Fuel Octane

[whear]

Hello,


I'm currently using 91 Octane Fuel, without HHO.

After I will start injecting HHO, should I stick with 91 Octane ? Or 87 will be almost as good ?

I'm thinking that HHO has a positive effect on the fuel's octane, thus increasing the rating. But I'm not sure.

Does anyone know what's the relationship between HHO injection and fuel octane ?

Thanks.



P.S. I'm driving a 2001 VW Jetta 1.8T @ 24 MPG ( city ) with 91 octane fuel. Never tried 89 or 87.

[aceras624]

higher octane fuels dont just burn better but also have mor edetergents in them to keep a cleaner engine. HHO both helps the fuel burn better AND keeps the engine cleaner but NOT by adding a detergent but rather by having a more complete burn. I guess it depends on the reason you are using higher octane to begin with. Was this your choice or VW's recomendation? you should probably use the higher octane until you get your HHO dry cell up and running and providing you gains

[whear]

Hi,

Thanks for replying :)

I'm not sure what fuel grade VW recommends, but the previous owners of the car used 91 octane fuel. So I just put the same thing, not wanting to cause any anxiety to the engine :D

All materials are now on the way.

Can't wait to put into practice all the knowledge gathered from you guys !

WOOT !

Thanks again !

[2002 SN95 GT]

higher octane fuels dont just burn better but also have mor edetergents in them to keep a cleaner engine.

the octane rating is the resistance to detonation which damages the engine,

too low of octane with lean out, knock and ping

more detergents and a cleaner fuel is false on higher octane gas, its just as clean as 87, the number is just the resistance to detonation, higher compression engines and boosted vehicles need the higher octane to prevent knocks and detonation

[Madsceintist]

To answer the question of octane rating. Higher octane burns better so it burns less fuel and the higher the octane the less the knock. Simple.

Two cars identical; #1 87 octane, #2 93 octane, # 2 will get more miles per tank than #1 because the fuel burns much better with more power which gives the need for less throttle, creating less load, in return less resistance from the engine. The offset here is the price difference in the fuel!

My Suburban runs so much better on 93 than 87 but the difference in cost doesn't warrant the use of it.

Most foreign models from Europe will recommend a higher rating of fuel as the engine both runs better and will have more power. They rate there cars horsepower with high octane fuels. Not our low grade petrol. If your car has ran on 91 octane for x number of years you will instantly notice a difference in power and performance if you drop to a lower octane fuel.

HHO doesn't "bring" the octane rating up, it helps to burn the fuel(whatever it be), at a faster rate which gives you more power with less fuel consumption. Be it as your burning less fuel with a higher ratio of power, your wasting less fuel and decreasing the hydrocarbons that are unburnt, which gives you a much "cleaner" exhaust.

[whear]

Thank you for the explanation !

So you're saying that HHO increases the flame speed of the burnt gasoline. It doesn't burn it more complete, just faster. So you get the same power for less gasoline.

And octane rating affects how complete the burn is. The higher the rating, the more complete the burn is. And it doesn't increase the speed of the burn. But it does give you the same power for less gasoline.


So they both increase efficiency, but in different manners.

[byrd9790]

all vehicles have an octane rating that differs from each engine. octane is your fuels ability to resist combustion due to compression. If your running a naturally asperated low compression engine you will require a lower octane rating vs a high compression or forced induction engine. A motor at 11:1 compression ratio is going to need a min of 94 octane and less comp will lower the neeed for higher octane. So if your car requires a octain rating 87,89,91,94,105 you never want to fall below the octane rating thats when you may have detonation issues. :)

[reggaerican]

madscientist as always loads of info thanks to you and all the others for making this site what it is...

[RustyLugNut]

madscientist as always loads of info thanks to you and all the others for making this site what it is...

A large portion of the information on this site is outright wrong. Sections have good information mixed in with poor. Pseudo science abounds.

It can be difficult to separate the useful from the useless.



Just a warning.

[Madsceintist]

A large portion of the information on this site is outright wrong. Sections have good information mixed in with poor. Pseudo science abounds.

It can be difficult to separate the useful from the useless.



Just a warning.

As with everything and anything in life or business, YOU must weed out the crap. Sometimes is difficult.

[RustyLugNut]

As with everything and anything in life or business, YOU must weed out the crap. Sometimes is difficult.

But it is a problem for those not as educated and experienced. All it takes is someone to put out a prodigious amount of posts to gain a mentor standing on the forum. Then, neophytes see the title and assume the "mentor" knows all. The new disciples walk away ready to spend time and money only to fail because the information they thought was true gospel is nothing more than opinion and anecdotal aggrandization at worst and simple luck at best.

The lack of a cannon on which to base discussion on is the greatest downfall of most open forums. This one is no different. The Laws of Thermodynamics can be thrown out if you so desire, to explain your over-unity device. If you are clever, you can mix in some good science with bad to obfuscate your true lack of understanding. And you can simply lie. There is absolutely no penalty to being a liar on this forum. Just be good and clever at it.

This is a generalization of course - there are good people doing good work, putting out good information on this forum. But how is the beginner to know?

The above discussion on octane is just an example. A part of it is correct. A large part of it is somewhat correct. And some of it is just plain wrong. Too many people think reading a Wiki is a substitute for years of education and experience. Thus, they miss the real life correction that goes along with all of that.

[Madsceintist]

But it is a problem for those not as educated and experienced. All it takes is someone to put out a prodigious amount of posts to gain a mentor standing on the forum. Then, neophytes see the title and assume the "mentor" knows all. The new disciples walk away ready to spend time and money only to fail because the information they thought was true gospel is nothing more than opinion and anecdotal aggrandization at worst and simple luck at best.

