Car MPG Questions

I'm making this an OFF Topic reply solely for the reason that I do not know anything more about the computer program of a Corolla other than they do use an adaptive algorithm so that as random wear occurs the program adapts to this wear. How and where in the program does the on board computer modify its parameters, that I do not know.

I wanted to briefly comment about the HHO gadgets though and this forum's response to it and some of the outlandish claims proponents have made here. I believe that most of the improved mechanical output of an internal combustion engine (ICE) when adding a mist of water comes from the steam production from the heat of combustion of the fuel. This will mean a higher net conversion of heat to mechanical power than just from burning the fuel. The drawback of doing this seems to be the longevity of many other parts of the ICE. But this has been a long known performance enhancement that military engines particularly in WWII aircraft have used in the past. What I and others here dislike of many HHO proponents are their insistence that ionizing the water into H2 and O2 prior to recombining in the ICE adds energy to the chamber. I and I believe most people here do not mind people coming here with any preconceived ideas. But if you refuse to be persuaded by others, don't ask us in the first place.

Reminds me of the experiments Smokey Yunick( no, it's a real name),was doing 30 years ago trying to recover, harness or utilize the waste heat, think he referred to it as adiabatic? Anyone else remember that? I don't think heat resistant materials technology at that time was up to the demands.

Packy

Thanks! I'll have to look that up.

Thanks for the response, but I'm really not interested in remarks concerning "HHO gadgets." It's not useful, even if scoffing somehow makes people feel good. The proof of any pudding is in the pudding, not the recipe or all the comment and argument concerning it.

I suspect that water injection has to do with the incompressibility of water, and that adding it to the cylinder in effect decreases explosion chamber volume, thus adding compression.

Also, I think I'm "cornering" the computer's algorithmic sensor input by way of experiments. I'm merely hoping by asking my question here to confirm my conclusion. It's my version of scientific method.

Thanks for the response, though - I appreciate it very much.

I cant help on the corolla computer but I have a propane system on my 1999 ford F250 super duty and every time I reset the computer and drive it on gas it seems to just like to have that 10 -12 MPG range when driving unloaded.

When I switch over to propane which the computer has absolutely no control over the mileage meter goes nuts! Its doing its damnedest to get back to that 10 -12 MPG range but without control over the fuel it cant. It will often jump from as low as 1 MPG to as high as 20 MPG on its readings despite no change in engine load or driving conditions.

Eventually it settles down at around a 7 -8 MPG estimate on its digital readout but the actual fuel pumped in VS milage actualy traveled is higher than that and is usualy in the actual 10 -12 MPG range. I too suspect some programming cheating going on as well.

As far as the fuel station cheaters there have been a few around here busted for it over the years. I have filled up before and have put 20 gallons in a car with a 18 gallon tank many times that was not empty either! I put 16 gallons in a car with a 14 gallon tank once that was at the 1/4 mark. Two days later the gas station was shut down and had been given a large write up in the paper shortly after about crooked dealings and badly calibrated pumps! I guess the truckers didn't believe they could put 200 gallons of fuel in their 140 gallon tanks either!

It still happens and most never think about it! I have speculated that they calibrate the pumps to a different gallon reference than whats commonly used.

A British Gallon is 277 Cubic inch's. A Dry Us Gallon is 268.8 Cubic inches. A Wet US gallon is 231 Cubic inches. And years ago when my grandpa ran a gas station and he told me one time that as he was told a US fuel measurement gallon is around 220 Cubic inches. He had said that may be why the old 42 gallon barrels used for oil measurement would only hold 40 liquid gallons of water. Their measuring system was different.

Ever wonder why there is so many air bubbles in your fuel as it comes out the nozzle as your filling? Think about that too.

Its just speculation but its not like the oil industry is going to ever admit it to the public if it is true!

Thanks for the comment - interesting. I thought of having corrected for temperature when I reported my tests to the States in question, but decided that the amount was so insignificant where a gallon is concerned that it wouldn't matter.

I sure don't want to imply either that I'm as bright or as learned as the folks here on CR4, but I have to just bumble my way along - the reason that I ask questions and make comments here and endure non-depising remarks like "You been tipping the bottle?" A lot of guys from where I come from would say "Smile when you say that pardner!"

"Despised," incidentally is something I've been studying not only here but over the Internet in general for some time (four years). You apparently don't have the data I have.

I think I mentioned here or elsewhere on CR4 that I test and have tested emissions from the tailpipe, that with equipment approved by the states where I've lived at the time in question.

