Hafc Install Thread! (mpg Increase?!)

[aircraft engineer]

let's be BLUNT about this - I tried various "devices" in the past. No success with the Pogue carb (talk about touchy) gave my opinion of the fuel expansion thru heated fuel going into the system (yup, works by increasing the fuel volume - there is a small power loss and a tendency to be more prone to vapor lock if you're not careful - the diesel benefited most from this one), Electrolysis of water - did experiments in school (a LONG time ago) to quantify the energy balance (college project in thermodynamics) - it didn't make enough output to have a particular effect on the fuel consumption, magnets around the fuel lines - gathered metal from the road in dusty areas (fuel increase? IN YOUR DREAMS), SLICK50 - No particular effect (but it was an "older engine" fully broken in - might help with recent bores, synthetic oil - better lubrication (based on oil sample results) but it was changed at 5000 mile intervals, hi-volume low impedance flow air filters - bit better flow but the cost of the treatment when you clean it sort of offsets the power increase, vacuum operated water vapor into the intake - decreased the pinging tendency a bit - but not NEARLY as much as taking a 2 bbl progressive Holley with separate float bowls, diverting the inlet in the secondary to a windshield washer fluid bottle with a demand pump to the secondary float and running it "normally" - at higher throttle openings it would drop the washer fluid (it was cccc-old in Michigan in the wintere) DIRECTLY into the manifold from the inlet jet. For higher power, the fuel decrease was about 20% but the power didn't seem all that much down. on teardown the piston tops and valves were clean as a whistle (ford 390) but it was sort of a pain in the posterior to make sure the tank stayed full. like running in a downpour all the time.

I could go on if I took time to go look at the notes (some of them approaching 40 years old and IF I can EVEN FIND SOME OF THEM)

yes, I've tried most of them as experiments. back in that time frame, it was better to use a manual trans (automatics didn't have locking converters) Even found that running tires at "spec" inflation was 4% FUEL ECONOMY BETTER THAN 5 POUNDS LOW, but the effects of increasing the pressure above 10 over the max recommended didn't help and made tire wear go up drastically.

Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt

[Beowulf]

Originally Posted by aircraft engineer

I could go on if I took time to go look at the notes (some of them approaching 40 years old and IF I can EVEN FIND SOME OF THEM)

Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt

gray ?? ? Is that you? Did you come back after all these months?

-B-

[jamisobe]

Originally Posted by aircraft engineer

yes, I've tried most of them as experiments.

Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt

So after doing all of those experiments why would you be so against trying one more? Might as well hold to form and try one more time. You never know when one of these hair brained ideas might work. Its probably a numbers game for you and maybe the next experiment will be your window to the secrets of the universe.

[Romer]

Originally Posted by sundaypunch

Have you read the thread? Many people think the system doesn't work. To paraphrase another poster, if you can get your point across without being a dick your post won't be deleted.

Sunday hit it right on the head. That is why the posts were deleted. Most people can be skeptical, say they don't believe, etc, debate points, question results without being a dick. Those posts are still in this thread

You want to be a dick, go to chat.

[PDoyle]

Originally Posted by Beowulf

gray ?? ? Is that you? Did you come back after all these months?

-B-

B, is this line from a movie?????

[aircraft engineer]

I've got gray hair - that count?

As to testing the "system" - since I KNOW frm previous tests that the "pieces" (or more precisely the MAIN piece) doesn't produce more than it consumes, WHY would I want to waste the time?

IF I wanted to try something "new and different" I'd go for the "6 stroke cycle" engine that I saw a report on somewhere - trouble is that one requires a "strange" camming system plus another injector to put in the liquid water directly into the combustion chamber at the top of the exhaust stroke.

It allows the water to form steam and expand for a quasi "free" power stroke and supposedly increases fuel economy by a "proven" (he HAS DATA) roughly 15% with no additional fuel input or "other' energy input (other than the energy used to inject the water) I can see a "minor" problem with STARTING, though depending on what cycle you were on so it would likely need some way of providing a "run on" without water injection for 10 strokes or so to clear out the water in the cylinders plus a lag in injection of water at the startup. There's also that "freezing weather" issue, bt that's solved easily with a bit of alcohol - or just drive in tropical climates. Steady state, it's highly efficient, but would require "some engine redesign" - and that's not as simple as it seems

[Romer]

Originally Posted by aircraft engineer

I've got gray hair - that count?

