Water vapor injection project

[Buzo]

The fuel in the bubbler tank is used in a rate of .001 gallons every 10 miles. So guess what happen if you don't use the catalyzer, NOTHING!

But if you crack the fuel molecules with heat... My fuel economy jumped from 23 to 35 MPG. Without messing with the fuel maps at all!

As I said, its weather dependant, so in my trip from home to work I get 'only' 27 MPG, but in my trip back in the evening I get 35 MPG.

I am working in isolating the best I can the catalyzer, because its clear that the loose of heat (incoming cold air) affects the number of cracked molecules.

[Vanilla Sky]

The most readily burned fuel is fuel vapor. If you can get more of your fuel fully vaporized and then add water injection for cylinder cooling, I bet you could hit your MPG goals and not have to drive the thing like gramma.

[Buzo]

Please watch these files for more installation examples and some theory behind all this. I am here to share my experiments only. Not really interested in discussions about physics. I would like to find somebody willing to test at his place and help to get rid of these loses and maximize the gain. It works is all I can say.

http://www.masster.ro/test/hcs.rar

[Buzo]

The most readily burned fuel is fuel vapor. If you can get more of your fuel fully vaporized and then add water injection for cylinder cooling, I bet you could hit your MPG goals and not have to drive the thing like gramma.

I bet you, even driving the car like a grandma, you will never, ever get +12 MPG. And the fuel savings I am reporting here were taken out of my standard way to drive. The chart I posted below shows everybody that I am rev'ing the car just as normal, 3500, 4000 RPM, and cruising at 2500 RPM.

Water injection is on hold for now, when I fix all the loses I've been talking about, I will reconsider to mix cracked fuel vapors with water vapor.

[Vanilla Sky]

There have been plenty of reports from members of this community with MPG numbers in the mid 30's. These were economy cars to begin with. 35 is getting you where a lot of our members already report to get. I haven't done a full tank with my car yet, but I still have some running issues to take care of before I can honestly do an MPG run.

[Buzo]

Yep, I saw someone reporting 40+ MPG. but nobody has probed it. I would like to see least an excel chart and a description of the process followed to get their numbers.
Everything else is just BS or a wrong method to get the MPGs.

Now, lets put it from this perspective. A car that consistently gets 23 MPG. Adding a couple of hoses and a tank takes it to 35 MPG, wouldn't you take it just because other guys get 35 with some unknown fix? Even the most modern car with direct injection, barely gets 29 MPG in the city (I have one of those!)

If I had a car that already gets 35 I would put this system and jump to 50!

[Buzo]

Sorry, no ofense intended for those that really track their MPG's I am just saying that the used fuel is very variable with weather, hard accelerations, traffic, road deviations. If someone is in the 30 MPG range, congratulations and please share what you do to be there.

[Vanilla Sky]

I got 32MPG once. Automatic, carbed car. Loaded to the gills. All highway driving at 70+. No babying. You're just setting your goals too low.

[Buzo]

My car gets 30 MPG in highway 80 MPH. If I had drove at 70 MPH, I guess I have matched your 32.

Now I'm saying I'm getting 35 MPG city drive.

All you need to do is to try it. Get excited about it and help in the fine-tuning of the system.

[Buzo]

For instance, the guys at Indonesia prefer to re-fill the tank manually to keep the system as simple as possible, but I don't like to have to manually drop fresh fuel in the tank every other day and impregnate myself with fuel odor, so I already improved the system by adding a valve from the main fuel supply to the tank. So I uncap the tank, open the valve, watch the fuel flowing and close the valve when topped off.

I'm sure you guys will have other even better ideas.



And here it is in action

[cygnus x-1]

Wow, very interesting experiment you have running! Although I have to say I'm a little bit skeptical about what is really going on here from a technical standpoint. This is not to detract at all from what you're doing, or even questioning your results, I'm simply interested in the real science behind what what is actually happening.


First off, just a simple question. When calculating the fuel mileage with the system running are you accounting for the extra fuel used in the bubbler tank? I realize this may be a small amount but for the most accurate results it does need to be accounted for.


