loading

Check the Physics if you Don't Believe it.

Step 1: The Equipment.

Heres Some of the Basic things i Bought at Harbor freight for the Project,

1 12V 10Amp Air Compressor.

1 25ft small Air hose.

1 100ct zipties

1 Pressure Regulator.

1 Swivel Head Male Air Fitting.

1 12V 10Amp Adapter Etc.....

Step 2: Math.

Math.

Step 3: Legal.

Necessary for me,even though you probably will ignore this.

Step 4: Access Your Fuel Tank.

Take out Passenger Seat,

If there isn't any Latches on either side of the cushion,Chances are you can just yank out each side with some muscle like i did.

Step 5: Gas Tank.

Find the Uppermost point to Drill your Hole for your air fitting, add your Choice of O-ring or Adhesive after you screw your fitting to the tank.

*******Keep in mind you need to make space available to put the Swivel head Male end to your fitting.

Step 6: Air Line.

attach your Coupling and swivel head, your Preference if you Use Teflon on your fittings,

Feed the Line down through a Gap towards the bottom of the Vehicle.

Step 7: Feeding Your Line.

Before you start Using your Zipties make sure you feed the Line all the way towards the Engine,

Note,Steer Clear of Components such as Exhaust Pipes,Open Metal, I.E Engine/Transmission,so that you don't Melt the Line, Rather run the Line along the Fuel lines as Shown, they will normally be 3-5 Small Metallic lines from the Tank,

once you Have Enough Slack secure the Line with the zipties.

Step 8: Placing Your Compressor.

This Part Requires some Creativity, if you are Using the same Compressor as me it likes to Overheat, so put it in a Spot with some Ventilation,I.E next to the Radiator(the Thingy towards the Front of the Vehicle, with the Fan), if you can reach down that Far, Once you have put it in what you think is a Decent Spot Bring out the Zipties.

Keep in Mind to have your 12V Adapter and Air line Already Connected to make it a Little Easier.

Step 9: The Regulator.

Connect the Air line in the Direction of the Black arrow Shown on the Regulator, and connect your other Air line from the Fuel Tank to the Regulator, Secure as Necessary,

i Would Suggest using a Little something extra (the Brass looking thing to the Left of the Pressure Dial) it is a airflow Controller, allows less air into and fuel Vapors out of your tank during use, which i find works better.

Step 10: Dreadful Electronics,

Not going to give the Whole Rundown, but Red is Positive and Black is the Negative Pole, run wires through the side of the vehicle where the door opens.

do not connect the Negative Clamp til you have Completed Connecting the Wires, Strip the Ends off the Electrical Wire, tighten to the Positive Terminal, run that end to the front of the car towards the Driver seat, Connect to Push switch and insulate with Ideally electrical tape, other tape works just fine, connect the other line that goes to the 12V adapter (red) clamp, Make sure to put the clamp near some plastic to insulate it from short circuiting, and secure with zipties as necessary,

Flip the Switch during use of the Vehicle, and flip it off when you are done.

Step 11: The Why...

Heres the Link to the Youtube Video that i made doing a Preliminary test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXq9r65LUQg

Step 12: Tips on When to Use.

If any of you have Made this or are in the Process,

The best times to Use it,are trips that are 15mins or more for around town(low Volume), so that way you will have time to fill the Volume of the Tank(half Empty tank=half the volume of the tank you have to fill) and make pressure, otherwise the Mileage Gain will be Negligible, as it is not actually fully working yet, highway is Definitely the Best area to use it.(high/full volume from the compressor)

As Well as if you are Keeping the Project attached to your vehicle after using/Testing, and using the Same Air compressor it is not biased, meaning when it isn't in use fuel will evaporate slowly out of it, Haven't found a Appropriate one way pneumatic valve to use, so i would suggest during non-use to turn your regulator all the way towards the -(minus) end to close the valve.

and Just in case you still feel skeptical after testing your vehicle and the computer reads higher mileage and you think it did something to Mess with the Computer calculations, Use a Solid physical Method to test Gas Mileage by filling your vehicle til the Nozzle stops twice,(close regulator First) recording Mileage, then driving with it in use for 20 or so miles(more miles means more accurate reading) then (close Regulator) if you are skeptical about the aeration of the fuel to effect the pressure on the nozzle putting in less gas go ahead and let it aerate for as long as you think is necessary, fill tank til the nozzle stops twice, then divide your mileage into your 1.3 or whatever Gallons to get your MPG's which should be accurate with your computer. for the Solid answer of yes your computer isn't crazy.

Although if you have it your "range" and fuel meter components will be Inaccurate when using Pressurized air.

