AUTOFIX.COM.AU

There are currently 21 responses to “Run Your Car On Water - First Test Results”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so come on... let us know what you think.

1. 1 On June 29th, 2008, Jim said:

   Well, a 10% increase isn’t as good as I’ve seen claimed, as most indicate 25% or more. But, I’ve also noted that they claim that minor adjustments may be required to get optimal benefits, so it may have some credibility.

   I’ll continue to monitor your results, with great interest, as you add-on and/or “tune” your system.

   Thanks
   Jim

2. 2 On July 1st, 2008, eddie said:

   Hi Craig,
   Initial positive results. I’ll keep checking the updates on mileage. Good on ya! Nice install. ANy plans in a few months or so to increase the number of cells to see if this improves your mileage?

   Eddie

3. 3 On July 1st, 2008, craig said:

   Hi Eddie,
   I am definately keen to expand on what we have installed so far, i.e. more cells, possibly delve into map sensor adjustments etc.
   At the moment we have a number of projects on the go and a couple need to be finished before I can start playing around with the Camry again but I will post our findings as soon as they come to hand. Not enough hours in the day!

   Regards,
   Craig

4. 4 On July 5th, 2008, Dave said:

   hi,
   can this water 4 gas system be applied to a vehicle fitted with Autogas?
   cheers
   Dave

5. 5 On July 5th, 2008, The Thylacine said:

   Hi Craig,

   Haven’t proved a thing, sorry. A single bench mark woefukky inadequate and an “improvement” of 8% well inside normal variability of +or- 30%. You nees several benchmark tankfulls and what you are looking for is an increase in average not overall milage.

   The Thylacine

6. 6 On July 6th, 2008, Stuart said:

   Did your install include a device to adjust the output of the oxygen sensor? This stops the mixture being richened due to the changed exhaust. These seem to be one thing that many people dont consider on these installs apparantly, and seem to explain the lack of real results that some people get.

   Cheers

   Stu

7. 7 On July 7th, 2008, craig said:

   Hi Stu,
   No I haven’t ventured this far yet but after another thousand or so kay’s since the test the mixture has definately ‘richened up’ so I agree, this is something that needs to be done to achieve good results.
   If only there were more than 24 hours in a day I would have done this by now!

   Craig

8. 8 On July 7th, 2008, craig said:

   Dave,
   I have had a look through the Water 4 Gas books and from what I can gather the system is suitable to be used on a vehicle running LPG.

   Here is an answer from the forum regarding using the system on a vehicle running gas :-

   You’ve got a great engine to work with for burning dedicated HHO. A potential problem with converting gas engines is the affect of oxygen on the valves and rings, especially if the car is not driven regularly. You’ve already got the Stainless steel rings and valves, and probably ceramic piston heads. Also the car is already rigged to run on a gaseous, hyper-clean burning, fuel. The computer probably won’t be giving you the kind of problems a gasoline ejected car has. Also, your timing is set better to burn this type of fuel. (Spark firing after top-dead-center.)

   Adding HHO to natural gas should be fairly straight-forward, just hook it up to the vacuum intake like any other car. I would presume you’d see an almost immediate increase.

   Hope that helps.

   Craig

9. 9 On July 9th, 2008, Eddie said:

   Hi Craig,

   Just logging on to see if their are any ‘week 2′ updates… Maybe you’re too busy or haven’t emptied the tank yet. Please do not let negative comments put you off continuing to update us with your unbiased mileage and fuel economy stats, even if the stats show decrease in mileage or a drop in fuel economy, your efforts are truly appreciated in putting actually data to the test. Keep up the good work!

   Hope to read more postings.

   cheers,
   Eddie!

   Thylacine - Craig has offered his time, effort and money into providing us with free unbiased trial of the system. He recognises this is the first refill since the install and he is employing a very simple method of odometer readings before refill light comes on to determine mileage/economy. No this method is not to some ISO standard but I am for one satisifed with it - in fact I’m very satisfied with it. If you insist on commenting try positive advice to assist Craig and not “it’ll never work… you’re doing it wrong… too early to tell”. If this proves too challenging for you then silence is appreciated. Afterall if you had children and took them to play sport you would say “why do you play this game? save yourself the time and effort you’ll never kick the ball as far as the other kids” or would you say “give it your best shot, have fun and we can work on your kick later…”.

