Home     Savings     Test Results     Diesel     FAQ     Newsletter     Order     Contact

 

Home

 

Savings    

 

Test Results

 

Technical Information

 

Testimonial Video

 

Demo Video

 

Newsletter    

 

Order    

 

Contact

 

Click one of the following links to our most recent newsletters:
February 2001 through November 2001 newsletters appear below the topical index.


November 2001
December 2001
January 2002
February 2002
March 2002
April 2002
May 2002
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002
Winter 2003-2004
Spring 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
December 2004
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

October 2005

November 2005

December 2005

January 2006

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

June 2006

July 2006

August 2006

September 2006

October 2006

November 2006

 

 

 

Newsletter Topical Index

 

Click on any brown or blue link to read the article on the following subjects.

Issue dates indicated in black are at our newsletter page found below the topical index.

 

 

Acetone as fuel additive   March 2005

Acceleration tests  Aug 29, 2001  scroll down this page. January 2006

Acceleration techniques   April 2005

Accessories vs Efficiency  Aug 2001 scroll down this page

Air conditioner vs mileage         July 2005

Air dam spoiler                         May 2005

Air/Fuel Ratio controller  June 2004

Air/Fuel Ratio Meter                  June 2004

AMSOIL         Jan 2002

AMOIL bypass oil filters    Mar 2002

Aquatune     Sep 2002, Nov 2002, Winter 2003

Austria Tests          January 2006

Auterra Dyno-Scan Winter 2003, Spring 2004, June 2004

Automatic transmissions  May 2001 scroll down this page

Better Business Bureau Corespondence   July 2006

Bioperformance Pills May 2006

Braking        May 2001 scroll down this page

Brown's gas  Oct 2002

Burning valves        June 2004

Bypass oil filters     Jan 2002, Mar 2002

Chevron Energy use chart Apr 2002

Climate control circuit               July 2005

CNG vehicle comparison  May 2002

Coasting      Feb 2001, May 2001 scroll down this page

Coasting tests        July 2001 scroll down this page

Compact hydrogen generator     Jan 2002

Competitors Apr 2001 scroll down this page

Complete system   Nov 2001, Apr 2002, August 2006

Components' contribution to mileage  Nov 2001

Deceleration techniques   April 2005

Demonstration procedures    June 2006

Detailed test results         July 2001 scroll down this page

Descriptions of components       Nov 2001

Diagnostics and economy Sep 25, 2001 scroll down this page

Diesel engines and Hydrogen Boost      Jan 2002, January 2006

Direst Hits Plugs     Winter 2003

Drag effect on mileage     May 2001 scroll down this page

Drag coefficient     Feb 2001, July 2001 scroll down this page

Driving techniques and habits              Nov 2001

Dynamometer tests for mileage           October 2005

Efficiency calculations      July 2001 scroll down this page

EFIE device   Nov 2001

Electronic Control Circuit June 2004

EGT, lean mixtures, burning valves      June 2004

EGT and NOx Emissions    June 2004

Emissions tests      Nov 2001, July 2002, August 2006

Emissions tests w/o NOx  October 2005,

Emissions Challenge         June 2004, August 2006

Engine treatment   Apr 2001 scroll down this page

Ethos                     December 2004

European tests       Nov 2001, January 2006

Ford Fiesta            January 2006

Fuel heater   Apr 2001, May 30, 2001, Sep 2001 scroll down this page, Jan 2002

Fuel magnets         Jan 2002

Fuel ratios    June 2002, August 2006

Fuel vaporization circuit and canister  Nov 2001

Fuel Vaporizer        Winter 2003

Geo Metro tests     Oct 2001 scroll down this page

Government Approvals Nov 2001, Jan 2006, Feb 2006

High temperature coolant          March 2005

High tire pressure   Feb 2002

Hybrid vehicle        May 2001 scroll down this page

Hybrids in competition    June 2005

Hydrogen generator inoperative tests  Aug 2002

Ignition Timing       Spring 2004

Independent tests   Apr 2001 scroll down this page

Lean mixtures, burning valves    June 2004

Lean Mixtures and NOx Emissions        June 2004, August 2006

Low restriction oil filter   Jan 2002, Mar 2002

Low restriction air filter   Jan 2002

Low rolling resistance tires        Spring 2004

LMG Malaysian Auto         November 2006

Malaysian Auto w/ hydrogen boosting  November 2006

Maximizer fuel Magnetizer         July 2004

Mileage possibilities         July 2001 scroll down this page

Myth Busters          September 2006

Natural gas vehicle comparison  May 2002

New Mileage calculation   Aug 2001 scroll down this page

Nissan Pathfinder tests     Sep  8, 2001 scroll down this page

NOx emissions       June 2004, August 2006

Parking position vs mileage       Aug 2001 scroll down this page

Platinum vapor injection  Winter 2003

Porpoising    Feb 2001, May 2001 scroll down this page

Power increase      Aug 29, 2001 scroll down this page, January 2006

Power brakes         May 2001 scroll down this page

Power steering       May 2001 scroll down this page

Production Vehicles w/ hydrogen boosting  November 2006

Rolling resistance   Feb 2001 scroll down this page

RPM vs. mileage     Dec 2001

Saturn SL1 tests      June 2002, July 2002

Saturn #2 tests                 Winter 2003

Saturn #3 tests                 September 2005

Scangauge     September 2005  October 2005   November 2005

Short test drives vs. mileage      July 19, 2001 scroll down this page

Snow Tires   Winter 2003

Square miles per gallon hour      Aug 2001 scroll down this page

Spark plug comparisons    July 2005

Speed vs. Efficiency         Aug 2001 scroll down this page

Station parking position vs mileage     Aug 2001 scroll down this page

Sub-Compact design        Sep 11, 2001 scroll down this page

Switzerland tests    Nov 2001

Synthetic oil Apr 2001 scroll down this page

Synthetic oils, real?          August 2005

Thermal catalytic cracking         May 2002

Throttle setting vs. mileage       Dec 2001

Testing procedures with Scangauge   June 2006

Timing advance               Spring 2004

Tire drag      Feb 2001 scroll down this page

Tire pressure tests  July 2001 scroll down this page

Tire pressure          Nov 2001, Feb 2002

Tire rolling tests     Spring 2004

Total system Nov 2001, Apr 2002

Tour de Sol            May 2005

Tour de Sol results June 2005

TRASKO Oil Filters   Mar 2002

True Efficiency calculation   Aug 2001 scroll down this page

True Synthetic oil   Jan 2002

Tuffoil                   Winter 2003

Vapor lock    May 30, 2001 scroll down this page

Vaporization circuit and canister         Nov 2001

Vaporizer     Winter 2003

Water in Exhaust    Aug 2001 scroll down this page

Water mist injection        July 2004

Weight effect on mileage May 2001 scroll down this page

Whole system        May 2001, June 2001 scroll down this page

Wind resistance     Feb 2001 scroll down this page

XCEL Plus engine treatment   Apr 2001, Nov 2001 scroll down this page, May 2002

Z-Prize                  Dec 2002

 

 

 

Hydrogen-Boost Update Letter 2-13-01


   Yesterday I tested a driving technique that increased my mileage by 20% over my previous best mileage rating, achieving 50 miles per gallon with the Saab 9000 Turbo and 10 amps on the Hydrogen-Boost mini-cells. 
   I had read about this technique being used in high mileage tests of custom experimental vehicles that achieved mileage performance ratings of 200 to 600 miles per gallon.  I decided to look into this technique further. 
   I analyzed the drag coefficient data from a few weeks ago when I tested tire pressures and how they affected the drag on my Saab 9000 Turbo.  I calculated the draw coefficients due to wind resistance and due to rolling resistance, a combination of tire drag and gear and bearing drag.  I was surprised to find out how big a contribution was made by rolling resistance.  I expected that the wind resistance would have been a bigger portion of the total drag.  As it worked out the rolling resistance was more than the wind resistance until the speed reached 50 miles per hour with a tire pressure of 30psi and not until 45 miles per hour at 60psi, and at 20 psi the drags were equal at 55 miles per hour.  The conclusion I drew here was that much more could be done to reduce the rolling resistance besides increasing the tire pressure.  Extrapolating the exponential, coefficient of drag curve to a tire pressure of 120psi only showed about another 10 to 15 percent decrease in rolling resistance.  This showed me that there is a tremendous amount of drag being produced by the gear oil in the transmission and grease in the wheel bearings.  Since the Saab 9000 is a front wheel drive there is no rear end differential to contribute to the drag but I am now determined to look into the transmission and bearing oil/grease and seeing what canbe done to reduce the drag without causing wear on the gears.  This I will do soon. 
   Now back to the mileage test, I have heard that an internal combustion is most efficient at about three quarters of its power capability.  So if I have a 160 horsepower engine, it will be most efficient at producing power when it is producing 120 horsepower.  Now obviously I don’t want to drive at a constant speed that requires 120 horsepower because the wind resistance would be prohibitive to good mileage.  I have been told by the previous owner of the Saab that it would well do the 135mph indicated on the speedometer.  I have not tried it but I have been up to 100 miles per hour and it had plenty of acceleration at that point.  But I would not expect to be able to drive at 100 miles per hour to get the best gas mileage since the wind resistance at 100 would be four times the wind resistanceat 50 miles per hour.  I’m sure the rolling resistance would increase at higher speed but not as much as wind resistance.  I still believe that a cruising speed of 45 to 55 miles per hour will give the best gas mileage for this vehicle. 
   But how could I run the engine at 45 miles per hour and still run the engine at 3/4 power or 120 hp.  I reverted to the technique used by the high mileage experimental test track drivers to accomplish both.  First I picked a road where I would not hamper too much traffic, one that had a few gradual ups and downs but no steep hills up or down.  The road I chose was posted at 45 mph speed limit.  Of course no one obeys the speed limit all the time and most driver around here believe it is safe to drive 10 mph over the speed limit without getting stopped for speeding.  So, I picked a loop of about eight miles, including two stop signs and two other turns onto another street.  I chose to drive the loop in the clockwise direction so I could make only right hand turns.  In the US that means only worrying about one lane of traffic at stop signs and none at right hand turns without stop signs.  I chose a cold clear day when the engine would produce the most power.  Any racing enthusiast will tell you that an engine produces the most power with cold air.  Now that I think about it today, it probably would have worked better on a warm day because I wouldn’t have used so much gas producing the extra power at cold temperature. 
   The driving technique I used would probably not be one that you would use except on solitary roads with little or no traffic.  What I did was to accelerate at about 3/4 throttle to 55 miles per hour and then push in the clutch, take the transmission out of gear and shut off the engine.  As soon as the engine stopped I turned the key back on, even though in my Saab this is not required in order to have steering (most cars will lockup the steering wheel when the key is off).  I coasted until my speed was down to about 35 miles per hour.  This took about 40 seconds. Then I would put the car into fourth gear pop the clutch momentarily to start the engine and then put it into third gear and accelerate to 55 mph again.  This would take about 5 seconds.  I did this repeatedly except when there was no traffic to interfere with the procedure.  Of course at stop signs I tried to coast up to it without having to use the brakes. Most of the time I rolled through the stop sign.  When the school buses came out I altered my speed and coasted slower to keep from interfering with traffic.  Once I even stopped and waited for the bus and 12 cars behind it to clear my route.  As you can probably figure I wasted very little fuel to the radiator or to the heater.  My feet got very cold since even when the motor is running my floor heater does not work.  All the heat comes out the defroster. 
   Before I started I checked my tire pressures.  They were not extremely high like I prefer, but the test was done at 40 psi. The engine was warm when I filled up with gas and I drove 40 miles on this test.  Filling the tank at the exact same pump to the same exact tippy top full tank I used a total of 8/10 of one gallon.  This calculated to the 50 miles per gallon I mentioned.  The best I had been able to achieve before on this same test route was 40 miles per gallon on a 35-45mph slow accelerating, cruise with the engine on, test run with hydrogen boost.  I had previously achieved a few miles per gallon better than40 on a long trip on the interstate highway at 55-60 mph.  I’d be willing to bet that if I did this test again at 65mph coasting to 45mphI would achieve closer to 55 mpg.  On the interstate highway around here I would not have near the traffic I had on the rural residential route this test was done on.  So, for a Saab 9000 turbo that tested out at25 mpg before I made any improvements except the proper tire pressure, 50mpg was a doubling of the mileage.  This still doesn’t beat the168% improvement I made in city driving, from 15mpg to 40 mpg.  That’s a story for another day, and by then I will beat that figure.
   So until next time I greet you with hope of better mileage and happy motoring.  See you in about a month.

Fran Giroux
Hydrogen-Boost

Hydrogen-Boost Update Letter 4-8-01


   Since our last update many developments have occurred here at Hydrogen-Boost.  I will give you a short update on these developments. 

   First of all, product development and testing have continued and even greater improvements in gas mileage have been achieved because of some new developments.  We have included these latest developments in our operator’s manual addendum.  Let me briefly tell you about a couple.
  
   Pre-heater:  We have tested a very crude fuel preheating system that helps vaporize the fuel in an electronic fuel injected engine.  It was quite simple and installed in about twenty minutes.  All that was needed in our case was a six foot length of 1/4” soft copper tubing, two hose clamps, and some foam carpet padding.  Installation was done on the 1987 Saab 9000 turbo.  All we did was cut the fuel line leading to the fuel injector rail and insert the copper tubing which we had wrapped about 12 times around the upper radiator hose.  We then clamped both ends and wrapped the tubing/hose assembly with 1/2” foam carpet padding to insulate it.  We also insulated the tubing and fuel line all the way to and including the injector rail. 
   A long test run of 230 miles was made with the only modifications to the vehicle being a small Hydrogen-Boost unit running at 15 amps, the pre-heater, and increased air pressure in the tires. The test track was the Adirondack Northway Interstate I-87 in Northeastern New York which is a quite mountainous highway.  Speed driven was 70 miles per hour and no extreme driving techniques were employed except that on long down-hills the engine was turned off.
   EPA’s reported highway mileage for this vehicle, reported back when the speed limit was 55 mph, was 29 miles per gallon.  This trip achieved 43 miles per gallon  for a 48% increase over EPA’s reported mileage.  Considering that this vehicle has 180,000 miles on it and the highway mileage tested out at 25 mpg with the increased tire pressure before the Hydrogen-Boost unit was installed this trip showed a 72% increase in mileage.
   More testing will be done on pre-heaters that raise the temperature further since this system doesn’t even make the fuel injector rail warm.  It is the only item inside the engine compartment that is cool to the touch.  This is due to the cooling effect of the fuel evaporating as it is injected into the intake.

