PICC and hydro assist fuel cell

[J-Ri]

Two runs, one before the HAFC and one after. Both were exactly the same, about 50 miles. I'm the first person to say "never guess MPG by the guage", but there is an obvious difference on the guage. 70-some miles on this tank and it's still above 7/8 on the guage, it's usually about 50 miles at 7/8. That was also with more city driving than I usually do, running here and there to get parts.

Like I said, I'll fine tune it over the weekend and give an actual increase. I don't think that ~30% increase (there were decimal numbers that I forgot which number they went with, one was .2, the other .7 - I wrote it down, but the numbers are at my house, and I am not) was all I'm going to get, but I'd even be happy with that.

[curtis73]

Originally Posted by J-Ri

Ok... I'm not going to answer any more of your questions. If these two can't convince you liquid doesn't burn, I'm sure I can't convince you of anything.

It would be different if you were right, but you're not. Here are some resources for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline
Where you'll find the quote: Like other alkanes, gasoline burns in the vapor phase and, coupled with its volatility...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...7050545AAnVIDA
where you'll find the quote: Its actually the gasoline vapors that mix with air and burn. The liquid never burns. Because gasoline is volatile, there are always some vapors present and the fuel can be ignited. As mentioned above, on a cold day there are less vapors, but none the less, it is the gas phase that undergoes combustion

Or, perhaps you are referring to one of the several thousand patents on methods of burning liquid fuels. It should be noted that fewer than 3% of patents applied for in the scientific community are valid theory. Unfortunately, the dumbed-down populus assumes that patent means true and rumor becomes some kind of weird fact. My personal favorite is a Japanese man who created a patent for burning liquid fuel. In his abstract, he cited the reasons why liquid fuel doesn't normally burn as a lack of communication. His theory was that if the atmosphere could just communicate with the liquid fuel, it would burn. He writes, "...and allows communication between an interior of the fuel tank and the outside air at least during combustion."

I whole-heartedly urge you to place you findings on the appropriate forum over at www.eng-tips.com. They are a collection of some of the most brilliant engineering minds on the planet. My guess is that within 5 minutes of posting your findings, your post will be deleted and you'll be permanently banned. They take this kind of hooey very seriously.

Would you care to elaborate on why your liquid fuel combustion works? How do you introduce oxygen into the gasoline beyond the surface tension? Do you have documentation (other than a patent)? Perhaps a published study in a scientific journal? ... I mean, if you truly have found a way to burn liquid gasoline, then it needs to be put out there because it flies in the face of several hundred years of proven scientific fact and maybe the world could benefit from your discovery.

[KiwiBacon]

Originally Posted by curtis73

It would be different if you were right, but you're not. Here are some resources for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline
Where you'll find the quote: Like other alkanes, gasoline burns in the vapor phase and, coupled with its volatility...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...7050545AAnVIDA
where you'll find the quote: Its actually the gasoline vapors that mix with air and burn. The liquid never burns. Because gasoline is volatile, there are always some vapors present and the fuel can be ignited. As mentioned above, on a cold day there are less vapors, but none the less, it is the gas phase that undergoes combustion

Or, perhaps you are referring to one of the several thousand patents on methods of burning liquid fuels. It should be noted that fewer than 3% of patents applied for in the scientific community are valid theory. Unfortunately, the dumbed-down populus assumes that patent means true and rumor becomes some kind of weird fact. My personal favorite is a Japanese man who created a patent for burning liquid fuel. In his abstract, he cited the reasons why liquid fuel doesn't normally burn as a lack of communication. His theory was that if the atmosphere could just communicate with the liquid fuel, it would burn. He writes, "...and allows communication between an interior of the fuel tank and the outside air at least during combustion."

I whole-heartedly urge you to place you findings on the appropriate forum over at www.eng-tips.com. They are a collection of some of the most brilliant engineering minds on the planet. My guess is that within 5 minutes of posting your findings, your post will be deleted and you'll be permanently banned. They take this kind of hooey very seriously.

Would you care to elaborate on why your liquid fuel combustion works? How do you introduce oxygen into the gasoline beyond the surface tension? Do you have documentation (other than a patent)? Perhaps a published study in a scientific journal? ... I mean, if you truly have found a way to burn liquid gasoline, then it needs to be put out there because it flies in the face of several hundred years of proven scientific fact and maybe the world could benefit from your discovery.

Maybe you missed what I actually wrote. Here it is again.

Originally Posted by me

I am not disputing that the vapours burn (I mentioned above, wood burns in exactly the same way), I am saying it is very easy to ignite liquid fuel at normal temperatures.

Your references are accurate, but I'm surprised to see you using answers.yahoo and wikipedia as evidence.

Eng-tips obviously had prior warning of me, because every registration attempt hit errors. 3 different browsers, 4 different computers, 7 different email addresses. That was about 2 years ago.

[curtis73]

Kiwi... that reply was directed toward J-Ri.

It might SEEM like liquid fuel burns, but it doesn't. Sure you can ignite a puddle of liquid fuel, but its not the liquid that is burning, its the vapors on the surface of the liquid.

