John Nijssen Performance Engine Builder   

strokerengine@hotmail.com 760-508-4562 California

Introduction to Fuel Savings Technologies.
I am currently engaged in testing fuel savings technologies.
My goal is to find products that do genuinely work and provide them from this website.

Over the last few months I have tested a number of technologies, but I ran into a problem. My test vehicle is the shop truck is a 1997 Dodge Dakota V6.
I have discovered that this vehicle, like a number of others uses a on-board computer that has fixed presets that prevents any improvements in fuel consumption.
This is probably the most important issue related to getting better fuel mileage you can discover.
Most cars and small truck on the road today use Electronic Fuel Injection(EFI). The EFI system is program at the factory.
If you add a gas saving device or fuel tank additive that DOES work, your computer must either automatically compensate, or YOU must reprogram it.
I am currently testing a PCM/ECU over ride system, and hope to post the results soon.

I believe it important when recommending or promoting fuel saving technologies that I have first hand proof that they work.
Early research results indicate that Hydrogen is useful to increase gas mileage.
An improvement in mpg will result from burning fuel in the combustion chamber that is currently going out the exhaust pipe unburned, we call it smog.
A catalytic convertor is use the "chemically burn" this unburned carbon monoxide fuel. The more unburned fuel an engine emits, the greater the potential increase in gas mileage.

Inside Your Engine.
When the spark plug lights the piston is not yet at the top of the compression stroke.
As the piston moves up, then stops, then starts down the cylinder, the burning air/fuel charge in the cylinder is expanding, this is call flame propagation.
Put another way, the flame front is moving outward from the spark plug toward the far side of the combustion chamber and chasing the piston down the cylinder.
While one might imagine this expanding fireball moves incredibly fast, it does not move as fast as we would like.

Typically in most engines there is a portion called both "squish" and "quench".
This is the area of closest contact between the piston and the cylinder head.
It is used to increase turbulence and swirl to better mix the air and fuel just before it is ignited.
Unfortunately this positive effect is undermined by causing a reduction of the temperature in the combustion chamber, by drawing heat into the cooling system.
Farther, this "tight spot" makes it difficult for the expanding fireball to "reach in" and burn the fuel in this area.
Once the piston has descended, this area opens up, however cylinder pressure is now being reduced as the piston movement opens up the volume in the cylinder.

Thermal Efficiency.
Maximum cylinder pressure or push on the pistons happens approximately at 15 degrees of crankshaft rotation past TDC, or the point where the piston reached the top of the cylinder.
This is the position in the "power stroke" where the the engine makes maximum power output.
As the piston moves further down the cylinder, any fuel still in the process of burning and any fuel yet to burn will have a greatly reduced "power effect" on the piston and thus from the engine.
We call this engine inefficacy and is directly connected to fuel efficiency.

Increasing the speed of the burn rate of the fuel, will cause more of the fuel to be in the process of burning, thus producing high cylinder pressure at 15 degrees past TDC and therefore making more power>
I have found that modifying the combustion chamber shape and increasing the compression ratio causes the fuel to burn faster and make more power
A recent dyno test with a 463 cubic inch V8 engine made 500lbs/ft at 2500rpm and 654lbs/ft at 5100rpm.
This was a very successful combination that result in part from the combustion chamber modifications I made.
Increasing power output means you don't need to "step on the gas pedal" so hard to go 65mph.
Not stepping on the gas is the BEST way to get better miles per gallon.

Add HYDROGEN.
Hydrogen burns faster that petrol, diesel, natural gas, propane, alcohol, you name it.
It also has a higher octane rating. This is the rate it can burn under a give pressure before it explodes. Adding hydrogen to any conventional internal combustion engines fuel will make that fuel burn faster. It is NOT the hydrogen that makes the extra power, and therefore better mpg, but it enhances the release of MORE energy from the onboard fuel.

While motor can be made to run on pure hydrogen, it is however not practical for a number of reasons I won't get into that subject here.
Suffice to say hydrogen is best used with "fuel cell" technology, which is more about producing electricity to drive a car"
It just is not a great internal combustion engine fuel>

Making It Work.
To successful add hydrogen to an engine requires adding the correct amount related to the volume of air and fuel the engine is currently using
To do this you MUST have control over the hydrogen induction system, and the Electronic Fuel Injection system.
You must be able to override the fuel injector pulse width, (amount of fuel being sprayed into the intake port, and readjust to ignition timing.
One of the indicator of improved power production, thus fuel economy is retarding the "spark advance".
While some automobile onboard computers will try to adjust themselves, personal intervention will result in improved results.