The lack of a cannon on which to base discussion on is the greatest downfall of most open forums. This one is no different. The Laws of Thermodynamics can be thrown out if you so desire, to explain your over-unity device. If you are clever, you can mix in some good science with bad to obfuscate your true lack of understanding. And you can simply lie. There is absolutely no penalty to being a liar on this forum. Just be good and clever at it.

This is a generalization of course - there are good people doing good work, putting out good information on this forum. But how is the beginner to know?

The above discussion on octane is just an example. A part of it is correct. A large part of it is somewhat correct. And some of it is just plain wrong. Too many people think reading a Wiki is a substitute for years of education and experience. Thus, they miss the real life correction that goes along with all of that.

I must agree with the majority of what you say in this instance, however you seem to want to run down some things which are proven to work! Just because you or someone else didn't get it to work for them, doesn't mean it doesn't work. This is more trial and error then anything........... I have boxes of parts, pipes, wire, fittings and many other things to prove this. However I had only one purpose. True I started off needing to reduce my fuel cost, but could NOT let go of what I knew possible. Don't call out a liar unless you can prove the opposite. I certainly hope you yourself aren't referencing myself!
I do not like wiki myself as anyone can edit it at anytime.
I am a mechanic, a true mechanic. Not a parts changer, or back yard buddy. I'm a perfectionist, sometimes unfortunately for my customers!
As for the laws of thermodynamics, I haven't studied them enough to throw them out! I know when I put voltage to water, I get Hydrogen. HHO as its called. I know when I put it in a container and detonate it, that it gives me more power then gasoline per square inch in the same quantity of equal mass! NOT GAS TO LIQUID, but GAS TO GAS. I know that when its ran through a magnetic field, that I get even more power than not! I know that what I have accomplished is not something you can believe without seeing. I see as many crackpots as the next guy, but I take no **** nor do I give it.

I have no gain or pleasure in misleading anyone. It just ****es people off and you lose credibility. You or anyone can verify anything that I post or say to be true simply by checking with credible sources. I like to help people when it doesn't create a overwhelming burden on myself.
As far as people being able to tell who's who here, I believe there is a rating ability on here to give credit to those who do deserve it.

[RustyLugNut]

You or anyone can verify anything that I post or say to be true simply by checking with credible sources.

I will not doubt your skill as a mechanic. I have no way to gauge that. I can only trust that.

But as far as science and engineering, I have enough credible education, experience and sources to call out much of the Junk.

I spent a semester of undergraduate time on a single cylinder, variable compression ratio dyno engine. One section was simply a demonstration of gasoline octane.

86, 89 and 93 octane was run on the engine and power output measured as well as other running conditions. The fuel was provided by Chevron corp as they had consistent fuel density between grades ( the least variability of ethanol and other additives). At a compression of 7:1, all the octane ratings provided essentially the SAME power. At 10:1 compression, the 86 detonated while the 89 and 93 provided essentially the SAME power. At 11:1 only the 93 could run.

The conclusion was:

Octane rating is simply a measure of knock resistance. With all else being equal, octane rating does not mean 93 burns "better" than 86 or has more inherent "power" or energy. My little Diahatsu 3 cylinder engine, designed for 86 octane, will not gain anymore power or mileage from 93 octane ( with all else being equal).

[Madsceintist]

I will not doubt your skill as a mechanic. I have no way to gauge that. I can only trust that.

But as far as science and engineering, I have enough credible education, experience and sources to call out much of the Junk.

I spent a semester of undergraduate time on a single cylinder, variable compression ratio dyno engine. One section was simply a demonstration of gasoline octane.

86, 89 and 93 octane was run on the engine and power output measured as well as other running conditions. The fuel was provided by Chevron corp as they had consistent fuel density between grades ( the least variability of ethanol and other additives). At a compression of 7:1, all the octane ratings provided essentially the SAME power. At 10:1 compression, the 86 detonated while the 89 and 93 provided essentially the SAME power. At 11:1 only the 93 could run.

The conclusion was:

Octane rating is simply a measure of knock resistance. With all else being equal, octane rating does not mean 93 burns "better" than 86 or has more inherent "power" or energy. My little Diahatsu 3 cylinder engine, designed for 86 octane, will not gain anymore power or mileage from 93 octane ( with all else being equal).


Let me start off with the fact that the real world road course is of course NOT a scientifically stable place. HOWEVER..............When you drive for a living or drive as much as I do you can not only see but feel the difference in various fuels and grades when you use such a wide range of automobiles. My experience isn't in a lab for a semester or so, it has been the last 23 years of real world automotive(hands on) repair and diagnostics! Anything and everything to do with an automobile has came into my path, and if not then it will.

Not to put anyone down or stick an iron in the fire, but I would rather a doctor with 10 years experience and some education and a great track record, operate on me then someone with 20 years of education and little experience and no long record even talk to me!

Don't get me wrong age has NOTHING to do with it, there are dumb***'s of all ages, and it's not hard to weed them out when they're not even able to put 2 and 2 together! When you put your LAB numbers on the road you find that they are thrown out the window when faced with real world variances and obstacles. One motor or car doesn't react to lower octane fuels like another in all cases and not all cars on the road are 3 cylinders.

[RustyLugNut]

Let me start off with the fact that the real world road course is of course NOT a scientifically stable place. HOWEVER..............When you drive for a living or drive as much as I do you can not only see but feel the difference in various fuels and grades when you use such a wide range of automobiles. My experience isn't in a lab for a semester or so, it has been the last 23 years of real world automotive(hands on) repair and diagnostics! Anything and everything to do with an automobile has came into my path, and if not then it will.

Not to put anyone down or stick an iron in the fire, but I would rather a doctor with 10 years experience and some education and a great track record, operate on me then someone with 20 years of education and little experience and no long record even talk to me!

