LVR: you use too much math
(lol)

ve30max: Why was it necessary to trick the ECU? was the engine running lean, or rich? was the O2 sensor shorting out?

edit: everything I see about water-to-gas technology causes the engine to run lean. I can find no evidence saying that a lean mixture is good for an engine. this requires an efie unit to trick the ecu into dumping less fuel; and if there is less fuel....
(kaboom...)

 

The lean condition is indeed a prevalent situation because, in my mind, it seems more fuel is consumed and the O2 sensor verifies that, which causes the ECU to become unhappy. A lean condition isn't bad for the O2 sensor, considering the normal amount of harmful gas flowing past them when less gasoline is consumed, and the catalytic converter is also saved a bit or stress in the process. As far as the engine, I would assume that more combustion of gasoline isn't bad for the engine: there would be less deposits perhaps? The one main concern when introducing other gaseous mixtures to the engine is their potential to harm. If your electrolyte isn't appropriate, you may be creating more than HHO. Some electrolytes produce harmful chemicals that can damage the O2 sensors and cause strange reactions on some metals. So, there are always concerns, but even though, as LvR described, like others previously in the post, on paper it may look like the amount of energy put in is exactly what you get out; it's confirming to note how LvR described that the engine's efficiency is determine by it's design, but it is the efficiency of the fuel that we are altering with the introduction of the HHO.

 

Make no mistake - any fuel with a higher energy content is "better" than petrol - and also in the case of the 3rd gen too.

Problem is the technology and cost involved to obtain the "better" fuel and then also the efficient use of that fuel. The internal combustion engine as us plebs (me too) is used to and that we have access to has been designed and optimized to be used with petrol/diesel at the moment.

There are way more exotic designs than the basic 3rd gen that are able to take full advantage of any (and HH in particular) fuel.




WRT the 3rd gen running lean while using the HH cell to supplement the fuel system:

Because you are feeding an uncontrolled amount of HH into the intake manifold, the MAF effectively measures the injected HH volume by detecting a lower flow rate via the air filter (HH gets injected AFTER the MAF) ............... and the ECU then interprets that as requiring less petrol to be injected to ensure the pre-programmed about 14 AF ratio. If your vehicle has an O2 sensor (ours in South Africa don't) then you get the detection of a lean running condition that way.

What happens as a result of that is anybodies guess because the ECU's exact logic to restore/keep the about 14 AF design ratio is completely unknown. My guess is it goes into spasm with completely unpredictable and non-repeatable results.

Combusting HH in addition to petrol raises the combustion process temperature .............. can your engine/cooling system handle that? ................. in that process you are also screwing your emission conformance.

Combusting HH in addition to petrol is not much different to fitting a NOX cannister and its associated control/injection system ................ so can your motor handle the extra "power" that your improved fuel now unleashes in the combustion chamber? - bearings/oil/valves etc all things mechanical?

The average HH cell most home experimenters use/construct has no real volumetric control system on it - its either on or off with a result that your HH to petrol ratio will be a huge function of engine speed and load ................. this explains why results vary so widely from person to person.

Benstoked -the math is just enough imo We can start using way more, but the net result will be that you don't get anything for free in life.

 

okay, I could possibly see why changing the o2 signal to achieve a stoichiometric ratio for HH. Given that I don't know the proper ratio for hh+gasoline/petrol, perhaps it is required to raise the ratio to a "lean" condition (as far as the ECU is concerned), requiring the efie to adjust. As LVR pointed out, however, most HHO kits, or homebrew builds just dump their mix in, without adjustment for need, rendering the efie useless (more HH, less gasoline=change in required AFR), for the most part. if you tune the efie for a certain RPM/load, once you leave that range, all bets are off.

If I am wrong, feel free to correct me. I can't seem to find the stoichiometric ratio for the HH/gasoline, with a given hh/gasoline ratio, so I cannot be sure.