As I said elsewhere here my gasoline container was one approved by federal rules, sold as a gasoline container intended for the transport of gasoline. Believe it or not, I know how to measure a gallon. The State of Texas, moreover, has taken my tests seriously enough to do their own measuring, and with encouraging results. The inference that I might be an idiot is noted; what the hell, there are a lot of idiots around these days.

I doubt that any further comment concerning your remarks is necessary - things like "The trouble is that even with high volume home made HHO generators the amount of HHO is too small compared to the air consumption so neither AFR nor advance should be substantially affected" stand on their own merit to anyone that knowledgeable.

Thanks, however, for the effort your remarks required. I appreciate it.

Thanks very much - very useful. More (in response to someone else here), I'm smart enough to know how to measure a gallon, even to understand how metering devices on gasoline pumps function. I'm even detective and forensic scientist enough (that having been my profession for twenty-three years) to suspect that in a nation wherein the now almost profit motive it the be-all and end-all of everything (results now thunderously - "bailout" - apparent everywhere) the oil companies can't resist the Brobdingnagian profits they can realize by cheating a tenth of a gallon.

I'm even bright enough to have studied statistics and statistical analysis, such that my study of the matter was quite representative. I've done fifty tests in twenty-one states, and over a ten year period. The pumps at two stations were accurate (one, by shear co-incidence, right here in the little town where I reside).

Oh, and I'm also one of such monumental intellect that I am bright enough to have used a red plastic, federally approved gas can container sold for the purpose of transporting gasoline.

While I suspect the bubbles result from what's called "cavitation" in the pumping impellers, your mention moves me to check that. Very interesting, and I can't help wondering (as you seem to) how much volume the bubbles account for in the measurement. The fact remains that when I fill my gallon container to the measure line, the pumps read one, point one gallon or more.

It looks like I'm going to have to do some research in order to learn how my car's computer meters fuel mixture.

Thanks for the response, though - much appreciated.

I'm just now back from the Wal-Mart I mentioned here earlier, and this one will "frost" you. I took two gallon cans (carefully measured for volume in the same manner I would use if preparing a case for court) with me, filled both at the same pump one after the other. On the first gallon, the pump measured 1.04 gallon. On the second, it measured .86.

I'm still cussing.

If your using standard issue 'gas cans' they in fact have a bit extra room built into them. Thats why the test is only valid with an exact volume container. One that holds exactly 231 cubic inches when full to the rim.

A typical 5 gallon gas can or plastic jug type will hold around 5.4 - 6 gallons depending on its design and side wall stretch. The small lawn an garden ones that are rated at 1 gallon have about the same 10% added room as well. Your not supposed to fill them to 100% full. Or for that matter any one gallon rated container of liquid has a bit of built in extra room in it as well.

Thanks for the comment, but the reason I used a "gas can" (it actually holds one gallon and four ounces) at the pump was legality. I used another measure, one checked for accuracy by making geometric measurements, then marked the red "gas can" container level appropriately after pouring in a gallon of gasoline (from my lawnmower supply can here in the garage). And as "redfred" points out here, I'll also measure the weight of gasoline in the "can."

Thanks again.

As was posted earlier, you need a greater quantity to determine calibration. The pressure on the hose could result in expansion there (after the meter). I have seen calibrations done on gas stations using 20 gallon tanks where a 5% variation would show up as a 1 gallon difference.

If you want to go around testing, get the right equipment and don't waste the time of the honest people who get paid to do this job. Not every one is out to get you!!!

I'll let this one stand on its own merit. That should do it for rebuttal.

Yeah, five percent of twenty gallons would be one gallon, all right.

"Honest?" Not every one is out to get you!!!(?)

Really? Have you read this "thread" and the others in which I've participated here?

Isn't this whole discussion becoming pretty silly?

Good point; you beat me to it by a short time. As anyone should know, after the gas pump stops, you can open the valve again, lift the hose so it drains, and get another 0.1 to 0.2 gallon perhaps. If the guy before you didn't do this, you're lucky. Otherwise, you are doing a poorly controlled experiment. Did we expect anything else in this instance?

A series of self-conducted road tests might give an idea of whether some approach has decent potential. However, such tests are essentially anecdotal, so they are not generally accepted as proof of much. Bench dynamometer testing or the like would sooner or later be required.

H₂O + energy ---> steam may increase power density, but it requires fuel to do it. It may boost engine horsepower-per-displacement performance, but not energy efficiency.