   Engine Treatments:  We have discovered that Slick-50 is not Slick-50 is not Dura Lube is not Prolong, etc.  According to our new supplier Excel Plus, the Slick-50 of the early 1980’s that I tested on my twin engine ultralight airplane is no longer sold.  Apparently the engine treatment that took on the name Slick-50 in the early 80’s split off from the partnership that was made famous by the “Teflon” formula.  In the early 80’s the company split up with one partner keeping the formula and the other keeping the name Slick-50 which now is reportedly teflon and oil but not the formula of the early 80’s that worked.  You can read the whole story by following the link on our technical information page of the www.hydrogen-boost.com website.

   Synthetic and light weight lubricants:  During research in reducing the rolling friction of our test vehicles we discovered that the Saab actually uses a thin weight motor oil in the transmission. Also it was discovered that many race cars use a thin weight and/or a synthetic oil in their transmissions and rear end differentials.  We have not completed tests on these possibilities yet but will report to you when we do.

   International News:  Hydrogen-Boost is being tested at the present time in two foreign countries and we have had inquiries from many others.  We are in negotiations in at least two countries on two different continents for manufacturing licensing and possible import to the U.S. from those countries.  If you have any interest in this area or have any contacts in your country that might, please do not hesitate to contact Hydrogen-Boost.  Our contact information is on the website. 

   Independent Tests:  Some of our hydrogen generators are being tested on vehicles independent of any other part of the Hydrogen-Boost System.  Though this is not recommended when a much greater savings can be achieved by employing the whole system, these tests are welcome because they give us independent verification of improvements caused by a stand-alone unit.  When we encounter new customers we make sure they understand that the Hydrogen-Boost System is a system, not a device.  But it is nice to know what just the device can do.  We have received reports of 20%increase in petrol economy with no other modifications or change in driving technique.  Like we have said before, every vehicle responds differently to hydrogen injection.  American made EFI engines don’t respond as well, Asian made EFI engine respond very well, and carburetor equipped engines also do well when the proper adjustments are made.
We stick to our claim that 80% of all vehicles on this planet are likely to see a 50% increase in mileage with the complete Hydrogen-Boost System. 

   Competitors:  We have recently discovered a few competitors in the hydrogen generation and injection business and we welcome them to the business.  In fact we have installed links to these companies’ web sites from the technical information page of our website.  Please feel free to visit our site and follow our links to our competitors.  We welcome to the scene the following companies:  Apollo, Xogen, Hy-Drive, and Quantronix.  We hope to be able to cooperate with these companies and others to help solve some of the energy and pollution problems of our planet.

   If you do not want to be on our mailing list write to Toyota dealer. Last week I had test driven the Honda Insight hybrid vehicle and I’ve been wanting to test drive Toyota’s hybrid so I stopped in.  The only Prius (hybrid) they had belonged to the salesman so I got to ride with him during my test drive.  Toyota’s hybrid is set up different than the Honda.  First of all the Honda is a light weight (1800 pounds)aluminum frame vehicle for only two passengers, while the Toyota is a full sized four to five passenger vehicle with a full trunk, weighing about 2800pounds.  Also different is the operating system.  The Honda isa full time engine on vehicle with a stick shift manual transmission. The Toyota is an automatic, does everything for you, smart vehicle. You don’t even need to start the engine, just get in and turn the key and put the “automatic” transmission in gear, and drive. This “automatic” transmission is not a geared, shifting transmission but a magnetically driven, continually variable speed device that is computer controlled like the rest of the car.  The gasoline engine turns on and off automatically whenever it is needed or not.  The battery powered electric motor/starter/generator is computer controlled and does whatever it takes to conserve energy.  Even the braking system uses mostly magnetic, energy recovery, regenerative braking and very little friction braking. The salesman said that with this system the front brakes should last 100,000miles and the rear brakes would probably last the life of the vehicle. I don’t doubt this with me as a driver, but with most drivers it might not be quite as durable. 
   What impressed me about the Toyota was that the city mileage figures were actually higher than the highway figures, 52 versus 45 mpg.  Though not as high as the Honda at 61 and 68 mpg, with it’s 1000 cc engine, the Honda’s mileage figures were still quite good considering the 1500 cc engine and full size platform. 
   I was also impressed that the Toyota engineers were not afraid to design the car to run with the engine off at times, though they could have gone one step further by having a true coasting mode.  While driving down long hills the Toyota could not hold its speed without depressing the accelerator like it could if you popped it into neutral and truly coasted. 
   What this vehicle did do, to a point, was apply automatically by computer, some of the driving techniques that are included in the Hydrogen-Boost operator’s manual, that must be applied manually with an ordinary car.  It does give evidence of the truth of my recent claim that I can get better gas mileage in the city than I can on the highway. 
   For most people this does not make sense as evidenced by EPA’s mileage figures for most vehicles.  For normal driving with a normal car, the highway figure will be slightly higher than the city figure.  But the Toyota Prius is not a normal car and I am not a normal driver. 

Porpoising


   After witnessing the boldness of the Toyota engineers in designing a car that will run part time with the engine off, I was encouraged to incorporated porpoising into my normal driving, especially when city driving is actually porpoising by reason of traffic and traffic flow devices (stop signs and traffic lights). 
   If you actually made a graph of speed versus time for your normal driving you would see the porpoising on the graph at least during city driving.  The speed goes up and down and up and down, hence the name porpoising.  During highway driving this is not usually the case as most people drive as fast as they can get away with, as they travel down an unrestricted highway, unrestricted by traffic that is. 
   That doesn’t mean that a driver cannot use porpoising.  It may seem strange to other drivers but its not illegal as long as you obey any maximum and minimum speed limits and don’t crash into other cars.   As a matter of fact once you get used to it you can practice it without most drivers even noticing, as long as you don’t mind taking a little longer to get where you’re going.
   Let me explain what porpoising is and what I did to my car to make it easier.  First let me explain why to use it, especially in the city.  When you travel through the city you accelerate away from a stop light and then usually follow the car in front of you until you get to the next red light or stop sign, then you decelerate and use your brakes to slow down and stop.  Let’s say it takes you 30 seconds to get from one stop to the next.  The traffic in front of you won’t allow you to get there any faster, so as long as you take 30 seconds to get there what difference does it make to anyone how you do it?  Now look at the following graph.


   The green line indicates a driver who jumps quickly to 30 mph and then drives at 30 until it is time to stop, at which time he stomps on the brakes and stops.  The red line indicates a driver who accelerates moderately to 45 mph then coasts until its time to stop and then stops.  Both drivers covered the same distance in the same amount of time but the red line driver used about twice as much gas as the green line driver.  They both waited for the next stop light to turn green.  Now since the red line driver was coasting three quarters of the time, and since he was going to sit still at the next light until it turned green, why should he have his engine running during this period.  That would only created waste heat, and no motion, hence wasted energy, and wasted gasoline. 
   When using the porposing technique, the red line driver turns off his engine during the coasting phase and waiting phase.  If this procedure was used between stop signs and the vehicle had a manual transmission, the engine switch would be turned back on just before reaching the next stop sign and the clutch engaged with the transmission in a relatively high gear.  This would start the engine without having to use the starter and battery. 
   When traveling between lights or stop signs more than a half a mile apart, the engine is started whenever the speed drops below a comfortable speed for the traffic, then the vehicle is accelerated and coasting is resumed.  Of course whenever there are hills, they are used to the best advantage by coasting on the downhills and accelerating on the uphills, whenever possible. 
   To make this driving technique natural I have installed a toggle switch on my gear shift to shut off the engine ignition and the Hydrogen-Boost gas generator.  The rest of the operating systems of the car are left on, including, turn signals, brake lights, fans, etc. 
   Complications to this method are power steering, power brakes, lights, automatic transmissions, and air conditioning.  None of these make it impossible unless there is extreme heat that requires maximum air conditioning.  Power steering is usually not needed for relatively straight city streets until it is time to park or turn tight corners.  Power brakes would still be available for stopping unless during the coasting phase the driver pumped the brakes a number of times for nothing, thereby depleting the vacuum in the brake booster.  For night driving it might look weird to other drivers if your head lights got dimmer during the coasting phase and it might wear the battery down too quick. 
   Automatic transmissions would require the driver to use the starter every time he needs to restart the engine.  This would tend to restrict this method to longer intervals between stops.  With my standard shift vehicles I don’t hesitate to use porpoising even on sections that have a stop sign on every block, where I only accelerate to20 mph between stops.  I realize that is a bit overboard but it has become second nature to me so it’s no big deal.  Of course a driver with automatic transmission could chose to coast with the engine running which does save some fuel but obviously not as much as with the engine off. 
   Other complications that might evolve would be carbon buildup in the engine from never really getting hot, lack of heat in the winter because the engine doesn’t produce a lot of waste heat, and accumulation of water in the exhaust because the exhaust doesn’t really get hot.  The catalytic converter may also build up some carbon unless some longer drives are taken occasionally.  Carbon build up in the combustion chamber and lack of heat could be remedied by letting the engine warm up to normal temperature before engaging in porpoising.  Also if you notice that the battery is being depleted by often use of the starter or use of the headlights, you might want to recharge it with a short time of “normal” driving.  It might also be a good idea to make sure that the engine reaches normal temperature before ending your trips, to ensure that any moisture created by combustion is evaporated out of the engine by the engine heat, to prevent any corrosion.
   That’s it for porpoising, an easy way to increase your city mileage by at least 50%.  Since I started using this method I have not tested a car with Hydrogen-Boost that I couldn’t double the EPA’s reported city mileage figure.  I don’t think I could double the mileage without the Hydrogen-Boost but I know I would be hard pressed to double the mileage without porpoising even with the rest of the Hydrogen-Boost System. 

May Sale
 

   Don’t forget our new model introduced this month foronly $250 US plus shipping.  Email us for details at  h2boost@adelphia.net

Until next time happy motoring to all.

Fran Giroux
Hydrogen-Boost

Hydrogen-Boost Update Letter 5-4-01
Addendum/Correction to Update letter of 5-2-01


   In response to Wednesday’s Hydrogen-Boost Update Letter we have received a valuable comment from John Huckfeldt that deserves our immediate attention and hence this Update Letter Addendum.

   In our last Update Letter we discussed porpoising as a driving technique that can save fuel.  This technique included periods of time when the vehicle was moving but the engine was shut off.  We mentioned that this would be inconvenient with an automatic transmissions because the starter would have to be used each time to restart the engine and that it might be better to practice porpoising with the engine running if you have an automatic transmission.  No mention was  made to any possible damage to an automatic transmission if porpoising was done with the engine shut off.

   John Huckfeldt wrote in with the following comments:

You mentioned switching off the engine and coasting - a car with an automatic will quickly blow the transmission if the car is coasting above about 20mph very often.
The engine has to be kept running - transmission rebuilds are much more expensive than a little fuel.

   We at Hydrogen-Boost have confirmed the concerns about driving an automatic transmission vehicle with the engine off.  We checked with numerous dealers and tow truck operators who all agree that it is not a good idea to coast with the engine off if you have an automatic transmission because the lubrication for the transmission is provided by the “pump” that is not operating if the engine is not running.  Even though there are seemingly no gears engaged that need lubricating while you are coasting, this lubrication is still apparently essential to the health of your transmission.  So if you are ever planning to use porpoising with your automatic transmission, be sure to do it with your engine running.  Personally I would havedone that anyway because of my own concerns about having to use the starter every time I shut off the engine. 

   We thank John Huckfeldt for his prompt and accurate warning and for his efforts I extend to John an additional $50 discount on any hydrogen-Boost System we have on sale, including the May sale of our new compact model for $250. 

   If any of you who receive our update letter have any tips or warnings you would like to share with us and out readers, please let us know and we will offer a discount to you as well.

   Thanks again John.



Hydrogen-Boost Sale Expiration Reminder 5-24-01

   Just a quick reminder for Hydrogen-Boost Newsletter subscribers that our introductory sale on the  new compact Hydrogen-Boost System will expire on May 31, 2001.  The new model Hydrogen-Boost System, retailing for $400, is on sale for the month of May for only $250 plus shipping.  Visit www.hydrogen-boost.com for details and specifications on the Hydrogen-Boost System.  For ordering details email to h2boost@adelphia.net

Hydrogen-Boost Update Letter



Dear Subscribers,

   Following are excerpts from the Hydrogen-Boost research journal.   

