PICC and hydro assist fuel cell

This company took a full page ad out in my local paper. Just curious as to what you folks think.

http://www.preignitioncc.com/go/index.htm

absolute, 100%, complete and total BS. My favorite quote from that site is:


In other words, the vehicle traveling at 65 mph up a 30 degree incline for an hour would have obtained almost 200 mpg! When they shut off the engine, the researchers reported that it coasted on the plasma for another two minutes.


First of all... 200 mpg with some fuel catalyst??? Secondly.... what the f**k is "coasting on the plasma"

Don't you just love their "play" on words/adjectives. There are also numerous grammar errors in their site also.

First of all... 200 mpg with some fuel catalyst??? Secondly.... what the f**k is "coasting on the plasma"

The 200mpg was completely ignoring wind resistance and parasitic losses from the trans, diff, etc (engine only). I think the actual MPG was closer to 100 on a full-size van. The way the PICC works is by breaking the fuel down into it's elements prior to ignition (rather than burning the left-over fuel in the catalytic converter). The PICC goes in the exhaust pipe and uses engine heat and magnetism to accomplish this. The reason it coasted on the "plasma" is that there is a considerable amount of it between the PICC and the engine, enough to keep running the engine even after production is stopped. I have not actually seen the PICC work. That said, I have seen the HAFC work IN PERSON. The modified vehicle was a '99(?) Camry with the 3L V6. It got 67 MPG on the highway. I witnessed the initial fill-up, followed that car, and witnessed the after fill-up. I'm VERY skeptical of everything, so until I see it work on my car and KNOW that there's not a hidden second gas tank somewhere (not that I think there was), I'm not going to guarantee that it works. I'm installing one on my Grand Am, so I'll post back when it works.

Keep us posted. I drive 70 miles round trip every day for work in a 03 Tahoe. So if the thing really works, 25 mpg for my truck would be sweet.

I certainly will.

Don't you just love their "play" on words/adjectives. There are also numerous grammar errors in their site also.

I just re-read that, and noticed the double "also"s refering to gramatical errors, was that a joke? :)

what the f**k is "coasting on the plasma"
Ghostbusters!?!?!? "slimer equipped"....
Or its a serial killers car that runs on blood and coasts on....:uhoh:

Anyway, whenever they have an independent company test it, then I might be interested. They could at least use a hot chick to push their product.
Bewbies can sell anything....well almost anything....

well try it someone.
id like a good laugh.

The way the PICC works is by breaking the fuel down into it's elements prior to ignition (rather than burning the left-over fuel in the catalytic converter).


You do realise whats involved in breaking down hydrocarbons into the separate elements?


I have feeling we might all be about to get a chemistry and physics lesson from Curtis :evillol:

I'll consider that an invitation :)

There is all kinds of talk about "hydrocarbon clusters" and how fuel catalysts break them up. Gasoline Hydrocarbons are huge, simple molecules. Even if catalysts COULD crack hydrocarbons, what's the point? Then you have a smaller hydrocarbon and hydrogen. The net amount of stored chemical energy isn't changed appreciably.

Trust me... if a snake-oil bolt on could crack hydrocarbons, ExxonMobil would be using the technology to refine crude. Since they're not, I call BS.

All I can say is:
"It's morally wrong to let a sucker keep their money".:rofl:

I'll consider that an invitation :)

There is all kinds of talk about "hydrocarbon clusters" and how fuel catalysts break them up. Gasoline Hydrocarbons are huge, simple molecules. Even if catalysts COULD crack hydrocarbons, what's the point? Then you have a smaller hydrocarbon and hydrogen. The net amount of stored chemical energy isn't changed appreciably.

Trust me... if a snake-oil bolt on could crack hydrocarbons, ExxonMobil would be using the technology to refine crude. Since they're not, I call BS.