2H₂ + O2 ---> 2H₂O + energy is a simple combustion reaction, but the H2 and O2 have to come from somewhere, which typically takes more energy than what you get back. Somewhere you have to buy, make, or "mine" the H2 and O2--and store them. On-board electrolysis consumes more energy than it gives in return.

"A series of self-conducted road tests might give an idea of whether some approach has decent potential. However, such tests are essentially anecdotal, so they are not generally accepted as proof of much. Bench dynamometer testing or the like would sooner or later be required."

Trust me, I know who to establish a fact scientifically (I even know how to measure a gallon - or gasoline consumption). I was a successful private investigator for insurance companies, law firms, and state agencies for twenty-three years. My "anecdotal" remarks are, moreover, merely intended to offer information having to do with whatever question I'm asking. They do not rhetorically or forensically require comment, in other words. What I'm wondering about is the computer on my car, rather than seeking anyone's approval (or, for that matter, criticism - I just don't care) of my project.

"It may boost engine horsepower-per-displacement performance, but not energy efficiency.

2H₂ + O2 ---> 2H₂O + energy is a simple combustion reaction, but the H2 and O2 have to come from somewhere, which typically takes more energy than what you get back. Somewhere you have to buy, make, or "mine" the H2 and O2--and store them. On-board electrolysis consumes more energy than it gives in return.

Yes, yes, yes! Lord, that's beginning to sound like a religious litany. I wonder if you can know how tiresome that repetition has become. More, and assuming (if you can) for a moment that I'm not a liar or a fool, and assuming further that what you seem to believe I'm doing and talking about is what I'm actually doing and talking about, what might be the reason for the results I've mentioned here? Why not think about that - inasmuch as that's what I'm trying to do? Secondly, look at what you've just said, and consider it from the point of view of simple forensic logic - to say nothing of the several physical processes in question.

Who was it said here that no one "despises HHO" and its discussion?

Do you have any information about the computer on a 2001 Corolla 1.8 liter 125 horsepower engine?

Have an approved container, tell the attendant it is for your chain saw. Be careful of static electricity. Fill the container on the ground, not in the trunk.

Gas stations change their mix from summer to winter, may work different with hho.

Heaven only knows what that bio-eco-corn fuel will do with hho.

If your oxygen sensor is off, everything goes to hell.

My bitch of the week is I've been told that the computer is set to feed gas to the engine even when it doesn't need it to keep the catalytic converter hot. How does it know how hot the cat is? Is there an exhaust temp sensor? Does the oxygen sensor measure exhaust temp?

Thanks for your interest and reply. As I say elsewhere here, I not only use a federally approved gasoline container sold for the purpose, I've checked that container by comparison with two others. The "gallon" I'm using is the same "gallon" the sellers of the gasoline are using. It happens not only that I'm a retired private investigator, but a self-taught lawyer (practicing only per se) who has passed two monitored state bar exams.

I'm having an interesting time, changing O2 sensors and modifying them. The sensor measures how rich the fuel mixture is by measuring temperature. More fuel means cooler exhaust. When the mixture (too) rich, all available oxygen is consumed in the cylinder and the gas coming out the exhaust manifold contains little or no oxygen. If the mixture is (too) lean, all fuel is being oxidized ("burned") and the extra oxygen goes into the exhaust manifold. The computer "measures" by turning the heat there into voltage (which is what it actually "reads"). The "measurement" is then electronically - voltage again - compared to air outside the manifold.

It's never been better than a half-assed system, pretty much what you'd expect of anything having to do with the U.S. government and its half-assed mandates.

Drunk or high as a freeking kite I could design a better one - and that's something I'm in the process of doing right now (the reason for asking the question I asked here).

And, since you seem to be paying more astute attention to others, HHO (if that's what we MUST believe I'm doing) injection as I'm doing it has nothing whatever to do with energy intrinsic to the gas. Cripes, that's so infantile I can't believe it's even mentioned. Mentioning HHO is like trying to find tasteful nudity on the Internet (try it, see what I mean): you get a ton of pornographic horse manure for every molecule of anything else.

It sure as hell can ruin anyone's hope for the future of the "democratic" country, that's sure.

I would suggest taking your gas can or what ever container you are using to do your measurements with to a local high school or college science lab and have them do a simple calibration test with known graduated beakers or some common type of accurate volumetric measuring and weighing system. Any fair chemistry or physic lab person should be able to tell you exactly what your container holds to within a few hundred micro liters. (a few drops average)

That is they fill your can full of distilled water just as you would have filled it with gasoline then they dump it into beakers or similar measuring devices and do both as a physical weight and a physical volume comparison.