5-18-01

   The Effect of Drag and Weight on Highway Mileage

   Today I took a trip to Plattsburgh, New York to pick up my son and his belongings from college.  The distance one way is 115 miles.  On the way up to the college I drove an average of 70 miles per hour with about 10-15 amps on the compact Hydrogen-Boost cell.  On long down hills I used the shutoff switch I had installed on the gear shift, to coast with the engine shut off.  I did not use the porposing technique however.  When I filled up the tank in Plattsburgh it took 2.875 gallons for an average mileage of 40 miles per gallon.
   I then picked up my son and packed the car with about 500 pounds of belongings plus my son who weights about 150 pounds.  I mounted a bicycle rack on the rear window/hatch and attached my son’s bike in an upright sideways position.  Shortly after starting home my son asked if we could roll down a window.  Since the windows are electric and not working properly we only managed to get the driver’s side front window down 1.5 inches.  Also the rear passenger side window is always down about one inch because it cannot go up or down.  On the return trip the drag was noticeably more that before.  Also it was noticed that it took quite a bit more throttle to get up the hills as we would expect with an extra650 pounds in the vehicle.  Coasting down hills was slightly more hampered by the extra drag than it was helped by the extra weight. I made note on a couple hills where a “clean” car would always coast at 70 mph, this time it slowed down to 60-65 mph.
   When we refilled the tank at the end of our return trip, it took 3.55 gallons for an average mileage of 32.4 miles per gallon. There was no noticeable change in weather or wind on both trips that would account for any change.  So my conclusion is that the extra drag caused by the open window and the bike and rack, along with the extra weight caused the drop in mileage of 7.4 mpg or 19% drop.
   Using the porpoising technique would have most probably negated any effect of extra weight, if the extra drag was not present.  The extra fuel used in climbing the hills would have been offset by an increase of potential energy on the top of the hills, which changed into extra kinetic energy at the bottom of each hills, which would have extended the coasting distance on each hill, thereby making up for the extra fuel burned going up the hills.  Of course this does not take into account any increase of rolling resistance on the tires caused by extra weight. 
   If normal driving techniques were used the extra weight would have caused further decrease in mileage.
   What does this teach us about drag and weight?  When trying to get the best mileage at high speed it is essential to keep the vehicle “clean” of any extra drag caused by things hanging off the vehicle.  If we started with the return trip at 32.4 mpg and took off the bike and extra weight and then got 40 mpg this would have been an increase of 23.5%.  This is considerable and well worth the effort to achieve. 
   Now let’s look at the performance of the Saab with the Hydrogen-Boost System.  The stock Saab with 180,000 miles on it tested before installation of the Hydrogen-Boost achieved 25 mpg on the highway.  The EPA published highway mileage figure (back when the speed limit was 55 mph) is 29 mpg.  So the 40 mpg achieved at 70 mph is a 60% increase over the pre-installation test and a 38% increase over the EPA published highway mileage figure.  Even the loaded down return trip mileage of32.4 is an increase of 30%  increase over the pre-installation test and 12% increase over the EPA published highway mileage figure. 
   I would like to comment here that this trip did not incorporate the whole Hydrogen-Boost System operator’s manual driving techniques.  Last week’s Mother’s Day trip mileage of 47.8 mpg at and average speed of 65 mph is an indication of what the whole system can do.


5-30-01
The Limits to Fuel Heating

   Today I wanted to test how hot I could heat the gasoline in an EFI equipped vehicle without causing problems, and whether the increased temperature would increase gas mileage.  My Neon has previously been equipped with a simple fuel heater, a section of copper fuel line wrapped 6-8 times around the radiator hose and then routed to the injector rail.  This whole set up was insulated with 1/2 inch foam carpet pad.  I experienced no problems with the setup. 
   Today I routed the fuel through a 1/8” copper line wrapped about 12 times around the exhaust pipe before the catalytic converter.  This was installed a few months ago when I was experimenting with TCC, but was disconnected from the fuel system.  Today I tightened the wrappings around the exhaust pipe and secured them with a safety wire.  I then insulated the tubing from the exhaust pipe to the injector rail by sliding a 1/4” copper tube over it and bending both into place.  The injector rail was still insulated with the foam carpet pad. 
   With this set up the car ran normally until it warmed up after two miles.  Then it spit and sputtered at any RPM over idle.  Soon it stalled altogether.  Inspection under the hood revealed a leak in the fuel hose that connected the heated fuel line to the injector rail.  I repaired it and returned home.
   Another couple miles driven caused sputtering again and inspection revealed no leaks.  Removing the connector from the injector rail revealed super heated fuel in the injector rail which immediately boiled and squirted out of the rail.  I removed the 1/4” copper tube that insulated the 1/8” tubing from the exhaust to the injector rail and tested again.  Slightly better results were attained but after a few minutes there was rough running and a little sputtering.  I then removed the 1/2” foam insulation on the injector rail and tested again.  This time the engine ran okay. 
   I refilled the tank and took a 46 mile test drive.  Upon return to the gas station I inspected under the hood and found another leaky hose fitting, and about a half a gallon of spilled gasoline.  I repaired the hose again with a new piece of hose, refilled the tank and again went for a 44 mile test drive at 70 mph on the interstate highway.  Upon return I refilled the tank with .86 gallons.  This calculated to an average of 51 miles per gallon.  This is the same mileage obtained with the radiator hose fuel heater.  I will leave the new heater on for a few days to see if my wife’s normal driving mileage improves. I warned her about a possible vapor lock in case she had trouble on the 12mile trip to work.
   Conclusions:
   1.  Heating the fuel too much will cause vaporized fuel in the injector rail, which prevents enough fuel from being injected into the combustion chamber to allow normal combustion. 
   2.  Superheated fuel will cause leaks in old weather checked fuel line.
   3.  Over tightening hose clamps on rubber fuel hose will cause the rubber hose to lacerate and leak.
   4.  Heating the fuel beyond a certain point may not improve mileage.  More testing will be needed to confirm this. 
   5.  Heated fuel may require a special rubber hose or only metal fittings.
   6.  Heated fuel may cause overheating of the upper cylinder and possibly burned valves.  Monitoring of this possibility is warranted.

If you do not want to be on our mailing list write to
Fran Giroux
www.hydrogen-boost.com


Hydrogen-Boost Update Letter 6-1-01
Addendum Update letter of 6-1-01


   In response to last month’s newsletter the followingemail from Mort O Kelly from Dublin Ireland was received and Mort has consented to publishing of it and my response which follows. 

Mort O Kelly wrote:

  Hi Fran Giroux, I wonder do you drive much yourself or at all, or maybe you are a scientist.  I am in Dublin,  Ireland. You mention "porpoising", a term I never heard before, but I take it , it means coasting in your lingo. You  cannot attribute a saving of fuel while coasting, with engine on, or off, to your product as one could coast even if they did not have your product and were powered by regular petrol or diesel systems or even electric or had no  engine at all.  So a driver can make that "porpoising" saving without your Hydrogen-Boost. As for "comments"  of John Huckfeldt, how does he have his important knowledge and understanding of the motorcar without also  including the much more important information regarding ones motorcar or motorcycle or any other vehicle  powered by an internal combustion engine, the subject matter being the "BRAKES".  In most cases the brakes  will virtually not work if the engine is not running.  Did you ever hear of power assisted brakes?  Yes!  Well the  "power assist" comes from the running engine.  I cant speak for absolutely everywhere, but in very many places  world wide it is, actually, illegal to coast, engine on or off.  Some people do not know this and it would be a pity to  be the one to contribute to danger by giving them the impression that it was OK.  How fast it can happen, and  good brakes save lives. However your product still saves, but I think you should give us the true savings  without reference to driving without the power of whatever engine is under the bonnet. I'll be watching with  interest and possibly "comment" further.

Good luck,

Mort O Kelly,
Dublin, Ireland.

Subject:
           Re: "Porpoising"
      Date:  Fri, 04 May 2001 18:59:13 -0400
     From: h2boost@adelphia.net

Dear Mort,

   I have attached a copy of all our recent Hydrogen-Boost Update Letters for your reference.  They are in Microsoft Works format.  If you need them in Microsoft Word format I can convert them for you.

   If you read these updates carefully you will understand that the Hydrogen-Boost System is a system, not simply a device.  If we could sell a device that could achieve 50% to 100% increase in gas mileage by itself, we would certainly be silenced by the vested interests in the automobile and petroleum industries.  Nobody will ever sell a device that can simply be attached to a vehicle that can double the gas mileage.  But the Hydrogen-Boost System is not simply a device, it is a system that includes a device anda manual that suggests certain modifications and maintenance and driving tips.
   We have issued a statement in our web site and in the update letter that I am confident that 80% of all the vehicles on the planet (let's make that 1-8 passenger vehicles) are capable of achieving a 50% increase in mileage with the implementation of the entire Hydrogen-Boost System.  If you would like to issue to me a challenge to prove it, I would be willing to take any five vehicles you deliver to me and apply the Hydrogen-Boost technology to them and show to any verifying committee an increase in mileage of at least 50%, over either a pre-Hydrogen-Boost test drive or the EPA published mileage figures, in at least four of these vehicles.  These tests drives would be done here in Glens Falls, New York.  I would like you to know before you take up this challenge that the last three vehicles we have tested have achieved 100% increases in city mileage.
   Yes I do drive a lot.  I personally have done all the test driving for the Dodge Dakota,  Plymouth Neon, Hyundai Excel, and Saab 9000 Turbo.  I am sure that you have not heard the term porpoising because I just coined the term in our May 2nd update letter.  Actually I have been using the term locally since our February 13th update letter.
   You are correct in saying that someone could use porpoising even without using Hydrogen-Boost.  But how could they have found out about this technique if it weren't for the publications of Hydrogen-Boost.  It is also true that anyone could use all of the techniques in the Hydrogen-Boost operator's manual without purchasing the Hydrogen-Boost System, but how are they going to know what these techniques are if they don't read the manual.  Sure, some of them are common sense techniques that even the EPA recommends, but most are techniques developed over forty years of efficiency driving and scientific study and you won't find them in most other efficiency driving manuals.  Information is valuable and the information in the Hydrogen-Boost operator's manual is well worth the $100 US retail price, even if the customer decides not to build and install a hydrogen gas generator, but simply applies the other information in the manual.
   As for the matter of Power assist brakes, you are somewhat correct is saying that power assist brakes will virtually not work if the engine is not running.  However the whole truth is that power assist brakes will work whenever there is a vacuum in the brake booster, and this vacuum does not disappear immediately when the engine is shut off. Most systems include a check valve that allows the booster to maintain a vacuum long after the engine is shut off.  For those that do not, a small check valve can easily be installed.  This residual vacuum is adequate for one or two applications of the brakes if done within 30 to 60seconds of shutting off the engine.  Even after this period the brakes still work but the power assist may not be available so the operator would have to stand on the brakes pretty hard to stop quick.  Of course everyone should test any new technique in an unconjested and safe area until they are familiar with how their particular vehicle responds to new technique. Without spilling the beans on all the secrets in the Hydrogen-Boost Operator's Manual I will admit that whenapplying the driving techniques in the manual there are very few times the brakes are used except in emergencies.
   As far as legality of coasting goes, I cannot say what the statutes require in every country but I can say that it would be pretty difficult to convict a driver of doing manually what the Toyota Prius does automatically, unless the Toyota Prius is outlawed in that country.
   Concerning Hydrogen-Boost fuel savings due to devices only, you will see in the update letter and many personal communications from Hydrogen-Boost that mileage increases from devices alone have been recorded at 20-25% and more.  If you want further documentation of these figures we can provide them.
   I hope I have addressed your concerns about the Hydrogen-Boost System and about the professionalism of our staff.  I would be available to address any other concerns you may have.  I believe that our Update Letter Addendum of 5-4-01 proves our commitment to safety and  willingness to admit when we are wrong.  If you think this response to your concerns should be shared with our readers let me know and I will publish it as another addendum and you too will be offered a $50 discount toward any Hydrogen-Boost System.  Please let me know your decision.

Appreciatively,

Fran
www.hydrogen-boost.com


Date:  Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:00:16 +0100
  From:  "Mort O Kelly" <trading@tinet.ie>
    To:  “Francis Albert Giroux" <h2boost@adelphia.net>

Hi Fran,
I hope you are well.  What on earth made up the 500lbs  luggage bringing
your son from college I find it hard to fathom the volume of such a weight
of general luggage.  I would still like to know the results of improvement
in fuel consumption after doing nothing but installing the device and
driving normally like an ordinary Joe.  I also would not be disappointed to
see my comments or emails (one on 5/4/01) to you or excerpts published and
to get other readers opinions on them.
Good luck,
Mort


Date:  Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:59:33 -0400
     From:  Francis Albert Giroux <h2boost@adelphia.net>
       To:  Mort O Kelly <trading@tinet.ie>
References:
           1




Dear Mort,

   I have published an addendum just for you and your comments.  Thanks for your consent.  As promised I offer you a $50 discount on any Hydrogen-Boost System you would like to order.  And as an added bonus I will extend for you only, the May sale price of $250 (minus your$50 discount) for our new compact system, for an extra month to give you time to round up the funds.
   I'd be happy to publish any of your future comments but if you'd like to join a forum where both our comments would be published daily you could join us at the Supercarbs group on Yahoo.  If you know of any other good disscussion groups concerning energy research please let me know and I'll pass the word.
   Also if you'd like detailed information on Hydrogen-Boost test results including results of device only improvements, you can open the attached document that was originally sent with our June newsletter and is also attached here.
   Thanks again for your comments.

Appreciatively,

Fran
www.hydrogen-boost


     Date:  Fri, 01 Jun 2001 12:12:18 -0400
     From:  Francis Albert Giroux <h2boost@adelphia.net>
       To:    Mort O Kelly <trading@tinet.ie>


Dear Mort,

   Sorry, I forgot to answer your first question.  500 pounds?  Actually now
that I think about it The five hundred pounds did not include my son so you can
add another 150 pounds to that.  To answer your question, books, clothes,
bedding, stereo equipment, computer, CDs, study materials, etc.  I removed the
rear seat in the Saab and filled the whole car except the front seat so full
that the bike had to be carried outside.

