Results 81 to 94 of 94
Thread: E-85 flex fuel who using it????
-
05-19-2006, 04:56 AM #81
I´ve been running my car on 100% E85 for a long time now.... Tuned with HPTuners.
BTW.. It pulls alot harder on E85www.ws7.se
http://www.ls1.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1249
Running on E85
Twin Turbo Project Started
Hello from Sweden.
-
05-19-2006, 12:11 PM #82
Yep. I'm going to check the mileage today. It is bad. But there has been no time for the PCM to adjust. I may try to fill up again with 50\50 and check it again. Those cars are not flex fuel cars and they got 1 MPG less on E30. If you can buy the stuf I'd use it. At E30 there would be no worries about the fuel system.
-
05-19-2006, 12:13 PM #83Originally Posted by Runn_WS7
-
05-19-2006, 01:01 PM #84Originally Posted by ss~zoso~ss
-
05-19-2006, 05:29 PM #85
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- south chicago burbs
- Posts
- 33
- 04 srt4 and 99 firebird
Originally Posted by ericwilloughby
http://media.putfile.com/Water-Fuel
http://hytechapps.com/technology/index.html
First link is a bad ass video.
-
05-19-2006, 08:30 PM #86
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
- chicago
- Age
- 49
- Posts
- 17
yellow- 2002 collectors edition
holy cow , you guys heard it first, are energy needs is sovled, I cant believe what I have seen, I always thought thier was a way, to harness energy strait from water.
-
05-20-2006, 02:36 AM #87
I hope this is half what it promises to be. I seriously doubt it. electrolysis is not new. His method claims to be. No where was it mentioned how much electricity was being used to create this H gas. There is a reason for that.
-
05-24-2006, 10:24 AM #88Originally Posted by ericwilloughby
19.5 MPG. That's down from 20.8. And that's with no tune and no time to adjust fuel trims. Actually, when the trim settles the MPG should go down I presume. Doesn't matter around here because they are screwing me on the E85 at $2.92.
-
05-25-2006, 05:07 AM #89
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Warren, MI
- Posts
- 68
Red- 2001 Camaro SS
Energy From Water? No!
Not to throw cold water on all the hope, but .....
There is nothing magical about the electrolyser or the gas.
Nickel electrodes, bicarbonate electrolyte, two hydrogen atoms per one oxygen atom.
Here is a link to the patent for the automotive application:
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=E...2004074781&F=0
Basically, the electrolyser runs off the alternator to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen. The gas is injected into the intake manifold. Horsepower improvement and fuel economy improvements are claimed.
I read this, hoping that the injection of the gas would act like NOS, by carrying not only more oxygen but also more hydrogen to the party, and improving combustion efficiency somehow.
But, when you get to the very end of the patent application, you can see that he is using an RC circuit to fool the narrow band oxygen sensor into running the engine lean! It is claimed that without doing this, the oxyxgen sensor would detect the addition of oxygen and make the car run too rich.
Bullshit detector went off right there!
First, the oxygen sensor will detect extra oxygen only if it is not consumed in the combustion process.
Second, the gas is being fed into the engine at exactly a stoichiometric ratio. If for some reason it does not get completely burnt and turned back into water, then that would call for more fuel, not less. And then you could get more power. Except you couldn't need more fuel, because the extra hygrogen is already right there, waiting to be burned.
If any extra oxygen makes it out to the oxygen sensor, it is only because incomplete combustion is taking place. But there is no extra oxgen making it out, only the amount programmed into the car's computer.
All the power generated in the engine comes from combustion of hydrogen and carbon which is already contained in the gasoline, ie combining them with oxygen and using the energy released to drive the piston. Any improvement in efficiency would come about from more complete combustion, not less.
So where do the claimed power and economy gains come from?
They come from the fact that all cars can get power and economy gains from running leaner. They are adjusted that way from the factory in order to meet emissions regulations. When an engine is running at peak efficiency, it makes more nitrogen dioxide. So they run it a little rich to get those numbers down. Under high power conditions, the engine is run a little rich to give a margin of error so that pistons don't get holes melted in them.
Feeding in a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen should not shift the mixture one bit. By comparison, feeding in NOS brings an extra oxygen atom to the party, this results in a lean condition, so you add more fuel to make up for it and you get more power.
It appears that what is cloaked as a more efficient combustion process is really just a very low-tech leaning hack.
The results will be believable when the system is installed on a test engine with a wideband oxygen sensor, set up to run at stoiciometric mixture with and without the gas, and showing more power out than it took to crack the water. This would allow for objective measurement of any efficiency gains. Which might not be there. And then, it has to offset the extra weight of the thing in a vehicle. And then, it has to be worth the money so that there is a payback.
I would NOT recommend hacking your oxygen sensor signal with a resistor and capacitor. First, you don't know exactly how much you are biasing it. If bias it so the car runs too lean, you run a real risk of blowing a piston.
If you want to get the horsepower and efficiency gains without building an electrolyser, just check out the forums at hptuner, search for the threads on fuel economy. There are big gains to be had if you aren't worried about nitrogen dioxide emissions. You CAN set up for lean cruise without ruining your engine. And most mail order chips get more dyno power by leaning out wide open throttle mixture, along with some timing changes.
