Please let me know how defending hydrogen translates into sales for windage control devices?

Every once in a while I defend a technology that is being pushed around by people who think they know a bit more than they actually do.

I defended crank scrapers on this forum -- a lot of people were not aware that Mercedes uses them as OEM technology -- there are in fact five in the floor of the OM 603 oil pan.

I don't hide behind a nome de plume, Forced Induction. You will find my real name in around 100 forums online.

Kevin,

Can you list some research (current and old) that you think is relevant? Perhaps some examples of success where systems of this nature have been employed?
What is the most compelling data that you have encountered?

__________________

Can't we all just get along First allow me to state that as a biology major I have had a lot of chemistry one time while musing over a problem in my profs office I asked him about these water hydrogen generators, he built one and gained an impressive .3mpg (please note the sarcasm) on average and this was over a long time (2 months). Simple truth is that these things just don't work, go the performance section and read up about the VTN turbo or invest in an oil change and drive more conservatively these are true ways to gain MPG.

You are a in sales, it would be nothing for you to branch out and start producing/selling HHO devices.

Even though you yourself don't understand it entirely. There are thousands of people that "defend" fuel line magnets too, that doesn't mean they are right either.

Nobody, including myself, has said crank scrapers don't work. They do work, they are just expensive to use and produce minimal gains for non-race engines. The OM60x does not have a crank scraper, what it does have is baffles to reduce oil foaming since the piston jets introduce more liquid oil into the cylinder area than typical g@ssers. You of all people should know the difference between baffles, windage trays and crank scrapers.

Wow, somebody with less of a life than me. I at least focus on a few good ones and don't just shotgun across the internet.

Attached Thumbnails

 

Hi there,

Look, I appreciate all the concern on this forum for how I spend my money, but please don't feel bad for me when I invest my time and energy into investigating HHO systems. I'm not on this forum to swing my dick around or convince anyone of HHO's merits by getting into a pointless shouting match. You have your beliefs and I have mine. If you aren't open to an idea, I'm not going to beat you over the head with it.

What I am looking for are any individuals who have relevant experience with HHO systems. That is, people who have actually seen them, held them, installed them and/or tinkered with them.

It is very easy to not believe in something you've never witnessed before. I'll admit that the notion of a working HHO system was abstract to me before I saw one and evaluated its build and overall operation. The only way that I ever saw one working, though, was because I sought out this experience, such as I am now in asking for experienced people on this forum.

I'm not surprised at the response to HHO on this forum, after all, the majority are content to let information and beliefs come to them rather than seeking out better sources of information and defining their beliefs with relevant experience and experimentation. However, I'm on this forum to find people who have a.) worked with HHO and have b.) installed an HHO system in a diesel Mercedes. I know these people are out there, so I figure a few of them might visit this forum from time to time, despite the open hostility towards the subject of HHO.

This is how I'm trying to use this forum and the internet, in general -- to seek out better sources of information and experience. Not to impose my will or my beliefs on others, but rather to see what else is out there. I've heard the arguments against HHO and they've fallen flat w/ me, but that's because they don't mesh well with what I've experienced first-hand -- not because they challenge my opinions or worldview. They just compute any more.

These folks probably share in this commiseration. Looking forward to next February.

I'm not saying you're dumb if you don't believe in HHO systems. What I am saying is that your ignorance grows out of not testing your beliefs with relevant experience and analysis. If you've never messed with an HHO system then you have to at least be a little curious about whether they work or not. Just a teensy bit. IMHO, it takes someone much more secure in their beliefs to say "I don't know" when they don't, rather than "No. Absolutely not." despite any conflicting information or feelings.

So please, don't discourage me or others from following our curiosities while you sit back with a smug smile on your face, prideful in your ignorant self-righteousness. That's not helpful, so don't try to dress it up as advice.

Again, any folks out there who have messed with HHO and Mercedes diesel lines, please holler at me. PM me if you don't want to suffer the scrutiny.