Assuming you split the hydrocarbon in half, you would be short two hydrogen atoms, not have extra ( H=(Cx2)+2 decane=C10H22 octane=C8H18 pentane=C5H12). Altough the chemical energy is the same, not all of the fuel is burned inside the engine. Longer HC chains take longer to burn than shorter ones do (so we burn them in the cat - efficient as a heater, not so efficient at turning chemical energy into mechanical energy), so lets say you change one decane molecule into two pentane molecules. The pentane has a higher percent of it's burn time while still on the power stroke.


Why doesn't ExxonMobil do that? Why would they? They have absolutely no reason whatsoever to be more efficient. If it costs more and we need more of it, they charge us more and they make more money.

Throughout history people have said "If they're not doing it, it can't be done". At one time it was impossible to travel faster than the speed of sound (infact, at one time if you went over 25 MPH you would die because all the air would get sucked out of your lungs). At one time it was impossible to get a package from NY to CA overnight. Facts change.

EDIT: apparently ExxonMobil may do that, as explained in my next post.

Assuming you split the hydrocarbon in half, you would be short two hydrogen atoms, not have extra ( H=(Cx2)+2 decane=C10H22 octane=C8H18 pentane=C5H12). Altough the chemical energy is the same, not all of the fuel is burned inside the engine. Longer HC chains take longer to burn than shorter ones do (so we burn them in the cat - efficient as a heater, not so efficient at turning chemical energy into mechanical energy), so lets say you change one decane molecule into two pentane molecules. The pentane has a higher percent of it's burn time while still on the power stroke.


Why doesn't ExxonMobil do that? Why would they? They have absolutely no reason whatsoever to be more efficient. If it costs more and we need more of it, they charge us more and they make more money.

Throughout history people have said "If they're not doing it, it can't be done". At one time it was impossible to travel faster than the speed of sound (infact, at one time if you went over 25 MPH you would die because all the air would get sucked out of your lungs). At one time it was impossible to get a package from NY to CA overnight. Facts change.

The laws of thermodynamics have not yet been broken. Despite people claiming to have done so for hundreds of years.
Each person who claimed to have done so was either mistaken or fraudulent.
This IMO is the latter.

A modern EFI engine runs at stoich or lean at cruise, there is no significant amount of fuel being burn in the cat converter and no noticable gains to be made there.

Cracking fuel into smaller molecules makes for a less dense product, go too far and you've turned your liquid fuel into gas. Do vehicles running on propane have better efficiency than vehicles running on petrol?
No they dont, which exposes the whole "cracking" theory as "crackpot".

It's all BS, just like the HHO muppets all over youtube.

The laws of thermodynamics have not yet been broken. Despite people claiming to have done so for hundreds of years.
Each person who claimed to have done so was either mistaken or fraudulent.
This IMO is the latter.

A modern EFI engine runs at stoich or lean at cruise, there is no significant amount of fuel being burn in the cat converter and no noticable gains to be made there.

Cracking fuel into smaller molecules makes for a less dense product, go too far and you've turned your liquid fuel into gas. Do vehicles running on propane have better efficiency than vehicles running on petrol?
No they dont, which exposes the whole "cracking" theory as "crackpot".

It's all BS, just like the HHO muppets all over youtube.

Mistaken, fraudulent, or mysteriously dead... but lets not turn this into a discussion of conspiracy theroies.

No significant amount of fuel is burnt in the cat? Why is the outlet hundreds of degrees hotter than the inlet?

Internal combustion engines WILL NOT RUN ON LIQUID FUEL, it MUST be vaporized (turned into a gas) for the engine to run. Vehicles running on propane do have better efficiency if you look at the size of the hydrocarbon molecules going in. Nearly all of it is burnt inside the engine, and it's so clean burning that forklifts that run on it can be run all day inside a building without people dying. Split one molecule of nonane into 3 molecules of propane, and that's 47.6% more fuel economy right there doing nothing else (propane's stoichiometric ratio is 7:1). Of course, in reality you're not going to get perfect thirds. You might make some ethane and some butane, and maybe not affect some molecules at all.