Next, I'm unsure whether there is any significant hydrocarbon cracking going on here as opposed to just vaporization. The reason I say this is because I've looked into hydrocarbon cracking and other related processes like thermal depolymerization in the past (for converting waste plastic into oil) and I have not (yet) seen a process that didn't require temperatures of less than around 300C (~600F). And the lower temperature processes tend to use either higher than atmospheric pressures, or some form of catalyst to enable the chemical reaction to take place at lower temperatures. Now I'm in no way claiming that my research is exhaustive (it's not), nor that I'm an expert in the field (I'm not). I'm just saying that I would be hesitant to believe that there is significant hydrocarbon cracking occurring, UNLESS the temperatures involved are much higher than stated. Having said that, exhaust manifold temperatures can easily reach well over 1000F so it is definitely possible that there is some cracking going on.

The other reason I'm more inclined to think that this system is mostly just a vaporizer is because it's been well established that fully vaporized fuel burns much more efficiently in an engine than fuel in liquid or mist form (small droplets). The auto industry has been working on getting fuel to completely vaporize for many years. First they started heating the intake manifolds to evaporate the fuel that puddled up under the carb, then they started injecting the fuel directly onto the hot intake valves (port injection), now they are injecting the fuel directly into the combustion chambers at crazy high pressures to form a super fine mist (direct injection). The new direct injection engines can reach amazing levels of efficiency and power compared to where we have been in the past. For an example, see Ford's new 1.0L EcoBoost engine that produces ~120HP and 125lb-ft torque.

Which brings me to something else I wanted to point out about modern cars and fuel efficiency. You can't directly compare our 3g Accords to modern cars as far as fuel efficiency is concerned because new cars are heavier and taller for various reasons, mostly having to do with additional safety equipment. Being heavier will impact fuel efficiency in the city and being taller will impact efficiency on the highway. I think you will also find that modern cars tend to have a higher power to weight ratio, although I haven't done the research to confirm this.

And one other nitpick is about the copper tube wrapped around the exhaust manifold being called a "catalyzer". Technically this is incorrect unless the tube contains some sort of catalyst that aids a chemical reaction to take place. There are indeed catalytic cracking processes (Cracking (chemistry) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) that use aluminum oxide and silica, and there are even youtube videos demonstrating the process. In fact it would be interesting to see what would happen if the copper tube were filled with an appropriate catalyst to aid the cracking process.



I feel it is important to point these things out in order to keep these discussions/investigations in the realm of *real* science as opposed to *junk* science. Using the correct terminology IS an important part of this, as is diligent data collection and thorough analysis.

Finally, I want to say that I absolutely LOVE reading your threads Buzo! It's always neat to read about people's experiments with new and different ideas. Keep up the good work!


C|

[Buzo]

Thanks for your input here Cygnus. Your comments are always welcomed and if we can find a technical explanation together then we can put it here for everyone.

I think I know why we have a gain in FE. Cracking means to break long hydrocarbon chains into smaller ones.
Whatever the formula is of the current fuel: (lets assume C11H24), we are breaking it in everything from methane CH4 to C8H18 (Octane!)
So yes, we might be increasing the octane content of the fuel.

And I just read about the aluminum oxide as catalyst. I recently created some with aluminum, water and my electric welder, but it is a form of a fine dust.

How can I turn it into a solid and be able tu use it inside of my copper coil?

Regarding your question as of if we are really cranking hydrocarbons, I can say YES, because I ran the test of inserting the fuel vapors (creagted by the bubbler) straight to the ventury (bypassing the catalyst) and nothing happen, my measured fuel economy went back to normal. I reconnect the catalyst and the FE went back to a huge gain.

So there is no question. Copper alone is a good catalyst. With Al3O2 should be even better.

The fuel vaporized in the bubbler is very little, it depends of how many bubbles per second you set it. They say there is a sweet spot, so too much bubbling is not good either. I am not taking the fuel consumed from the bubbler in my calculation of FE, because is less than the fuel I use to warm my car up in the mornings.

