Waldorf -Anything of value?

[BoyntonStu]

I have to admit that I got more from non-HHO generator related information at the show. Plasma spark is definitely a technology that is crying out for fine tuning, I will tell you all now, until you've seen a plasma spark IN PERSON you haven't seen a thing, videos do it NO justice at all. To see this guys plasma setup igniting a cold mist of water in a brilliant blinding flash of every colour in the rainbow and flaming out of the device is just awe inspiring. Plasma could be used to possibly ignite just water, but it also gives an excellent avenue for more complete combustion of gasoline, which is what we're trying to achieve with HHO. Imagine, a usable plasma spark system coupled with vapourised fuel.

HHO definitely has the possibility of increasing gas mileage, however, in a lot of cases so much of it is needed to make a difference that generating that much is not feasable until the science is advanced.

ZeroFossilFuel was running his test rig consisting of a B&S flathead 5hp engine coupled to an alternator which was driving the HHO unit and some high wattage lights. Later on in the day, I went over to his test and waited politely for him to finish one of his test runs and then asked if he had any interesting data from previously in day, he replied in a gruff rude voice "Yes I do" and walked away without even looking me in the face. Oh well.

I did see his sheet where he had penciled his results sitting on a bench, he was getting approximately 6 1/2 minutes runtime on just gasoline and slightly over 7 with the addition of HHO.

I felt sorry for SmartScarecrow, he was attempting to fire up his example engine running on HHO but was having nothing but problems with backfires all day. Despite this, I had a brief friendly chat with him and shared a joke.

There were very few people with anything to show reference HHO in an ICE. The gentlemen with the plasma spark had achieved a 15% increase on his van with just HHO, however, he had added fuel vapourisation and then had to drop his HHO to 1/8th of a LPM to avoid predetonation under load.

Russ,

So sad that with another year behind us, the HHOers are going into welding and away from cars.

Zero's 7/6.5 is a 7% gain. Positive, but nothing to brag about.

About 25 years ago, I invented a dual spark spark plug.

The plug had 2 complete sparks inside a conventional plug.

I also witnessed a 2 plug per cylinder Rolls Royce V-8 in operation with 1 plug only and then with both plugs.

The point is that better ignition will burn the slight amount of unburnt gas. However, beyond a smoother running car the power gain is in the second decimal place.

Plasma spark may be even better than a pair of plugs but I am skeptical that anything beyond a tiny gain would be realized.

Let's get an air restriction team going and prove a positive gain to all drivers with almost no cost.

I believe that if we put 10% of the effort into air restriction that we put into HHO, we would all be getting better mileage.


BoyntonStu

P.S. An EGT thermostat/pulser would be a good add-on to cool running air restriction.

[H2OPWR]

I know that this is not easy but I do not get all the doubts and questions. I am running 2 lpm now with a gain of around 20% and have kept very concise records. I have absolutely no pre detonation and no moisture. Also no EFIE or MAP. I also have nothing to gain from not being honest about it. In fact I am a very busy person who would have stopped this long ago if I felt that there were no gains to be made!

Larry

[Painless]

I know that this is not easy but I do not get all the doubts and questions. I am running 2 lpm now with a gain of around 20% and have kept very concise records. I have absolutely no pre detonation and no moisture. Also no EFIE or MAP. I also have nothing to gain from not being honest about it. In fact I am a very busy person who would have stopped this long ago if I felt that there were no gains to be made!

Larry

I understand where you're coming from, Larry. I ran 2.3 LPM into my Ram for more than two months and didn't see the slightest reaction. It's a confusing scenario to work through.

I didn't have anything to monitor the ECU at the time though.

Russ.

[H2OPWR]

I understand where you're coming from, Larry. I ran 2.3 LPM into my Ram for more than two months and didn't see the slightest reaction. It's a confusing scenario to work through.

I didn't have anything to monitor the ECU at the time though.

Russ.

Russ, I beleive the difference between my results and yours are very simple to explain. It simply is the new smarter ECU's. In the last couple of years the manufacturers have made the ECU's smarter. They are giving them the ability to make logical decisions and adapt. The reason for this is customer satisfaction (less CEL's). And lower warranty claims as well. For example, If the A/F Sensor on my vehicle says the truck is running too lean and every other sensor says everything is working as normal. In addition the post cat O2's say the vehicle is emmision compliant then the ECU will adapt and allow the engine to run lean as long as there seems to be no danger to the engine. My truck has simply allowed the engine to run leaner than the programming. I just still wonder how much better I could get if I could increase the HHO output when there is more fuel going into the engine. At this point I am concerned that installing the enhancers would mess things up but I will eventually try. I just have to know.

