HHO vs water vapor injection

[ZugyNA]

Figured I'd get that wrong....yea...3.5 G = 448 oz and 30 oz = 6.7%

My calculator goes on the fritz now and then...jumps into stats and other crapola...that's my excuse anyway.

No point in being so aggressive/defensive...we're all learning here?

This forum is inhabited by some cultish naysayers who apparently don't test...but do criticize others testing with no real evidence other than their supposed greater technical knowledge. There are also some clones of this forum with apparently the same people posting on them. The intention seems to involve discouraging testing other than driving techniques and aero. I suspect black $ funding...oil, auto and/or govt...or others who don't respect the truth.

You've heard of the Cult of the Swimming Elephant (COTSE)? How about the Cult of the Pulse and Glide Aliens (COTPGA)? :-0

So a 7% rate is not too bad...looks like a potential winner....if you put in smaller jets or lean out in some other way. Testing at a steady 55 mph would be a more accurate/comparable test? Do like your technically-based testing.

[GasSavers_maxc]

Flapdoodle, turn the water too steam, run 2 to 7%, increase vacuum advance 2 to 4 degrees, shoot it past the idle discharge ports if you can.
edit: Double up the carb gasket. Sandwich a small tube between, point it at the idle discharge port.

[flapdoodle]

Originally Posted by maxc

Flapdoodle, turn the water too steam, run 2 to 7%, increase vacuum advance 2 to 4 degrees, shoot it past the idle discharge ports if you can.
edit: Double up the carb gasket. Sandwich a small tube between, point it at the idle discharge port.

If I am reading this correctly, the tube would extend into the bore. This would create a problem since the the throttle plates extend below the base of the carb when they open and would sever the tube. I believe two tubes would be necessary; one for each bore.

I could handle the vacuum advance as you suggested.

The double gasket idea reminded me to post something I was told by some old-timers (even older than me) in North Dakota they used during the depression. I will do that on a new thread.

[GasSavers_maxc]

Originally Posted by flapdoodle

If I am reading this correctly, the tube would extend into the bore. This would create a problem since the the throttle plates extend below the base of the carb when they open and would sever the tube. I believe two tubes would be necessary; one for each bore.

I could handle the vacuum advance as you suggested.

The double gasket idea reminded me to post something I was told by some old-timers (even older than me) in North Dakota they used during the depression. I will do that on a new thread.

No problem, as the plates go up as they uncover the idle tranfor port as well. In between two gaskets. Doesn't have too extend into the bore. You can buy very thin carb spacers.

[flapdoodle]

Researchers Observe Hydrogen-Bond Exchange

For those of you who are technically minded:
http://www.physorg.com/news129471213.html

[GasSavers_maxc]

[QUOTE=flapdoodle " I started this because the hydrogen generator caused ping (I expected that) and retarding the ignition did not seem like something I wanted to do, because it made the vacuum drop (which means the carburetor is putting more fuel in)."

At idle when the vacuum drops you pull less fuel.
Retard your timing 3 degrees. Run a little less water flow.
Still run the HHO.
I was reading on a link over on the "Speedtalk" web site. "Sorry can't find it" was some SAE papers on humidly effects on CO oxidation. Bottom line it said that the proper amount of humidly in creases the speed that CO burns during the combustion process.
Mark

[JV-Tuga]

Originally Posted by ProtonXX

eww aquatune.

I had bad luck with them

Can you expand on that? What exactly do you mean?

[priyanke]

I know water vapor 'helps'. I remember about 8 years ago My Toyota Carina S/W developed a small leak between the cooler and engine. So when the water heated up the vapor would get into the system. I noticed that the car had more power during this 'problem' and better fuel efficiency. So, HHO and Vapor does work.

I am an experimenter and I have tried many experiments. Actually, if you look at engines closely you will see that the OIL vapor is taken into the air intake. So, it figures that if you increase the 'richness' of the oil then you get more power/milage.

I am in Sri Lanka.

[trautotuning]

Run a copper wire through the exhaust...

Inject free out of hose water into intake above (lets say) 1,500rpms.

Done.

This heated water will take a lot of space in the combustion chamber so less fuel is injected and you then just lean out the mixture to around 15.1
-------
My question is, how far can you lean it out before you start seeing knock? (detonation). Could you go 17.1 maybe if the heated water got really hot?

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

I think you can go about 17.5:1 before it knocks without the water. Then the trouble is getting an even burn. Best economy is supposedly around 16:1 due to power dropping off like a stone after that. There's a region in between stoich and 16:1 though where NOx spikes, so you can use water for combustion cooling to prevent NOx in transition, and to keep it lower when you're at around 16. When ratios as low as 25:1 are talked of in lean burn modes, what's really happing is that the charge is stratified such that there's a richer pocket that burns completely and evenly, and the remainder is air that is heated by the burn for extra piston thrust. A homegenous 25:1 charge would not burn at all well, unless it was plasma jet excited or had other exotic means of ignition (Microwaves, UV burst, other ionising radiaton etc..*)

(* oh yeah, that's what I need to invent next, pulse laser spark plugs)

Edit: We might also regard HHO as an "exotic" method of ignition promotion, due to flame front propagation speed.