Bottom line:
Water is the ash from burning hydrogen. You can't undo the process without putting back the energy that was released when it burned the first time. And you can't do that without all kinds of unavoidable losses along the way. Hydrogen, like electricity, is an energy carrier, not a fuel. Fuel is something that mama nature put the energy into so that you can release it with very little effort. Anything that doesn't fit that description is not a fuel. Wood is fuel, oil is fuel, solar and wind are very weak fuels. Energy carriers are useful to allow us to use real fuel and put the energy to work somewhere else and in the case of portable ones like hydrogen or batteries, at another time. It will always boil down to which energy carrier gets you the energy you want, where you want it, for the least effort (cost). In the beginning it was a raw survival issue (firewood, then coal, then natural gas and oil, and in the future, nuclear power). Nowadays we think that if we tax everyone and subsidize certain energy carriers, we can ignore costs. But you can't, not on a large scale. Because those costs equate to energy wasted along the way, and if you squander enough efficiency, you end up being back to survival mode. I don't want the government screwing with the energy economy to the point where I have to heat my house with hand-hewn firewood, and travel with a grass-fed horse. People in the old days knew full well how expensive low - density forms of energy really are, and how crucial that energy is to our survival.
If people can be easily fooled about the basics of energy and thermodynamics, charlatans will make easy money off them. But when the lies get enacted into law, our standard of living will fall exactly proportionate to the percentage of waste introduced into the system. Then we will have energy rationing, and you will be told how much energy you can use, by politicians who will decide what you need it for.
--97T--
Flames or rebuttals are always welcome!
-
05-25-2006, 05:17 AM #90
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Warren, MI
- Posts
- 68
Red- 2001 Camaro SS
Runn WS7, did you have to put bigger injectors in? What is the highest duty cycle you are getting on them with E87? How much extra timing were you able to add?
--97--
-
05-25-2006, 06:57 PM #91
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
- chicago
- Age
- 49
- Posts
- 17
yellow- 2002 collectors edition
the name on the invention is the same name of the guy who invented the welder. hho, gas can be used if you can store enough of it, it can make heat , thier is a lot of things you can do with heat, IE, tranfer that energy into mechanical , and then tranfer it to electricial.
Originally Posted by NinerSevenTango
-
05-26-2006, 05:39 AM #92
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Warren, MI
- Posts
- 68
Red- 2001 Camaro SS
Stage274,
Yes, you can convert energy from one form to another. With huge losses at each step of the way. That's why it wouldn't make sense to use electricity to crack water, then burn the hydrogen to make water in an engine, then run an alternator off the engine to make electricity to crack water. Or through a fuel cell or whatever. If you got more energy out than you put in, it would be a Bad Thing. Because it would likely melt, taking the earth and the known universe with it.
Let me know if you plan to start storing a stoichiometric mixture of hygrogen and oxygen in any quantities very soon. I want to make sure I live a good distance away. You might have noticed neither the welder gas source nor the automotive device have any storage tank. There is nothing magical about 'HHO'. It is stable until a spark or other upset sets it off, then BOOM!
By the way, this HHO gas is the same thing as 'Brown's Gas", which a bunch of wild claims have been made about for quite a few years. It has some interesting properties, none of which has transformed the human condition yet. Here is a link to a pretty interesting page that rounds up a lot of information about it:
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/...Gas/index.html
For some really interesting reading, read the paper by the man who patented it first, a real scientist. On first read, it appears BS-free. (No unsubstatiated claims of magical properties.) In this paper, he measures the explosive potential of the gas, reports an upper bound of 35% efficiency for the electrolyser, and a lot of other interesting things.
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/aca...gen/index.html
This doesn't have anything to do with E85, we're going way off topic now. But it does have to do with the same principles that apply to all of this; you can't cheat mother nature when it comes to energy.
--97T--Last edited by NinerSevenTango; 05-26-2006 at 06:00 AM.
-
05-26-2006, 04:10 PM #93
Our engines are not designed for E85. The new LS engines that people are talking about do indeed accept this fuel. Lets keep in mind that the latest camaro or trans am LS1 is now 4 years old. They didn't have mass quantities of this stuff back then so no. Our cars are not compatiable without computer reprogramming. And something else is that gasoline has lubrication properties to it. Gas is designed so that it helps lubricant engine components as they work. Alcohol or Ethanol DO NOT have these properties. They are "extremely dry when compared to gasoline and do more harm to an engine than just gasoline." You will save some on the amount of fuel as far as cost but your repair bill will be much higher. Even with proper tuning and everything in the fuel system coated with teflon, our engine's metallic properties were never designed for this stuff. This is just want my research and my opinion has brought me to believe. I will not run E85. I will run what my car and engine was designed to be ran on. Good old tried and true gasoline. And to the one that said oil funds the war. Hell yeah, I will gladly pay double what I pay now (2.89) so that our troops have proper equipment and supplies. This has been my two cents
-
05-30-2006, 02:26 AM #94
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- Virgina
- Posts
- 224
Black- 98 Trans Am
Originally Posted by NinerSevenTango
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
Question: 5.3 flex fuel mods
By jimmyz454 in forum General HelpReplies: 7Last Post: 05-27-2014, 02:20 PM -
2009 Ford Flex - Hot Rod Ford Flex
By Ed Blown Vert in forum Almost Anything GoesReplies: 0Last Post: 08-10-2009, 10:00 PM -
T-top flex!!!
By JoshieDoom in forum Firebird / WS6Replies: 23Last Post: 09-30-2008, 09:56 AM -
Need Fuel Pressure specs for an '02 5.3 Flex Fuel
By Fortune50 in forum GM TrucksReplies: 1Last Post: 09-04-2007, 08:18 AM -
GM Flex Fuel question
By Nastyfoot in forum General HelpReplies: 5Last Post: 08-18-2006, 04:31 AM
Bookmarks