My quest for 30 MPG - Ford Explorer Gas Mileage Tips | Page 83 | Ford Explorer Forums - Serious Explorations

  • Register Today It's free!

My quest for 30 MPG - Ford Explorer Gas Mileage Tips

I don't think it hurts to try though, I was working on a design a while ago that likely wont work, but I've put no money into it yet :D

I heard you need higher voltage to make hydrogen bubble up though, and testing with 120volt ac still doesn't produce bubbles that actually rise off the wire. Also if running on DC the power needs to pulse. Though I guess it depends on the amount of wire as well? Aldive you had some good bubble action there!
 



Join the Elite Explorers for $20 each year.
Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,.
Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!
.





Cdw, goodby

What about my first could give anyone a HEADACHE.
 












Please forgive me for the link posted below, I am open minded and like to have all the facts, well, all the information (to then finally distinguish what may be considered a fact); sorry but being a science guy, I cannot help it.

The link is not intended to channel opinions towards a point of view, in fact I am not in favor or against HHO, just adding more info. resources (since I already seen almost all in favor).

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho.shtml
Great link, for those of you who want to get right down to the science of why they are claiming it is a scam here is the link; which they have provided some excellent points, some of which have already been discuessed in Aldive's HHO: Is it alchemy? thread:
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam.shtml

After explaining why it won't work, they provide a YouTube video. In this video he runs a 3.5hp Briggs and Stratton lawn mower off pure HHO gas. Pretty amazing until you find that he needs a 250lb generator consuming 16A @ 110V! So lets do the math - to produce this amount of HHO gas in a 12V system 16A * 110V = 1760W, 1760W / 12V = ~147A not to mention the power you will loose carrying all the extra weight around and the fact that, mathematically this is still no where near enough gas to make a significant difference in MPG.

I think they have me believing it really is a hoax. Sounds to me like the reason people do gain MPG with a micro sized version of this HHO generator is because they are running lean. So what do you guys think?
 
Last edited:






Exactly, that is why I also included the link in the previous page of this thread, it is a pretty good explanation based on physics (thermodynamics). Anyway, never believe or stop believing until you are sure about anything.

Please for those attempting to use antifreeze or any mixture of water with alcohol, be careful; be aware that ethylene glycol in the antifreeze, the ethanol, methanol or any small C chain alcohol (like the later two) may be ignited under certain conditions.
 






New mileage data

128 miles, 4.2 gallons ( BP 89 fuel ) used, netting 30.47 MPG.

This was all in town driving using HHO.
 






I guess I'm still not quite convinced that it works, I would like to see if any damage is being done to motor since they say the only thing it's doing is running lean.
 
Last edited:












Sometimes we may reach to a finding, and the problem with science is that sometimes we are using a correct explanation for the wrong happening.

The best way, as Aldive explains, is to test it, but it would be really good for someone to uncover what is really happening with the combustion. Of course, that is possible only in a laboratory with special equipment, since the car's sensors and gauges are not made to prove or disprove an specific event. Regardless of having or not the appropiate explanation, the proof is, and it seems some of us have that, the mileage output difference from a full tank (which is info. not biased by other electronic devices from the vehicle).

My only concern (not assuring anything) would be the effect of water on the engine's combustion elements, since in fact the term HHO in chemistry only describes H2O (well, the most common explanation refers to ionic forms of the components in the molecule), which is water (and if true with no detrimental effects on the long term, makes it a more important finding).
 






FYI, water is good for the combustion of modern internal combustion engines. Water is commonly injected to improve combustion. That being said, the amount of actual water that any HHO device ever induces into an engine is absolutely harmless.
 






That is completely correct, and cannot only be an input for combustion, it is an output from combustion, my concern is on the input ratio (although the gas consumption improvements on this systems are usually explained on hydrogen and oxygen alone, not in the form of the water molecule).

Anyway, I am not assuring it is detrimental, it is just a concern. Anyway, it sounds like a good theme for a scientific assay to generate information for the implementation, and improvement of the actual systems.
 






...
Anyway, I am not assuring it is detrimental, it is just a concern. ...
Well you missed the point. Common water injection systems will inject easily a quart of fluid into an engine in a very short time under heavy usage. These HHO systems under the worst poor operating conditions likely will not induce a quart in a day or two. That water injection systems are helpful and not harmful, that proves beyond a doubt that there is no concern about water in an engine from an HHO device.
 






Thank you for the insight, I am sure about the benefits of an anti-detonant injection; and as you explain the amount of water added by the HHO system is insignificant (I am not a HHO expert), not even contributing on such effect; should not be a concern then (thanks again).

Anyway, my point is that there should be plenty of investigation on the matter so that we could be totally aware of the physical priciples intervening. I am also interested in these kind of solutions, hence my interest in irrefutable explanations, of course, about the better mileage, there is proof, but still it would be good to fully understand it.
 












Yes, we do want to understand what affect the hydrogen and oxygen are having on efficiency. My real point there was that the portion which remains water is not going to affect mileage or engine condition at all. We should get back to thinking through the HHO production, how to increase it and be able to reduce gasoline needed. Regards,
 






I have been breaking my head to at least suspect on the contribution of the H2 and O2 produced in the HHO systems, as stoichiometry and the potential kJ produced (thermodynamics) do not explain it, with electrolysis as a source of energy or from combustion of O2 (specially at the scale of these systems). I know these calculations have been made, just wanted to do it myself, also know that the HHO systems are not supposed to be a direct energy source (this is obvious), but to increase the burn rate of fuel with the provision of H2 to the intake (in an specific range of gas-air ratio, usually to the lean side where hydrogen becomes almost a necessity, theoretically, but I know many of us have not done so). In that case, I think the improvements reported are near to the maximum potential of such systems (just a thought, considering H2 as an "additive"). Sorry, I know the point of this thread is fuel economy; this is my last post on searching for explanations not even achieved by fulltime scientists when considering the HHO claims (although there has been some important testing). I rather continue checking for your results and see how this matter evolves. If something useful, unlike this post (my post, couldn’t help it), comes up, I will let you know. Thanks for the time taken to reply.
 






I hope also that more truth becomes known, I think that the oxygen has been overlooked as a factor. There is very little oxygen in the air, so any addition of oxygen should have an affect.
 






i want to see what aldive is getting after a full tank in your old thread you always had like 19 gal results all your hho seems to be just 100-200 miles curious if it averages out on a full tank......
 






i want to see what aldive is getting after a full tank in your old thread you always had like 19 gal results all your hho seems to be just 100-200 miles curious if it averages out on a full tank......

Sure HHO will be a great boost on a long run, trouble is that I simply hjavn't made one yet and will not until the first of December.
 



Join the Elite Explorers for $20 each year.
Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,.
Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!
.





New to the list, I have a 97 Explorer Sport 4.0 SOHC. I usually get 16 mpg avg and 19 tops, but on a recent trip I tried driving slower, set the cruise to 67 and got 22.5 mpg. Wow! It pays to slow the brick down. I was also wondering about installing taller gears, like a 3.25 or 3.45 set. I notice you are using the 3.73's, do you think going to 3.25's would help you even more? One other thing I've learned driving a old Bimmer with MPG gauge, is you can do better watching it, so I'm thinking of getting the Scangauge like on the banner here. Have you thought of trying it? It seems you are using a lot of the tricks right out of the Hypermiling book..
 






Back
Top