Intermittent nature might indicate electrical issue - CKP ?
David: The 'Hy-Carbon' process just uses a simple tube to inject water - as the intake/plenum turbulence rapidly disperses it but yes it should be metered.
Brian: Good to see the Oven Cleaner is used on the parts once removed from the vehicle though ! On further examination it seems the Potassium Hydroxide is to aid the electrolysis, ie. it is not used in the injected water.... Phew.....
Incidentally here is a 'HHO system' that is permanently added to the vehicle.... https://www.hydroxsystems.com/
Still can not establish just what these "magic H/O2 bubbles" in any of these systems do (if anything really material at all). Lots of pseudoscience present of course, such as "the H helps the combustion and the O does the cleaning...".... but my favourite (so far) is that "the H combines with the C deposits and those resultant hydrocarbons are burnt by the engine...."...... Hmmmm....
Surely they are not supposed to do 'rolling road' brake testing with 4X4s for this specific reason ??
Yes David, that's the kind of 'steam cleaning' we used back then too, not very scientific though as we did not actually check emissions/compression/etc figures before/after this treatment....! As you say, it also needs to be done at 3k rpm or so (ie. HOT) to be effective.
The 'Hy-Carbon' (and similar techniques, eg http://www.enginecarbonclean.com/) are really just a variant on that of course... except for their 'magic H and O2 bubbles' ?
However electrolysis within their boxes produces H and O2 bubbles which are added to the injected water - but the effect/s of those bubbles are not really explained: https://yullbrownsgas.com/
Thus the "Brown's Gas" deployed here - in fact just a mixture of H and O2 gases - is not really connected to the diatomic nature of water. However their claim that by adding these bubbles to water 'changes the whole molecular structure of that (host) water' is "interesting" to say the least. (The 40+ year old Yull Brown patent does not explain that claim either...)
In fact I am considering indulging in this (more out of idle curiosity than anything) on one of my cars and will report back on it, and will be more scientific this time, ie. making measurements before/after !
EDIT: Oh dear... Just looked on YT under 'carbon cleaning HHO machines'... On one vid. a D-I-Yer was adding 8 teaspoons of Potassium Hydroxide to a litre of the water used...!! Only a matter of time then until someone on YT suggests just squirting Oven Cleaner down the intake to decarb. instead ??
That's (possibly) just semantics Dave, you mentioned liquid hydrogen !
The French blurb states "HHO" though.... Maybe that's the 'magic'... ?
Seriously that said I have previously encountered 'decarbonising' and or 'descaling' of engines by folks squirting water into inlet manifolds. (No, I am not recommending that either). Works quite well if/when your head gasket goes though....!
Well I suppose I should have expected such overt cynicism on here chaps......!!
It seems to be more about steam cleaning than hydrogen cleaning per se with 'mixed results', eg. https://autotechnician.co.uk/product-review-hy-carbon-engine-cleaner/
Wait, as it is French maybe they use Perrier ..
and the 'magic' is in the bubbles ??
Anyone else encountered this "Hy-Carbon" system ?
http://automotive-technology.co.uk/?p=3184
Typically £150 for the 90-min 'decarb' cycle ......
Ah... I did not mean 'universal' in that sense, more like a 'master' code of some kind that the ECU would always accept (but not used on production models (?) This was around 10 years ago, and I also recall a "1111" pulse technique from back then, and (if so) that is very easy to do of course.
Also did some more (deeper) digging and the "FFFF" is/was part of the "FOUT" procedure (when sync was frequently lost) as further explained in this 20+-year-old document: http://rave.stringsandints.com/TestBook_LRNAFOUT.pdf
IIRC the (simpler) GEMS ECU just accepts a 'universal' code of some kind (FFFF ?) and the OZ device simulates this (?).
There are quite a few protocol-dabblers on here too, particularly via the OBD (also a mess of proprietary /semi-compliant protocols). I tried to develop a ISO9141-based system/box to turn off my (persistent) SRS light. My own 'success' was "limited" however - as it needed my PC connected permanent to work.... Overall I decided it was best to rely on the Inspired Amateurs (notably Storey Wilson) or The Professionals (BBS) !
The BECM is so inherent to the P38 design that it was a REALLY BIG design clanger for LUCAS to drop on us 25 years ago..... and then they also stuck it in a place where it can/could get wet too !!
Thanks for the extra information Simon, makes sense, and thanks for persevering with your solution too. These proprietary LR protocols are all rather tricky... (Whilst trying to investigate them myself I could not quite work out if this was deliberate on their part - ie. protectionist - or accidental... but suspect it is/was a mixture of both ?!)
Dug around a little and yes that OZ device is GEMS-only:
http://labtronxcomau.businesscatalyst.com/labtronx-products/mobi4
Hi Simon, looks interesting - how does your solution compare/contrast to the BBS Sync-Mate ?