Don't get me wrong age has NOTHING to do with it, there are dumb***'s of all ages, and it's not hard to weed them out when they're not even able to put 2 and 2 together! When you put your LAB numbers on the road you find that they are thrown out the window when faced with real world variances and obstacles. One motor or car doesn't react to lower octane fuels like another in all cases and not all cars on the road are 3 cylinders.

So? Do you agree with me or disagree? It isn't clear.

Do you want to put me down? I will simply ask the reader to look at my history of posts and yours. It is all there to see. I may be a bit boorish, but the lucidity of my arguments and the veracity of my discussions will contrast with yours.

On to the discussion:

And that is why the disclaimer "all things being equal" other than octane. Do you understand that? There is great variation in fuel. I know that. Your road tests bear that out. Just because I do not work on cars for a living, does not make me ignorant of them.

Tell you what. Why don't you go down to the nearest reputable dyno tuning shop and tell them what you just told me. "You guys are just Lab rats and your work has no meaning in the real world"! They will tell you what I know too. That Lab work eliminates as many variables to get to the BASIS of operations. Your field work may be true, that you have seen variations in fuel performance. But that just supports my viewpoint. Real world driving comes with so many variables. Do you want me to list them? Let us just go with one. Why don't you measure a gallon of fuel then measure the weight for different grades and brands. There can be significant differences. Gasoline is a blend of compounds. With so many variables, can you truly stand behind your statement? I can stand behind my lab work.

Here is a quote lifted directly from a wiki on gasoline - itself lifted almost verbatim from classical texts on fuel and industrial chemistry.

"A common misconception is that power output or fuel efficiency can be improved by burning fuel of higher octane than that specified by the engine manufacturer. The power output of an engine depends in part on the energy density of the fuel being burnt. Fuels of different octane ratings may have similar densities, but because switching to a higher octane fuel does not add more hydrocarbon content or oxygen, the engine cannot develop more power".

I can pull down literally thousands of citations supporting my statement. The industry agrees.

[Madsceintist]

I'm not looking nor was I to put anyone down. And I have associates that have a dyno, thank you! Lab rats NO, racing enthusiasts such as myself,YES.

http://higginsfordperformance.com/images/Untitled-1_03.gif

So where to from here ????

Do I think your ignorant, NO. What I do think is that you want the facts to be one way and only one way, and you diminish the possibility of something working that you don't understand anymore than some of us! Will I argue this, ABSOLUTELY. Facts are only valid until they are proven wrong or not completely correct!
Yes I know that fuels do not equal from one to the next, as in weight or composition. You have additives and not to mention the refinery's have a different composition for winter and summer as to reduce evaporation.
As far as the "Industry", this is the primary problem in the first place...................!!
I suppose if you have some desire to have a public view taken as to whom anyone should "follow" then take your pole! I will still be here to learn or teach what ever and who ever needs the help ........
YOU SEE if I don't know "I" can admit that with no problem. And wont take it harshly that I can learn something!

[RustyLugNut]

I'm not looking nor was I to put anyone down. And I have associates that have a dyno, thank you! Lab rats NO, racing enthusiasts such as myself,YES.

http://higginsfordperformance.com/images/Untitled-1_03.gif

So where to from here ????

Do I think your ignorant, NO. What I do think is that you want the facts to be one way and only one way, and you diminish the possibility of something working that you don't understand anymore than some of us! Will I argue this, ABSOLUTELY. Facts are only valid until they are proven wrong or not completely correct!
Yes I know that fuels do not equal from one to the next, as in weight or composition. You have additives and not to mention the refinery's have a different composition for winter and summer as to reduce evaporation.
As far as the "Industry", this is the primary problem in the first place...................!!
I suppose if you have some desire to have a public view taken as to whom anyone should "follow" then take your pole! I will still be here to learn or teach what ever and who ever needs the help ........
YOU SEE if I don't know "I" can admit that with no problem. And wont take it harshly that I can learn something!

Also to make it clear......... I disagree with you that the Ruskin or other methods of magnetization do not have an effect in a positive way. They DO.
But there are gains and loses depending on the whole systems ability to work together correctly.

It doesn't matter what you believe. The physical world has it's way of making a believer out of you.

Let me ask you this, can you and your "associates" build a car that seats 4, weighs in at 800 Kg, accelerates to 60 mph in under 10 seconds, and pulls down over 100 mpg using liquid hydrocarbon fuels while passing Tier 2 Bin 5 emission requirements?

[Madsceintist]

It doesn't matter what you believe. The physical world has it's way of making a believer out of you.

Let me ask you this, can you and your "associates" build a car that seats 4, weighs in at 800 Kg, accelerates to 60 mph in under 10 seconds, and pulls down over 100 mpg using liquid hydrocarbon fuels while passing Tier 2 Bin 5 emission requirements?

Yes I believe you, master.

SERIOUSLY .........?

I believe little I hear after I have seen anything, until it has a solid foundation to prove the issue. Or I will test it myself to see the validity of such.

Your request was my Caviler, and the Toyota has zero emissions. SO your point?



AND back to the original issue.......... This thread is for the discussion of octane not our personal attack show. Is there something that I can help you with? OR NOT?

[RustyLugNut]

Yes I believe you, master.

SERIOUSLY .........?

I believe little I hear after I have seen anything, until it has a solid foundation to prove the issue. Or I will test it myself to see the validity of such.

Your request was my Caviler, and the Toyota has zero emissions. SO your point?



AND back to the original issue.......... This thread is for the discussion of octane not our personal attack show. Is there something that I can help you with? OR NOT?