This is the technology I am currently testing

Once proven it will be for sale here.

One of the most important considerations in buying a fuel saver id cost.
If the system cost you $1000 and saves you $500 per year, it won't do you much good for a long time.
You must be able to recover your purchase cost and begin enjoying reduced motor vehicle operating expense
The more expensive the technology, the greater the reduction in fuel consumption must be.
I hope to offer a complete Brow's Gas system for under $700 soon.

Brown's Gas.
Also known as HHO and hydroxy.
It is a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen produced by using electricity to spit H2O water molecules into these two gases.
The argument has long been that the extra energy produced in the engine will be consumed in producing the required electricity from the alternator.
To make this type of system work it must produced more energy from the onboard fuel than is required to spit water into hydrogen and oxygen gases.
This is once again a matter of efficiency.

Bottom Line.
Let's say gas id $4.00 per gallon. probably $5 before summer 2011.
You now get 20mpgs. You buy a $700 hydroxy system that produces a 30% reduction in fuel consumption, which would mean you now get 26mpg. Any acceleration increases fuel consumption. Lets say at wide open throttle acceleration you get 7mpg.
Even if you still get a 30% reduction, which is difficult to achieve because you will require system readjustment for acceleration which would increase the system price for very little reduction in operational cost.
5mpg plus 30% is 6.5mpg. Good but will be little noticed during actual operation and more lkely will be closer to 5% gain at WOT..
Returning to cost, let's say you drive 12,000 miles per year at an overall average of 20 miles per gallon.
With gas at four bucks a gallon 12,000 miles divided by 20mpg multiplied by $4 equals $2400 for gas per year.

Figuring Actual Cost.
Now let's say the system cost $500 and improves your average to 25% or to 25mpg, but keep in mind the more long trips the better the percentage you will achieve.
12,000 :- 25mpg X $4 = $1920 plus $500 = $2420. No savings first year.
Clearly it took over one full year of driving to pay for the system before you will enjoy a reduction in operating expense.
This is the main reason you do not see greater use of hydroxy on the road.
People want lower fuel cost now, not next year.
Cheaper $100-$200 seldom achieve measurable results, yet there are plenty of these "cheaper" systems for sale.

What is need is a system that pays for it's self quickly.
I will introduce a liquid hydrogen fuel additive very soon at a cost of $10 per tank.
If it can achieve a 25% improvement 20mpg becomes 24mpg.
12,000 :- 25mpg X $4 = $1920
Using a 20 gallon fuel tank, 12,000miles :- 25mpg :- 20G = 24 tank fulls. 24 tanks treated @ $10 per tank is $240 + $1920 = $2160 or   $240   save per year.

For a hydroxy system to be worthwhile it need to get in the order of 50% improvement.
12,000 :- 40mpg X $4 = $1200 plus say $600 for the system totaling $1800 and saving   $600   the first year,   $1200 thereafter.

Using a price of $6 per gallon currently being paid over seas and expected in the US later 2011 early 2012, saves $1000 first year, $1800 there after.

I am working toward offering a Hydroxy system capable of 50% for $600 soon.

If you are interested in more information please email me at strokerengine@hotmail.com and discuss it.

According to ex oil industry employee Lindsey Williams this is just the beginning of a steady increase in gasoline prices to at least of $8 per US gallon.
Lindsey Williams claims he is being informed by an oil industry insider (exective leader) of the industries plans for the immediate future, in this case up till 2012. While one can never be sure about future predictions, his track record of predicting prices has been very accurate over the last 20 years.
Mr Williams claims the oil industry plans to influence the price of crude oil up from the current price of around $100 a barrel to $200.
As the nears price this level the oil companies intend to open up US oil field reserves.
While many of us have thought using US oil would lower the price and reduce the national deficit, it looks like it isn't going to happen that way.
Instead everything will go up in price and will likely slow any economic recovery.

For more on this and to find video, just internet search Lindsey Williams and oil prices, and decide for yourself if you believe him.