You will know then exactly how much your container holds. Possibly do this several times with distilled water of different temperatures from near freezing to around 120 F. This will even give you a slight temperature to volume variation reference number as well.

Oh yes and obviously dump out the water and dry out the container before you go back and re do your fuel measurements again.

One US gallon is 231 cubic inches, or 3785.41 CC, or 8.337134 pounds @ 60 degrees F, or 3.78541Kg @ 15.5556 degrees C.

Thanks! Good idea. If I come to having to provide proof, that will be among the best kind. In my PI business, matter of fact, I often went to the local college for this kind of evidenciary support.

Hey sturmwalker, just read your post regarding the sudden mileage drop, possibly the computer has malfunctioned and it has defaulted to its fail safe, very rich mixture, limp home setting. I believe that they are designed that way so that one doesn't become stranded.

And the fuel dealer dispensing discrepancy dilemma, here in Florida the agency that licenses gas stations is very quick to respond to consumer complaints about under filling, there's a toll free number on all the fuel pumps to report the suspected problem.

I have been corresponding with a poster , name of Gil, who has some very interesting ideas regarding environmentally responsible and efficient products, he seems to be on the same page with your direction of thinking , might be helpful if you two could compare notes and bounce ideas off each other. I'll see if i can get you together.

Take care, Pack rat

"Hey sturmwalker, just read your post regarding the sudden mileage drop, possibly the computer has malfunctioned and it has defaulted to its fail safe, very rich mixture, limp home setting. I believe that they are designed that way so that one doesn't become stranded."

Yeah, I'm considering that possibility right now, matter of fact. The Haynes Manual gives the voltage reading, etc. necessary, and I'm using two multimeters (the better to assure I'm getting the right infor). It looks like the computer and the oxygen sensors are both within designed limits. The tailpipe emissions are saying the same thing. Back to the puzzle.

"And the fuel dealer dispensing discrepancy dilemma, here in Florida the agency that licenses gas stations is very quick to respond to consumer complaints about under filling, there's a toll free number on all the fuel pumps to report the suspected problem."

Yes, so was Texas. Wal-mart here, for instance, changed their pumps the day after I complained (about three months ago). Another gas company and all its stations "got burned" big time for cheating, that back when the prices were at four bucks a gallon. Victory for the consumer? HA! This morning at Wal-Mart, everything was back to larceny. I'm on the way over there with my gas can as soon as I finish this post.

I have been corresponding with a poster , name of Gil, who has some very interesting ideas regarding environmentally responsible and efficient products, he seems to be on the same page with your direction of thinking , might be helpful if you two could compare notes and bounce ideas off each other. I'll see if i can get you together.

Absolutely SUPER! Can't wait to hear from him.

THANKS!

Many years ago, when I still found it necessary to own an automobile, I, too, experimented with fuel economy. My primary source of information was a local racing car mechanic whose primary purpose in life was to squeeze as much power out of a gallon of gasoline as was humanly/physically possible. He gave me important instruction in how to properly tune a fuel injection system and engine timing (specific for high West Texas altitudes- El Paso). The vehicle in question was a 1972 VW Squareback, 1600 cc engine, if I remember correctly, although I was able to successfully apply the same techniques to an older Squareback fitted with a conventional carburator. Just retuning the system (controlling the amount of fuel being injected and properly adjusting the timing) resulted in as much as 30% increased fuel economy, but this was also dependent on the particular brand of gasoline I purchased (and may have varied from station to station for the same brand, but my records generally did not incorporate sufficient resolution to refine the analysis to this point). What was patently obvious back in those days was that, when I moved to San Antonio, I had to go through the entire process all over again, because the change in altitude had a significant impact on the engine performance.

The point of this long-winded diatribe is that one can gain significant performance/efficiency improvements just by tuning the powerplant to the fuel and ambient conditions, before one adds any "booster" technology. Now, the computers of today are far more sophisticated than those of my day, and such basic processes as adjusting fuel flow and engine timing may not be possible. Furthermore, I suspect that the variation in the chemical composition of what we purchase as automotive fuel today is going to have significant impact on ultimate efficiency (just smell the gasoline as you pump it- the difference between one station and the next is hard to miss). You need a whole lot more control over your inputs and results in order to determine whether any benefits are actually the result of ancilliary additions to the system, or just enhancements from properly adjusting the machine in the first place.

