Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online! Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online!
Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online! 
-
Latest | 0 Rplys
Go Back   Automotive Forums .com Car Chat > Engineering/Technical
Engineering/Technical Ask technical questions about cars. Do you know how a car engine works?
Closed Thread Show Printable Version Show Printable Version | Email this Page Email this Page | Subscription Subscribe to this Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-15-2008, 03:57 PM   #46
KiwiBacon
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Otago
Posts: 849
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: PICC and hydro assist fuel cell

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Ri
I make VERY little if I'm the one that gets someone to buy a kit. My potential income is from installing and tuning them, which will be on cars in the area, not from other anonymous users of the largest automotive forum in the world... unless someone wants to drive all the way to Iowa, but I don't expect to ever see that happen.
Thanks for clearing that up.
KiwiBacon is offline  
Old 05-15-2008, 04:25 PM   #47
Moppie
Master Connector
 
Moppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Auckland
Posts: 11,781
Thanks: 95
Thanked 101 Times in 80 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to Moppie Send a message via AIM to Moppie Send a message via Yahoo to Moppie
Re: PICC and hydro assist fuel cell

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Ri
I bought this car only to install the HAFC on it, so unfourtunately I don't have a before number for day-to-day driving.

Aha.




Oh, and I did a google search of "Dennis Lee".
Plenty of named testimonials by people who have been ripped of by him.
__________________
Connecting the Auto Enthusiasts
Moppie is offline  
Old 05-15-2008, 05:10 PM   #48
J-Ri
AF Enthusiast
 
J-Ri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Shellsburg, Iowa
Posts: 3,218
Thanks: 8
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Re: PICC and hydro assist fuel cell

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moppie
Aha.




Oh, and I did a google search of "Dennis Lee".
Plenty of named testimonials by people who have been ripped of by him.
Well, obviously whatever it would have been would be much less than 32 MPG, 32 is about the absolute best you could possibly get stock on the highway going 55 with no hills. The before number isn't very useful, but in my '96 Beretta I averaged 27.3 MPG over two years. It had the 2.2L engine, my G/A has a 2.4L, so the G/A would probably be 26-27-ish. It also would have been very easy for me to say I got 26.6 MPG before, but I didn't, so I didn't say it (and yes, I did know when I wrote it that a number would be better than no number). With this new internet thing, there is absolutely no accountability for the accuracy of information, so if I were going to lie about it, why wouldn't I give some higher number? I have seen a 3L Camry that got much better than my little 4-cyl, so why wouldn't I have gone 3-4 MPG over that? If you did the math, my best run so far (old, tired, engine with 192,000 miles on it) was a 46.5% increase, which is LESS that the 50% guarantee, so it would only make sense that if I were making up numbers, that I would make up one that was HIGHER that the guarantee. Maybe I'm just starting low and working up to a higher number so it seems like... well, I'll just wait for someone else to point it out.

As of October 2007 there were no names. I and many others have used that as supporting evidence many times, and a name isn't that hard to make up.
__________________
'04 Cavalier coupe M/T 2.2 Ecotec
Supercharged 14 PSI boost, charge air cooler, 42# injectors
Tuned with HP Tuners
Poly engine/trans/control arm bushings
Self built and self programmed progressive methanol injection system
J-Ri is offline  
Old 05-15-2008, 05:27 PM   #49
KiwiBacon
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Otago
Posts: 849
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: PICC and hydro assist fuel cell

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Ri
Well, obviously whatever it would have been would be much less than 32 MPG, 32 is about the absolute best you could possibly get stock on the highway going 55 with no hills. The before number isn't very useful, but in my '96 Beretta I averaged 27.3 MPG over two years. It had the 2.2L engine, my G/A has a 2.4L, so the G/A would probably be 26-27-ish. It also would have been very easy for me to say I got 26.6 MPG before, but I didn't, so I didn't say it (and yes, I did know when I wrote it that a number would be better than no number). With this new internet thing, there is absolutely no accountability for the accuracy of information, so if I were going to lie about it, why wouldn't I give some higher number? I have seen a 3L Camry that got much better than my little 4-cyl, so why wouldn't I have gone 3-4 MPG over that? If you did the math, my best run so far (old, tired, engine with 192,000 miles on it) was a 46.5% increase, which is LESS that the 50% guarantee, so it would only make sense that if I were making up numbers, that I would make up one that was HIGHER that the guarantee. Maybe I'm just starting low and working up to a higher number so it seems like... well, I'll just wait for someone else to point it out.