[Dr_Snooz]

In fact it would be interesting to see what would happen if the copper tube were filled with an appropriate catalyst to aid the cracking process.

According to this guy (Hydrocarbon Cracking System - Gas Savers - Fuel Efficiency Forum), there is no difference. The system works the same, whether there is an actual catalyst being used or simple heat exchanger like Buzo has.

[cygnus x-1]

I think I know why we have a gain in FE. Cracking means to break long hydrocarbon chains into smaller ones.
Whatever the formula is of the current fuel: (lets assume C11H24), we are breaking it in everything from methane CH4 to C8H18 (Octane!)
So yes, we might be increasing the octane content of the fuel.

You may be changing the octane rating, but that alone will not change fuel efficiency unless other parameters of the engine are adjusted to take advantage of the increased octane rating. The octane rating is essentially a measure of the fuel's resistance to autoignition. This is important so that the air/fuel mixture doesn't ignite on its own (before it's supposed to) due to the temperature increase from compression. In a given engine, the octane rating of the fuel only needs to be high enough that it doesn't auto-ignite. Increasing the octane any further does nothing for power output or efficiency.

You may be on the right track though with the breaking down of longer HC chains into smaller ones. Shorter hydrocarbon chains are going to vaporize easier than longer chains. Vapor burns more efficiently because there is more surface area of the fuel exposed to oxygen molecules. Liquid fuel in the combustion chamber does not burn in time to contribute heat to the combustion gasses, and ends up going out with the exhaust gas.

And I just read about the aluminum oxide as catalyst. I recently created some with aluminum, water and my electric welder, but it is a form of a fine dust.

How can I turn it into a solid and be able tu use it inside of my copper coil?

Probably the easiest source for aluminum oxide would be aluminum oxide blasting media. If you know anyone that does sand blasting they will probably have some. You will want to coarsest grit you can find.

Regarding your question as of if we are really cranking hydrocarbons, I can say YES, because I ran the test of inserting the fuel vapors (creagted by the bubbler) straight to the ventury (bypassing the catalyst) and nothing happen, my measured fuel economy went back to normal. I reconnect the catalyst and the FE went back to a huge gain.

That doesn't prove that there is any cracking though, it only proves that your fuel efficiency went up (for some reason). That reason could be cracking or it could be improved vaporization beyond what the bubbler alone can provide. The only way to prove this for absolute certain would be to do a chemical analysis of what goes into the copper tube and what comes out. But, it may be sufficient to measure the temperature of the copper tubing around the manifold. If the temperature of that tubing gets to maybe 600F or higher, then there probably is some cracking occurring. If it's very much cooler than that there won't be much cracking, and only vaporization.

The fuel vaporized in the bubbler is very little, it depends of how many bubbles per second you set it. They say there is a sweet spot, so too much bubbling is not good either.

This suggests that there is a throughput limit somehow. One possibility is that too much fuel going into the copper tubing cools it off enough that the vaporization (or cracking, whichever it is) is impeded. The obvious thing to try here is to wind more tubing around the manifold to increase the active surface area.

So there is no question. Copper alone is a good catalyst. With Al3O2 should be even better.

Regarding catalysts for cracking, I searched around and appears that copper is not really useful as a cracking catalyst. I found this for example:

Catalytic Effect of Metals on Paraffin Hydrocarbons - Industrial & Engineering Chemistry (ACS Publications)

It does say though that iron, nickel, and cobalt are very active catalysts. So if you can figure out a way to incorporate those metals into the reaction tubing (and get the temperature high enough) you should have some actual cracking going on. And then you can properly call it a "catalyzer" as opposed to just a cracking chamber.

This reminds me, I remember reading somewhere (I think it was on Endyn's site) about coating the valves with nickel to aid in fuel decomposition. Here's a link to a research paper about it:

Catalysts in Combustion Chamber of an Ic Engine

I am not taking the fuel consumed from the bubbler in my calculation of FE, because is less than the fuel I use to warm my car up in the mornings.

And that's ok as long as it's stated as such. So how many miles can you go before you have to refill the bubbler?