Now, the computers of today are far more sophisticated than those of my day, and such basic processes as adjusting fuel flow and engine timing may not be possible.

You are right that adjusting airflow and timing is, for the most part, not possible in the ordinary old "tune up" sense. Both are now dynamically and automatically adjusted (changing as the engine runs) to a degree of accuracy far better than we could obtain decades ago with carburetion. (A base, physical ignition timing is still set for many engines, but it never needs to be changed.) This automation includes not just mixture control, but timing as well, and on many modern cars it also includes even valve timing, which is no small feat. As a result, modern cars are at least ten times as clean running as old cars (if one ignores CO2, which is a simple function of fuel consumed), and one hundred times better for certain criteria emissions. At the same time, a typical car engine of today has better specific output (hp per liter) than the most exotic cars of decades ago. (Even my Plain Jane Honda has higher output per liter than my old exotic Citroen SM did, which was powered by a Maserati four cam engine, which had a separate carburetor barrel per cylinder.)

Even gasoline formulation has no appreciable effect on the emissions of modern engines, although a predictable but small effect on power output (with e10 giving about 1% lower output than older formulations). (The extreme case is in flex fuel vehicles, which can run on E85, which, in a current flex fuel engine, causes lower power, substantially greater fuel consumption -- because of alcohol's lower heat content per gallon -- but no significant change in criteria emissions, because of automatic control of engine parameters. An engine designed, internally, to maximize the potential of alcohol, could produce more power than a gasoline engine, but flex fuel vehicles are not so designed. )

You need a whole lot more control over your inputs and results in order to determine whether any benefits are actually the result of ancilliary additions to the system,

To be sure.

One day 40ish mpg, another 25 mpg. Without real data, it is impossible to speculate on cause and effect. Without real data, one must assume that that the HHO is an incidental factor that has no effect, and this contention has been supported by many tests, among the most recent being by John Heywood of MIT (among the world's best combustion guys, the author of several college texts on internal combustion engines) who found that the HHO system promoted by Dennis Lee (which had far higher HHO output than whatever gas comes out of WIS's system) had no measurable effect at all, just as the science would predict. WIS seems to be claiming that perhaps a nuclear reaction occurs in his device, but supplies no evidence to support that contention.

Thanks as usual for the thoughtful reply - as usual. However,

"You need a whole lot more control over your inputs and results in order to determine whether any benefits are actually the result of ancilliary additions to the system, or just enhancements from properly adjusting the machine in the first place"

may be true to the extent of one or a few tests, and assuming that I were trying to prove something. When one (I) has continued for a time to consistently get the same results by doing the same thing, Mill's Scientific Method - the Method of agreement - holds that a causal connection exists between action and effect. It is also what some call a statistical proof (the much loved - here and concerning HHO, anyway - Second Law of Thermodynamics is an example of a statistical proof).

The Method of Difference says that when removal of the factor in question removes or changes the effect in question (in, of course, similar circumstances), there is a causal connection; and the Method of Joint Variation - again, of course - is a combination of the two methods. I won't bore you or the reader here with the rest, but suffice it to say that accuracy of measurement here isn't really that important to my tests. I'm not interested so much in how much, but whether.

Thanks, though (how's the computer program concerning the turbine blades coming along?).

Hey Storm walker,

The Smokey Yunick I mentioned previous was a Nascar engine builder in the '60's, also built complete race cars, you might be able to locate information on his work from the Nascar angle. Used to campaign Chevy's, I figure you would appreciate his mindset, his team once built a Chevelle that was about 7/8th's scale , pissed off Nascar ,that's one of the reasons they implemented checking the body shapes with templates. Some of the most innovative thinking , IMO, has come come out of race car builders "pushing" against the rules.

P -rat

Another physiological experiment under cover of technical exploration I see

You might want a ECM tweek tool

http://www.linkecu.com/?gclid=CPf94Im81J4CFRQpawod412ysQ

probably more than you want to invest

A scan tool will help

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=scan+tool&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS338US338&ie=UTF-8

again a little pricey, but plugging into the data path, will give you some of the answers you claim to be seeking

you will probably have to pay for the info on the actual layout & operation of the ECM. These guys maybe able to help:

http://www.toyotafans.net/

you can't find a free manual on the net in most cases. asking the motor heads you can probably get some greater understanding...