10. 10 On July 10th, 2008, craig said:

    Hi Eddie,
    With so much negative talk about what we have been trying to do here your encouragement is very welcome! Cheers!
    I need to expand a little bit further on the system before running the test again as the computer is definately having a hard time figuring out the mixture.
    After even a short drive the catalytic converter is very fumey and although I haven’t tested it in any shape or form I believe our mileage has dropped off somewhat.
    While I’m at it I will be making up another cell to increase gas output and I want to wire in an amp and voltage meter and mixture guage to keep an eye on things. I think also having the guages will allow me to tweak the system further.
    Unfortunately I only have my spare time to do this as the kids start to complain when there is no food in the cupboards and for some reason the bank won’t let me delay our mortgage payments either! Bit rude that!
    Anyway I will keep you posted with any updates as they become available.
    Thanks again everyone for your support.

    Craig

11. 11 On July 12th, 2008, lee ibberson said:

    shame on the guy who is a neg head i have one installed and i have not done tests as such but i have noticed more power and i will be adding more the one i have on is the simple jar, i am not in to science but i feel i have more power i have taken it out and tried the engine is louder and more silent with it on if it is doing no harm and it is very slightly better then it can only be a good thing, so for the person with the negative head i am so glag you aint my husband

12. 12 On July 13th, 2008, eddie said:

    Hi Craig,

    Interesting comments. Which only puts questions in my head.
    How is your computer having problems?
    What do you mean by catalytic converter is fumey?

    I agree adding a volt meter and amp meter will aid diagnostics.

    Does the product manual offer much advice for above issues?

    cheers

13. 13 On July 13th, 2008, craig said:

    Hi Eddie,
    What I believe is happening here is because of the increase in oxygen levels in the exhaust gases (from the HHO unit) the oxygen sensor is sending an increased voltage signal back to the computer. The computer is interpreting this as a running lean condition therefore increasing the time that the fuel injectors are oppening to ‘richen’ the fuel mixture. The product manual discusses this issue in reasonable detail and provides a couple of ways to overcome it however I want to take it a step further (with the meters) and be sure that the mixture is not being overly ‘leaned out’ by these modifications which would give us an improved mileage range at the expense of potentially dangerous combustion chamber temperatures.
    If you have ever driven a fuel injected car hard for even a short time you will have noticed that the increase in exhaust temperature and rich fuel mixture from wide open throttle openings causes the converter to emit a very strong smell not unlike the ‘rotten egg’ smell that comes with unleaded fuel. Once again what I believe is causing this ‘fumey’ condition or smell is from the added fuel in the mixture from the ECU compensating for the added oxygen in the exhaust gases.
    Does that make sense? A bit hard to explain for a mere grease monkey but that’s the best I can explain it at the moment!

    Regards,
    Craig

14. 14 On July 13th, 2008, craig said:

    Just to add a bit more… once we have control over the signal from the oxygen sensor we can alter the input to the ECU so that the computer reads that the engine is running in the optimal air/fuel mixture range and things should be back to normal.
    Not a particularly difficult thing to do but certainly made easier and more accurate with the use of a air/fuel mixture gauge. We could adjust the input as we drive, too lean and the car will ’stutter’, too rich and performance will be flat but I prefer to work off the gauge.

    Craig

15. 15 On July 16th, 2008, eddie said:

    Hi Craig,

    Your explanation is good. Assuring to read the manual gives you pointers on the addressing the issue - are they easy or complex? To you have confidence in their suggested solutions? Your conservative approach (measuring amps & volts and oxy sensor output) to ensure you have a good air fuel ratio is very good which prompted to ask if you had confidence in their ’solutions’!

    Also came across this website for a patented HHO generator. Nice unit but unfortunatley very expensive ($2500…) unless your a freight company/truck driver or owner of engines running long hours (burning a lot of fuel). http://www.H2fuel-save.net.au some interesting links on previous universities studies on this topic & existing user feedback.

    Cheers,
    Eddie

16. 16 On July 17th, 2008, craig said:

    Hello again Eddie,
    I am still looking into how to best achieve the mixture adjustment and to be honest I don’t have much confidence in what is suggested in the manuals at all.
    They have a couple of methods ranging from simply wrapping the body of the O2 sensor in foil!! to a more complex electronic device that basically uses a pot to alter the output to the ECU.
    Something that bugs me is that there is no mention of accurately testing the air/fuel ratio after doing these mods.

    Imagine this for a moment, someone that is ‘mechanically challenged’ gets a hold of one of these guides and follows the instructions to the letter and starts driving his/her car around. Performance is great(engine is running lean), fuel consumption is down(some of this can be attributed to the system but once again the engine is running lean)and he/she is a happy camper.
    The trouble with this scenario is that from the factory the ECU is set to run the engine slightly richer than the stoichiometric A/F ratio of 14.7/1 to keep combustion chamber temperatures at a safe level and obviously these methods could have the engine running at any level - nobody knows because they don’t cover testing Air/Fuel ratio!! Running an engine leaned out for any period of time is going to do damage. Not good!