Fran

Hydrogen-Boost July Newsletter:  7-2-01

 

Mileage Possibilities and Efficiency Calculations


   With reports of 200 miles per gallon achievements with the Pogue carburetor and with George Wiseman’s experimental vehicle, I decided to do some calculations on my Saab 9000 to see what the greatest possibility of mileage actually is for this vehicle.  I also wanted to know the efficiency of the vehicle at each speed.
   To calculate the greatest possibly mileages I took the observations from the coasting tests done last winter.  To get those up to date, who didn’t read about the coasting tests I will explain what was done.  The original coasting tests were designed to compare the drag coefficients for the Saab at various speeds and tire pressures.  Coasting times were recorded for each of the following tire pressures: 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, and 15 psi.  The amount of time it took to slow down from each of the higher speeds of the following series to the lower speed of each series was recorded:  65-55 mph, 55-45 mph, 45-35 mph, 35-25 mph, 25-15 mph. 
   With the speed and weight of the vehicle (1500 kg with fuel and driver) the amount of kinetic energy at each speed was calculated using this formula: KE=1/2MV2 where M=mass and V=velocity or speed of the vehicle.  Results were as follows:

Speed in mph    Kinetic Energy in Kilo Joules
   75            833.3
   65            626.4
   55            448.2
   45            300.0
   35            181.5   
   25            92.6
   15            33.3
   With the coasting times for each series of speeds, and the average speed for each series, the distance covered during each coasting time was calculated with the following formula:  Distance = average speed times elapsed time.  Distances traveled (miles) during each testis reported here:

Speed                 Distance covered
interval    60psi        50psi        40psi        30psi       20psi        15psi
65-55        .2500        .2083        .2000        .1667       .1417        .125   
55-45        .2361        .2292        .2222        .2083       .1736        .1458
45-35        .2442        .2333        .2388        .2167       .1889        .1556
35-25        .2333        .2250        .2208        .2000       .1583        .1292
25-15        .1944        .1722        .1667        .1583       .1222        .1000
   Further calculations were made for the 50 psi tire pressure.  First the kinetic energy depleted during each test was calculated, then the energy depleted per mile and the miles per gallon (assuming 130,000 BTUs per gallon or 137,150 kJ/gal)

Speed interval     Energy depleted    Distance covered     energy per mile    mpg
   75-65    (estimated)    206.9 kJ        .1850            1118.4    122.6
   65-55            178.2    kJ        .2083            855.5        160
   55-45            148.2 kJ        .2292            645.6        214.6
   45-35            118.5 kJ        .2333            517.0        270
   35-25              88.5kJ        .2250            393.3        348.7
   25-15              59.25 kJ        .1722            344.1        398.6
   15-0 (estimated)      35.6    kJ        .1220            291.8        432.2

Upon close examination of the above information we see that if the motor train of the Saab was 100% efficient at converting the energy in the gasolineto motion down the road, then it would be possible to drive between 160 and400 miles per gallon.
Efficiency Calculations

   Comparing the actual tested mileages to the possible mileages we can calculate the efficiencies at each speed and under the test conditions.  Below are the results of these comparisons.

30 mph city driving test before installation of Hydrogen-Boost    
15 mpg tested versus 348.7 possible = 4.3% efficient

30 mph city driving test reported by EPA
22 mpg versus 348.7 possible = 6.3% efficient

30 mph city driving with Hydrogen-Boost installed
33 mpg versus 348.7 possible = 9.4% efficient

30 mph city driving with Hydrogen-Boost and porpoising technique
44 mpg versus 348.7 possible = 12.6% efficient

45 mph test driving on test track with Hydrogen-Boost and porpoising technique
50 mpg versus 242.3 (average of 40 mph and 50 mph mileages) possible = 20.6%

60 mph highway driving with Hydrogen-Boost and porpoising technique
47 mpg versus 160 mpg possible = 29.4% efficient

70 mph highway driving test before installation of Hydrogen-Boost
25 mpg versus 122.6 (estimated) possible = 20.4% efficient

70 mph highway driving reported by EPA
29 mpg versus 122.6 (estimated) possible = 23.7% efficient

70 mpg highway driving with Hydrogen-Boost
40 mpg vs 122.6 (estimated) possible = 32.6% efficient

Conclusions

   Conclusions that can be drawn from the information above include the following:

   1.  A 200 mile per gallon test drive is indeed possible, with a 50% or more efficient vehicle.
   2.  The Saab obtaining the EPA reported mileages is 6.3% efficient during city driving and 23.7% efficient during highway driving.
   3.  The Saab before the installation of Hydrogen-Boost tested out at 4.3% efficient in the city and 20.4% on the highway.
   4.  With Hydrogen-Boost installed the Saab became 9.4% efficient in the city and 32.6% efficient on the highway.
   5.  With Hydrogen-Boost and porpoising technique the Saab becomes 16.8% efficient in the city and 29.4% on the highway.
   6.  Using the porpoising technique is good for efficiency at low average speed but doesn’t do much for highway driving, especially at 70 mph.
   7.  The Saab engine and drive train are most efficient at high power output.
   8.  The most efficient combination for a vehicle would be a small engine running at high power output, with Hydrogen-Boost, in a vehicle that carries numerous passengers.
   9.  The reported average efficiency of a vehicle with an internal combustion engine of 15% is quite accurate but is only the average efficiency, which ranges from 6.3% city and 23.7% highway for the Saab at the EPA mileages.
   10.  Recalculating these results using the figures obtained at 30 psi tire pressure yields efficiencies of 5.6% city and 21.0% highway for the Saab at the EPA mileages.
  

Detailed Hydrogen-Boost Test Results

   The following are detailed test results that have previously only been published on the Yahoo supercarbs group and the Yahoo economynow group.  I thought that these results would be beneficial to prospective customers in evaluating the Hydrogen-Boost system as a product that might meet their particular needs in each individual case.  We have recently included these results as an additional page on our web site at www.hydrogen-boost.com for your reference.  We have also updated our links to other web sites of similar interest and to some of our competitors.  Please visit our web site often to keep track of our progress in the energy field.  We plan on adding another web page at our site that will contain all back issues of our newsletter.    

Hydrogen-Boost Test Results

   In the charts below the numbers in the body of the charts represent actual tested average fuel mileages achieved under the conditions represented at the top of the column and with the equipment listed at the left of each row. 
The column for test track is for the results obtained on 50 miles test drives on a 8 miles loop here in town where the speed limit is 40-45 mph and road is suburban in character.  Test drives on this "test track" included using all the driving techniques in the Hydrogen-Boost operator's manual and  newsletter updates.  All vehicles were standard shift 5 speed except the Hyundai was only a 4 speed.  Some testing was during the cold winter, some during last fall, and some this spring.  Each row of the chart indicates the results with the indicated equipment.
The following are the meanings of the abbreviations in the first column:
  H2 - Hydrogen-Boost gas generator
  tires - tire pressure was increases to 40 or 50 psi
  heat - a simple fuel pre-heater was installed
  oil - Excel Plus engine treatment or synthetic oil
  plugs - Platinum tip spark plus installed
  EFIE - Eagle Research EFIE device installed and adjusted to 350 milivolts
  driving - all the driving techniques in operator's manual were implemented
  Highway 70 means that the test was driven on the Interstate Highway (fairly hilly) at an average of 70 mph
  Highway 55 means that the test was driven on the Interstate Highway (fairly hilly) at an average of 55 mph
  On two charts there is a reported number between the Highway 70 and Highway 55 columns.  These tests were done at an average speed of 60-65 mph

Other test results are available on the web site at www.hydrogen-boost.com

1987 Saab 9000 Turbo        Highway 70      Highway 55     City    Test Track

Stock                                        25                                      15

EPA                                       29                                        21

H2, tires, heat                            40                43.76              33

H2, tires, heat,                                  47.8                              44                50
   driving   

1990 Hyundai Excel         Highway 70       Highway 55     City     Test track

Stock                                    32.8                                    28

EPA                                       33                                  28   

H2, tires                                                    44.5   

H2, tires, heat                          39            45.45                                58.5

H2, tires, heat, oil,                          48.9           
   plugs, EFIE

H2, tires, heat, oil,                                                            48            58.5
   plugs, driving

1995 Neon                Highway70       Highway 55     City    Test Track

Stock                                35                                      28

EPA                                 38                                    29

H2, tires                            40.3                53.4            33.25

H2, tires, heat, oil,             51.1                55.1            58.8            68
   plugs, driving

Note:  some of these figures are now out of date.  Up to date figures are reported on the detailed test results page.


Hydrogen-Boost Newsletter 8-01-01

Following are excerpts from our research diary:

7-14-01
Speed vs Efficiency

   Today I got the 1994 Hyundai Excel (into which we installed the 4 speed transmission from the 1990 Excel) running.  I filled up with gas and drove around town until there was no more rough acceleration.  I attempted to rig up a fuel flow meter in the following manner.  I bought a 1/8” tee and some rubber hose from the hardware store. In the fuel line just before my fuel heater (tubing around the radiator hose)I spliced in the tee and ran the side tap into a vacuum/pressure gauge. I expected when opening the throttle while the engine was running that the pressure gauge would register a lower pressure, because of the Bernoulli principle and the configuration of the small tee.  The gauge was messed up anyway so it was a bad test.  After disconnecting the gauge I sucked on its hose with my mouth and the vacuum part worked fine.  but when I blew into the hose the gauge needle went backwards from the direction of the pressure readings.  So a regular pressure gauge might work but this combination gauge doesn’t.
   I thought I might just use the intake vacuum as an indication of the fuel flow because I assume that the EFI system adds fuel in proportion to the amount of air going into the intake.  Actually the absolute pressure (30 inches minus the indicated vacuum in inches) would be proportional to the fuel flow. 
   With these assumptions I took a test drive with the Hyundai Excel with no modifications other than installation of a low temperature fuel heater.  The purpose of the test drive was to record the vacuum readings at various constant speeds and then to calculate the estimated mileage and fuel flows based on the recorded gas mileage figures of the Stock Hyundai and the Hyundai equipped with Hydrogen-Boost.  The mileages were calculated by multiplying the reciprocal of the absolute pressure by the respective base number achieved by dividing the actual tested mileage at 70 mph (for the stock Hyundai) by the reciprocal of the absolute pressure at that speed. For the Hydrogen-Boost equipped Hyundai the figures are based on the actual55 mph mileage figures.  It must be noted here that the figures for the Hydrogen-Boost equipped Hyundai will not be exactly correct for the whole chart because they are based on the vacuum reading of the stock Hyundai rather than the Hydrogen-Boost equipped Hyundai (which will be done at a later date).  The reported vacuum readings are average readings of two runs taken in opposite directions on the same stretch of road.

Speed    Vacuum     Absolute Pressure    reciprocal of .    Hyundai Stock      w/ Hydrogen
MPH    (inches Hg)    (inches Hg)         Abs. Press    Miles/gallon      Miles/gallon
20    18.25        11.75            .0853242        50       65.7
30    17.75        12.25            .0816326        47.8        62.9
35    17.25        12.75            .0784313        45.9        60.4
40    16.5          13.5             .0740740        43.4       57.0
45    15.75        14.25            .0701754        41.1        54.0
50    15.0          15.0             .0666666        39.1       51.3
55    14.25        15.75            .0634920        37.2        48.9
60    13.75        16.25            .0615384        36.0        47.4
70    12.25        17.75            .0563380        33.0        43.4
80*    9.25        20.75            .0481927        28.2
90*    5.75        24.25            .0412371        24.2
100* (est.) 0        30.0           .0333333        19.5
* these readings were taken the following day after this report was written

Following is a graph of speed versus vacuum.

Conclusions: 
   1.  With this vehicle the slower you go in high (4th)gear the greater the gas mileage.  However this is not true for every vehicle.  It so happens that at 20 mph this Hyundai still ran smoothly and without bucking.  Most vehicles will not run this smoothly in high gear at 20 mph.  There are a good reason for this.  This vehicle is geared sop low in high (4th) gear that at 20 mph the rpms are still up around 1150.  Most vehicles would have to be in a lower gear than the highest gear to be able to run at 20 mph.  
   2.  You will notice at the lower end of the chart the mileage doesn’t improve as you slow down as much as it does at midrange.  Between 20-30 mph there is a difference of 2.2 mpg for the stock Hyundai but between 30-40 mph there is a 4.4 mpg difference.  This seeming loss of improvement as you slow down is due to the fuel used in the engine just to keep it running, which at 20 mph is a greater proportion of the total fuel used than at the higher speeds.
   3.  As expected you will also notice in the chart that as you increase speed the difference in mileage goes down as well. Between 40-50 mph the difference is 4.3 mpg, between 50-60 mph the difference is 3.1 and between 60-70 mph the difference is 3 mpg. 
   4.  This latter trend will presumably eventually reverse itself because of the greatly increased wind resistance at higher speeds as well as the inability of the Hyundai engine to reach RPM’s higher than about 6000.  I would expect that the mileage at 80 mph would be around 28 mpg, at 90 mph about 22 mpg and at 95 mph about 19.5 mpg if the car would go that fast.  Actually at top speed (95 mph is the car will redline in high gear) the throttle would be wide open and that would make the fuel flow such that the gas mileage would be 19.5 mpg.  I would expect the top speed to be around 95 mph.
  