I have basically the same car 05 carolla wagon [matrix] my mileage varies from 25-45 mpg depending on how & where I'm driving.

you are probably tricking the ECM into running lean, no need to fool around with KOH to do that...

What you are describing [your system] is not unique. Where's the beef [data]

"Another physiological experiment under cover of technical exploration I see"

Actually, it's both: while I'm supremely interested in the information one can obtain by just asking the group (one head is seldom as good as two or more), I can never ignore how people respond or behave otherwise (I assume you by "physiological" you mean psychological). That started when I was a high school wrestler desirous of picking out the really tough opponents by watching and listening to them before the match.

"You might want a ECM tweek tool

"http://www.linkecu.com/?gclid=CPf94Im81J4CFRQpawod412ysQ

probably more than you want to invest"

AWESOME! I'm becoming so hooked on this experiment that I might very well "blow the dough." A retired engineer friend (long time) of mine who is leaving the area to go live with his daughter in Connecticutt last night offered me some equipment that might also help. Better and better (even if in the process of discussion one does have to dodge a few verbal brickbats)!

"A scan tool will help

"http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=scan+tool&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS338US338&ie=UTF-8

"again a little pricey, but plugging into the data path, will give you some of the answers you claim to be seeking

"you will probably have to pay for the info on the actual layout & operation of the ECM. These guys maybe able to help:

"http://www.toyotafans.net/

"you can't find a free manual on the net in most cases. asking the motor heads you can probably get some greater understanding..."

Super, again! I'll try all of this (already went to the first site).

"you are probably tricking the ECM into running lean, no need to fool around with KOH to do that..."

Damned if I know. Sometimes, I get more confused and frustrated by the minute. Mathematically, as you probably know, once you get to a logical or game theory level beyond an exponential factor of three, matters become so complex you could trial and error for eternity. Four or five factorial is a hell of a lot of numbers, and when each number may in turn represent (Boyle's Gas Law, stoichiometric-heat constraints, for instance) multiples, you can drive yourself nuts "figuring."

What you are describing [your system] is not unique. Where's the beef [data].

Oh, I think I can assure you it's "unique" - and judging from all the comments here thus far - very unique. Seriously (I kind of like your style), what "data" are you talking about? I'm going here what pilots call "seat of the pants": I don't have any high tech measuring equipment - beyond a multimeter, emissions control console (it's the local Firestone's), the computer on our 2002 Jaguar, and a couple of "cutesy" gadgets of my own device (would you believe a bicycle, a weather balloon, an anemometer [how I use that baby you wouldn't believe], and - of all things - a cooking thermometer. I've told everything else, except details about things I don't want to give some smart-ass SOB who will call me a moron, then steal my idea and claim blithely as hell it was his.

If I'm more than a little paranoid about that, trust me I have damned good reason. It's not so much that I hate losing the idea or the money, it's the idea that some posturing prick is pretending (oooh, the illiteration!) in order to take credit as though he had a brain better than a grape.

I've been completely forthright - at least in a general way - and anyone really knowledgeable about the subject would figure out what I'm doing and where I'm going from what I've already said. If I lead the horse to water and he doesn't recognize that it's water, how can I be to blame?

And, yup, that's another of those "psychological" tests I like to do. My wife and I are teachers (she still, I former) and there's something really haywire about the way this society thinks. We're doing experiments right now - about to watch a movie, a story (Dickens "A Christmas Carol") about which her English class is being tested. We're wondering (absolutely boggled, actually) why the kids - and, obviously - Americans in general are so flat-ass blind to what would otherwise be connections between events and data.

Our theory is that things like television (mostly, in fact) and media propaganda techniques have so affected people's minds that they are devolving - losing the ability to think (to do anything more than recite from programmed memory).

Anyway, thanks a lot for the info (and I really mean that).

Intentional typo [spellcheck mishap?],

I told you before, you're entertaining, humor is a hole bodi experience

The net, cellphones, have reduced attention spans even further...

Data would be stuff like a list of parameters you document calibration specs, expected % of error & at least a sampling of the datapoints ect, ect...

Unique would be in the eyes of the beholder

I'm afraid that's a bit abstruse for me (geez, I hate it when I can't appear the genius!), and maybe I'm "hoist on my own petard." In other words, I'm not sure what "calibration specs" would mean in this instance, or "expected % of error," or "datapoints" ("a sampling of"). As I mentioned elsewhere here a minute ago, I only hoped by posting (is that the right term) here to get relevant and material criticism and ideas - help, not brickbats. I've explained what I'm doing - both with my wind turbine and car fuel economy projects, and that I conceededly have very limited - at least compared to a university science department or the like - resources.

