PDA

View Full Version : New in SE Mich - Questions



wydopnthrtl
06-13-2008, 11:19 AM
Hello all, Got some newb Qs here..

I'm a OEM automotive engineer by trade and more importantly I'm a true blue gear head. Have been since I was able to drag my knuckles at age 3. :D (Build my own engines, am into high perf cars, e-tuning and such)

Ok I've been reading as much as I can about this subject for about two weeks now and am pretty close to giving it a try. But I have some questions that hopefully folks here can answer before I take the first step.

Please comment as you can!

1) A/F ratio and EGTs.
I'm not convinced that using HHO is doing much more than leaning out the a/f ratio. Has anyone used a wideband sensor or measured EGTs? Anybody pulled a spark plug to see it's color and residue?

There is an awful lot of assumptions taking place on what the PCM is doing with fuel. Has nobody ever actually measured thier EGT? (exhaust gas temp)

2a) I don't understand the relationship & safety of producing a steady amount of HHO but yet the engine has differing needs. High rpm, high load, idle, ect.. Seems to me that producing enough HHO to really make a difference would have a dangerous amount being produced at extended idle situations. I suppose pressures (vacuum) would draw 100% once rpms come up. But what about extended idling??

2b) If HHO was by it'self more combustible I'd think you'd see the idle speed rise when plumbed into the intake post TB. (throttle body) Doing it this way is no different than injecting a smal amount of fuel and nitrous. (of which I have great engineering & practical knowldge) If I were to inject 10hp worth of N/F post TB the rpms would rise enough that the IAC valve wouldn't be able to compensate for. But the rpms would only go up about 500-100 So.. Why does putting hydrogen and oxygen into the intake (post TB) not do the same thing?

3) Some people tie this into the intake before the TB. Tieing it in before the TB and after the MAF is introducing an unmetered media (air). This alone *might* lean out the mix a little until the upstream 02s & pcm correct for it. (takes a little time for it to change fuel trims) Seems to me that avg MPG would be a bit better over time if the HHO is actually increasing efficiency. But I'd also expect to see a CEL before too long. Would expect to see a code relating to 02 sensor readings.

4) So many people put thier efforts into building the units and then post results. That's awsome... but I'd think that getting MPG readings averaged over time would be a higher priority. Where is the proof over say 3-6 months that it's actually worth all the trouble?

Please chime in!

Regards,
Rich

Stratous
06-13-2008, 03:13 PM
I am not sure about all those questions that you have asked. The device is cheap to build, so build one and test it yourself. If you have doubts, then the only way to solve them is to do it yourself. There are thousands of testimonials on the internet saying that this works. I am telling you it works, but you still doubt. So what can I say that will make you believe? Make a $20 system and install it on your test vehicle and prove it to yourself. Not trying to sound negative, but jeez. There are half a dozen people on this site alone that are shouting "IT WORKS" here are my numbers!!!! I am not selling anything, so what do I gain by making this up? I have been running this system for 3 weeks. My first MPG test was 21MPG, my second was 23.2 mpg. My stock MPG is 17.7. All of these test were done with city driving, I havent touched a highway since march. The test was preformed on a 2006 Dodge 3/4 ton /5.9 liter cummins.

wydopnthrtl
06-13-2008, 03:54 PM
I think you mis-understand my intention. I'm not questioning *if* it works. I'm simply wanting to understand how it works and what is or *is not* happening when running HHO. (on a finite level)

I've never questioned the "thousands" who are getting results. What I question is **why** they are getting better milage. ;)
For instance, one guy found that removing all moisture from the supply line netted him zero gain in milage.
So based on that one account, how do you know for sure your not just creating a HHO/water injection system? Are you getting better milage from the water being misted in? And to what degree is it playing a part? 0%? 50% 100% ??? Would you see the exact same gain from a water injection kit alone? See what I'm getting at?

Efficiency is everything in any type of engine. Before I give this a try I want to understand what is efficient.. and what isn't.


One thing I do question and have seen zero proof of is the A/F ratio and EGTs. If a HHO kit is doing what folks claims and having no ill-effects... you'd see EGTs in line with near stock measurements. As far as A/F ratios measured by a wideband.. I'm just not sure what to expect. This to me is a HUGE clue in figuring out whats going on inside the CC.

btw, I have both of these measuring devices and *if* I choose to take this on I'll measure both then report.
Considering the cost involved I just might give it a try.