As to testing the "system" - since I KNOW frm previous tests that the "pieces" (or more precisely the MAIN piece) doesn't produce more than it consumes, WHY would I want to waste the time?

IF I wanted to try something "new and different" I'd go for the "6 stroke cycle" engine that I saw a report on somewhere - trouble is that one requires a "strange" camming system plus another injector to put in the liquid water directly into the combustion chamber at the top of the exhaust stroke.

It allows the water to form steam and expand for a quasi "free" power stroke and supposedly increases fuel economy by a "proven" (he HAS DATA) roughly 15% with no additional fuel input or "other' energy input (other than the energy used to inject the water) I can see a "minor" problem with STARTING, though depending on what cycle you were on so it would likely need some way of providing a "run on" without water injection for 10 strokes or so to clear out the water in the cylinders plus a lag in injection of water at the startup. There's also that "freezing weather" issue, bt that's solved easily with a bit of alcohol - or just drive in tropical climates. Steady state, it's highly efficient, but would require "some engine redesign" - and that's not as simple as it seems

That a very informative and respectful reply. Thanks

[StrangerThnU]

Originally Posted by JO MAOMA

seems somewhat strange to me that major auto makers
would rather hemorrhage hundreds of millions of dollars
in sales rather than install this technology on there cars.
any one car maker would dominate the world market and
make billions of dollars if they could increase the fuel
efficiency of their product line by 50% -100%....

It looks like there is an auto maker out there that is using this HHO technology in their vehicle. Here is an excert:
The sexy $150,000 Scorpion sports car by Ronn Motors is making energy history by implementing hydrogen boost technology as part of the factory design, due out at the end of 2008 or beginning of 2009.
Until Scorpion, the hydrogen boost approach has been largely a movement of garage tinkerers and do-it-yourselfers, who have built a near infinite variety of on-board electrolysis units which duct the hydroxy (HHO) gas into the air intake, catalyzing a more efficient burn of the fuel. This improves fuel economy at least by 20%, and according to some internet gossip, can produce a near doubling of the mileage. There are also a few commercial operations producing and selling various hydrogen boost devices for retrofitting existing vehicles.

Here is a link to the full info: Article:Ronn Motors' Scorpion using Hydrogen Booster - PESWiki

[JO MAOMA]

Originally Posted by StrangerThnU

It looks like there is an auto maker out there that is using this HHO technology in their vehicle. Here is an excert:
The sexy $150,000 Scorpion sports car by Ronn Motors is making energy history by implementing hydrogen boost technology as part of the factory design, due out at the end of 2008 or beginning of 2009.
Until Scorpion, the hydrogen boost approach has been largely a movement of garage tinkerers and do-it-yourselfers, who have built a near infinite variety of on-board electrolysis units which duct the hydroxy (HHO) gas into the air intake, catalyzing a more efficient burn of the fuel. This improves fuel economy at least by 20%, and according to some internet gossip, can produce a near doubling of the mileage. There are also a few commercial operations producing and selling various hydrogen boost devices for retrofitting existing vehicles.

Here is a link to the full info: Article:Ronn Motors' Scorpion using Hydrogen Booster - PESWiki

a ten month old company that has yet to manufacture
a single car is hardly a "major auto makers"...

[StrangerThnU]

Originally Posted by JO MAOMA

a ten month old company that has yet to manufacture
a single car is hardly a "major auto makers"...

I agree that they are not a "Major auto maker". However, they seem to have proven the technology enough to inculde it as standard equipment. Hopefully some of the "Major auto makers" will take notice.

[jamisobe]

Originally Posted by StrangerThnU

I agree that they are not a "Major auto maker". However, they seem to have proven the technology enough to inculde it as standard equipment. Hopefully some of the "Major auto makers" will take notice.

I would love to see an independent test of the vehicle by Road & Track, Car & Driver or someone as such.

[SDFJ60JFK]

I have now wasted some time reading all of this.........Even 2 months later there are no real results...

eg, I went X miles before versus X mile after the Install. Surely the fleet of truck that the roofing company had this installed on should have mileage and fill up records.

John

[ETD66SS]

My Dad and I gave up on the HHO system.

It worked, but required CONSTANT tinkering, it was no way reliable.

The electrolyte would get dirty after 4-5 days, and the AMPS would go down from 30-5. This fuel cell would require dissassembly and cleaning once a week. That's just not feasible...

When the electrolyte was clean, he went from 17 mpg to 26 mpg, but over the long run of 3 months, the ave mpg gain was less than 5...