To aid me in this research I will be using a ScanGauge II

Click Here Hard Ceramic Coating Extends Engine Life By Reducing Fuel Consuming Friction

Testing High Pressure Groove MORE VIDEO

MORE TECH TALK
While many people have come to believe that nothing works to save money buying fuel, mainly because so many "scams" have come and gone, some still around and have proven to not work, that does not meaning improving engine performance is not possible, it is, I do it everyday.
"They" also said a dragster could not go faster than 200mph. they were very wrong.
Fundamentally we know for sure we can get better gas mileage because we know we are not burning all the fuel we put into an engine because we have "smog" or a combination of toxic gases coming out the exhaust pipe that we can trace as being varying forms of unburned fuel.
While the engine its self with it's piston stopping and starting is an inefficient design and can be improved upon, we are all pretty much stuck with what we have under the hood, but we can look at what is happening in the motor.

The main hope for improved fuel consumption or Brake Specific Fuel Consumption(BSFC) which is measured using a dynamometer is find a way to get more of the fuel in the combustion chamber to burn before the piston descends 20 degrees past top dead center as any fuel still to burn at this point will burn too cold making very little usable power.
Once we have found a way to burn most or all of the fuel by 15 degrees past TDC, adding another product will do nothing for us as the benefit has already been achieved.
To restate, it is possible to get fuel savings, the only question is "What Does Work and What Does Not?"


To achieve more complete fuel burning we need to improve upon the nature of the flame propagation, a fancy word to state that fuel does not explode, but rather burns from one point (where the spark starts) to the farthest point in the combustion chamber, which is rapidly expanding lowering pressure and temperature.
If explodes fuel we call it detonation or knocking and pinging. It is a very bad thing as it does not make power, but instead breaks engine parts.
I building high performance engines detonation limits the compression ratio increases I can make.

Anything I can do to improve flame propagation will make more power, or burn less fuel.
The first best way to minimize fuel burning is to drive slower. That's no fun, so let's try everything else first.
For any product or modification to work it needs to make the mixture of air and fuel more easily and faster by either:-
lowering the required temperature
increase the exposed molecular surfaces
increase the points of ignition
extreme lean burn A/F ratio
Before choosing a product to test, I first consider the manufacturers claims of how these above requirements are to be achieved.

I have spent far more on test equipment than I can hope to get back in 3 years of lower fuel consumption savings, but I need to know for sure that something works before I promote it.

Although most fuel savings products offered over the years have fail to work effectively, that does not mean getting better fuel economy is not possible.
You'll often hear someone say, "If it really works, the car companies would be using it".
So lets talk about what car companies have done.
By the way, car companies, are planning to bring us electric and hydrogen cars.
At best this is some time off and will only be used for a long time by upper income commuters.
What we need is something now.
Auto manufacturers turned to electronic fuel injection (EFI) to improve efficiency over carburetors.
By more precisely metering the volume of fuel at all RPMS and load conditions, EFI prevents wasting fuel by over supply.
By using "knock" (detonation) sensors and ignition retardation, they can run the air/fuel ratio on the lean (less fuel in the combustible charge) side of stoichiometric (the ideal air and fuel ratio {A/R} at which all oxygen available is converted by fire and hoping all the fuel is completely burned.
14.7 is ideal for gasoline, (this ratio is not considered safe when using a conventional carburetor) which should burns less fuel at any given speed and load.
Some EFI systems switched off the fuel supply when the engine is in de-acceleration mode, preventing any fuel being burned.

Sorry for being all technical, but I'm not a salesman, I'm a mechanical guy, if I'm going to explain something I want to do a good job.

Recently direct injection of gasoline into the cylinder(GDI) has been introduced.
GDI is spraying the gasoline into the cylinder under very high pressure rather than into the intake manifold before the intake valve.
While this method is superior in efficiency for making power, it also allows for ultra lean burn, A/F ratios, in the 65:1 region under light loads.
With ideally location of the injector in the combustion chamber, cooling of the fuel by metal surfaces such as the cylinder walls is minimized, resulting in the fuel temperature being hotter, making for more complete atomization and therefore burning(fuel burns better when hot).
A toroidal(donut shape) cavity is manufactured into the top of the piston to enhance technique.
This system does away with the conventional throttle blade to control engine speed, using fuel supply volume as the control, much like diesel engines do.