Regards,
Rich

Stratous
06-13-2008, 04:30 PM
I think you mis-understand my intention. I'm not questioning *if* it works. I'm simply wanting to understand how it works and what is or *is not* happening when running HHO. (on a finite level)

I've never questioned the "thousands" who are getting results. What I question is **why** they are getting better milage. ;)
For instance, one guy found that removing all moisture from the supply line netted him zero gain in milage.
So based on that one account, how do you know for sure your not just creating a HHO/water injection system? Are you getting better milage from the water being misted in? And to what degree is it playing a part? 0%? 50% 100% ??? Would you see the exact same gain from a water injection kit alone? See what I'm getting at?

Efficiency is everything in any type of engine. Before I give this a try I want to understand what is efficient.. and what isn't.


One thing I do question and have seen zero proof of is the A/F ratio and EGTs. If a HHO kit is doing what folks claims and having no ill-effects... you'd see EGTs in line with near stock measurements. As far as A/F ratios measured by a wideband.. I'm just not sure what to expect. This to me is a HUGE clue in figuring out whats going on inside the CC.

btw, I have both of these measuring devices and *if* I choose to take this on I'll measure both then report.
Considering the cost involved I just might give it a try.

Regards,
Rich

To be honest, I run my HHO through a bubbler before its released into my intake. I am not sure if any moisture us being released into the air. I wouldnt think so. I dont have the ability to test my EGT's. My gains are pretty small compaired to what others have gotten. Regardless of the gains, I plan to install one on my wifes vehicle which is a toyota seinna. Most of the documentation I have read simply states that the HHO helps the engine burn fuel better. My own limited experiance has only shown that something is making my truck get better mileage. Sorry for misreading your previous post.

xtremerydz
06-14-2008, 02:19 AM
To answer one of your questions: yes it will lean out your airfuel mixture, due to the fact you are introducing Oxygen along with the hydrogen. So in order to compensate for this you need to trick the comp to run a little richer. I'm also a mechanic and have thought out this area of the system. What has to be done is a test of the actual O2-sensor readings while driving with the cell connected. This will give you an idea of the EG readings next do it without the cell connected and see what they are(or vise versa) doesn't matter. Once results are taken you would have to compensate for the readings when cell is on. Now I've heard people making their vehicles run lean to do this. I've heard people blocking off their O2-sensor which would make it run lean but also turn the check engine light on. The only proper way to do the system is to use the voltage from the TPS ran to a microprossessor to calculate what the load is and how the O2-sensor would act until it was compensated correctly by the PCM. Running an engine lean for a long period of time is going to add extra wear and tare to internal parts not to mention the EG temp. With respects to the exhaust gas temp if i is too high you will produce NOX which to is a major contributor to pollution, the extra oxygen would be the cause of the NOX because it will drive the temp of the catalytic converter up. But hey like they say the only way to perfect a system like this to build it and use it then make the necessary adjustments and tell people about it so we all can share the info.


If a lone person calls out for more nothing will change or stop. But if we all join together and call out we cannot be stopped!

wydopnthrtl
06-14-2008, 07:22 AM
To answer one of your questions: yes it will lean out your airfuel mixture, due to the fact you are introducing Oxygen along with the hydrogen.

This is what I'm thinking too. And here is something else to consider. Oxyhydrogen combusts at 1065F at 1 bar. Thats fine for putting a flame to it and hearing the bang. I'm not so sure that it's actually burning in the compressed state though. Once inside the combustion chamber everything is compressed to 9:1 give or take a little.

I suspect the hydrogen is not burning. I suspect that the hydrogen is simply passing through the motor and acting as a displacment media. Much like the EGR system and how it's passing inert gasses through.
I propose that the a/f ratio is leaning out because of the added oxygen, inert gasses, and possibly because of water vapor.

Now if done in proper amounts it'll be fine. (OEMs typically have a 10% rich condition for high milage and carbon buildup situation. Makes for best power too)
Here is the thing I just can't get past. IMO its an overwhelming thing.. you could do the same thing by adjusting the egr/tune/MAF/02 sensors.
If you leaned it out in one of those ways instead.. you'd get the same results w/o having the cost and trouble of a HHO kit.




What has to be done is a test of the actual O2-sensor readings while driving with the cell connected. This will give you an idea of the EG readings next do it without the cell connected and see what they are(or vise versa) doesn't matter.

