(04-10-2009 04:54 AM)Gary Wrote: We're discussing some of this on HHO-info too, by a few people. As TomBala said, no one has done any decent experiments to refute the viability of HHO, but I say, no one has done any to PROVE it either. All we have is hundreds of anecdotal posts on the internet, and after my experiences and study on bodybuilding supplements, I can guarantee you that placebo effect, skewed reasoning, and bias is the norm for it's advocates.
We're discussing a study that needs to be done with engines on a stand, no ECU's or electronics, done with different size engines and different levels of HHO injection. THIS would be a proper baseline to utilize after a chart of sorts was created, for the discussion of the workability of HHO on an engine, the percentage of FE caused by leaning the engine with electronics, and wether or not (IMO) we've been screwed by the gov't. into buying more gasoline than we actually need.
I just can't get that 16.1 figure out of my head. And that from people who experiment with engines.
I also can't ignore that supposition that the EFIE can't put the engine out of stochiometric parameters and wouldn't be able to accomplish 16.1 - I think that absurd since you can stall out the engine.
No question about the placebo effect; in HHO experimentation I think there's a subconsciouce tendency to hypermile. I've noticed it myself. My wife has no knowledge of the HHO setup in my car. Just for kicks I checked, more than a few times, the "current" mpg on the ScanGauge when she drives and invariably she gets between 2 and 3 mpg less than I. It could be she just has a lead foot, or it could be I subconsciously hypermile (which I doubt because I went from an avg. of 23.5 to 29 mpg with HHO). Now the real problem:
An ICE really doesn't have stoichiometric parameters. We often read the stoichiometric parameters of an ICE are 14.7 to 1 but that's gov't BS which really means a that 14.7 to 1 air to fuel ratio is a happy medium which yields the least oxides of nitrogen and unburned hydrocarbons (the cat takes care of that). Stoichiometric in its true scientific sense means a balanced chemical equation. In chemical reactions matter can be neither created nor destroyed; matter may change it's form but the elements on one side of the chemical equation always must be in balance i.e. equal the elements on the other side of the equation, such as 2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O. We've got the same number of hydrogen and oxygen atoms on each side of the equation; thus the equation is balanced. Now think of the combustion process in an ICE: first of all we've got a mixture of complex hydrocarbons making up the gasoline, or diesel; next we've got a variable amount of fuel and a variable amount of air all exploding in combustion chambers which are variable due to manufacturing tolerances, ignition, friction, etc. There are just too many variables to dare say there are stoichiometric parameters to an ICE. But we've got something pretty close, an OBDII system coupled to an ECU that makes instantaneous changes to try to maintain what the gov't thinks is the ideal mixture, 14.7 to 1; not for mpg, but for emissions. I like to think of utilizing HHO and proving its efficacy by relating it to a physician trying to determine the right dosage of insulin for a diabetic. A dosage of 2 ml at 10:a.m. may work for most 6'2" 200 lb. type 2 adult onset diabetic men, but I'm sure many on this post have known diabetics that had their physicians pulling out their hair and taking weeks, if not months to determine the right dosage for that patient's metabolism, activity level, diet, etc. We've got the same with HHO. RDKamakazi gets 40 mpg on the highway with 450 ml HHO, headers, O2 extender and high perf. air box on a Toy, which are notoriously difficult to get any mpg gain with HHO. Before one of our moderators, Rick, bought a hybrid he couldn't get squat out of his 2005 Toy with HHO. I thought HHO was pure BS until I injected close to 2 lpm into a 3.0L, saw a measurable difference and spent about a week learning to work the EFIE. Perhaps our vehicles are not as standardized as Detroit, Tokyo and Seoul would have us believe; perhaps there are too many wannabies who think they're mechanics but really don't have a clue, e.g. How many times have you heard lately where someone had a bad diode replaced or a shorted out stator replaced in his alternator? Bet you none. Their "technician" replaced the alternator with a rebuilt. Go to Autozone, O'reilly's, etc. ask them for an alternator repair kit ( remember them: 3 diodes and the rear needle bearing). No body fixes anything nowadays; they just replace "modules" with "OEM" rebuilts. And they dare to call themselves "technicians". For those who are willing to methodically employ HHO and various accouterments, especially an EFIE; measure the changes as you add, subtract, multiply, divide, heat, cool, change electrolyte concentrations, etc. The reward is not just increased HHO; it's the satisfaction that you not only mastered a part of your favorite machine; you went to the ends of the earth to get there, i.e. the good old American way. So, Gary, I just don't think HHO will ever be a mainstream add-on that any Joe six pack can install, let alone make it work, understand how it works and maintain the system. A good anecdotal proof are all the scammers who probably made small fortunes, but made disbelievers of the public.