LVR: I was joking about the math. it all made sense, or I think I understood (not always the same thing)

ve30:not knocking the idea, just not really convinced it has the kinks ironed out, yet. my car isn't ready for "experimentation"

 

I know you were only joking Ben

Was wondering if you need more math - that's all



................ and if you really want to tune the AF ratio to ensure optimal HH combustion you need around 34:1 with pure HH ............. if you add petrol to the mix, then all bets are off imo



Perhaps also a word of warning with the 3rd gen's forced PCV system:

If you feed uncontrolled amounts of HH into the air stream downstream from the MAF (invariably the case with the simple home-brew item), you are guaranteed to fill the whole of the crankcase with a nicely combustible HH and air mix (remember that HH is quite willing and able to be used as a fuel in a combustion process with AF ratios as low as 180:1 - exactly what you have here). Now all you need is a small leak/mishap with the pistons/rings and you end up turning your sump into a mini Hindenburg

 

LvR: Math is a great thing! I want to thank you for describing the relationship in a simple way, but I was wondering, if these skills come to you so naturally, would you entertain us with solving the equation presented to calculate the energy required to produce the HH vs. consumption (PV=nRT). I suppose that is what the equation could find for us. If you feel you described it thoroughyl and don't need to lay out the equation step by steo with numbers, I will read back over your posts with more diligence to aclimate myself with this information.

As far as the PCV system, I was unaware of that, but what is the rate in which air, or gaseous mixture for that matter, circulates through the system, if it is known?

If the rate of gas production could be controlled, would the other factors involved with the computer and the processes it dictates then be easily manipulated to viably control the AF ratio?

Ben: I just rebuilt my engine and do feel it is adequately staged for experimentation so as to further enhance mine and the community's understanding of how this can be applied to our cars. I hope that your interest does increase and perhaps you may feel safe in the future with a little experimentation.

To further explain the EFIE, in case it's function is in the dark, it creates an offset for the O2 sensor signal. Instead of allowing the signal to remain lean while the engine is producing a lean condition, the EFIE creates an offset of an adjustable amount of milivolts so the signal is more normal. It basically, in my mind, only lets so many of the milivolts through while maintaining the fluctuation the sensor naturally present, except for the offset amount of course.

 

well, the equation PV = nRT is completely irrelevant to this process. It's a good equation, but it's a simple one with a very strict set of conditions. You can desribe the air in the intake and exhaust systems with PV = nRT, but the combustion process itself is far more complicated.

PV = nRT is only true of no chemical reactions are occurring. If you're feeding gasoline, hydrogen gas, oxygen gas, and nitrogen gas into the same chamber then combusting it, that equation no longer applies.

And it's clear that it is impossible for HHO to do work on its own. Let me do some math for you.
You put in 1000 joules of electricity. You have 90% efficiency in most components of the car, and 50% combustion efficiency in the motor. From this 1000 joules of electricity, you add 900 joules of chemical energy to the water by making it into HHO. It then goes to the combustion process, where maybe 50% of it is converted back into work, and 10% is lost to heat. So now you have 450 joules of rotational kinetic energy. This is being used to drive the accessories and against the friction and seals, and against the inertia of the rotating assembly. So you lose some more, now you have 405 joules of crank energy. Your alternator is powered off of this crank energy with 90% efficiency, and you're left with 360 joules of electricity. You now have 36% of what you started with, and have lost the rest to heat, adding no net energy to the motor.

I'll say it again. The only conceivable explanation besides a lean condition or something detrimental is that the HHO does *something* within the combustion chamber that allows the gasoline to combust more efficiently and more completely, increasing the amount of the gasoline's chemical energy that can be turned into horsepower, decreasing the amount of the gasoline's chemical energy that is discarded as heat. It seems like it could be plausible, but I do not know nearly enough about motors to try to figure it out quantitatively. I will say, though, if you really think that PV = nRT is the only equation needed to solve it, then you don't know nearly enough to figure it out either.

 

my thing is that barring massive subconscious changes in driving style, people ARE getting results with these systems.. including the OP. So somehow, some kind of FM goes on inside the engine to produce results. Cuz there's no sane reason individuals to say it works if it doesn't. It's not like anyone is paying them to tout it or anything.

 

You bring up a valid point, the change in driving style will increase mpg alone, and I consciously drive with the mind set of saving my car from a abuse and over consumption. In connection with the HHO units, the magnitude of effect on mpg is hard to believe, but definitely real. Your last two sentences include a resounding idea I have in my head when others disregard the claims of mpg increase , which was the only response I received in the begining of this thread, but I am happy to see others are aware of the science behind it and can help explain it. My basic understanding encourages me to learn more, and I would like to be able to create a working HHO system for the 3rd gen that will give my Max the ultimate mpg without damaging any of the car in the process. Thus having a working system, I hope to encourage others to apply them to their cars for the benefits inherent to them.

Thank you to each and everyone who has contributed. I wish to compile all of the information so as to provide a reference for myself and others.