You haven't been able to discuss octane. Your are overly sensitive to any disagreements. You declare yourself more knowledgeable than the very standards (of octane testing and theory). Your posts in other places on this forum show your skill and knowledge in auto repair. I have no beef with that. But your discussions in chemistry, physics and engineering are found wanting.

I leave it up to the reader to decide who to believe. 100 years of proven industrial chemistry and mechanical engineering , or . . . you.

I will say it again so the reader can be clear about the discussion at hand:

Octane is not a measure of gasoline's power and combustion efficiency. It is a measure of the fuel's resistance to pre-ignition. Again, I quote. "A common misconception is that power output or fuel efficiency can be improved by burning fuel of higher octane than that specified by the engine manufacturer. The power output of an engine depends in part on the energy density of the fuel being burnt. Fuels of different octane ratings may have similar densities, but because switching to a higher octane fuel does not add more hydrocarbon content or oxygen, the engine cannot develop more power".

Please answer that point since that is a standard that auto makers design to and fuel manufacturers produce for.

By the way, did you test your Cavalier and Toyota with gas emission testers as found in your local auto shop or at an EPA facility with the ability to run the FTP 75 tests?

My Diahatsu 3 cylinder runs so clean it is below the threshold of detection of many Emission test shops here in the AQMD district ( the strictest in the nation). But, in a lab facility, it is seen to put out trace amounts of pollutants (CO, HC, NOx, etc).

[Madsceintist]

So you wish to say that the octane rating has absolutely nothing to with power or performance, CORRECT ???

So, when you have 86 octane in a car and you drive on a regular basis. With a load and in our normal driving habits. When the cars engine begins to "KNOCK" from low octane under load and the computer adjusts the timing to compensate, which adjusts fuel usage to do so, it doesn't consume more fuel then if it were not doing so ????
Higher octane fuels will cause less "KNOCK" in the engine and provides less adjustment via the computer, so there for uses less fuel. AND this is not just my theory, but yet proven by the automotive industry.
When you have engine knock at any load you are doing many things that are not in favor of fuel consumption; higher cylinder temperatures, more negative emissions, and damaging wear on the engine! Even short term continuous knock is damaging to the exhaust system as well. Clogging of the egr valve, catalytic convertor, and a dirty intake to start!

When you see the puff of smoke come out the tailpipe when you accelerate or just give it gas in park, is excess gas, largely unburnt. On any quality scanner or Modis you will see that the injector pulse is wider than usual when the engine is under load, the greater the load the wider the pulse as well as timing adjustments, because it is compensating for the "KNOCK", there for is using more fuel!

YOU can argue what you want to and I will argue what I know and have experience with. To each their own, you teach your flock and I will share my knowledge with whom ever wishes to know.

By the way the Toyota will not register any thing on the gas analyzer! I do have a friend that runs an emission station for the state. The Cavalier was returned to normal and exchanged hands.

[RustyLugNut]

So you wish to say that the octane rating has absolutely nothing to with power or performance, CORRECT!

So, when you have 86 octane in a car and you drive on a regular basis. With a load and in our normal driving habits. When the cars engine begins to "KNOCK" from low octane under load and the computer adjusts the timing to compensate, which adjusts fuel usage to do so, it doesn't consume more fuel then if it were not doing so ????
Higher octane fuels will cause less "KNOCK" in the engine and provides less adjustment via the computer, so there for uses less fuel. AND this is not just my theory, but yet proven by the automotive industry.
When you have engine knock at any load you are doing many things that are not in favor of fuel consumption; higher cylinder temperatures, more negative emissions, and damaging wear on the engine! Even short term continuous knock is damaging to the exhaust system as well. Clogging of the egr valve, catalytic convertor, and a dirty intake to start!

When you see the puff of smoke come out the tailpipe when you accelerate or just give it gas in park, is excess gas, largely unburnt. On any quality scanner or Modis you will see that the injector pulse is wider than usual when the engine is under load, the greater the load the wider the pulse as well as timing adjustments, because it is compensating for the "KNOCK", there for is using more fuel!

YOU can argue what you want to and I will argue what I know and have experience with. To each their own, you teach your flock and I will share my knowledge with whom ever wishes to know.

By the way the Toyota will not register any thing on the gas analyzer! I do have a friend that runs an emission station for the state. The Cavalier was returned to normal and exchanged hands.

You are so blind to your position. I agree with your assessment that there are great variables out in the real world. I have said repeatedly, "with all else being equal". With equal energy content, with equal fuel density, with equal additives, . . . fuel octane being the only variable . . . engines will produce the same power and efficiency. You keep referring to your "real world experience" which is OK if you just simply said "my real world experience shows me that there is variability in the fuel and the resultant performance". But then you go on and attack the lab work that shows that "with all else being equal" fuel octane does not dictate the spark ignited ICE's power and efficiency.

I work in industry as a R&D professional. When I write up a grant proposal, it goes under severe scrutiny. When I publish a white paper, it goes out for peer review of other professionals. And even when I stand in front of the company I now work for and partially own, I must be clear and convincing to the board in suggesting the direction of work and investment in funds or they will tell me to start over and come back later . . . and it rarely is said that nicely.

Don't take critical arguments so personally. Find the salient points and argue with clarity and lucidity to those points.

And I am interested in your Toyota and it's low emissions. I have run across several vehicles, two of which I have owned, that seem to run unusually cleaner then most and barely register on the test machines here in our area. I believe you are in Georgia, correct? I live in San Diego county and my business is located in the LA basin under the CARB and AQMD restrictions. Georgia has to meet Federal 49 state requirements and your testing will reflect that. California has it's own more strict requirements and my vehicles registered here in San Diego county must meet those Federal as well as the Cal state requirements. However, the poor air quality in the LA basin means our testing is among the most strict and sensitive in the world! I cannot test my work vehicles in San Diego because their testing machines and procedures do not meet the AQMD and CARB rulings. I will dig up the old test reports for my Diahatsu. I would like to compare them to your Toyota. Assuming you have the printouts.

