Hafc Install Thread! (mpg Increase?!)

[sleeoffroad]

I understand it is an accelerator, but I would like to know what is the volume of hydrogen than is added to the fuel to make it so much more efficient. Also how is the hydrogen delivery to the intake regulated, or is it just sucked it as fast as it can be produced?

[reffug]

some of you folks need to back it down a bit and let Blake finish and post his numbers.................

end of story.

I have warned previously but if things I don't consider appropriate continue I will bitch slap somebody.

my advice is don't let it be you.

[SS_Storm]

I am not sure if I have explained this already so I will now.

on the average engine you have an 8ms gap between when your intake valve opens and when your exhaust valve opens- Gas is engineered to take 33ms to fully burn
So you have all this unburned gas going into your exhaust manifold.
In the space while both your intake and exhaust valves are open fuel begins being sprayed into the cylinder, this is to cool down the fuel so it does not burn in the manifold that is polluting and makes more heat in the engine bay so we have cooled it down and its all stuck in the catalytic converter-
This is where your extra fuel is supposed to be burned so that it doesn't pollute.


I focus all my efforts on trying to get as much of this fuel to burn in your cylinder that way theres less waste. I am not improving the engines efficiency at all. only attempting to get the gas to burn faster. think of it as a burning wood pile- an additive that burns faster and hotter will make the whole thing go up faster.

[JO MAOMA]

Originally Posted by SS_Storm

on the average engine you have an 8ms gap between when your intake valve opens and when your exhaust valve opens...

love to know were this figure comes from, source?

[SS_Storm]

LMBO my training class. I have no idea.

[sleeoffroad]

Originally Posted by SS_Storm

on the average engine you have an 8ms gap between when your intake valve opens and when your exhaust valve opens- Gas is engineered to take 33ms to fully burn

Not sure on any of that, but we will let it go.

So you have all this unburned gas going into your exhaust manifold.

So you are saying unburnt gas is expelled on the exhaust stroke?

In the space while both your intake and exhaust valves are open fuel begins being sprayed into the cylinder, this is to cool down the fuel so it does not burn in the manifold

So the engine sprays fuel into the cylinder when both valves are open? By design? and the cooling is by design? Is this on the intake stroke?

that is polluting and makes more heat in the engine bay so we have cooled it down and its all stuck in the catalytic converter-

Not sure what this means?

This is where your extra fuel is supposed to be burned so that it doesn't pollute.

So the whatever percentage hydrogen is going to help the fuel burn when the valves are open?

I focus all my efforts on trying to get as much of this fuel to burn in your cylinder that way theres less waste. I am not improving the engines efficiency at all. only attempting to get the gas to burn faster. think of it as a burning wood pile- an additive that burns faster and hotter will make the whole thing go up faster.

That is fine, but how are you doing it. How much hydrogen are you adding?

[Kavik]

I'd like to see someone plumb in a cylinder full of H2 & O2(think welding gas bottle). Then do some experiments with the introduction at med and higher levels. That would take the whole snake oil/battery drain issue out of the equation.

I've been surfing the web hardcore lately on this and it is all over the map. However, I have read a couple of nuggets that referred to real scientific research that suggested the combustion of fuel (gas & diesel) improved.

***Found this info on gassavers.org I'm not suggesting any accuracy, just passing along info...***

{In 1974 John Houseman and D.J/Cerini of the Jet Propulsion Lab, California Institute of Technology produced a report for the Society of Automotive Engineers entitled "On-Board Hydrogen Generator for a Partial Hydrogen Injection Internal Combustion Engine".
In 1974 F.W. Hoehn and M.W. Dowy of the Jet Propulsion Lab, prepared a report for the 9th Inter society Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, entitled "Feasibility Demonstration of a Road Vehicle Fueled with Hydrogen Enriched Gasoline." In the early eighties George Vosper P. Eng., ex-professor of Dynamics and Canadian inventor, designed and patented a device to transform internal combustion engines to run on hydrogen. He later affirms: "A small amount of hydrogen added to the air intake of a gasoline engine would enhance the flame velocity and thus permit the engine to operate with leaner air to gasoline mixture than otherwise possible. The result, far less pollution with more power and better mileage." In 1995, Wagner, Jamal and Wyszynski, at the Birmingham, of University Engineering, Mechanical and Manufacturing>, demonstrated the advantages of "Fractional addition of hydrogen to internal combustion engines by exhaust gas fuel reforming." The process yielded benefits in improved combustion stability and reduced nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon emissions.}

And another...

