hardware store hardware, that will result in a 50 MPG Nissan pickup truck that will pass inspection, and not constantly generate codes.

Also on the test list for today...

The Hydrometer Analysis of water before, and after electrolysis.

Anyone really know what the brown stuff really is? If not, I intend to find out.

Almost there. 2 months, and 2146 pages of reading. Obsessed? SURE! Confident? ABSOLUTELY. Failure? NOT AN OPTION.


Water Man

2002 Nissan Frontier 1966 Chevy Chevelle 1954 Chevy Pickup

"To the greatest of character, God gives the greatest challenges."

[Roland Jacques]

Roland,

to answer that question, I'd need to know make and model of your vehicle...

but a generic answer is... most of todays cars that are OBDII use more than one sensor reading for timing... but timing is mostly controlled by the knock sensor... it listens for detonation of a cylinder to know when the spark plug has fired... once that data is compared to other sensors, a judgment can be made as to whether the spark was too soon or too late and adjust timing as necessary...

hope this helps...

I’m concerned on its effect on Ignition timing in general. (My current HOD project is 2001 GMC Savanna van.)

I believe Timing is the most overlooked area of HHO boosting for MPG gains. If restricting air intake retards timing, I believe that alone may explain why this method appears to be working better than EFIE's. ( i believe After TDC may be where timing should be for some HHO boosted ICE, my Untested theory)

I’m also not that sure if Detonation sensor's work that well While HHO boosting is being used.

That Program you have to run on your lap top would be VERY valuable in seeing what happening internally as MPG increase. It sounds like the perfect tool to optimize air restricting. Where, and how much, is a program and hardware kit like that?

[Roland Jacques]

Bill, your venturi looks good. But I don't see the need for a venturi in this application. The turbulence after a restriction should quickly becomes linear with in a few inches after it (maybe 6" to 8"). Also this standard type venturi may cerate far more negative pressure (vacuum) or your HOD unit then you may want. Putting too much negative pressure on your HOD unit may be just making another potentials problem, like Hyger had. Simple extending a tube or nipple 1” down into the air-steam with a 45 degree facing the direction of the flow should create enough Vac for the HOD. Placed before restriction, so manifold pressure/Vac or turbulence won’t affect HOD.

I’m really like this approach. Great post is an understatement.

[HiTechRedNeck73]

I’m concerned on its effect on Ignition timing in general. (My current HOD project is 2001 GMC Savanna van.)

I believe Timing is the most overlooked area of HHO boosting for MPG gains. If restricting air intake retards timing, I believe that alone may explain why this method appears to be working better than EFIE's.

I’m also not that sure if Detonation sensor's work that well While HHO boosting is being used....

when a vehicle (any vehicle) has a timing issue, it's one of the easiest things to notice...

indicators of incorrect timing:

1. backfires

2. rough idle, stalling, and engine lugging (power less than needed)

3. computer throws codes on OBD-based vehicles, CEL (check engine light)

4. hard to start

5. engines with bad timing, ALWAYS OVERHEAT or run hotter than normal

if you don't have any of these signs, I wouldn't worry about it...


....
That Program you have to run on your lap top would be VERY valuable in seeing what happening internally as MPG increase. It sounds like the perfect tool to optimize air restricting. Where, and how much, is a program and hardware kit like that?

ok, my OBDII to PC reader and the software I use can be explained in a how-to I did on another site... here's the link...

http://www.dodgeintrepid.net/forums/t116796/

it's a long thread, but it will tell you all you would want to know about it... if you want to play with the program, the demo is a full-working program... if you want I can even send you a log or two of mine that you can run and see what it would show you in your car... just PM me about that... I don't care to share... also the software is written by a fellow in Australia, and runs an OBD forum through his website... he is a really good guy and supports his product well...

any other questions, just ask...

[Roland Jacques]

when a vehicle (any vehicle) has a timing issue, it's one of the easiest things to notice...

indicators of incorrect timing:

1. backfires
1. happens when to far advanced, in relationship with VAVLE "timing". Ooops im thnking flash back,
(Backfire) when you have a shorter duration burn this is not likely to happen (30% shorter by some experts estimations) also w/ bad fireing order (not relavant here)

2. rough idle, stalling, and engine lugging (power less than needed)
2. when retarded with gas only Yes, but not a problem with HHO. Retarding is what we need with HHO IMO

3. computer throws codes on OBD-based vehicles, CEL (check engine light)
3. I dont think the OBD can tell the possable reasons are many

4. hard to start
4. only when too advance in relationship with VAVLE timing

5. engines with bad timing, ALWAYS OVERHEAT or run hotter than normal
5. Not ture, this would only happen if the timing was to advance, and burning Gasoline only. HHO throws other factors in that and can keep this from happening.

if you don't have any of these signs, I wouldn't worry about it...



That is exactly why I believe timing is overlooked while boosting HHO. Most folks believe, the standard fail-safe’s controlling ignition timing work normally when using HHO. I don’t think this is the case, I have not tested this, nor have I read any where that anyone has.

It is not a matter of worrying about it or not. I dont think timing too advance for this new fuel well hurt anything. It’s just a matter of getting the most possible MPG improvements possible from HHO.



Something to think about. There are great discrepancies between most cars getting 30%-50% MPG increases, and the very few cars and trucks getting 200% plus MPG gains. Most of the 200% trucks and cars ive read about are older trucks that can easily control their ignition timing. The main thing they seem to be doing regarding timing is retarding it too TDC. The best mpg results iv'e read is a 1976 C-10 4x4 chevy pick up, going from 9 MPGs to consistantly over 40 MPGs and 74 MPG was his best mileage Hwy.

It been said that the addition of HHO, it increases flame speed 10 Xs. On paper, that make Ideal timing about 3 degrees After TDC and even with RPM advance it should not move to before TDC at all. (if 10Xs faster is accurate)

Anyway I am interested in what you find out about ignition timing when you block the intake. Ill be checking mine also the old fashion way.


I love that OBDII to PC reader i guess ill have to get one. Thanks for giving me even more stuf to buy, Don't tell my wife LOL.

[Bill Bailey]

My wife talked me into doing this restriction on my father in laws car.:eek:

You know what I mean?????? If it doesn't do what I said, and more
I will never hear the end of it.

So I filled it up and took it for a 100 Kl run, When I got it home I filled it up at the same pump to the same mark.
The numbers say it was doing 9.4 Kl per Lt. Sorry don't know what that is in MPG.
Next I took the lid off his air cleaner box , lifted out the filter, And there it was. A 3" hole elongated down one side of the box.

What do you do with an elongated hole????? Beats me to. So I just started taping over the whole thing and left what I thought should be 25% Hole. That's 75% blocked and 25% open.

I would have bean much happier sticking a venturi up the connector pipe
But I didn't have one finished to use so I just used masking tape.

So if it isn't wright I can quickly modify it.

Next I sent my wife out for a test drive as I thought she would be a better crash test dummy than me.:D Actually I believe I would have bean trying to hard to make it a good test and the figures wouldn't have bean real. If you know what I mean. She drives this car like a G KART any way so the numbers will be conservative LOL LOL LOL

So back down to the same pump after the same 100 Kl run and go home and run the numbers.

First run 9.4 Kl per Lt

second run ( with tape lol ) 12.94 Bugger!!!!!!! I think I am safe from the father in law. LOL He might even think I did GOOD.

Dream on. lol Any how that's a 37.5% decrease in petrol consumption on the first run.

My wife said that going up the BIG HILL was a little bit slower than she usually goes, But Hay, that may be a good thing. lol

I suppose I will now have to fit a hho cell in his car now????????

I will , Just to see what the difference is .

IM still having fun!!!!!!!:p

[Roland Jacques]

This keeps getting more interesting buy the day. 37% increase!!! Without HOD/HHO, awesome/Bugger!! Great info!!! :D

What kind of car is it?

[Bill Bailey]

Sorry about the cars description, Should have said that first.
It's Just that I am on such a HIGH right now ,I can hardly think strait.
It is a 6 cylinder / 4 ltr / 1993 Ford statesman. It is am X Army staff car
Bought about 4 years ago and looked after well. I suppose its about third hand by now, but apart from its fuel economy goes well.

It was the ideal / honest car to do the test on, And By the way ,
Yesterday I claimed a 37.5% decrease in consumption, Well today I am bumping that to 40% because when I went to garage the car the air conditioning came on with the ignition.

That's wright , my wife had done the mileage test with the air-con. on.:mad:
I said she would drive it as she always does.:D

But put the HHO aside for a moment and consider what we have done .

With 5c. worth of tape we have

1 Reduced our consumption of fossil fuel by 40%

2 Reduced our omissions of greenhouse gas by 40%

3 Reduced the cost of petrol by 40% That's 40c. in the $1.00

No Government / motor company / Oil company / or omissions trading scheme can ever do this for you and it only takes 10 minutes to do
and is FREE .

So I would URGE YOU to ALL go out to your cars and trucks and
tape away. LOL LOL LOL

We can all have this discussion on how and why it works after we have done it.;)

By the way , Today's job is ti replace the masking tape with a sheet of
stiff plastic ( cut from the lid of an ice-cream container ) so that nothing will fly free and end up in the valves.

Have fun Lyall.

[resago]

I think whats happening is effectively running like a smaller engine.
by putting a restriction in the air line, you are lowering the VE (volumetric Efficiency)on the cylinders, the computer is still keeping a 14:1 ratio, but with less air, it is injecting less fuel.
its like swapping the V6 for a 4-banger

[resago]

it might be usefull to do this with an adjustable venturi type diaphram like the old cameras. Run the cable into the cab and adjust your engine size on the fly.
this will only work to a point, eventually you will drop the compression so low that you won't get any power.

[PAPAFIXIT]

I restricted the air intake on my '97 Nissan pup 75%, drove it that way for 2 days, impressive. Cut the EFIE on for the next 2 days ( while restricted. )
HOLY COW THE FUEL GAUGE MUST BE BROKEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I love this forum.
--
Life is an ongoing learning process, when we cease to learn we cease to exist.

[HiTechRedNeck73]

I think whats happening is effectively running like a smaller engine.
by putting a restriction in the air line, you are lowering the VE (volumetric Efficiency)on the cylinders, the computer is still keeping a 14:1 ratio, but with less air, it is injecting less fuel.
its like swapping the V6 for a 4-banger

I agree with that, but that is the VE of gasoline in your engine... once you introduce hydrogen, you are replacing the need for VE of gasoline and creating a new VE of gasoline & hydrogen... that mixture requires much less air intake...

in fact, taking this a step further... if you were still burning gasoline with hydrogen, and you were only injecting hydrogen (separate it from oxygen), then you could reduce the air in the exhaust further and the hydrogen would simply bond to oxygen left by the gasoline burn. I could see that working here in CA where we have oxygenated fuel due to our ban on MTBEs... our fuel here is already got too much oxygen by the time it's burned...

basically we need restrictor plates like they run in NASCAR... they run restrictor plates to limit the flow of air into the engine so that everyone has the same chance of winning... they use a plate between the throttle body and intake manifold to reduce air flow...

[1973dodger]

Guys, I have been following this thread for a few days now and I don't doubt the results that are claimed, but it does go against what I have understood thru the years with trying to get the engine as much air as possible. I do know when I added a high-flow air filter to my Cummins diesel, my fuel economy improved almost 2 mpg. So my questions are;

-will this work on a diesel, the same as a gas motor
-does the venturi restrict the air or compress it
-you may have posted this already, with air restricted does fuel economy increase without HOD or does it only increase with HOD

1973dodger

[Stevo]

1973dodger,

Yeh the venturi won't compress the air, but will restrict the air flow. This is the reason why so many people saw no gains at all with those Tornado "Fuel Savers". Well, atleast that is the main reason why. :)

You will get the same mpg (if not less) with a restricted intake and no HOD. Mostly, with restricted and HOD you will get less power on the top end and possibly mids (depending on how much restriction) without HOD. ECM will adjust down the amount of fuel on restricted intakes to match fuel just as it would with a really dirty air filter.

I imagine this would all be complicated with the addition of a turbo charger though. :(

[Roland Jacques]

I restricted the air intake on my '97 Nissan pup 75%, drove it that way for 2 days, impressive. Cut the EFIE on for the next 2 days ( while restricted. )
HOLY COW THE FUEL GAUGE MUST BE BROKEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I love this forum.
--
Life is an ongoing learning process, when we cease to learn we cease to exist.

Yeah this is a great forum.

So what were your result in saving?

[Boltazar]

Would someone explain why the engine heats up when we raise the air to gas ratio.

[Roland Jacques]

1-will this work on a diesel, the same as a gas motor
2-does the venturi restrict the air or compress it
3-you may have posted this already, with air restricted does fuel economy increase without HOD or does it only increase with HOD

1973dodger

1 . :confused:

2. Great question. Venturis do compress Gases; they do restrict a little also, so an aero dynamic venturi won’t do that much restricting so the volume of air being suck in may not change much. Design will dictate the amount of restriction they cerate. If we could monitor our MAP it would be most helpful while doing these experiments.

3. Apparently yes it does increase MPG W/O HHO also. Lyell got 40% without HOD

[Bill Bailey]

Hi mate

I know it is against what we know , but not really.
When we look at it from all sides it starts to makes more sense.
This is my worms idea of what happened to us all.
In the 1970 and 1980 things were booming. Every body had work and every body had cash to spend and the people who had the most money ( that's new money that had never bean in the economy before ) were young people.

Hear was a whole new cashed up group of people looking for something to spend there new wealth on . The car manufacturers were quick to cash in on this new trend by offering them bigger / faster / more stylish cars.

And it worked!!! so the trend was set and every body jumped onto the band wagon. cars evolved with improvements to handling / size / styling
even fuel economy.

With the 90 s the game changed again and cars now started to manage
there own systems / fuel injection /timing / everything.

All of a sudden we can no longer tinker with our toys, But the car is doing the job so well that we all just let it do it's thing and accepted it as RIT.

Time goes by as it always dose and when we next look around we notice
that the family car is now claiming to be a SPORTS CAR ....... And with good reason. It can out perform all of the old mustangs and stingrays
and GTO,s from our youth. All of a sudden the humble pick up is a super sports performance machine, and even the family station wagon is a
sports wagon and the humble 4 wheel drive land cruiser and land rover
that was used in the desert and the jungle is now a R.V. A recreational vehicle, complete with SAT- NAV DVD and Dolby surround sound.

Now that is all well and good but I just want a reliable car to go to work in. I didn't ask for a car that can double as a Turing car or compete in the Paris to Dekow run But that is what I am driving.