Stock 02s are narrow band sensors. They are not accurate enough to do that with. You need a wide band or lambda to get accurate readings. Readings good enough to tune by.





The only proper way to do the system is to use the voltage from the TPS ran to a microprossessor to calculate what the load is....

Actually with a good OBD2 scanner you can read the load live. Or datalog it into a laptop.
I have the scanguage in my ranger 24/7
At idle it pulls 25-30% load And running down the hwy it pulls 50% load.
Here is a link:
My scanguage (http://home.comcast.net/~rbickford325611mi/index_files/SCANGUAGE/index-scanguage.html)



....With respects to the exhaust gas temp if i is too high you will produce NOX which to is a major contributor to pollution, the extra oxygen would be the cause of the NOX because it will drive the temp of the catalytic converter up...

This is why I'm posting here and trying to figure all this out. ;) As of yet, I'm just not convinced that the a/f isn't being leaned out. And if thats all that happening? There are far easier ways to go about it.

Regards,
Rich

Stratous
06-14-2008, 08:15 AM
1065 degrees is the temp at which it will auto ignite. That means it will ignite at that temperature w/o an ignition source. A simple spark will ignite HHO gas otherwise. Thats what the spark plug or glow plug is for.

wydopnthrtl
06-14-2008, 08:25 AM
Ah ok. So at what point does an open flame ignite it? and when it's under pressure at what temp does it ignite? (I'd expect it to be lower once compressed)

And something else I don't understand. If it is burning, why don't the rpms go up at idle? When I inject a small amount of fuel and nitrous it does.

Regards,
Rich

Stratous
06-14-2008, 08:49 AM
I am not sure why you dont hear a car idle up, but you do hear a smaller engine idle up like a lawn mower engine. Here is more informaiton.

The autoignition temperature is the minimum temperature required to initiate self-sustained combustion in a combustible fuel mixture in the absence of a source of ignition. Inside the motor the HHO doesnt have to self combust.

The octane number describes the anti-knock properties of a fuel when used in an internal combustion engine. Knock is a secondary detonation that occurs after fuel ignition due to
heat buildup in some other part of the combustion chamber. When the local temperature exceeds the autoignition temperature, knock occurs.

The performance of the hydrocarbon octane is used as a standard to measure resistance to knock, and is assigned a relative octane rating of 100. Fuels with an octane number
over 100 have more resistance to auto-ignition than octane itself. Hydrogen has a very high research octane number and is therefore resistant to knock even when combusted under
ignition energy for all of these fuels is very low so that conditions that will ignite one fuel will generally ignite any of the others.very lean conditions.

Ignition energy is the amount of external energy that must be applied in order to ignite a combustible fuel mixture. Energy from an external source must be higher than the
autoignition temperature and be of sufficient duration to heat the fuel vapor to its ignition temperature. Common ignition sources are flames and sparks. Although hydrogen has a higher autoignition temperature than methane, propane or gasoline, its ignition energy at 1.9 x 10–8 Btu (0.02 mJ) is about an order of magnitude lower and is therefore more easily ignitable. Even an invisible spark or static electricity discharge from a human body (in dry conditions) may have enough energy to cause ignition. Nonetheless, it is important to realize that the ignition energy for all of these fuels is very low so that conditions that will ignite one fuel will generally ignite any of the others.

I am by no means an expert of anything...lol. I sourced this information from the internet. Perhaps someone else can explain why a car engine doesnt idle up when HHO is applied, but a smaller non ecu controlled engine does.

Stratous
06-14-2008, 09:21 AM
try filling a NOS bottle with HHO and injecting it the same way you do NOS and see what happens. I am pretty sure it has to do with volume. The amount of NOS or gas injected to increast RPM's is probably alot more than the amount injected by our HHO generators. From a personal experiance, with my truck in 6th gear, it will idle at 25mph w/o the hho device on. With the hho device on the truck idles in 6th at 26 to 27mph. Of course it flucuates depending on terrain either way.

wydopnthrtl
06-15-2008, 07:54 AM
OK then that gives some creedance to my questions. If it's increasing engine speed then you are indeed giving it "fuel" and your burning it.

