Any Jeep Owners on here with any MPG success stories??

[95CHERJUST]

Look armchair, Maybe you did not take high school science but most people who did know it is a simple process to make hydrogen with a cup of water and a 9 volt battery. Running 12 volts @ 10 amps thru a simple stack submerged in a mixture of water with a little potassium chloride produces aprox. 1200cc of gas per min. which is 2/3 hydrogen and 1/3 oxygen, a very very explosive mixture, compared to the atmosphere which is 19.5% oxygen (flammable) and 80.5 % nitrogen (non flammable). Now by allowing this gas to flow into the engines air intake stream it increases the power output of the cylinders, which means you are giving the engine less throttle at the same speed. Hydrogen is 2.5 X as explosive as regular fuel/air. This is not rocket science; it has been around allot longer than you have. As far as big news stories I am afraid again you are mistaken, if you ever check the U.S Patten Office has issued patens on hundreds of fuel saving devices that have never received any notoriety but have been proven to work all the same. Former JPL scientist Herman Anderson built a car that ran on water and yet who has heard of him. The state of Tennessee allowed him to drive his car but not to produce or sell it. It is now in the Water Fuel Museum in Lexington KY. No one is making any money off these devices, and up until $4.00 gas, 4 or 5 miles per gallon was not going to get too many people excited. Heck it is really not worth it to me to put them on the rest of my cars, as I can make enough money on a Saturday afternoon to buy a years gas, but I was curious if it worked so I tried it.

[theclencher]

Is that the U.S. General Patten Office by any chance? LMAO Just cuz something/someone has a patten doesn't mean it works or they won a war or anything. I'd say what's needed is third party testing and verification by a reputable source i.e. someone that doesn't have a horse in that race i.e. someone that doesn't stand to make a buck on it i.e. a legitimate science and/or test lab and/or reputable mechanic and/or engineering firm and/or state/fed agency charged with evaluating such things. No, the Water Fuel Museum doesn't count.

Gee, i ne'er herda elektrollisis afore. OK Einstein, let's see if you took math class: How far does 1200cc/minute go in your engine? Then: how much hp did it take to put out that 10 amps? Then: how much benefit was there to the hydrogen component?

[Jay2TheRescue]

Ummm, I think this thread has been derailed... Can we please get back on topic, and keep things civil, or this thread may be closed.

Thank You,

Jay

[95CHERJUST]

let me clear up a misconception. Many people think that we are generating HHO so we can burn it, and that burning this HHO adds so much power, that we get better fuel mileage. To take this a step further, there are 3 energy conversions at work here:

Mechanical to electrical (the alternator makes electrical energy)
Electrical to chemical (the cell makes HHO from electrical energy)
Chemical to mechanical (the HHO burns in the engine to make mechanical energy)

The problem is that there are 3 energy conversions occurring here, and each one loses some energy. It is a basic fundamental of physics that in any conversion of energy from one form to another, there is going to be some loss. There is no such thing as 100% efficiency. In some of these conversions there is quite a bit of loss. So if this is all there was to the picture, then the system would actually lose mileage when it was used. I've even seen this mistaken idea expressed in magazines and on television news coverage of the technology.

But this is not how HHO is able to improve fuel economy. In actual fact HHO, when added to the air/fuel mixture going into the engine, causes that petroleum fuel to burn more rapidly. Scientists say that it considerably increases the flame speed of the petroleum mixture. And it is this fact that sums up the primary way that HHO improves fuel mileage.

When the flame speed of the fuel mixture is increased, more of the fuel is burned during the power stroke of the piston. Less fuel is being burned after the power stroke, and during the exhaust stroke, which actually works against the turning of the engine. And less unburned fuel is being expelled from the engine as waste and pollutants. A relatively small amount of HHO will have a dramatic impact on the amount of power a given amount of gasoline will produce. It will also drop dramatically the amount of harmful emissions the engine produces.


Back in the good old days, before there were computers in cars, experimenters were able to add HHO to their engines and get remarkable mileage gains and dramatic decreases in emissions. No other handling was needed to get excellent results. Similarly, diesel engines, even today get excellent results with HHO and need no other handling.

However, with the advent of the computer, fuel injection, oxygen sensors, and other sensors used to control the air/fuel ratio, a problem is introduced into this simple technology. The problem starts like this. When hydrogen is introduced, and the engine is turning more times with less gas, one of the results is that there is more oxygen coming through the exhaust. This is reported to the computer by the oxygen sensor(s) that are installed in the exhaust pipe(s). The computer reads this additional oxygen as a "lean" air/fuel mix. It then promptly adds more gas, until it "sees" the same exhaust conditions it was programmed to expect. However, it is now incorrectly adding gas when it shouldn't.

People with modern, fuel-injected cars, who put in HHO, often report that their vehicle runs smoother, and has a dramatic increase in horsepower. But they also often report no increase in fuel mileage. This is because the computer, that was designed for inefficient combustion, is adding much more gas than is actually needed. What is needed to get all the gains available to this technology is to compensate for this additional oxygen in the exhaust.

A device was created that does just that. It's called an EFIE, which is short for Electronic Fuel Injection Enhancer. You can find out more about this device, and how it works in the article EFIE Described. But basically this device compensates for the additional oxygen appearing in the exhaust, and allows the computer to do it's job correctly when an HHO system is installed.

There is a remarkable simplicity to this technology. If you add HHO to your engine, you will get an increase in combustion efficiency. That is just science, and it works as certainly as turning on a light switch. But to get your gains, you have to compensate for the additional oxygen that will now appear in the exhaust. And that is done by modifying the sensor information going to the computer. If you can do these 2 things, you will get a dramatic increase in fuel mileage and a corresponding decrease in fuel emissions.

We ordinarily expect people to get a minimum of 25% increase in MPG, and 30-35% is our expected average. Some people have gotten 50% or more mileage increases. By proper application of this simple technology, you can get these increases for your vehicle too.

[dkjones96]

Originally Posted by 95CHERJUST

When the flame speed of the fuel mixture is increased, more of the fuel is burned during the power stroke of the piston. Less fuel is being burned after the power stroke, and during the exhaust stroke, which actually works against the turning of the engine.

This is wrong. Under normal circumstances anyways. The goal is to burn everything in the cylinder around 10-15 degrees ATDC. If your engine is still burning fuel after that point it's pretty much a waste since the combustion area starts to grow faster than the mixture can burn. Not only that, but the lower the piston is in the cylinder the more of your energy you lose to the block. The ONLY time your mixture is burning when the exhaust stroke is happening is when the cylinder goes excessively lean. It feels like a misfire and the engine is low on power. That is also the condition that kills exhaust valves.

If you can burn the mixture faster you can retard timing, this will give you less of your compression stroke with a burning mixture working against the engine. If you can increase the burn rate so there is only 25 degrees between ignition and peak cylinder pressure as opposed to 35 you've saved yourself 10 degrees of advance. It has no effect whatsoever on the burn ATDC unless you are running lean.

[theclencher]

That's your idea of civil?

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

It's a known fact (among those who know I guess ) that +98% of the mixture is combusted already.

You and all the other ho ho ho proponents are bas tard izing a process that HAS been proven. As in most fuel econo schemes, there IS a kernel of truth at the core of it but then the manipulative or just plain ignorant twist it around to such an extent that it's functionally impossible. If you'd bother to look at the links I generously provided you would see that but noooooo, you're smarter than multi-million dollar consorteums formed to develop this idea, as well as teams of thousands of OEM engineers.