Do Hydrogen Generator Fuel Cells Work?

[dalmatiangirl61]

Originally Posted by OTTO-Sawyer

Only thing I can figure is that maybe by lowering the fuel pressure pushing against the needle & seat and float, the slightly lower fuel level in the carburator would cause it run a little leaner and MAYBE save a little gas

One of my non-mechanical minded friends had a brilliant idea to conserve fuel, he put a hose clamp on the fuel line, every morning gave it a quarter turn. He thought by choking off the fuel supply it would get better mileage, of course one morning he only made it a a block before the car died.

[Power]

Only thing I can figure is that maybe by lowering the fuel pressure pushing against the needle & seat and float, the slightly lower fuel level in the carburator would cause it run a little leaner and MAYBE save a little gas
Actually, savings can be significant, but you can do the same thing by setting float back to spec's. Over time, wear on the steel/ brass needle & seats or compression of Viton needle tips causes higher float levels and a richer than design mixture.

[Gary K]

An old-timer (now deceased) told me he bought a new 1958 Ford pickup, 6 cylinder with a 3-speed manual transmission. He was very disappointed with the fuel mileage, as it only got 7 to 8 MPG.

At that time you could purchase blank gas jets at a local automobile parts dealership, so he bought a set. Then he sent away for miniature drill bits. He started out with the smallest bit, and placed the jets back in the carburetor, and started the engine. It started hard, and didn't run very good, so he removed the jets, and re-drilled them with the next size bigger bit. He said, he did this many times, until the engine gave the performance he was looking for.

He said, with a cold engine, you had to leave the choke on longer, and the engine lost some of its power, but still performed well. The new fuel mileage was between 17 and 18 MPG.


Gary K

[Power]

Gary - up until the late 1980's Carter, Rockester, etc used to sell strip kits.
They were under $20.00 and contained a graduated assortment of needles and seats, main jets, accelerator pump jets, emulsion tubes, etc. They were ostensibly for drag racers to fine tune carbs.
People used them to fine tune street engine carbs. If you installed headers, change exhaust, intake man, cam, you have to retune carb.
I still have a Carter kit.

[OTTO-Sawyer]

Originally Posted by Gary K

...At that time you could purchase blank gas jets at a local automobile parts dealership, so he bought a set. Then he sent away for miniature drill bits. He started out with the smallest bit, and placed the jets back in the carburetor, and started the engine. It started hard, and didn't run very good, so he removed the jets, and re-drilled them with the next size bigger bit. He said, he did this many times, until the engine gave the performance he was looking for.

Gary K

Other similar trick was to fill the stock jets with solder and redrill them smaller, then once you found the size you wanted you would buy that size and replace it, or just leave the solder filled one in place.

[Gil Garceau]

Hydrogen generators are a scam when sold for getting better milage over the road. A far better route would be free flow air intake and muffler/exhaust and a hypertech or similar computer reprogram of the engine control module.
Benefits equal better milage and more power, no voiding of warranty and no emissions troubles.

[Steve Webre]

Folks,

It's a scam. Nothing else. Same as placing magnets on your fuel line or dribbling "secret" chemicals into your fuel.

Being a Mech. Engineer, I have had more than a passing interest in such things for 30+ years. 90% of these treasures are just ways to seperate you from your money and the few that do work, usully don't pay out.

Want better gas mileage for "free"? Reduce weight, keep the air filter clean, bump the tires up and drive sensibly/smoothly.

Use the throttle and brake as needed remembering that using either opens your wallet. How far is up to you. Good Luck!

[Gary K]

Rule: Total fuel consumption varies as square of speed times distance.

That is, everytime you double your speed, you'll use 4 times more energy.

Square your known speed, times the known fuel mileage, and divide by the new speed to find the estimated MPG. (That is, calculating an inverse fraction.)

Example: Years ago I made a calculation on my 1982 Volkswagen Diesel pickup, which gets an average 38 MPG at 55 MPH. That is, I wanted to know what to expect if I lowered my speed to 50 MPH.
50 x 50 = 2500
55 x 55 = 3025

3025 ~~~ X
------- = ------ Then; 38 x 3025 / 2500 = 45.98 or 46 MPG
2500 ~~~38

My average mileage was 47 MPG, so I'm not complaining!

If the little pickup had the 5-speed transmission instead of the 4-speed, I'm sure the mileage would of increased a little!