 

nalc

I totally agree, but in order to start somewhere, one has to start with the basics, and the natural gas law is exactly that - it cannot possibly even attempt to describe the effects of adding additional energy to the compressed gas. Up to the point where you add the additional energy of the combustion of the fuel and effectively releasing the latent energy of the fuel (either petrol or HH/petrol mixture) that very simplistic natural gass law/formula is in fact the governing formula for the volume of mixture on top of the piston. The number of unknown variables are simply too great. I certainly don't know it all and have probably forgotten most of even engineering/physics/chemistry/maths 101 courses I started with at varsity 30 years ago.

Simple examples - thats all I tried just like you.


As for "increased efficiency":

With HH you are basically using a fuel with a higher energy content than "vanilla" petrol, so the engine will naturally be able to produce more mechanical output (same concept as alcohol reducing engine output because of lower fuel energy content than petrol) - the engine's efficiency can stay 100% constant, and under ideal conditions, you will have a theoretical increase in engine output directly proportional to the mass of HH consumed in stead of petrol - the issue is how to define that ideal conditions and how to ensure that with you adding HH to the mixture you don't end up actually moving away from the ideal conditions. I don't know everything at all, but I do know its as simple as that.



As for the forced PCV system's characteristics:
You can see by looking at the motors plumbing that a fresh air feed is taken off the inlet just before the throttle bodies, it gets sucked through the engine cavity while scavenging the blow-by gasses and THAT whole mixture is then sucked through the PCV valve right into the inlet manifold. Volume of HH and air that will be sucked into the engine cavity will be highly dependent on the mechanical state of the engine and the actions of the PCV valve, but one thing is for certain - you will have a combustible HH/air mixture in the motor waiting to drop the sump if given a chance ................. and as far as danger levels go, I can see that with the constant volume HHO units typically being used, that close to idle speed will be the worst.

If one knew the exact required AF ratios for different combinations of HH and petrol, then sure given enough effort, time and money one could go and modify/adapt the ECU to try and control the beast - my guess is that you will have to chuck all of the engine management in total if you are serious about making this thing work reliably and repeatably.

 

nalc

Not to come over "all knowing" but just to explain perhaps a bit more why I said the ideal gas law is the governing factor:

As I said before, that law does indeed apply to the filling and compressing of the charge to the point just before combustion starts happening and you start adding energy to the compressed mixture - the combustion process basically ends up changing the pressure and temperature of the factors in that equation when it adds energy to the burning mixture - once the burning is complete (ideal and unlikely I know but we have to approximate the burning process to finish before the piston starts moving), the ideal gas law once again applies to the expanding gasses while the piston is traveling down until such a time as you start opening the exhaust valve/s. Its this basic expansion of the gasses that governs the efficiency of the engine, and that efficiency is an absolute and direct function of the compression ratio of the engine ............... since you cannot change the compression ratio at all (we are assuming we keep on working with only gaseous content in the combustion chamber at the time of combustion and chose not to discuss energy losses due to the small amount of solid by-products such as carbon, water etc created during the combustion and expansion process) the engine's basic efficiency is absolutely fixed by design.

In an ideal world we would like to have not opened the exhaust valves before the combustion process'' energy has been completely converted to mechanical energy (iow to have only opened the exhaust valve when the gasses reached as low a temp as possible during the expansion cycle) ............... in reality there are other mechanical factors and also real life exhaust flow governing factors that dictates the absolute maximum amount of expansion of the compressed gas that can be converted to mechanical energy ..................and because of that limiting factors you can never ever reach a point where you can extract energy from that compressed combustion mixture by allowing it to expand anywhere near the about 10:1 compression ratio for the 3rd gen motors - your engine's mechanical design dictates when the exhaust valves start opening and that is always the same irrespective of the fuel used on the 3rd gen designs.

If one were to have been able to affect a change in the efficiency of the motor, you would have to somehow create a variable compression ratio situation.

From your comments I also suspect you are trying to attribute the OP's results to the more efficient use of the injected petrol alone, but as I said before, you are in effect actually using a fuel mixture (petrol with HH) with a higher combustion energy value, and that higher combustion energy value is what you will find reflected in the higher P and T values (compared to burning petrol only) of the gas law just after combustion happened.