A 10hp shot of nitrous is not much at all. It's actually such a small shot of fuel that you have to pulse the solenoid to flow that little gas through a 0.02" jet at 40psi. (The nitrous is just an oxidiser.. as is the oxygen in HHO)

I'm headed out of state for a few weeks. When I get back I think I'll make one of these kits and give it a try on my 06 ranger 4x4. (daily driver @ 400 miles per week)
My web page (http://home.comcast.net/~rbickford325611mi/)

Regards,
Rich

Omega
06-16-2008, 11:37 PM
Hi. I'm a newbie here and have been reading this thread and have something I found that may shed some light on the "debate". In order to understand what's going on with hho, one must really think outside the box. In layman's terms, the hho added to the normal hydrocarbons in the combustion cycle acts as a catalyst to promote a faster and more complete burn than hydrocarbons by themselves. The following is very interesting (to me) and explains why some applications seem to work well with relatively small amounts of hho. It's not the hho's additional contribution to the "power" of combustion, it's a (not completely understood) process that helps hydrocarbons burn faster and cleaner that increases mpg and lowers emissions.

The following is from here: http://www.hydrofuelsolutions.com/Goverment_press_releases.html It's the best "explanation" I've read.

..snip...

From researching the Internet we also found the following information

To best describe how Hydrogen Enhanced Combustion works, we are providing this excerpt from a University Technical Report, written by Mr. George Vosper, P.Eng.;

...a Hydrogen Generating System (HGS) for trucks or cars has been on the market for some time. Mounted on a vehicle, it feeds small amounts of hydrogen and oxygen into the engine's air intake. Its makers claim savings in fuel, reduced noxious and greenhouse gases and increased power. The auto industry is not devoid of hoaxes and as engineers are sceptics by training, it is no surprise that a few of them say the idea won't work. Such opinions, from engineers can't be dismissed without explaining why I think these Hydrogen Generating Systems do work and are not just another hoax. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a likely source of those doubts. Meaning ...the law -would lead you to believe that it will certainly take more power to produce this hydrogen than can be regained by burning it in the engine. i.e. the resulting energy balance should be negative. If the aim is to create hydrogen by electrolysis to be burned as a fuel, the concept is ridiculous. On the other hand, if hydrogen, shortens the burn time of the main fuel-air mix, putting more pressure on the piston through a longer effective power stroke, and in doing so takes more work out, then this system does make sense. Does it work? Independent studies, at different universities, using various fuels, have shown that flame speeds increase when small amounts of hydrogen are added to air-fuel mixes. A study by the California Institute of Technology, at its Jet Propulsion Lab Pasadena, in 1974 concluded:

The J.P.L. concept has unquestionably demonstrated that the addition of small quantities of gaseous hydrogen to the primary gasoline significantly reduces CO and NOx exhaust emissions while improving engine thermal efficiency

A recent study at the University of Calgary by G.A. Karim on the effect of adding hydrogen to a methane-fuelled engine says
... The addition of some hydrogen to the methane, speeds up the rates of initiation and subsequent propagation of flames over the whole combustible mixture range, including for very fast flowing mixtures. This enhancement of flame initiation and subsequent flame propagation, reduces the Ignition delay and combustion period in both spark ignition and compression ignition engines which should lead to noticeable improvements in the combustion process and performance

What happens inside the combustion chamber is still only a guess. In an earlier explanation I suggested that the extremely rapid flame speed of the added hydrogen oxygen interspersed through the main fuel air mix, gives the whole mix a much faster flame rate. Dr. Brant Peppley, Hydrogen Systems Group, Royal Military College, Kingston, has convinced me that insufficient hydrogen is produced to have much effect by just burning it. He feel's that the faster burn is most likely due to the presence of nascent (atomic) hydrogen and nascent oxygen, which initiate a chain reaction. I now completely agree. Electrolysis produces "nascent" hydrogen, and oxygen, which may or may not reach the engine as nascent. It is more probable that high temperature in the combustion chamber breaks down the oxygen and hydrogen molecules into free radicals (i.e. nascent). The chain reaction initiated by those free radicals will cause a simultaneous ignition of all the primary fuel. As it all ignites at once, no flame front can exist and without it there is no pressure wave to create knock.

Continued in the next post....

Omega
06-16-2008, 11:38 PM
Continued from the post above...

The results of tests at Corrections Canada's, Bowden Alberta Institution and other independent tests reinforce the belief that combustion is significantly accelerated. They found with the HGS on, unburned hydrocarbons, CO and NO, in the exhaust were either eliminated or drastically reduced and at the same R.P.M. the engine produced more torque from less fuel.