Many of this new generation of GDI engines also incorporate variable valve timing(VVT).
As a engine changes speed, the amount of time the valves need to be open to bring air in and exhaust out also changes.
I won't go into detail, but provide the example of building performance engines.
If I want to make maximum horsepower at high RPM, I choose a camshaft profile than has the valve open for as long as possible.
While the engine maybe very effective at converting gasoline to power at 7000rpm, but at idle, gasoline might be dripping from the exhaust pipe, because the engine is ingesting more than it can possible drink.
VVT attempts to provide ideal filling and emptying cycles.

To convert your car to GDI and VVT would cost far more than you could every expect to recover with fuel saving in 20 years.
What most of us need is a method of improving combustion in our motors without investing a large capital out lay up front.
If you drive an average of 33 miles per day, being 12,000 per year and get 20mpg, and pay $3.00(in California, less in other states, $7.00 in Holland)that's $1800 per year.
If you find away to improve your consumption to 23mpg(15%) you will save $280.
But if you purchased a gadget that cost $250, you are not going to be very excited about the $30 you ultimately saved that first year.
Hopefully it will still be working next year and not costing you more out lay, then you'll have saved $310 over 2 years.

To get excited about saving gas you either need to pay as you burn and get an immediate savings.
If in the example above the improvement was 15% then the $3.00 price for petrol drops to $2.55, and if it cost $0.15 per gallon to achieve, then your saving is $0.30 per gallon($2.70) or $180 per year not spent.
If you drive more miles or get better improvements your savings will be greater. A commercial diesel truck might burn $8000 of fuel per year and save $800 per year.

The whole purpose here is if you spend a dime to effect the spending of a dollar, and the result is you got for 80 cents, what was a dollar, then you are ahead of the game.
Won't it be great if you could sleep for seven hours, but it felt like eight?

What I am looking for is effective fuel savings products that achieves real results.
While it is possible to use more than one technique to improve fuel efficiency, we are limited to the laws of physics and reality.
There is only a given amount of heat-power in a drop of fuel.
Sadly we only turn a small fraction to movement.
I've introduce the expensive technology that the car manufacturers can build into their product, but we are limited to "add ons" in the form of liquid or gas additives and mechanical modifications and additions.
The modification or bolt on must be inexpensive, or provide a large enough improvement to pay for and provide worthwhile savings within the first year.

Any add on or additive can only work by causing more of the fuel in the combustion chamber to be burned.
Otto four stroke engines are very inefficient in their function, and at capturing all the potential energy in a drop of fuel.
Without a complete redesign of the engine in your vehicle, we are limited to trying to get more of the fuel burning at the ideal time in the rotation of the installed engine.
We all know that smog is unburned fuel.
In a perfect burn engine, we would only get CO2 and water out the exhaust pipe.
Trees like CO2, even if politicians don't.
Our goal is to burn the fuel in the motor rather than dumping it in the exhaust pipe and then using a catalytic converter to attempt to burn this wasted fuel in a second more chemical process, that makes no use of the fuel, but attempts to minimize the poisons we are force to breathe.

The "sweet spot" to have burned the fuel is before 15 degrees past top dead center.
As the piston descends, the pressure drops bring temperature down with it.
Any fuel not yet burned by 20 degrees past is not going to burn very well and provide much power.
We need to either burn the fuel faster, without causing it to explode, (detonation, knocking, pinging) or have more of it ignited from the beginning.
Unless a product explanation can be made as to how this is achieved, then I won't even bother looking at it.

Below are products I am now either beginning to promote, or am researching.
I am using my high mileage Dodge EFI V6 shop truck with a factory rated hwy MPG of 19.
If I can achieve results with this type of vehicle with is restrictive on-board computer, the product should work on most others.
One fact I must point out as being one of the most problematic in achieving results, is the on board computer controlling fuel delivery in most post 1985 vehicles.
Oxygen sensors(02)measure exhaust temperature and convert these readings as indicators as to the A/F ratio.
Burning more of the fuel in the motor results in a higher exhaust temperature in the exhaust pipe, but a lower temperature in the catalytic converter.
This confuses many computers, which then provides either too much extra fuel to the engine, spoiling any gains, or too lean a mix which kills power, making you stomp on the accelerator harder, spoiling the gains, and possibly hurting your engine due to detonation.
Some computers will behave helpful when we add fuel saving technology, others will need to be re-calibrated.
This is one of the most critical areas I am researching.

