Aim of Field Test:• To determine the effectiveness of a Hydrogen Generator under different driving conditions with a set volume of gas output.
• To determine the effectiveness of a Fuel Catalyst under different driving conditions.
• To establish the effectiveness of using an Oxygen & MAP sensor bypass unit.
• To determine the advantages of using an effective fuel catalyst in conjunction with a Hydrogen Generator under different driving conditions.
Test Conducted By:Mark Grello – President
My Energy Inc.
793 Candlewood Lake Road S
New Milford, CT 0677
USA
www.myenergy.net Test Components:Vehicle - Saturn SL2 model year 1997 with a 1.9L engine
Hydrogen Generator - Home made Wet Cell run at 15 amps = approx .82 ltr/min
EFIE (Electronic Fuel Injection Enhancer) - Purchased from My Energy Inc., specs on company web site
HERERetail Fuel Catalyst
Test Duration:10 weeks averaging travel between 150 and 250 miles per day with Cruise Control set at 30 mph in city & 60 mph highway wherever possible.
Test Benchmarks:Clean tuned engine running Unleaded 87% Octane fuel and no HHO or Fuel Catalyst
26.2 mpg city driving at 30 mph
34 mpg highway driving speeds greater than 30 mph
Test One – Highway & City Driving with Hydrogen Generator:• HHO City with
no O2 & MAP sensor (EFIE) bypass – 25 mpg – Fuel consumption
increases 4.8%• HHO City with
yes O2 & MAP sensor (EFIE) bypass – 29.5 mpg – Fuel consumption
decreases 5.8%• HHO Highway with
no O2 & MAP sensor (EFIE) bypass – 36 mpg – Fuel consumption
decreases 5.7%• HHO Highway with
yes O2 & MAP sensor (EFIE) bypass – 42 mpg – Fuel consumption
decreases 23.5%Test One Preliminary HHO Findings – An EFIE needs to be used to establish a saving on fuel in city conditions – Maximum economy achieved in Highway driving with EFIE. There was no set economy consistency on Highway driving with HHO, average taken over multiple tanks of fuel.
Test Two – Highway & City Driving with Product Based Fuel Catalyst and no HHO:• Catalyst City with
no O2 & MAP sensor (EFIE) bypass – 28.6 mpg – Fuel consumption
decreases 9%• Catalyst City with
yes O2 & MAP sensor (EFIE) bypass – 30.5 mpg – Fuel consumption
decreases 16%• Catalyst Highway with
no O2 & MAP sensor (EFIE) bypass – 39 mpg – Fuel consumption
decreases 14%• Catalyst Highway with
yes O2 & MAP sensor (EFIE) bypass – 42.1 mpg – Fuel consumption
decreases 23.8%Test Two Preliminary Catalyst Findings – The Catalyst performed within the specification guidelines outlined by the manufacturer. When an EFIE was used with the catalyst there was a marked improvement in economy in both City and Highway driving
Test Three – Highway & City Driving with Product Based Fuel Catalyst, and yes HHO:• Catalyst City with
yes O2 & MAP sensor (EFIE) bypass and
yes HHO – 33 mpg – Fuel consumption
decrease 25.95%• Catalyst Highway with
yes O2 & MAP sensor (EFIE) bypass and
yes HHO – Constant 46 mpg – Fuel consumption
decrease 35.29%Test Three Preliminary Joint HHO & Catalyst Findings – The use of the Catalyst compensated for the decreased HHO City results, and gave a consistently increased Highway economy.
Road Test Conclusion:Both the HHO and Catalyst presented good highway savings, and the product catalyst alone presented City savings when no EFIE was used.
With the use of the EFIE the savings were increased dramatically across the board with all test components.
Using the Fuel Catalyst with Hydrogen allowed for a more complete Petroleum burn (using all the fuel placed in the cylinder).
What was unexpected was the improved consistency of the increased economy with HHO using the fuel catalyst. Previously fluctuating results depending on different driving conditions were stabilised with the introduction of the fuel catalyst.
City Driving - The use of HHO & a Fuel Catalyst resulted in 25.95% reduction in fuel use.
Highway Driving - The use of HHO & a Fuel Catalyst resulted in 35.29% reduction in fuel use.The introduction of increased HHO volume may further improve the results achieved above.