Also bear in mind, the weather usually changes every day . . . wind, temperature, humidity, and the fuels quality, all play a part on the mileage. (I always started and ended my tests, by filling the fuel tank to the top, which is time consuming with Diesel fuel, as it foams.)


Gary K

[OTTO-Sawyer]

Fuel milage also varies with the percentage of load on the engine at Any Speed.

One of my 1969 Pontiac Firebirds has the special order 2.56:1 rear end in it and also came with a 350 engine and Super Turbine 2 speed transmission. (Pontiac version of the Powerglide). The 2 speed wouldn't shift out of low gear anymore, (but was still good for cruising at over 70MPH in low gear with that rear end gear), so I swapped it out for a turbo 350 (3 speed) trans.

It consistantly averaged 11 MPG with the 350/350 combo, but eventually the engine got tired and I built up a 462 (455 .030 over) with a good torquer cam and a few other modifications and bolted it up the 350 transmission. The bigger engine didn't have to work as hard as the smaller one with those rear end gears and it raised the milage to a consistant 14 1/2 MPG average. That's a 3.5 MPG increase in milage with a 32% bigger engine while also knocking 3 seconds off the quarter mile times , so it was a win-win situation for me. Better Performance and Better Milage at the same time. Obviously a 2.56:1 rear end and automatic tansmission isn't exactly ideal for drag racing, but I was satisfied with it running mid-high 14 second passes with that gear. Of course now days, there are plenty of 4 cylinder rice burners that easily run those quarter mile times, but they also have 5 & 6 speed tansmissions and less than 1/2 the weight to move.

For being a daily driver I threw together in the early 1980s, it wasn't bad, performance wise.

32% bigger engine, gained 30% better milage by not having to work as hard at the same RPM. Although it does work hard when you stomp on it, and exploded a couple torque converters over the years.

I now have that same engine swapped into one of my other 69 Firebirds with a 3.08:1 rear end which dropped me back down to 11-12 MPG again due to the big engine running at a higher RPM, but I never got back to the dragstrip to see what it will run with those gears.

Makes me wonder what kind of milage I could get out of it if I had used a milder camshaft and went on a straight Interstate cruise with it. That 14 MPG was a combination of City/Highway (more city than highway) driving with a lead foot, so I'm guessing even with the cam I have in it I could have gotten 18, maybe even 20 MPG on the Interstates.

Not that this has anything to do with the Hydrogen Generators that this thread was started about, but several other posts have kind of gotten off the subject too. I guess the bottom line to this particular post is.... Lighten the load on the engine and get better milage and better performance at the same time. Take a big engine out of a full sized car and stuff it in one with 1/2 the weight (and the same gear ratio) and reap the benefits of better milage than the full size one had, plus better performance. My little 350 engine was overloaded trying to move the car with the 2.56:1 gears in it. Of course if you go swapping in 4.11:1 or 4.56:1 gears, then your milage drops like a rock, but look at all the fun you have.

Contrary to the skepticism there is at least one which was produced in 2007/8 that did work as advertised.

It not only increased fuel mileage & was cost effective, it also reduced emissions, increased power.

Unfortunately the company manufacturing it tried to improve it, ignoring the ( if it's not broke, don't try to fix it) axiom. Were involved in a court case & just faded away with investors money.

I had a unit installed on a bus with a 5.9 Cummins for 2 yrs, another on a 360 International for 1 1/2yrs so know that they worked. In the link the testimonial from Deck-Way is mine.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4138883/...jection-System

[Orrin]

A round trip back to my home town is about 2,800 miles. When I go there it gives me a good opportunity to accurately check my car's mileage. Being retired, I can take my time, so I don't mind averaging 50 mph on state and county roads. Here is what my Kia with a Hyundai 4-banger gets, averaged over the entire 2,800 miles:

75 mph on Interstate -- 31 mpg
65 mph on Interstate -- 36.6 mpg
50 mph on back roads -- 40 mpg

The moral of the story? Instead of wasting your time with a scam contraption, slow down and it will give you much an actual (versus imagined) improvement in mileage, for free.

BTW, the most beautiful route across South Dakota is State Highway 44, not Interstate 90! That's another bonus.

Orrin

Back in the 70's when I was delivering trucks there was a mechanic at the Kenworth dealership in Mississauga ON had fabricated a turbo for his Volkswagon diesel & was getting 75 mpg.

Moral of that story is auto manufacturers could make more fuel efficient vehicles if they wanted.