{Ok, the misunderstanding here is in what the hydrogen is doing. In a conventional gas engine, thermal efficiency is only around 25%, compared to a diesel engine which runs closer to 35%. Gasoline is typically C9H20, while diesel fuel is typically C14H30. The diesel cycle burns at a higher compression, which means a higher temperature, which means a more complete breakdown and a more efficient engine. Hydrogen because it doesn't have any bonds that need to be broken to burn, will react and burn immediately, compared to gas/diesel that have a much slower reaction time. It is not the energy in the hydrogen, but the reaction rate that is driving up the efficiency. By having the burn start sooner and hotter, the gasoline/diesel fuel breaks down further. This means a more complete burn, giving more power and less pollution at the same time. So, conclusion; the hydrogen is acting like a catalyst, not a fuel. Take a look at:

Great article!

This article was origionally published in Popular Mechanics. It's mostly about turbine hybrid vehicles, which are another interesting subject, but take a look at the reference to Uli Kruger about halfway through.

quote:

"But Goodwin wanted more. While researching alternative fuels, he learned about the work of Uli Kruger, a German who has spent decades in Australia exploring techniques for blending fuels that normally don't mix. One of Kruger's systems induces hydrogen into the air intake of a diesel engine, producing a cascade of emissions-reducing and mileage-boosting effects. The hydrogen, ignited by the diesel combustion, burns extremely clean, producing only water as a by-product. It also displaces up to 50% of the diesel needed to fuel the car, effectively doubling the diesel's mileage and cutting emissions by at least half. Better yet, the water produced from the hydrogen combustion cools down the engine, so the diesel combustion generates fewer particulates--and thus fewer nitrogen-oxide emissions.

"You can feed it hydrogen, diesel, biodiesel, corn oil--pretty much anything but water.""It's really a fantastic chain reaction, all these good things happening at once," Kruger tells me. He has also successfully introduced natural gas--a ubiquitous and generally cheap fuel--into a diesel-burning engine, which likewise doubles the mileage while slashing emissions. In another system, he uses heat from the diesel engine to vaporize ethanol to the point where it can be injected into the diesel combustion chambers as a booster, with similar emissions-cutting effects"}

[JO MAOMA]

it just seems to me that if there is only 8ms gap between when
your intake valve opens and when your exhaust valve opens
your engine would be turning about 11,000 rpm...



(but maybe i'm way off, my toddler has sapped what little mental acumen i once had)

[sleeoffroad]

Originally Posted by reffug

some of you folks need to back it down a bit and let Blake finish and post his numbers.................

end of story.

I have warned previously but if things I don't consider appropriate continue I will bitch slap somebody.

my advice is don't let it be you.

Hey, everyone pisses on Shotts when he post shock travel numbers. We can ask questions about this as well, can't we?

I am trying to understand this. I watched the 30 minute video that is not worth the tape it was recorded on, presented by a man that was previously involved in a huge scam.

I think it this stays in tech, we can ask questions. Blake is installing these as a business (or at least for money) and has done the training from the company, so good or bad for him he should answer the questions.

I won't get personal with Blake, but I do want to understand this stuff more, and don't tell me it is secrets only revealed in special technician training, because that is utter BS.

[Hilux]

I suggest a "status thread" only Storm can(should) post in...

That way, for someone like me that does not frequent this tech can check up and not have to read through a thousand degrading posts.....


just a thought

[jamisobe]

Originally Posted by Hilux

I suggest a "status thread" only Storm can(should) post in...

That way, for someone like me that does not frequent this tech can check up and not have to read through a thousand degrading posts.....


just a thought

I think that Reffug just indicated that this should be that status thread ...until the data is posted.

[Beowulf]

Originally Posted by Beowulf

The "covalizer" additive is possibly a real product that can positively affect the engine. I will try to find out how much this costs on a per/gallon basis.

On one of the HAFC distributor's web sites they list this covalizer at $19.95 (+S&H) for a 16oz bottle. The web site claims (April 2008) that this treats 160 gallons of fuel. That would make it about $0.14/gallon.

-B-

[Rubencito]

Originally Posted by SS_Storm

I focus all my efforts on trying to get as much of this fuel to burn in your cylinder that way theres less waste. I am not improving the engines efficiency at all. only attempting to get the gas to burn faster. think of it as a burning wood pile- an additive that burns faster and hotter will make the whole thing go up faster.

Wrong Blake, a faster-hotter burning fuel will most likely burn a hole in the piston.
Blake, you need to rethink your fast burning fuel statement.
Good fuels burns Slower, Cooler, and more uniformly.