I was never given the option to go with the smaller more fuel efficient
version. So now I must drive around a mussel bound car capable
off 160 mph even though it will never do more than 65.

Don't get me wrong ...... I love the new styling and it handles like a dream and is much safer to drive BUT BUT BUT BUT

I WANT TO USE LESS PETROL and I am prepared to DE-TUNE the motor to get it.

When they took over the control of the motor and decided to inject the fuel, It had to be managed by the on board computer in all circumstances.

Say when the car is at sea level it adjusts the fuel for this condition ,
and when you drive to the top of a mountain range it will calculate the
correct amount of fuel for this condition also.

BUT they left the back door OPEN.......WE can block of some of the air to the motor and the computer sees this as a change in altitude and will
reduce the amount of fuel in relation to the air passing through it, but still maintain that 14 to 1 ratio.

So we have effectively turned a 4 Lt car into a 3 Lt car which uses less
petrol . NO RISK TO THE MOTOR........NO CHANGE IN FULE TO AIR RATIO
NO VOIDING OF WARINTYS........ NO COST TO TRY........INSTANTLY
REVERSABLE.......SATISFACTION GARENTEAD. lol


BUT and there is a BUT . This wont work on normally aspirated (carby)
vehicles as any restriction to the air will make the car run rich as the
fuel is preset to a certain level and it wont cut back.
2 Never try this with a car with a turbo or a super charger as these devices are designed to maximise air intake and starving them of air
WILL DAMAGE THEM BEOND USE.

As to weather it will work on diesel or not ... the principal is the same,
as long as the breathing and fuel injection is the same .... the end result SHOULD be the same.

I have not had the opportunity to try this on a diesel yet but if the opportunity comes I will and I will post the results immediately.
I did however put a small W4G cell in my brother in lay,s 4x4diesel and
he swears by it. He claims it is a mechanic in a bottle lol.

STILL HAVING FUN.

[Boltazar]

Can't anyone explain why the engine heats up when the gas is decreased?

[Stevo]

3. Apparently yes it does increase MPG W/O HHO also. Lyell got 40% without HOD

Hmm... Guess I will try this on my car without HOD. Just seems like it can't be a true blanket statement or (as already stated in many other topics) the car manufacturers would have already done this. Interesting.

[Roland Jacques]

I would keep this in mind when trying this. The extra Vacuum may make your engine use more Oil, due to the larger differentail pressure between the crankcase and cylinder. It might not be a factor but i'd just keep an eye your oil level.

[Painless]

Can't anyone explain why the engine heats up when the gas is decreased?

When an engine burns it's favoured 14:1 air to fuel ratio, a large amount of the fuel vapour that is not burnt goes towards cooling the combustion chamber, this extra heat is then pulled out of the chamber and out of the exhaust system along with the unburnt gas vapour (which is then consumed by the cat). When we increase the ratio and lower the amount of fuel, the extra vapours required to absorb the heat are not present, hence the increased combustion temperatures.

When we use HHO in our engines, the water vapour produced aids the cooling of the combustion chamber.

[Smith03Jetta]

The Water vapor produced from the reaction of Hydrogen and Oxygen...

Any water vapor coming from the electrolyte solution should be avoided in my oppinion. It can carry electrolyte into your engine.

[resago]

Guys, I have been following this thread for a few days now and I don't doubt the results that are claimed, but it does go against what I have understood thru the years with trying to get the engine as much air as possible. I do know when I added a high-flow air filter to my Cummins diesel, my fuel economy improved almost 2 mpg. So my questions are;

-will this work on a diesel, the same as a gas motor
-does the venturi restrict the air or compress it
-you may have posted this already, with air restricted does fuel economy increase without HOD or does it only increase with HOD

1973dodger

1) No. diesels don't maintain a fuel/air ratio. the danger in diesels is to run rich, not lean, so the more air, the better both power and MPG.
Lean running = lower temps; rich running = higher temps; opposite of gas engines.

on a gas engine, throttle cable is connected to an air restriction, on a diesel, its connected to the injection pump(at least on mechanical)
if you have a mechanical inj on your diesel, just add HHO and go.
you should have to use less pedal to go, thus higher MPG.

[Boltazar]

now that gives me an idea for a device that could be an adjustable diaphragm that can mount in the intake tube between the filter and throttle body and can be adjusted to restrict the air flow and reduce the injection of gasoline into the engine



How about a gate valve on the air intake

[Stevo]

Like an extra throttle body in a way. This could definitely work. :D

[Carolinablue]

Sooo, from what's being said, the dirtier your air filter gets the better your fuel mileage should be. Hmmmm, that really goes against the grain also, from years of being told to keep your filter clean.:confused:

[resago]

doing a TPS mod would accomplish the same thing then.

[Roland Jacques]

Ho yeah the good ole TPS mod.

TPS??????:confused:

[Boltazar]

Would the results ( better gas mileage) of restricting the air flow show on a scan gague.

After rereading this I can see this might be a dumb question:confused:

[Roland Jacques]

When we use HHO in our engines, the water vapour produced aids the cooling of the combustion chamber.

The water vapour is very minamal, at least with my HOD system it is. I believe the reason we get cooler temps using hho is the shorter burn time.

[resago]

TPS=Throttle Position Sensor.
tell the computer the plates are wide open but have them only open half way. Pretty much what this thread is about.

[redneckgearhead34]

I just went outside and put a 50% restriction on my intake.

I was talking to my friend on the phone who is also working on hho made a good point. It still take the same amount of energy to move you car/truck with intake restictions or not.

[HiTechRedNeck73]

for the guys that are having vacuum problems by restricting their intake...

besides the hydrogen device, are there any other mods or are your engines stock?

there is something that I came across with this whole idea and while I was thinking of VE I wondered... if the engine sucks in air as the piston is on the down stroke, and the intake is restricted to allow less air... the piston creates an enormous vacuum in the intake plenum... but that only goes so far and then it would cause a vacuum on the crank case if the piston rings were to give or even break, it would be catastrophic...

this is where I wish I had my system up and running to check it and post data... but we really need someone to start posting OBD data from the engine sensors... it would let us know if this was really for the better or not... the proof that many of us need...

so if someone has an OBD reader that they can take pics of... or an OBD to PC reader that screen shots can be saved... please post your data... please include year, make, model of car and your shots of data...

if any one is in central california and doesn't have an OBD reader, I have one (OBD to PC)... come see me... I am in Visalia, California and I'm willing to meet on a weekend for a bit, to properly test and document this theory... we need factual data... this thread is full of conjecture, we need to start showing facts...

PM me if you want to take me up on my offer of assistance...

thanks...
Dave

oh, don't PM me about this saturday (oct 4)... it's my birthday and I'm going to Universal Studios... but sunday is ok... or another weekend or evenings through the week... depending on time and place, I may even be able to meet half way or something... my point is that I'm willing to document, but I don't have a working hydrogen device and I'm not going to have a working one for at least a month...

[jimbo40]

Here's an idea.

your restricter for the air is a flap that blocks the inlet at the air box 90-100%.
The flap is spring loaded to hold the restriction at 90%.
As you accelerate the air overcomes the spring and opens the flap.
So at idle the flap may be open 1/8-1/4 in. but at full throttle air will pull it open say 1 inch there by giving you a variable presure controlled restrictor.

I do my best thinking while sitting on the John with my laptop:D

[Roland Jacques]

I am in Visalia, California and I'm willing to meet on a weekend for a bit, to properly test and document this theory...

we need factual data... this thread is full of conjecture, we need to start showing facts...

...

Well put, and very generous of you to offer your time to help us all better understand what is actually going on when we restrict the air flow.

We can see that it increases MPG, now its time we narrow down the why's.

[Bill Bailey]

The good news just keeps getting better.!!!!!!!!
Yesterday I filled the car ( MY father in laws ) and re-did the mileage test.
You remember;........1993 Ford Statesman 4.3 Lt 6 cyl. Monster lol
It started at 9.4 kl per Lt ..... after blocking the air intake 70% it
was doing much better at 12.94. This was with my wife driving , so I had to see what it would do with the air con. off and me at the wheel. lol
I filled it up and ran home to do the numbers. Now it is up to 13.2 kl per Lt.
can somebody please work out what that is in MPG for me. lol I'm just a dumb Australian when it is all said and done lol
Now 9.4 to 13.2 looks pretty good to me !!! But maybe we can do better.
So I installed one of my multi tube hho cells and tuned it back to 1/2 Lt a min. and sent my wife out to do another run . She hasn't come back yet so no numbers yet. I cant stand the suspense. LOL
I will attach a few photos of my cell so you know what I am talking about.
Enjoy. Lyall.:o

[jimbo40]

So far I get nothing from the restriction. I have tried 60,70,80.90,95, %.
no mileage improvement LOL and im using a scanguage 2.
So tell me how there can be any effect. lol
mr.Bailey blocks his at 70% and he claims big gains lol but blocking it 70% is not much considering that unless you are opening your throttle 50% then you are only restricted by 20%.
And if you are light footed 70% is no restriction at all really lol.
The only way I could really tell was when I blocked it 90% and went to full throttle and then I just noticed a lack of power, but as far as mileage, nothing at all lol.
So far i'm not buyin it lol.

[HiTechRedNeck73]

So far I get nothing from the restriction. I have tried 60,70,80.90,95, %.
no mileage improvement LOL and im using a scanguage 2.
So tell me how there can be any effect. lol
mr.Bailey blocks his at 70% and he claims big gains lol but blocking it 70% is not much considering that unless you are opening your throttle 50% then you are only restricted by 20%.
And if you are light footed 70% is no restriction at all really lol.
The only way I could really tell was when I blocked it 90% and went to full throttle and then I just noticed a lack of power, but as far as mileage, nothing at all lol.
So far i'm not buyin it lol.

vehicle: year, make, model, engine

fuel system: MAF or MAP or both

[Bill Bailey]

Me again.
Well she finally got home and now I don't know what to think.
I hooked up the hho cell as I said . 1/2 Lt a Min. And when she got where she was going, 14 Kl , she filled the car and did the numbers .
Now its 14 Kl per Lt.so she had some other driving to do 28 Kl and she filled it up again. This time 13.7 so she drove home
and now its 13.4.
Still better than no cell , but not much.
And haw come it went up when the cell was first attached and dropped down
the longer it was on.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????

Tomorrow's job take the cell off and check millage again. Bugger.
could this mean that we are trying to use to much hho?????

What are your thoughts lease.:confused::confused::confused::confused:

[Bill Bailey]

So far I get nothing from the restriction. I have tried 60,70,80.90,95, %.
no mileage improvement LOL and im using a scanguage 2.
So tell me how there can be any effect. lol
mr.Bailey blocks his at 70% and he claims big gains lol but blocking it 70% is not much considering that unless you are opening your throttle 50% then you are only restricted by 20%.
And if you are light footed 70% is no restriction at all really lol.
The only way I could really tell was when I blocked it 90% and went to full throttle and then I just noticed a lack of power, but as far as mileage, nothing at all lol.
So far i'm not buyin it lol.

Hi Jimbo. Hear is a thought . We are fooling the computer, so ma-by we are fooling the scan-gauge to.
Just try it old school ( NO GISMOS ) And fill the tank - stick in the 70%
blockage - do a test run and fill up again. I think you will be surprised.
At least i hope so. I cant think of any body who has done it this way
and NOT Sean a dramatic increase in mpg.
Then :)maybe you didn't reset your computer to default before you started
this experiment.

[jimbo40]

Bill no I did not reset, thank you!

[jimbo40]

Bill are you saying reset ECM/ECU in car?
Because I have not done that in all my testing.

[Roland Jacques]

Bill no I did not reset, thank you!
vehicle: year, make, model, engine

fuel system: MAF or MAP or both

[jimbo40]

2000 toyota tundra
4.7 ltr 245 hp
MAF
HHO .75-1.0 ltr per min @ 22-24 amp
O2 extenders

Stock No HHO 13.2 MPG
HHO 14.9-15.5 MPG
Magdrive 11a single brick, Sodium Hydroxide
did I forget anything?

Thanks
Jim

[Roland Jacques]

Bill has got good results also.
There are many results here largest thread on that fourm.
http://www.water4gasforum.com/Topic4493-5-1.aspx
For some reason i cant post over there, and no one there are asking Good questions IMO but it does seem to have th intended results. Personaly im more interested into why it works than if it works.

[HiTechRedNeck73]

Bill are you saying reset ECM/ECU in car?
Because I have not done that in all my testing.

yes, that's what he is saying...

most vehicles have memory that stores sensor readings from driving around. the ECU makes changes in the engine based on those readings...

if you make a change to your engine, you should reset the ECU to clear that memory and instantly begin re-learning the new setup of the engine... otherwise the ECU will naturally learn over a course of over writing the memory which could take hundreds of miles...

it's always best to reset the ECU after changes in the engine...

you can also benefit from resetting the ECU for the seasons in the year... outside temp plays a big part in how the engine runs... resetting the ECU will, for example, wipe away all those hot summer days and re-learn for those upcoming cold winter days...

[redneckgearhead34]

After scanning the entire thread for posted results using an intake restriction,I only found 2 members that posted results.Papafixit claimed great results and Jimbo40 posted no improvement.I tried all different % of restrictions with no improvement.

Has anyone else tried this? And if so please post the results.

I am currently testing on my truck(specs below). I dont drive that much so it takes about a week to get any real data. I will be sure to let yall know what i get

[HiTechRedNeck73]

I've thought of another variable that no one is mentioning... if I understand this correctly, most people use a 1/4" hose and a few use a 3/8" hose to deliver hydrogen...

so for some of these guys that are not seeing results...

1. have you reset your computer?

2. what size hole are you using for delivery?

even though you are creating vacuum in the intake... it can only compress and move so much hydrogen at once... we may need a larger delivery system...

3. even for the guys that are not restricting their intake, have you tried other delivery methods or larger hoses?

[Scooterdog]

now this is confirmation of an idea I've been thinking about... in stead of using efie and other control devices that are fooling the ECU (can't be used anyway here in CA because we have rules about tampering with emission controls), you restrict the air flow coming into the engine by blocking a % of the inlet before the throttle body... that would reduce the air coming in, and the result would be less o2 in the exhaust...
and according to the results above... we've all been dumping in too much HHO, too much fuel, and too much air - and we've still been seeing gains... you need to keep adjusting and playing with combinations to find the sweat spot, so to say...

now that gives me an idea for a device that could be an adjustable diaphragm that can mount in the intake tube between the filter and throttle body and can be adjusted to restrict the air flow and reduce the injection of gasoline into the engine...