<p>Are we really all that well programmed? I get so tired of every time someone posts a fuel saving device, that the &quot;expert&quot; people who won't get out and experiment for themselves &quot;grace&quot; us with their professional knowledge that tells us we need to ignore the facts we find in front of us when we run fuel saving systems.</p><p>On ebay there is an &quot;HHO&quot; seller who has been there for quite a few years now - 100% feedback, they have a support forum, offer a no questions money-back guarantee, and have great reviews. They work with you until you get the increases in mileage they claim. </p><p>I built an electrolysis unit years ago and doubled my mileage in a 1978 Caprice Classic from 200 a tank of gas to 400. I put it in an 83 AMC Eagle and went from 15 to 30 MPG. I put it on my next car with similar results, but then the computer chips they put in the cars beat me. I see where this has been worked out by replacing a chip (aforementioned ebay sales) and so plan on doing this sometime. My brother did and got 6 miles more per gallon.</p><p>Those who, for whatever reasons, don't believe it works, that's OK. Some naysayers even justify no hands on experience b/c of what they read in a book, and yet still think they can retain credibility. People also used to know for a fact it was impossible for man to fly.</p><p>Worshiping the laws of science as is man knew everything about them that there is to know can only keep mankind in the dark.</p>
<p>The naysayers say 'nay' not out of skepticism for the efficacy of this build. It makes sense from a physics and chemistry standpoint. <br><br>This isn't a relatively safe &amp; stable &quot;electrolysis/hydrogen hybrid&quot; system; the problem is that the maker is encouraging people to mix an oxidizer and highly combustible mixture of hydrocarbons in a container not rated for internal pressurization and then telling them to pressurize it. <br><br>&quot;How to make a bomb for miniscule fuel savings.&quot; would be a better title.</p>
<p>Hi my friend i am a Pure Hydrogen Dry cell producer and seller on eBay.That is your solution.to your new generation cars.No oxygen only pure hydrogen.My cell can seperate it.Pure hydrogen is a wonderful saving and power increaseing gas.</p><p><a href="http://www.ebay.com/usr/h2_tech" rel="nofollow">http://www.ebay.com/usr/h2_tech</a></p><p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/H2-Tech-Pure-Hydrogen-Fuel-Saving-Systems-513530782188607/" rel="nofollow">https://www.facebook.com/H2-Tech-Pure-Hydrogen-Fue...</a></p>
<p>It has nothing to do with &quot;programming&quot; and everything to do with some bad advice that will not work well in modern vehicles with all the electronically controlled engines these days. If he also included some kind of ECM or CC monitoring/diagnostic/modification (which would also be different for just about every vehicle out there) that might help make this usable. As it is, it's just really bad advice based on a misapplication of a funky bit of science on a vehicle fuel system that he doesn't understand or even scientifically monitor for real data. There are (increasingly complicated - by design) ways to hack a vehicles fuel/electronics for better economy, but this isn't one.</p>
Yes - computerized vehicles need a chip and there iare even now specific ones tuned for your car's make. Again 0 the ebay seller.<br><br>As to this not being a &quot;good hack:&quot;<br>That depends on whether you like the idea of only having to pay out half the money you currently do for gasoline every week or not. When you drive 30 miles to work one way, the money saved adds up especially at 50.00 a tankful.<br><br>But... when someone uses only theory and isn't willing to try something different (not saying this is you), and only argue having no experience, it is a sad thing. The &quot;programming&quot; aspect comes in when a person tells another who has hands on experience that they need to ignore the facts they experience.<br><br>The facts of more money in my wallet and less fill ups made me try to understand what was happening. i understand that trying to jump off a roof to see if I can fly is foolishness b/c the only main force there to worry about is gravity. And so far we have pretty much proved that when on Earth, gravity will pull on mass and not let people fly if they jump off a roof.<br><br>But hydrolysis is a lot more complex than just one main force (voltage; amperage; chemical catalysts (aiding hydrolysis); chemical bond breaking and the resulting changed properties of produced gases; mixing of gases with gasoline and resulting properties, etc.) and therefore can be misinterpreted by those who look at it through the eyes of book knowledge only.<br><br>I have had people say a system like this is impossible b/c it produces more energy out put than input. But no additional energy is being created - its just potential energy being released and used.<br><br>I liken the argument of hydrolysis being free energy manufacturing to saying an avalanche cannot crush a village. Why? B/c an avalanche produces a lot more energy than the proverbial sneeze that started it. Neither situation is free energy. Both situations use kinetic energy to release existing potential energy and use it. No free energy is created.<br><br>The money I saved weekly -- generally an entire tank of gas -- was real. The money I pocketed from it was real. <br><br>I have even had people suggest that I had subconsciously changed driving habits that made up for the gas savings. If anyone seriously thinks you can go from 200 miles a tank to 400 miles a tank by changing driving habits, then I would suggest they take a serious look at the motivation for them arguing this point. It is ridiculous to think you can double mileage by changing driving habits. I won't say gaining a couple of mpg is not possible when a hot-rod driver stops this habit, but certainly there will be no doubling of mileage by a subconscious change!<br><br>And even after all of this, if someone's money is not worth taking a chance and getting some hands on experience, ... that's OK. You can lead a horse to water...<br><br>My money staying in my pocket is more than worth the small amount of effort it took to find out these systems can work very well.