 

You've got me reading to refresh some facts . There's theoretical efficiency maximum for heat engines made out of steel: around 70%. Steel is actually important as it limits the highest achieveable temperature in the cylinder and - efficiency as a result. This is without friction, ideal valves, pistons, etc and most important - exhaust gas somehow is allowed to expand back to atmospheric pressure. Pure theoretical design with point being that no real engine can ever exceed that.

More realistic model of still frictionless engine provides direct relation between efficiency and compress ratio - as you stated. This value is about 38%. That's right folks - 62% is wasted by the engine itself and nothing you can do about it without changing the engine design.

It turns out there're designs of gasoline engines which use this "variable compression" idea and they're at around 50% efficiency. They called them six- stoke engines. Those would be real savers.

Or the actual fuel cells which have efficiency above 90% plus electric motor to match - this can be brought close to 80% overall, especially taking into account that electric motor wouldn't need transmission (12-15% of losses alone). I especially like ability to change behaviour of the motor by simple software upload - all org mods would go into updating virtual power curves using laptops or whatever technology brings next. Probably sound system required to produce 'performance sound' would bring that efficiency back to 50% but that's common with mods. Compare to that modern EFI cars look like steam engines of the past.

Honda guys beat us to it:

So technology is already available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_FCX_Clarity

 

Indeed, Honda has made a viable automobile for the future when Hydrogen becomes a more consistent fuel source. We can make hydrogen from many renewable resources which will eliminate our need to harm the Earth through the entire process of extracting oil from the ground. This is evident and has been the focal point of many individuals careers which we hopefully will eventually regard as heroes who saved us from destroying ourselves. The fuel source in which we use for our personal automobiles is just a small piece of the pie when talking about the natural resource sink hole we are falling into. Until we can consistently produce and provide hydrogen on a mass scale, it is more tangible and sensible to utilize our vehicles generators to do so and in turn reap the benefits of this process. All of the contemplation of precise explanations posted previously is a head ache, and though I wish to understand the different methods to approach the idea of what is going on, I will focus on the simple things involved with this technology for now. Perhaps these concepts will make sense later when I am at a point where I have a cell to strap on and experiment. Then perhaps I can join in on the educated thinking going on here......... Thanks for your contribution!

 

In order to be called scientific you have to ensure your results are repeatable - not only on your own car but on others as well. The conditions of your experiments should be clean enough to provide that. I can get your mileage numbers on my car without any extra devices if I don't pay attention to what gas pump I'm filling up from, the level of fuel in the tank, driving pattern. The problem with such numbers - I can't repeat my own 'achievements'. Nowadays if a scientist happens to discover something it doesn't go into common pool of knowledge until many independent researchers manage to repeat that. This process is the result of many past mistakes when exciting 'results' turned out to be just experimental errors. Good luck and be safe.

 

Indeed! - I have for example just now returned from a return trip covering 488km of highway driving and consumption worked out at 11.2km/l with no HHO at all on a VG with an original motor and auto box that has 300K km on it.

What exactly it says about the OP's latest improvement to 24mpg due to HHO I don't know exactly, but from experience I have often found that so called "improvements" due to "experiments with add-ons" are often as a result of the experiment "putting right or masking or counteracting" some unwanted sub-optimal condition present on the vehicle before the experiment even started.

 

I do include this facet of the equation into the resulting improvements I have seen with my vehicle and encourage others to be conscious of their driving behavior. I am not one to consider my vehicle to be the supreme dictator of the mpg presented, but deem myself as the most important factor contributing to the performance and behavior of the vehicle. Though, with the added efficiency added to the fuel from the HHO in the mix, it does raise an eyebrow. I know others with a fuel cell and more than likely, they do not alter their driving habits too frequently, they drive a large Ford Diesel truck, and the boost in mpg does hint towards a more significant change than many might expect. Though, they know they don't quite need the large vehicle, and I am ranting.

 

ve30max

I have no doubt that HH added to the ingested fuel mix will increase power output of the engine - whether or not you necessarily and by default can as a result of that experience an improved petrol consumption figure is the crux of the matter

In your case you may, but as I and others also suggested before, the results will not be repeatable or even be of the same magnitude or direction on every 3rd gen engine similar to yours.

With your particular driving style and engine state of tune, the addition of HH may improve your petrol consumption figures, but I am willing to bet that if you were to give your vehicle to another driver, he is guaranteed to get completely different results while driving the same roads/routes that you are ........................ and this where the rub comes in.