WTF????? Better piss test whoever told you to restrict the incomming air. That's insane!

You ever heard of a turbo? What happens? You force more AIR into the system, increase mileage and power.

You can restrict all the AIR you want, but you won't restrict the o2, it just doesn't work that way. Not only that, the poor engine is going to have to work harder to "suck" in the same amount of air. This is going to cause a power loss, heat, and your milage is going to plummit. Dont' do that! Use a little common sense for god's sake.

How would you perform if I took out one of your lungs? Think you could get around easier? Be nice to your vehicle, it will be nice to you.

[Scooterdog]

I've thought of another variable that no one is mentioning... if I understand this correctly, most people use a 1/4" hose and a few use a 3/8" hose to deliver hydrogen...

so for some of these guys that are not seeing results...

1. have you reset your computer?

2. what size hole are you using for delivery?

even though you are creating vacuum in the intake... it can only compress and move so much hydrogen at once... we may need a larger delivery system...

3. even for the guys that are not restricting their intake, have you tried other delivery methods or larger hoses?

1. What good is that going to do? Clearly you don't understand the computer at all.

2. You show me how you create a VACUUM, and I'll bend over and kiss my own a**. There is no vacuum in an engine. Good lord. You could have vacuum if you shot that vehicle into space, but not on good ol mother earth. I suppose a "VACUUM cleaner" creates vacuum too? :rolleyes:

[Scooterdog]

I’m just thinking out loud. This is what I see right now, correct me if im wrong. A few things happen when we restrict the air intake.

1. Basically by restricting air intake you are lowering the compression ratio. (lower VE the compression goes down)

Seems counterproductive (who knows in this circumstance)

2. You MAY be also be creating a major vacuum on the HHO/HOD system (depending on where your HHO intake line is placed in relationship to the restrictor. and whether your HOD system is vented or not)


4. ??? ...

1. DEAD WRONG. You are choking your engine. Take one of your lungs out, see how you run. The engine is going to get the air it needs by using more power to get it. Whoever came up with "restrict air flow" is an idiot!

2. YOU WILL NEVER CREATE A VACUUM! Christ weepin on the cross. where do you guys come up with this crapola? The engine has no vacuum, I don't care who tries to tell you different, there is no vacuum in an engine, it's poppycock. :(

[resago]

WTF????? Better piss test whoever told you to restrict the incomming air. That's insane!

You ever heard of a turbo? What happens? You force more AIR into the system, increase mileage and power.

You can restrict all the AIR you want, but you won't restrict the o2, it just doesn't work that way. Not only that, the poor engine is going to have to work harder to "suck" in the same amount of air. This is going to cause a power loss, heat, and your milage is going to plummit. Dont' do that! Use a little common sense for god's sake.

How would you perform if I took out one of your lungs? Think you could get around easier? Be nice to your vehicle, it will be nice to you.

If you were breathing pure O2, one lung would do you just fine.dumba**.

[resago]

1. DEAD WRONG. You are choking your engine. Take one of your lungs out, see how you run. The engine is going to get the air it needs by using more power to get it. Whoever came up with "restrict air flow" is an idiot!

2. YOU WILL NEVER CREATE A VACUUM! Christ weepin on the cross. where do you guys come up with this crapola? The engine has no vacuum, I don't care who tries to tell you different, there is no vacuum in an engine, it's poppycock. :(

we are not talking about the EMPYNESS of space. we are talking about anything less than the 14PSI that we normal live in. dumba**.

[Scooterdog]

If you were breathing pure O2, one lung would do you just fine.dumba**.

No it wouldn't smarta**. where did you get your automotive degree? I bet you don't have one. Kinda like a guy on here saying he's an expert because he passed the simple ASE certification test. Christ, my 13 year old son could pass those.

I have a degree in Auto. Tech, and I can tell, I DO KNOW WHAT THE HELL I'M TALKING ABOUT.

[Scooterdog]

we are not talking about the EMPYNESS of space. we are talking about anything less than the 14PSI that we normal live in. dumba**.

WEll, smarta**, you have not proven how you create a vacuum. Let me explain a little something to someone like you, who seems pretty damn ignorant of automotive technology:

You have high and low pressure areas, that's it. There is no vacuum. But, someone like you won't understand that. It's obviouse from your post's.

Kinda like those o2 sensors that are "detecting o2". :rolleyes:

[resago]

No it wouldn't smarta**. where did you get your automotive degree? I bet you don't have one. Kinda like a guy on here saying he's an expert because he passed the simple ASE certification test. Christ, my 13 year old son could pass those.

I have a degree in Auto. Tech, and I can tell, I DO KNOW WHAT THE HELL I'M TALKING ABOUT.

oh, I'm sorry, what 4 year college did you get your degree from?:D

[resago]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_percentage_of_oxygen_the_in_atmosphere

[Scooterdog]

oh, I'm sorry, what 4 year college did you get your degree from?:D

Wyoming Tech, the best of the best. And yes, you are sorry.

[resago]

HHAHAHA. I'm gonna have to cut this short.
god bless.

[Scooterdog]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_percentage_of_oxygen_the_in_atmosphere

There ya go. Thats some factual information on that site. :rolleyes:

You may want to save your pennies, and get an education, instead of comming in here acting like you know something when you don't.

Anyone who beleives that more than 10% of the crap posted on the internet is fact, is lost to begin with.

Look at Ozzy Freedom, a well known con-man. Do a little search on that peace of work.

By the way, I wrote Ozzy, and told him if he had any balls, he'd prove what he's selling as fact by taking and winning the million dollar challange, he declined, stating he didn't have the $5000 to participate. Uh-hu ;)

[Scooterdog]

HHAHAHA. I'm gonna have to cut this short.
god bless.

What's wrong? You can't go up against the best? Watch tv if ya can afford it, we are on everyweekend on TNN.

[resago]

alright.
1) grow up, learn some humility
2) what this thread is about is fooling the computer.
basically this is replacing a portion of the mix of gasses that makes up our atmosphere with pure O2. Ever see the space shuttle take off? its burning pure H2 and O2. I agree that this only benefits to a point and after that point you are hurting the compression ratio too much to do any good.

[Scooterdog]

alright.
1) grow up, learn some humility
2) what this thread is about is fooling the computer.
basically this is replacing a portion of the mix of gasses that makes up our atmosphere with pure O2. Ever see the space shuttle take off? its burning pure H2 and O2. I agree that this only benefits to a point and after that point you are hurting the compression ratio too much to do any good.

resago:

Fine, "fool" the computer all you want, won't work, sorry. What I'm saying, is there is a shit load more to it than a couple of sensors.

The space shuttle and todays engines have nothing in common. That's like trying to compair a rock to water. You are not adding pure o2, you are adding an editional hydrogen molecule.

Your not making any sense whatsoever, I'm sorry. I'm not picking on you specifically, but you started it with the name calling, and proving just how damn ignorant you are when it comes to automotive technology. Get a little education, and then come back, perhaps we could come up with something that will help people.

[resago]

yes, I understand how an IC engine works. any 6th grader does.
sensors are required for a computer to help optimize the process. nothing new.

yes, H2 is added because it adds to the fuel. The problem is current programs for the computer tell it to add more fuel given a condition of left over O2. It is set up for burning O2, N, and all the other trace inert gasses in the atmosphere. Adding pure O2 releases much more energy on combustion, and there is actually an exess of O2 left over because of a more complete burn of the hydrocarbon.

I believe what is going on when restricting the airflow like these people are is that the computer is tricked into expecting an abnormal O2 reading from the sensor because of what is receives from its MAF or MAP.
If you truly understand what the computer does with these readings, then you should be able to shed some light on this phenomenon.

I'm all ears.

[Scooterdog]

yes, I understand how an IC engine works. any 6th grader does.
sensors are required for a computer to help optimize the process. nothing new.

yes, H2 is added because it adds to the fuel. The problem is current programs for the computer tell it to add more fuel given a condition of left over O2. It is set up for burning O2, N, and all the other trace inert gasses in the atmosphere. Adding pure O2 releases much more energy on combustion, and there is actually an exess of O2 left over because of a more complete burn of the hydrocarbon.

I believe what is going on when restricting the airflow like these people are is that the computer is tricked into expecting an abnormal O2 reading from the sensor because of what is receives from its MAF or MAP.
If you truly understand what the computer does with these readings, then you should be able to shed some light on this phenomenon.

I'm all ears.


You're talking circles. Are you adding hho, or o2? Which is it? (God, don't come back and say "both") :mad:

How is the restricting air to the engine are you altering the o2??? You are not! The percentage is still the same no matter what you do. Again, it goes back to a turbo, the more air you add, the more power and better mpg you will get.

What you are doing, is making the engine pull that much harder to get the air it needs, causing the opposite of what you want. Really, it is that simple.

You're talking fuel, I'm talking gas, there is a difference.

[HiTechRedNeck73]

well, this thread went south fast... why was he attaching what I said... I didn't start the thread, just adding to the questions...

some people need to get a life better than what they got if that is all they can do is ridicule everyone and be vulgar...

clearly if the best you can do is insult us, then either you must be a know-it-all mech that should help us or you should find a better job so you can be happier... there is no reason for the attitude you have on this forum...

[Riddler250]

yea hes a turd

[precaster1@msn.com]

Watch your mouth dog- you might get a hair pull. Didn't your mama teach you any manners?

[Scooterdog]

well, this thread went south fast... why was he attaching what I said... I didn't start the thread, just adding to the questions...

some people need to get a life better than what they got if that is all they can do is ridicule everyone and be vulgar...

clearly if the best you can do is insult us, then either you must be a know-it-all mech that should help us or you should find a better job so you can be happier... there is no reason for the attitude you have on this forum...

First of all, I'm not a "mech", I'm an automotive technician.

I wasnt' insulting those that make an effort to tell the trueth. I'm insulting the dumba** that are making sh** up as they go along.

If I didn't know, I wouldn't say. But, the fact is, I do know what i"m talking about, sorry if that offends some of you.

As far as my life, I probably pay in more Federal income tax per year, than most make gross per year on these boards

[resago]

I think he's too young to know any better.
maybe he'll get bored of pissing on the trees and leave.

[Scooterdog]

Watch your mouth dog- you might get a hair pull. Didn't your mama teach you any manners?

I see, someone can call me names, but I can't respond? What kind of a board is this? communist?

Freedom of speach and expression my friend, love it or leave it.

[Riddler250]

First of all, I'm not a "mech", I'm an automotive technician.

.

As far as my life, I probably pay in more Federal income tax per year, than most make gross per year on these boards

Whats the difference between a mech and an automotive tech, an $80,000 student loan?

[precaster1@msn.com]

I see, someone can call me names, but I can't respond? What kind of a board is this? communist?

Freedom of speach and expression my friend, love it or leave it.
You named yourself, scooter. Awful nice of you to share your knowledge with us poor people, I'm sure your income adds greatly to it.

[HiTechRedNeck73]

it is possible to be educated to such a degree that you overlook the obvious... just because you may think you know-it-all, doesn't mean you can find your way across the street without getting hit...

this is a statement of facts, not directed toward anyone...

now, a question for scooterdog...

is the following quote correct?



How they work -Simplified
Titania sensors do NOT have the ability to produce a self-voltage. Instead, the engine ECU supplies a base reference voltage. If the air/fuel ratio is rich, the resistance in the sensor is low. When the fuel mixture is lean, resistance in the sensor is high. The ECU then uses this high or low signal to adjusts the fuel flow through the fuel injectors. The speed with which it can change from reading a rich to lean or lean to rich air/fuel mixture is called its cross count. The higher or faster the cross counts, the better the sensor.

How they work –Simple details
Your engine will produce the greatest power and the fewest emissions when the air/fuel mixture is kept at a ratio of 14.7 to 1. This is referred to as “stoichiometric”. To try to keep the air/fuel mixture at this ratio, the ECU sends a base or reference voltage to power the titania sensor. It then looks for the signal back from the sensor which will be measured by the amount of resistance ranging from a low resistance of 1000 ohms (when the engine air/fuel mixture is too rich) to a high resistance of over 20,000 ohms (when the air/fuel ratio is considered too lean). The ECU reads the resistance voltage being reported from the sensor and makes adjustments to the fuel through the fuel injectors accordingly. Unlike the newer zirconia sensor, the titania sensor does not require outside reference air to do its job, it is a sealed environment sensor

ok, so here is a wiring schematic of what your typical 4-wire sensor does...
http://www.supermotors.net/getfile/672743/fullsize/423.jpg

here is the closeup of the eletro-chemical schematic...
http://www.supermotors.net/getfile/672741/fullsize/306.jpg

here is what it sends back to the ECM (engine computer)...
http://www.supermotors.net/getfile/672740/fullsize/305.jpg

here is what it all looks like to us...
http://www.supermotors.net/getfile/672739/fullsize/304.jpg

basically, it measures the resistance across the ions of oxygen that make it into the sensor, and then uses that resistance to return a voltage (from the ECU reference voltage) back to the ECU for processing... the ECU looks the voltage up in the fuel table, and thinks it knows how much air and fuel went into the engine in the first place... then it adjusts accordingly....

if so, we are simply limiting the amount of o2 in the exhaust to reduce the fuel maintained by the computer in a 14.7:1 ratio... is this correct?

[resago]

Where's a moderator when you need one???????????????????? I think it's time to evict the kindagarden class before they trash any more threads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They're the first ever to make to my ignore list.You really showed the whole forum your immaturity guys nice job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry, I was inebriated and couldn't control myself.
apologies.

[HiTechRedNeck73]

he logged out... I wanted to see if my info was correct? :confused:

;) oh well, back to business....

[PAPAFIXIT]

WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED WHILE I WAS GONE?????????????
--
Life is an ongoing learning process, when we cease to learn we cease to exist.

[Roland Jacques]

1. DEAD WRONG. You are choking your engine. Take one of your lungs out, see how you run. The engine is going to get the air it needs by using more power to get it. Whoever came up with "restrict air flow" is an idiot!

2. YOU WILL NEVER CREATE A VACUUM! Christ weepin on the cross. where do you guys come up with this crapola? The engine has no vacuum, I don't care who tries to tell you different, there is no vacuum in an engine, it's poppycock. :(

scooteerdog

First off you need to learn how to think "outside the box", and not just regurgitate what you have been taught. You may think you have all the answers, but some of us don’t, and we don’t mind learning and or exchanging ideas with others. The good ones and the bad ones. That is why we are here. Please don’t drag this thread down into the gutter any more than you have.


You might want to keep the name calling to yourself. And Christ weeping on the cross, well was for us all, that is the good news.

