|
|
|
Junior Member
 
Group: Online Book Member
Last Login: 10/28/2008 9:34:55 AM
Posts: 18,
Visits: 60
|
|
| i see the logic on both sides, i see where this could harm an engine but at the same time i dont see anyone producing enough H.H.O. to harm much of anything. most of these jar and wire systems are producing like .3 - .7 LPM which isnt much and with that being introduced i dont forsee anything becoming brittle at least not right away. my inital concerns on how hot this stuff burns came to mind before i ever messed with it especially like you continue to say leaning it out makes it even hotter. i still havent put an H.H.O. system in yet due to the fact that i want to do my own tests and what not before i try to hook it on a vehicle that i depend on. its a big ol science project that we all got hooked in some of us by advertising some by just the idea of it regardless its a project cause if it worked 100% and gave the huge numbers we all want they would be selling the information for much more than 98 dollars. personally i see it as good that all of you are here bickering about what works and what doesnt, cause it benifits me in my findings to see whos information is correct, if dav and inc say its burning to hot and causing issues i know where and what to look for. or if water man, WE or bob are saying they are getting good results from adding (insert anything here) then i want to test it to see what it gets me so from where i sit you guys keep punching holes cause one it make for entertainment and i get a lil something out of it all for my project
why in search of ways to make fire do we turn to water for the answer?
CURRENT PORJECT LIST:
1979 Chevy/GM 3500, 454 under the hood, standard 87 octane, 16" tires1999 pontiac bonneville sle 3800
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Online Book Member
Last Login: 12/23/2008 8:56:30 PM
Posts: 266,
Visits: 550
|
|
| It hurts to have to agree with anything that theincubus or davfel say,but regarding the matter of leaning possibly causing the combustion in the cylinder to be too hot, they are correct. In addition it will cause the fuel to explode not have a smooth burn. This explosion is what we call knock, and will burn holes in pistons and burn valves. It will also pit combustion chamber domes. This is caused when the fuel air ration is messed with causing too little fuel to the available oxygen. The method of using less fuel by reducing the air will not cause this. In this case the computer simply maintains the correct fuel too air ratio. This is the method recommended by Robert Foreman. Will it work? I do not know. It seems to have improved my mileage slightly. More testing is required before I decide. Several months ago I wrote a post recommending if people were going to change the fuel ratio they should have an exhaust gas temp monitor. This is particularly true in the case of turbo / supercharged or diesel engines. Bluntly, manually leaning the fuel to an engine without a EGT monitor is somewhat foolish, unless you are well healed and can risk an engine. Remember the method Bob Foreman is promoting does not change the gasoline / diesel ratio. When you add H.H.O. in any amount you are actually increasing the fuel to air ratio. Additionally H.H.O. burns cooler than gasolene or diesel.
1998 Honda Civic Hatcback2001 Ford F350 7.3 Crewcab, Dually, FWD
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Business Member
Last Login: 8/29/2009 10:33:40 AM
Posts: 47,
Visits: 193
|
|
Diesel Lover (10/14/2008)
It hurts to have to agree with anything that theincubus or davfel say,but regarding the matter of leaning possibly causing the combustion in the cylinder to be too hot, they are correct. In addition it will cause the fuel to explode not have a smooth burn. This explosion is what we call knock, and will burn holes in pistons and burn valves. It will also pit combustion chamber domes. This is caused when the fuel air ration is messed with causing too little fuel to the available oxygen. The method of using less fuel by reducing the air will not cause this. In this case the computer simply maintains the correct fuel too air ratio. This is the method recommended by Robert Foreman. Will it work? I do not know. It seems to have improved my mileage slightly. More testing is required before I decide. Several months ago I wrote a post recommending if people were going to change the fuel ratio they should have an exhaust gas temp monitor. This is particularly true in the case of turbo / supercharged or diesel engines. Bluntly, manually leaning the fuel to an engine without a EGT monitor is somewhat foolish, unless you are well healed and can risk an engine. Remember the method Bob Foreman is promoting does not change the gasoline / diesel ratio. When you add H.H.O. in any amount you are actually increasing the fuel to air ratio. Additionally H.H.O. burns cooler than gasolene or diesel. I can see that H.H.O. can change the fuel to (oxygen-in-the) air ratio one way or the other, to a significant or insignificant degree. I would agree with your statment about increasing the fuel to (oxygen-in-the) air ratio if we were adding only hydrogen. Also, hydrogen has a flash temperature twice that of gasoline. I'm not sure but I think that means it burns hotter and more 'energetically' (more explosively?). I think the cooling effect comes partially from when it turns back to water. My educated hunch is that the water vapor accompanying the H.H.O. is the main cooling effect: ask any firefighter the incredible expanding property of water as it suddenly turns to steam(hence it 'blows' out the fire) but it also cools like the expanding freon in your car's A/C system.