Recently I took part in the highway test of a vehicle driven twice over the same 200-kilometre course, on cruise control, at the same speed, once with the system off and once with it on. A temperature sensor from an accurate pyrometer kit had been inserted directly into the exhaust manifold, to eliminate thermal distortion from the catalytic converter. On average, the exhaust manifold temperature was 65°F lower during the second trip when the Hydrogen Generating System was switched on. The fuel consumption with the unit off was 5.13253 km/li. and 7.2481 km/li. with it on, giving a mileage increase of 41.2% and a fuel savings attributable to the unit of 29.18%

From the forgoing, the near absence of carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons confirms a very complete and much faster burn. Cooler exhaust temperatures show that more work is taken out during the power stroke. More torque from less fuel at the same R.P.M. verifies that higher pressure from a faster burn, acting through a longer effective power stroke, produces more torque and thus more work from less fuel. The considerable reduction in nitrous oxides (NOx} was a surprise. I had assumed that the extreme temperatures from such a rapid intense burn would produce more NO.,. Time plus high temperature are both essential for nitrous oxides to form. As the extreme burn temperatures are of such short duration and temperature through the remainder of the power stroke and the entire exhaust stroke, will, on average, be much cooler. With this in mind, it is not so surprising that less NOx is produced when the HGS is operating.

Assume a fuel-air mix is so lean as to normally take the entire power stroke (180°) to complete combustion. Educated estimates suggest the presence of nascent hydrogen and oxygen decreases the burn time of the entire mix by a factor of ten (10). If a spark advance of 4° is assumed, the burn would be complete at about 14° past top dead centre. Such a burn will be both rapid and intense. The piston would have moved less than 2% of its stroke by the end of the burn, allowing over 98% of its travel to extract work. The lower exhaust manifold temperatures observed when the Hydrogen Generating System was in use can be viewed as evidence for this occurrence.

Power consumed by this model of the electrolysis cell is about 100 watts. If an alternator efficiency of 60% is assumed, then 0.2233 horsepower will produce enough wattage. Even on a compact car, a unit would use less than 1/4 % of its engine's output, or about what is used by the headlights. The energy regained from burning the hydrogen in the engine is so small that virtually all of the power to the electrolyser must be considered lost. That loss should not, however, exceed V4%, so that any increase in the engine's thermal efficiency more than 1/4 %, is a real gain.

An engineering classmate suggested a grass fire as a useful analogy to understand combustion within an engine. The flame front of a grass fire is distinct and its speed depends in part on the closeness of the individual blades. If grass is first sprayed with a small amount of gasoline to initiate combustion, then all blades will ignite almost in unison. In much the same way, small amounts of nascent oxygen and hydrogen present in the fuel-air mix will cause a chain reaction that ignites all the primary fuel molecules simultaneously. Faster more complete burns are the keys to improving efficiency in internal combustion engines. Power gained from increased thermal efficiency, less the power to the electrolysis unit, is the measure of real gain or loss. It follows from the foregoing paragraph that even a modest gain in thermal efficiency will be greater than the power used by an electrolysis unit. The net result should therefore be positive. Thus onboard electrolysis systems supplying hydrogen and oxygen to internal combustion engines, fuelled by diesel, gasoline or propane, should substantially increase efficiencies.

While the auto industry searches for the perfect means of eliminating harmful emissions, consideration should be given to what these systems can do now, since the HGS considers reduction of harmful emissions even as the engine ages. Almost all unburned hydrocarbons, CO and NO,, are eliminated. Reducing hydrocarbons and CO causes a slight rise in the percentage of CO2 in the exhaust, but as less fuel is used, the actual quantity of CO2 produced is reduced by roughly the same ratio as the savings in fuel. In brief, noxious gas is almost eliminated and greenhouse gas is decreased in proportion to the reduction in fuel consumption. Nothing I have learned so far has lessened my belief that the benefits of using electrolysis units to supply hydrogen to most types of internal combustion engines are both real and considerable.

Reprinted with the permission of George Vosper, P. Eng. June 1998

Roy E. McAlister, P.E.
President of American Hydrogen Association

INTRODUCTION

The carbon equivalent of 180 million barrels of oil are burned each day to support the Earth's growing population of 5 billion persons search for prosperity. Carbon dioxide built up in the atmosphere has reached levels that are about 30 per cent higher than at any time in the last 160 years. Environmental damage and health threats due to air pollution have reached every area of the planet. Continued dependence upon fossil fuels is detrimental to public health and is a dangerous experiment that may have no point of return for civilization, as we know it. Nine Americans die each hour due to air pollution.