[Madsceintist]

"So you wish to say that the octane rating has absolutely nothing to with power or performance, CORRECT?"

I wasn't agreeing with you here................
What I was saying is that it does, and explained why !

We tested on the Toyota but to by-pass the states system it wasn't finalized, so no printout. If he finalizes it then the state charges a fee to the station and it automatically gives you one free retest. However its not about the states emission testing or not, which due to zero detectable emissions it wouldn't pass anyhow. My associates with the dyno are getting a little high for just experimenting, I do have a man that I worked for 11 years ago that has a sun gas analyzer, so I may be able to entice him to plug it in .? My visual inspection is actually a pass, and the gas cap is a dummy. I have plastic covers to hide a few small items under the hood and they don't check under the car for anything but a convertor which is hollow. We don't have the old visual inspection for safety, only the emissions, for registration. I wanted the states visual and mechanical inspection so as to deem the car alternative fuels excepted, this by-passes any further inspections on this car.

Out side of work and home I don't get the kind of time I wish to spend on this anymore. Instead of being on here I should be in the shop!

[RustyLugNut]

Keep up your experiments.

[myoldyourgold]

Madsceintist, RustyLugNut, I really believe you guys are saying the same thing and this it is just semantics.

Not that Wikipedia is the best source but it doses save time.


Many high-performance engines are designed to operate with a high maximum compression, and thus demand fuels of higher octane. A common misconception is that power output or fuel efficiency can be improved by burning fuel of higher octane than that specified by the engine manufacturer. The power output of an engine depends in part on the energy density of the fuel being burnt. Fuels of different octane ratings may have similar densities, but because switching to a higher octane fuel does not add more hydrocarbon content or oxygen, the engine cannot develop more power.

However, burning fuel with a lower octane rating than that for which the engine is designed often results in a reduction of power output and efficiency. Many modern engines are equipped with a knock sensor (a small piezoelectric microphone), which sends a signal to the engine control unit, which in turn retards the ignition timing when detonation is detected. Retarding the ignition timing reduces the tendency of the fuel-air mixture to detonate, but also reduces power output and fuel efficiency. Because of this, under conditions of high load and high temperature, a given engine may have a more consistent power output with a higher octane fuel, as such fuels are less prone to detonation. Some modern high performance engines are actually optimized for higher than pump premium (93 AKI in the US). The 2001 - 2007 BMW M3 with the S54 engine is one such car. Car and Driver magazine tested a car using a dynamometer, and found that the power output increased as the AKI was increased up to approximately 96 AKI.

[RustyLugNut]

Madsceintist, RustyLugNut, I really believe you guys are saying the same thing and this it is just semantics.

Not that Wikipedia is the best source but it doses save time.

It is not a matter of semantics. It is clarity of thought. "All else being equal" seems to be beyond many people's grasp. If you isolate the effects of octane on power and efficiency, you will see that there is no correlation! This is not my PERSONAL belief, but industry accepted FACT!

I know about detonation and power degradation. That is NOT the focus point of my argument.

Look at the two paragraphs you just linked to . . . they support my position.

[myoldyourgold]

I know about detonation and power degradation. That is NOT the focus point of my argument.

Look at the two paragraphs you just linked to . . . they support my position.

This is where we will agree to disagree. It supports both positions. That is why I said what I did and posted what I did. You have to compare apples to apples. Higher octane does yield better results in high compression engines even if the actual energy/density in the fuel is the same. The reverse low octane is also true in the same engine resulting is poor results. The difference is the compression which makes the fuel react differently. I think this horse has been beaten enough.

[RustyLugNut]

This is where we will agree to disagree. It supports both positions. That is why I said what I did and posted what I did. You have to compare apples to apples. Higher octane does yield better results in high compression engines even if the actual energy/density in the fuel is the same. The reverse low octane is also true in the same engine resulting is poor results. The difference is the compression which makes the fuel react differently. I think this horse has been beaten enough.

A quote from the pro tuners at factorypro.com, an AMA site:

Does using a fuel with higher octane numbers automatically make more power?
Not unless they are preventing "knock".

Also from factorypro.com:

How much lead was in "leaded" fuel?
By law, fuels intended for on road use have been limited in maximum lead content for some time. Maximum lead content was limited to .15 to .33 grams/Liter in the late 1970's.
Lead poisoning causes brain damage. Most fuel has been unleaded for quite some time. People born after the late 70's must be much smarter than the older people.

Since I am from the Kennedy administration, I must be stupid in comparison to the young whipper snappers around these parts.

[myoldyourgold]

A quote from the pro tuners at factorypro.com, an AMA site:

Does using a fuel with higher octane numbers automatically make more power?
Not unless they are preventing "knock".

Also from factorypro.com:

How much lead was in "leaded" fuel?
By law, fuels intended for on road use have been limited in maximum lead content for some time. Maximum lead content was limited to .15 to .33 grams/Liter in the late 1970's.
Lead poisoning causes brain damage. Most fuel has been unleaded for quite some time. People born after the late 70's must be much smarter than the older people.

Since I am from the Kennedy administration, I must be stupid in comparison to the young whipper snappers around these parts.

Again the same thing. High compression engines would have a Knock problem if high octane was not used thus producing more or less HP depending on the octane. The same engine with low octane produce less HP because of the knock problem. It is not the fuel energy because they are the same. It works both ways in the same engine. My 350 ZZ4 engine making 485 HP and has a difficult time running on 93 octane without some octane boost. Now lower grades I am lucky to make half that HP but can drive it under the knock if I had to.