As of October 2007 there were no names. I and many others have used that as supporting evidence many times, and a name isn't that hard to make up.
You're not doing yourself any favours with this.

Here's the outline so far:

1. A fraudster called Dennis Lee has a history of taking money off people with "free energy devicies". None of which has worked (because the earth isn't flat).
2. This same clown sells devices (snake gas generators) to take money of innocent car owning folk.
3. You are reselling and fitting these snake gas generators.
4. The experiment you've created to test your snake gas generator is bogus.
5. You appear smart enough to know the problems with #4 but haven't done anything about that.
5. You're trying to get free advertising in a forum which contains a lot of people smart enough to see your snake gas generator can't work.
KiwiBacon is offline  
Old 05-15-2008, 05:30 PM   #50
Moppie
Master Connector
 
Moppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Auckland
Posts: 11,781
Thanks: 95
Thanked 101 Times in 80 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to Moppie Send a message via AIM to Moppie Send a message via Yahoo to Moppie
Re: PICC and hydro assist fuel cell

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Ri
Well, obviously whatever it would have been would be much less than 32 MPG, 32 is about the absolute best you could possibly get stock on the highway going 55 with no hills. The before number isn't very useful, but in my '96 Beretta I averaged 27.3 MPG over two years. It had the 2.2L engine, my G/A has a 2.4L, so the ..................................HIGHER that the guarantee. Maybe I'm just starting low and working up to a higher number so it seems like... well, I'll just wait for someone else to point it out.

As of October 2007 there were no names. I and many others have used that as supporting evidence many times, and a name isn't that hard to make up.
What are you smoking?

http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Den...&start=10&sa=N


Denis Lee, the one who claims to have invented all sorts of free power and magical millage improving devices is a crack pot.

And you don't have to search far to find that out.


But, as they say, there is one born every minute.
__________________
Connecting the Auto Enthusiasts
Moppie is offline  
Old 05-15-2008, 05:33 PM   #51
Moppie
Master Connector
 
Moppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Auckland
Posts: 11,781
Thanks: 95
Thanked 101 Times in 80 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to Moppie Send a message via AIM to Moppie Send a message via Yahoo to Moppie
Re: PICC and hydro assist fuel cell

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiBacon
You're not doing yourself any favours with this.

Here's the outline so far:

1. A fraudster called Dennis Lee has a history of taking money off people with "free energy devicies". None of which has worked (because the earth isn't flat).
2. This same clown sells devices (snake gas generators) to take money of innocent car owning folk.
3. You are reselling and fitting these snake gas generators.
4. The experiment you've created to test your snake gas generator is bogus.
5. You appear smart enough to know the problems with #4 but haven't done anything about that.
6. You're trying to get free advertising in a forum which contains a lot of people smart enough to see your snake gas generator can't work.





Regarding No 6.
We have rules about people trying to sell things on this forum with out express permission from the admin.
__________________
Connecting the Auto Enthusiasts
Moppie is offline  
Old 05-15-2008, 05:48 PM   #52
J-Ri
AF Enthusiast
 
J-Ri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Shellsburg, Iowa
Posts: 3,218
Thanks: 8
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Re: PICC and hydro assist fuel cell

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiBacon
You're not doing yourself any favours with this.