<p>You are talking about 2 entirely different things. Electrolysis has nothing to do with this instructable so there is no comprehensibly good reason to bring it up. It is an inappropriate argument and whether you like it or not, your past experiences have nothing to do with scientific provable data. sjim1's comment was in regard to the automated fuel/air monitoring done in modern day cars. Adding extra oxygen in the gasoline will disrupt the proper operation of the system because the computer does not expect oxygen to be in the fuel and does its calculations without considering the new addition. Even if this does increase gas mileage, it could very well slowly destroy the vehicle's fuel management system or engine internals. The cost of those types of repairs would far exceed any gas savings. The OP also has differing claims as to the effectiveness of the system, claiming 50% in the title, but only showing a 33% increase in his &quot;data&quot;. </p><p>I also take offense to criticizing what you call &quot;theory&quot;. 95% of all design is done on paper, without ever building a thing. The entire vehicle (or any other product ever produced) is designed on paper, with math and &quot;theory&quot;. This &quot;theory&quot; is so well refined that failure points can be calculated without ever even building the product. Your &quot;complex&quot; process of electrolysis is actually a very definitive science that can be solved entirely on paper.....since 1880. Computers can even model the behavior of such a system on a molecular level if required (can take weeks or months but is still possible). </p><p>The reason why big companies don't include this systems in vehicles (despite their effect) is fairly obvious to anyone who doesn't have an irrational attitude towards the scientifically minded. Electrolysis and compressed gas tanks are both far more dangerous than the current systems. We could make cars that run on all sorts of other fuels and fuel methods, but there is a much larger danger when these vehicles end up in accidents. Hydrogen and oxygen are much more explosive than gasoline, and pressurized gasoline is also far more explosive than liquid gasoline. The second the tank ruptures in a pressurized system like this, the oxygen will depressurize and rapidly escape the tank. As it does, it will carry with it gasoline, spreading the gas into a large fire ball, rather than a slow burning fire. The explosions in movies when cars explode are actually just a gallon of gas with an explosive charge, that atomizes the gasoline and spreads it out to create an explosion. A regular leaking gas tank will just catch fire. Companies are already recalling cars that have tanks that are too close to the crumple zone because of the possibility of an explosion (gas is sent every where from the impact). Systems like this will never make it into vehicles because of this reason. This is why these aftermarket products exist, and why your ebay seller has such a high rating. The products work, but are not safe enough to include in the vehicle stock. </p><p>However, this does not mean these are good things to add to your vehicle. Like you said, there are very complex systems in place, which took a team of college educated engineers months to create. Modifying this system without extensive knowledge of its inner workings or lengthy reliability testing is a bad idea. It could very well cause a whole group of new problems. I'm not saying it will, just pointing out that it could, and if you have absolutely no idea how the vehicle functions, you have no way of knowing that it won't just spontaneously explode on you (not suggesting it will). </p>
<p>As far as I know there are many programs in use and on the table for changing EPA Oxygenate regulations. What many do not realize is this is a political/corporate fight also. The ethanol industry is huge and has massive lobbying power. Other countries are now currently trying to implement regulation changes to allow for higher oxygenated gasoline. The EV market is hampering this, not directly, but just because of the current exponential increases in solar alternatives and other renewables. More is involved than the engineering and safety obstacles.</p><p>You can find many studies investigating feasibility by a little googling. I tried to add a couple links here but this comment engine will not allow it.<br></p>
<p>I made these comments 9 months ago. Please look before you post. I dont want to see year old discussions in my inbox. Also, the discussion was not about oxygenate regulations. It was about the safety of running an unregulated, (flat out illegal in the US) modification that involves a pressurizing a metal canister filled with highly flammable liquid.</p>
<p>Some of us are coming across these postings for the first time.<br>People respond to what they see when they see it.<br>Internet time is elastic in some ways.<br>Personally, I like &quot;updates&quot; that come in over time and reignite my creativity!<br>As to pressurizing a metal canister filled with highly flammable liquid, I thought that's what fuel injection systems were for? (Minus the pressurized tank angle?)</p>
<p>&quot;and whether you like it or not, your past experiences have nothing to do with scientific provable data.&quot;</p><p>By definition, true science is supposed to be based on observation. Experience is a type of observation when one is attempting to experiment to collect data and find innovative ways of making new results. Experience has a great deal more to do with actual science instead of what people commonly mistake as being &quot;science&quot; b/c they read it in a book and then believe they have become scientific in their information. unfortunately a good many people who think they know what science is are actually those who have simply read the work of others, comment on others findings, and believe they have, therefore, a scientific background based on oroveable fact.