Hey, I just got a crazy idea. Instead of using the bubbler, maybe you can pull the fuel vapor from the vent tube from the fuel tank. You know the one that normally goes to the charcoal can? I don't know if you would get enough fuel this way but it's worth a shot I think.

According to this guy (Hydrocarbon Cracking System - Gas Savers - Fuel Efficiency Forum), there is no difference. The system works the same, whether there is an actual catalyst being used or simple heat exchanger like Buzo has.

Well, if the temperature is high enough an actual catalyst is probably not required. It may work better with an actual catalyst, or it may work at lower temperatures with a catalyst. That assumes that cracking is actually occurring. If it's simply improved vaporization then of course the presence of a catalyst wouldn't matter.


C|

[Buzo]

Your reply below, Cygnus, is exactly what I am looking for. Thanks for giving ideas, but also I want somebody to try it in his car and compare with me.

I have hours of the day where I get 35 MPG, other hours of the day I get 30 MPH, my average is 27 MPG.
Unfortunately, my longer trip is 13 miles into the same day. But If somebody uses to make longer trips in a day he should try this system, because the FE improves as the car gets hotter (it happens also without HCS) but with HSC the FE gets even better.

I have records of my FE from the past 6 months, its been always in the 22-24 MPG. I made several things (hot air & hot fuel) to improve from 19 MPG to 23 MPG.
I tried to re-tune my car the best I could and was never able to pass my 23 MPG average.

Without changing my latest fuel maps of 23 MPG... I put the silly bubbler tank and jumped to whatever you want to call it, 27, 30, 35 MPG.

When I decided to put this here was because we should be able to find a way to get consistent gains. What is different when I get 35 to when I get 27 (well, 35 has been allays in the evening, 27 has been always in the early morning) But there should be something else we can do, like changing the catsalyst or making a better insulation.

[cygnus x-1]

Do you still have the EGR system connected? I know everybody hates it but it can actually improve engine efficiency when it's operating correctly.

C|

[Legend_master]

Do you still have the EGR system connected? I know everybody hates it but it can actually improve engine efficiency when it's operating correctly.

C|

Now I may be wrong on this, but the EGR would only be valuable if all your fuel going into the cylinders was not burnt. The key would be to make the engine efficient enough that only unusable carbons came out of the exhaust. My biggest beer with the EGR is how filthy it makes the intake system.

[Buzo]

The US 1 cent coin is made out of nickel, right? I remember when I was younger we called them nickels. I may cut some and put the pieces inside the copper coil. The 2 cents catalyst!
My EGR is disabled since two years ago when I fitted the MS. However, there is one HCS system that uses the exhaust gasses pressure to make the bubbles in the tank. I tested it already but is not very accurate since the pressure is not proportional to the engine speed as the venturi vacuum is.

[lostscotiaguy]

Re: EGR, Just my 2 cents:
The egr isn't just there to burn off any unburnt fuel leftover in the exhaust. While it DOES do this it's other main purposes are to aid efficiency, cut down on NOX output and to cool the combustion chamber:
The recirculated exhaust takes up space in the combustion chamber, cutting down on the amount of "Fresh" air/fuel that goes in. The potential power loss through it's use (Through the burning of less fuel/air) is relatively minimal. If you have an engine designed WITH egr, then it's valves and cam profile etc are already tailored to flow a set amount of fresh fuel/air with the recirculated exhaust gases on each combustion cycle anyhow. If you block the EGR port off you might make a miniscule gain in power, but not only will you get poorer fuel mileage but the temperatures in your combustion chamber will increase, creating higher amounts of Nitrogen Oxides (They mostly form above temps of 2500F) the extra heat will also add engine stress and promote pre-ignition. Anyhow, just thought I'd "Pipe in" on this one...har de har har ok I'm done, sorry for that one. XD

[lostscotiaguy]