Cracking theory? Check out this link. Not only can it be done, but we've been doing it for well over 50 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracking_(chemistry)#Fluid_catalytic_cracking. If only there were some place on a car that was very hot with very high pressures... something like the inside of a cylinder... oh, wait, we do have that.

I have seen the HAFC work. I'm not saying it's impossible that I was fooled, but I think it's very unlikely in this case.

No significant amount of fuel is burnt in the cat? Why is the outlet hundreds of degrees hotter than the inlet?


Do you have any data to back this up? When the engine is at WOT it runs rich and yes the cat cleans up unburnt fuel. But not at stoich where the vast majority of operation occurs.

Basically the huge amounts of unburnt fuel required to make such claims valid is not present in a modern car. If you're talking about an old worn out carburettor running stupidly rich then sure it's valid. But that's a pointless comparison.


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


This isn't true. Gasoline and diesel droplet vapour is not gas.


Vehicles running on propane do have better efficiency if you look at the size of the hydrocarbon molecules going in. Nearly all of it is burnt inside the engine, and it's so clean burning that forklifts that run on it can be run all day inside a building without people dying.


Sorry but that's not true either.
LPG forklifts need as much ventilation as petrol forklifts do otherwise people start to die. But the exhaust is cleaner.
A petrol engine is not more efficient running on LPG, but a dedicated LPG engine can be built with higher compression to give better efficiency than a petrol engine.

Cracking is well understood, but you can't get something for nothing.
Burning any hydrocarbon chain to produce water and CO2 (perfect combustion) releases a certain amount of heat energy.
Cracking that original hydrocarbon chain into smaller ones does not change the amount of energy present.

Regardless, the limitation on efficiency of an internal combustion engine is not the fuel creating heat, it's how it converts that heat to motion. This BS system does not address that.

I'm afraid you have been fooled, conservation of energy is a law that has not been broken.
Quite simply, if it were possible to gain such a dramatic increase so simply, it would be everywhere already.

Unburnt HCs are not a function of how slowly the HC molecule burns, it has to do with in complete evaporation of fuel and the fact that most OEMs tune things rich. Almost all of the combustion event is done by 30* ATDC. The job of the cat is not to burn extra HC, that's the job of the air pump in the manifold. When HCs reach the cat they may still be burning, but it is NOT the job of the cat to burn HCs. Its very bad for cats to burn HC since it clogs them.

The outlet of the CAT is hotter because of catalysis of the gasses, not because of burning HC. If you have excess heat from burning HC in the cat, chances are its not long for this world.

This isn't true. Gasoline and diesel droplet vapour is not gas.
regardless, liquid won't burn. It cannot burn unless its incindiary like some alcohols. If liquid fuel burned, carbs wouldn't need chokes and EFI wouldn't have to richen the fuel mix when its cold. When EFI nozzles squirt fuel on the hot intake valve, it evaporates quickly. What doesn't evaporate gets sucked in as a droplet and the 1800 degree heat of combustion certainly makes quick work of it.

Liquid fuel won't burn.

regardless, liquid won't burn. It cannot burn unless its incindiary like some alcohols. If liquid fuel burned, carbs wouldn't need chokes and EFI wouldn't have to richen the fuel mix when its cold. When EFI nozzles squirt fuel on the hot intake valve, it evaporates quickly. What doesn't evaporate gets sucked in as a droplet and the 1800 degree heat of combustion certainly makes quick work of it.

Liquid fuel won't burn.

It's certainly true that carburettors and upstream fuel injection use evaporation to get a good mix. But the proliferation of direct injection petrol engines shows that a misted liquid spray does indeed burn.

Ever made a flamethrower at home?:evillol:

It's certainly true that carburettors and upstream fuel injection use evaporation to get a good mix. But the proliferation of direct injection petrol engines shows that a misted liquid spray does indeed burn.

Ever made a flamethrower at home?:evillol:


Liquid fuel does not burn, it is the first thing you get taught at a fire fighting course.