Here's the outline so far:

1. A fraudster called Dennis Lee has a history of taking money off people with "free energy devicies". None of which has worked (because the earth isn't flat).
2. This same clown sells devices (snake gas generators) to take money of innocent car owning folk.
3. You are reselling and fitting these snake gas generators.
4. The experiment you've created to test your snake gas generator is bogus.
5. You appear smart enough to know the problems with #4 but haven't done anything about that.
5. You're trying to get free advertising in a forum which contains a lot of people smart enough to see your snake gas generator can't work.
#1 and #2, I believe, are false accusations. Going back to what I said about accountability of accuracy, you don't know who wrote that any more than you know who wrote this. Why am I wrong?
#3, I have not yet sold nor installed one except on my own vehicle, but as they do work, what's wrong with that? For many people, the long-term savings are hard to see past the initial cost.
#4, Please explain why filling the tank, driving "X" miles, refilling the tank (at the same exact gas pump so the shutoff point doesn't change and the fill neck is at the same angle), and then dividing the miles driven by the number of gallons used is a "bogus" test.
#5, I might be an idiot with a thesaurus and a technical manual or two, you have no idea who I am. My decision on this will be based on your answer to #4
The second #5, possibly #6? I did not start this thread, and I have only answered questions. I have not encouraged anyone to buy anything, giving a link to information is hardly advertising, even if something can be bought from there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moppie
We have rules about people trying to sell things on this forum with out express permission from the admin.
What have I tried to sell?
__________________
'04 Cavalier coupe M/T 2.2 Ecotec
Supercharged 14 PSI boost, charge air cooler, 42# injectors
Tuned with HP Tuners
Poly engine/trans/control arm bushings
Self built and self programmed progressive methanol injection system
J-Ri is offline  
Old 05-15-2008, 06:44 PM   #53
Moppie
Master Connector
 
Moppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Auckland
Posts: 11,781
Thanks: 95
Thanked 101 Times in 80 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to Moppie Send a message via AIM to Moppie Send a message via Yahoo to Moppie
Re: PICC and hydro assist fuel cell

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Ri

What have I tried to sell?
Nothing. Yet.

But you have made it clear are you are an agent, so can sell it, and install it, and you have made it very clear you are believer.
__________________
Connecting the Auto Enthusiasts
Moppie is offline  
Old 05-15-2008, 06:50 PM   #54
KiwiBacon
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Otago
Posts: 849
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: PICC and hydro assist fuel cell

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Ri
#1 and #2, I believe, are false accusations. Going back to what I said about accountability of accuracy, you don't know who wrote that any more than you know who wrote this. Why am I wrong?
The guy sells "free energy devices". Regardless of what anyone else happens to say, there's damnation right there.

If you're taking money of innocent people to install his devices, then you're no better than him.
KiwiBacon is offline  
Old 05-15-2008, 07:48 PM   #55
Moppie
Master Connector
 
Moppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Auckland
Posts: 11,781
Thanks: 95
Thanked 101 Times in 80 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to Moppie Send a message via AIM to Moppie Send a message via Yahoo to Moppie
Re: PICC and hydro assist fuel cell

So lets break this down shall we:


Magic device No 1.

The The HAFC Hydrogen Fuel Cell.


Apparently draws only 15amps but can generate up to 70ltrs of Hydrogen and Oxygen per hour.

As we all know it takes as much energy to split water in Hydrogen and Oxygen as it does to combine them.
It has also been proven many, many times that the electrical system in a car does not generate enough power to separate water into enough Hydrogen to make even the smallest difference.


Magic Device No 2

The HAFC Vaporizer


"The Vaporizer contains 6 powerful magnets to help ionize the fuel and break it down into tiny sized molecules for easier consumption, a cleaner burn, and a more thorough utilization of the fuel. The radiator hose provides heat to pre-heat the gasoline as well"

WTF?
It has also been proven many, many times that magnetic fields have no effect on fuel molecules. Given the low iron content and stable nature of the carbon bonds that is no surprise really.

Heating fuel has been shown to increase its ability to vaporise, which can improve efficiency. But engineers have known this for a very long time, and cars have been warming the fuel in the carb and in the intake since at least the 50s.
I doubt pre-warming will have any noticeable effect.

Magic Device No 3

The HAFC Optimizer


Plugs into the missions control system on the car and teaches the manufacturer’s computer to operate the HAFC System to keep it from rejecting the savings.