The United States was once legend for our tinkerers. I'm simply looking for the next generation

__________________
1984 300CD (Forest Green) 278,000
B99.9 / B50 (Summer / Winter)

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/7...eselcut.th.jpg

Waynesville / Asheville / Pittsboro, NC

Piedmont Biofuels
Blue Ridge Biofuels

Back when I was experimenting with fumigation in diesel engines, most of the experimentation was with the fumagating fuel at 10% or less of the total fuel BTu input. The tests were done on a dyno. I used fuels ranging from hydrogen thru diesel fuel. With #2 diesel as the base fuel, adding Propane or Butyl alcohol as a fumigated fuel performed the best as far as mechanical power out to total BTu in. Hydrogen was actually worst than any other fumigant that I tried as far as mechanical power out vs. BTu in, only barely measurably better than diesel fuel alone on a BTu to BTu basis.

One thing that I noticed was fumigating about 10% diesel fuel in the intake was consistantly better than having 100% of the diesel fuel injected.

__________________
Ron Schroeder
'85 300 Turbo Diesel 2 tank WVO
'83 300 Turbo Diesel 2 tank WVO
Some former WVO vehicles since ~1980:
'83 Mercedes 240D
'80 Audi 4000D
'83 ISUZU Pup
'70 SAAB 99 with Kubota diesel
'76 Honda Civic with Kubota diesel
'86 Golf
Several diesel generators
All with 2 tank WVO conversion
LI NY

The only ignorance is believing that a little jar of water can do what many of the fundamentals of science say it can't.

I have and I know they are a total scam. My curiosity is why people continue to believe the scammers.

Till the day I die I will always try and stop people from blowing their hard earned money on this HHO junk.

I am, but a few stubborn people refuse to listen to reality.

you won't find it in people willing to blow money on useless junk/scams trying to cheat science into giving them cheap MPG out of their car.

Hey WD8CDH / Rob,

Did you try using HHO as a fuel. That is, both hydrogen and oxygen in a concentration similar to what is found in HHO systems? I ask because this may affect the experiment.

Also, at what volume did you add hydrogen? Apparently 1L/m per cylinder is the ~ optimal rate for HHO.

How well did the propane and butyl alcohol perform? Any links to your study?

Thanks for the input

__________________
1984 300CD (Forest Green) 278,000
B99.9 / B50 (Summer / Winter)

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/7...eselcut.th.jpg

Waynesville / Asheville / Pittsboro, NC

Piedmont Biofuels
Blue Ridge Biofuels

What makes all the difference in those tests is you are feeding the fuel from an external prepared source. These HHO scammers are trying to use the engine's own energy (electricity from the alternator) to produce the hydrogen from raw water in a perpetual-motionesque device.

I don't doubt hydrogen or HH works in an engine, but not when it has to be produced using onboard electrolysis.

As I stated in my previous post I have not tried them but my chemistry professor did and to be honest. He was very very smart, he simply said it just wouldn't produce the kind of results everyone is looking for on a car. And while yes I realize that some torches and engines can run on HHO systems it is in the end much much cheaper and more efficient to simply run your car with syntheic motor oil and be easy on the old gas and brake pedals. And remember that your alternator that everyone is so intent on running these things on already has the considerable task or running your car.

It is too bad Smokey passed away. He would be having a field day, I am sure. Jim Fueling, too.

All he did was popularize the exhaust heated 100+mpg carb myth.

Yes, I do know the difference. Your assignment is to look at Ford FE oil pans with crank scrapers on the floor. They pre-dated Mercedes and Porsches' use of the same general designs by about 10-15 years. Do your homework.


I shotgun across the internet because I tear down hundreds of different engines from dozens of different marques and analyze the technology. It is a lot of work. The oems do it too. That is why you'll see Ford tech in a Porsche. Then I actually design and make products for all those hundreds of engines. That is my life and I take it pretty seriously.

Look into the plasma fuel reactors. There is a huge patent rush going on for all sorts of apps.

Ummm last time I checked a 617 diesel isn't a plasma reactor . That being said I never said the tech couldn't work period just not work well on a car, as I said before easier and proven ways to increase mpg.