U.S. Energy expenditures amount to about 440 billion dollars per year. About 50 percent of our energy is produced from foreign oil. U.S. military presence throughout the planet's oil-rich areas to secure the oil-supply lines costs hundreds of billions of dollars each year. These great expenses curb investment in capital goods and our economy suffers.

Finding a solution to the difficult problems of energy sufficiency, environmental damage, and air pollution is imperative. The solution must provide convenience for near-term market acceptance and utilize renewable resources.

HYDROGEN AS A COMBUSTION STIMULANT

Hydrogen burns more rapidly than hydrocarbon fuels because it is smaller and enters combustion reactions at higher velocity, has lower activation energy, and incurs more molecular collisions than heavier molecules. These characteristics make it possible to use mixtures of hydrogen with conventional hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline, diesel and propane to reduce emissions of unburned hydrocarbons. Transition from fossil fuels to renewable hydrogen by use of mixtures of hydrogen in small quantities with conventional fuels offers significant reductions in exhaust emissions. Using hydrogen as a combustion stimulant makes it possible for other fuels to meet future requirements for lower exhaust emissions in California and an increasing number of additional States.

Mixing hydrogen with hydrocarbon fuels provides combustion stimulation by increasing the rate of molecular-cracking processes in which large hydrocarbons are broken into smaller fragments. Expediting production of smaller molecular fragments is beneficial in increasing the surface-to-volume ratio and consequent exposure to oxygen for completion of the combustion process. Relatively small amount of hydrogen can dramatically increase horsepower and reduce emissions of atmospheric pollutants.

Stratous
06-16-2008, 11:52 PM
Nice article, wish I had that when I was debating previously.

Ronjinsan
06-17-2008, 05:06 AM
Hey we are becoming scientists here :D.....the bottom line is it works, and the more effort we put into it, the better the results. All I know is that I'm saving money on petrol instead of just burning some of it! :p

wydopnthrtl
06-17-2008, 08:19 AM
Excellent post and excellent food for thought. I don't agree with some of the premiss's (so called "fossil fuels").. but the idea / thought about a more rapid and a complete burn would explain what you guys are witnessing with your HHO kits. It also explains the conservation of energy concerns.

I'm also glad to see a report of someone measuring EGTs and in particular where they measured this. (proper location is pre-cats)

I have both a wideband A/F meter and a EGT sensor. So far.. I'm seeing enough solid thought and experiences that I think I'll give it a try.

There are a few areas that still remain in question to me.


1) How do you control the amount of HHO produced?
I'd like to be able to easily vary this so I can "tune" it.
Or better yet, I'd think I'd like to have a system that produces more/less based on how much fuel the engine is consuming.

2) If I place the supply hose in the "zip tube" (between the filter/MAF and the TB) at extended idles am I not creating a potentially explosive chamber? Is that amount of HHO simply being used by the engine or is it building up?

OH btw, not sure if I mentioned this.. but the engine is producing x amount of TQ at any given time. But here is the key.. usually the vehicle is only requiring 25% to 50% of it. Adding say a 1ftlb load to the crank (via the alt) usually does not have the PCM add fuel. You can verify this by looking at the short term fuel trims. So yes the power being consumed is not "free" But it is rather a use of power that already being produced and would otherwise go out the exhaust pipe.

Regards,
Rich

Fishhook
06-18-2008, 10:05 AM
This has been the sort of thingthat I have been trying to encourage since I became interested in this HHO business. Lots of cell designs out there, not much info in the way of liters per minute, or better yet, liters per amp-minute. EGT would be a great thing to know as well. I am an atou repair facility, and would very much like to be installing this on my clients cars. I just have to know what parameters to measure. I am thinking that a small liter per minute output is not going to make a diffrence. BUT, the guys using this on diesel systems, aren't changing their O2 sensor values are they? So if they are seeing gains, then there must be something to it.

On an unrelated technology, Smokey Yunick built a few engines that he called "adiabiatic". These engines produced huge horsepower with small displacement, and were watercooled without a radiator. I saw one that Smokey had put in a Delorean, and there is also a Fiero running around out there with one, getting about 50 mpg with 300 HP. I believe that those engines superheat the intake mixture before combustion. That being said, there is a lot of stuff out there that we don't know...