Again, WTF??

Last time I looked the ECU in my car was pretty dumb, its ability to learn was limited by its lack of AI.

I can only think of one thing this box might do; Trick the ECU into running lean.
It is well known that most cars are set up to run a little rich. When it comes to longevity from an engine running a little rich is better than running a little lean.
Of course running a little lean is better for economy and performance.
So you might get 1mpg improvement, maybe. But at what cost to your engines internals?


Magic Device No 4

The Covalizer


Had to be some snake oil in there somewhere.
Apparently this stuff cracks hydrocarbons.
What ever.


And then we have the mother load of all bull shit things to add to your car.

Magic Device No 5
The PICC, Pre-Ignition Catalytic Converter


Total and utter BS.

To begin with the normal catalytic converter on your car is not there to burn anything. It is there to work as a catalyst, to reduce the emissions of NO and CO, by turning them into less harmful N2, O2 and CO2.
There is no burning of unburnt hydro carbons. Excess unburnt hydrocarbons will damage a catalytic converter, and a problem with engine management.

It has already been demonstrated in this thread that breaking down hydrocarbons into shorter chains does not increase the amount of energy available, it only reduces the time taken to release that energy.
This is not always a good thing in an internal combustion engine which relays on the controlled burn of hydrocarbons to work.

And then there is this talk about plasma.
What is plasma? It is known as the 4th state of matter.
When break a molecule down far enough you start to separate the 3 basic parts of the atom.
The result is not something that is going to be successfully passed through any cars fuel system, and into combustion chamber.




The whole system, the whole idea, is simply founded on other peoples already mis proven bull shit ideas.

A search for hydrogen producing systems for your car, and magic magnetic fuel converters, and magic electronic boxes turns up hundreds of results.

There is nothing new, nothing original, and nothing that works.
__________________
Connecting the Auto Enthusiasts
Moppie is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 12:25 AM   #56
curtis73
Professional Ninja Killer
 
curtis73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Penn Hills, Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,561
Thanks: 0
Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
Re: PICC and hydro assist fuel cell

Well, they do work at one thing... getting money out of the pockets of those who got an "F" in chemistry
__________________
Dragging people kicking and screaming into the enlightenment.
curtis73 is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 03:31 PM   #57
J-Ri
AF Enthusiast
 
J-Ri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Shellsburg, Iowa
Posts: 3,218
Thanks: 8
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Re: PICC and hydro assist fuel cell

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moppie
So lets break this down shall we:


Magic device No 1.

The The HAFC Hydrogen Fuel Cell.

Apparently draws only 15amps but can generate up to 70ltrs of Hydrogen and Oxygen per hour.

As we all know it takes as much energy to split water in Hydrogen and Oxygen as it does to combine them.
It has also been proven many, many times that the electrical system in a car does not generate enough power to separate water into enough Hydrogen to make even the smallest difference.
Water is roughly 2,000 times more dense in it's liquid form than as uncompressed H-H-O gas, the total water capacity is about 4 cups, so 1/2,000th of a liter of water per hour is very little. You are also assuming pure water, there is KOH (potassium hydroxide) mixed in the water (an electrolyte) which makes the molecules easier to split apart. The hydrogen is not burned as fuel, it is used to increase the speed of the flame front in the cylinder. Igniting more of the fuel faster won't improve the efficiency?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moppie
Magic Device No 2

The HAFC Vaporizer

"The Vaporizer contains 6 powerful magnets to help ionize the fuel and break it down into tiny sized molecules for easier consumption, a cleaner burn, and a more thorough utilization of the fuel. The radiator hose provides heat to pre-heat the gasoline as well"

WTF?
It has also been proven many, many times that magnetic fields have no effect on fuel molecules. Given the low iron content and stable nature of the carbon bonds that is no surprise really.