I do not know who you are calling young whipper snapper because I have been retired for 15 years. Had a lot of water go under this bridge. That is a complement for me anyway. LOL I know of no one who thinks you are stupid but just the opposite.

[RustyLugNut]

Again the same thing. High compression engines would have a Knock problem if high octane was not used thus producing more or less HP depending on the octane. The same engine with low octane produce less HP because of the knock problem. It is not the fuel energy because they are the same. It works both ways in the same engine. My 350 ZZ4 engine making 485 HP and has a difficult time running on 93 octane without some octane boost. Now lower grades I am lucky to make half that HP but can drive it under the knock if I had to.

I do not know who you are calling young whipper snapper because I have been retired for 15 years. Had a lot of water go under this bridge. That is a complement for me anyway. LOL I know of no one who thinks you are stupid but just the opposite.

No, it is not the same thing. He was challenging my assertion that if I put 93 octane in my Diahatsu, it will still only get 50 mpg and produce 51 HP, "all else being equal". Using real world data which is correct in and of itself to explain away lab results is off base. His conclusions about his experiences are spot on. His application to my lab work was incorrect. As much as science and art have rules, there are rules to productive argument. Define the salient points. Attack and defend. Come to a conclusion, then move on. He could not grasp the salient points. My failure was to continue the argument even realizing this.

And no, I was referring to all the younger people who argue that I am too old to understand new things. So, I just gave them the supposition that it might be due to our generation absorbing gasoline fumes and eating paint chips.

[myoldyourgold]

OK I still understand both sides of this argument. Not knowing the exact condition of your engine or its compression I can see where both could still be right if your engine has enough compression to knock causing the computer to correct it so you do not sense it. If it does then with higher octane then the computer would not sense the knock and not retard the timing and more HP could possibly be made. This very well might not be the case in your engine but a possibility. You I could assume are correct in regards to your own engine knowing or having used high octane and not found any difference. On the other hand the opposite is perfectly logical and is possible. I like it when I can say both are right. LOL Lets move on because I think this has strayed far enough to not be of much value to anyone. Even though I have had some disagreements with Madsceintist I still respect his depth of knowledge and experience when it comes to the automobile. It requires much more than just an efficient reactor to make this all worth while. That is just the beginning. The actual use of HHO to have a gain is much more involved especially with the new engines. They are pretty efficient to begin with but still have gains to be had in most of them. Now back to work

[RustyLugNut]

OK I still understand both sides of this argument. Not knowing the exact condition of your engine or its compression I can see where both could still be right if your engine has enough compression to knock causing the computer to correct it so you do not sense it. If it does then with higher octane then the computer would not sense the knock and not retard the timing and more HP could possibly be made. This very well might not be the case in your engine but a possibility. You I could assume are correct in regards to your own engine knowing or having used high octane and not found any difference. On the other hand the opposite is perfectly logical and is possible. I like it when I can say both are right. LOL Lets move on because I think this has strayed far enough to not be of much value to anyone. Even though I have had some disagreements with Madsceintist I still respect his depth of knowledge and experience when it comes to the automobile. It requires much more than just an efficient reactor to make this all worth while. That is just the beginning. The actual use of HHO to have a gain is much more involved especially with the new engines. They are pretty efficient to begin with but still have gains to be had in most of them. Now back to work

My first reference was for a single cylinder Lab engine I worked with in my undergraduate years. The control variable was the octane rating of the fuel. It drove home the point. Go back and look at the post. It is clear and concise.

And you are absolutely correct . . . this is unproductive. I tire of having to correct these untruths.

[myoldyourgold]

My first reference was for a single cylinder Lab engine I worked with in my undergraduate years. The control variable was the octane rating of the fuel. It drove home the point. Go back and look at the post. It is clear and concise.


This is my last post on this topic. Your single cylinder lab engine will only confirm what you have said, all accurate. If you had added a computer controlled injection system with a knock sensor and with the proper tune your results would be different. You can disagree but until you do the experiment I am not interested. You are right and so is Madsceintist.

Here is an example that I think explains this and is done every day. An EFI engine can be tuned so it runs on 86 octane and makes x hp running very smooth. The same engine can be tuned to make 2x HP with just a change in programing and 93 octane fuel. Now if you run 86 in this vehicle after this retuning you will have a real dog throw a code go into limp mode if you are lucky. So what made the difference?

[RustyLugNut]

This is my last post on this topic. Your single cylinder lab engine will only confirm what you have said, all accurate. If you had added a computer controlled injection system with a knock sensor and with the proper tune your results would be different. You can disagree but until you do the experiment I am not interested. You are right and so is Madsceintist.

Here is an example that I think explains this and is done every day. An EFI engine can be tuned so it runs on 86 octane and makes x hp running very smooth. The same engine can be tuned to make 2x HP with just a change in programing and 93 octane fuel. Now if you run 86 in this vehicle after this retuning you will have a real dog throw a code go into limp mode if you are lucky. So what made the difference?

You are now showing your ignorance. Just stop!

You don't understand. It is clear to all the capable readers. I just lost all credibility for arguing this point. I just got several emails from professional friends and employees laughing at me for even trying to argue such a SIMPLE and BASIC point with people who have NO LAB experience and NO training in SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE.

You have totally missed the point.

Two guys in a bar are arguing the classic comparison of briefs versus boxers. One of the guys says "I think pantyhose is much more comfortable and keeps me warm."