</p><p>This is a fancy way of saying experimental, observational data is much more valuable in the real world than theoretical science. The value of theoretical science is that it can devise possible new concepts. But facts and true science are only based upon actual, hands on, experimentation. History is full of instances where the theoretical &quot;experts&quot; of the day &quot;KNEW&quot; something was proven science - but the true scientists who relied upon observation and experimentation of that observation, are the ones who find the errors/misconceptions and end up with solid proof.</p><p>&quot;</p><p>I also take offense to criticizing what you call &quot;theory&quot;. 95% of all design is done on paper...&quot;</p><p>And this is where you may someday realize the true problem is. Emotion does not belong in scientific and logical study. Emotion is what leads to people trying to prove their own point rather than trying to find the facts of the matter. When a &quot;scientist&quot; sets out to prove their ideas instead of do experimentation and data collection (science) to find out whether or not their ideas are true or false, we end up with psuedo-science and a lot of misled people who start top read and follow the &quot;expert&quot; that publishes the work.</p><p>Taking offense at a statement made on a scientific subject is an automatic flag, to those who understand it, that emotion plays far to great a role and easily clouds the issues.</p><p>Why would anyone wanting scientific fact let their emotions flare when someone else's actual findings, something the offended person has never personally tested, not fall into line with the offended person's pre-conceived notions? A scientist is after fact. A scientist does not care if the facts agree or disagree with his previous ideas on a subject. In fact when a scientist finds out they are incorrect - if they are a true scientist, it becomes a moment of victory towards finding fact since they know what not to pursue! When confronting Edicson, a man deemed Edison's enormous failed attempts at making a light bulb filament as most people do - a large failure. Edison's response was that it was nothing of the kind. Instead he had discovered many items that were NOT usable as a filament! THIS is science. </p><p>But emotion has one other major thing it contributes in situations such as this. It can be an indicator that the person has a faith-like adherence to theoretical, not factual science. The human psyche gets emotionally involved/offended when is is proposed there could be a chance the entire truth is not known/they may be in error. The emotional response is a defense mechanism.</p><p>&quot;Electrolysis and compressed gas tanks are both far more dangerous than the current systems.&quot;</p><p>This confuses me. I agree a pressurized gas tank is more dangerous. But you puzzle me on your comment about electrolysis. Anyone who knows how the electrolysis system works knows there is no reservoir of the gases involved. In other words the gas is made and used on demand only. Was you sentence/typing in error, or were you commenting on a system you are not familiar with? I do not </p><p>&quot;</p><p>&quot;This &quot;theory&quot; is so well refined that failure points can be calculated without ever even building the product.&quot;</p><p>And this is also why for ages it was mathematically impossible for a bee to fly - even early computer models said so. But we always knew there was something wrong with these statements. Faith in theory leads to things like George Washington's death. B/c the &quot;Doctrine of Humors&quot; was &quot;known&quot; as scientific, researched fact, the removed President Washington's &quot;bad&quot; blood to make him healthier, and instead killed him without knowing it. Sad story, but fun research in the history of science and the continued failures that &quot;faith in science&quot; has caused and will continue to cause throughout coming history. And the person who thinks our technology has come to the point it can save us from all similar (though more complex ) errors will be looked at in the future as being just as foolish as those top-level scientists who KNEW the &quot;Doctrine of Humors&quot; was true. Science history teaches many, many valuable lessons. </p><p>&quot;Your &quot;complex&quot; process of electrolysis is actually a very definitive <br>science that can be solved entirely on paper.....since 1880. Computers <br>can even model the behavior of such a system on a molecular level if <br>required (can take weeks or months but is still possible).&quot;</p><p>Actually, this is not yet true. I have a feeling this is simply an opinion you are offering without fact to back it. The facts of the matter (and yes, I have done the research including collaboration with three different University Physical Chemistry department heads) as to actually how electrolysis works on a molecular level. I was hpoping an understanding of it &quot;from the electrons point of view&quot; (in layman's terms) would clarify the process and allow modifications. The responses I got from al three department heads was that we know an electric current breaks the bonds, but we re not ure how the actual process occurs other than to make DESCRIPTIONS of the end results of what we see happening ie., electricity breaks the bonds and H2 and O2 migrate to oppositely charged electrodes. Obviously we know the opposing charges attract each other, but we do not know how the extra electrons are able to break the existing bonds. I personally theorize it is b/c of the molecules &quot;pyramidal&quot; shape and an unbonded pair, but cannot prove it.</p><p>SO... in actual life, no we do not know enough of why electrolysis actually works. Our normal descriptions are just that - description of what we see mixed with theory about facts we know of how opposite charges react. But we do not know the actual way in which the &quot;mechanisms&quot; act. Why does the molecule have its bond broken? What maked the electrons in their shared orbits &quot;decide&quot; (I hate anthropomorphisms in science!) to &quot;snag&quot; a free electron floating by? What mechanisms allow the bonded pairs/atoms to detect the free electrons form the current are somehow &quot;more desirable&quot; than the ones already in the bond? Once the bond is broken, why is the newly acquired electron not simply replacing the older one in the bond? there is more, but you get the idea. And, I can propose what seem logical theories for a lot of this... but none of them are science until proven by observations and being able to repeat the results continually.