What does burn is a thin layer of vapor on the surface of the liquid.
In your flamethrower example the liquid is being turned to vapor at the flame front, and that is what is burning.

Liquid fuel does not burn, it is the first thing you get taught at a fire fighting course.

What does burn is a thin layer of vapor on the surface of the liquid.
In your flamethrower example the liquid is being turned to vapor at the flame front, and that is what is burning.

Exactly. That is why you can use a 12v fuel gauge sender with a resistor INSIDE a fuel tank. If its submerged it will never ignite. It can't. Its also the same reason why you can use a 12v fuel pump submerged in a fuel tank and it won't ignite. For that matter you could put a spark plug in the tank and it won't ignite.

And the direct injection debate doesn't hold water. You're injecting fuel into a compressed-air oven. If you're squirting super-fine droplets of gasoline into a potentially 600 degree environment, it will almost instantly evaporate.

I don't know how many times we can say this... LIQUID FUEL DOES NOT BURN. Any fuel requires oxygen to burn. Gasoline is a Hydrocarbon, meaning it is composed of Hydrogen and Carbon. Submersed in the liquid fuel there is NO oxygen, so it can't burn. The surface of the liquid can burn because of the oxygen present, and as the surface burns it will make way for other molecules to evaporate and combine with oxygen. If you light a bucket of gasoline it will burn very violently; almost explosively, but that is due to the volatility of it, not because liquid fuel can burn.

The only reason why we use high pressure injection or carburetion to introduce fuel is to increase the liquid's surface area to the point where its volatile enough to burn with enough completion to satisfy the parameters of the engine's operation.

Another thing for you to think about since you brought up the flamethrower analogy... One of my tricks as a bartender is spitting fire. I put a shot of 151 or grain alcohol in my mouth, light a match (or my finger dipped in alcohol) and spit the fuel on the flame. The point is to carburate the fuel as much as possible, like a comic spit-take in a movie. You begin by blowing upwards with just air, then tilting your head down to introduce the alcohol to the air stream. If you simply poured alcohol on your flame, it would go out.

This is also why a flooded engine won't start, as the spark plugs are coated with liquid fuel.

Dry them off, and it starts working again.



I don't know about a barney flame thrower through..........

Exactly. That is why you can use a 12v fuel gauge sender with a resistor INSIDE a fuel tank. If its submerged it will never ignite. It can't. Its also the same reason why you can use a 12v fuel pump submerged in a fuel tank and it won't ignite. For that matter you could put a spark plug in the tank and it won't ignite.

And the direct injection debate doesn't hold water. You're injecting fuel into a compressed-air oven. If you're squirting super-fine droplets of gasoline into a potentially 600 degree environment, it will almost instantly evaporate.

I don't know how many times we can say this... LIQUID FUEL DOES NOT BURN. Any fuel requires oxygen to burn. Gasoline is a Hydrocarbon, meaning it is composed of Hydrogen and Carbon. Submersed in the liquid fuel there is NO oxygen, so it can't burn. The surface of the liquid can burn because of the oxygen present, and as the surface burns it will make way for other molecules to evaporate and combine with oxygen. If you light a bucket of gasoline it will burn very violently; almost explosively, but that is due to the volatility of it, not because liquid fuel can burn.

The only reason why we use high pressure injection or carburetion to introduce fuel is to increase the liquid's surface area to the point where its volatile enough to burn with enough completion to satisfy the parameters of the engine's operation.

Another thing for you to think about since you brought up the flamethrower analogy... One of my tricks as a bartender is spitting fire. I put a shot of 151 or grain alcohol in my mouth, light a match (or my finger dipped in alcohol) and spit the fuel on the flame. The point is to carburate the fuel as much as possible, like a comic spit-take in a movie. You begin by blowing upwards with just air, then tilting your head down to introduce the alcohol to the air stream. If you simply poured alcohol on your flame, it would go out.