Similarly I recall a BECM/ECU Sync 'three-wire-connection-to-ECU-on-a-chip' device from OZ ( a few years back now ) - are/were you familiar with that ?
Aragorn: Surely it depends on if you mean a (like-for-like) Tesla Long Range or not ! Seriously yes, I know Tesla's Model 3 now uses less aluminium that their other models but as far as I can establish it will still be very expensive to repair too ! Similarly if you do have a crash the battery pack needs a 'specialist inspection' (at ~£1500)... On top of a £50K list price it's still 'quite a stretch' for most 'private motorist' folks here... and so quite a tough 'force' for the 40M ICE motors here too, especially as the (slowly reducing) EV subsidy does not apply to cars over 40K.
Incidentally I am still unconvinced by the running/maintenance costs of EVs too, again very ££ 'specialist'...
Of course the Government encouraged us to use diesels in the first case....
As for LPG I was actually put off it considerably after I saw the aftermath of a 4.6 P38 with a head "blown clean orf" by a bad (single point) installation.. but again there are Emissions savings to be made by converting cars, faff or not, it just does not meet their whole 'you must buy/lease a new car' instead agenda....? Will EVs always be able to drive in London without charges ? (Sorry about the pun) - they are about to exclude hybrids for some reason (££)
The problem with 'Smart' Meters is they are being pushed as 'saving the planet' (etc); When I questioned that with my Supplier they said "ah yes but it allows you to know how much electricity you are using and thus reduce it", and that's how the claimed savings would be made. There was a further conversation... A 'man in a hole' showed me the 70+ year old cables and said we can't all charge our cars at the same time, even at night (and he may have a point) !
PS: Richard: Many EV chargers are on a timer....
Cheers Richard, your usual detailed/comprehensive reply ! Like your (French) workarounds too. There must still be millions of cars that could be converted and so many millions of tons of CO2 produced too.
TfL is hard to fathom at the best of times; We had some of their "LTNs" (Low Traffic Networks) installed last year because we are all going to walk/cycle soon instead of driving soon, apparently...... (Residents revolted, and these schemes were removed of course....)
Fair enough Richard, in fact the small battery/shorter range EVs are aimed mainly at city folk of course. It may be unfair but as I have explained to many folks the 'big battery' models weigh so much it is like having four passengers in the car all the time. Still surprises me how many are attracted to EVs because of the (perceived) Car Tax/VED savings....
"Smart" Meters are something of a con of course, I suspect they will introduce 'timed tariffs' at some point... and those without are already paying for their roll-out too...
Back (more) on topic just why exactly are LPGs vehicles on the decline if they are effectively 'greener' than diesel/petrol ? Surely they should be encouraged more ? Or do we all have to buy electric/H2 cars soon because the car manufacturers are lobbying for this ?
This is what the Mayor of London thinks anyway...
Date:
Wednesday, 1st April 2015
"My ambition is to deliver a zero emission capable London which will improve air quality, tackle climate change and boost London and the UK's economic position. Despite some benefits, LPG does not deliver against all of these objectives. For example, as LPG is derived from fossil fuels, its use continues to release carbon dioxide, albeit somewhat less than emitted by conventionally fuelled vehicles. In terms of air pollution, LPG has lower emissions than petrol and diesel engines on NOx; is essentially equivalent to petrol and well-below diesel on particulate matter; and just below petrol yet well above diesel on hydrocarbons.
However, with the introduction of integrated after exhaust treatment technologies for the new Euro 6 emission standard, the benefits of LPG over petrol and diesel cars are marginal. The latest zero emission capable technologies, meanwhile, will provide the functionality for vehicles to operate in 'zero emission mode' in the most polluted areas. As a result I do not believe LPG is the right answer for London and have instead focused on developing zero emission capable technologies that can deliver the best overall outcome for the capital, including creating significant new economic opportunities for the UK to design and manufacture these innovative new vehicles. "
Yes, the same guy who has extended the 'Congestion' Charging to 7 days/longer hours and is extending ULEZ charges (£12.50/day, 24/7) between the South Circular and North Circular next month. (Nothing whatsoever to do with raising TfL revenues of course....)
Even with all these 'non-polluting' EVs the actual pollution is simply just produced elsewhere of course...
This new push into Hydrogen may be fine for some fleet cars but I suspect it is really just to appease the Petrol Co. folks as it has the same/similar distribution business model (?). And c.65K/Pop may not be 'ideal' for most consumers either !
An overnight EV charge is the better option by far, but I also suspect the Power Utilities will try to gouge us (all) for 'infrastructure upgrades' if/when there are enough trying to fast charge at home ?
Just don't me started on 'self-driving' cars though....
Great photo of the gloop in a bucket Richard !