I'll try to do a quick graphic. Lets say that the X's represent fuel molecules and the O's represent oxygen molecules.

O O O O
O O O O
O O O O O O
O X O XO OX O
OXX OXX XO O XX XO
(surface of the liquid)XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X X X XX X X X X X X X X X XX X X XX X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X XX X X X X XXX X X X XX X X X X X X X XX X X XX
XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXX X X X
XXX X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXX X X X X

In order for a fuel to burn, it MUST be in the presence of oxygen. That is the entire definition of combustion; the exothermic reaction that happens when oxygen is combined with a fuel. If you threw a match into the representative puddle above, it would ignite The Xs evaporating off the puddle would combust because oxygen is present to combine with it. The volatility of gasoline means that the combustion would continue because there is a constant supply of evaporating fuel molecules. Below the surface, however, there isn't any oxygen. There are of course a few oxygen molecules mixed in, but certainly not enough to support combustion. I don't care if you zap the liquid gasoline with 500 volts, its not going to ignite. It might heat up and evaporate, but until it see's oxygen, its not going to burn.

When you carburate or inject gasoline (or diesel) you go from the above diagram to something that looks like this:

OO OO OO OO
OXXO OXXO OXXO OXXO
OXXO OXXO OXXO OXXO
OO OO OO OO

Droplets of fuel makes the volatility insanely high, (especially in the high temperature environment of compression) and surrounds it with oxygen. As the combustion begins, the molecules (being completely surrounded with oxygen) can combust easily. But, if you try igniting the liquid itself, it won't burn. In the middle of those four Xs in that theoretical droplet in the last diagram, there is no oxygen, but since you've drastically increased the surface area exposing so many more fuel molecules to oxygen, it can burn much more efficiently.

The bottom line is (as has been proven by billions of scientific trials) is that the liquid won't burn. It can't. It has no oxygen. Only after the fuel molecules have evaporated can they become exposed to oxygen and therefore combine with it.

[curtis73]

Originally Posted by KiwiBacon

Eng-tips obviously had prior warning of me, because every registration attempt hit errors. 3 different browsers, 4 different computers, 7 different email addresses. That was about 2 years ago.

Myself being an automotive engineer I registered there a few years back. I asked a question that was evidently unbecoming of an engineer or implied that I wasn't in the business so I was ditched. I have had to re-register TWICE because they are very concerned about keeping only the finest minds there, and weeding out the college kids wanting help with their homework. So far I haven't been ditched again

Its a great site and despite my background there are some terms there even I didn't understand

Great site. If nothing else, people can search for an answer and usually find it.

[KiwiBacon]

Originally Posted by curtis73

Myself being an automotive engineer I registered there a few years back. I asked a question that was evidently unbecoming of an engineer or implied that I wasn't in the business so I was ditched. I have had to re-register TWICE because they are very concerned about keeping only the finest minds there, and weeding out the college kids wanting help with their homework. So far I haven't been ditched again

Its a great site and despite my background there are some terms there even I didn't understand

Great site. If nothing else, people can search for an answer and usually find it.

Yes I have read posts there which are unmistakably yours. So for me it's now just an active reference library. If I come up with any really necessary questions I'll just convince you to ask them.

[72chevelleOhio]

Originally Posted by J-Ri

I'll consider giving demonstrations before you do (depending on the distance to where you are).

With all that gas your saving you could drive cross country to demonstrate.......Then write a thread about it for AF.

[J-Ri]

Originally Posted by curtis73

Kiwi... that reply was directed toward J-Ri.

Go back and re-read that post. I said "If these two can't convince you liquid doesn't burn, I'm sure I can't convince you of anything."

Liquid doesn't burn, and that's what I said, perhaps not as clearly as I could have been, but I thought most people would grasp my meaning.

Go back and read post #14, I was a bit more clear there.

Originally Posted by me

Internal combustion engines WILL NOT RUN ON LIQUID FUEL, it MUST be vaporized (turned into a gas) for the engine to run"

Of course I know that liquid will not burn outside an internal combustion engine either...

Anyway, after a bit more work, and then determining that my O2 sensor is getting lazy and occasionally "sticking" rich, I got 39.9 MPG. I'll be replacing my O2 sensor tomorrow and probably posting my results Wednesday or Thursday.

Originally Posted by 72chevelleohio

With all that gas your saving you could drive cross country to demonstrate.......Then write a thread about it for AF.

50% savings isn't nearly enough to go cross country, not ours anyway; plus since it's not my job to sell it, I have no intention of doing that. I will more than likely be going back to New Jersey this fall, so if you (and however many of your friends want to sit in the back seat of a Grand AM) would like to see it I'd make a stop on the condition that if you buy one eventually, you buy it from my page on the site. I get a bit of comission, not much, but enough to cover the gas to get to Leonardsburg from I-80. (I'm assuming your public profile is correct)

[72chevelleOhio]

Originally Posted by J-Ri

50% savings isn't nearly enough to go cross country, .
.

from I-80. (I'm assuming your public profile is correct)

You know I was kidding right?
I would like to see a picture of it installed though...
I would also like to know what it costs, and whats needed to get it installed...real world, not really a demonstration...