</p><p>And I have yet to encounter a person so adamant on saying these systems are impossible to work, who has ever been through this level of understanding/knowledge/study on the subject. And this is also why the systems are &quot;complex.&quot;</p><p>&quot;</p><p>The reason why big companies don't include this systems in vehicles <br>(despite their effect) is fairly obvious to anyone who doesn't have an <br>irrational attitude towards the scientifically minded.&quot;</p><p>Please look up the term ad hominem. By definition you have nullified any validity you have by putting in this (emotionally driven) statement and assuming someone else's attitude (which is scientifically impossible to know anyway). You sound much more capable than this kind of reply.</p><p>If you also will do some research on the car companies and gas saving ideas, you will find way back in 1936 a patented design for a carburetor that would get 200 MPG was bought out for some serious cash by Ford (2 million I believe - but would have to check again - and that was a huge price back then). And they went ahead and implemented it right? Wrong. They shelved it. Why would a car company pay 2 million to a Mr. John Pogue for his great idea and then shelve it? Could it be possible they did not test his idea before shelling out that kind of cash? Do we think they would not have taken him to court after the deal if the claims were false and the machinery did not work as they expected? Would two million dollars (remember - backed by silver money - roughly 1.5M ounces worth - roughly 31 million in todays cash) not have been worth going to court for them? the facts are they bough it and shelved it. We don;t know why. But after other incidents through the years like this I have to admit it makes me not have too mcuh faith that they have consumer interests as their highest priority over the profits they can make.</p>
<p>First off, I was never emotionally responding. I said I take offense to your statement because I think you are insulting anyone, like myself, who has a college education and builds each and every one of the products that you snap together and think you are some kind of science wiz. Science itself is an interative process driven by experimentation, yes. However, experimentation does not lead to theory, theory leads to experimentation. EVERYTHING starts with theory. The hypothesis leads to experimentation. Observation is done during experimentation. I think you are confusing the layman usage of theory with the actual usage of theory. Technically speaking, all science is theoretical, because nothing can be proven without a doubt and even things we take as facts today are actually theories. They are just theories that have been tested countless times and never proven false. In order to become a theory, it has to be repeatedly tested. Arguing with me from a purely linguistic dictionary definition is not going to go anywhere.</p><p>Your emotion argument is nonsense. I didn't emotionally react to his idea, I reacted to your obviously insulting blanket statement about how those who practice theory are lesser scientists than those who do experiments. Thats an outrageous statement because without the theory people, the experiment people would have nothing to experiment. Most often the experimenters and theorists are the same people. If you mean that doing math on paper and using models and calculations is less scientific than doing experiments, you are also wrong because those calculations are tried and true theories. If you had even one iota of proper training you would know that the system described here is well within the scope of basic chemistry.</p><p>Your comments about theories being proved wrong proves nothing because those were all known to be flawed theories. The chemistry involved in this case is very very old information that has been proven countless times over. The physics involved with the things I was talking about it also very very old and tested.</p><p>We know a ton about electrolysis and can calculate any number of things about various reactions. The manner in which the process works is not known, but its irrelevant. There are tried and true calculations for all of the important useful data regarding this topic. Knowing how the electricity is interacting with the molecules is like knowing exactly how gravity works. It would be incredibly useful to know, but it isn't necessary for the large bulk of calculations. We can still build skyscrapers and vehicles and all sorts of things with the information we have. How much experimenting do you think goes into building a skyscraper? Just about none currently. Previously theorized and tested tech is just implemented with calculations. Only new methods are ever tested before use. The process in this instructable has not had near enough testing or data to show that it a) works and b) does not have unintended consequences.</p><p>I don't need to look up ad hominem, I'm a grown adult. Thanks for the attempt on an 8th grade english lesson though. It still remains that this would be far too unsafe for commercial production. You should look into the design of your specified carb. Just because someone bought it for a ton of money does not mean it was financially, physically, or practically appropriate. There are reasons besides being an evil money hungry corporation, which you would know if you had any experience in the industry. How would any car company stand to make more money withholding this type of tech anyway? If I was the only one selling a 200mpg car and it was affordable, I would sell more cars than anyone else in the world.