Negative pressure (anything below 14.7 atmospheric pressure is commonly referred to as a vacuum. If you want every to call it something else good luck, but we all no what we're referring to.

Air volume in ICE is not the same when restricted learn what V.E. Volume Efficiency is. Remember gases compress and expand.

[Boltazar]

That was some afternoon you guys had, can anyone say anal. Got to think outside the box here.

All right back to air intake restriction. I'm going to try this on my 2000 GMC Serria 5.3L Pickup. I have a scann gage and I'll reset my computer in the truck. I'm going to restrict 50% first and increase restriction to see what happens. My MAF and IAT sensors are 1" behind the air flow restrictor I'm installing. Won't forcing the air to go through a smaller hole reduce the temp of the air to the IAT sensor. What will be the effect to the computer of doing that.

[resago]

reducing air temp will enrich the mix and possibly adv the timing.-usually.
a lot of people put a resister on the IAT to get "more power".
not a good idea really.

[Carolinablue]

Hmmmm, I have seen plenty of cases in my time were there was too much education and not enough common sense. Give me the ole country common sense any time, it's cheaper and a much more polite.;)
The way I look at this forum, if it's something I can use or think might work, I'll try it. If I can't get it to work and some one else can, more power to them and I'm definitely not to proud to ask how. Thank you all for all the info and input.

[resago]

oh, the space shuttle reference was indirect. I was referring to the fact that the shuttle could not get into space trying to burn normal atmosphere and hydrogen. All the weight of that O2 is worth it.

[Riddler250]

Wow! that was fun. he was kinda fun to argue with tho. back to being productive

[Cadillac]

You ever heard of a turbo? What happens? You force more AIR into the system, increase mileage and power.

How would you perform if I took out one of your lungs? Think you could get around easier? Be nice to your vehicle, it will be nice to you.

I am not sure where you heard that a turbocharger added mileage but this is wrong in every aspect. One of the biggest concerns of adding a turbocharger is getting enough gas to match the denser air. Whether you use an extra fuel pump with a boost sensitive fuel pressure regulator, extra injectors, or reprogram the computer for larger injectors you have to increase the fuel that can be delivered. That being said a car with a turbocharger does not have to be a gas hog. If it is done properly the amount you will use will be minimual unless you are accelerating hard.

Cars take advantage of what is know as the Helmholtz resonance. This is just one aspect of a venturi. When the intake valve opens it sucks in the air. When it closes the air coming down still has momentum and this causes the air to compress. This area is high pressure. The upper portion of the intake manifold is low pressure. The pressures attempt to equalizes but there is not enough time to do so. This is a pressure differential. That is what an internal combustion engine is all about.

For most cars when the intake valve opens and shuts is based on the RPMs. This means it can not take full advantage of the helmholtz resonance effect on air. Instead of trying to take full advantage most designers make intake manifolds that take advantage of it in certain rpm ranges. Now there are a lot of cars with VVT (or VTEC for you Honda guys) that have been offering cars that can take further advantage of this effect. There are also cars out on the market although rare that have variable intake runners to take advantage of this effect as well. A good example of this is the Cadillac Catera and 03 CTS. Both have what is coined as dual ram intake valves. In actuality it is changing the distance the air travels to take advantage of the helmholtz resonance. More simplistic as they only change the distance with gear changes. Both of these cars are know to create boost conditions with no forced induction systems such as a super/or/turbocharger. I say this just to show how strong this effect can be.

Now by restricting the intake you are in essence changing where the power rpm range is in the intake manifold by reducing the VE. While I don't necessarily agree with just blocking it without further knowledge of what you are doing just calling someone stupid for trying it is not cool. There was a sensor used sparingly called a VAF (volumetric air flow) sensor. Most of these blocked the intake tube. They where spring loaded. As there airflow increased they opened more. They had a spring hooked to a potentiometer that then relayed an electronic signal back to the computer. Hard to believe the designers over at BMW are dumb for restricting an intake tube. If I remember right these where offered on their M-series of cars (for a time) which are not know for being weak in design or acceleration.

[Bill Bailey]

Its Probably a good thing I am 12 Hours ( in front / behind ) and missed all that. That was not nice.
Time to Fess up as they say lol lol
I have no qualifications in the auto industry at all, And it wasn't until I started to play with Hydrogen on demand systems that I really started to wonder, just what the on board computer was making of this new gas it was seeing.

So I started with a clean slate , so to speak . And I only have my past
limited experience to draw from.
But a clean slate is sometimes good, as I never say to my self THAT
CANT WORK ..... SO WHY BOTHER TO TRY IT.

I will try anything because I don't know any better.
So when I find something that works ....that shouldn't.... I don't dismiss it as an ANOMALLY or an UNKNOWN , and just forget it.

Then its time for the People who have the knowledge of the subject to step up and tell us all how and why it works. Not that it doesn't work , and that's that.

Other wise its just a THE WORLD IS FLAT debate.

I know that all of my findings are ANICDOTAL, How could they not be???
But they are also TRUE.

[Scooterdog]

I am not sure where you heard that a turbocharger added mileage but this is wrong in every aspect. One of the biggest concerns of adding a turbocharger is getting enough gas to match the denser air. Whether you use an extra fuel pump with a boost sensitive fuel pressure regulator, extra injectors, or reprogram the computer for larger injectors you have to increase the fuel that can be delivered. That being said a car with a turbocharger does not have to be a gas hog. If it is done properly the amount you will use will be minimual unless you are accelerating hard.

Well, I heard it on several fronts. It is fact. Why did the japs add turbos?? More power, better milage. Take two identical cars, one turbo one non, and you will see. The rest of the paragraph is babble, plain and simple.

Cars take advantage of what is know as the Helmholtz resonance. This is just one aspect of a venturi. When the intake valve opens it sucks in the air. When it closes the air coming down still has momentum and this causes the air to compress. This area is high pressure. The upper portion of the intake manifold is low pressure. The pressures attempt to equalizes but there is not enough time to do so. This is a pressure differential. That is what an internal combustion engine is all about.

Really?? Guess those two cycle engines don't work according to your "theory". Guess you never heard of the scavage affect. Of course not, you don't have a degree.

For most cars when the intake valve opens and shuts is based on the RPMs. This means it can not take full advantage of the helmholtz resonance effect on air. Instead of trying to take full advantage most designers make intake manifolds that take advantage of it in certain rpm ranges. Now there are a lot of cars with VVT (or VTEC for you Honda guys) that have been offering cars that can take further advantage of this effect. There are also cars out on the market although rare that have variable intake runners to take advantage of this effect as well. A good example of this is the Cadillac Catera and 03 CTS. Both have what is coined as dual ram intake valves. In actuality it is changing the distance the air travels to take advantage of the helmholtz resonance. More simplistic as they only change the distance with gear changes. Both of these cars are know to create boost conditions with no forced induction systems such as a super/or/turbocharger. I say this just to show how strong this effect can be.

What the hell are you talking about!?? The valve opens and closes per camshaft.

Now by restricting the intake you are in essence changing where the power rpm range is in the intake manifold by reducing the VE. While I don't necessarily agree with just blocking it without further knowledge of what you are doing just calling someone stupid for trying it is not cool. There was a sensor used sparingly called a VAF (volumetric air flow) sensor. Most of these blocked the intake tube. They where spring loaded. As there airflow increased they opened more. They had a spring hooked to a potentiometer that then relayed an electronic signal back to the computer. Hard to believe the designers over at BMW are dumb for restricting an intake tube. If I remember right these where offered on their M-series of cars (for a time) which are not know for being weak in design or acceleration.

Wrong, complete poppycock. You make the engine work harder, causing severe power loss and an extreme rich mixture. Nice try though. Hell, pull out that air filter and cover it with solid plastic. Sure, you can claim a million miles per gallons, as the damn thing wont start.

[Scooterdog]

scooteerdog

First off you need to learn how to think "outside the box", and not just regurgitate what you have been taught. You may think you have all the answers, but some of us don’t, and we don’t mind learning and or exchanging ideas with others. The good ones and the bad ones. That is why we are here. Please don’t drag this thread down into the gutter any more than you have.


You might want to keep the name calling to yourself. And Christ weeping on the cross, well was for us all, that is the good news.

Negative pressure (anything below 14.7 atmospheric pressure is commonly referred to as a vacuum. If you want every to call it something else good luck, but we all no what we're referring to.

Air volume in ICE is not the same when restricted learn what V.E. Volume Efficiency is. Remember gases compress and expand.

It is not vacuum, and it never will be. There is vacuum in space, you are not there. It is a low pressure area.

[Scooterdog]

reducing air temp will enrich the mix and possibly adv the timing.-usually.a lot of people put a resister on the IAT to get "more power".
not a good idea really.

WTF? You don't richen the mixture with cold air. God, here we go again. Air molecules condense, therefor you have more air per stroke. You are leaning the mixture. This is why on cold morning you have more power, and increase in mpg.

[Cadillac]

Well Scooterdog that was bait. I was curious if you really knew anything about engines or not. Needless to say you failed.

I guess if you want to say a super/turbocharger adds fuel economy you should take up with people like Corky Bell (he has a couple degrees himself along with countless books that are considered to be the end all be all of forced induction). Maximum Boost is the bible for people into turbochargers. I guess you don't read that at this "schoo"l you go to though. Maybe you should ask one of your "classmates" if they know who he is.

I was curious if you had any engineering background that is why I threw out the helmholtz resonance in air. Apparently you do not. Since you did not understand what I wrote you just attacked my choice of phrasing in saying that the intake valves opening and shutting are connected to RPMs. You do realize that camshafts spin in conjunction with RPMs don't you. I am sure other people can type this in on a search and see that I am correct.

You are right in some extent. Most people will be overworking their motor. I doubt you can say why though?

[Scooterdog]

Well Scooterdog that was bait. I was curious if you really knew anything about engines or not. Needless to say you failed.

I guess if you want to say a super/turbocharger adds fuel economy you should take up with people like Corky Bell (he has a couple degrees himself along with countless books that are considered to be the end all be all of forced induction). Maximum Boost is the bible for people into turbochargers. I guess you don't read that at this "schoo"l you go to though. Maybe you should ask one of your "classmates" if they know who he is.

I was curious if you had any engineering background that is why I threw out the helmholtz resonance in air. Apparently you do not. Since you did not understand what I wrote you just attacked my choice of phrasing in saying that the intake valves opening and shutting are connected to RPMs. You do realize that camshafts spin in conjunction with RPMs don't you. I am sure other people can type this in on a search and see that I am correct.

You are right in some extent. Most people will be overworking their motor. I doubt you can say why though?

No, the crank controls the cam, the cam controls the valves. Floor a ford, you float the valves.

Super chargers and turbo chargers are NOT the same. Super charges require some hp to run, they are not efficient. A turbo, and this is fact, subaru will tell you (they put turbos on and have for years, get better milage, and will blow the doors off any same type non turbo engine. ) Nice try. I actually wrote a report for Wyoming Tech on super chargers, turbo chargers and NOS. It is now in there teachings.

[Cadillac]

I feel sorry for your students.

[Riddler250]

Scotter, When does hp = more mpg? I have a chevy tahoe that gets about 14mpg with a 5.7liter engine, i also have a kia optima that gets about 33mpg and is a 4 banger. which one has more hp? the cold air only helps to a certain temp. my truck runs like hell when its below freezing, but it runs like hell when its above freezing

[Carolinablue]

It is not vacuum, and it never will be. There is vacuum in space, you are not there. It is a low pressure area.

I guess our vacuum cleaners come from aliens then.....:rolleyes: You create a vacuum when air pressure is brought to a negative or didn't they teach that at your school.:rolleyes:

[Bill Bailey]

Please Lets Just forget all this bullsh** about it not being a vacuum.
OF CAUSE it is not a true vacuum , it is only a low pressure condition that
BY CONVENTION everybody refers to ( WRONGLY ) as a vacuum.
YOU WINN , YOU WEAR WRIGHT.
Now can we pleas get back to the stated aims of this FORUM which is
Trying to facilitate the production of HHO for the COMMON MAN
Because HE and I need all the help we can get.
Now back to the subject.

What Prompted me to investigate this line of inquiry was remembering
the older NORMALY ASPERATED motors.
SIMPLISTICALY, there wear 2 or more butterfly's built into the bottom of the carby. and the fuel jets wear of a fixed nature, so when the car was idling the butterfly's wear nearly closed and very little air was going through the ventures which housed JETS. Also very little fuel.
When you put your foot down on the peddle you would slowly open the butterflies which allowed the LOW PRESURE above the pistons draw air through the air cleaner and into and through the carby, and also the ventures holding the fuel jets.
This LOW PRESURE ARIA inside the ventures would suck ( is this the wright word ) more fuel into the matter, which in turn found it had more air and fuel and increased its rpm.
This situation would continue all the way along the power band until
the motor couldn't draw in any more air fuel mix without a bigger carby
and larger fuel jets.
At this point it had achieved its maximum RPM.

Now at no time during period was the motor at risk of injury from not geting enough air.
IF it couldn't get enough air to reach its TOP RPM , It was quite happy
to sustain the RPM it was doing ........Indefinitely.

It all depended on how far you pushed down the gas pedal.

This is all we are doing . if we close the butterfly / restriction , Now instead of air passing through a venturi to get its fuel we have a computer
which CAN SEE WHAT IS HAPERNING and adjusts the amount of fuel to
achieve it's programed 14 to 1.

To sagest it doesn't have enough air , or only this amount of air will damage the motor is total ignorance or a complete misunderstanding of how a motor works. As long as the ratio of 14 to 1 is maintained it will happily run at any speed.

And of cause it will not affect the performance UNTIL it reaches the point on the same performance curve represented by the reduced air.

In my HUMBEL opinion the computer is reading only the volume of available air , the same as unit ( carby ) it replaced.

[jimbo40]

Mr. Bailey,
You forgot something in your last post!!!

LOL;)

[BoyntonStu]

I have a 2001 Ford ZX2 also called an Escort by the confused public.

2000 cc Dual overhead cam, 5 speed.

Runs quick and has consistently gotten between 26 and 29 mpg mixed between fill ups.


The air filter is a conical cylinder shape with a circular output of approximately 3" Dia.

A logical place to install a venturi.

A rubber/plastic piece from the intake fits inside the air filter.

Using tape, I blocked about 75% of the circle.

Disconnected the battery.

I tried to start it up and it would not run.

Smelled rotten eggs from the catalytic converter for the first time in 7 years.

Next, I removed some of the tape to about 30-40% restriction.

It started right up and it ran very well. No smell. Normal idle.