Ruben

[jamisobe]

Originally Posted by Rubencito

Wrong Blake, a faster-hotter burning fuel will most likely burn a hole in the piston.
Blake, you need to rethink your fast burning fuel statement.
Good fuels burns Slower, Cooler, and more uniformly.

Ruben

Most likely melt the piston? At what point would this happen Ruben? Don't answer me here though. Start a new thread to warn people of the dangers of melting pistons when their engines continually inhale small amounts of water gas.

[Brian Macgyver]

Originally Posted by landtank

As I posted earlier and many times elsewhere on MUD, our ECMs don't like people dicking around with them. A lot of people seem to think piggy backs are the way to tune for boosted applications but they just don't respond like people expect them to.

Setting up engines to intentionally run lean can severely impact an engines longevity. Best of luck to that fleet of Fords.

Thank you for the support!
Without getting too deeply into the metals used and the chemical properties of available fuels, including even pure hydrogen, if the fuel mixture is leaned beyond a certain limit, the temps rise beyond the limits of the metal's tolerance. I have seen it all too many times. Excessively lean mixtures cause high temps that literally blow holes in pistons, the way that a torch cuts through steel. I have seen all too many cases where a simple intake leak causes one cylinder to run lean. The lean burn causes a hot combustion that can burn through an inch-thick aluminum piston crown in short order!
I spent too many years with Honda, the leader of the lean mixture, to have any real illusions. Honda has some incredible lean-burn systems in production cars. The result is that we had some really catastrophic engine failures. Entire model lines were subject to not only burned out pistons, but even to holes torched through iron cylinder walls by excessive combustion temps.
Mercedes has tested and driven a car that runs on creek water, by breaking the water down into hydrogen and oxygen. It burned the hydrogen and used the oxygen as a combustion booster. The technology was scrapped because it would severely deplete our water supply. The myth that a hydrogen and oxygen engine will emit an equal amount of water vapor was proven wrong.
There is no magic in energy creation. Energy must consume, and once consumed, it cannot be reclaimed.
It is certainly a valuable effort to find new ways to use fuels. But it is futile to return to areas that have been proven to be ineffectice or detrimental.

[reffug]

Originally Posted by sleeoffroad

Hey, everyone pisses on Shotts when he post shock travel numbers. We can ask questions about this as well, can't we?

I am trying to understand this. I watched the 30 minute video that is not worth the tape it was recorded on, presented by a man that was previously involved in a huge scam.

I think it this stays in tech, we can ask questions. Blake is installing these as a business (or at least for money) and has done the training from the company, so good or bad for him he should answer the questions.

I won't get personal with Blake, but I do want to understand this stuff more, and don't tell me it is secrets only revealed in special technician training, because that is utter BS.

I've got no problem with the tact you have been taking Christo. My comment was aimed at those who are not trying to understand so much as call BS and the like. I respect your knowledge of these rigs as I am sure everyone else does and have no problem with your trying to further your understanding.

Oh and shottz its totally different, he literally asks for it.................

[sleeoffroad]

Originally Posted by reffug

I've got no problem with the tact you have been taking Christo. My comment was aimed at those who are not trying to understand so much as call BS and the like. I respect your knowledge of these rigs as I am sure everyone else does and have no problem with your trying to further your understanding.

Oh and shottz its totally different, he literally asks for it.................

As much as everyone else I would love to see the results. However, did you spend 30 minutes watching the video on the site? One can't help to come away from that with a WOW attitude with the level of pseudo science in it. So yes, I posted some things jokingly, but not personally directed at Blake , but now I want some answers. We could start another thread on this, but since Blake opened this I would like for the questions to stay here.

I would have been happy if Blake said, hey I bought this and installed it and this is what I found but now he is an installed and he is doing it for money. So this thread is a ways for them to try and convince people that this stuff works. It might not have stated that way, but it certainly is borderline infomercial right now. All we need is Billy Maes.

And I quote

So I have had no time to finish my own truck I have been too busy with customers, I just finished a 2006 f150 with 80,000 miles on the clock (2wd 5.4l v8) the truck started at 14 mpg highway after I modified and tuned it it ended up at 29 mpg highway.

There are a ton of questions asked in this thread that has not been answered or has been skirted. I would like to see them addressed. And on a business sense I would like to get my own truck working and make sure everything is OK before I embark on changing a whole fleet of cars. A 1994 80 is a lot simpler to deal with than a 2006 model of anything.