In their blurb they 'helpfully' state:
" STEEL SEAL IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH All ANTIFREEZE FORMULATIONS
Therefore, for best results, coolant should be temporarily drained and replaced with fresh water. Once repaired, drain Steel Seal from the cooling system and replace with 50/50 antifreeze. "
... but I expect many simply don't flush/drain first ?
Incidentally I have been rather sceptical about the/any 'advantages' of "Organic Additive Technology" for a while now
and will stick with good old glycol ......
As I understand it Sodium Silicate on it's own (or Steel Seal for that matter) should not clog things up as it only hardens on contact with air.....
but that might have been the problem due to that extra air ingress in Nigel's car ??
Not sure just what else 'Steel Seal' uses in its formula (that makes it so much more expensive...) but it seems to be a thickener of some kind (?). On their website they are certainly very critical of Sodium-Silicate-only formulations !
**_ "Steel Seal is a unique mixture of chemical compounds that have been specially blended to react under sufficient heat and pressure to create a hardened seal in the damaged area of a head gasket or block.
However there are lots of products claiming the same thing.
While there are other products that claim to repair a blown head gasket in a similar way to Steel Seal and these products are predominately comprised of little more than Sodium Silicate and dye.
Unfortunately, while using Sodium Silicate will initially seem to fix the issue, Sodium Silicate is also commonly known as ‘Liquid Glass’ or ‘Water Glass’. The reason for this is that Sodium Silicate once heated and cooled down will harden to a glass like substance. This substance cannot possibly stand up to the heat and pressure within the engine and this ‘seal’ will eventually break and the problem of the blown head gasket will return. "_**
Sounds like whatever else is in it needs flushing out if/when it has "done it's job" ?....
This _partly _answers it but not entirely !
https://mrcheckout.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Steel-Seal-Info.pdf
(Great idea David)
Interesting/comprehensive write-up Richard; Three bottles of gloop was clearly/expectedly a mistake..
Of course "Steel Seel" have a 'money back guarantee' up to a 'maximum of three bottles' No mention of compensation for the almost inevitable gloop-blocked rad & heater matrix that might result from that though. An excellent example of the "Law Of Diminishing Returns" too.
Like your theory on air entering the system via the matrix leak too, very plausible as the system cools down
As you know Richard the main answer to your question "Why Not ?" is UK Legislation. Plus back 15+ years - when E85 was first mooted here - a quote from a Land Rover Service Bulletin stated "...there are no Land Rover vehicles capable of tuning as "flexible fuel" vehicles on E85 nor any fuel system components tailored to high ethanol concentration use."
Similarly I note that there are no LR E85-compatible cars listed .... at least not yet**, unless you want to buy a new one !?
Don't really want to spend ~£700 to have an additional/suitable E85 ECU fitted either.
As previously indicated (but it was 'removed') the whole Diesel/NOx fiasco was enough for me: E85 is cheaper at the moment.
As per the UK Govt. document above I might be interested if a list was provided that did not preclude its use on my (unmodified) vehicles: In the meantime the 600K vehicles incompatible with E10 are more than enough for me too !
Naturally I will be watching yours and Nigel's bio-experiments with some interest....
EDIT ('Translated')** (C/O Richard): "For land rovers, what does this change? Until now, only the Land Rover Freelander 1 V6 and 1.8i, marketed until 2006, could legally benefit from E85 cases. With these new rules, a whole range of used models with a petrol engine becomes eligible for Bioethanol. Thus the latest Range Rover P38A V8 (4.0 l and 4.6 l) marketed, as well as the Discovery Series II equipped with the same block, both considered Euro3 from 2002, become eligible for the approved E85 cases. It is also worth mentioning the Freelander 2 i6 (6 cylinders petrol of 3.2 l and 232 hp) and their 15 fiscal horses, marketed from 2007, which will also be able to drive for much cheaper as soon as homologated housings are available."
Not sure what "homologated housings" means there - but I will be watching all that with some interest too !
Ah... I see some 'editing' occurred ! Small point but again "officially" E10 is only 'compatible' for LR from '96 not '94
The whole E5/E10 debate has raged for several years now of course, this comprehensive Govt. 'impact assessment' covers most of it for those unfamiliar but interested:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/870089/impact-assessment-measures-for-introduction-of-e10-fuel-stream.pdf
And/or similarly:
https://www.iea-amf.org/content/fuel_information/ethanol/e10/e10_compatibility
(Not sure if the US 'initiative' was based mainly on surplus corn crops though !)
E85 generally remains an 'unknown' though, numerous papers around but generally inconclusive: Overall CO2 reductions are made (compared to petrol) of course but other emissions change too, eg. HCs are up slightly and other carcinogens etc are produced too. No doubt manufacturers know but are just not revealing their detailed findings (?). What is out there differs from manufacturer to manufacturer too. So still only recommended for FFVs (Fuel-Flexible Vehicles) presently ?