You're comparing burning to the controlled explosion event of combustion. They are quite different and it's well known that liquid and gaseous fuels have a very limited set of conditions leading to flash point.

But there's no question that liquid fuels burn. If you want to light a puddle of fuel, you can.
Yes it's true that what actually burns is the fine layer of vapour on the surface, that is also true of wood burning. But I'm yet to find someone who tells me that solid wood doesn't burn.

I don't know about a barney flame thrower through..........
It all happened after a kids didn't sing the "I love you, you love me" song back to him. He went crazy! Its on You Tube.....true story. :evillol:


Well, I don't mean to hi-jack the thread or anything...:rolleyes: ...but, I think you kids are arguing a different approach to the same story and don't know it...
There are 3 things needed to make a fire.
1) Fuel - The burnable kind, be it gasoline, wood or wood vapour..:tongue:
2) Ignition - The heat kind, or sparks depending on the fuel..
3) AIR - The oxygen kind...having anything soaked, submerged or any other way oxygen can't get the other two you have no fire....

Firefighters now can use a foam for putting out fires. They train to walk and carry the hose a special way so they don't disturb the foam as much when putting out fires. That way they won't allow oxygen back to the fuel source, and cause a flare up. (learned that from a fire crew that had to put out a dumpster fire that had a layer of oil and tranny fluid on the bottom, had they used just water they would never get it put out....(oil on top of water)

....but then again I could have glanced over all the posts wrong...:eek7:
:grinno:

You're comparing burning to the controlled explosion event of combustion. They are quite different and it's well known that liquid and gaseous fuels have a very limited set of conditions leading to flash point.

But there's no question that liquid fuels burn. If you want to light a puddle of fuel, you can.
Yes it's true that what actually burns is the fine layer of vapour on the surface, that is also true of wood burning. But I'm yet to find someone who tells me that solid wood doesn't burn.

You contradict yourself. Liquid doesn't burn, the evaporated gaseous form of it burns on the surface. Its evaporated... as in its in a gaseous state.

The liquid WILL NOT BURN. Its evaporated surface will because it is exposed to oxygen. You could submerge a spark plug in a bucket of gasoline and it won't ignite the fuel. Hold it just above the fuel and it will ignite the VAPORS. The evaporated fuel burns, NOT the liquid.

You contradict yourself. Liquid doesn't burn, the evaporated gaseous form of it burns on the surface. Its evaporated... as in its in a gaseous state.

The liquid WILL NOT BURN. Its evaporated surface will because it is exposed to oxygen. You could submerge a spark plug in a bucket of gasoline and it won't ignite the fuel. Hold it just above the fuel and it will ignite the VAPORS. The evaporated fuel burns, NOT the liquid.

Pick a slightly heavier liquid without the layer of vapour, like diesel or oil.
These can be lit in liquid form without wondering if it's the liquid or the vapour which ignites.

Again, sorry to be such a jerk, but you are just wrong. Diesel fuel doesn't evaporate as quickly as gasoline, but it does evaporate. If it didn't, it wouldn't have an odor.

If oil burned in liquid form, we wouldn't need wicks in oil lamps. If diesel burned in liquid form we wouldn't need 25,000 psi injector pumps.

Again, sorry to be such a jerk, but you are just wrong. Diesel fuel doesn't evaporate as quickly as gasoline, but it does evaporate. If it didn't, it wouldn't have an odor.

If oil burned in liquid form, we wouldn't need wicks in oil lamps. If diesel burned in liquid form we wouldn't need 25,000 psi injector pumps.
I am not claiming that diesel an oil don't evaporate. 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.

You don't need a wick to burn an oil lamp, but you need a wick to control the burning of that lamp.
Setting fire to diesel and oil isn't difficult (again using these for examples due to the low volatility at room temp).
The old method of frost control in horticulture were things called frost pots. Literally steel buckets filled with diesel, kerosene or other light oil. They were lit directly from a hand held pot similar to a watering can. No wick involved and damn were they smokey.
I have done it, I suggest you try it before telling me it can't be done.