Two different products might achieve the same effect by differing means, but the gain will only be realize once.
However some products might be used together to enjoy increased gains. OK, let's get started.
Below I introduce various products and give my account of them.
This webpage will always be a work in progress, so if you have a real interest, check back later.

As of right now I am offering Xado and Mach3.
While I haven't completed testing I am confident they perform as claimed because of the professional testing already completed one these products.

Mach3 is a fuel additive that modifies the fuel molecules.
It shortens the length of the "link chain" like cluster of molecules exposing more surface area, which results in more of the fuel "catching fire" at any moment.

Xado is an additive put in the oil, but it is does not modify the oil.
Instead the oil is use to spread this man made nano ceramic copy of the material that surports the Earth's techtonic plates throughout the engine coating the metal surfaces, filling in the "nocks and cranies" and providing a very hard, very smooth surface.
The main purpose to to protect high load fiction surfaces from wear, but this same process provides results in modest fuel savings as less fuel is required to rotate the engine.

Of interest is the consideration of how much of the fuel is used to rotate the engine.
When the fuel is ignited the piston is "pushed" down the cylinder rotating the crankshaft and ultimately the wheels.
However that energy must also be used to rotate the engine through the exhaust, intake and compression cycles.
It must overcome the surface friction of all the parts in the engine, transmission, differential and between the tires and road.
Yes proper tire inflation is important, but it is minimal when compared to the energy used to compress the intake charge and compress the valve springs.
Of interest is the fact that while increasing the compression makes the engine harder to rotate, doing so causes more energy to be released from the fuel than the increased compression consumed
Anything we can do to prevent detonation so we can increase the compression ratio will give us better fuel econemy, however it does require rebuilding the engine, not a practical option for most comutters.

Just a quick word on converting water into fuel, a concept I will explore, but leave till last.
Some will claim the electrical energy required to generate used to convert H2O to H2 & O2 will be equal to or greater than the power it will produce from the engine.
Someone I admire, Dr Micho Kaku told me on the phone this very belief.
However I had the confidence to argue the point with him.
I believe the power increase is had, NOT from burning the hydrogen, but rather using the hydrogen and oxygen to burn more of the primary fuel ie: gasoline or diesel, that is already present in the chamber, but was not going to completly burn.
It is the fuel, not the extra hydrogen that provides the gains.

 

 

NASA Reports Hydrogen and Gasoline Mix Increases Mileage Posted on August 28th, 2008 by admin U. S. space agency NASA has been using hydrogen fuel cells since the 1960s to provide power for astronauts aboard their spacecraft. The hydrogen fuel cells have also provided drinking water for the space goers. UTC Power hydrogen fuel cells have been aboard all Space Shuttle flights with over 100,000 operating hours to their credit. But, what many people don’t know is that back in May 1977, NASA also came out with a document stating that hydrogen helps gasoline-powered internal combustion engines increase mileage and lower emissions. A week ago, I talked about how the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) made the same claim just last year. Some critics have stated that if hydrogen injection is such a viable technology, then why isn’t our government talking about it. The short answer is, they are. We just haven’t known where to look to find the details. According to the 31 year old document titled, “Emissions and Total Energy Consumption of a Multicylinder Piston Engine Running on Gasoline and a Hydrogen-Gasoline Mixture” adding small amounts of hydrogen to the gasoline and air mix extends the lean range of the vehicle. In other words, hydrogen with its higher flame speed help lean out or use less gas thereby increasing mileage and reducing the tailpipe emissions. According to NASA, “Using a small quantity, on a weight basis, of hydrogen as a supplement to gasoline was chosen as a way to extend lean engine operation. Onboard generation of hydrogen was selected as a feasible way to use hydrogen in a mobile application.” Both NASA and the U. S. DOT have validated that using hydrogen in a gasoline-powered vehicle will increase mileage and reduce emissions.

 

 

Currently to buy and try any product featured in this website, please write to me at strokerengine@hotmail.com