Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
smog results
Author Message
rpatzer Offline
Member
***

Posts: 348
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #1
smog results
These are the smog results with the vaporizer/efie off and then on. You can see how all the numbers were reduced with the vaporizer/efie on except the NO which greatly increased, which would have caused me to fail if it was the official test.

AMS EmissionTest Results- Vaporizer off

CO2 %O2 HC (PPM) CO(%) NO (PPM)
Test RPM MEAS MEAS MAX AVE MEAS MAX AVE MEAS MAX AVE MEAS
15mph 1665 15.1 .2 54 8 39 .69 .02 .24 527 82 512 PASS
25mph 1598 15.0 .1 38 6 13 .83 .02 .03 780 74 244 PASS

AMS Emission Test Results- Vaporizer On


15mph 1620 14.6 .3 54 8 12 .69 .02 ,01 527 82 1408 FAIL
25mph 1600 14.6 .3 38 6 8 .83 .02 .01 780 74 1327 FAIL
04-15-2010 07:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Smudge Offline
Member
***

Posts: 24
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 0
Post: #2
RE: smog results
I built a water injection unit for my car to go in conjunction with the hh0 generator.
George at Eagle Research stated that a 3:1 fuel:water ratio as effective in one of his books.
It would be effective for reducing the peak combustion temperatures in which the hh0 causes the oxides of nitrogen.
I can't post any mileage results, but I built the thing and it worked.
I used a 10 gallon air tank, plumbed a 12v air compressor into the side port, a water outlet hose into the bottom and a large ball valve into the top to fill the tank with water.
The air compressor put a "bubble" of 110psi compressed air into the top of the tank.
The water was delivered into the intake of the car via a misting nozzle from mcmaster carr rated at 1/3 of a gallon per hour at 110 psi at a 5 micron droplet size. With my car rated at 45 mpg, that's roughly a gallon and a half of fuel per hour so the ratio was close.

Thanks for posting some hard numbers on your testing. Seat of the pants estimates for fuel economy experiments don't offer any sort of credibility to our pastime.
And now that I take a second look at your results, I find a couple of important things missing.
What your change in fuel consumption? How many lpm of hh0 gas were you making and for what size engine displacement and presumably what volume of air flow; what was your hh0:air ratio? Tuning is everything with fuel economy mods. Too much hh0 or too much leaning out from high settings on your efie could change things a lot.
(This post was last modified: 04-18-2010 07:24 PM by Smudge.)
04-18-2010 07:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rpatzer Offline
Member
***

Posts: 348
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #3
RE: smog results
(04-18-2010 07:20 PM)Smudge Wrote:  I built a water injection unit for my car to go in conjunction with the hh0 generator.
George at Eagle Research stated that a 3:1 fuel:water ratio as effective in one of his books.
It would be effective for reducing the peak combustion temperatures in which the hh0 causes the oxides of nitrogen.
I can't post any mileage results, but I built the thing and it worked.
I used a 10 gallon air tank, plumbed a 12v air compressor into the side port, a water outlet hose into the bottom and a large ball valve into the top to fill the tank with water.
The air compressor put a "bubble" of 110psi compressed air into the top of the tank.
The water was delivered into the intake of the car via a misting nozzle from mcmaster carr rated at 1/3 of a gallon per hour at 110 psi at a 5 micron droplet size. With my car rated at 45 mpg, that's roughly a gallon and a half of fuel per hour so the ratio was close.

Thanks for posting some hard numbers on your testing. Seat of the pants estimates for fuel economy experiments don't offer any sort of credibility to our pastime.
And now that I take a second look at your results, I find a couple of important things missing.
What your change in fuel consumption? How many lpm of hh0 gas were you making and for what size engine displacement and presumably what volume of air flow; what was your hh0:air ratio? Tuning is everything with fuel economy mods. Too much hh0 or too much leaning out from high settings on your efie could change things a lot.

I don't have an HHO unit. It is a Fuel Vaporizer 2000. I did get better mileage(10-15%), but it seems at the expense of pollution.
Current tests show a 35-40% mileage increse with just the vaporizer on and the efie off. I am testing to see what the OBDII will do and still maintain EPA standards.
Toyota has a lean burn engine, 20-22:1 ratio, but they added in a second CAT to take care of the extra NO.
(04-18-2010 07:20 PM)Smudge Wrote:  I built a water injection unit for my car to go in conjunction with the hh0 generator.
George at Eagle Research stated that a 3:1 fuel:water ratio as effective in one of his books.
It would be effective for reducing the peak combustion temperatures in which the hh0 causes the oxides of nitrogen.
I can't post any mileage results, but I built the thing and it worked.
I used a 10 gallon air tank, plumbed a 12v air compressor into the side port, a water outlet hose into the bottom and a large ball valve into the top to fill the tank with water.
The air compressor put a "bubble" of 110psi compressed air into the top of the tank.
The water was delivered into the intake of the car via a misting nozzle from mcmaster carr rated at 1/3 of a gallon per hour at 110 psi at a 5 micron droplet size. With my car rated at 45 mpg, that's roughly a gallon and a half of fuel per hour so the ratio was close.

Thanks for posting some hard numbers on your testing. Seat of the pants estimates for fuel economy experiments don't offer any sort of credibility to our pastime.
And now that I take a second look at your results, I find a couple of important things missing.
What your change in fuel consumption? How many lpm of hh0 gas were you making and for what size engine displacement and presumably what volume of air flow; what was your hh0:air ratio? Tuning is everything with fuel economy mods. Too much hh0 or too much leaning out from high settings on your efie could change things a lot.
A second look at your "heat" theory. I think the lean burn causes incomplete combustion leading to an increase in NO leading to extra heat in the CAT. If correct, the water injection unit won't have any effect on the unburned NO.
"Any condition that causes abnormally high levels of unburned hydrocarbons — raw or partially-burnt fuel — to reach the converter will tend to significantly elevate its temperature, bringing the risk of a meltdown of the substrate and resultant catalytic deactivation and severe exhaust restriction. Vehicles equipped with OBD-II diagnostic systems are designed to alert the driver of a misfire condition, along with other malfunctions, by means of the "Check Engine" light on the dashboard."
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2010 06:07 AM by rpatzer.)
04-19-2010 05:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rogerjack Offline
Member
***

Posts: 4
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #4
RE: smog results
For water vapour the water was delivered into the intake of the car via a misting nozzle from master car rated at 1/3 of a gallon per hour at 110 psi at a 5 micron droplet size. Then only it will effective with smog.

la senza discount code
(This post was last modified: 07-08-2010 09:50 PM by rogerjack.)
07-08-2010 09:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ehjsga Offline
Member
***

Posts: 3
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #5
RE: smog results
Hello,As a general rule, the complete combustion of gasoline in an internal combustion engine results in higher levels of CO2(versus a rich or lean air/fuel mixture), according to my textbook. It is interesting that your CO2 numbers matched for gas and E85. Gotta give credit to those GM engineers, apparently, because your Tahoe is achieving nearly perfect combustion with either fuel.Nice posting.

heating repair
08-23-2010 02:45 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stevebutler44 Offline
Member
***

Posts: 4
Joined: Oct 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #6
RE: smog results
After read your post, I am so worry that I used a 12 gallon air tank, plumbed a 14v air compressor into the side port, a water outlet hose into the upper and a large ball valve into the top to fill the tank with water. So I think that May be ., It will be worse for me as long.

Kitchens
10-13-2010 08:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)