    I have seen a number of people argue that the introduction of the HHO gas ensures that combustion temps are kept in check and that in fact the engine is not running any leaner than before but I’m not convinced.
    Obviously the lubricating element of the fuel is reduced when leaning an engine out and I can’t see the amount of HHO gas that is used providing the same level of lubrication which brings me to the question of whether or not an additional upper cylinder lubricant needs to be used (as when converting to LPG)
    If you were using this system on a carby engine I would say go for it, you have nothing to loose but using it on a efi engine, in my opinion, opens up way too many questions that so far have not been answered.
    Don’t get me wrong, I have not given up on testing this out I just need to put some serious thought and time into how to best solve these mixture/lean out problems.

    On another note - something that really gives me the sh**s is the way these ’systems’ are being marketed by people that obviously have no mechanical background and couldn’t care less(or have no idea) of the implications of running an engine lean and there is certainly no mention of the time and knowledge that it would take to find a viable solution for this issue. If you believe the sales pitch the system is simple and easy to install and requires minimal tuning to get the most out of it. Sure, on a carby or diesel engine this might be the case but as we found out there is more issues that need to be tackled.
    Ok, I feel better now!

    Thanks for that link Eddie, certainly looks interesting! I’m keen to find out everything I can about this subject and will have a read once the ferals are in bed.

    Take Care,
    Craig

17. 17 On July 19th, 2008, USA Jim said:

    Hi Craig:
    I’ve been conducting MPG tests of my own for years but it’s become less of a hobby and more of a science method recently. This relates to your thread.

    Temperature has a large impact on the volume of gas you receive and to a lesser extent, the actual physical volume of your fuel tank.

    Also filling style has a big impact, and if you are inconsistent, or ambient conditions work against you, your mpg calculations can be misleading. Having a very accurate volume usage is key to credible mpg stats, so outside of lab conditions, we have to do the best we can.

    I understand you can expect about 1% more volume (1% less energy) for every 10C in fuel temperature. (supports the fillup at night premise.) There’s about a 30:1 expansion rate difference between gas:steel. Perhaps this is why a really full gas tank on a hot day will overflow, the steel shell can’t expand fast enough to keep up.

    I’m beginning to note the temperature at time of fillup as a fallback position to my scientific method. I suspect temperature effects, but also feel the temperature of fuel recently pumped from underground fuel tanks probably doesn’t vary as wildly in temperature (and thus expand) as everyone assumes. It will expand once out of the ground and in the car’s tank, and possibly overflow and be wasted.

    My primary concern is the actual fuel tank expands on a hot day, and thus has a bigger volume (taking more to fill), and this could be throwing off the denominator of the mpg calculation, especially if a prior filling was done under much cooler conditions.

    Any suggestions for a reliable fill-up technique? I’m somewhat reluctant to just let it go on the “first click” where the pump automatically shuts off, as I feel like all automatic shutoff mechanisms or the general position of the nozzle in the fill tube may introduce some new error source.
    Regards, USA Jim

18. 18 On July 19th, 2008, craig said:

    Jim,
    Yet another variable to add to the equation and one that I also believe has a large impact on mileage readings.
    A reliable fill up technique? I honestly don’t think there is one.

    I guess what it comes down to is, as suggested in previous comments is to use the average over a number of ‘fill-ups’ to come up with any really useful figures, which was not possible here becuase of the onset of our mixture problem but I do now wonder if the figure we achieved can be taken as any indication of a fuel saving?

    When any new car is released the manufacturer has to supply fuel consumption figures and I believe there is a standard in place that dictates how these figures are calculated. I will investigate that further, I think it will be interesting to see how they deal with any variables.

    I realise now that I have attempted to ‘over-simplify’ the procedure and given the small (9.2%) decrease in fuel consumption I wonder if we just got lucky!

    If the difference had been 20 or 30 percent then maybe the test would have been more conclusive.

    Craig

19. 19 On July 21st, 2008, The Thylacine said:

    Hi USA Jim,

    While you make a valid point about the temperature/volume relationship it probably isn’t as dire as some believe it to be, particularly if you are refuling from underground tanks. Temperatures over a metre below the ground vary less than 3 degrees C annually and are virtually stable below 3 metres. Most bowsers are more than a metre underground so that the biggest effect on temperature will be the time gap between your filling up and the last visit of the tanker. Remeber that petrol is a relatively light distillate and that it evaporates (the tankers and undergrond tanks are ventilated) and that assists is keeping it cool. Here in relatively warm Oz most fuel deliveries are at night, mainly for logistics and safety reasons but it helps Oilco profits not to have it evaporate before it can be sold.