Me personally? - I think that you could simply change your driving style and possibly state of tune on the vehicle and get closer to eg my consumption figure (even though its not to be considered the be-all and end-all of consumption figures) ................ and those actions don't cost anything, doesn't need the addition of combustible fuels with unknown long-term side-effects and durability of untold items on the motor.

If you do, I am willing to bet that with a VE motor you should be able to even exceed my consumption figures causing me to think you should be way more impressed if you could eg see 28mpg+ iso the now HH induced 24mpg.

I (and probably most everybody else) would be totally impressed however if you were to have posted the absolute best mpg figures EVER in any of the many "consumption threads" on the 3rd gen forums while using HH ................ as it stands I think that the absolute best consumption figures ever quoted here was by an Australian guy (cant remember ?) with an aftermarket set of wires and a special coil - his 3rd gen figures quoted were supposedly pushing the efficiency of a diesel engine (which just as in the case of HH, got queried and talked about a lot)

 

well my benchmark for the VG was 31.5mpg all-highway in the hot summer with a mechanically stock motor, stock wheels/tires and a non-LSD 5spd (slightly longer final-drive gearing than the VE's LSD 5spd ie lower RPMs-per-mph across the board), stock exhaust, NWP spacers and a HAI. Mixed driving usually got me around 25-27mpg and in its prime it simply refused to return less than 21mpg even in heavy city driving.

It all went downhill with the wider tires, engine swap, wrong injectors, and other various problems that kept beating me down after October of 08. At the end I was barely able to get 22mpg driving over 50% highway.

But when i was at my fuel-consumption prime I would be interested to see how OP's setup might have changed the figures if any.. too late for that now. Though I guess there's always the Z since it's actually a 3rd gen motor that i'm dropping in whilst saving up for a new DD and an LS1..

 

I agree with you whole heartedly LvR, and do find driving style to be more worth while to alter than the chemical composition of the air mixture by way of an HHO unit. I am excited for my plans for the car, which has a VG engine, with a 92 5-spd w/ low slip, and everything for the most part is stock except for the intake, which is aftermarket filter only. I may experiment with the stock air box setup to further enhance my understanding of the engineers intentions when I get to a point where I can analyze the car. First I need to get it on the road, naturally, but that is less than a week away . I plan on building a dry cell unit which will put out at least twice as much gas, with less energy input, than the old rusty wet cell i used previously. Once I begin to get a solid system on one end of the input side, I will focus on what the engine needs to allow the HHO to do more (i.e. alteration of AF ratio, sensor signal manipulation, and what ever else may resonate with the project). Overall, it is an experiment that I hope to elongate to further enhance mine and others understanding of what is possible with these cars. Every car is indeed different though in when considering the effects. This disclaimer is very evident once I began to investigate the technology and the applications of it. I am optimistic and look forward to sharing, moreover, rather than not trying to make a change for the better.

 

I will be following these planss when designing and building:
http://www.umpquaenergy.com/hydrogen.../tero_cell.pdf

 

I think Ben would be glad to note that my lotsa math from earlier is exactly confirmed in the governing formulas of this cell.

IMO what one should take from that whole spiell is the fact that with a properly setup cell running at close to the "100% efficiency" they mention, you would be consuming around 160W of electricity (alt or batt) to produce the HHO, and that when you burn all of that HHO you again get back about 160W worth of heat you can use in the combustion process.

Net result is that you can probably save more petrol by simply going on a diet yourself rather than getting involved with HHO on an engine not designed for its efficient use.................................... or just wash your car and remove the dust and grime


I would dearly like to get involved with something like this, but my engineering background thus far prevents me from taking the plunge on this one - I will however watch this thread for your results

 

i STILL don't get why you keep going back to this "make it to use it" philosophy... it's been stated many times that the HHO itself is NOT "making power" or "running the engine".... that's not its purpose. its purpose is to be a catalyst of sorts inside the combustion chamber, not a fuel.

 

HHO IS fuel and apparently you don't get what the combustion process actually does and how the internal combustion engine extracts energy from the burning of fuel then.

I am not going to go into details now - let me leave you and say this:

HHO is fuel ................... and to see a simple demonstration of the fact go and actually read the link and see how the author of that link/idea was able to run a small internal combustion engine on ONLY the HHO he produced via his cell - stop busting my ***** and first read and understand.