Heating fuel has been shown to increase its ability to vaporise, which can improve efficiency. But engineers have known this for a very long time, and cars have been warming the fuel in the carb and in the intake since at least the 50s.
I doubt pre-warming will have any noticeable effect.
Where has this been proven that a magnetic field has no affect? Vehicles do not heat the fuel, some vehicles even have thin insulation around the fuel lines. Carbureted vehicles did heat it to some extent, but only because heat rises to the carburetor which has bowl(s) to store a small amount of fuel , and the return line was at the fuel pump which in most cases was at the bottom of the block. That left about 2-3 feet of slow moving fuel that would be heated. With modern fuel injected vehicles, the supply line is at one end of the fuel rail and the return line is at the other. Fuel is fed through at a constant rate and absorbs very little heat from the fuel rail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moppie
Magic Device No 3

The HAFC Optimizer

Plugs into the missions control system on the car and teaches the manufacturer’s computer to operate the HAFC System to keep it from rejecting the savings.

Again, WTF??

Last time I looked the ECU in my car was pretty dumb, its ability to learn was limited by its lack of AI.

I can only think of one thing this box might do; Trick the ECU into running lean.
It is well known that most cars are set up to run a little rich. When it comes to longevity from an engine running a little rich is better than running a little lean.
Of course running a little lean is better for economy and performance.
So you might get 1mpg improvement, maybe. But at what cost to your engines internals?
Most of the explanation is dumbed down a lot for the average consumer. As you know, there is no way to teach a computer anything. The only "learning" is the adaptive fuel. This is how it keeps the ECM from "rejecting the savings", if the fuel trim is -80%, the computer will increase the injector pulse width until it sees a number closer to 0. It doesn't actually run lean because of the rest of the system, at least not in the traditional sense of the word. The NOx and cylinder head temperature don't increase, so it's not really lean, although it does use less fuel.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moppie
Magic Device No 4

The Covalizer

Had to be some snake oil in there somewhere.
Apparently this stuff cracks hydrocarbons.
What ever.
It weakens the covailent bonds between the carbon molecules in the chain which makes them easier to split once in the heat and compression of the cylinder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moppie
And then we have the mother load of all bull shit things to add to your car.

Magic Device No 5
The PICC, Pre-Ignition Catalytic Converter

Total and utter BS.

To begin with the normal catalytic converter on your car is not there to burn anything. It is there to work as a catalyst, to reduce the emissions of NO and CO, by turning them into less harmful N2, O2 and CO2.
There is no burning of unburnt hydro carbons. Excess unburnt hydrocarbons will damage a catalytic converter, and a problem with engine management.

It has already been demonstrated in this thread that breaking down hydrocarbons into shorter chains does not increase the amount of energy available, it only reduces the time taken to release that energy.
This is not always a good thing in an internal combustion engine which relays on the controlled burn of hydrocarbons to work.

And then there is this talk about plasma.
What is plasma? It is known as the 4th state of matter.
When break a molecule down far enough you start to separate the 3 basic parts of the atom.
The result is not something that is going to be successfully passed through any cars fuel system, and into combustion chamber.




The whole system, the whole idea, is simply founded on other peoples already mis proven bull shit ideas.

A search for hydrogen producing systems for your car, and magic magnetic fuel converters, and magic electronic boxes turns up hundreds of results.

There is nothing new, nothing original, and nothing that works.
First off, the catalytic converter IS there to burn something, the excess hydrocarbons. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter2.htm. If your going to shoot down something you have no experience with, at least have the basic facts correct first, although it also does what you said it does.

Burning the HCs faster DOES result in higher efficiency. Most of the force downward on the piston ends by about 30-degrees after TDC because the circular motion of the crankshaft starts pulling the piston down (because of the change in angle between the connecting rod and the crankshaft). There are 360 degrees of rotation on the crankshaft between TDC power and TDC exhaust, and only the first 30 are powering the engine, and the mix is still not fully burnt after it's pushed out of the cylinder. If there are burning or unburnt HCs going into the catalytic converter, then how can you say burning them in the engine (especially as close to the first 30 degrees as possible) wont increase effeciency?

You are right, plasma can't be passed through a vehicles fuel injection system. The PICC will have a replacement fuel rail and injectors that have a high enough flow rate to allow enough plasma into the cylinder. It will replace several parts of the fuel delivery system, hence the cost (expected to be several thousand dollars).

