New PICC-HAFC page...

[GasSavers_maxc]

more http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/164...fuel-cell?Pg=2

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

The thing I find most annoying about this is that they are using some techniques that should work, in the HAFC for about a 30% or so gain, but then are using an unscientific before and after testing method. It can't be tested on short runs because the fuel heater will expand the fuel in the tank.... doh!

I want to know the real figures, it's possible the way they put it together, could get synergistic gains, but I can't see past those BS "scientific" tests.

The PICC might work also, if they can keep it from getting carboned up (Or blowing up), which has been something of a problem in previous attempts at gaseous phase fuel pre-processing. Needs a self scrubbing cycle, or be tuned to make lots of carbon monoxide (pre-burn that would be okay, it's pretty much a fuel)

[GasSavers_maxc]

WIREC show pics. http://blog.wildmpg.com/?cat=9

[lovemysan]

It says that there test "van" got 20mpg going 65mph up a 30% grade for an hour. Whats wrong with that?

[Ryanrpm]

Originally Posted by lovemysan

It says that there test "van" got 20mpg going 65mph up a 30% grade for an hour. Whats wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with that. That was the normal fuel usage. Then when they ran it 65mph at 30% grade using the PICC, they got 180mpg.

By the term 'plasma', don't they just mean that the compounds are broken down to their elemental form? That stands to reason that it would burn efficient.
But what makes it most efficient, and more efficient than running straight propane or natural gas, is the introduction of HHO into the mix, which speeds up the flame burn. Thats where the HAFC comes in and is a necessary component to using the PICC.

At least thats what I read.

[Jay2TheRescue]

I'd say be cautious of PICC / HFAC. We've banned members before because they were pushing this so hard that they forged data to try and prove that it worked. When members offered to stop by and actually see their vehicle operate in the manner they described, they declined. Anyone advocating this should be prepared to back up what they say with verifiable proof. One member even went as far as to calculate what the vehicle in question would get with 100% efficiency (Which we all know is not possible due to thermodynamics) and their claimed mileage was above that. To me all this PICC crap seems like snake oil, or at least its promoted in a similar fashion.

-Jay

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

I think I forgot before in a post about that test, that 30% grade @ 65mph is likely to put the motor in the lowest BSFC island, so it's actually kind of surprising they weren't reporting something like 30mpg for it's initial mpg... but still if that is putting the motor at peak efficiency of 35% then the 180mpg claim is apparently 200% efficient....

Now I think there is room in all the theory to push even to 70% efficiency, but beyond that I'm thinking there's something else going on. It's possible that they had this vehicle hooked to an externally powered lab test rig, and it was running "HHO salted with gas" rather than "gas salted with HHO" meaning that most of the energy was coming out of a wall socket.

It's also possible that some of this is playing the disinformation game, there's other groups/companies toying with this tech who have less grasp of it than 3 of the people I know of behind the HAFC, and it is an attempt to keep them in their backyard workshops looking for refinements that don't exist while HAFC floods the market with products. I kind of "know" one of the guys involved and know of the others, and may have spoken with them online under other aliases, since the whole thing took off, I'm getting something of the arms length treatment, possibly due to a suspicion that if someone wrote me a large check, and supplied people and facilities, that I could jigsaw a lot of stuff together, possibly even make an alternate angle work, and compete with them. Because of that and that there's a handful of other guys around also that are well versed in such matters, the PR and published material is deliberately kept vague... Meaning that by reading deeply between the lines I can get some clues about what they're up to, but they're jealously guarding the specifics.

I get the impression at the moment that they're helping engineer a complete vehicle, rather than adding it on... which does have real problems as regards "arguing" with the ECU.

[Ryanrpm]

Originally Posted by RoadWarrior

I get the impression at the moment that they're helping engineer a complete vehicle, rather than adding it on... which does have real problems as regards "arguing" with the ECU.

According to their current struggles with the EPA, and congress, that might not be a bad idea. I'm sure the thing would sell, if they could mass produce a car/truck/SUV.....or even just the engine, that produced 100+ mpg.

Jay2 the Rescue.....thanks for the headsup. I don't promote or recommend the HAFC, although I am one of those who are currently would like to see the thing work, since it makes sense on the drawing board. I have a co-worker who is putting one in his Durango....so we'll see how it goes.

[Jay2TheRescue]

Ryan: For a moment when I first saw your post, I thought you were the member we previously banned, coming back under a new user name (Which he's done before) but I checked, and you're not using the same IP address he always used so I think you're safe. Just remember that there's a lot of misinformation out there, and always remember the laws of thermodynamics. There is only so much energy that can be extracted from a gallon of gasoline. There is a finite limit to the mileage you can get from any given vehicle. These claims of 180 MPG & up from V-8 powered trucks & vans seem unrealistic to me. Even at 100% efficiency I can't see how that's possible.

-Jay

[GasSavers_BEEF]

I too would love to see something actually get the mileage claimed but as jay said earlier, 100+ mpg on a 5000 pound vehicle seems very unrealistic.

ryan, let us know how it goes. it would be nice to hear the results from a third person point of view from someone that hasn't spent money on it and doesn't NEED it to work to justify the cost.