I'm not trying to self-aggrandize or pontificate, just have a reasonable adult discussion. As a retired colonel and special operations soldier, a guy who has competed in more than a thousand organized Olympic judo and free-style wrestling matches, I don't understand resort to hurling invective when someone pisses me off.

Why does every response from someone who has some imagined reason to disagree here have to be rancorous and nasty? I've pretty much decided that I won't get an answer to my question (about the Corolla computer, remember?) here. Neither does it appear that I will get elsewhere on CR4 the math formula I was hoping to get for calculating the spring pressure needed on my turbine blades.

Just curious - another "off the topic" question, let's say - why would I post data other than what I have in order to ask the question I asked? I'm not trying to prove anything, let's remember - just ask the question about automotive fuel system computers.

Your apparent attempt to be helpful, all the rest notwithstanding, is much appreciated (it speaks well of you, too, I might add).

I can't attempt to answer your spring question, springs are tricky, not being linear, seems like the design would be unnecessarily complex, especially with the lightweight airfoils you are using.

but I do know where I would go to get an answer

http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php

or

http://www.eng-tips.com/

We're kind of chatty here

The underlying chemistry you keep telling us we're too dim to understand here:

http://www.chemicalforums.com/

I like this forum CR4 because of the informality

I use the other forums also, this is much more like the cornerbar

I asked for more detail, to be able to give you a meaningful critque or your project & methods

You mentioned your "booster" in your original post on this thread. How can you expect us to ignore the elephant in the room when clearly you can't?

I do like redfred's suggestion removing the doubt by weighing the fuel. A digital bathroom scale, calibrated using gas cans full of water at home would probably be inconspicuous enough to fly under the radar at the local walmart

I am the ELEPHANT,

coo-coo ka-chooh

Other Guest,

Yes, that one

oh, the humanity _{(java shield up)}

I think redfred covered the elephant in more detail

You implied the processes you were discussing were over our heads on a different thread, still I thought you might have use for the link

If you pose the questions in the right way [more flies, with honey than vinegar] on this or the chemistry forums, you can have a productive discussion about how you hypothesize the mixture of HHO & gasoline combining.

I'm sure your years of interrogation have taught you to ease into your actual main focus of interest in a conversation.

HHO here is like yelling fire in a crowded theater, acting surprised is disrespectful to the rest of the members.

you seem to have a penchant for stirring it up, do you keep hornets at home or just like to visit the nests?

I do like redfred's suggestion removing the doubt by weighing the fuel. A digital bathroom scale, calibrated using gas cans full of water at home would probably be inconspicuous enough to fly under the radar at the local walmart

Just be sure to compensate for the fact that gasoline is far less dense by volume than water!

For reliable volume to volume comparisons the only thing that will work reliably is to honestly use a larger volume ridged container that has been checked for it specific volume and has its range of variation known. A Plastic container just has too much give and can sway the results far to easily.

A solid built steel container like a service tank will get you closer than a plastic jug ever will. The down side is the initial calibration and confirmation of the actual internal volume of a larger container.
Accurately measuring a gallon is fairly easy. But doing 20+ will take a bit longer!

At some point it just comes down to how determined you are to go after someone. If its worth it you had better have some very solid and reliable methods of proving your self. Showing up in court with plastic gas jugs with permanent marker lines on them will just get you laughed right out of the court room and at at your own expense! But showing up with third party tested, certified, and documented containers is taken far more serious.

I believed in HHO adding to mpg- till the day I used a 1litre container- this definitely proved that HHO gave less mpg- the biggest influence i found pre was that different unleaded make fuels gave either less or more mpg everything else being equal. This on a 1978 carburettor engine-1.6l Isuzu 4 cyl man. Since then I have obtained up to 66mpg (std 38mpg) by coasting down hills- & no it hasn't affected anything adversely- but then I am mechanically minded(not to mention electric,electronic etc)- I know how not to abuse- having rebuilt(in my young days!) things that definitely suffered from abuse = > greater failure rate!. My 1978 Isuzu has done 718.000 kms- & still no use of oil- I just change oil & filter together at 10k- clean /change air filter etc- had to fit new inner & outer tierod ends recently- due to my penchant to drive on rough back roads to dodge coppers, who have agenda to get old cars off road!.

Thanks for the reply. Why, though, do you think the HHO resulted in less mileage? That's very interesting for me.