I believe that I noticed 2 things while driving:

It seems smoother at low end. Imagination?

The high end seemed to reach a limit that I never felt before.

It felt fine.

I filled the tank and in a week or so at about 250 miles we shall know the results.

Bill, I thank you for this promising idea to save fuel.

Your concept is certainly worth the time and effort for a quick yes/no test.


BoyntonStu

[Scooterdog]

Well Scooterdog that was bait. I was curious if you really knew anything about engines or not. Needless to say you failed.

I guess if you want to say a super/turbocharger adds fuel economy you should take up with people like Corky Bell (he has a couple degrees himself along with countless books that are considered to be the end all be all of forced induction). Maximum Boost is the bible for people into turbochargers. I guess you don't read that at this "schoo"l you go to though. Maybe you should ask one of your "classmates" if they know who he is.

Here's Dodges reply to Turbos increasing MPG:


Message:
Does a turbo increase MPG:

Yes...but it depends on your foot. Anytime you increase the VE% of an engine, you now require less pressure on the foot pedal to move the vehicle. Superchargers have this effect as well.

Ya, those dummy's at Dodge are wrong too I bet.

[Boltazar]

I hate to say it but I wish that guy would go away.

2000 GMC Serria 5.3l I have a 4" air intake after the air filter. I closed off 50% of the space with a piece of sheetmetal with a 2" hole and drove around the block. She started OK, idled fine but had hesitation up the kazoo. She shifted REAL HARD and at one point coming up a hill it seemed as if she wasn't going to make it. My scan gague showed piss poor gas millage and I did erase all the held codes befor trying. Yea, I'm ceazy enough to open the hole up to 3" tomorrow to see what happens

[Roland Jacques]

Well, I played with my sons 93 Lincoln Town car today. The easiest place to restrict air was right at the air filter outlet. The problem with that is the mass air flow sensor is within 2-3 " of that opening. I TAPED THE OPENING 73% CLOSED ANYWAY.

The problem with restricting air right in front of the MAF sensor, is that I am mainly just redirecting the air flow. So I think the MAF is actually seeing higher velocity of air instead of less which is what we are suppose to be doing. So we tested it that way anyway. The result according to the MPG gauge was.

No HHO/HOD
3.25" round opening = 8.29 SQ"
Closed to
1.5" square = 2.25 SQ"
= 73% closed

Drove 20 miles
Before 16.9 mpg average
After 11.1 mpg

(The MAF in this car looks like it has a pedoe tube to measure air velocity which would make it very sensitive to any redirecting of air flow in front of it)


So i will try it again, resticting air intake on this car, from another spot. (maybe when Gasoline is a little more available in Atlanta)

Not so BUGGER :( but we may know why.

[jimbo40]

I took my restriction off.
my tundra was just to slugish and laboring.
On the freeway at 65mph it felt like the pedel had to be pressed 3 inches,
and no significant improvement if any.
Without restriction I barely need to touch the pedel.
I like it better without it.

[Boltazar]

What's not worth your time, that guy or air restriction

It appears the moderators are keeping a low profile lately

[jimbo40]

I'm going to try an idea I have. Knowone has responded to the idea yet.
or even made a comment.

My air intake comes into the air box from a 45deg. angle 3.5 in tube.

Make a flap for the tube with an idle hole in it maybe 1/2 inch hole
then you could have weight add to the flap according to how much restriction you want.

This should have a much better effect because just blocking it does almost nothing at idle and chokes you out under load and you only have this small sweet spot.
By adding weight you could find the sweet spot and have it all the way through the rpm band.

Just restricting is no more then a dirty air filter.
This is a variable on demand air damper.

should you want or need power and have to nail the pedel the flap will be pulled open by the inflow of air while still causing some restriction.

Too much? take off a little weight! Not enough add a little.

This would not be the same as a dirty air filter!

Any thoughts? Someone want to try?

[Scooterdog]

I'm going to try an idea I have. Knowone has responded to the idea yet.
or even made a comment.

My air intake comes into the air box from a 45deg. angle 3.5 in tube.

Make a flap for the tube with an idle hole in it maybe 1/2 inch hole
then you could have weight add to the flap according to how much restriction you want.

This should have a much better effect because just blocking it does almost nothing at idle and chokes you out under load and you only have this small sweet spot.
By adding weight you could find the sweet spot and have it all the way through the rpm band.

Just restricting is no more then a dirty air filter.
This is a variable on demand air damper.

should you want or need power and have to nail the pedel the flap will be pulled open by the inflow of air while still causing some restriction.

Too much? take off a little weight! Not enough add a little.

This would not be the same as a dirty air filter!

Any thoughts? Someone want to try?


Jimbo:

Go over to Amsoil, check out their filters. Not arguing with you, just pointing out, that their filters allow MORE air to pass threw more efficiently. Restricting the incoming air make the piston's work harder to fill the cylinder.

You can experiment with your vacuum cleaner. By restring the end of the hose, you will hear that motor drag, drawing more amps than if the airway is clear. A gas engine is the same, it still has to have a specific amount of air in the cylinder, or you are defeating your purpose. Just an idea for you to try.

[redneckgearhead34]

Ok I finished my 50% restriction test yesterday afternoon. I stopped and filled up. I went 134.5 miles and bought 6.8 gallons of gas. That comes down to 19.5mpg. That is a 2.5mpg decrease.

My truck information is below. Anybody know why it didn't work on my truck. I think it is because I dont have a MAF or a MAP? dont really know

[Riddler250]

Ok I finished my 50% restriction test yesterday afternoon. I stopped and filled up. I went 134.5 miles and bought 6.8 gallons of gas. That comes down to 19.5mpg. That is a 2.5mpg decrease.

My truck information is below. Anybody know why it didn't work on my truck. I think it is because I dont have a MAF or a MAP? dont really know

I hate to say this, but i agree with scooter on this one. I understand the theory, but i just dont think that reducing the amount of air into the engine is the way to go, now the fuel/air ratio is out of wack. the engine is probably acting like it is flooded, which is the direct opposite of what you are trying to do. maybe if you had some kind of maf/map or efie it might help, but i think you will still lose throttle response and power, is it worth an extra mpg or 2?

[redneckgearhead34]

I hate to say this, but i agree with scooter on this one. I understand the theory, but i just dont think that reducing the amount of air into the engine is the way to go, now the fuel/air ratio is out of wack. the engine is probably acting like it is flooded, which is the direct opposite of what you are trying to do. maybe if you had some kind of maf/map or efie it might help, but i think you will still lose throttle response and power, is it worth an extra mpg or 2?

I forgot to mention the loss of power I could definitly feel. Especially at high rpms.

[Scooterdog]

I forgot to mention the loss of power I could definitly feel. Especially at high rpms.

As you should have. It would be like closing the butterfly's on a carb half way (choking).

The engine will get the air, unless you completely seal the intake. Go to the local tech school, have them put the exhaust probe in that tail pipe, and start restricting it. Have them print out the results. You'll see more hydrocarbons do to improper combustion.

By increasing the air, you increase the power. I posted where Dodge agree's with me 100% in the case of a Turbo. That's why they started to put them on smaller cars, more power, better mpg.

This is how NoS works. It condences the air, allowing more in (it is not "forced air induction") giving you a bigger boost. Not saying running NoS will give you better mpg, just saying the theory is backwards.

I've thought about running Liquid nitrogen from a small tank, threw a line, and wrapping the air intake box with the line(several times) thereby condencing the air without adding anything into the intake itself.

[redneckgearhead34]

As you should have. It would be like closing the butterfly's on a carb half way (choking).

The engine will get the air, unless you completely seal the intake. Go to the local tech school, have them put the exhaust probe in that tail pipe, and start restricting it. Have them print out the results. You'll see more hydrocarbons do to improper combustion.

By increasing the air, you increase the power. I posted where Dodge agree's with me 100% in the case of a Turbo. That's why they started to put them on smaller cars, more power, better mpg.

This is how NoS works. It condences the air, allowing more in (it is not "forced air induction") giving you a bigger boost. Not saying running NoS will give you better mpg, just saying the theory is backwards.

I've thought about running Liquid nitrogen from a small tank, threw a line, and wrapping the air intake box with the line(several times) thereby condencing the air without adding anything into the intake itself.

That sounds expensive and possible dangerous if you ended up in an accident.

For NOS, is the NO2 used in combustion as an extra fuel?

[Riddler250]

As you should have. It would be like closing the butterfly's on a carb half way (choking).

The engine will get the air, unless you completely seal the intake. Go to the local tech school, have them put the exhaust probe in that tail pipe, and start restricting it. Have them print out the results. You'll see more hydrocarbons do to improper combustion.

By increasing the air, you increase the power. I posted where Dodge agree's with me 100% in the case of a Turbo. That's why they started to put them on smaller cars, more power, better mpg.

This is how NoS works. It condences the air, allowing more in (it is not "forced air induction") giving you a bigger boost. Not saying running NoS will give you better mpg, just saying the theory is backwards.

I've thought about running Liquid nitrogen from a small tank, threw a line, and wrapping the air intake box with the line(several times) thereby condencing the air without adding anything into the intake itself.

yes but when you increase air the computer will see a lean mixture and increase fuel to compensate, more power yes, as for more mpg... i dont really think so

[resago]

in a gas engine. more air = more gas, otherwise you burn the pistons.
the reason turbo's are put on those engines is only for power.
they were able to put a smaller turbo'd engine in place of a larger NA engine. thats why the vehicle has better MPG.

also:
Turbo's respond to engine load via exhaust pressure
Superchargers respond to RPM via crank and belt.

both have their advantages and disadvantages. both use HP to spin.
the best way would be to use both. the supercharger would give you off idle boost and power, and the turbo would respond to a high load condition like going up a hill, towing, or driving against a headwind.

in a diesel, its a little different in that you CAN add air without adding fuel and still be safe. the more air in the cylinder, the more there is to expand when the fuel is injected/ignited.

this post is to inform people who may have been confused by previous posts.

[Scooterdog]

yes but when you increase air the computer will see a lean mixture and increase fuel to compensate, more power yes, as for more mpg... i dont really think so

For God's sakes, DODGE TELLS YOU IT DOES! Talk to anyone who has gone to a reputable school, they will tell you a Turbo(Unless you put your foot to the floor) will increase both. Look it up, look at Subaru or how the hell ever you spell it.

[Scooterdog]

in a gas engine. more air = more gas, otherwise you burn the pistons.
the reason turbo's are put on those engines is only for power.
they were able to put a smaller turbo'd engine in place of a larger NA engine. thats why the vehicle has better MPG.

also:
Turbo's respond to engine load via exhaust pressure
Superchargers respond to RPM via crank and belt.

both have their advantages and disadvantages. both use HP to spin.
the best way would be to use both. the supercharger would give you off idle boost and power, and the turbo would respond to a high load condition like going up a hill, towing, or driving against a headwind.

in a diesel, its a little different in that you CAN add air without adding fuel and still be safe. the more air in the cylinder, the more there is to expand when the fuel is injected/ignited.

this post is to inform people who may have been confused by previous posts.

A super charger kills your mpg, a turbo increases it. It could be said you increase with a a blower, but it takes alot of power to run one. It didn't work out for Ford. But, the Japs have known this for years, do some research. (I'm not talking a Turbo charged carb. equip. vehicle. )

It's clear some of you don't grasp how a turbo actually works. Just do some research, you'll see I'm right.

[Riddler250]

Im a chevy guy

[Scooterdog]

Im a chevy guy

So am I. Well, I do drive a Ford Mustang too, but Have Loved Chevy since my first 350.

[Riddler250]

i love my 350, but its a gas hog

[Scooterdog]

That sounds expensive and possible dangerous if you ended up in an accident.

For NOS, is the NO2 used in combustion as an extra fuel?

You wouldn't need that much. A very small bottle, and a line. I beleive it would circulate itself. I have not tried it yet, but it's the same principle as a radiator, you have some, not alot, but some circulation without a water pump. Not enough to cool the engine, but it will circulate to some degree.

Now, if you did this with a very small bottle, in the trunk, and wrapped that air box 10, 20 times, it would be (in theory) same or better than running on a -20*F day. Like I said, ain't done it yet, but my theory is sound.

As far as danger, no more than a tank of gas is. You wouldn't need a propane sized bottle, just a small one. People who AI cattle carry around big cannisters all the time, never, ever heard of anyone getting hurt. My cousin does it for a living, and never had a problem with transporting it (and he's damn careless lol, just throws the tank in the back and off he goes).

[Scooterdog]

i love my 350, but its a gas hog

What year? I bought a car and someone other than me had built the 350. Holy Crap! It had more power than I would have ever believed, and got well over 25mpg at speeds over 80 mph. Once I burnt it up and cracked the heads, I rebuilt it using diff. heads, cam, etc.., it just wasn't the same.

I know somewhere at home, I took all the numbers off the heads and what not, if I can find it, I will post it. That was the best engine I have had in any vehicle. :o

[resago]

turbo's and superchargers/blowers(same thing) effect MPG the same. If you add boost, you must add gas.

a dodge diesel truck makes good use of a turbo. On a diesel, a turbo does make the engine more fuel efficient.

[Scooterdog]

turbo's and superchargers/blowers(same thing) effect MPG the same. If you add boost, you must add gas.

a dodge diesel truck makes good use of a turbo. On a diesel, a turbo does make the engine more fuel efficient.

Yes it does. Why can't you simply compair two identical vehicle, one with turbo, and one without? It's not that hard to do the research. Go talk to an instructor at a reputable school, he'll tell you I'm right. Dodge tells you I'm write, Ford Knows I'm right. I'm done trying to convince someone who doesn't know and isn't willing to learn. Guess Wyo Tech better sh**can my research that they have been using for the last decade.

A blower and turbo run on same theory, but are not the exact same.

[resago]

what are you refering to as a blower?

[Riddler250]

Yes it does. Why can't you simply compair two identical vehicle, one with turbo, and one without? It's not that hard to do the research. Go talk to an instructor at a reputable school, he'll tell you I'm right. Dodge tells you I'm write, Ford Knows I'm right. I'm done trying to convince someone who doesn't know and isn't willing to learn. Guess Wyo Tech better shitcan my research that they have been using for the last decade.

A blower and turbo run on same theory, but are not the exact same.

Scooter, How does an engine with A super/turbo charger compensate for the added air? if the answer is, it doesnt it, then the engine would be be running lean and the ecu or pcm whatever would send extra fuel to get that a/f back to norm. with HHo and what someone on this forum had seen in his veh, is that the extra air from a more complete burn told the computer it was lean and added fuel, increasing power and with 0 or negitive mpg results. it is my opinion that a turbo and hho would create somewhat of the same condidtions at the o2 sensor, creating the same over compensation effect seen with hho. I have been known to be wrong a time or two tho.