    Relative expansion between the tank and the fuel is virtually irrelevant. Most cars coming out of Japan and Europe have impact resistant plastic tanks which are very temperature stable and even the old steel tanks were usually bolted quite rigidly to the vehicle indicating that tank expansion probably wasn’t an issue. The fuel overflows simply because of its own intrinsic expansion qualities. Back in the distant days of youth when endurance racing motorcycles we chilled the fuel with dry ice, there was nothing worse than having expanding freezing fuel seeping into your leathers and then evaporating from around your nether regions.

    What you are bringing to light is really another source of experimental error, but given all the other unavoidable error sources that must be endured in this type of backyard experimentation I think it more important to rely on the largest possible sample you can generate. Again in a single vehicle experiment you run into further difficulties as seasons and engine tune change along with vehicle lifetime issues. No-one said being a backyarder was simple, you’ve got to be in it for the fun and the journey, any usable results are a great bonus.

    Our experimentation back in the 70’s was all done without much electronics. Our location was semi underground, ie below ground level on two sides a sloping ground level on the third and normal access on the 4th. Although we took ambient temps at the begining of each session I think we were probably more concerned with the temperature of the water in the dyno tanks, that could easily be raised several degrees C in fairly short run times and needed to be taken into account to calculate the correct power numbers. One of the reasons we did a lot of short running (after getting everything up to temp first) was that our biggest metered flask was only one litre (doesn’t last long in a truck engine) and a lot of out tests were done using 250ml pipettes as our “fuel tank”. Timing was by both hand held stop watches and by a modified glider barograph, a modified mechanical tacho (with genuine bird feather quill inserted into end of needle) removed soot from acetylene blackened alfoil wrapped around barograph roll (I was very good at getting coffee when foil replacment was imminent). Despite sounding primitive it was accurate and actually worked quite well. It was certainly good enough for just below state of the art research. I can’t recall ever measuring fuel temp nor whether it was considered a variable.

    Having spent a lot of time over the past couple of years trying to get a Megasquirt to run I know that at least my version of Megasquirt does not take fuel temperature into consideration. It only monitors throttle setting, manifold and fuel pressures in calculating injector cycling tmes. I think that in a carburettored engine evaporative effects might outweigh any effect that fuel temp might have and I’m just plain ignorant on what happens with injection systems other than the Megasquirt.

    Craig,

    I think to be realistic you have to say that your current results indicate a 10% variance between observations and as such no valid conclusions can be drawn. I think that you will probably find around the sort of variance you found on the first run every time you fill up, it’s completely normal, particularly with all the variables you have in milage accuracy, fuel pump accuracy. etc. Have you measured your cars odometer against those 5K tests that the RTA is so fond of putting on the highways these days? It’s just another quality control facet yu can cover and be able to correct for when doing your sums.

    It might take a while longer than you’d like but I suggest that you institute a regime where on one fill you disconnect the hydrolyser and reconnect it on the next fill. If your wife is the driver don’t tell her which is what (or if you like don’t tell her the truth…you might just get away with it in the name of science) That way you will at least get some adjustment for seasonal, tuning and driver predisposition status. (assuming that the car doesn’t need tune-up each tankfull)

    The Thylacine

20. 20 On August 4th, 2008, Roscoe said:

    G’Day craig
    I would like to say that i have been following closely the dedate on hydogen boosters. I too am very scepital about the hydogen booster systems. I have now made my own hydrogen electrolyer (based on the smacks booster design) and ran a ride on mower (13.5hp ohv tecumseh petrol engine) under moderate load (blades engaged)to see if any rpm and/or milage gain was evident. We removed the govenor spring and set the throttle at no load 3000 rpm. We then egaged the blades and noted the rpm under load which fell down to and stabilized at 2550rpm.We than introduced the hho gas into airfilter housing at 1.2 litres per minute flow rate and noted a 200rpm increase in engine speed.This test was not conducted using the engines alternator. We will retest using the engines alternater and come back with the results. This could have a detromental effect to the rpm gain we had found in our test. A by product of the elecrolyer we found was a lot of water vapour generated by the heat of the electrolises. Could this water vapour be whats giving better milage to vehicle engines? A friend has a hydrogen booster fitted to his turbo diesel and he claims it ran better underload with the booster on and gained 20% better fuel economy. I had a look at his boosters and also tested them for hho gas output. They werent good hydrogen producers (800cc minute),but, they were good water vapour producers with hho gas as a by product.Just thought this may be of interest to you.

21. 21 On August 4th, 2008, craig said:

    Hi Roscoe,
    Thanks for sharing that with us, that certainly is interesting. From the limited amount of further research I have done it seems that the HHO gas improves the ‘burn rate’ of petrol which may explain the rise in rpm on your mower, I don’t know, there are so many theories going around it is hard to know what to believe!
    We would be very interested in hearing of any other results that you get from your test.

Leave a Reply