I-80? Toll road... Ouch....

[Duncan59]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
It would certianly be a great thing if claims like 200 mpg could be verified.
I do not wish to be a wet blanket or come off as a nay-sayer.
Folks, the marketing of this "Pre-Ignition Catalytic Converter" and "Hydro Assist Fuel Cell" is pure scamming.
Do your homework, the information is out there.
The man behind these scams has a shopping list of "wonder inventions" all of which do not and cannot function as promoted.
So far he's one step ahead of the law, but I'm guessing that will catch up with him.
He makes his money by appealing to folks who forget the axiom - If it sounds too good to be true....

BTW, O-2's almost NEVER 'stick' rich. It's a voltage generator that does not fail in the "on" mode. Switching out an O2 for a low oxygen in exhaust condition usually results simply getting a more accurate reading of how low the O2 concentration actually is. Assuming, of course, a quality sensor is installed , not a white box universal with a switch rate slow enough to set a code.

[72chevelleOhio]

Originally Posted by Duncan59

.
It would certianly be a great thing if claims like 200 mpg could be verified.
I do not wish to be a wet blanket or come off as a nay-sayer.


BTW, O-2's almost NEVER 'stick' rich.

I cant think of a good way to....

[curtis73]

Originally Posted by J-Ri

Go back and re-read that post. I said "If these two can't convince you liquid doesn't burn, I'm sure I can't convince you of anything."
Go back and read post #14, I was a bit more clear there. Of course I know that liquid will not burn outside an internal combustion engine either...

Sorry... my bad, I misread.

Kiwi...

[J-Ri]

After tuning it further, my MPG is 42.5. I still think I can get it higher, and if/when I do, I'll post an update.

Originally Posted by Duncan59

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
It would certianly be a great thing if claims like 200 mpg could be verified.
I do not wish to be a wet blanket or come off as a nay-sayer.
Folks, the marketing of this "Pre-Ignition Catalytic Converter" and "Hydro Assist Fuel Cell" is pure scamming.
Do your homework, the information is out there.
The man behind these scams has a shopping list of "wonder inventions" all of which do not and cannot function as promoted.

BTW, O-2's almost NEVER 'stick' rich.

It's a bit odd that someone would join a forum only to discredit something (one post as of this post). May I ask which oil company you work for?

Your information about Dennis Lee (the man behind the "scam") is off the internet, and you are being mislead. There are supposedly thousands of victims, but go back and search again, there is not a single victim's name. I searched for dozens (if not hundreds) of hours before I went to New Jersey, and although there are hundreds of pages about him, I did not discover a single name of any victims so I went anyway, and am glad I did. From my understanding, most of the claims against Dennis Lee are made by a "character assassin" named Eric Kreig who is paid by the oil companies. I didn't believe Dennis was innocent until I saw the HAFC work. I suppose it is possible that everything else is a scam, but I seriously doubt it (I won't say something works until I see it work). Another interesting point is that if he had scammed these thousands of people, don't you think someone would have "taken him out" once the legal system "failed"?

I was in a hurry when I wrote that, I meant to say making it run rich (stuck lean). Although O2 sensors can stick either way, sticking in a low voltage (lean) is just more common.

Originally Posted by 72chevelleohio

You know I was kidding right?
I would like to see a picture of it installed though...
I would also like to know what it costs, and whats needed to get it installed...real world, not really a demonstration...

I-80? Toll road... Ouch....

I did think you were kidding, but I wasn't really sure.
I will take a picture of it, there are pictures (not of my install, but various cars) on my homepage which is in my profile. I'll take some pictures of mine sometime, but I'm not going to promise a day (other than "the day after I find my digital camera")
I don't think I'm supposed to give the cost of the HAFC to anyone who doesn't apply for a quote on the PICC (I will double check that and if allowed I will post the price). The quote is free and there is no obligation to ever buy anything, they just want to know which vehicles to design the PICC for first (it will be vehicle specific, the HAFC is universal) The recomended cost of installation is $500, but as with any automotive work, it will vary from car to car. Most people would probably be able to install it themselves (given the know-how and proper tools), but would still have to have it "tuned" to their specific vehicle. The recomended charge for tuning is $100.
My actual gas mileage has been 32-ish with a fair amount of city driving and 75MPH highway. 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.
Yeah, your state sucks cost me $11 just to use your highway.

[KiwiBacon]

Originally Posted by J-Ri

From my understanding, most of the claims against Dennis Lee are made by a "character assassin" named Eric Kreig who is paid by the oil companies.

This just keeps getting better.

Did you know all the car companies are being paid off by big-oil too?

[J-Ri]

Yeah, I know that... I just didn't want to turn this into a thread about conspiracy theories. And yes, I also knew you were joking, but my answer was not a joke. Oil companies and auto manufacturers make BILLIONS of dollars every year. They will do whatever it takes to keep it that way. Why people side with them is a mystery to me, possibly a financial version of the stockholm syndrome?

Everyone can think what they want. Like I said, 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.