You are also right that there is nothing new and nothing original, but you are wrong that nothing works.

I also contacted my dealer, and I can give the cost of the HAFC, which is $1,050(US) plus $30 S&H. You must apply for a quote on the PICC before you can buy a HAFC though.
__________________
'04 Cavalier coupe M/T 2.2 Ecotec
Supercharged 14 PSI boost, charge air cooler, 42# injectors
Tuned with HP Tuners
Poly engine/trans/control arm bushings
Self built and self programmed progressive methanol injection system
J-Ri is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 03:47 PM   #58
J-Ri
AF Enthusiast
 
J-Ri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Shellsburg, Iowa
Posts: 3,218
Thanks: 8
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Re: PICC and hydro assist fuel cell

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moppie
But you have made it clear are you are an agent, so can sell it, and install it, and you have made it very clear you are believer.
So the way you see it I should have said that I bought one a while back and had it installed on my car and have been getting great gas mileage but I have no idea how it works, it just does? I have been 100% honest in every one of my answers, as I am with everything I do. If I make a mistake, I admit it. If somehow someone can disprove this through trial and error, then I will retract everthing I said. As of now, I have seen it work on two seperate vehicles. One of which I did 100% by myself, so I know there were no tricks there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiBacon
The guy sells "free energy devices". Regardless of what anyone else happens to say, there's damnation right there.

If you're taking money of innocent people to install his devices, then you're no better than him.
Yes, they're free energy devices, much like a windmill is a free energy device. You don't put anything into a windmill to make it work. Magnets are constantly doing work. Stick a piece of paper to a steel roof with a magnet. It will hold the paper there, altough work is defined by force x distance, clearly the paper would fall were there no magnet holding it there, so the lack of distance moved due to gravity is work. If you don't believe that, hold the same piece of paper there all day, I bet your arm gets tired. Resonant frequencies can do all sorts of strange stuff, like shatter glass with no physical contact. It can also block a magnetic field. This is all what I've been told, and have not seen it work, so have fun tearing me apart over this

If the device works, then what's wrong with it? You're still assuming it doesn't work based on flawless arguments such as "WTF it totally doesn't work, but whatever". I havn't heard such semi-coherent responses since highschool, and even then it was painful to hear. Now don't take this the wrong way, but you were arguing that liquid will burn, so I have a hard time believing that you came up with any rational argument for or against the HAFC, PICC, or anything else.

BTW, I am still waiting for a response to #4 above, however I think I have concluded that you were indeed correct about the first number five due to lack of your response. I have answered every single question put to me, except for Moppie's inquery regarding what I am smoking, but I have answered every actual question, now it's your turn to explain to the world why such a test is "bogus". A shorter trip will show fewer miles per gallon due to the fact that it takes more energy to accelerate than it does to maintain a constant speed, meaning the further you drive the higher the MPG will be. That was the only possible argument I can see against it.

And Curtis, I got B's in chemistry and physics because I never did any homework but aced the tests. And before someone points it out, I could have said A+'s so don't point out that not doing the homework was a lousy excuse.
__________________
'04 Cavalier coupe M/T 2.2 Ecotec
Supercharged 14 PSI boost, charge air cooler, 42# injectors
Tuned with HP Tuners
Poly engine/trans/control arm bushings
Self built and self programmed progressive methanol injection system
J-Ri is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 05:10 PM   #59
KiwiBacon
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Otago
Posts: 849
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: PICC and hydro assist fuel cell

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Ri
Water is roughly 2,000 times more dense in it's liquid form than as uncompressed H-H-O gas
There is no such thing as HHO gas. H2O is water, the gas is steam and only exists at higher temps and/or lower pressures than a normal atmosphere. If you want some thermodynamic steam tables I can supply a copy.
When water is split by electrolysis it forms H2 and O2 (hydrogen and oxygen gas).

Using the letters HHO to describe electrolysis products puts you squarely in the "clueless" category.

