Posted by BobG on August 23, 2008, 10:40 am
> I seriously doubt that water injection will even affect a modern
> engine with all the computer controlled items. Those things squeeze
> every bit of energy out of the fuel that is reasonably possible now.
> If water injection worked, the engineers would be ecsatitic and would
> be installing them on every engine that goes out the door. �There
> answer to the 'denser charge' has been the turbo charger which does
> the same thing (but only really _decreases_ mileage as it only comes
> into play when more _power_ is called for, not more _economy_)
==========================
===============
Seems like the way to experiment with mileage enhancement tricks like
water or hydrogen would be on a a platform where you have control over
the computer and spark and injection tables, like the megaquirt open
source injection computer that the hot rod guys are using. I'd like to
see if it could run a regular engine from an H2 bottle and an O2
bottle. Anyone have a prediction/rough calc on what the flow would be?
33KWhr per gal for gas... whats the equiv for H2 and O2?
Posted by Michael B on August 22, 2008, 2:45 pm
> > I don't normally jump in, but I will in this case.
> > I considered hydrogen generation, momentarily.
> > But then remembered that it has eight times the rate
> > of flame spread over an air/gasoline mixture. So I wouldn't
> > want very much in there, and I wouldn't want it to become
> > one of my crankcase gases.
> > BUT, ya know, there could be some value to a small amount
> > of hydrogen in the mix, to help cause a quicker flame spread
> > through the mix. But the onboard computer would likely see
> > that as 'knock', and reset timing to compensate.
> > Also, those hydrogen and oxygem molecules are quick to
> > combine since they are coming out with open 'shells'. I
> > suspect that what is actually going into a lot of engines is
> > the recombined product, namely water vapor.
> > And there's the rub. There have been engines to use water
> > mist for extra power boost, but I'm not ready to go that far yet.
> > Water vapor is my answer, and it has worked for me. No big
> > claims, but I've documented 15% improvement in open
> > road driving by increasing the humidity of the mix, but that's
> > just what I've seen.
> > Ya get better gas mileage on a rainy day, at the same speed.
> > So I make sure every day is a rainy one, far as my engine is
> > concerned. I use an air stone and a little battery-operated
> > air pump, the kind you use to keep the water oxygenated in
> > a bucket holding live bait. Couple of AA batteries, a few hours
> > trip per charge. To make it work, I've wired the batteries in
> > series with a microswitch mounted in front of the radiator.
> > Closes after the apparent speed is around 35 miles an hour.
> > I know, 15% is not a big deal, as things go. But it helps a bit,
> > and it was an interesting diversion. If I get around to it, I may
> > make a voltage divider and run it off the car battery. And I just
> > might be a bit more elegant than having a Mason jar with two
> > siliconed tubes in its lid, duct taped in place near the intake.
> > wrote:
> > > Leonard Abbott wrote:
> > > >> Do you have any reason to think such a small addition of H2 would
> > > >> give you such a tremendous boost in mileage? Any data that suggests
> > > >> this is even remotely possible?
> > > >> ---------------------------------------------------
> > > >> There are already chemicals that when added to your fuel increases
> > > >> mileage by making gasoline burn more effectively, Ethos I believe is
> > > >> the name of one product..
> > > >> Just a little Ethose is supposed to increase mpg by 30%.H2 could do
> > > >> the same thing.
> > > Nope. This discussion...http://www.fuelsaving.info/ethos.htm
> > > Shows that 'Ethos' was originally patented for reducing smoke from diesel
> > > engines. And that some over-the-road uncontrolled tests on *diesel* engines
> > > report some improvement. The one gas engine had a very modest 5%
> > > improvement that can't even be verified.
> > > The article makes some good points about 'testimonials' and "famous users"
> > > that are often claimed, but no hard *evidence*.
> > > And none of them approach your 30% numbers. And considering that 'Ethos'
> > > supposedly improves performance by 'lubrication' (something H2 doesn't do)
> > > and 'cleaning' (something H2 is not likely to do),
> > > Again, "Do you have any reason to think such a small addition of H2 would
> > > give you such a remendous boost in mileage?"