NormTempe, Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Online Book Member
Last Login: 10/8/2009 5:11:40 PM
Posts: 80,
Visits: 208
|
|
[/quote]In addition it will cause the fuel to explode not have a smooth burn. This explosion is what we call knock, and will burn holes in pistons and burn valves.It will also pit combustion chamber domes. [/quote]
"Sort of,
My understanding is that knock is actually caused by a timing issue. The flame is propagating throughout the cylinder and causing the force to fight against the piston as it is travelling up the cylinder. Decreasing efficiency and energy output."Knock is generally caused by 3 things... Incorrect ignition timing and/or timing advance under load; Low octane fuel, Lean mixture. Timing is easy, the spark happens too soon...Retard the timing... Fuel is easy, lower octane fuel burns faster and hotter. Mix is too lean, fatten the mix. Don't want to fatten the mix? Retard the timing. TOGETHER : Early spark, fast burning fuel, lean mixture, your combustion charge has reached its maximum expansion BEFORE the piston has reached TDC. Knock. H.H.O. and the associated water vapor burns VERY fast in the combustion chamber, (in the quantities people are likely going to create), lean mixtures are going to burn VERY fast
Water Man
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Online Book Member
Last Login: 9/4/2011 7:49:33 PM
Posts: 65,
Visits: 441
|
|
| HELLO GROUP..! Has anyone noticed that quiet and peace has returned to the Forum? That our two miscreants are gone..?!! ... and with them, all the 'graffiti' wherewith they had besmirched 'these hallowed halls' -- W4G in general -- and most of us by name. Thanks ADMIN..!!! He has been very busy with his OWN problems and trials of life. We owe him a lot, for restoring Order. Bob Foreman
The Science behind HOD / W4G is called "Cathodic Protection" (CP)Atlanta, GA
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Online Book Member
Last Login: 9/4/2011 7:49:33 PM
Posts: 65,
Visits: 441
|
|
| HELLO GROUP..! LET's REFOCUS A LITTLE..! Would it be Best to have a SEPARATE TOPIC =
To Post RESULTS from Our Experiments on Reducing the VOLUME Of Air (VoA) =
OR, POST THEM HERE..??! I mean, the GOOD, the BAD ... AND the UGLY..!
What Worked -- and What Did NOT -- and those that were 'Indifferent'. SOME, among us are getting NOTHING for their efforts =
MANY, are having 'Good to Moderate' Success =
a FEW are having Phenomenal Results..! (1.) SEPARATE Topic..??! = = or HERE..??!  (2.) THEN, we need Suggestions on What FORM such POSTS should take.
Not A RIGID Form -- but the Highlights -- THE BASICS -- the Important Stuff..! * YEAR, MAKE & MODEL =
* Percentage of the VOLUME of AIR reduced by = (70%, 60%, 50%, etc) =
* Miles Covered -- City or Highway = SHOULD be BOTH..! = and the SAME Route, EACH Time..! =
* "Test 3 of 6" = or some such thing = Which test / experiment was this?
* DATE and LOCAL = (When & Where) =
* GAINS = LOSSES = NIL <or indifferent> = WITH ALL OF US DOING THIS, TOGETHER = It will promote the TRUTH of the Matter..! In THEORY, the VOLUME of AIR Concept will work on ANY Post-1993 Vehicle = and a few 1992 and Earlier Vehicles, like the 86 Buick..! However, the REALITY, is that it doesn't = Not CONSISTENTLY..! WHY..? Thats where YOU come in ...
Bob Foreman
The Science behind HOD / W4G is called "Cathodic Protection" (CP)Atlanta, GA
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Online Book Member
Last Login: 12/23/2008 8:56:30 PM
Posts: 266,
Visits: 550
|
|
| Not only have I noticed order being restored, on this topic alone, I have noticed that the posts are logical and designed to develop rather than destroy. Waterman your comments on knock were respondent to mine. I agree with you totally on all of your points. Regarding my comments, I was replying to a writer who had regarding an installation, but in reality all yoiu have mentioned could be present if tunning is done improperly. Bob I agree that a new area responding to results with air restriction could be a good thing. Even if it is moved into the results area. I'll try to start one right now. I am still testing and my results have been slight to zero. I'll say more in a separate post.
1998 Honda Civic Hatcback2001 Ford F350 7.3 Crewcab, Dually, FWD
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Online Book Member
Last Login: 12/23/2008 8:56:30 PM
Posts: 266,
Visits: 550
|
|
Waterman, I do not purpose to know the speed at which H.H.O. burns, but possibly you have answered a question I have had. Until your post everthing I had read said that H.H.O. slowed down the burn rate in the cylinder. In effect raised the octane rating. If this were the case the timing should be advanced so that the burn completes on time, but the same write up that said it burned slow, said to retard the timing. This seems to me to be contrary to logic as now the combustion cycle could go further beyond TDC which would cause low power production. For the highest power production the ideal spot would be just over the top of TDC, but it would have to explode to get quick enough burn to avoid power loss. This in turn explosion would be the knock that we don't want and will destroy an engine.
1998 Honda Civic Hatcback2001 Ford F350 7.3 Crewcab, Dually, FWD
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Online Book Member
Last Login: 10/28/2008 9:34:55 AM
Posts: 18,
Visits: 60
|
|
| you are right DL from all the time i have spent reading through everything a person need to advacne timing on the vehicle even past TDC since H.H.O. doesnt require compression to burn so you actually want the piston to start the power stroke i believe then you achieve the most out of your H.H.O. and fuel in the cylinder. ive read that it H.H.O. can retard timing as much as 8ish degrees some show more some less but 8 seems right some go as far as going back to TDC and then advancing it 10ish degrees and again some more some less bob as for you question i would say results should be posted elsewhere it would be fine here for those of us who have been here for a while but putting it elsewhere will give newcomers a chance to find it eaiser without doing a search. just my 2 cents
why in search of ways to make fire do we turn to water for the answer?
CURRENT PORJECT LIST:
1979 Chevy/GM 3500, 454 under the hood, standard 87 octane, 16" tires1999 pontiac bonneville sle 3800
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Online Book Member
Last Login: 12/23/2008 8:56:30 PM
Posts: 266,
Visits: 550
|
|
I have started a new topic under the actual results section of this post. Hope this will help.
1998 Honda Civic Hatcback2001 Ford F350 7.3 Crewcab, Dually, FWD
|
|
|
|