@Orrin not impressed with the "(versus imagined)" comment in your post following mine

[Orrin]

@Orrin not impressed with the "(versus imagined)" comment in your post following mine

I'm sorry. No offense was intended. I hadn't visited this forum for over a month. The fact that my post followed yours was a matter of coincidence, of timing. Had I not been away on the road my post would have come before yours and I would have said the exact same thing.

Regards,

Orrin

apology accepted, get too sensitive on that subject at times, my figures were meticulously kept over an 18 month period.

In this case it wasn't the product that that was a scam but the company, for one reason or the other, that tuned out that way.

[Pete Spaco]

I have a friend who tried the HHO thing. He really wanted to believe in it. After monkeying around with it for more than a year, he gave up, especially becuase he had to replace alternators so often.


Back in the '70's, one of the auto magazines did an article on currently available fuel savers.
The guy added up all the claimed savings from each one.
-special spark plugs,
-fuel line magnet
-little turbine wheels that fit between carb and manifold
-water injection
-dual exhaust
-etc. etc. etc.
He Came up with 115% savings.

He concluded by saying that he had to stop every 150 miles to take some gas out of the tank so it wouldn't overflow.

Now, running your car on 100% woodgas, that's a very different story.

Pete Stanaitis
----------------

[DustyBar]

Originally Posted by Pete Spaco

.....He Came up with 115% savings.

He concluded by saying that he had to stop every 150 miles to take some gas out of the tank so it wouldn't overflow.
.....----------------

The way I heard it he had to rest his foot on the brake so the gas tank wouldnt be overflowing when he got to his destination.

Tried the magnets on the fuel tank (free to test them) on one bus just before I sold out, they DID work as advertised.

Have no idea why, there seems no logical reason why they should but they did

[OTTO-Sawyer]

People have been using and swearing by magnets for generations, but as you say, there is no logical reason why they would work... other than maybe when they put them on, they're actually TRYING to get better milage and without realizing it they altered their driving habits and got the better milage that way.

My current daily driver would average 29MPG when I was driving 24 miles to work (mostly highway and a couple side roads) and 53-55 miles a day round trip with a detour into town on the way home to pick up a few groceries and get the mail.

Next short term job was 47 miles to work, but the last 5 or 6 miles of that negotiating my way through a larger city with lots of traffic and traffic lights and I dropped down to a 27MPG average.

On a long trip with straight Interstate driving I could get 34MPG at 75MPH with each tankfull getting a little better milage than the one before as the computer reset itself to the type of driving.

Now that I'm not working and just making a few trips a week into town 7 miles away with as much or more city driving than highway I am averaging 22-25MPG depending on how much running around I do while in town. Seems like I get better milage with a 1/4 tank than with a full tank as I sometimes put in a partial tank at a time when the prices fluctuate too much and when I finally do fill and check the overall milage since the LAST FILL it will sometimes be back up to 25-27MPG. I doubt it's due to the less weight being carried around with the partial tank and more likely due to the fact that when I'm running low and can't afford to fill it I watch my driving habits closer to try to conserve it as long as I can.

Have to realize too, that a lot of people don't even know how to accurately check their milage. You can't just fill it up every time, you have to consistantly fill it the same every time to get accurate readings. If you have an older car with the filler neck under the rear bumper and you fill it one time parked down hill and the next tank you fill parked on a flat surface it won't take as much for the pump to shut off and they think they got better milage. Then they fill again on an uphill grade and once again it shuts the pump off early and they think the milage is even better yet. Then they fill up again on the downhill grade and wonder why they lost so much milage and blame the kids for syphoning gas out of the tank for their go-karts. To get accurate readings, you have to fill up at the same pump at the same station, parked in the same direction every time, or average the milage over Several Tanks instead of going by a single fill up. Same deal with the modern cars with the side mount fuel fillers. If it leans to the right on one tankfull and leans to the left on the next tank, you're not going to get accurate readings.

Of course even newer cars with the on-board computers that show the current and average MPG make it easier to check for those that don't know how to otherwise.

[DustyBar]

I dont care for those builtin MPG meters. Mine has been off 6% its entire life. Guess which way...always reads better MPG than I measure. It shows miles remaining before needing fuel. I know it would never go that far.

[Power]

Ours are off too - around 5% on car, 10% on truck - better than actual.

---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 PM ----------

Since they are consistently off the same amount, they do allow comparisons of different inflation pressures, gasolines, types of tires, different routes to work. Sometimes a slightly longer route with fewer traffic lights is more economical.