Re: EGR, Just my 2 cents:
The egr isn't just there to burn off any unburnt fuel leftover in the exhaust. While it DOES do this it's other main purposes are to aid efficiency, cut down on NOX output and to cool the combustion chamber:
The recirculated exhaust takes up space in the combustion chamber, cutting down on the amount of "Fresh" air/fuel that goes in. The potential power loss through it's use (Through the burning of less fuel/air) is relatively minimal. If you have an engine designed WITH egr, then it's valves and cam profile etc are already tailored to flow a set amount of fresh fuel/air with the recirculated exhaust gases on each combustion cycle anyhow. If you block the EGR port off you might make a miniscule gain in power, but not only will you get poorer fuel mileage but the temperatures in your combustion chamber will increase, creating higher amounts of Nitrogen Oxides (They mostly form above temps of 2500F) the extra heat will also add engine stress and promote pre-ignition. Anyhow, just thought I'd "Pipe in" on this one...har de har har ok I'm done, sorry for that one. XD

[Buzo]

Re: EGR, Just my 2 cents:
The egr isn't just there to burn off any unburnt fuel leftover in the exhaust. While it DOES do this it's other main purposes are to aid efficiency, cut down on NOX output and to cool the combustion chamber:
The recirculated exhaust takes up space in the combustion chamber, cutting down on the amount of "Fresh" air/fuel that goes in. The potential power loss through it's use (Through the burning of less fuel/air) is relatively minimal. If you have an engine designed WITH egr, then it's valves and cam profile etc are already tailored to flow a set amount of fresh fuel/air with the recirculated exhaust gases on each combustion cycle anyhow. If you block the EGR port off you might make a miniscule gain in power, but not only will you get poorer fuel mileage but the temperatures in your combustion chamber will increase, creating higher amounts of Nitrogen Oxides (They mostly form above temps of 2500F) the extra heat will also add engine stress and promote pre-ignition. Anyhow, just thought I'd "Pipe in" on this one...har de har har ok I'm done, sorry for that one. XD

Thanks for your comment, in your opinion, what it would be the logic of the ECU to turn the EGR ON/OFF?

Coolant temp > xx
RPM > xxx
etc?

I left all the EGR hardware installed in my car, the valve and the tubbing, I just disconnected the vacuum since this valve is normally off.

[Dr_Snooz]

The obvious thing to try here is to wind more tubing around the manifold to increase the active surface area.

Probably wouldn't hurt to wrap it all in muffler tape either.

I have records of my FE from the past 6 months, its been always in the 22-24 MPG. I made several things (hot air & hot fuel) to improve from 19 MPG to 23 MPG.

You know Buzo, you're getting astonishingly bad mileage with your stock setup. The worst mileage I ever got was 26 MPG and that was with a massive vacuum leak at the intake gasket. My long, long term average (including those few months of 26 MPG) is 29 MPG and recently, it's been closer to 32 MPG. With the gearing in your carb transmission, you should be getting in the 37-40 MPG range with a good tune. Add the wonder tech to a decent base tune and you could easily get to your 60 MPG goal.

Now I may be wrong on this, but the EGR would only be valuable if all your fuel going into the cylinders was not burnt. The key would be to make the engine efficient enough that only unusable carbons came out of the exhaust. My biggest beer with the EGR is how filthy it makes the intake system.

As I understand it, the EGR is used to cool the combustion temps, allowing you to run a leaner fuel mix without producing a lot of NOx (or pinging).

[Buzo]

You know Buzo, you're getting astonishingly bad mileage with your stock setup. The worst mileage I ever got was 26 MPG and that was with a massive vacuum leak at the intake gasket. My long, long term average (including those few months of 26 MPG) is 29 MPG and recently, it's been closer to 32 MPG. With the gearing in your carb transmission, you should be getting in the 37-40 MPG range with a good tune. Add the wonder tech to a decent base tune and you could easily get to your 60 MPG goal.

My freeway FE (@ 80 MPH) is 30 MPG after a two hours drive. If you have a similar record, then we can compare.

But I understand the message. I just didn't want people to think, ah its because Buzo has a MS and he can change sensors. I got a 20% improvement without touching the fuel maps.

EDIT: Also my car PASSED the smog test with this tune, so its hard to believe my tune is that offset.