And its a 98 tahoe, at 80mph cant feel the trailer, with no noticeable decline in mpg

[Scooterdog]

The objective of a turbocharger is the same as a supercharger; to improve upon the size-to-output efficiency of an engine by solving one of its cardinal limitations. A naturally aspirated automobile engine uses only the downward stroke of a piston to create an area of low pressure in order to draw air into the cylinder through the intake valves. Because the pressure in the atmosphere is no more than approximately 14.7 psi, there ultimately will be a limit to the pressure difference across the intake valves and thus the amount of airflow entering the combustion chamber. This ability to fill the cylinder with air is its volumetric efficiency. Because the turbocharger increases the pressure at the point where air is entering the cylinder, a greater mass of air will be forced in as the inlet manifold pressure increases. The additional air makes it possible to add more fuel, increasing the power and torque output of the engine.

You do not have to increase gas, it is explained below what the extra gas does.

Because the pressure in the cylinder must not go too high to avoid detonation and physical damage, the intake pressure must be controlled by controlling the rotational speed of the turbocharger. The control function is performed by a wastegate, which routes some of the exhaust flow away from the exhaust turbine. This controls shaft speed and regulates air pressure in the intake manifold.

The application of a compressor to increase pressure at the point of cylinder air intake is often referred to as forced induction. Centrifugal superchargers compress air in the same fashion as a turbocharger. However, the energy to spin the supercharger is taken from the rotating output energy of the engine's crankshaft as opposed to normally exhausted gas from the engine. Superchargers use output energy from an engine to achieve a net gain, which must be provided from some of the engine's total output. Turbochargers, on the other hand, convert some of the piston engine's exhaust into useful work. This energy would otherwise be wasted out the exhaust. This means that a turbocharger is a more efficient use of the heat energy obtained from the fuel than a supercharger.

In the automotive world, boost refers to the increase in pressure that is generated by the turbocharger in the intake manifold that exceeds normal atmospheric pressure. Atmospheric pressure is approximately 14.7psi or 1.0 Bar, and anything above this level is considered to be boost. The level of boost may be shown on a pressure gauge, usually in bar, psi or possibly kPa. This is representative of the extra air pressure that is achieved over what would be achieved without the forced induction. Manifold pressure should not be confused with the volume of air that a turbo can flow

It is another form of cooling that has the largest impact on fuel efficiency: charge cooling. Even with the benefits of intercooling, the total compression in the combustion chamber is greater than that in a naturally-aspirated engine. To avoid knock while still extracting maximum power from the engine, it is common practice to introduce extra fuel into the charge for the sole purpose of cooling. While this seems counterintuitive, this fuel is not burned. Instead, it absorbs and carries away heat when it changes phase from liquid mist to gas vapor. Also, because it is more dense than the other inert substance in the combustion chamber, nitrogen, it has a higher specific heat and more heat capacitance. It "holds" this heat until it is released in the exhaust stream, preventing destructive knock. This thermodynamic property allows manufacturers to achieve good power output with common pump fuel at the expense of fuel economy and emissions. The stoichiometric Air-to-Fuel ratio (A/F) for combustion of gasoline is 14.7:1. A common A/F in a turbocharged engine while under full design boost is approximately 12:1. Richer mixtures are sometimes run when the design of the system has flaws in it such as a catalytic converter which has limited endurance of high exhaust temperatures or the engine has a compression ratio that is too high for efficient operation with the fuel given. An engine that requires an overly rich fuel mixture is an indication of a poorly engineered turbo system.

Turbochargers also provide more direct fuel savings.......

[resago]

exactly. you should read that. under full boost, it is running richer than a NA engine anyway.

the last sentence is taken out of context. post what comes before and after it.

[Riddler250]

It is another form of cooling that has the largest impact on fuel efficiency: charge cooling. Even with the benefits of intercooling, the total compression in the combustion chamber is greater than that in a naturally-aspirated engine. To avoid knock while still extracting maximum power from the engine, it is common practice to introduce extra fuel into the charge for the sole purpose of cooling. While this seems counterintuitive, this fuel is not burned. Instead, it absorbs and carries away heat when it changes phase from liquid mist to gas vapor. Also, because it is more dense than the other inert substance in the combustion chamber, nitrogen, it has a higher specific heat and more heat capacitance. It "holds" this heat until it is released in the exhaust stream, preventing destructive knock. This thermodynamic property allows manufacturers to achieve good power output with common pump fuel at the expense of fuel economy and emissions. The common stoichiometric Air-to-Fuel ratio (A/F) for combustion of gasoline is 14.7:1. A common A/F in a turbocharged engine while under full design boost is approximately 12:1. Richer mixtures are sometimes run when the design of the system has flaws in it such as a catalytic converter which has limited endurance of high exhaust temperatures or the engine has a compression ratio that is too high for efficient operation with the fuel given. An engine that requires an overly rich fuel mixture is an indication of a poorly engineered turbo system.

Turbochargers also provide more direct fuel savings.......

it states that you add extra fuel... granted it is not burned but is used in cooling.

it also says that it allows for more power output at the expense of fuel economy and emmisions.

towards the bottom it outlines common a/f ratios comparing a standard engine and a turbo charged engine. 14.1/1 - 12/1 is a richer burn(more fuel being burnt

[Scooterdog]

exactly. you should read that. under full boost, it is running richer than a NA engine anyway.

the last sentence is taken out of context. post what comes before and after it.

Tell you what, call any auto manufacture today, do it, don't sit here and play big shot, ask them, they will tell you I'm right. where did you go to school?

[Riddler250]

Tell you what, call any auto manufacture today, do it, don't sit here and play big shot, ask them, they will tell you I'm right. where did you go to school?

I wasnt attacking you. I was more or else asking. the article you posted differs from what you have been saying or maybe i just mis-understood it. im back to trying to atleast to do something productive

[Scooterdog]

I wasnt attacking you. I was more or else asking. the article you posted differs from what you have been saying or maybe i just mis-understood it. im back to trying to atleast to do something productive

They are talking about full boost. I already explained, you will lower your mpg if you stick your foot to the floor. Once you are going, you will increase your mpg. Volvo explains this on their website.

If you were burning more gas, then why do Turbo engines, HAVE LOWER EMISSIONS and INCREASE MILAGE? Look at the sticker on a window, compair.

[Riddler250]

They are talking about full boost. I already explained, you will lower your mpg if you stick your foot to the floor. Once you are going, you will increase your mpg. Volvo explains this on their website.
can you post the link to this explanation? i would love to read it

[Scooterdog]

Lets look what they have to say from a hybrid car's standpoint:



Published February 4, 2008

One of the reasons hybrids get good gas mileage is that they allow engineers to use a smaller engine without losing too much performance. The Camry Hybrid, for example, is peppy despite its modest 2.4-liter four-cylinder powerplant. But there are other ways to downsize, and as automakers decide how to meet stricter fuel-efficiency goals, they’re exploring all their options. So it’s no surprise that turbocharged engines are becoming fashionable again.

Turbos work by compressing the air that goes into an engine. Squeezing more air into the cylinder generates more power without making the engine bigger, so a turbocharged V6 may provide as much—or more—power than a conventional V8. But compressing the incoming air, a process car guys call “forced induction,” requires energy. Turbos get that energy from an unlikely source: the car’s exhaust. As hot exhaust gases from the engine race toward the tailpipe, they spin a small impeller that drives the turbo. The result is a little bit like regenerative braking in a hybrid: the turbo recycles some energy that would normally be wasted.
Never driven a turbocharged car? You probably will soon. BMW began turbocharging a few of its mainstream U.S. offerings this year, and other automakers are following suit. General Motors is planning to bring a new turbocharged four-cylinder to the U.S, next year, potentially for use in the Chevrolet Cobalt and Saturn Astra. At 1.4 liters, the engine would be the smallest engine G.M. has offered here in almost 15 years.

Ford has also announced plans to offer turbocharged engines. Ford’s “EcoBoost” technology—a combination of direct injection and turbocharging—yields as much as a 20 percent increase in fuel economy, and is slated to appear on as many as a half-million vehicles during the next five years.
Turbos are a no-brainer for automakers. The technology is mature and cheap—about $250 - $500 per vehicle. And it’s relatively easy to integrate into existing powertrains. That means that during the next few years, we’re likely to see more turbocharged engines than hybrid powertrains. Overall, that should mean our cars use less fuel, which is a good thing. But it remains to be seen whether automakers will view near-term technologies like turbocharging as “good enough” to meet new fuel economy regulations, or whether they will remain committed to investing in longer-term options like hybrids, plug-in hybrids and range-extended electric vehicles that yield much greater fuel savings.

[Scooterdog]

Wanna argue about it now? :D

Here's the link: http://www.hybridcars.com/news/turbocharging-new-hybrid.html

[Scooterdog]

guess not :cool:

[Riddler250]

Wanna argue about it now? :D

Here's the link: http://www.hybridcars.com/news/turbocharging-new-hybrid.html

it basically said that new fords will see a 20% increase in mpg. But it fails to say where the comparison comes from. if you put a turbo charger on a 4 banger you might get as much power as a 6 with a very good possibility to have at least 20% better fuel efficiency. show me something that shows a car with a turbo gets better fuel economy than the same car with the same engine without a turbo

[Scooterdog]

it basically said that new fords will see a 20% increase in mpg. But it fails to say where the comparison comes from. if you put a turbo charger on a 4 banger you might get as much power as a 6 with a very good possibility to have at least 20% better fuel efficiency. show me something that shows a car with a turbo gets better fuel economy than the same car with the same engine without a turbo


I already have, more than once, you just can't comprehend it. (You just making an ass out of yourself) Its a simple fact, and anyone with even a LITTLE automotive education knows it. If you want raw power, bold on a BLOWER, you want the best of both worlds(HP + MPG) add that turbo.

I suppose there is a "Ford Conspiracy", where they are putting on the Turbo, to decrease mpg, in cohersion with the "Big Oil". :rolleyes:

Let me give you a hint: 12.1/1 is what you want, a turbo provides that. The Federal Government Mandates 14.7/1, not the automaker.

Dodge says I'm right, Ford, Hybrid Car makers, Volvo, Sabaru. Just how many more do you need?

[Riddler250]

They put smaller engines in to increase mpg, put turbos in to compensate for low hp

[Scooterdog]

They put smaller engines in to increase mpg, put turbos in to compensate for low hp

Ya just don't get it do ya? :p

[Scooterdog]

Lets see what the experts say over at Squires Turbo:


Remote-Mounted Turbos

Turbo systems use flow and exhaust pressure instead of a belt driven pulley and are therefore more efficient at generating horsepower and torque.

Boost is easily adjustable with an electronic switch to match your performance needs. No pulleys or belt changes are required.

Turbo systems are quieter when driving around town. Turbo noise isn't heard unless the boost is on.

Turbo systems can increase gas mileage compared to stock mpg numbers because they make the engine more efficient and don't take power from the engine to make power.

Turbo systems are more reliable than belt-driven superchargers because there are fewer mechanical and moving parts.

Remote mounted turbo systems leave more room under the hood making it easier to perform normal engine maintenance.
Remote mounted turbo systems do not increase under the hood temperatures.

Remote mounted turbo systems run cooler because the exhaust coming in is cooler and the tubing coming from the turbo cools the boost charge before it gets to the intake manifold.

Ouch!(These guys probably don't know either hu?)

[resago]

they sell turbos.
power is not free. the turbo does put a restriction in the exhaust and the pistons feel it during the exhaust stroke.
12:1 A/F ratio. you see that A, thats air. for every 12 parts air, there would be 1 part fuel.as apposed to 14:1.
so if you have 84 parts air, in a 12:1 ratio, you have 7 parts fuel.
in a 14:1 ratio, you have 6 parts fuel.

6<7

[Scooterdog]

they sell turbos.
power is not free. the turbo does put a restriction in the exhaust and the pistons feel it during the exhaust stroke.
12:1 A/F ratio. you see that A, thats air. for every 12 parts air, there would be 1 part fuel.as apposed to 14:1.
so if you have 84 parts air, in a 12:1 ratio, you have 7 parts fuel.
in a 14:1 ratio, you have 6 parts fuel.

6<7

Argue all you want, you're just making yourself look even dumber. LOL You will never find anything but poppycock on a turbo robbing you of power(It uses exhaust gas's, the engine feels notihing because of how the exhaust flows in the turbo, that's one of the most outragouse comments I've read so far).

Actually, if you could read, you would see you're using otherwise WASTED energy. Heat=Energy. Why waste it when you can increase HP and MPG?

On a side note: STS call's them Squires Turbo Systems. Wonder why? I can't wait for this response

[resago]

They put smaller engines in to increase mpg, put turbos in to compensate for low hp

exactly right.

[Painless]

I wish I had a dollar for every ounce of testosterone in this thread, I wouldn't need an HHO unit.

[resago]

furthermore, the faster you try and spin the turbo given a constant volume of exhaust, the more restriction will be present because of the size and pitch of the vanes necessary for said increase.

again, I'm stating how it works.Period. I'll not be drawn into another argument.

I believe I've covered everything here.

oh, the turbo is able to respond to load because when the engine starts to bog down(going up a hill for instance) you naturally press down on the gas pedal and allow more air/fuel into the cylinder which creates more exhaust which spins the turbo faster. notice the RPMs don't change here.

that's the fundamental difference between a supercharger and turbo. Superchargers only produce boost in correlation to RPM.

[Scooterdog]

http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-use-twin-turbos-to-improve-fuel-economy.html

"the twin-turbo technology will deliver diesel-like mileage, which translates to roughly 30 percent better fuel economy than naturally aspirated engines."

Gee, adding two turbos, just dragin that engine down, kills your mileage. Those dummies over at Ford should have known better. :rolleyes:

The proof is in the pudding buddy. (I'd feel pretty stupid at this point if I were you resago)

Ya still don't get it do ya?

[resago]

a twin turbo 1.6L would be quite impressive. I'd rather have them on a diesel though.

[Scooterdog]

a twin turbo 1.6L would be quite impressive. I'd rather have them on a diesel though.

They are going to do it to 4, 6, and 8 cylinder engines, with roughly 30% improvment to mpg over non turbo'd engines. You have a really hard time with reading and comprehention skill don't you?

[precaster1@msn.com]

Them are some impressive credentials resagio, HAHAHAHAHA your too funny!