   Here I would like to propose a new mileage calculation that would be a good indicator of a vehicle’s true efficiency.  Before I present it, let me introduce a couple concepts.  If you were looking for an efficient car you would also want it to get you where you wanted to go in a reasonable amount of time.  So if you found a car that would get 100 miles per gallon you might not want it if it would only get 100 miles per gallon at 20 miles per hour.  So fuel economy is not always the best indicator of efficiency.  Now let’s say you wanted a car that could do over 100 miles per hour but at that speed most cars could not get over 10 miles per gallon.  What you really want is a car that gets good gas mileage at the speeds you are likely to drive.  That is why EPA reports city and highway mileage figures.  But these do not tell the whole story. 
   For instance two vehicles may report the same highway mileage by EPA (say 20 mpg) but one may be more efficient than the other.  One vehicle may get 25 miles per gallon at 75 miles per hour and the other may only get 15 mpg at the same speed.  What is really a good indicator of efficiency is mpg times mph or if you wanted to really get scientific the units would be square miles per gallon hour or mi2/gal.hr.  Let’s look at a couple examples.
   My 1971 Porsche 914 got 40 mpg at 40 mph for a mi2/gal.hr figure of 1600, but at 60 mph the car would get 35 mpg for a mi2/gal.hr figure of 2100.  At 70 mph it got 30 mpg, again 2100 mi2/gal.hr.  A car’s greatest mi2/gal.hr figure would indicate its efficiency.
   My Saab 9000 Turbo with Hydrogen-Boost gets 40 mpg at 70 mph for 2800 mi2/gal.hr, but it gets 44 mph at 55 mph for only 2420 mi2/gal.hr. 
   My Hyundai gets 39 mpg at 70 mph for 2730 mi2/gal.hr, but about 48.9 mpg at 55 mph for 2690 mi2/gal.hr.
   My Neon with Hydrogen-Boost gets 51.1 mpg at 70 mph for 3577 mi2/gal.hr, and 55.1 mpg at 55 mph, for 3031 mi2/gal.hr. 
   Comparing the vehicles above you would think that the Hyundai and the Saab have about the same efficiency but when you get all the information on the Saab you find out that it gets around 36 mpg at 80 mph for 2880 mi2/gal.hr and actually the highest rating is at 75 mph where it gets 38.7 mpg for 2903 mi2/gal.hr.  Comparing this to the Hyundai’s best rating of 2730 mi2/gal.hr, you see a more efficient vehicle even though it is larger and heavier and has a larger engine, plus it gets lower mileage at speeds less than 65 mph.  Looking at the EPA figures of 22 city, 29 highway for the Saab and 28 city, 33 highway for the Hyundai, you would never call the Saab the more efficient vehicle.  When you consider that the Saab carries five comfortably while the Hyundai carries four uncomfortably, you really understand the efficiency of the Saab.  The Neon however has both vehicles beat even if you considered it a four passenger vehicle which it is not.
   This mi2/gal.hr indicator of efficiency obviously favors those vehicles that get good gas mileage at high speeds and those of you who never go on trips and spend all your time in the city, would not want to use this indicator when you went to choose a new car.  But it does go to show you that a small car with a small engine is not always the most efficient, especially when the transmission is not geared for highway driving, as was the case of the Hyundai.  If this vehicle was equipped with the optional 5 speed transmission it would be competing with the Neon instead of the Saab.

7-15-01

Heat vs Efficiency

   Yesterday we analyzed the intake vacuum readings at various constant speeds and drew conclusions regarding the effect vehicle speed has on fuel economy.  Today I repeated the vacuum readings with the engine and fuel heater (1/4” copper fuel line wrapped around the radiator hose) heated up to normal operating temperature.  Yesterday’s tests were done at normal engine temperature but today’s tests were done after powering the Hyundai down the interstate highway at 95 miles per hour to get the engine fully warmed.  Also after letting the engine cool for two hours readings were made with a cool engine and fuel heater. I noticed that yesterday’s readings were indeed a good average reading.  Today’s vacuum readings showed a wide range of intake vacuum for a given constant vehicle speed.  Following are the cold and hot engine intake vacuum readings and their respective calculated gas mileages based on the same calculations we used yesterday:

Speed        Vacuum cold    Vacuum hot    Mileage cold    Mileage warm    Mileage hot
mph            inches Hg        inches Hg            mpg                 mpg                 mpg
20            17.0                  19.0                    45.1                                        53.2
30            16.5                  18.5                    43.4                                        50.9   
35            16.25                18.25                  42.6                                        49.9
40            16.0                  18.0                    41.8                                        48.8
45            15.5      warm    17.5                   40.4                                        46.9
50                        15.0      17.0                                           39.0                45.1
55                        14.25    16.25                                         37.2                42.6
60                        13.75    15.25                                         36.0                39.7
70                        12.25    14.0                                         33.0               36.6
80                        9.25                                                     28.2
90                        5.75                                                     24.2
100(est)                0.0                                                         19.5

   Notice that there is about 2 inches Hg difference in vacuum between a cold engine and a hot one (This is in the summer.  Imagine how much bigger the difference would be in the winter.).  This may not seem like much of a difference but by looking at the difference in mileage caused by the difference in vacuum you can see that there is a 15-18% increase in mileage of a hot engine/drive train over a cold one.  This is partly due to the better efficiency of the engine when it is warm and the fluids in the drive train are less viscous, but the better mileage is also due to the effect of the fuel heater assisting the vaporization of the injected fuel.      
   It should be apparent to all that to get good fuel economy it is important to combine trips and make your transportation in fewer longer trips instead of more shorter ones.  This is just one of the valuable driving tips in the Hydrogen-Boost operator’s manual.  If this one tip can increase your mileage by 15%, think how much improvement you could get with the implementation of all the recommendations in the manual.  It is not hard to understand how we can achieve a 100% increase in city gas mileage over what is reported by the EPA.  The accumulative effect of the injection of Hydrogen, heating of the fuel, increase in tire pressure, and all the other driving tips, can most likely give you a tremendous increase in gas mileage as well.  Why not consider implementing the Hydrogen-Boost system on your vehicles and reap the rewards of a proven technology.  Visit  "http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/" for more details.

7-16-01
Accessories vs. Efficiency

   No study of automobile efficiency would be complete without the study of the effects of the use of accessories on the gas mileage of a vehicle.  After the previous two studies, using intake manifold vacuum as a gauge for gas mileage it is proper here to continue the use of this valuable tool in assessing the effects of the use of accessories.
   Today I got my air conditioning system refilled with Freon137 which I must say is a rip off.  It used to be that you could get a charge of Freon for $20-$30US.  Today it cost me $100 to charge the system of a Hyundai Excel.  I believe that the reason for the high cost is the political ties that Dupont has which caused the false science and environmental terrorists to outlaw the old CFC based Freon for which the patent had expired.  Their theory about CFC’s eating a hole in the ozone layer was preposterous.  CFCs have a molecular weight approaching200 which makes it almost as heavy as Radon.  CFCs have no chance of floating up into our ionosphere in air which has an average molecular weightof around 30.  That would be like saying that a chunk of iron could float to the top of a pot of water.  Sure there are wind currents that could possibly throw some heavy gas molecules up high like a turbulent current in our pot of water could pick up some fine iron filings from the bottom of the pot and send them to the surface.  But to say that these CFCs could float up there long enough to degrade and release chlorine which would degrade the ozone is unrealistic.  Enough about politically incorrect true science.
   When idling in the parking lot I activated the air conditioner and was shocked by the effect on the intake manifold vacuum.  My curiosity got the best of me and I decided to test the effect of other accessories on the vacuum reading.  The following chart shows the vacuum readings at idle with the indicated accessories engaged.

Accessory            Vacuum (inches Hg)
None                     20.5
Fan on high            20.0
Light on low           20.0
Lights on high         19.75
Fan and lights         19.25
Fan and AC           16.5
Lights Fan and AC 15.75

   Measurements were also taken at 40 mph and 60 mph where the addition of the fan and AC reduced the vacuum by a total of 3 inches Hg rather than the 4 inches difference at idle reported above. 
   Calculating the gas mileage difference evident by a drop in vacuum of 3 inches Hg, revealed a difference of 8.4 mpg (36.6 mpg vs. 45.0 mpg) at 40 mph and a difference of 6.5 mpg (32.5 mpg vs. 39.0 mpg) at 60mph.  This represents a 23% improvement at 40 mph and a 20% improvement at 60 mph when the AC and accompanying fan are turned off.  If you consider the use of the fan, AC, and lights, at idle the improvement in fuel consumption is 50% when these accessories are shut off.
   At idle when a Hydrogen-Boost gas generator was connected and running at 20 amps, without the gas hose installed, the vacuum decreased by 0.5 inch Hg.  When the gas hose was inserted into the intake assembly between the air filter and the throttle body, this decrease in vacuum was ¾ recovered.  I would be nice to be able to use the intake vacuum as an indicator of any fuel efficiency improvements due to the addition of Hydrogen-Boost but unfortunately this cannot be done.  Since Hydrogen-Boost does not decrease fuel consumption by decreasing the power requirements of the engine and thus reducing the air flow into the intake, vacuum readings will not indicate the improvements caused by the addition of hydrogen.  Hydrogen-Boost, by enabling the fuel to more completely burn in the combustion chamber, causes a decrease of oxygen in the exhaust stream.  This is interpreted by the oxygen sensor and EFI computer as a mixture that is too rich.  The EFI computer adjusts the amount of fuel injected relative to the amount of air taken in.  This will not necessarily increase the vacuum in the intake manifold, even though it appears that some increase of vacuum was evident when the hydrogen gas line was inserted into the intake air stream. 
   Just as a side note let me give you some evidence that the leaning of the fuel air mix is indeed caused by the Hydrogen-Boost system. Those of you who have installed the Hydrogen-Boost system on a vehicle equipped with EFI may have noticed that in the morning when the engine is cool (after shutting down the engine the day before while it was hot) the engine may not start as quickly as it used to.  My Neon does this but my Saab always took about three second to start so no change was noticed on the Saab.  My theory about the reason for the delayed start on some vehicles equipped with Hydrogen-Boost is this.  When a warm engine with Hydrogen-Boost is shut down the EFI computer remembers the fuel mixture setting and when starting the engine the next morning it tries to use that same fuel mixture it last used (warm engine) which is too lean for the cold engine.  My experience is that to reset the EFI to the default fuel mixture setting, I need to crank the starter momentarily then shut the key off, then try to start the engine.  I believe on some vehicles this procedure of turning the key off while the starter is cranking is what resets the EFI to the default setting, which of course is quite rich compared to the Hydrogen-Boost assisted warm engine operation setting.

7-18-01

   Two days in a row now I have had questions emailed to me about water in the exhaust caused by the Hydrogen-Boost system so it is time for me to address the question in the form of a report that I can cut and paste when asked again.  So here we go.

   Octane, a typical gasoline molecule has a chemical formula of C8H18.  When combusted in an internal combustion engine the chemical equation is:
   C8H18 +  12.5 O2 = 8CO2 + 9H20

   As you can see over half of the exhaust gases are water molecules (H2O).  In a typical vehicle at 60 miles per hour getting 30 mile per gallon the engine is burning up gasoline at the rate of two gallons per hour.  Gasoline weighs about 3 kilograms per gallon so that typical vehicle is burning up 6 kilograms of gasoline per hour.  If Octane is the typical molecule of gasoline then each 114 grams of octane (molecular weight of octane is114 grams) produces 162 grams of water (9 times the molecular weight of water, 18 grams).  So every hour the typical vehicle produces 8.5 kilograms of water.  That equates to 18.75 pounds or 2.3 gallons of water.  The exhaust also contains 18.5 kilograms or 40.7 pounds of Carbon Dioxide, every hour of driving, but that is not the focus here.  Let’s focus on the 2.3 gallons of water contained in the exhaust of a typical vehicle.
   Now if we could somehow decrease the amount of fuel used by 20%, which is no great feat for Hydrogen-Boost, we could eliminate 0.46 gallons or 3.7 pounds or 59 ounces of water every hour from the exhaust.  Now if the Hydrogen-Boost system is producing gas at its maximum rate it would inject into the intake 120 liters of gas per hour.  When this gas is combusted the water produced weighs 64.3 grams or 2.3 ounces.  So if Hydrogen-Boost is saving 20% on the fuel bill it is eliminating 59 ounces of water by injecting 2.3 ounces of water in the form of gas.  That is a net reduction of 56.7 ounces of water every hour.
   So for those of you that are concerned that the hydrogen gas injected by Hydrogen-Boost will cause all kinds of water in your exhaust, relax.  The Hydrogen-Boost system will reduce the amount of water in your exhaust about 25 times as much as it injects.  And that is using a very conservative fuel savings figure of only 20%.
   Even if Hydrogen-Boost did add water vapor into the exhaust and didn’t give you any savings at all, it would only be an increase of 0.7% of what is already being produced in the engine by the combustion of the gasoline..

7-19-01

The Effects of Station Parking Position on Apparent Gas Mileage
and Warnings Against the Use of Short Test Drives for Reliable Results

   Yesterday I did three 43.2 mile test drives with the Hyundai equipped with various configurations of Hydrogen-Boost.  One was with two hydrogen gas generators operating (however most of the gas was escaping through a leak in the hose connection)(36.9 mpg).  One trip was with no hydrogen gas generators operating (inadvertent)(41.7 mpg). The third test was with one Hydrogen gas generator operating (35.7 mpg).  The results seemed to indicate that the more hydrogen gas generators that were operating and drawing 30 amps each, the worse the gas mileage was.  Certainly the vacuum gauge readings would support this since each hydrogen gas generator drawing 30 amps lowered the vacuum by about 3/4 inches Hg at idle and the vacuum reading during cruising was also lower than with no gas generator operating.   The strange thing about these tests is that all three were considerable improvements over the tests done the previous day with no hydrogen gas generator installed.  This presented a problem, especially considering that all three tests were done by filling up at the same filling station with the car facing East, causing the car to lean slightly to the right because of the slight grade at the pump. 
   The problem was to figure out why the three tests yesterday were all higher than the 33.0 mpg base line test which was consistent with EPA’s reported highway mileage for this vehicle.  The solution, discovered today, was the position at the pumps during fillings.  Let me explain.  Yesterday, when doing the tests I was quite careful to always park in the same position facing the same direction and filling the tank to the top of the filler pipe.  One time yesterday however, when I arrived at the station, my regular spot was occupies with a vehicle and the spot at the next pump was available.  The slope looked quite similar so I figured that it would be okay to fill up at the other pump, since they both leaned the car to the right.  
   Today I revisited the two pumps, filling up first at the pump to the right (which actually had a slightly lower tilt angle) then going immediately to the other pump and filling up again.  At the second pump the tank took an additional 0.35 gallons, which was actually more than Iexpected, considering the tilt angle was almost indistinguishable.
   Returning to yesterday’s calculations and adjusting for the difference in fill-up volumes the test result became the following:

with two hydrogen gas generators and a leak        36.9 mpg
with no hydrogen gas generators             31.2 mpg
with one hydrogen gas generator           49.1 mpg
   Today I repeated the test drive with two hydrogen gas generators operating and using some of the driving techniques in the operator’s manual.  Porpoising was not used but drafting was done behind a truck for about twelve miles and behind a sport utility vehicle for about ten miles.  The result was a highway (70 mph) mileage of 56.3 mpg.  Even if a 0.20 gallon adjustment is made for thermal expansion of the fuel the mileage still calculated at 45.0 mpg.  This is either a 70.3% or a 36.4% increase over the baseline test of 33.0 mpg.  Tomorrow’s refill (having filled today with a warm tank) will determine how much adjustment is appropriate.  The last time I did a calculation for adjustment for thermal expansion I was refilling at 35 degrees Fahrenheit after filling up at 80 degrees the afternoon before.  Today’s temperature before the test run was about 80 degrees so the adjustment will be somewhat less than 0.20 gallons.
   For those that who haven’t encountered thermal expansion, let me explain.  The auxiliary fuel heater on the Hyundai is a copper tube wrapped about eight times around the radiator hose.  This type of heater has been observed to heat the fuel as high as 130-160 degrees Fahrenheit.  On my Neon this fuel only goes to the fuel injector rail.  On the Hyundai there is a fuel pressure regulator at the end of the fuel injector rail that allows some of the fuel to return to the tank.  Heated fuel returning to the tank will obviously heat up the fuel in the tank, which causes it to expand.  The size of the tank also expands but not as much as the fuel.  The last time I checked the amount of thermal expansion of the fuel I filled the tank after a couple 40 mile test drives.  The next morning after a cool night (35 degrees Fahrenheit) I drove less than a mile to the same station and filled up again with 0.25 gallons.  The gas is took to drive the two miles back and forth from the station took approximately.05 gallons, leaving 0.2 gallons for thermal expansion and/or contraction. 

