Home
Savings Test Results Technical
Information Newsletter Order
Contact and employment opportunities
Spring
2004
Auterra Dyno-Scan Monitoring
and Augmenting
In
February I was pointed to a tool of exceptional value for any fuel mileage
enthusiast, whether or not that person had the Hydrogen-Boost system. This tool is called the Auterra
Dyno-Scan and can be viewed at http://www.auterraweb.com/
and has proven to be a great tool for analysing the operation of the
Hydrogen-Boost system. At first we
though we could get Auterra to incorporate some of the features of our
electronic control circuit into the Dyno-Scan tool so we could do away with the
separate control circuit. This
isn't possible but we will be able to incorporate some programming into the
Auterra which can display on the PDA screen a parameter unique to Hydrogen-Boost
users, that being a meter displaying hydrogen production as a percent of
maximum. I think we can even
program in a warning flash when water levels in the hydrogen generator get to
low for hydrogen production.
Whether we end up working this into the Auterra scan tool or some other
scan tool will be decided when we finish our research of scan tools available
and negotiate costs of modifications and production of the finished unit. Until then we will do extensive testing
with the Auterra in conjunction with the Hydrogen-Boost system to achieve the
best possible mileage. We will
keep you informed of our research as we go along.
Ignition Timing Difference
with Hydrogen-Boost
We
have long maintained that Hydrogen-Boost works in two ways in the combustion
process. First it spreads the
flame of combustion faster after spark plug ignition. Second, it burns more of the fuel in the top 1/3 of the
power stroke because more of the injected fuel gets vaporized. Therefore more complete combustion is
achieved throughout the power stroke, thereby reducing the emissions as well as
reducing the amount of fuel needed to attain the same power and torque. Many have concluded that if our claims
were true we must retard the ignition to make up for the quicker flame spread
caused by the hydrogen injection.
Since most vehicles sold today have no way of adjusting the timing but
indeed the timing is indeed adjusted by the ECU on-board computer. Until now we have had no way of
documenting these claims.
Using
the Auterra Dyno-Scan tool we monitored and recorded five parameters, over
time, that would help us back up the claims. The parameters that were recorded were engine coolant
temperature, intake manifold pressure, throttle position, rpm, and ignition
timing advance.
The main interest was in the ignition
timing advance but the other parameters were needed to insure that we had
similar conditions for comparing the timing advance. Six recordings were made of drives of a certain route that
allowed numerous accelerations under full throttle. Three runs were done without hydrogen injection and fuel
heat, and three with hydrogen injection and fuel heat. Also noticed on the recording were
short periods of stable idle rpm.
Since the timing advance during idle was not a stable reading at any
time we focused on the acceleration timing advance, which was quite stable.
We
took periods of acceleration that matched parameters and then averaged the
ignition timing advance during those times. The average timing advance without hydrogen and fuel heat
was 18.5 degrees, and the average timing advance with hydrogen and fuel heat
was 13.125 degrees. This verifies
a retarding of the timing by 5.375 degrees, with the addition of hydrogen
injection and fuel heating.
Calculating
the timing advance at the average rpm of the tests (3300 rpm) we see that the
"flame spread" of the stock equipment was 9.3425 milli-seconds while
the "flame spread with Hydrogen-Boost equipment installed was 6.628
milli-seconds. This accounts for a
30% reduction of "flame spread" time.
Tire Rolling Tests
Four months ago I drove to the Rochester, NY area to
take delivery of some tires I had purchased on Ebay after researching
"low-rolling resistance" tires.
I had found out that most new vehicles come equipped with low-rolling
resistance tires so that the manufacture's fleet would meet the federal fuel
mileage requirements. Typically
when the tires are worn out the owner will opt for tires that are not
low-rolling resistance. Winter,
mud, and rain traction, as well as warrantee wear mileage, typically determine
what model tire is chosen. This
I'm sure is due in part to the lack of emphasis on the value of low-rolling
resistance tires by either the car manufacturers, the tire manufacturers, or
the media. As I have said before,
most Americans are not interested in fuel mileage until there is a spike in
fuel prices.
Knowing that the low rolling resistance tires
typically have a higher maximum air pressure rating, and knowing that most
people are scared to ever pump in more pressure than what is stated on the side
of the tire, I decided to do some rolling resistance testing. Without a chassis dynamometer I had to
design a couple comparison tests that would show the difference in rolling
resistance. I had already done
previous tests on how tire air pressure affected rolling resistance and those
results are published on the newsletter pages of the hydrogen-Boost web
site. What I was most interested
in on these present tests was to compare the rolling resistance on various
tires while each held the air pressure that I recommend, despite the rating on
the side of the tires. Refer to
the February 2002 newsletter hydrogen-boost.com web site to see why I maintain
that 50 psi is a safe recommended pressure.
The three tests I chose to determine the rolling
resistance were a coasting test down a hill from a standing start, a coasting
test from a running start at 40 mph, and a cruise test while monitoring the
intake manifold pressure.
The first test was done on Nathan Street in
Queensbury, New York. This street
is where I live and it is five blocks long on a medium grade down hill. I used a mailbox at the top of the hill
as a starting line. Four time
check points were one block apart from each other and were telephone poles and
a stockade fence. On each coasting
test I recorded the time I passed each checkpoint. For each set of tires I did a minimum of four test
runs. For comparison I added all
the times of each test run together and averaged the runs done on each set of
tires.