[Cadillac]

Scooterdog your reference on the fact that turbos increase fuel economy is from someone that sells turbocharging systems. Isn't that why you have a problem with HHO in the first place. People selling stuff that you "just know" will not increase fuel economy. Hypocrisy runs deep with you my friend.

[Bill Bailey]

Getting back to the subject of this thread for just a moment ,:p and heaven
forbid That I interrupt a good argument , But some of the 3'000 people reading this thread would like something constructive to think about.

The ( very old ) idea of a venturi in the intake air stream as a vacuum
( low pressure ) point for the introduction of our HHO is still valid.

Weather or not you agree with with the "principal" of the restriction ,( god
forbid you try it before caning it ) is still sound. For Diesel's as well as
petrol motors.

Now this brings up a whole lot of objections, Lets see if we can deal with a few hear.
#1 I don't want a restriction to the air flow into my diesel or petrol motor.
A. OK, your choice, BUT a venturi with only a small restriction
will NOT cause any loss of air to the motor as it will only
accelerate and then decelerate , and the vacuum ( low
pressure ) it creates is only present in the tube inserted into
the smalest part .

#2 I don't want a high vacuum in my hho cell.

A. No problems. If you make a venturi with only a small
restriction , you will only get a very small amount of low
pressure in your cell. This is desirable for two reasons.

First , any leaks in your cell will be" LEAKS INTO YOUR
CELL and not out of it."

Second, Too great a low pressure in the cell will make
the liquid boil off, This is a very strange reaction and hard
to believe unless you have seen it happen your self. The
liquid will actually boil at room tempriture if the pressure is
low enough

So some vacuum ( low presure ) in the cell is a good thing and although
it wont hake the production of hho any greater, you will know that every
thing you do make is being delivered to the right spot in the system.:D


Venturi animation and calculation for the DIY design, in case you are
thinking of building one

http://home. earthlink. net/~mmc1919/ venturi.html

I hopes this helps those who are undisided and those who are sick of the argument over the benefits or the lack of , in turbos.

Enjoy.

[Scooterdog]

Scooterdog your reference on the fact that turbos increase fuel economy is from someone that sells turbocharging systems. Isn't that why you have a problem with HHO in the first place. People selling stuff that you "just know" will not increase fuel economy. Hypocrisy runs deep with you my friend.

I don't "just know", I have a degree in Automotive Technology. It is FACT, and anyone who says different is just being stupid. Get stupid on your own time, not mine.

The reason people can't understand it, is because they are being "taught" wrong from the "hho experts" on how things work.

[Roland Jacques]

Hi Bill, glad you’re back. I understand the benefits of the low pressure to minimize HHO leaks. I don’t understand the point of making a more elaborate type of venturi to get there. I believe all we need is a slight differential of pressure, 2-6 Inches of water is more than enough to eliminate any HHO leaks. Just putting a hose at a 91 degree plus angle in a fast air steam should create more vacuum than that.

(Just take your hose from your inlet connection put it in a glass of water and see how high it sucks the water. I'll be confirming this myself shortly)

[Roland Jacques]

Quick tests

93 Lincoln Town car

Test # 1
Restricting air right in front of the MAF sensor
No HHO/HOD
3.25" round opening = 8.29 SQ"
Closed to
1.5" square = 2.25 SQ"
= 73% closed

Drove 20 miles
Before 16.2 mpg average
After 11.1 mpg

Loss 32%

The problem with restricting air right in front of the MAF sensor, is that I am mainly just redirecting the air flow. So I think the MAF is actually seeing higher velocity of air instead of less



Test# 2

93 Lincoln Town car

restricting the air 16” after the MAF sensor before TB
No HHO/HOD
Approximately
= 70% closed

Drove 24 miles
Before 16.2 mpg average
After 18.4 mpg

Gain 14%

Note Durring Test #2 the check engine light came on.



From this can I conclude that we are just basically just fooling the MAF sensor?

[jimbo40]

Well, since my scangauge shows no improvement in MPG and a lack of power with a restricted air flow, the next test will be to find a 12 volt blower.

Install the blower in the air box and check for power and MPG, because the ECU will add more fuel to compensate for the air.

This will be a test to see if it works the other way, I believe this way will be better for the engine as it will be able to produce more power per revolution.

Scooterdog is totally right if we are talking power and MPG.
But he is not considering 1 part of the equation which changes everything,
HHO.

And that's what brings the restriction into play, it's to make the ECU squirt that injector just a little bit less.

When you restrict, the mass air flow sensor says to the ECU there is X amount of air coming in.

The ECU looks at the throttle position sensor and say OK you are open at 20 Deg. but I can't get much air

Then it checks the o2 sensor for RICH-NORMAL-LEAN and adjust the injector pulse to try to maintain it's happy mixture of 14.7 to 1

But the ECU know how much air should be coming in at a 20 deg. TPS angle
and when it doesnt' get it , it says OK, I must be in the mountains or somewhere high where the air is thin so I better back off the fuel in order to keep my happy ratio of 14.7 to 1. It backs down the injector pulse, checks the o2 sensor for conformation and adjusts accordingly and when if find it's 14.7 to 1 it says bingo here it is.

Now when you throw in HHO to the mix and it cleans up your exhaust streem by burning all your fuel in the combustion process and your effiencey goes a % higher, the o2 sensor say OPPS this is way to clear of an exhaust streem, my ratio must not be 14.7 to 1 any more because if it where I would not be this clean! So it dumps in a little more fuel to dirty up the exhaust to where its happy again, and we have no benefit of our HHO in fuel savings.

Thats where the restriction come in to save the day or not.
It makes the ECU think it's at a higher altitude so the injectors squirt a little less, but if you add HHO it will still clean up the mixture and the ECU will still add the extra fuel, only it will add the amount of fuel for the altitude it thinks you are at due to the restriction. and that should be less then it would normally add, there by giveing you the savings in fuel you where looking for in the first place.

However now you have a loss of power and performance so what have you gained?

[Scooterdog]

Quick tests

93 Lincoln Town car

Test # 1
Restricting air right in front of the MAF sensor
No HHO/HOD
3.25" round opening = 8.29 SQ"
Closed to
1.5" square = 2.25 SQ"
= 73% closed

Drove 20 miles
Before 16.2 mpg average
After 11.1 mpg

The problem with restricting air right in front of the MAF sensor, is that I am mainly just redirecting the air flow. So I think the MAF is actually seeing higher velocity of air instead of less

Test# 2
93 Lincoln Town car

Test # 1
restricting the air 16” after the MAF sensor before TB
No HHO/HOD
Approximately
= 70% closed

Drove 24 miles
Before 16.2 mpg average
After 18.4 mpg

From this can I conclude that we are just basically just fooling the MAF sensor?[/QUOTE]

No, it just proves that you have not driven enough to determin anything. Restricting air to the engine will decrease mpg.

You have to run it on a dyno to see what you're actually getting. Driving "24 miles" doesn't tell you jack.

(the 16.2mpg before is a dead give away that the testing being done is completely inaccurate)

[QUOTE]A normal everyday driver can't accurately measure the MPG of their car. Each tank of gas might vary the MPG by as much as 20%, based on the time of day, road conditions, etc.,

Quoting Frank, Professor of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering at the University of California, Davis


"I saw one 'test' that showed a driver filling up the tank, driving 20 miles and then stopping to top off the tank. You can't measure anything this way because the air in the tank could easily be 100% off."

[Roland Jacques]

Dog you are not bringing anything to this conversation with these little snipits, What do you mean by this?
16.2 is the daily average MPG of this Towncar "the before MPG"


.

(the 16.2mpg before is a dead give away that the testing being done is completely inaccurate)


I got 2 completely different results from 2 quick tests. Which is based on 2 completely defferent placements of the air restiction.

[Scooterdog]

Dog you are not bringing anything to this conversation with these little snipits, What do you mean by this?
16.2 is the daily average MPG of this Towncar "the before MPG"



I got 2 completely different results from 2 quick tests. Which is based on 2 completely defferent placements of the air restiction.

And you claim to have gotten, right down the the tenths, the same exact mileage twice in 40 miles of testing? I'm not buying it, smoke and mirrors.

[Roland Jacques]

One more time Dog

The average mileage the car gets, is 16.2. Day in & day out 16.2 (I called this "the before mileage")

It’s a reference point. That’s all.

The exact MPG number, is not that important at this point in testing IMO. I was just trying to determine whether the air restriction placement makes a difference to the MPG. IT DOES

I also established for myself at least, that restricting the air Can effect MPG in both directions.

[precaster1@msn.com]

Scooter i think you should have ( HHO WORKS)tatooed in reverse on your forehead so you might come around when you see it every day. Also (ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING) wouldn't hurt either.

[jimbo40]

Scooter i think you should have ( HHO WORKS) in reverse on your forehead so you might come around when you see it every day. Also (ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING) wouldn't hurt either.

So far you guy aren't even talking HHO, this thread is all about bickering.
and air restriction.

I have found the perfect test area that is consistant and have spent a crapload of time testing on it and trying different restriction, and I get no increase in MPG that is worth mention, but I do get a sluggish truck.
who wants to make that trade off when the thing can't get out of it's own way, not me.

To trick the MAF and make it work you can't just cold hard block it 70,80,90%
You should use a damper that will open as you call for more throttle.
If I so much as hold my finger 1/2inch in front of my MAF it stalls my engine and if I blow in it's direction it changes my RPM.
Do I think this theiry can work? Yes! is a 70% restriction the way, No.
Is a little backpressure in the air box useing a damper to make the MAF think it climbed 2000ft the way? That's what I'm saying YES to.
So far ScooterDod is the only one really adding anything here whether you like what he or she is saying or not.

Does anyone want to try some dialog and discussion? That usually works pretty good in a forum

[precaster1@msn.com]

If he told us how to (HELP) it work with a good attitude i am more than willing to learn what he might have to offer . So show us with your learning how to do it, scoot. Ready- set- go!

[resago]

I think our MPG goals can be better achieved by ecu optimization, rather than air restriction.
I think a more useful mutation of this would be to dampen the throttle input. most MPG is lost during acceleration.

now in the case of adding HHO. since we are adding pure H2 and O2, you can find your flow and see what the equivilant atmosphere gas flow would be. come up with a percentage and block by that much only.

Just had another thought. Has anyone add a booster to a turbo or supercharged car?
Last time I looked at the workings (program) of an ECU was in the 90's. ECU's had to have a different program to operate a forced induction engine. that may have changed. I was just wondering if the computer would handle it better.

[precaster1@msn.com]

It seems to me its best to block it on the air filter instead of by the sensors. I don't have any room there anyway. I'm gonna try it.

[hg2]

Too bad about all the bickering and backstabing on this site..............:(

My question: Has anyone found evidence the listing made by "Bill Bailey" on page 5, really worked or just another come-one. Very curious. I have just about everything made (generator, bubbler, current regulated PWM by Zero, Air-fuel mix led monitor, and Efie w/oxy extenders) but this sounded better.
Any help appreciated but go easy, I'm kinda fragile ;)
This is something that was tried by members more than a year ago on another hho forum.A member came up with the same idea and more than a dozen people tried various means of restriction,vehicles and ammounts of hho from none to high lpms.All had the same results,no increase in mpg,most had a decrease of several mpg.
I'm in no way trying to debunk bill bailleys findings or results,his use of a venturi may very well make a difference.But until a multitude of tests with different vehicles,hho ammounts and restictions are completed,there is no way for certain we can be sure if it actually does in fact increase mpg.
If people here want to take the time to do individual testing, it will bring conclusions to whether or not this method works.

[Bill Bailey]

I have found the perfect test area that is consistent and have spent a crap load of time testing on it and trying different restriction, and I get no increase in MPG that is worth mention, but I do get a sluggish truck.
who wants to make that trade off when the thing can't get out of it's own way, not me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Jimbo. Great to see you having a go. Let my ask you a few questions
please mate. What was the smallest % you went down to .

50% --- 45%-- ???? where did you stop when you were giving it more air.?

It really does seam to be wildly different on a lot of cars.
A friend of mine in Canada closed his up by 80%, But when I tried the same thing it was useless. Now I am at about 60%-- 57% and it runs like a dream.

I did a 200 Kl = 120 Mile run up the highway 2 days ago and I could
Just feel the edge of the new power curve. It was like the start of a flat spot where the car was slow it accelerate. But I was doing 120 Kl at the time and as it is illegal to drive at more than 110 Kl in Australia I was happy with the test.

BUT?????? If I had felt this flat aria at say 80 Kl I would have trimmed away some of the plate . ( NO MATER WHAT THE PERSENTAGE WAS )

Yes there will be a trade off between economy and horse power.
But it is NOT LINEAR. You may lose 10 or 15% of the top ,but this wont
affect its handling in the lower range. If it does, then you fave gone to far. Just open it up till it feels normal and then reset the computer and
test it over a week of running around as you would normally do.

At the end of the week Fill it up again and this will be the story...

A lot of people are sergesting this is some sort of scom , But it is a
genuine theory that if you restrict some of the air reaching the motor
that the computer will see this as an altitude related event and so
lower the fuel to meet the ratio it is programed for.

If we go to fare ..... It will Handel like **** ....But there is a spot on your car where it will work. Best of luck.

As to the hho ?????? I think we have all seen what happens when we
first attach a cell. Good results at first , and then the gradual slide
into the same result or worse as time goes bye.

That's when we start buying all the enhancers. I am not shore what will happen to this scenario when we introduce hho as well as the restriction
BUT i think it is worth a try . Don'T you.

[jimbo40]

Hi Bill,

I didn't do actual square inch measurements like you did but I would say iv'e tried 70-90%.

After my rant yesterday I thought I should practice what I preach. I made the plexie glas damper for my AIR BOX intake.

It is a plexi glass flap that covers the intake tube 98% when you start the engine air pulls it open. The more air you call for the more it opens.
It took less time to make then the restriction process we have been trying.

From the first test there have been good results.
For 1 that lack of power is gone.
2 on my test lap I got my highest MPG yet 24.5
However these tests where hurried so the data is still inconclusive, but the big deal for me is no lack of power.

This was a 13.2-13.7 MPG toyota tundra
With HHO and o2 extenders it's 14.9-15.5.
I'm shooting to hit 16.5 MPG that's what my Sequoia get and it has the same engine and tyre size. I wonder why it gets so much better
Is it the truck VS SUV body style?

[BoyntonStu]

Hi Bill,

I didn't do actual square inch measurements like you did but I would say iv'e tried 70-90%.

After my rant yesterday I thought I should practice what I preach. I made the plexie glas damper for my AIR BOX intake.