Diesel injection pumps are such high pressure because they need to burn that shot of fuel cleanly in a few milliseconds. To burn the same volume of fuel in a puddle takes longer and results in the uncontrolled emissions I mentioned earlier.

You are confusing the fact that you can ignite a bucket of liquid fuel with actually burning liquid. The LIQUID isn't burning, the vapor ON the liquid is burning. The vapor burns, the liquid doesn't.

You can argue all you want, but IT IS NOT LIQUID THAT IS BURNING, it is the vapor near the liquid that burns. I have two degrees in chemistry and biochemistry so you can't convince me that liquid burns because it doesn't.

I am not claiming that diesel an oil don't evaporate. 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.

Diesel injection pumps are such high pressure because they need to burn that shot of fuel cleanly in a few milliseconds. To burn the same volume of fuel in a puddle takes longer and results in the uncontrolled emissions I mentioned earlier.


You are still wrong.

It takes longer for a puddle to burn because it has a smaller surface area than fuel sprayed in a mist.
The smaller surface area means less evaporated fuel, and so a slower burn.

Go and ask your local fire brigade about burning fuel, if you are lucky they might even give you a demonstration.

I am saying it is very easy to ignite liquid fuel at normal temperatures.

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.

But, I got the HAFC installed in my car and on the first run got 37 MPG. That is compared to 29 before (same EXACT route, 95% highway with very light winds). For those of you that are good at math, that is not a 50% increase, but I'm sure I can get it better. Being my first install, I have some learning to do still. I'll adjust it over the weekend, and hopefully get it much higher by Monday. If anyone has a serious interest in buying one, I'll consider giving demonstrations before you do (depending on the distance to where you are). If anyone is interested, PM me and I'll give you contact info.

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.

But, I got the HAFC installed in my car and on the first run got 37 MPG. That is compared to 29 before (same EXACT route, 95% highway with very light winds). For those of you that are good at math, that is not a 50% increase, but I'm sure I can get it better. Being my first install, I have some learning to do still. I'll adjust it over the weekend, and hopefully get it much higher by Monday. If anyone has a serious interest in buying one, I'll consider giving demonstrations before you do (depending on the distance to where you are). If anyone is interested, PM me and I'll give you contact info.

So you've done one run of how far to benchmark your fuel savings?

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.

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/index?qid=20070317050545AAnVIDA
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 (http://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.

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/index?qid=20070317050545AAnVIDA
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 (http://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.
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.

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.

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.

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.:grinyes:

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. :tongue:

:cwm27:

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. 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...:rolleyes:

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.

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

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....

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.

.
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....:disappoin

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...:rolleyes:

Sorry... my bad, I misread. :)

Kiwi... :slap:

:)

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.

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.

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.

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.:lol:

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

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.

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.

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. :screwy:




Oh, and I did a google search of "Dennis Lee".
Plenty of named testimonials by people who have been ripped of by him.

Aha. :screwy:




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.

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.

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=Dennis+Lee&hl=en&safe=off&pwst=1&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.

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.



:lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:


Regarding No 6.
We have rules about people trying to sell things on this forum with out express permission from the admin. :smokin:

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.

We have rules about people trying to sell things on this forum with out express permission from the admin. :smokin:
What have I tried to sell?

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.

#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.:grinyes:

If you're taking money of innocent people to install his devices, then you're no better than him.

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.

Well, they do work at one thing... getting money out of the pockets of those who got an "F" in chemistry :)

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?


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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

The guy sells "free energy devices". Regardless of what anyone else happens to say, there's damnation right there.:grinyes:

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 :rolleyes:

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.

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.


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.


Most of the explanation is complete BS to fool the average consumer.
Fixed that quote for you.

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.


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.



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


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?



Where has this been proven that a magnetic field has no affect?

KiwiBacon answered that one.


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.

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.


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.



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?

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..........


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.



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.


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.


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?


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 :shakehead