</p><p>Since you haven't made a single valid argument in opposition to my comments about science and how this ible is a bad idea, I don't think I need to keep responding to you. I will not keep arguing semantics about different science terms with you. Bottom line is this: I am a college educated engineer working in this industry, and I can tell you that not only is this idea unsafe, it is unethical to post it here and allow others to potentially harm themselves. Its function is still under question, since no real provable data has been shown, and no accurate experimental method outlined. It involves modifying a critical component to your vehicle's operation, the effects of which have not been explored or even considered. I don't know, or care, if this works or not. All I know is that it is untested and highly dangerous. Rapid release atomization is a very real issue if a collision should occur (and lead to a tank rupture), due to the dissolved gasses involved. Damage could be done to the interior of the engine because of the increase AIR in the system (not just oxygen, air contains many gasses which react readily with other substances), and until this is fully investigated, anyone attempting this is putting themselves at risk of troubles later on. Also, no one should ever drill a hole in a gas tank attached to a vehicle. Drilling can leave metal filings in the tank which can cause a whole host of even more problems. If drilling is to be done, the tanks should be removed and all debris should be properly cleared.</p>
<p>Not to be nit picky but it's actually hypothesis that leads. Theory, the definition of is complicated but in general is what comes after using the scientific method of Idea, systematic observation, measurement, and experiment and modification of hypothesis. Theory follows an other than null result from the process. Theory is what experimentation produces, if successful. </p>
<p>&quot;I don't need to look up ad hominem, I'm a grown adult. Thanks for the attempt on an 8th grade english lesson though.&quot;</p><p>No... really... you should. You continued in the same self invalidating manner. None of us, including myself, knows everything - this is the reason we strive to find our mistakes if we are scientists. And we also appreciate when we can learn something new instead of reacting in a negative manner by equating the suggestion with a low level of education (emotion again).</p><p>And mostly the term ad hominem is never brought up in present day education systems unless the topic is debate, or if a person chooses to be part of a debate team. This is the dead ringer flag that can win legitimate debate sessions for one team or another.</p><p> &quot;Technically speaking, all science is theoretical, because nothing can be <br> proven without a doubt and even things we take as facts today are <br>actually theories. They are just theories that have been tested <br>countless times and never proven false. In order to become a theory, it <br>has to be repeatedly tested.&quot;</p><p>Actually, the progression is generally accepted as hypothesis being tested forms a theory. Exhaustive experimentation with the same results (within a percentage factor of error) then produces a scientific &quot;law.&quot; But as you said, nothing can be absolutely proven (few people understand what you said on this point), so this is why even scientific laws sometimes fail (such as recently the alleged finding of faster than light particles by using a particle accelerator). However, electrolysis for aiding gasoline combustion actually has not had a great deal of research except on things like &quot;the Mythbusters,&quot; and even then they left out some of the system (likely without knowing it). There are no major scientific studies done that I have been able to find where the conditions being experimented with at present are utilized. I would like to find one.</p><p>I have been trying for some time to understand the data/results I observed as I know the accepted laws are not being broken. The results have been repeatable, and thus it is my understanding of the actual working of the system is what I seek to understand.</p><p>However, I was trying to have a pure scientific discussion and was being given opinions on unknowable. Somehow you even missed the fact I totally agree with you on the pressurized system, and you went on to needlessly tell me why it was dangerous (obvious points I already agreed with). </p><p>BTW - As to selling more cars than anyone else of the companies implemented 200 MPG. This seemed to make sense to me too. But google VW 300 MPG. At present VW has a car vaildated at 261 MPG - they are $60,000, will not be sold in the US (all are slated for Europe), and they are only making a very limited number of them (200 or 2000 - sorry i forgot the number - its a big difference, I know!). I would also think mass producing these would put VW on top. But VW sees reality is dictating otherwise to them - I don't claim to understand their decision.</p><p>. </p><p>You said I listed no scientific facts, yet missed the scientific facts I listed concerning electrolysis to explain how my description of electrolysis was labeled as &quot;complex.&quot; The list was an attempt to list scientific fact showing we actualy do NOT have a valid understanding of electrolysis, and that computer models are not presently able to help us in actually understanding the system. I also listed these items b/c your words made it seem you did not understand electrolysis. Please notice I also gave you the benefit of the doubt by asking if your wording was a typo. </p><br><p>I had guessed you were a college grad, and I also understand why you felt a need to post a list of your accomplishments. Over the many years I have seen this over and over. When debating science you find patterns people fall into without knowing it. I personally do not understand why people don't want to look up facts (starting with ad hominem) to gain more knowledge. i once was at a point I thought I had &quot;arrived.&quot; But many years ago someone showed me I was in a similar pattern, and I was introduced to the knowledge absolutely essential in comprehending what true science and fact are. I had put myself into well meaning, educated, highly credentialed, but artificial and wasteful bubble of &quot;intellect.&quot; </p><p>When I valued being &quot;right&quot; more than I valued fact, I blinded myself. Being shown (not given just opinions) I am wrong is actually something I thank people for since it makes me more educated than I was.</p>