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Ri
Where has this been proven that a magnetic field has no affect?
Hydrocarbon fuels are non-polar, it is well documented and easily proven that a magnetic or electric field has no influence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Ri
Most of the explanation is complete BS to fool the average consumer.
Fixed that quote for you.
KiwiBacon is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 07:47 PM   #60
Moppie
Master Connector
 
Moppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Auckland
Posts: 11,781
Thanks: 95
Thanked 101 Times in 80 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to Moppie Send a message via AIM to Moppie Send a message via Yahoo to Moppie
Re: PICC and hydro assist fuel cell

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Ri
Water is roughly 2,000 times more dense in it's liquid form than as uncompressed H-H-O gas,

Also known as steam. It is still water, just in a gaseous state. It has very limited use in internal combustion engines.

Quote:
the total water capacity is about 4 cups, so 1/2,000th of a liter of water per hour is very little.
Yes, 2ml of un-compressed hydrogen and oxygen is barely enough to make a pop in a beaker in a high school chemistry class. It is effect on an internal combustion engine would be unmeasurably small.
It is also very poor out put for 1 hours worth of work.
It is also a very long way from the 70ltr per hour claim, which we all know is impossible from only 1ltr of water.


Quote:
You are also assuming pure water, there is KOH (potassium hydroxide) mixed in the water (an electrolyte) which makes the molecules easier to split apart.
Such a friendly substance to be adding to your car. I always wanted to carry a pot of acid hooked up to my cars electrical system. http://www.potassium-hydroxide.com/index.html

Quote:
The hydrogen is not burned as fuel, it is used to increase the speed of the flame front in the cylinder. Igniting more of the fuel faster won't improve the efficiency?
So it is introduced to the combustion chamber, combined with oxygen and the resulting energy release is used to increase the speed of combustion of other materials, but it is not burnt?


Quote:
Where has this been proven that a magnetic field has no affect?
KiwiBacon answered that one.


Quote:
Vehicles do not heat the fuel, some vehicles even have thin insulation around the fuel lines.
Go and pull the inlet manifold off any car. Good luck finding one that doesn't have channels in it for coolant to flow around the inlet runners.
I can think of a couple, but they are all rather exotic. Guess what passes down the inlet manifold, and is attached to it. The fuel and the fuel injectors.

Quote:
Carbureted vehicles did heat it to some extent, but only because heat rises to the carburetor which has bowl(s) to store a small amount of fuel , and the return line was at the fuel pump which in most cases was at the bottom of the block. That left about 2-3 feet of slow moving fuel that would be heated.
On old cars with mechanical pumps yes. But guess what, they still passed hot coolant through the inlet manifold.

Quote:
With modern fuel injected vehicles, the supply line is at one end of the fuel rail and the return line is at the other. Fuel is fed through at a constant rate and absorbs very little heat from the fuel rail.
But it still gets warmed by its passage through the injector and down the inlet manifold. Although since modern fuel injectors do an extremely good job of vaporising all the fuel anyway, there is very little advantage to be gained from warming it. The warm inlet manifold simply helps keep it warm and vaporised until it is in the combustion chamber.


Quote:
Most of the explanation is dumbed down a lot for the average consumer.
You mean it is mis-leading and in-accurate, as well as being filled with out right lies that most people are to naive to spot?

Quote:
As you know, there is no way to teach a computer anything. The only "learning" is the adaptive fuel. This is how it keeps the ECM from "rejecting the savings", if the fuel trim is -80%, the computer will increase the injector pulse width until it sees a number closer to 0. It doesn't actually run lean because of the rest of the system, at least not in the traditional sense of the word. The NOx and cylinder head temperature don't increase, so it's not really lean, although it does use less fuel.
I don't know if you missed a word or something there, but it makes very little sense.
Most modern engine management systems have an adaptive component to their programing. They constantly adjust fuel delivery and ignition timing to ensure optimum combustion, but with a bit of a lean towards being to rich, than to lean.
They all work only with in limited parameters, but can adjust for a variety of different fuel qualities.
For example pretty much all will handle an introduction of 10% ethanol, which because of its lower energy content needs a richer fuel mixture.
More modern systems can handle even more, 15% ethanol is not a problem for many systems.

