The key thing is he did gain mileage and the universe did not crack open because of this or that law being violated. That is because they were not violated.

As a scientist, the fact that an increase rather than the predicted decrease occured should be the start of further inquiry not the end of inquiry.

One of the lessons you can learn from studying the history of science is that good data will often be rejected flat out on philosophical grounds. Lots of psychology involved.

pueblo.gov look up scams

I never said the universe would crack open, and to be honest if a man that smart coudn't really get it to work then what better am I going to do? Kevin I keep trying to say this as nicely as I can but I never said it doesn't work on any scale or it can't work on cars but .3mpg just isn't going to cut it not compared to what people are saying/claiming/hoping, and again there are PROVEN ways to increase mpg. And he was predicting an increase based on some of the numbers he was running and his hypothesis was confirmed but the increase was not signifigant enough for him to keep going.

pueblo.gsa.gov

__________________
'79 300SD
'82 Chevy Chevette diesel

Funny.

Look at the MIT research in the Plasmatron fuel reactor. There are others around the world who have done research on this too and been selling fuel reactors for quite some time now.

One of them was denied permission to present his research at an SAE conference because his home country detonated an atomic weapon (related area of research). His research was peer reviewed by one of our national defense labs and Ford and seen as legitimate.

Anyway -- I have a lot of work to get done.

Now, how exactly, can HHO save fuel on a totally mechanical engine like the OM616, OM617.12x or OM617.95x?

There are no sensors to increase or decrease fuel in the combustion chamber. An unmodified, good working injector should spray the same preset amount of fuel each time during the power cycle.

Based on pressures, it would seem difficult to hook up anything post turbo to the intake.

__________________
RRGrassi


70's Southern Pacific #5608 Fairmont A-4 MOW car

13 VW JSW 2.0 TDI 193K, Tuned with DPF and EGR Delete.

91 W124 300D Turbo replaced, Pressure W/G actuator installed. 210K

90 Dodge D250 5.9 Cummins/5 speed. 400K

Is that a typo or does there exist OM617.12x-engines?
Not trying to be smart, just utterly curious about all thing OM617-related

__________________
Tomas, Sweden
1966 Mercedes Benz 230S with OM617.912, automatic. Disk brakes from W108
1983 Mercedes Benz 300TD grey, OM617.912 and 5-speed manual
1983 Mercedes Benz 300TD blue 7-seater, OM617.912 and 5-speed manual

OOPS OM617.91x, non turbo.

__________________
RRGrassi


70's Southern Pacific #5608 Fairmont A-4 MOW car

13 VW JSW 2.0 TDI 193K, Tuned with DPF and EGR Delete.

91 W124 300D Turbo replaced, Pressure W/G actuator installed. 210K

90 Dodge D250 5.9 Cummins/5 speed. 400K

Which is why it didn't work.

As a "scientist" you will know that 0.1mpg difference is well within the environment variable range.

As well as lots of pseudoscience being accepted on faith and people relaying false information.

On which forum?

I don't know what vehicle he was using so I will guess a relatively modern one.

Did he determine whether the computers controlling the engine were working against the hydrogen injection? That would be a major confound.

There are a lot of very smart men who have to try to reverse engineer the computer controls on oem vehicles in order to try to safely increase performance. This is not a trivial process. Likewise it would not be a trivial process to attempt to "fool" the system via hydrogen injection.

If you are rejecting this technology based on mass marketers (or researchers) mistaking the non-trivial nature of the problems then that would be a mistake.

...that would be very wise.

It is probably best at this stage to simply use your own collected data on the Swift truck:


So, Lance, the weighted average of these numbers comes out to 7.246 not 7.22. I suggest that your difficulty with mathematics is clouding your judgment and skewing your analysis.

I note that the truck in question exceeds the mileage at both ends of your range.

So, you confirm -- yet again -- that simple hydrogen injection is enabling an increase in mileage. Sophisticated methods may yield more significant gains.

The scientific data is out there.

To the student that asked me for the references: I suggest you visit the Engineering Tips forum. Students are expressly admonished from asking questions from homework assignments. In order to become a good researcher you must develop skills in both the laboratory and the library. Nobody is going to read and understand journal articles for you. I have already said that the MIT patents on the Plasmatron contain citations. Look up those citations and read them.

You are going to be blown out of the water in your career by thousands of other qualified applicants from around the world who actually do take the time to read and understand those citations.


Lance, you are a highly qualified technician. I was a certified technician in an area as well with a degree and years of experience to back it up. Being a technician is not the same as being a researcher. With a more motivated attitude to actually learn a bit more about what you speak of you could go a long ways.

``````````````````````````````````````````

Edit: Lance, in your subsequent response you write:

Think carefully about your remark. The above average idle time reinforces the fact that the tractor in question is getting better mileage -- the exact opposite of what you apparently believe. Being a charter member of SmartWay. I suspect all Swift drivers receive the programs training in fuel saving techniques. Swift uses an incredible amount of fuel every month and if their drivers can save even 1% that is a significant amount.

Hmmm. I think the problem is rather that you are letting your apparent desire for them all to be scams categorically override your very own data. An understanding of basic science includes a modicum of knowledge about the history of science. Some self-reflection will help you understand why and how good ideas have been needlessly beaten down in the past.

How can this junk thread be going on this long?

It would be more effective to haul around cows with vapor traps on their asses and plumb that into the intake.....

__________________
1974 240D 3.0L 4(M) - 250K -OM617.910 + 300D FW + Rajay turbo power!
1977 6.9 3(A) - 84k

Kevin, can you look at my post #81 and answer that? I can see the possibilty of fuel economy gains or losses on a sensor andcomputer controlled engine.

Thanks!

__________________
RRGrassi


70's Southern Pacific #5608 Fairmont A-4 MOW car

13 VW JSW 2.0 TDI 193K, Tuned with DPF and EGR Delete.

91 W124 300D Turbo replaced, Pressure W/G actuator installed. 210K

90 Dodge D250 5.9 Cummins/5 speed. 400K

Incorrect. The truck has average economy compared to others, the significant difference is the above average 44% idle time. Idle time, driver skill (or lack of it), terrain and trailer size/weight play a big role in overall economy.

With an understanding of basic science, one day you might be able to understand why these SCAMS don't work.