Larry

[Painless]

Russ, I beleive the difference between my results and yours are very simple to explain. It simply is the new smarter ECU's. In the last couple of years the manufacturers have made the ECU's smarter. They are giving them the ability to make logical decisions and adapt. The reason for this is customer satisfaction (less CEL's). And lower warranty claims as well. For example, If the A/F Sensor on my vehicle says the truck is running too lean and every other sensor says everything is working as normal. In addition the post cat O2's say the vehicle is emmision compliant then the ECU will adapt and allow the engine to run lean as long as there seems to be no danger to the engine. My truck has simply allowed the engine to run leaner than the programming. I just still wonder how much better I could get if I could increase the HHO output when there is more fuel going into the engine. At this point I am concerned that installing the enhancers would mess things up but I will eventually try. I just have to know.

Larry

Larry,

I wish I could have had an eye into my engine back then, although I did notice some small changes in fuel trims with my last cell. I think you could definitely be on the right track about the later ECU's.

Hold tight on the PWM you are looking for, I'm working on my HydroProp system as time allows and plan to send you a prototype, free of charge, as soon as I have one. If development does stretch out longer than I anticipate, I will send you a PWM only version to get you going.

Russ.

[Q-Hack!]

Russ, I beleive the difference between my results and yours are very simple to explain. It simply is the new smarter ECU's. In the last couple of years the manufacturers have made the ECU's smarter. They are giving them the ability to make logical decisions and adapt. The reason for this is customer satisfaction (less CEL's). And lower warranty claims as well. For example, If the A/F Sensor on my vehicle says the truck is running too lean and every other sensor says everything is working as normal. In addition the post cat O2's say the vehicle is emmision compliant then the ECU will adapt and allow the engine to run lean as long as there seems to be no danger to the engine. My truck has simply allowed the engine to run leaner than the programming. I just still wonder how much better I could get if I could increase the HHO output when there is more fuel going into the engine. At this point I am concerned that installing the enhancers would mess things up but I will eventually try. I just have to know.

Larry

It would be nice to know for sure what caused your increase in MPG. It is an interesting theory that you have, and if so, could be quite advantageous. Unfortunately, there are so many reasons for an increase/decrease in MPG that it makes it really hard to tell for sure just what caused the change. For instance: I recently moved from Marysville, CA to Alamogordo, NM. I saw an average of 3 MPG gain. Why... Well it could be because of the difference in gas blends between California and New Mexico. It could be because of the elevation change; Marysville, CA is 62 feet above sea level... NM is 4,330. With the thinner air here means that my engine runs slightly leaner.

If we could pin-point exactly why you see greater gains it would go a long way to providing an all around solution to this delima. Who knows, it may be that Philldpapill's computer system is the answer to older model ECU's.

[H2OPWR]

It would be nice to know for sure what caused your increase in MPG. It is an interesting theory that you have, and if so, could be quite advantageous. Unfortunately, there are so many reasons for an increase/decrease in MPG that it makes it really hard to tell for sure just what caused the change. For instance: I recently moved from Marysville, CA to Alamogordo, NM. I saw an average of 3 MPG gain. Why... Well it could be because of the difference in gas blends between California and New Mexico. It could be because of the elevation change; Marysville, CA is 62 feet above sea level... NM is 4,330. With the thinner air here means that my engine runs slightly leaner.

If we could pin-point exactly why you see greater gains it would go a long way to providing an all around solution to this delima. Who knows, it may be that Philldpapill's computer system is the answer to older model ECU's.

I know for sure some area's because of constant monitoring. I am at least 20% more effecient at idle. The GPH reading is proof positive. The reading may not be exactually accurate but if it calculates the GPH the same way every time then the reference is all that matters. I have 1 2 mile section of 45 MPH street that I drive every day. It is flat and I drive exactly 45 MPH. I can tell by the same speed every day both to and from work. I have watched the GPH and MPG readings on that section of my drive because it is easy to watch and no stoplights. I am 25 to 30% more effecient there than before. The rest of my driving is impossible to tell because the readings vary wildly depending on conditions. I am positive that the HHO is making the burn more effecient than before at least under some conditions.