The second test was a coasting test starting at 40
mph on the top of a slight to medium hill and checking the speed at the finish
line about one half a mile away.
The higher the finishing speed, the lower the rolling resistance.
The third test was done at 45 mph cruise on the same
flat section of road about half a mile long. The lower the intake manifold pressure required to maintain
speed, the lower the rolling resistance.
Though I did not do an Auterra recording of these runs I did note that
the manifold pressure was hardly noticeably different but did correspond with
the findings of the other two tests.
Test one established total checkpoint time averages
as follows:
Michelin
MXV4 Energy 195/65/15 rated at 44 psi tested at 44 psi 129.3
seconds
Firestone
FR680 mud & snow 175/70/14 rated at 40 psi tested at 50 psi 127.75
seconds
Michelin
MXV4 Energy 195/65/15 rated at 44 psi tested at 50 psi 126.83
seconds
Goodyear
Integrity 175/65/14 rated at 44 psi tested at 50 psi 125.25
seconds
Bridgestone
Potenza 175/70/14 rated at 44 psi not tested due to flat from slow leak
Test
two coasting speed test beginning at 40 mph gave the following finishing
speeds:
Michelin
MXV4 Energy 195/65/15 rated at 44 psi tested at 44 psi 22
mph
Firestone
FR680 mud & snow 175/70/14 rated at 40 psi tested at 50 psi 22
mph
Michelin
MXV4 Energy 195/65/15 rated at 44 psi tested at 50 psi 21.5
mph
Goodyear
Integrity 175/65/14 rated at 44 psi tested at 50 psi 21.5
mph
Bridgestone
Potenza 175/70/14 rated at 44 psi not tested due to flat from slow leak
Analysis
and conclusion:
The
above results show a noticeable difference in performance but only a very
slight difference. Notice that all
the tires that were compared were not only of different brands and tread
pattern but they were also of different size. Though not conclusively ranked in order of size the results
generally showed that the smaller tire gave the least rolling resistance. Given that the difference in
performance of different Makes and tire treads at the same air pressure was so close,
less than 2%, and the difference due to air pressure of only 6psi with the same
tires (MXV4) was also 2%, and the difference due to tire size was not truly
consistent, I conclude that the most important determining factor of rolling
resistance is tire air pressure.
It
should be noted that the tread patterns and the sizes were very much similar
and that if a snow tire was used instead of the treads used today there would
be an appreciably noticeable difference in performance. Evidence of this assertion is reported
in the winter 2003-2004 newsletter where it was reported that there was a 4.8%
decrease in mileage when I tested snow tires at 50 psi at a driving speed of 70
mph, compared to the Firestone FR680 tires at 50 psi.
Also I would like to warn of the negative affects of
using larger tires than those prescribed for your vehicle. Wider tread causes the obvious extra
drag, but larger radius also causes a usually detrimental affect on mileage,
even after you calculate the adjustment factor for the size difference. There is a chance that at certain
speeds with certain vehicles, that the adjusted mileage obtained with larger
diameter tires might be slightly greater than with the normal tires. Only through experimentation could you
find the optimum tire size for the optimum cruise speed for your vehicle. Generally sticking to the stock size
tire will give you the best mileage unless you can find a narrower tire and are
willing to sacrifice maximum traction available to get the mileage. Remember, if you are choosing tires for
fuel mileage you will sacrifice traction so don't drive like a hot rod driver
on high psi tires. I spun out on
the cloverleaf of the interstate highway when I exited too fast on my 50 psi
tires. If you are driving for
mileage you shouldn't be going fast anyway.
What
makes a tire low-rolling resistant?
My opinion is that any tire can be made into a fairly low resistant
tire, but not always safely. What
makes a tire low-rolling resistant is little tread, and high pressure, neither
of which is a safer condition than what the tire was designed for. Little tread makes for an unsafe tire
in standing water at high speed, and high pressure makes a tire unsafe if you
are driving at high speed on wet pavement. Since high speed is not good for fuel mileage we can run
with these conditions to a point as long as we are the only one driving the
vehicle.
When a tire's tread gets down to legal limits it is
time to change the tire, but not until.
Don't risk running on tires with less than legal tread, but don't change
tires when they are only half worn out either. Tire tread pattern is also important, especially when the
tire is near new. Snow tires
should only be used when there is a good chance of snow. All weather radials are fairly good on
snow but with much lower rolling resistance. If you travel mostly when you can choose your weather there
is not much reason to drive all winter with snow tires. A good summer tread pattern with
vertical grooves and no staggered patches is best for low -rolling resistance,
even better than all season radials.
Vertical grooves disperse standing water well as long as the water is
not too deep or your speed is not too high.
If you want deep tread tires spend the money for
high rolling resistance tires with maximum pressure ratings of 44 psi or
higher. Most major manufacturers
make a low-rolling resistance model tire.
If you don't know which model are low-rolling resistance, generally look
for a fairly straight groove tread and 44 psi or higher rating. If you are always hard up for cash
don't feel bad about purchasing used tires that are half worn out.
Hydrogen-Boost web pages and all information contained therein are hereby copyrighted.
Reproduction, alteration, or any other use of the information (in part or in entirety) contained on these pages
is strictly forbidden without express
written permission of the author.