Of course remember that they all tend towards running slightly rich by a few percent. Not a lot, but enough to keep everything safe. Of course this means using a little more fuel that might really be needed, and it is possible to interfere with the data being feed to the ECU, and trick it into running a few percent lean. The result could be a very small saving in fuel usage, but a potentially fatal end for your car.
I get this feeling I am repeating myself..........

Quote:
It weakens the covailent bonds between the carbon molecules in the chain which makes them easier to split once in the heat and compression of the cylinder.
The word is covalent.
And if you can provide some science to back it up I might be interested.
But generally the heat and compression found in a combustion chamber is more than enough to do the job.


Quote:
First off, the catalytic converter IS there to burn something, the excess hydrocarbons. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter2.htm. If your going to shoot down something you have no experience with, at least have the basic facts correct first, although it also does what you said it does.
The catalytic converter is there to convert a small amount of harmful substances into less harmful ones. Some of what it does involves a small amount of oxidation. But the amount of wasted energy is very small.

Quote:
Burning the HCs faster DOES result in higher efficiency. Most of the force downward on the piston ends by about 30-degrees after TDC because the circular motion of the crankshaft starts pulling the piston down (because of the change in angle between the connecting rod and the crankshaft). There are 360 degrees of rotation on the crankshaft between TDC power and TDC exhaust, and only the first 30 are powering the engine, and the mix is still not fully burnt after it's pushed out of the cylinder. If there are burning or unburnt HCs going into the catalytic converter, then how can you say burning them in the engine (especially as close to the first 30 degrees as possible) wont increase effeciency?

You are right, plasma can't be passed through a vehicles fuel injection system. The PICC will have a replacement fuel rail and injectors that have a high enough flow rate to allow enough plasma into the cylinder. It will replace several parts of the fuel delivery system, hence the cost (expected to be several thousand dollars).

All of this relates to one thing, speeding up the combustion process.

A basic understanding of how an internal combustion engine works should tell you that is not necessarily a good thing.
Currently they are designed to operate at a speed that is compatible with the current burn rate of modern fuels.
Adjust that burn rate, and you start to get problems with pre-ignition, over heating, etc.
A fuel with a high burn rate needs to be operated in a high revving engine, or else all of the energy in the fuel is expended before the piston reaches the point where it is no longer able to exert pressure on the crank shaft, and the crank shaft takes over.
Ideally what we want is a longer, slower burning fuel. It is why Diesel is such a favorite fuel at the moment. It is able to exert pressure on the piston for a longer period of time during the combustions down stroke, and so more energy is used to drive the crank.


You are of course right that in a modern petrol engine there is often periods in the combustion stroke where fuel is being burned longer than is needed, just like there are gaps where the fuel is not being burned for long enough.
But that will always be a problem when you use a fuel with a constant burn rate, in an engine that operates at variable rpm.
It is one reason why stationary engines are more efficient.

Fortunately variable valve timing, variable ignition timing, and direct injection do a very good job of making up for the lack of variable burn rate fuel.

Quote:
You are also right that there is nothing new and nothing original, but you are wrong that nothing works.

So even if these magic devices did work, and did increase the rate at which the fuel burns, there would only be an advantage to high rpm engine operation, and a disadvantage to low rpm engine operation.
You can see where this is going I hope, I don't need to explain how it would actually have a negative effect on the fuel usage of the average car owner?

Quote:
I also contacted my dealer, and I can give the cost of the HAFC, which is $1,050(US) plus $30 S&H. You must apply for a quote on the PICC before you can buy a HAFC though.

But of course you would not be advertising these things for sale on the forum would you?
Your only letting people know that you can sell them, and how much cost
__________________
Connecting the Auto Enthusiasts
Moppie is offline  
 
Closed Thread

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD

Go Back   Automotive Forums .com Car Chat > Engineering/Technical

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:42 PM.

Community Participation Guidelines | How to use your User Control Panel

Powered by: vBulletin | Copyright Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
 
 
no new posts