I really need to take time for some more extended freeway tests. The problem is that there is only one freeway and it is only 55 miles long.

Larry

[BoyntonStu]

It would be nice to know for sure what caused your increase in MPG. It is an interesting theory that you have, and if so, could be quite advantageous. Unfortunately, there are so many reasons for an increase/decrease in MPG that it makes it really hard to tell for sure just what caused the change. For instance: I recently moved from Marysville, CA to Alamogordo, NM. I saw an average of 3 MPG gain. Why... Well it could be because of the difference in gas blends between California and New Mexico. It could be because of the elevation change; Marysville, CA is 62 feet above sea level... NM is 4,330. With the thinner air here means that my engine runs slightly leaner.

If we could pin-point exactly why you see greater gains it would go a long way to providing an all around solution to this delima. Who knows, it may be that Philldpapill's computer system is the answer to older model ECU's.

Please, let's use the term "leaner" correctly.

"With the thinner air here means that my engine runs slightly leaner. "


The factory set air/fuel ratio is 14.7:1.

15.7:1 would be a "leaner" mixture.

At altitude where the air is thinner, the ECU cuts back on the gas to maintain 14.7:1 air/fuel ratio.

In thin air, the ECU controlled engine does NOT run lean!

I hope that this explains it.


BoyntonStu

[Randohr]

I drove my Jeep Liberty down to Waldorf, 5.5 hour run, for it's very first freeway run. It took me six months (with hho running) of learning and tinkering with circuits and sensors to finally crack the code to realize gains. My scan gauge showed about a 30% increase, my gas receipt showed 27.45%. (18.3% return trip; I had a very heavy foot) In my pure excitement to my hard earned success, I made the mistake of telling the "celebrities" of my results. I apparently was from that point on a crack pot. My design is NOT a dry cell or series cell and no PWM so how could I possibly get gains? The demonstrations and presentations were excellent. Jeff Cook is a genius and could change the world. I truly enjoyed talking with 99% of the people, and the night time jam session was a lot of fun. I even got to play a few of my songs. Back to my cell; I now call it the KISS cell (keep it stupid simple), it's a horizontal water bath brute force set-up running 3 vdc at 20 amps (60 watts). Up until about a week ago I never focused on cell efficiency,just to make HHO and get it in the vehicles asap. I have no bench set-up, all testing is done on the road. The puts out @ .3+- lpm from what I can tell? That's @ a 5 mmw for what it's worth. I bias seven circuits, my mpg gains were <10% without the biasing. All four O2 sensors, MAP, air intake sensor and water temp. You have to manipulate the air (atmospheric conditions) in the A/F ratio. My Jeep thinks its at 6000ft in a 120 degree desert. I built many adjustable circuits to bias the sensors and it was more trouble than what it was worth once the sensor operability ranges were established. I ended with a 4.7K resistor across the AIT sensor, 15K across the water temp sensor, a diode in the 5vdc feed to the MAP -drops supply vdc to a fixed 4.5vdc. Primary O2's at 240mvdc, secondaries at @ 400 mvdc. The secondary bias is needed so the CPU doesn't think the cats are too cool and start dumping fuel to warm them back up. Low oxygen readings = cool cats in my Jeep. Once I did that, no more sporadic open loop control. My first two builds, odbi cpu's, only needed one efie to get gains. Tuning is critical!
Looking forward to future events. I will proudly show my "outside the box-circa 1975" set-ups! Also, I'm not selling anything, build things yourself, gain the knowledge...When I stop learning is the day I pass on.
Randohr

[Q-Hack!]

Please, let's use the term "leaner" correctly.

"With the thinner air here means that my engine runs slightly leaner. "


The factory set air/fuel ratio is 14.7:1.

15.7:1 would be a "leaner" mixture.

At altitude where the air is thinner, the ECU cuts back on the gas to maintain 14.7:1 air/fuel ratio.

In thin air, the ECU controlled engine does NOT run lean!

I hope that this explains it.


BoyntonStu

Yep, you are absolutely correct. It is just my upbringing that causes me to use the term 'leaner' to refer to the engine using less gas. Sorry if I confused anybody.