My gut feeling is that they are leaning the hell out of the truck and all the other gismo's is to try and not blow the motor up.

Some direct questions.

1 Why call it a vaporizer since it is impossible for that little heat exchanger to get the fuel close to a state of vapor. So this is the first BS.

2. Why baffle us with special magnetic aluminum. Where is the proof that this works.

3. What is the output of hydrogen and how is it regulated. How is it injected and controlled?

4. What signals does the optimizer interrupt. In the video they say that they do not do anything to the stock ECU or sensors, but they are clearly interrupting the signals. So what are they feeding the ECU ?

5. What are the HP and torque numbers? I know blake does not have access to a dyno easily (he could contact us and I can give him the details of the shop in Denver), but I am sure the parent company does. If we could do a pre and post dyno run just to prove a results for a couple of turbo installs, he should be able to do the same since he has a whole fleet of trucks lined up.

6. Consider the source. Have a look at this video. YouTube - Dennis Lee Free Electricity Humming Bird Sundance Generator Covers some other magic stuff. Does Dennis Lee have any credibility?

[jamisobe]

Originally Posted by Brian Macgyver

But it is futile to return to areas that have been proven to be ineffectice or detrimental.

Is that statement intended to be all encompassing?

If technologies that have been proven ineffective in the past were discarded out of hand then there are many technologies that would be non-existent today. Like the automobile for instance, hybrid technology, or even solar power.

I have not personally experienced a car increase its gas mileage from using water electrolysis and I understand that there may be problems with it. But to say forget about from the get go is premature. Why not explore? If "hydroxy boosters" are working to some extent then that is increased energy efficiency. If it burns pistons or valves then that is a problem, but I have not yet heard of where it has done this in an uncorrectable, inherent manner. Only the ire of speculation.

Of course its ok to be skeptical. I am skeptical, but I am also intrigued that there have purportedly been some real results. I am reserving judgment because I am curious and that is my choice. I will continue to watch SS and his progress and I would like for this technology to succeed. If it doesn't then it it will go away, but for now lets see.

[WildHare]

Originally Posted by Rubencito

Wrong Blake, a faster-hotter burning fuel will most likely burn a hole in the piston.
Good fuels burns Slower, Cooler, and more uniformly.

That is what I had read years ago about internal combustion engines: the ideal is a slow, evenly burning fuel. This slower, even burning action is one aspect of burning fuel that improves as octane rating goes up. It's the lower octane fuels that have a higher chance of auto-igniting, and causing holes in pistons through shock force, and/or overly hot burning.

[sundaypunch]

Someone should start "The official HAFC quesion & answer thread". Put all the questions and commentary there and let SS_Storm continue his updates here. He can post comments there as well without bogging down this thread.

There is obviously a lot of interest in the topic. At some point it would be nice not having it all lumped into this install thread.

[Beowulf]

Originally Posted by sundaypunch

Someone should start "The official HAFC quesion & answer thread". Put all the questions and commentary there ...

Who would be answering questions? SS has said he is too busy and he is completely booked up doing HAFC tuning for the next 8 months. Blake is so busy he had to farm out the install of his O2 sensors. He has not had time to finish the HAFC tuning on his truck and he is motivated to complete the install because of the high price of fuel and the potential savings as well as the experience doing complicated installations.

I realize some will disagree but I seriously believe "The Official HAFC Q&A thread" is is more appropriate for Mud Chat. The reason is that owners of all Land Cruisers models are interested in saving fuel. Most 80-Series trucks are not OBD-II; only the 96 and 97 so that is not a reason to keep it in the 80 section.

-B-

[NLXTACY]

I think my problem with this whole thing is that there is no NEW methods or experimenting. All I see happening is the same UNPROVEN kit being installed on another vehicle by an individual who has too much money and too much time. So what we all see time and time again is NOTHING proven and it allows everyone to come out and poke fun at it.

What needs to happen to staff some of the ridicule it now try something new. New methodology, new testing, new chemicals, new metals, new conditions, new SOMETHING!

People are trying to install this SAME kit on yet another vehicle and its doomed to failure and ridicule.

So do some actual experimentation. Adding this scam kit on an 80 is not experimenting. Do something different! Try something that has NOT failed over and over and yet repackaged and sold.

This would be THE single most interesting thread if someone actual took real chemistry and physics and experimented and looked to the forum members for feedback. For every single thread I have been on I was always excited to see the outcome. This is the first thread that I have been convinced, before the final results, that I have been had.