   All of the minor adjustments due to parking position and thermal expansion would not be significant if the test drive was 400 miles rather than 40 miles.  This should be a warning to keep running records of all mileage calculations, including notes on the driving conditions during each tank full.  The longer the test drive the more accurate the test as long as the conditions during the test drive are consistent.  Mostof us, however, cannot afford the time nor the fuel to just go out and drive just for the purpose of doing a test drive.  Even fewer of us can afford to go out and do a 400 mile test drive without having a place to go.


New Hydrogen-Boost Design

   It has always been our plan to build a Hydrogen-Boost unit that is explosion proof and easier to refill than our present design. Prices for injection molding of some interior and exterior components are being received and compared and at least one company in the US has agreed to weld up some prototypes which will include a welded stainless steel top and bottom rather than the rubber of the unit pictured on our web site. As soon as the new prototypes are available we will picture them on the website.  The price will remain the same the plans will remain as they are with the rubber top and bottom components.  The new units will not be able to be disassembled to inspect the design without destroying the unit. Hopefully this will decrease the danger of copycat fly-by-night manufacturers and it should also eliminate the need to require retail customers to sign licensing agreements.  This should streamline our marketing and hopefully allow us to get them into retail establishments.

That’s all for now, see you next month.

Happy motoring,

Fran Giroux

www.hydrogen-boost.com

September Newsletter Hydrogen-Boost

   The Optimum Fuel Heater

   This month I built and installed a new fuel heater for my Plymouth Neon and the Hyundai Excel.  I have been experimenting with a low temperature fuel heater (1/4” copper pipe wrapped around the radiator hose) and with a high temperature fuel heater (1/8” copper pipe wrapped around the exhaust pipe), and with a combination of both with a mixing valve to regulate the temperature.  I have determined that the best temperature for the fuel is the highest temperature possible without vaporization, which causes the engine to sputter and stall.  This vaporization occurs between 220 degrees and 230 degrees on the Hyundai which is the only vehicle that I had the mixed system installed on.  I had experienced vapor problems with the Neon from 210 to 230 degrees.  I have been driving the Hyundai with the mixed system so that fuel temperature was 160 to 190 degrees and had no problems. 
   I wanted to design a fuel heater system that was automatic, passive, simple and optimal.  A system that uses no electrical energy and needs no adjustment would be best.  A temperature of 180 degrees is desired.  So with these requirements in mind I came up with the following idea.  Since the engine coolant thermostat circulates engine coolant at around 180 degrees, a heat exchanger in the engine coolant circulation system would meet the requirements for temperature, passivity, and automatic (once the engine is up to operating temperature).  To make the heater simple I designed a heat exchanger to fit inside the top radiator hose, where the coolant is the hottest and closest to location where the heated fuel is needed (the injector rail).  This heating system is now available at the Hydrogen-Boost website and there is information about it on the technical information page. 
   After installation of my two heaters, the temperature sensor was left in the system so that I could monitor the temperature of the fuel long enough to insure no problems.  The heaters work like a charm.  The temperature tops out at around 180 degrees and there is nothing for the driver to do to regulate the temperature.  Everything is automatic.  The only drawback is that the fuel is not heated during the first five minutes of a drive because the engine coolant is not circulated until the engine warms up.  This is now even more reason to combine your short trips into longer ones.
   You might wonder why I want a fuel heater on my vehicle.  Many fuel vaporization systems have included heating the intake air before mixing it with cool fuel.  I think this is the most inefficient way to accomplish fuel vaporization.  When you heat the intake air you can’t get as much air into the engine because hot air is expanded.  This decreases the maximum power of your engine.  Hot intake air is not really efficient at vaporizing the fuel because it is difficult to get enough heat into the air to carry the energy required to vaporize the fuel.  And it is difficult to get that hot air to be in contact with the cool fuel long enough to vaporize it.  Let’s face it 1/50 of a second is not very long.  It is much better to heat the fuel to high temperature, under pressure, so that when it is injected into the intake stroke of partial vacuum most of it will actually vaporize.  This system allows full density air to be drawn in so that maximum power can be maintained.  The more the fuel vaporizes the more efficiently it combusts and less is require to generate the same amount of power.  Couple that with the addition of Hydrogen which spreads the flame faster during combustion, and you have yourself an efficient system to improve the internal combustion engine.  
Water Mist Injection
August 24, 2001

   Since I was a teenager back in the 1960’s I have wanted to install a water injection system on my vehicle.  I was always looking for a way to inject the water with a simple device that would produce a very fine mist.  Last year I tried to add water to my Hydrogen injection system but the water went into the PCV line as drops instead of a mist.  Last winter I discovered an inexpensive device that produces the mist I desired.  It is a 110 volt AC unit so a small inverted is require to run the device.  I bought one of these devices for testing and modified it for the water injection application.  Testing so for on the system is encouraging but not completed.  So far there has been no case of decreased mileage and some periods of neutral or modest gains.  However my test at Highway 55 mph cruising achieved 55 mpg where only 50 mpg had been achieved previously with the Hydrogen-Boost system on this Vehicle, a 1994 Hyundai Excel 4-speed with EPA highway mileage figure of 33 mpg.  The device seems to increase throttle response (instantaneous acceleration) but further testing shows that hard acceleration for 20 seconds produces either a cooling of the combustion chamber or a lack of high volume vapor production at high RPM’s.  This is evident in the slower 0-60 mph acceleration times in the report below.  This may be overcome by a large (two gallon or more) vapor reservoir in the vapor line going to the intake.  Or the cause may be too much vapor (for maximum power) which can be corrected by a restriction in the vapor line.  Experiments on these concepts will be done later.

Acceleration Tests
8-29-01
  
   Today I did over 25 test runs of 0-60 mph acceleration with various combinations of devices installed and operating on the Hyundai Excel.  Each combination of devices was tested four times on a section of road in rural New York, two times in each direction.  The slowest time in each direction was discarded and the two remaining times (fastest time for each direction) were averaged.  The chart below shows the average 0-60 mph time for the indicated combination of devices.

Cold fuel no devices    19.35
Hot fuel no devices    18.9
all other tests were done with hot fuel (160-195 degrees Fahrenheit)
stock            18.9
with hydrogen        18.55
with mist        19.45
with mist and EFIE    22.3
with hydrogen & mist    19.45
with hydrogen, EFIE    19.75
with hydrogen, mist and EFIE  20.8   


in table form for easier comparison the data looks like this:
Cold        Hot        w/Hydrogen    w/EFIE & Hydrogen
19.35        18.9        18.55        19.75
with mist    19.45        19.45        20.8
with EFIE                    22.3
Comparing these numbers by dividing the stock acceleration time by each of the test times give us a rough estimation of the increase or decrease in available long term maximum horsepower with each set of devices operation.  The following is a summary:
Heated fuel when compare to cold fuel achieved an increase in power of 2.6%
Hydrogen injection with heated fuel achieved an increase in power of 4.7%
Hydrogen and mist with heated fuel encountered a decrease in power of 0.5%
Heated fuel with mist alone encountered a decrease in power of 0.5%
Heated fuel with mist, Hydrogen, and EFIE encountered a decrease of 7.0%
Heated fuel with mist and EFIE and without hydrogen encountered a decrease of 11.4%.
Generally heating the fuel increased the horsepower.
Generally adding hydrogen increased the horsepower.
Generally adding the mist increased instantaneous available hp but decreased long term available horsepower.
Use of the EFIE device always decreases available horsepower compared to the same setup without the EFIE device. 

EFIE stands for Electronic Fuel Injection Enhancer offered by Eagle Research.

New Hydrogen Cell Design

   This weekend I am traveling to North Carolina to set up production of our new production model hydrogen gas generator.  The functioning design inside the cell is exactly the same as the units previously sold and pictured on our web site www.hydrogen-boost.com but the top and bottom of the cell will be welded stainless steel for greater durability and hopefully less maintenance.  I will be enlisting the services of master machinist and fellow fuel efficiency experimenter Sam Dabbs, who has achieved 60 mpg with his Geo Metro which is a 20% increase over EPA mileage figures.  While in North Carolina, Sam and I have set a goal of achieving a repeatable 80 mpg with his Geo Metro and a maximum efficiency test run of 100 mpg.  I will report next month on our results.


Hydrogen-Boost Newsletter

October 1, 2001

September 4, 2001        Geo Metro Tests

   It’s been a long weekend in Zebulon, North Carolina.  Sam Dabbs and I have installed and tested the Hydrogen-Boost System on his 1990 Geo Metro XFI, 3 cylinder 1000 cc, 5-speed.  I had made arrangements with Sam to drive down and do this testing in hopes that he would become a manufacturer and dealer for the Hydrogen-Boost System.  Based on previous experience I set a goal of achieving 80 mpg highway and 100 mpg on the test track with the Geo. 
   I arrived on Friday of Labor Day weekend after an hour traffic delay just south of Washington DC and another half hour just North of Richmond, Virginia.  It was a long drive for me starting out at 4:00 AM.  I drove the Hyundai Excel at 55-60 mph and arrived in Washington DC on one tank full, achieving 49.5 mpg with Hydrogen-Boost and a new water mist system that I wanted to test.  I arrived in Zebulon around 9:00 PM and spent the night trying to sleep under the stars in my sleeping bag.  The mosquitoes weren’t bad but I ended up sleeping best in my car’s passenger seat reclined. 
   Saturday morning we installed the Hydrogen-Boost gas generator and fuel heater in mild rain.  We drove a few tests amidst medium rain showers.  The Geo had 13” tires on it which were 21” diameter as opposed to the stock 12” tires with a 20” diameter.  The larger tires and the addition of another 216 pound passenger caused the mileage results to be disappointing.  At first we drove with just the fuel heater operating, going 69 miles with 1,2 gallons of gas for 58.5 mpg.  Then we drove with fuel heater and gas generator operating for 146 miles on 2.4 gallons for a 60.8 mpg average.  This disappointed me but Sam encouraged me to take heart because that was good for two passengers and large tires. 
   Sunday morning after church we changed the tires back to stock and disconnected the Fuel heater and hydrogen gas generator.  I drove alone on the same route that Sam used to get to work and got a baseline stock mileage figure of 52 mpg which was exactly the same as Sam’s baseline for the past few weeks.
   Then I reinstalled the fuel heater and hydrogen gas generator, poured an Xcel Plus engine treatment into the oil and the gas tank and filled up the tank.  Then I retraced the route of 71 miles and refilled with .95 gallons after correction for thermal expansion, for a 75 mpg average.  That evening I drove my Hyundai to my motel and Sam followed with the Metro, enjoying the increase in power and gunning the engine a lot for this “power test” for the Hydrogen-Boost system.  During this non-efficiency test of the performance of the Geo with the Hydrogen-Boost system, Sam still got 66 mpg.
   Monday while Sam was putting the finishing touches on the new enclosed stainless steel hydrogen cell, I went for another test drive with the addition of Sam’s water mist system and EFIE set at 250mv.  This time I got 71 mpg.  When I returned it was time to do a maximum efficiency test drive around a track that Sam had chosen.  Saturday we had done this test track-porpoising run without shutting down the engine and fell shy of achieving 100 mpg by the amount of gas the engine used while idling.  This time we installed a shut off switch on the gear shift and repeated the 1 ½ hour long test, 6 times around a rural loop near Sam’s house for a total of 50 miles using only .5 gallons for an average of 100 mpg.  The indicated fuel used was actually .6 gallons but since the tank was previously hot from my earlier test drive with water mist and the hour and a half porpoising test was done without heated fuel continuously going to the tank we knew that the tank had cooled during the test.  We knew there was an adjustment that needed to be made for thermal expansion of the fuel before the test and thermal contraction of the fuel during the test.  To figure out how much adjustment needed to be made I took a 30 mile test drive at 45 mph highway conditions and refilled with .275 gallons.  Without an adjustment for thermal expansion this would have calculated to 109 mpg, which I knew was incorrect.  So we added .1 gallons from the porpoising test refill to the 45 mph test, which brought the mileage for the 45 mph test to 80 mpg, which was more consistent with previous results.  This .1 gallon correction to the porpoising test gave that test a result of 100 mpg which was consistent with my experience with porpoising.  Typically I can get 20% more gas mileage on the porpoising test than on any highway road test.  Our best highway road test was 80 mpg at 45 mph and 20% more than that give us 100 mpg on the porpoising test. 
We had reached our goals and it was time to go home.  I took an early pillow and started out for home the next morning at 2:00 AM.  My trip home took me through West Virgina to look at a Geo Metro for sale and it took my 1045 miles and 19 hours to get home.  Like I said, it was a long weekend.
   By the way Sam did decide to become a dealer and a manufacturer of the new enclosed stainless cells.