<p>Okay, input is fine, negative or positive, but at least provide a complete statement, one which includes statements (of fact) you make. Such as what kind of better systems/methods? How is it funky science. </p><p>As it exists now, your statement is just an ad hoc negation, or as we call it at work, a &quot;just so&quot; story. </p>
<p>A complete statement of what exactly? I did, and gave one individual a list of components and systems to learn about so he can see why this instructable is just a bad idea. Forget about any danger issue or pumping out extra fuel fumes from over pressurizing a fuel tank. Your critique is even more vague than you claim I am. More likely, you didn't like mine and others' tone so haven't even read all the comments completely, much less understand their content.</p><p>As it exists now, your critique is just an ad hoc negation, or as we call it at work, a &quot;just so&quot; story. IOW, lame.<br><br>All over the net, there are many ways to improve fuel economy and this isn't one of them. Critique the OP for lack of real, documented evidence that MIGHT make the dangerous idea worthwhile to try.</p>
<p>I'm all for trying new things. However, I'm not one to just go drilling holes in gas tanks because someone on Instructables said it works. I'm more for taking those ideas, exploring them, and vetting them before trying them. There is a reason we sent chimps up into space before sending men.<br>There have been too many DEATHS because of people making haste, poor decisions and tinkering with things they did not fully understand because &quot;Someone on the internet&quot; said it was safe and worked.<br>If you will read my reply, I point out several SAFTEY issues that need to be addressed in this, regardless of if it really works or not. (I even offered up the proper methods.)<br>I would even go so far as to suggest buying a replacement gas tank, making the mods on it, swapping it out, then driving it on a TEST TRACK and measuring the results as well as checking it for any leaking fumes before ever considering taking it out on public roads. <br>However, as this instructable stands, anyone following these directions not only endangers themselves, but also anyone that rides with them and possibly even other people on the roads around them.</p>
<p>When I read drill a hole my first thought was, how does he plan on getting any metal filings out?</p>
Congratulations on building a bomb.
What about the condensed air creating water that ends up in the fuel tank.
<p>I've heard of this being done before in WWII airplanes. It is very hazardous though since fuel won't explode or catch fire without an oxidizer. You are essentially premixing the oxidizer into the fuel which has the same effect as turbocharging. The primary reason this is a bad idea is that the flash point temperature of the fuel goes down, and the fuel can backflash up the fuel line turning the gas tank into a bomb. There are ways to make this safer, but nothing will make it safer in the event of a crash.</p>
<p>If you pressurised with an inert gas (non flammable), you might benefit from more kilometres per tank (but not mpg as the computer calculates this from fuel flow over distance). The greater mileage would be due to less fuel lost to vapour.</p><p>Regarding the author's concept, whilst O2 may dissolve in the liquid (I haven't done the chemistry calculations) the problem for modern vehicles would be that the O2 sensor will sense a lean condition and INJECT MORE FUEL to compensate. THIS is one of the reasons that Ethanol blended fuels (E10 etc) provide less fuel consumption.</p>
<p>What pressure are you regulating to?</p>
<p>the debate in the comments, though amusing it may be, needs a more readable conclusion. Basically, adding extra air to any combustion engine will make the car run too lean causing piston &amp; valve wear, as well as an overall hotter engine. On another note, without a fuel regulator the pressure in the fuel line could cause other issues</p>
<p>Hi, does it work with Diesel Fuel also effective?</p>
<p>DO...</p><p>NOT...</p><p>DO...</p><p>THIS...</p><p>PLEASE!</p><p>This is VERY dangerous (think collision, tank rupturing under pressure). It also will provide NEGLIGIBLE increase of efficiency (if anything at all, or even possibly will work against you). The amount of gas (of interest O2) that will be absorbed by the fuel is NEGLIGIBLE. The combustion occurs because a very small amount of very small droplets of fuel get injected in a cylinder that contains mostly air (~21% O2). You will gain NOTHING by adding a very small amount of O2 to the droplets themselves. DO NOT DO THIS.</p>
<p>You're too emphatic. I think if the author fo the instructable has done tests and were satisfactory mileage, this is worth being tested. <br>The risk exists, it is undeniable, but please tell me ONE POWERFUL THING that is not DANGEROUS.</p>
<p>If anyone does test this on a public road system and the tank ruptures, they will go to prison for criminal negligence. Its unsafe and illegal to modify your vehicle in this manner. There are much larger problems beyond the fact that the tank is pressurized.</p>
<p>The fuel tank has a strength much greater than the pressure that can lift that little compressor. In addition Mattj91 can add a safety valve. </p><p>Let Mattj91 do its job, if he is wrong is his problem, not yours.</p>
It's not just his problem, it's a problem for everyone on the road near him. And once his auto insurance discovers the modifications to his vehicle if he hasn't informed then already, if there ever was an accident then it could deny him coverage &amp; and any claims against him. I know my auto insurance carrier requires to be informed of just after market add ons!
<p>The typical 12V emergency compressor is usually rated to at least 100 PSI. Sometimes they go to 200 PSI. The photo looks like this compressor:</p><p><a href="http://www.harborfreight.com/12volt-150-psi-compact-air-compressor-69285.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.harborfreight.com/12volt-150-psi-compac...</a></p><p><strong>Which is rated to 150 PSI</strong>. Do you think the gas tank is rated to 150 PSI?</p><p>Yes he used a regulator. But regulators fail. Yes he could include a pressure release but he didn't. If the tank's built in pressure release valve opens then he is pumping fuel into the atmosphere.</p>