I can't call it a scam, because it did actually do what it was supposed to, the problem is it becomes a hobby, and your vehicle is no longer reliable. It wasted too much of my time. I would not recommend the system.

[Right Turn Clyde]

Originally Posted by SS_Storm

OH! and theres more ways to tune, its hidden :-P they teach us how in the classes but we sign a contract saying we won't disclose how SORRY!

Hmm, I suppose I am not coining a phrase by terming this..."diag-gnostics".

Oh, I kill myself sometimes.

Of course, 14mpg coming back from SLC also kills me..."I must need taller tires and armor, dear, so we can save on fuel!"

RTC

[PDoyle]

Too bad. Do you have a picture of the install on the Landcruiser, or did you remove it all ready?

[jamisobe]

Originally Posted by ETD66SS

My Dad and I gave up on the HHO system.

It worked, but required CONSTANT tinkering, it was no way reliable.

The electrolyte would get dirty after 4-5 days, and the AMPS would go down from 30-5. This fuel cell would require dissassembly and cleaning once a week. That's just not feasible...

When the electrolyte was clean, he went from 17 mpg to 26 mpg, but over the long run of 3 months, the ave mpg gain was less than 5...

I can't call it a scam, because it did actually do what it was supposed to, the problem is it becomes a hobby, and your vehicle is no longer reliable. It wasted too much of my time. I would not recommend the system.

It sounds like there is something there. Keeping it tuned must be the achilles heal. Maybe that is why car manufacturers don't incorporate it? You would think that a refined version could be engineered.

[PDoyle]

pics?

[psreno]

That's what happened with my engineering friend. His first measurements were spectacular and always rolling off. He made several improvements, but after a couple thousand miles decided it was too much work to keep the system beneficial.

Now if you could automatically filter the water and keep it replenished...

[SS_Storm]

Do not waste your money. This stuff is not at a point that is worth your time or money!!
their computer system is far too spotty and simply tricks your computer into thinking it needs to run leaner. it does not work reliably. it destroyed my idle and I got no continuing mileage gain. I removed the computer (piggy back) and now its back to normal and runs great again but now I intend to install a megasquirt to control the fuel system while using the fuel heater and hydrogen from the hafc. Ill start a new thread off when this happens.

[Beowulf]

Originally Posted by SS_Storm

Do not waste your money. This stuff is not at a point that is worth your time or money!!

Originally Posted by Beowulf

Take the $3,000 dollars you'll spend on this snake oil and buy stock in Exxon. You'll be able to retire when you reach my age.

You would have lost $500 if you took my advice anyway so I guess both of us suck at making money.

Seriously though, were you able to get your money back with the guarantee?

Were you able to get money back for your customers?

-B-

[Buckru]

Originally Posted by SS_Storm

Do not waste your money. This stuff is not at a point that is worth your time or money!!
their computer system is far too spotty and simply tricks your computer into thinking it needs to run leaner. it does not work reliably. it destroyed my idle and I got no continuing mileage gain. I removed the computer (piggy back) and now its back to normal and runs great again but now I intend to install a megasquirt to control the fuel system while using the fuel heater and hydrogen from the hafc. Ill start a new thread off when this happens.

That took some guts to say after all the flaming you took regarding this. I appreciate you coming back with your final thoughts.

Buck

[concretejungle]

Originally Posted by Buckru

That took some guts to say after all the flaming you took regarding this. I appreciate you coming back with your final thoughts.

Buck

agreed.

[fzjconvert]

Originally Posted by concretejungle

agreed.

Originally Posted by Buckru

That took some guts to say after all the flaming you took regarding this. I appreciate you coming back with your final thoughts.

Buck

Yes! Blake you are a stand-up guy in my book! Can't say as much for a certain heckler using a pseudonym to post. When it was clear to be someone from down stairs.

[SS_Storm]

Thanks guys, and no I didn't get my money back, I want to continue using the components they are good but the computer system is the bad part. with the mega squirt I'm going to be targeting an 18:1 A/F ratio so thats gonna either blow up the engine or work ha! so yeah here we go, theres gonna be a delay because im about to get engaged and yeah no more money for a while after that. till my next comisison check

[Beowulf]

Originally Posted by SS_Storm

... with the mega squirt I'm going to be targeting an 18:1 A/F ratio

The mega-squirt gets good reviews from guys using it in forced induction SBC applications. There are cottage industries built around doing the custom programming.

-B-