> > > No, I thought not.
> > > daestrom- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Yes, on old style engines where everything isn't computer controlled,
> you will 'feel' an improvement in power. That improvement is caused
> by creating a denser mix which results in more fuel per charge which
> results in more power. Any increase in mileage is illusionary. At
> best you come up with the same mileage (have to use less 'pedal' but
> burning the same amount of fuel for equal power.
> Harry K
Posted by Michael B on August 22, 2008, 2:51 pm
Perhaps, maybe not.
What convinced me to try it was only getting 34 MPG with my
Saturn SL2 most every time we went from Louisville to Ashland, KY.
But getting 40 MPG when we went and came back on rainy days.
And I'm the one people fuss about. 55 miles an hour, even though
the posted max is 70. Rain or shine, 55.
Usual routine about properly inflated tires, too.
> > Water vapor is my answer, and it has worked for me. No big
> > claims, but I've documented 15% improvement in open
> > road driving by increasing the humidity of the mix, but that's
> > just what I've seen.
> > Ya get better gas mileage on a rainy day, at the same speed.
> > So I make sure every day is a rainy one, far as my engine is
> > concerned. I use an air stone and a little battery-operated
> > air pump, the kind you use to keep the water oxygenated in
> > a bucket holding live bait. Couple of AA batteries, a few hours
> > trip per charge. To make it work, I've wired the batteries in
> > series with a microswitch mounted in front of the radiator.
> > Closes after the apparent speed is around 35 miles an hour.
> > I know, 15% is not a big deal, as things go. But it helps a bit,
> > and it was an interesting diversion. If I get around to it, I may
> > make a voltage divider and run it off the car battery. And I just
> > might be a bit more elegant than having a Mason jar with two
> > siliconed tubes in its lid, duct taped in place near the intake.
> Yes, on old style engines where everything isn't computer controlled,
> you will 'feel' an improvement in power. That improvement is caused
> by creating a denser mix which results in more fuel per charge which
> results in more power. Any increase in mileage is illusionary. At
> best you come up with the same mileage (have to use less 'pedal' but
> burning the same amount of fuel for equal power.
> Harry K
Posted by Eeyore on August 22, 2008, 7:32 pm
Michael B wrote:
> Perhaps, maybe not.
> What convinced me to try it was only getting 34 MPG with my
> Saturn SL2 most every time we went from Louisville to Ashland, KY.
> But getting 40 MPG when we went and came back on rainy days.
> And I'm the one people fuss about. 55 miles an hour, even though
> the posted max is 70. Rain or shine, 55.
> Usual routine about properly inflated tires, too.
And how did you measure that ?
Don't you drive a little slower in the rain perhaps ? It's a good idea from
a safety perspective.
Graham
Posted by Michael B on August 22, 2008, 11:28 pm
Slow down? Why do you think I said "Rain or shine, 55"?
Flying J at exit 43 off I-64. Fill till it won't hold any more,
then do the same on the way back.
wrote:
> Michael B wrote:
> > Perhaps, maybe not.
> > What convinced me to try it was only getting 34 MPG with my
> > Saturn SL2 most every time we went from Louisville to Ashland, KY.
> > But getting 40 MPG when we went and came back on rainy days.
> > And I'm the one people fuss about. 55 miles an hour, even though
> > the posted max is 70. Rain or shine, 55.
> > Usual routine about properly inflated tires, too.
> And how did you measure that ?
> Don't you drive a little slower in the rain perhaps ? It's a good idea from
> a safety perspective.
> Graham
XML site map
> engine with all the computer controlled items. Those things squeeze
> every bit of energy out of the fuel that is reasonably possible now.
> If water injection worked, the engineers would be ecsatitic and would
> be installing them on every engine that goes out the door. �There
> answer to the 'denser charge' has been the turbo charger which does
> the same thing (but only really _decreases_ mileage as it only comes
> into play when more _power_ is called for, not more _economy_)