September 8, 2001        Nissan Pathfinder Tests

   Jonathan Barrclough of Ohio had won my EBAY auction for a Hydrogen-Boost System with a winning bid of $300.  He had been waiting for an opportunity to get a deal on Hydrogen-Boost because he was interested in becoming a dealer as well.  He had developed a web site of fuel saving and anti-pollution links and devices and wanted to showcase the Hydrogen-Boost System as the featured item of the site. 
   Jonathan arrived shortly after 10:00 AM and we began installation of the 12 ½” tall cell that I had build two days before.  I didn’t know it at the time but I think I screwed up in building the cell during assembly.  Usually on every inner component in the cell I would clean the electrode surfaced with a grinder.  This time I skipped that step out of habit because the previous four cells I had assembled I didn’t perform this step because I had previously done this when I had cut and cleaned the electrodes a couple weeks in advance.  So not being in the habit of doing this cleaning/scuffing job before assembly, I skipped this step.  It would later come to cause disappointing gas production rates though it didn’t seem to prevent a healthy gain in mileage.
   Before we began installation of the Hydrogen-Boost system we took the Pathfinder out for some drag racing accelerations from 10 to 60 mph and also some 2000 to 4000 rpm accelerations in fourth gear (so we wouldn’t burn up the clutch). 
   After a hot day in the sun we finished installation in the early evening and tested the gas production.  At 20 amps it was only putting out one liter per minute instead of the expected 1.5 liters per minute.  We did the test drive with what we had and achieved 28 mpg uncorrected for thermal expansion but corrected for extra large tires.  This was compared to Jonathan’s previous best mileage of 20 mpg corrected for tire size.  This was almost Jonathan’s goal of 30 mpg but he was still thrilled to have a six cylinder full size SUV that got over 25 mpg, even with an adjustment for thermal expansion.  We talked until well after dark about selling and sponsoring dealers in his area and Jonathan left for his campsite for the night.  I didn’t figure out the “dirty electrode” theory until the next day.  Over time I’m sure the electrolysis will eventually clean up the electrodes and with a possibly forced change of electrolyte solution because of crudding up by the dirt on the electrodes, the cell will eventually produce the expected two liters per minute at 30 amps.

9-11-01   
Sub-compact Hydrogen Gas Generator

   Yesterday I went to the junkyard and got numerous raw materials needed to build a new sub-compact cell.  Most of the materials were sizes that I had previously not been able to get at the scrap yard.  I used the materials to build a 3.5” (actual) diameter, 8.5” tall cell.  I first tested it with electrolyte that gave close to 20 amps and got less than 50% efficiency.  This test was with a hot cell.  I then replaced the electrolyte with a 15 amp version and got a little better.  The next morning with a cool sub-compact cell I added a 11 amp electrolyte and got nearly 75% efficiency with a gas production rate of  0.8 liters per minute.  The 20 amp electrolyte yielded about 1.0 liters per minute but at about 50% efficiency.  The new sub-compact cell was photographed along with a full size and compact size hydrogen gas generators and modified my web site to include all three units.  The subcompact cell will sell for the same price as the compact cell, since it has basically all the same parts inside.

9-25-01

The Importance of Diagnostics for Fuel Economy

   In the last two weeks I bought a 1990 Geo Metro and did a baseline test drive by driving to my daughter’s cross-country meat and back, on roads of relatively highway driving conditions.  The baseline mileage was reported at 50.0 mpg.  Then I made a few  improvements like an Xcel Plus engine treatment, oil change, and increase in tire pressure.  I also flushed out the cooling system of its spent coolant that was almost black in color and very thin in viscosity.  Then I installed a combination fuel heating and Hydrogen cell heating system, as well as the Hydrogen-Boost gas generator. 
   The hydrogen cell heating system has been planned since last winter when I observed that the hydrogen gas generator worked even in the cold, but with very little current until warmed up.  A heating system for the hydrogen cell would get the gas production up to optimum output even in cold weather.  The design of this “cell heater” was quite simple.  I simply teed into the heater hose loop and ran a hose to the hydrogen cell around which I had wrapped ¼” ID soft copper tubing.  Then the outlet of this tubing was attached to a hose that was routed back to the heater hose loop. 
   Actually my fuel heater for this vehicle was designed to be teed into the heater hose loop and the cell heater was teed into that fuel heater assembly.  So by teeing into the heater hose loop once I  routed the coolant into the fuel heater and the cell heater.
   After all these improvements and modifications I did another road test for mileage, and another, and another, and another.  All these tests had disappointing results.  60 mpg to 68.5 mpg, for an improvement over stock of only 20 to 37%.  This was disappointing because I had recently done tests on a Geo Metro in North Carolina that delivered 75 mpg.  I examined the engine and vehicle for possible causes for this lack of improvement.  I noticed that the wheels needed an alignment but they needed one during the baseline test as well.  I changed the spark plugs to platinum and checked the oil again.  Still the results were 60-68 mpg. 
   Finally after filling up the tank one time I noticed a small puddle of fuel on the ground under the car.  I looked up underneath and saw that the fuel was coming out of either the filler tube or the vent pipe welded to it, as both were rusty at the junction and wet with gasoline.  I checked the junkyard for a replacement but they wanted $40 USD for one so I decided to try to repair the one on the car.  I removed it and scraped off the rust, wire brushed it clean and brazed the pinhole and about four others caused by the heating of this section of the pipe.  I painted the repaired area to prevent further rusting and reinstalled it on the car. 
   After a few miles after refilling the tank I opened the gas tank filler cap to check for pressure and found vapor pressure in the tank.  Then I did two more road tests, one at 55-60 mph and the next at 65-70 mph.  The first test resulted in mileage of about 72 mpg and the second resulted in 65 mpg.  These results were closer to what I was used to but still not what I expect.  I noticed during the end of test fill-up that there was again no vapor pressure in the tank.  I suspected a lingering leak and a week later I found it when again liquid dripped out.  I hope to fix it today (Oct. 1). 
   You may wonder why the leaky tube didn’t cause a proportional error in the baseline road test to that of the latter road test.  Here is the explanation.  Though both tests experienced a small amount of liquid leaking when the tank was filled to the top of the filler tube, the baseline test was a 205 mile test where the 0.1 gallon loss was not as apparent as with the 43.2 mile road tests with Hydrogen-Boost.  In fact if the amount of fuel lost from leaks was 0.1 gallons an adjustment for that alone would bring the Hydrogen-Boost results to 70 – 80 mpg.  As it worked out the amount of liquid gasoline lost to the leak was somewhat less than 0.1 gallons but there was another aspect of the leak that was also important to the results, vapor. 
With the heated fuel system hot/warm fuel is returned to the tank, which in turn warms the fuel in the tank and causes vaporization in the tank.  Normally the vapors produced would build up to a threshold pressure and then be vented either into the charcoal canister if the engine was not running, or into the intake if the engine was running.  These vapors are an important part of the Hydrogen-Boost System and cause an improvement in mileage.  If the pressure in the tank does not build up to the threshold pressure because of a pinhole in the filler tube, the vapors simply leak out that hole and do not cause the anticipated improvement in mileage. 
   Conclusions drawn from this report should include the importance of making sure that every system of your vehicle is operating properly.  If you install a Hydrogen-Boost system on your EFI equipped vehicle and you don’t experience a 50% increase in mileage within a week, it is time to diagnose your systems and find the problem, and then fix it.  This is also a good reason for anyone, even those without Hydrogen-Boost, to keep track of your mileage every time you fill your tank.  That way when something on your vehicle malfunctions you can catch the problem before it costs you too much. 
The same principle applies to personal finances. Keep track of all you spend and when you come up short you can examine and adjust your spending habits before they cause you a problem.

Hydrogen-Boost Dealer Network

The Hydrogen-Boost dealer network is now up and running and growing weekly.  The following are officially licensed as Hydrogen-Boost dealers:

Sam Dabbs          Zebulon, North Carolina
Jonathan Barrclough    Fairborn, Ohio
Kirtan Hayes         Seattle, Washington
Joel Schreiber        Springfield,  Missouri

We are also in communications with future dealers in Michigan and Utah, and have inquiries from many others who are interested in becoming dealers. 

If you are interested in becoming a Hydrogen-Boost dealer, now is the time to inquire, because we are doing everything possible to get our newsletter subscribers into the business with no costs above the discounted price of your first Hydrogen-Boost System.  Please contact me at h2boost@adelphia.net if you are interested in making and saving some money.


Genesis Communications Network Advertising

In addition to the above list of official dealers, Genesis Communications Network in Minnesota is advertising Hydrogen-Boost on its patriot radio talk shows and earning the standard dealer commissions for every sale they generate.  You can access the Genesis Communications Network to listen to their excellent talk radio shows by going to www.gcnlive.com and clicking on Stream 1, Stream 2, or Stream 3.


European Certification Tests for Hydrogen-Boost

   Hydrogen-Boost  was contacted by Gustav R. Grob of the International Clean Energy Consortium (ICEC), who is the founder of the ISO committee on hydrogen (creating international standards on hydrogen generation and applications), and President of the CMDC (Cercle mondial du consensus) organization in Geneva, promoting
sensible energy and environment policies.  Gustav has offered to present the Hydrogen-Boost System to the European testing requirements for certification, with my supervision.  Arrangements are now being made for a late October test date in Switzerland
   We were also contacted by someone in California who wants to submit to a CARB exemption number certification with hopes of being a dealer there. 
   Things are happening fast now so if you are interested in getting a Hydrogen-Boost system or becoming a dealer/manufacturer, now is the time to act before we get buried in work.  Email me at h2boost@adelphia.net if you are interested.
   Until next month, happy motoring.   Fran Giroux  www.hydrogen-boost.com



Hydrogen-Boost Newsletter 11-01-01

   Following is the report filed with International Clean Energy Consortium at the conclusion of Hydrogen-Boost performance tests in Switzerland during the last week of October,2001.




Hydrogen-Boost
Gas Mileage Enhancement System
Switzerland Certification Tests

   Summary of testing:  Arrival of Fran Giroux on October 23, 2001.  Original plan was to test an Opel Kadet station wagon.  Fran suggested testing a more modern version, one with multi-port fuel injection.  A larger Opel Ascona with 1.8 liter engine and  5-speed manual transmission was selected.  It wasn’t discovered until later that this vehicle had no oxygen sensor and hence no automatic adjustment of the injected fuel to compensate for the components of the system to be installed. 
   Wednesday morning October 24, 2001 a baseline test drive was performed with Martin driving and Fran observing.  For standardization purposes it was agreed that the speed would be regulated by the speed limit unless traffic prohibited.  The chosen route was a 97 kilometer route from Zollbruck to Ramsei to Hutwill to Willisau to Wolhusen to Langnau to Zollbruck.  On a few of the test drives additional kilometers were driven.   On one test drive a 9 kilometer navigation error from Langnau toward Bern and back to Langnau was driven.  Caution was taken to keep the driving style the same except during two maximum efficieny test drives by Fran during which he engaged driving techniques outlined in the Hydrogen-Boost Operator’s Manual. 
   Wednesday afternoon the installation started on the Opel Ascona with some difficulty obtaining and installing heater hose connections.  Regular garden hose was used and brass tees were fabricated by Jacob.  During installation the electrolyte (chemical brought by Fran and “battery water” supplied by Jacob) inserted into the hydrogen-generator leaked out because of a loose clamp on the lower rubber cap (this was left loose for the airline flight in case during baggage inspection an inspector needed to see inside, to insure the device was not a bomb.  A second batch of electrolyte depleted the supply of chemicals brought by Fran.  When installation was nearly complete it was discovered that no oxygen sensor existed on the vehicle. 
   During supper Fran was briefed by a Volkswagen mechanic on how the Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor operated and could be adjusted.  It was advised that Fran should not attempt this without Jacob’s help.  As it turned out, after initially opening the top of the MAF, Jacob was busy each time the help was needed and with the communication difficulties Fran risked adjusting the MAF alone and succeeded in doing so with no damage to the system. 
   Thursday morning after only adjusting the potentiometer of the MAF (but not the spring tension) the Opel was ready for an initial test drive with Hydrogen-Boost installed.  There was no navigator available so Fran navigated himself as he drove the course.  Numerous gasoline leaks were noticed by observing the “rainbow spots” on the wet pavement before and after the test drive.  No repair was made before the test drive because it was thought that the leaking gasoline may have been from overflowing it during fill-up.  The results of the test drive were disappointing so more work was done fixing leaks and figuring out how to adjust the MAF without damage.  Also during this test drive the bolt protruding out of the end of the steering tie rod ripped a hole in the bottom rubber cap causing the electrolyte to leak out again.  Enough electrolyte was captured from the two spills, including some that was scooped up from the floor with a shovel, to fill the hydrogen generator one more time (some of the electrolyte having been contaminated by the floor).
   Friday morning another test drive was performed by Fran alone with the contaminated electrolyte in a hydrogen generator which now had a welded stainless steel bottom to prevent further leaks.  This test included the driving techniques outlined in the instruction manual.  It was also noticed that during the test drive that the current drawn by the hydrogen generator decreased throughout the trip and at the end dropped to about 1 amp.  Inspection of the electrolyte showed a precipitate in every sample of electrolyte mixed including the residual from each time we changed the electrolyte.  The results of the test were hard to calculate because when filling the tank before the test there were two major leaks at the filling station.  Two and a half glass jars of leaking gasoline were collected including some that was siphoned from the tank to bring the gasoline level down below the leaks.  These jars were carried in the vehicle during the test and one spilled on the floor of the rear passenger side seat.  When returning to the filling station Fran brought a funnel a large container and the three jars.  By filling the jars to the level collected at the beginning of the test, and refilling the tank it was calculated that 2 liters of gasoline was spilled.  Subtracting this from the 5.79 gallons it took to fill the tank, it was calculated that 3.79 liters were used during the test. This was ignoring the continuous two hours drip that was coming from a consistent leak that was calculated to be about 0.1 liter.  It also ignored the volume of gasoline that landed on the pavement on the filling station (about 0.2 liters).  Adjusting for these gives a total volume used during the test drive of 3.49 liters.          
   Arrangements were made with Martin to obtain some alternate chemical from a chemical distributor, which was mixed again with the battery water supplied by Jacob.  Again there was a precipitate in this new solution so Fran suspected a mineral content in the “battery water” supplied by Jacob.  A new batch was mixed with rain water collected in a concrete basin behind Jacob’s garage.  This too was cloudy with some solids floating on top but not as bad as the other samples. 
   The hydrogen generator was disassembled and thoroughly cleaned.  It was noticed that the positive side of each interior electrode was now a golden brown color instead of the silvery stainless steel color as before.  It was suspected that the “battery water” contained a mineral that electroplated onto the positive side of each electrode causing the color change.
   Friday afternoon another test drive was done by Fran engaging the driving techniques in the operator’s manual.  Results were again as good as expected.
   On Saturday morning Rolf drove a test drive with Fran navigating , with no problems with the systems including the hydrogen generator, electrolyte, leaks, or spills.