 

well it's physically impossible to produce and run an engine off ONLY HHO (or any "easily produced" fuel) as a 'closed system' with no other energy source b/c that defies the laws of physics....

i realize that if you have a tank full of the stuff you can certainly pump it into an engine and let that be its only fuel but the mechanical and thermodynamic losses that all engines have would prevent you from creating a sufficient supply of the very fuel you run on... but if you have some other device to split water into HHO for you then yeah it can in itself become fuel for an internal combustion engine. Though i have a feeling it's more economical to do it the way the HyWire does it.

 

I never said anything about burning of HHO in a closed system with no extra external energy input even though I agree with you.

You can do absolutely nothing to pertol in order to make it produce more energy (power) than it already is in a normal internal combustion engine - petrol will produce around 45MJ/kg when used in an IC - HHO will produce around 150MJ/kg when used in an IC. If you want to use less petrol in an IC while using HHO ingestion, then you will burn HHO iso petrol to produce the power you need, and whatever the HHO's volume you burn cannot produce will be the balance produced by the petrol you consume - there is no magic to the concept - its simple math.

Re the OP thread - I dont care who you are and what you say and what results you stand by, the simple fact of the matter is that you get nothing for free - including trying to burn HHO iso petrol to produce more HHO to burn etc etc etc. The universe dictates that every step in energy conversion will cost you and make any "conversion" less than 100% efficient with the net result being that the exercise will cost you money in the end no matter how you look at it.

The OP has green bee up his bonnet - that's all ............... and as such its an interesting experiment to prove to yourself the simple facts of the matter if you are totally honest with yourself.

 

45MJ/KG might be what's in the fuel but not all of it gets burned therefore you aren't actually getting all 45MJ per KG of fuel. Evidence of such can be easily seen on a USDM 3rd gen by unplugging the o2 sensor.. you use 1KG of gasoline faster but with no increase in power output.. power goes down actually. How your SADM 3rd gen operates without one I don't know... so you couldn't easily perform that test yourself. But the point is that while your figure works on paper, engines can't actually produce 45MJ per KG of fuel consumed due to hundreds of unit-specific factors.

 

Ugh...................

The petrol combustion process produces around 45MJ/kg when burned at stoichiometric AF ratio - if you chose to run the motor at anything other than that ratio for whatever reason (mechanical constraints/tuning quality/pigheadedness/personal choice or whatever) you do not get 45MJ/kg from the combustion of petrol.

Let me repeat this again then:

 

the factory tune ECU doesn't really run at the stoichiometric ratio tho.. not all the time anyways. it might at low loads but at higher loads it runs richer than stoich.

 

I respect you opinion and decisive skills. I am indeed a very determined individual and have little disregard for unnecessary obstacles. That being said, your right, I may be fixated by the concept and the greener grass on the other side, but I am willing to be truthful in my quest for such things by way of intuition and desire. If I feel I am fighting a fruitless battle, I am first to dismount and be at peace with whatever may be my opposition, but in this case, I am certain that it will all be worth it in the end, and I encourage you to be open to the possibility. It is great to understand what it is you wish to become involved with, but I have left myself a bit of room to allow it to teach me, as I try to give everything a chance to show me it's true nature. I care about your opinion and thank you for your input.

I agree with Caped in regards to the VG engine and efficiency. There is no way it uses petrol or gasoline for every little unit of energy that its worth. It's nice to look at things in an ideal fashion, but that takes the flux out of life, and where would this forum be without that?

 

Ooooh - I am completely open make no mistake.

Unfortunately a pessimist is often defined as an optimist with lots of expensive experience - guess that is where I am as a result of exactly personal endeavors and experiences such as yours atm.

I will be the first in line to go with the HHO (or indeed any other) idea if it can be proven that those friends of mine involved in the motor engineering industry don't know what they are talking about.

Is that not exactly what I said there just now? I am not sure what exactly you have an issue with anymore:

Simple fact - HH is a fuel when used in the internal combustion engine via this particular experiment, and you gain (?) petrol mpg at the cost of burning HH in stead

 

nevermind

your neurons and my neurons simply don't speak a compatible language.

 

I think my neurons are thinking the same thing! I know that doesn't make sense, but I look forward to what anyone has to say, whether or not their understanding of the physical world offers compliant explanations or not. I wish I knew what you knew LvR so I could chime in conversationally. Perhaps after I get this going I will be able to contribute on your level of thinking. The main motivation behind my willingness to become involved with this are the amazing amount fo people using these, successfully, whith no negative impacts on their vehicle, and certainly not their wallet! though, it's like medications and the human body, who knows what the long term effects may be.................