It is a plexi glass flap that covers the intake tube 98% when you start the engine air pulls it open. The more air you call for the more it opens.
It took less time to make then the restriction process we have been trying.

From the first test there have been good results.
For 1 that lack of power is gone.
2 on my test lap I got my highest MPG yet 24.5
However these tests where hurried so the data is still inconclusive, but the big deal for me is no lack of power.

This was a 13.2-13.7 MPG toyota tundra
With HHO and o2 extenders it's 14.9-15.5.
I'm shooting to hit 16.5 MPG that's what my Sequoia get and it has the same engine and tyre size. I wonder why it gets so much better
Is it the truck VS SUV body style?

Good job!

The spring rate controls the air.

There are many options in your system for controlling the air flow vs demand.

Thanks for sharing.

BoyntonStu

P.S A photo would be nice.

.

[atfab]

Well now, I've been lurking at this site and thread for a few days now. It seems to me that restricting the air intake is the same thing many have tried with so-called MAP adjusters.

I have been experimenting with my IAT, ECT and MAP for about 6 months now, after about 6 months of reasearch. I have a very regular commute over varied terrain and traffic conditions. I use an Autoxray scanner and monitor all my sensors and fuel trims while driving. My HHO cell is in it's final version but not installed. I also have a COSMllA 02 sensor enhancer ready to go in.

Bottom line, with every thing I have tried to date, I can only attribute, at the most, a possible 1 MPG with all I have done. The MAP sensor tweek did more damage than good.

Actually, a lightly loaded disk in the intake sounds to be a good substiute for the MAP tweek. It would be more responsive to power needs while more restrictive at low speed and trailing throttle conditions that seem to run my fuel trims more positive.

I have had the truck in my mechanic's huge scanner and all parameters are well within normal.

I just ran out and put about a 30% duct tape block in my intake, at the air cleaner's outlet. I'll report back on my impressions tonight, but won't have enough miles for a MPG check for a week. Right now the truck has been back to stock for a month, except for the tape today, I have been getting the EPA highway mileage rating of 26 MPG for a month now just by driving gently.

'99 S-10 pickup, 2.2L, 4 cyl, automatic, shortbed with an alum cap, 92K miles

[solo33]

Hi jimbo40. By all means a photo or drawing would be totally cool! :D
Thanks.

[jimbo40]

Here it is, it's clear plexi
if I want more back pressure I can just add more weight

[atfab]

Well my 55 mile trip home seemed to go well.

My scanner reads out trims in percents +/-.

Short term fuel trims seemed to be slightly wider in general neg. to pos. But on trailing throttle it was about 2% lower and I saw many short transitions of 5 to 7% lower.

Long term was decidedly more neg. on the average. In the most important (to me) 40 to 55 MPH range I saw as much as 3% more neg. and at 60 about 1.5% lower. I had quite a few transitions at all speeds as much as 5% more neg. Better than I have seen before.

At many times I had ST and LTs that equaled 10% + lower.

Driveability seemed normal at all speeds.

The MPG will tell this coming week end. My MAP experiments had already proved lower is not always better. I also noticed my timing advance seemed to be a deg. or 2 lower.

atfab

[atfab]

Nice job Jimbo40, My inlet is vertical and I have some 1/4" plexi, might be too heavy but worth a try. Could always drill some holes.

atfab

[solo33]

Thanks, jimbo40, great photos. :D I like 'em!

[Bill Bailey]

Good Stuff Jimbo.
I knew you could get it to work for you.
I did consider the flap idea, but got worried about weather the computer would be able to keep up with the ever changing air mass readings and go into LIMP HOME MODE , Which is basically open circuit for the injectors and very fuel hungry.

Until somebody tries it and wins or fails we will never know.

At present I still think ( perhaps incorrectly ) that a fixed restriction
( as long as it is the right size ) is the simplest-and perhaps the most economical, as it cant go back to wide open air mix.

But time and input will tell.

Finding the % aria of a circle was quite a job for me until I realised that
if I draw a circle and draw a line through it in the center from left to right, then both halves are 50%.
Now if I draw a line through my circle through the middle from top to bottom , that gives me 4 segments all of which are 25%.

Or you can do it using a simple protractor .
There are 360 degrees in a circle so if we divide the amount of degrees
by 10 , 360_._ 10 = 36 . then we can say that each PIE shaped wedge = 36 degrees wide , represents 10% of our restriction and 10 of them will equal the whole PIE. = CIRCLE.

So now we can calculate 30%- 40% - 50% - 60% - 70% - What ever.

Like I said ......If you can feel it ------ you have gone to far.

A friend if mine in Malaysia was having a go at this after I suggested it to him, So later he told me it works great, this is how he did it and he had me roaring with laughter all day.

He had one of his WORKERS sit in the car with his foot on the accelerator
with the taco reading 3'000 rpm while he stuffed cotton waste down the tube,:eek: and when the worker said the revs wear dropping he dragged some back out till the revs came back to 3'000.:o

I think you would call this crude but effective. lol lol

I hope he stuffed a piece of screen in first . :D

[solo33]

I think "pi times r times r times .25" should give you the correct size hole, if you want to reduce the opening down to 25%.

[redneckgearhead34]

So this doesnt apply to vehicles without MAP sensors?

Cant believe this just pooped in my head

[solo33]

http://www.jamesonmedical.com/pages/liter_meter.htm

Check this out................ I looked for some time for these OFF E-bay.;)

[HiTechRedNeck73]

http://www.jamesonmedical.com/pages/liter_meter.htm

Check this out................ I looked for some time for these OFF E-bay.;)

those are calibrated for oxygen, not hydrogen... they will not be accurate...

[Roland Jacques]

those are calibrated for oxygen, not hydrogen... they will not be accurate...


Those are calibrated for Gases, a LPM is a LPM.
The only thing that changes that is pressure. ( they are designed to bleed into atmospheric pressure with no back pressure to speak of).

So it will work for HHO, air, O2....

Those types of flow meters are not very accurate FWIW ok for a referance but thats about it IMO

[HiTechRedNeck73]

Those are calibrated for Gases, a LPM is a LPM.
The only thing that changes that is pressure. ( they are designed to bleed into atmospheric pressure with no back pressure to speak of).

So it will work for HHO, air, O2....

Those types of flow meters are not very accurate FWIW ok for a referance but thats about it IMO

it's my understanding that the ball inside the meter is weighted and designed for the gas that it measures... oxygen and hydrogen are different weights, so it would stand to reason that if you ran a hydrogen/oxygen mix then it would show lower than normal, and if you ran just hydrogen it would be even worse...

is this right or wrong?

I'd like to understand this...

[redneckgearhead34]

I just finished my second tank of gas with a 50% restriction on my intake. I got 20mpg that is a 2mpg drop from my normal 22mpg. Any reason why it isnt working for me?

[atfab]

redneckgearhead34, Try again at 25% restriction. Some times a little is a lot.

[redneckgearhead34]

redneckgearhead34, Try again at 25% restriction. Some times a little is a lot.

10-4 I never thought of that. I dont have a map sensor, does this make a difference?

[Roland Jacques]

Yes i understand that H2 is 14 Xs or so lighter than air. So i thnk i see your point.

The way i was thinking is the wieght of the ball, is reacting to gavity not the gases. The ball wieghts the same whether it in a container of H2 or O2. I was wrong. :o


Turns out there is a correction factor to use when measuring HHO.

It is __________ x 1.5542 = so if the HHO reads 2 LPM it is actually (2 x 1.5542= ) 3.1084

[atfab]

redneckgearhead34, it might not, I suspect you have a single point injector in what looks like a carb, Correct me if I'm wrong. it might have a TPS and that will control the injector. Good luck, those can be a blessing or a SOB. Not for tinkering with by the uninformed.

Roland That sounds about right, but it's been 20+ years since I fooled with lab flow gauges.

I pulled out my duct tape restrictor and made one from a tin mason jar lid. It's in the dirty side of the air cleaner, like Jimbo40's, results pending.

[atfab]

redneckgearhead34, I didn't find a listing on a "hardbody" but I did find 2.4L pickup

"On your 1994 Nissan/Datsun Truck Pickup 2WD 2.4L SFI , the Mass Air Flow Sensor is located:

Under hood, center, upper engine area, end of air intake hose, mounted on throttle unit"

[solo33]

If you're going to do a term paper for a scientific college HHO class, you're right. If instead you want a constant running indicator, that you can watch
while you are adjusting your generator, PWM, etc, you're wrong...they are perfect. I like 'em. :D

[HiTechRedNeck73]

Yes i understand that H2 is 14 Xs or so lighter than air. So i thnk i see your point.

The way i was thinking is the wieght of the ball, is reacting to gavity not the gases. The ball wieghts the same whether it in a container of H2 or O2. I was wrong. :o


Turns out there is a correction factor to use when measuring HHO.

It is __________ x 1.5542 = so if the HHO reads 2 LPM it is actually (2 x 1.5542= ) 3.1084

I have (2) questions...

1. where did you find that conversion? I've been looking for that for some time...

2. is that conversion for HHO or just hydrogen? Is there one for hydrogen by itself? I plan to seperate the gases to reduce o2 in the engine...

thanks
Dave

[Roland Jacques]

I have (2) questions...

1. where did you find that conversion? I've been looking for that for some time...

2. is that conversion for HHO or just hydrogen? Is there one for hydrogen by itself? I plan to seperate the gases to reduce o2 in the engine...

thanks
Dave

When It dawned on me that the gases had different dencitys I called and spoke with a tech at dwyer Instruments. Apparently lots of other folks have been asking them about measuing HHO also, they all ready had i worked out.

PS. they have good meters and fair prices http://www.dwyer-inst.com/Products/Product.cfm?Group_ID=42

Im not to sure about the O2 in HHO causing sensor issues... but thats another topic

[HiTechRedNeck73]

When It dawned on me that the gases had different dencitys I called and spoke with a tech at dwyer Instruments. Apparently lots of other folks have been asking them about measuing HHO also, they all ready had i worked out.

PS. they have good meters and fair prices http://www.dwyer-inst.com/Products/Product.cfm?Group_ID=42

Im not to sure about the O2 in HHO causing sensor issues... but thats another topic

thanks a bunch... I found formulas on their website that can correct for any gas... here is a link... the formulas are at the bottom of the page....

http://www.dwyer-inst.com/Products/FlowmeterCurves.cfm

[solo33]

General question. I've been seeing postings about "dry cells." Has anyone here played around with one? Looks to me like some advantages and some disadvantages. I wonder if some metallic road debrie chucked into the open cell by a tire or other, could short it out converting into a hydrogen bomb :eek: ?
Comments would be welcomed. I have my H-gen built into into a glass
jar, haven't uinstalled yet. I'm still waiting for more info on the "restriction
method. Thanks, Ron.

[Bill Bailey]

Hi Solo 33
I have asked myself the same Question many times in the last couple of
months , Because the cells that I make are all multi tube S/S designs
which all require the outer tube to be the ANODE and therefore Positive.

I originally thought that a spark on the outer surface would be replicated inside the cell , with a poor outcome for all concerned.:eek: But no,
I was mistaken. :o In some experiments I have made, it would appear that
what ever happens outside the cell wont travel into the cell, and vice versa.

Pleas don't ask me to explain why this is so, as I am just glad that this is the case. :D

I hope this helps . Why dont you catch Stu Libermans thread on the
Ameba cell he is runing in this forum.
It looks like a winner.

[solo33]

Well I think the only defence is to put an ammeter in series with your generator and measure the maxium current under full load when your generator is the hottest it gets (also maximim current) and fuse the generator just over (maybe 5 amps more) than that current. That's better than no protection. Again though, the *Dry Cell*, not really dry, it has liquid inside, and has both positive and negative plates exposed :eek: You could forseeably drop your favorite cresent wrench and short it out :eek: , unless there is a cover for it I haven't seen. I was just curious how well they worked in comparison to the standard cell, most of us use. Thanks.

[solo33]

Hey Bill Bailey, I'm curious, Is the car you taped up, have a carb, throttle body, or full FI? Also, have you been fooling around with the system on any other vehicle since?

[Bill Bailey]

Hey Bill Bailey, I'm curious, Is the car you taped up, have a carb, throttle body, or full FI? Also, have you been fooling around with the system on any other vehicle since?

This car is full FI . My only other car is a 1983 truck :D with a carby, so
it is useless for this test .

The appealing mileage ( 4.5 kl per 1 Lt ) is the reason I started to play with
hydrogen in the first place.
It is a British Bedford converted ambulance which weighs 3.5 ton, handles like a Hippo on a mud bank and has the wind resistance of a small house.

But we love it and say it gives us smiles per gallon , not miles per gallon.

It's hho cell is a 4" PVC inverted T with a set of 3 multi 6" s/s tubes that
I market as a Quantum Genie. I am not pushing it hard , only 2 flat tea spoons of caustic Per Lt. At that level it draws 20 amps at 13.8 volts
and produces the obligatory 1 Lt per min.

You will see I am running a vaporizer ( bubbler). / cigarette filter flash arrester/ Temp. gauge / AMP gauge / .7 check valve .

Both the cell and the bubbler have SCREW TOPS, no pop offs necessary
as NOTHING will get past the arrester.

IMPROVMENT IN MILAGE ???????? I will be taking it out for a 2 week run
1,000 miles or so and hope to have some interesting figures when I get back.

[Bill Bailey]

This thread has gone awfully quite in the last few days hasn't it ?

I think one of 4 things is happening.

*1 Some people are trying the restriction idea and found it worked for them, so they have moved on to the next thing to try.
If this is you can I please ask you to shear your results, small or large.

*2 Some people have tried the restriction and found that they have lost
significant power, so they have thought , this is STUPID and instead of making a smaller restriction ( say 80% down to 50% ) they have just shrugged and moved on. If this is you can I ask you to PLEASE just try one more time but this time don't make the restriction so big. Start at 50% or 40% and try again. All cars will respond differently to different amounts of restriction in the air inlet.

*3 This group is waiting for results from the first 2 groups before they
make up there mind weather to try or not. Can I ask this group to please
have a go them self and be part of the answer to this thread.
It is not a big job and will only take a few minutes of your time.
But it may save you HEAPS.

*4 This brings us to the last group . Now this group JUST KNOWS that
this cant work , if it was this simple THEY would have thought of it themselves.
WELL ???? They would wouldn't they ?????
I would ask Thea's guise to please be patient a little longer . There will still be plenty of time to get the BOOT IN if the results are all as bad as you predict. For this surely cant work , Can it.??????? I wonder.

Anyhow I would like to thank all of you for your interest so far and wish
you success in all of your different Projects in the future.

Lyall Bailey. :D