[myoldyourgold]

This is unbelievable but expected I was warned. By agreeing with you I am ignorant? What does that make you? I was trying to show you why the other position was taken and can not help it if you have a one track mind. You also are so opinionated that you have no room for understanding why others see things differently right or wrong. I was just getting ready to PM you some information to help you in your quest but now see that would be of no use at all. It would be impossible for you to ever see the other side of the coin. I expect you and your friends who most likely have never improved any vehicle's MPG with the use of HHO on demand will ever achieve anything is this field. You have no idea at all at what is really necessary and I doubt you ever will. You most likely wouldn't believe it if you stumbled upon it. Here I was hoping that you might be able to help with some of the technical aspects but I now realize that I was mistaken. I wish you the best of luck.

[Madsceintist]

BODDA ... BING....BODDA ....BANG...

Thank You
Thank You , Very Much..

[RustyLugNut]

This is unbelievable but expected I was warned. By agreeing with you I am ignorant? What does that make you? I was trying to show you why the other position was taken and can not help it if you have a one track mind. You also are so opinionated that you have no room for understanding why others see things differently right or wrong. I was just getting ready to PM you some information to help you in your quest but now see that would be of no use at all. It would be impossible for you to ever see the other side of the coin. I expect you and your friends who most likely have never improved any vehicle's MPG with the use of HHO on demand will ever achieve anything is this field. You have no idea at all at what is really necessary and I doubt you ever will. You most likely wouldn't believe it if you stumbled upon it. Here I was hoping that you might be able to help with some of the technical aspects but I now realize that I was mistaken. I wish you the best of luck.

You are so sure I am incapable of building a HHO system and achieving progress. You assume I have no automotive skills or HHO knowledge. You assume wrong.

I challenge you to a duel. You called me out.

So, I call you out. Right here in front of the whole Forum. I and others have called out MadSceintist to produce drawings, pictures and diagrams of his devices since he makes it plainly clear he is here to "help everyone" and yet he has never produced anything concrete except claims.

You claim to know so much and have improved vehicle systems so much and are here to help. . . let's see it. Let us RACE!

Take any vehicle of your choice legally sold and licensed to be operated here in the United States. It must be a car ( four wheeled) with legal seats for four people. It must run on liquid hydrocarbon fuel. No electric cars or hybrids. It must pass the emissions for the year it was produced. If the vehicle was produced before 1975, then it must meet at least those loose 1975 requirements.

I am quite sure you own one or can procure one, correct?

Modify the vehicle with your best HHO generator to achieve your best mileage at 60 mpg constant.

I will bring my SCCA scales and we will weigh the amount of fuel used before and after to accurately determine fuel use. We will use GPS accurate to 0.01 miles to determine the distance driven. We will document our progress during the build here on this forum. This way we can be of informational value to the viewership. Then we will meet at a time and place agreed upon. And, we will make it a simple shootout. He who achieves the highest mileage wins! In case of a tie, the vehicle with the lowest emissions wins. No questions asked.

You don't have to worry about any "non-disclosure agreements" since we don't need to look at any of your "secrets". The mileage will tell the tale.

To be fair about it, I will agree not to use any of my outside professional resources so as not to have an unfair advantage. I and my immediate family (wife and son) will be the only ones to work on the vehicle. We will build it right here in our home garage not in a pro shop. We will keep track of our costs and document them. We will cap the costs at 2012 USD so as to prevent anyone from re-constructing their car in carbon fiber and other such silliness.

Are you game? Or are you going to make excuses?

Hey, why don't we open this up to everyone who wants to participate. So many people come on here and talk the talk. Let us see who can walk the walk and deliver!

I personally think you are a "couch inventor". You never really build anything. Prove me wrong. Oh, sure you can have your associates help you. Just follow the rules outlined above, and they can participate.

This will be informative and inspiring to our HHO community when they see successful applications "racing" in a grudge match! Contact the local paper and News station. Let's make it an educational opportunity.

What do you say? Let's settle this once and for all.

You called me out. I am more than willing and able to answer.

How about you?

[Madsceintist]

Title say enough........?

[RustyLugNut]

Title say enough........?

You are welcome to join too if you are capable.

[byrd9790]

Well given that im very versed in octane raiting as well it bothers me me to see that the mentor title is just given out. We have had much accurate octane infomation given out by RLN and a cpl others. I was under the assumption that mentors were professionals and had direct knowlegdge in the subjects in which they mentor. I hope that we all stay focused and remember there is always time for all of us to learn something new in life and we should look forward to those moments in life. Just because i breath air 24/7(Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases) doent make me an air mentor. Some of us have done alot in the automotive industry on several levels ;) and we do have the education and knowledge to to clear the air. Octane is a very complexe subjuct and so is the science of the ice particularly when you add in emmissions and drivablity and fuel is more complex than both of those combined. The basic def of octane rating is real close to being spot on. OK HHO FORUM LETS JUST HUGG IT OUT :D

[myoldyourgold]

I am sorry, I have no time to duel with you or anyone else for that matter. When our products hit the market you can buy then and do your own test and post the results anywhere you want. I have no doubt you are capable but by what you have stated so far you have not to date done much or if you have, you have not stated it unless I missed it which is also possible. Some on this forum have been building and testing for over 5 years and have made a number of discoveries with out the help of academia. There are hundreds of vehicles that are running today testing various aspects of this technology. Some recent CARB lab tests have confirmed some things that academia have said are impossible. In due time all of this will become public unless politics gets in the way along with other things.


Octane rating is simply a measure of knock resistance. With all else being equal, octane rating does not mean 93 burns "better" than 86 or has more inherent "power" or energy. My little Diahatsu 3 cylinder engine, designed for 86 octane, will not gain anymore power or mileage from 93 octane ( with all else being equal).

I thought I made it very clear that this statement is absolutely true and even posted information to back it up. I also posted the other point of view how controlling knock in an ICE make it look like there is a difference. You missed the point all together. You can build more HP buy reducing the knock with higher octane in an ICE under the right conditions. All of this seams to have gone over your head and you took it as I and others did not understand the basics.