[cygnus x-1]

The US 1 cent coin is made out of nickel, right? I remember when I was younger we called them nickels. I may cut some and put the pieces inside the copper coil. The 2 cents catalyst!

Your thinking of the 5 cent coin. Modern nickels are 75% copper and 25% nickel. That would probably be enough to work. You can also buy nickel metal from suppliers like McMaster Carr, but it's fairly expensive compared to coins.

My EGR is disabled since two years ago when I fitted the MS. However, there is one HCS system that uses the exhaust gasses pressure to make the bubbles in the tank. I tested it already but is not very accurate since the pressure is not proportional to the engine speed as the venturi vacuum is.

I was thinking of the EGR system as it is stock, but now that you mention it exhaust gas should theoretically work well with the bubbler if you can figure out a way to keep the pressure stable. The advantages with exhaust gas would be that 1) it's already hot so it should help keep the temperature of the system up, 2) it's inert and will keep the vaporized/cracked fuel from oxidizing before it gets to the combustion chambers. Number 2 is important because otherwise you're just 'burning' the fuel before it gets to the cylinders. This is why they say to use PCV gasses, because they should contain less oxygen, being comprised partly of blowby gas from the cylinders.

Now I may be wrong on this, but the EGR would only be valuable if all your fuel going into the cylinders was not burnt. The key would be to make the engine efficient enough that only unusable carbons came out of the exhaust. My biggest beer with the EGR is how filthy it makes the intake system.

Re: EGR, Just my 2 cents:
The egr isn't just there to burn off any unburnt fuel leftover in the exhaust. While it DOES do this it's other main purposes are to aid efficiency, cut down on NOX output and to cool the combustion chamber:
The recirculated exhaust takes up space in the combustion chamber, cutting down on the amount of "Fresh" air/fuel that goes in. The potential power loss through it's use (Through the burning of less fuel/air) is relatively minimal. If you have an engine designed WITH egr, then it's valves and cam profile etc are already tailored to flow a set amount of fresh fuel/air with the recirculated exhaust gases on each combustion cycle anyhow. If you block the EGR port off you might make a miniscule gain in power, but not only will you get poorer fuel mileage but the temperatures in your combustion chamber will increase, creating higher amounts of Nitrogen Oxides (They mostly form above temps of 2500F) the extra heat will also add engine stress and promote pre-ignition. Anyhow, just thought I'd "Pipe in" on this one...har de har har ok I'm done, sorry for that one. XD

Primary function of EGR is to reduce NOx emissions, but it also does increase engine efficiency somewhat. If done correctly it WILL NOT reduce engine power because it's only active during part throttle cruising. It's is disabled at idle and full throttle. It will soot up the intake a bit over a long period of time.

Thanks for your comment, in your opinion, what it would be the logic of the ECU to turn the EGR ON/OFF?

Coolant temp > xx
RPM > xxx
etc?

I left all the EGR hardware installed in my car, the valve and the tubbing, I just disconnected the vacuum since this valve is normally off.

I don't know what the exact logic is but you should be able to reverse engineer it from the factory service manuals.

My freeway FE (@ 80 MPH) is 30 MPG after a two hours drive. If you have a similar record, then we can compare.
But I understand the message. I just didn't want people to think, ah its because Buzo has a MS and he can change sensors. I got a 20% improvement without touching the fuel maps.
EDIT: Also my car PASSED the smog test with this tune, so its hard to believe my tune is that offset.

This is why I asked about the EGR. Comparing an engine with EGR to one without is not making a direct comparison. It's an extra variable that needs to be controlled somehow.
Enabling the EGR system again (even just in stock form) might gain you 1-2MPG, which would get you closer to factory levels (without the extra systems you are experimenting with).


C|

[Dr_Snooz]

My freeway FE (@ 80 MPH) is 30 MPG after a two hours drive. If you have a similar record, then we can compare.

My peak MPGs run from about 32-34 MPG. I think my all time best ever (not recorded in my log, unfortunately) was close to 36 MPG. My highway speeds are usually between 65-75. Bear in mind that your carb trans is geared higher than mine.