<p>You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Fuel tanks vary by make and model of vehicle, and compressors vary as well. Very small compressors are able to create 100's of psi, especially over long time periods. Besides all of that, there are much greater dangers than a &quot;safety valve&quot; can protect against. It is unethical to post this online, and if any licensed engineer had posted this, they would lose their ability to practice. It is also illegal to drive modified fuel systems on public roads, so regardless of safety, no one should do this. </p>
<p>It is not &quot;worth being tested&quot; because hundreds if not thousands of trained engineers have been bashing on the efficiency problem in gasoline engines for more than a hundred years. They have already tested this in ways much more precise and safer than what is described here. Joe-six-pack in his garage with $100 worth of parts from Harbor Freight isn't going to magically discover something new. I know people really like the idea that joe-six-pack might actually do that but<em> it doesn't happen</em>. Occasionally joe-six-pack comes up with an incremental improvement but he isn't going to come up with a simple system that boosts mileage by 50%. <em><strong>It just isn't going to happen.</strong></em> Any claim to have done it is either a lie or bad science.</p>
<p>Your comment sounds meritorious, but also is meritorious the &quot;nothing is lost by doing the test&quot;. </p><p>What is the problem? If Mattj91 does it having elemental safety precautions, the worst scenario is &quot;nothing happened&quot;. Leave him alone and peaceful, please. </p>
<p>Stupidity, quackery and fraud should be opposed at every opportunity. You have a right to your own opinion but not to your own facts.</p><p>Misuse of science: &quot;<em>Check the Physics if you Don't Believe it.</em>&quot; I know the physics (and the chemistry and the engineering) and he is wrong. </p><p>Something is lost in doing the test: The cost in time, material and effort. Not to mention the brain dead (and borderline criminally negiligent) suggestion of drilling a hole in a gas tank.</p>
<p>Time, material and effort are &ndash;eventually&ndash; lost by Mattj91, leave him to live his life. <br><br>Maybe you know much more than him, but your attitude is fundamentalist. <br><br>World would be a better site if each person is devoted to live and let live.</p>
<p>The world is a much better place if people don't suggest stupid, dangerous and illegal things. The world is a better place if people don't lie (<em>my uncle invented a super gas saving device but got bought out by car and oil companies</em>). The world is a better place if they don't misquote scientific principles then claim it is &quot;fact&quot;. The world is a better place if people recognize certain fundamental physical limits and don't claim they have found a way around the laws of thermodynamics, chemistry and physics.</p><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/675/" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/675/</a></p>
<p>It seems that you have set up yourself as a savior of mankind, ferd. I tell you that we have had enough of them, worst for all us.</p>
<p>Yes, I oppose stupidity at every opportunity. I also oppose breaking the law. Modifying the fuel and vapor recovery system of a modern US street car is illegal.</p><p>If someone posts an instructable on how to cook meth I'll oppose that as well.</p>
<p>So by that rationale you should continue to play russian roulette just because nothing happened.</p>
<p>Ralenti, keep calm. </p><p>You are overacting, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in the past. </p>
<p>LOL. I am calm, I don't know what you're getting out of this but you must admit it's not safe for people to do this on street cars. </p>
<p>I don't &quot;must&quot; admit anything. I have my own opinion about the matter, that differs from yours. It is all.</p>
<p>Yes. It also differs from reality.</p>
Good lord. Get real rimar2000. <br><br>The author has not done tests. He did it once. That is not &quot;tests&quot;.<br>His &quot;satisfactory mileage&quot; is a fantasy.
<p>Here are two things.</p><p>knowledge and understanding</p>
<p>I'd say those are the two most dangerous.</p>
<p>Thanks, Steve.</p>
<p>Could you not place an in line pressurizing tank that would:</p><p>Hold a small amount of gasoline,</p><p> would require no drilling into the vehicles' gas tank, </p><p>would be more robust and less likely to rupture, (say, an old liter-sized propane tank)</p><p>were it to rupture, (You Deity/Gods' Name here) forbid, it wouldn't be as big of an explosion,</p><p>easier to regulate,</p><p>and be more customizable, (say, with an emergency pressure release valve)?</p><p>| GAS TANK | | ENGINE |</p><p>|___________| =========[ ]======= | |</p><p>. /\</p><p>. Pressurized Tank</p><p>Also, as far as looking into your actual results.....just reset your trip counter, fill your tank to FULL. Run without the system for a while. Write down mileage. Fill your tank to FULL once again, reset your trip counter again, then turn on the system and run for a while, again. Then write down the mileage, again, and simply do some basic math to find out you MPG for both scenarios. Easy-peasy. </p><p>And I do agree that this is VERY DANGEROUS! It should NOT be attempted by your average bear. Or even a less than professional bear. Keep the bears out of the equation, if at all possible. </p>
sorry. my ASCII tank diagram got messed up int the upload. not hard to figure out if you read my suggestion.
<p>so.. many... flaws...<br><br>Won't say anything bad, just that I'm a degree level Automotive Engineer, building a jet engine, and played with engines for over a decade. I'm not sure what you're expecting to happen, but I assure you, what you think is happening, isn't<br><br>Pressurising the full tank to the maximum potential of the unregulated tyre pump (usually approx 50psi) is asking to have your fuel tank go pop. It most likely won't do it first time, but fatigue will see to that after a few cycles. The effect is even more dangerous the emptier the tank gets</p>