   A tabulation of the test results follows:

Driver    Navigator Distance      Fuel used     l/100km    improve  mpg    improve  driving style/notes

Martin    Fran        98     7.24        7.38    base    30.0    base    no
Fran    none        107    6.09        5.69    -23.0    39.0    30%    no/leaks, no MAF adjust
Fran    none        97    3.49        3.60    -51.1    61.7    106%    yes / leaks, spill
Fran    none        98    3.52        3.59    -51.1    61.7    106%    yes
Rolf    Fran        100    4.69        4.69    -37%    50.1    58%    no


Emissions Test Results

   When the hydrogen boost system was installed and properly adjusted, the hydrocarbon and carbon-monoxide emissions were greatly reduced.  No provision was available for testing NOx emissions at Jacob’s garage but these tests are expected to be made at the Touring Club of Switzerland testing facilities.  The following is a tabulation of the emissions tests performed at Jacob’s garage.

Test        Hydrocarbons    Carbon Monoxide    Carbon Dioxide

Baseline    200 PPM        2.00 %        12.9 %        at 1000 RPM
After installation   97 PPM    0.18 %          6.7%        at 1000 RPM
After test drive   119 PPM        0.13 %          4.6%        at 1000 RPM
Before Sat. drive  90 PPM        0.72%        14.2%        at 2000 RPM
Before Sat. drive  89 PPM        0.44%          4.4%        at 1000 RPM
After Sat. drive   175 PPM        0.26%        13.5%        at 950 RPM


   Conclusions:  The Hydrogen-Boost Gas Mileage Enhancement System was suitable for the Opel Ascona despite the antiquity of the fuel management system on the engine.  Although automatic adjustments and compensations that are expected from a modern electronic fuel injection system were not available on this vehicle, compromises were able to be made and adjustments were adequate to achieve great reductions in fuel consumption and hence great gains in distance traveled per liter/gallon.  Emissions tests also proved the Hydrogen-Boost  System was well suited for this vehicle.  Note that Hydrocarbon emissions were basically cut in half and Carbon Monoxide emissions were reduced by as much as 90%.  Hydrocarbon emissions could have been further reduced with the use of another component that was not included in this installation.  This component, called a PCV jar, is placed in the hose between the PCV valve and the intake manifold, and collects the heavy oily hydrocarbon molecules that now pass on to the intake manifold and are incompletely burned.  Collecting these molecules in the PCV jar prevents the HC emissions caused by their combustion in the engine.

Description of the Components of the
Hydrogen-Boost System

Hydrogen Generator
   The Hydrogen-Boost System’s hydrogen generator is of proprietary design and electrolyte.  Any divulgence of the design of the hydrogen generator or the composition of the electrolyte is strictly prohibited by the licensing agreement.  The hydrogen generator operates on 12-14 volts DC and is compatible with any 12 volt vehicle electrical system.  The hydrogen generator is switched on by a 30 amp relay with signal from the fuel pump relay or fuel injector circuit that is on only when the engine is running.  The hydrogen generator produces between one and two liters of gas (hydrogen and oxygen mixed) per minute depending on electrolyte concentration, current flow, and cleanness of the electrodes.  Under high output conditions the hydrogen generator will also produce water vapor and a water mist that may contain a minute amount of electrolyte which is filtered out by the engine’s air filter, when properly installed.  The purpose of the hydrogen injected into the engine is to accelerate the flame front from the spark plug to the outer reaches of the combustion chamber so that more of the fuel/air mix is combusted during the early portion of the power stroke when it can be used to push the piston.

Fuel Heater
   Two styles of fuel heaters are available from Hydrogen-Boost, one installed inside the upper radiator hose and the other spliced into the heater hose circuit.  The heater hose external heater was installed in the Opel.  The purpose of the fuel heater is to add extra energy to the fuel so that when it is injected into the engine, more of it is vaporized.  This causes more complete combustion at the early part of the power stroke and thereby reducing the amount of fuel needed to produce the power needed.

Fuel Vaporization Circuit and Canister
   The vaporization circuit is a small, valve metered, metal fuel line (2-3mm OD) that is teed into the fuel line after the fuel heater and is routed to a source of high heat which vaporizes the fuel and routs it through a slightly larger metal tube to a jar where any liquid droplets are also vaporized.  These vapors are then routed to the intake manifold for entry into the combustion chamber.  This circuit simply vaporizes an additional amount of fuel than what is vaporized inside the engine.  Of course with this additional vapor, some means of reducing the amount of liquid fuel being injected must be implemented.  With most modern vehicles this is done automatically by the ECU (electronic control unit).  On the tested Opel this adjustment had to be done by adjusting the MAF sensor.  Compromises had to be made such that any idling under 1000 RPM indicated a fuel/air mix that was too rich.  With most oxygen sensor controlled ECU’s the HC emissions would have been further reduced at idle.

EFIE Device (electronic fuel injection enhancer)
   This device is normally used to add an adjustable amount of voltage, usually less than 500 mili-amps, to the signal from the oxygen sensor.  This is used as a method of leaning out the fuel/air mixture in oxygen sensor controlled ECU vehicles.  This device was not used in the Opel installation because there was no oxygen sensor.  Note that normally when the EFIE device is used alone, power is lost because of the extra lean mixture.

XCEL Plus Engine Treatment
   Excel Plus is an engine treatment that has been verified to reduce internal engine friction.  It come in two parts, one installed in the gasoline and the other installed in the engine oil.  The oil added component is good for 80,000 kilometers and the gasoline added portion is good for 25,000 kilometers.  XCEL Plus is not a Teflon oil additive, which does not work at decreasing internal engine friction.

Mobil One 0w-30 Motor Oil.
   This engine oil further reduces the friction and the internal engine drag caused by oil viscosity.  Other brands of synthetic oil have not been tested by Hydrogen-Boost and may work as well.  Note that this is not a synthetic blend oil, which is one part synthetic oil and four parts regular petroleum oil.  This is a 100% synthetic oil which does not need to be changed every 5000 kilometers.  It is more expensive but it lasts longer and it saves fuel.

Other Synthetic Lubricants
   Transmission oil, rear end differential gear oil and grease can be replaced with synthetic equivalents that will further reduce drive train drag and friction.  This installation did not include these lubricants, which would have caused further improvements in efficiency.

Increased Tire Pressure
   This installation used a tire pressure of 50 psi (pounds per square inch, 3.5 atmosphere/bar), which some people will complain about.  For those who cannot bring themselves to drive on normal tires with 50 psi, I suggest they purchase low rolling resistance tires available with recommended pressures of 40-50 psi.  (one atmosphere equals 14.7 psi, normal pressure is 2 atmospheres, Hydrogen-Boost operates at 3.5 atmospheres).

Driving Habits (Human Behavior)
   As can be seen in the tabulated test results above, driving habits can make a big difference in fuel efficiency (3.6 liters/100 km versus 4.7 liters/100 km).   When reporting test drive results Hydrogen-Boost usually reports whether driving habits were incorporated into a test drive.  In this report results of both conditions are reported and noted. 



Effects of Each Component of
The Hydrogen-Boost System

   Effects of each component of the Hydrogen-Boost Sytem will vary with the vehicle upon which it is installed.  Some components have an independant effect and some components work together to have an accumulative effect that is greater than the effects of each of the individual components combined.  The accumulative effect will be greater than the mathematical sum of the indivdual effects of the components.  For instance the fuel heater, the vaporization circuit and canister, and the hydrogen generator work together to produce an effect greater than the sum of their individual effects. 
   An illustration will help you understand this concept.  Let’s look at a farmer, a plow and an ox.  The ox will not do much plowing by itself and neither will the plow, likewise neither will the farmer.  Even the ox and the farmer will do little together without the plow, and neither will the farmer and the plow without the ox, and so forth.  But if you put all three together you’ll be able to plow a whole field in a day.  Likewise with the hydrogen generator and the fuel heater and the vaporizer.
   Following is an estimate of the effects of the individual components of the Hydrogen-Boost System.  Remember some can work alone and some work together.

Hydrogen Generator

-5% to 25% increase in mpg (+4% to -10% improvement in fuel consumption)
   The hydrogen generator depends on vaporized fuel to do its job.  On engines that have a provision for adequate vaporization of fuel, the hydrogen generator will make improvements by itself.  However on some engines the hydrogen does nothing by itself except use electrical power that must be generated by the alternator, hence the negative improvement possibility.  Also on any engine that does not have the ability to automatically adjust or compensate for the effects caused by the hydrogen generator there will likely be a decrease in efficiency.  Such was the case with the Opel above until the MAF was adjusted.

Fuel Heater

0 % to 15% increase in mpg (0 % to -8% improvement in fuel consumption)
   On an engine that already has adequate fuel heating, the addition of an external fuel heater will likely do nothing for you.  However most engines have very little provision for fuel heating.  With these a modest improvement can be obtained but the real improvements come with the use of the fuel heater with the hydrogen generator together.

Vaporization Circuit and Canister

-5% to 25% increase in mpg (+4% to -10% improvement in fuel consumption)
   Once again there is a possibility of a negative gain.  On an engine that has no ability to adjust or compensate for the extra fuel being taken into the engine in the form of vapor, a vaporizer is only going to make you fuel/air mixture more rich, which will not only waste fuel but dirty up the inside of your engine.  On some modern vehicles the EFIE device might have to be used with the vaporizer or the fuel heater or the hydrogen generator.



Mobil One 0w-30 Motor Oil

2 % to 5% increase in mpg (-1% to -3% improvement in fuel consumption)
   Here is a component that will work by itself even without the other components but again this component will work even better in conjunction with XCEL Plus engine treatment.  When used on an engine that has been poorly maintained and contains black gritty oil, this component will make a big difference.  A little less improvement will be obtained with an engine that is well maintained but still the synthetic oil will do better than the petroleum based oil in any engine.

EXCEL Plus Engine Treatment

3% to 10% increase in mpg (-1% to -5% improvement in fuel consumption)
   Again this product will absolutely work by itself to cause improvements, more so on a worn engine or a new engine.  On a mid-life engine that is fairly slippery or on one that might have already had a real engine treatment, the improvement will be less obvious.  Again this component will likely work better in conjunction with other components.

Increased Tire Pressure

3% to 15% increase in mpg (-1% to -8% improvement in fuel consumption)
   Increased tire pressure can improve your efficiency a great deal if you are willing to use it.  Tires with little tread will encounter the greatest improvements.  Tires with deep tread will encounter less improvement because the drag caused by those tires is caused mostly by the tread, especially when they are properly inflated.

Driving Habits  (Human Behavior)

10% to 50% increase in mpg (-5% to -20% improvement in fuel consumption)
   Driving habits are the biggest and only truly independent contributor to efficiency.  Almost everyone would benefit by reading and applying the driving and maintenance tips in the Hydrogen-Boost Operator’s manual.  The only people who probably know of and apply the tips already are those who compete in efficiency contests.  Most people contacted by Hydrogen-Boost who claim to be efficient drivers don’t even apply half of what is in the manual and could probably increase their mileage by 20% more than their present efficient habits.  When used with the rest of the Hydrogen-Boost System there are very few vehicles that can’t double their city mileage over that which is reported by EPA. 

Summary

   Many of the components of the Hydrogen-Boost System work best in conjunction with other components.  Don’t expect to be able to leave out a major component without suffering more than the individual improvement of that component.  The Hydrogen-Boost System is a system, not a device, and like most systems will not work without its major components.  The best investment you can make is to incorporate the whole system to any vehicle you drive.


End of report



   In the above report a component was referred to that had not previously been a part of the Hydrogen-Boost System.  This component, the vaporization circuit and canister, will be incorporated soon into the product line at www.hydrogen-boost.com and will likely sell for less then $100, depending on final design and equipment included. 


 

 

 

Click here to ORDER NOW

Home    Savings    Test Results    Technical Information    Newsletter    Order    Contact

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Home

 

Savings    

 

Test Results

 

Technical Information

 

Testimonial Video

 

Demo Video

 

Newsletter    

 

Order    

 

Contact

 


Free counters provided by Honesty.com .

 

 

 

 

 

Help

Help

Help