Settle down this is not a duel. Your style of presentation does not give any room for a different point of view right or wrong but creates friction. This tends to put down possible discoveries that do not fit in your superior mold. Lighten up and try not to be so argumentative and final in your presentation. Good solid scientific information is good but there has to be room for new discoveries and variations of known principles.

You can take my not wanting to duel with you any way you want the facts are it will not help anyone and will be a wast of both of our time and money which does not grow on trees at least for me. I have no need to feed my ego and you shouldn't either. There is a lot better places to place our resources than a project like you presented. Lets get back to the task at hand. Even though a lot of the problems have been solved some understood and some not there is much more to do at least for me with some very interesting new discoveries which when applied to this field increase the yield many fold which results in better gains by reducing amp draw. Lots of work to get done so lets get to it and stop this useless banter.

[Madsceintist]

You are welcome to join too if you are capable.


Capable but not stupid.

[RustyLugNut]

Capable but not stupid.

But, you have a Stanley Meyer multi-tube resonant generator that runs your vehicle on nothing but HHO gas on occasion? You want to help everyone. Why don't you reveal it to the world so the world can prosper?

If you have a vehicle that can run on nothing but HHO, you will obviously win and I will face great dishonor for being an unbeliever.

So? What's stopping you? Any rule changes you think you would like to add?

[owney]

Hello,


I'm currently using 91 Octane Fuel, without HHO.

After I will start injecting HHO, should I stick with 91 Octane ? Or 87 will be almost as good ?

I'm thinking that HHO has a positive effect on the fuel's octane, thus increasing the rating. But I'm not sure.

Does anyone know what's the relationship between HHO injection and fuel octane ?

Thanks.



P.S. I'm driving a 2001 VW Jetta 1.8T @ 24 MPG ( city ) with 91 octane fuel. Never tried 89 or 87.


Hydrogen is rated at 130+ Octane. When mixed with gasoline, it boosts the octane rating of the gasoline. The octane rating indicates how much the fuel can be compressed before it spontaneously ignites. When gas ignites by compression rather than because of the spark from the spark plug, it causes "knocking" in the engine. Knocking can damage an engine. Lower-octane gas (like "regular" 87-octane gasoline) can handle the least amount of compression before igniting compared to higher octane grades (like "super high test " 93-octane). This means that if you drive a high performance car with a high compression engine requiring high test, you can use regular 87 octane low grade with HHO boost and have a higher octane rating than the 93 at the pump. A significant savings realized...

[iger13]

... if you are capable.

What you are capable "high educated engineer with science experience"?
F... ing SNOB!!!
All you capable of, is just to tell to other peoples how "smart, educated and experienced" you are and they are stupid. Are you really so stupid to believe that we care about what you think about us? And remember one thing : education has nothing to do with stupidity. Many times I seen them going together. And you just another proof of it.

[RustyLugNut]

What you are capable "high educated engineer with science experience"?
F... ing SNOB!!!
All you capable of, is just to tell to other peoples how "smart, educated and experienced" you are and they are stupid. Are you really so stupid to believe that we care about what you think about us? And remember one thing : education has nothing to do with stupidity. Many times I seen them going together. And you just another proof of it.

Weather it be discussion of classical and cutting edge topics, or the practical work you have achieved.

If you are unable to, please don't.

Let me see you prove your capability? All I see is useless venom and the lack of value in your posts.

I have come to the conclusion that this forum is here for everyone. Including those with little to no value in their posts. And many who spread misinformation and outright deception. No one seems to care. Many say they have been building and testing for 5 years and more. Wow. And yet there is LITTLE that has been produced to help the masses.

I really don't care if you like me or not. I want to see some real success and not the marketing tripe and eccentric inventor wannabees. People have their "Secret" research. They have their patents ready to go. And . . . nothing.

That tells me something.

I work with people from all walks of life. Some are Makers. Clever and skilled crafts people. Some are scientists and engineers. And many are right in between. But, they all work with the same discipline and fortitude. Start with what is known and work towards the unknown. And they ALL make stuff that works! WOW!

I have an acquaintance. He has created a real 2 seat car that gets over 100 miles to a gallon using creative applications of classic principles. You can call him up to buy a kit that you can put together in a reasonable time.

He is not alone. I know half a dozen people with real, production ready inventions that are seeing the light of day. Exciting stuff. Stuff that allows an honest to goodness 2 or 4 seat vehicle to get 75 to 110 mpg, and more. This stuff is real and useable and I can actually see it and touch it and know that it works.

The world needs real work. Not junk science. Stuff that works.

How about you? Let's see your "stuff".

[iger13]

.

To let you see? Why would I do that? I told you already - you are useless educated idiot, who only cares to show to others how good is he. When last time you look in mirror? What you have to show to the world. except " I'm educated, I'm engineer, I'm....I'm"? My point is- to get with you to discussion, means to get down, to your level, and I'm not going to do this

[RustyLugNut]

To let you see? Why would I do that? I told you already - you are useless educated idiot, who only cares to show to others how good is he. When last time you look in mirror? What you have to show to the world. except " I'm educated, I'm engineer, I'm....I'm"? My point is- to get with you to discussion, means to get down, to your level, and I'm not going to do this

Ha! What a joke of an argument. You have nothing to argue with. No experience of your own to add to the forums. Slam me all you want. People can read my posts and threads and see the level of cognitive capabilities I have. Then they read your posts . . .

I argue with people if they argue from good science and experience. It breaks down when they have neither or they are way too sensitive. Good discussion about differences gains you insight and information. Bad discussion is like this. Hormonal teenage angst.

Say all you want about me. In the end, I will still be educated, experienced and building forward.

You will still be you. Yelling and screaming.