And, since you seem exceptionally (here) sincere, I'm not actually trying to make fuel of HHO (or electrolyzed water). As I remarked to GARTHH, though, it's fascinating that everyone immediately jumps to that conclusion every time - not just here, but everywhere I've been on the Internet - the expression HHO is mentioned. That's really interesting, too.

Thanks again!

Yeah, I'll just bet you don't want an answer. Well enough.

You're not going to get any more answers to your questions because I already answered them. I'll repeat.

WIS>mileage without "boosting" has dropped back to 25 mpg.

Barring engine failure, it is because you filled with E10. A drop from 34 to 25 is on the upper fringe of loss but is possible. You've over responded to many concerns but in all your writing you haven't yet acknowledged that you know the disastrous effect E10 can have on MPG.

>how it uses engine performance, air-fuel density, etc.

You're over thinking what an ECM does. The only two sensors an ECM needs is the knock and oxygen sensor but a vehicle so equipped would be terrible to drive because those sensors only work after the fact and the oxygen doesn't work at all when cold. I know because I've driven late model Chevettes after they added the oxygen sensor controlled variable venturi and the drivability was so bad that I pulled those off and put on standard carburetors. The variable venturi was for emissions because MPG was not affected. All other sensors and the ECM programming are there to make the engine run good while waiting for knock and oxygen sensor to report results. The car company makes no difference. All ECM work the same because the engines they run all work the same.

Since we are talking about a Japanese engine that might have Variable Valve Timing, the ECM actuates the VVT hardware according to driver demand.

For more specific information you'll need to figure out what each sensor does the way I did. From the knowledge gained from replacing parts propose what a sensor must do then disconnect it to see what happens. All sensors are needed for good driveability in open loop.

Having noticed that a bad Throttle Position Sensor can cause surging and high idle, I proposed that the TPS is the way that the ECM figures out driver intent. I disconnected it and the engine hesitated on acceleration and surged on deceleration. Conclusion: the ECM needs the TPS for driveability because the other sensors are too slow.

Having noticed that a bad Coolant Temperature Sensor makes the engine idle high when cold, I rigged up a variable resistor to feed it manufactured values. In open loop I was able to cause the engine to not start in cold weather by providing a warm weather value. I was also able to reduce cold operation inefficiencies by raising the temperature faster than the coolant would. In my test engine I was able to raise the CTS to full temperature after 10 seconds of operation in 32*F ambient with an audible change in engine operation. In closed loop the CTS had no effect. Loop closing only took 30 seconds on my test engine so fiddling with CTS was not useful. Conclusion: The ECM uses the CTS to duplicate the functionality of the choke and set the startup and cold mixture to ensure that the engine starts and runs when cold.

Some of my other concerns have not been addressed.

Got a Scangauge?
Got a live data Scan Tool?

If not you're flying blind in a minefield of factorials.

2001 carolla was the 2nd year for variable valve timing

http://www.theautochannel.com/vehicles/new/reviews/2001/russ0115.html

Thanks for the explanation of the functions of the various sensors

My mother in law has a 05 that got stuck in closed loop after a batch of bad gas, even after replacing the gas filters ect still had to have the dealer flash the ECM to restore full functionality...

generally disconnecting the battery for a few minutes will do it...

"2001 carolla was the 2nd year for variable valve timing"

Yeah, that's what my dragstrip mechanic buddy said a while back. But he also said the the ECM on the car would adjust to the gas I was injecting, and that's what made me proceed as I did. It's also what got me wondering how to proceed next.

My trouble, of course, includes having to sort good advice out of all the verbal brickbats from the folks who know I can't be doing anything I say I am. For reference, go to the "gas can discussion."

I'm a wastrel, a cutpurse, and a ne'er-do-well, so I have to be ignorant - and stupid, too. Tiresome, and I won't be back after today. I appreciate your remarks concerning the several postings I've made here, nonetheless.

All the best.

Thanks for the information. I've arranged with a friend whose a local dragster enthusiast (did at the outset, actually, but friends and free are always "iffier" than hired and/or paid for) to use a scangauge and several other things capable of answering my questions. It should be interesting.

All the "fills" I speak of have been from the same pump. Gasoline composition and quality might be another facet of capitalism oil company style, I suppose.

The "minefield of factorials" is what I had reference to earlier. I got the typically sneeing response, if you happened to have noticed. Like I couldn't punch the key on my calculator that would tell me what six factorial is.

Thanks, anyway, for the information. It's appreciated.