So explain how H injection doesn't work again?

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

The logic there is only of the form of saying, "I've invented jet propelled aircraft and look they work, which means piston engined aircraft don't."

95% of the designs on the market, most of the free, eBay or $$$ plans are absolute crap, I'll give you that, if buddy there could see individual bubbles on his in car bubbler as he implies in his other HHO article, it wasn't making near enough on that one. Most designs come nowhere near the practical optimum electrolysis efficiency of 80%, very few are getting into the production range where they should start working, which IMO is at least the same CCs per minute as the capacity of the motor you're using it on. Even then it's only barely enough for a limited range of operation, which would be higher vacuum driving conditions. I called the EPA tests useless because they have very little higher vacuum low load operation. It's one of the reasons Ford never deployed it's '80s DOD project, they had it working, they got great steady state mileage, but it only cut in for seconds on the EPA test schedule.

For across the board improvement, right up to high RPM and in WOT, yes you need a huge volume of H2 and you need to optimise the engine configuration. Then you get the overall 20-30% of those MIT and Arvin Merritor studies... and that's probably on an EPA cycle... however, it would not surprise me in the least if low load economy was stellar, you'd get people managing huge percentages over EPA in a production vehicle deploying that system.

Those indicate that the practical maximum efficiency of a motor has been improved from around 30% overall to around 40% overall, a 10% overall increase is a 33% mpg gain. However, no-one except Basjoos, Diamond Larry etc is getting near their 30% engine efficiency. Most of us are getting 10-15% which is because, counter intuitively, the most fuel efficient steady speed usually has the motor at near it's most inefficient. 1% change in overall efficiency can mean a 10% gain here. Conversely a 1% loss in overall efficiency should show a 10% loss here. You'd think someone would notice a drop to 27mpg from 30mpg right? But apparently skeptic tests don't follow through, because they would claim less than 50% conversion efficiency of the HHO, and less than 30% efficiency in burning it, which would mean that they would expect a 15% efficiency from it, meaning only 15% goes back into the crank from what they took out. In which case, why do we get statements such as "If anything a slight decrease in FE" or "FE the same" because with skeptic math, a 15A at 12V cell would take 1/2HP from the crank, in a 100HP car that's a .5% loss overall, whereas in low load high vacuum it's a 5% loss of mpg, which should be noticable and repeatable enough they'd be crowing about it. "Maybe a slight drop" makes it sound like it's in the 1% repeatability error, and "mileage the same" means of course, nothing measurable. The lack of a larger drop under low load high vacuum actually invalidates their arguments about how it doesn't work, because if their math was right, it would be a larger more demonstrable loss. They're not even looking back at it to say "Hey that's weird, how come it looks like I've got damn near 100% back again", which would imply that they have a "nearly working" system, that could show a gain with some changes.


PM buddy is right that it's difficult for any device to alter fuel economy when the ECU is boneheadely trying to maintain a constant AFR, according to it's O2 sensor. In a perfect world it would be in actual control of HHO induction. Anecdotally the ECU "tunes out" any modifications to this end, however sensible application of a system would have it tuning it in... which is why I propose to have mine activated by the evap system, an ECUs programming is typically far more amenable to reducing injector pulse width during evap recovery than at other times.