newbie here...and to the diesel world. i own a company that builds hho generators. we've been struggling with the fuel-injected gasoline sector because of all the computer sensors, not only O2 sensors, but exhaust temp and coolant temp sensors also.

so, i went out and bought an 83 turbo diesel from craigslist to test the hydroxy gas on the diesel molecule. it's my 1st silver star and i'm kinda diggin it. i chose it because it pretty closely mimics an over-the-road semi truck, which is my target market for the product. i've been looking through these threads for info and thought i'd post the dyno results from the car about 2 weeks after i got it. i had a couple of leaks to repair first.

so, looking at the readings already posted, my dyno guy clearly is testing some other sort of torque reading. mine is showing 600. so, i don't know what that is.

i read either here or another forum that hydrogen or hydroxy fuel can't work. it really does though. the test shows a reduction in soot with the hho on and an increase in the measured torque, though not affecting the hp. from this test, the hho gas has converted some of the unburnt fuel into torque onto the road. the fuel mileage increases about 23% on versus off. i have the fuel turned up almost as high as it will go so i don't get run over in the city. i was going to try for a 50 mpg car, but i don't have the patience for the turbo to wind turned down that low.

so, i would ask for your insights as to what you see on the torque side of the dyno. i need a more extensive test because i want to see what it does to the NOx, the CO2, and the CO in the diesel exhaust.

thanks for the help thus far. i found a set of clk wheels with tires for $200. the tires are 205/55/16, so i need to find out what 205 vs 215 means. anyway...

b


   

I have split this off the main dyno thread for the flame war that this will be. I hope you have a think flame suit. I dont think anyone here will argue that HHO wont add HP/fuel economy but I dont think youll convince anyone here that making it in the car off the alternator is going to make for better fuel economy. Its a fundamental law of physics.

Each conversion of energy has it's inherrent losses.linear to to twisting, twisting to electricity, electricity to Hydrogen, Hydrogen to fire.

(06-12-2010 08:51 PM)tiptopsaidhe Wrote:  the hho gas has converted some of the unburnt fuel into torque onto the road.

That isn't possible. HHO is a simple fuel, nothing more. The "catalyst" idea has no basis in science, especially at such very low ingestion quantities associated with HHO systems.

Quote:i was going to try for a 50 mpg car

You'd need to start with a VW to get that.
Even with extensive modifications and driving focused purely on economy it would be a stretch of belief to claim a city/highway combined 35mpg from an automatic 300D, an improvement of 75-95% over stock! On pure highway driving with a manual transmission, 2.88 or 2.47 diff, speeds limited to 55mph, no major inclines and no major headwinds, barely touching 40mpg would be possible.
There is no way to get the necessary improvement of 100-150% to reach 50mpg, the thermal and mechanical efficiency simply doesn't exist in your engine or chassis.

I see nothing in your dyno test to back up the claim of a 23% improvement in MPG. The opacity is well within the margin of error for the test machine, especially since the zero shift result is not given, and the fact the engine was hotter after being run once already.

Also, those HP figures are very low, a completely stock car should be putting 85-90hp to the wheels even at Colorado altitude. That also leads to the hypothesis that your 23% claim is simply the result of basic maintenance and/or cleaning the carbon out of the engine from your hard driving ("Italian tuneup").

In other words, I see nothing that would alter the fact that HHO systems don't work. People have been trying to make HHO systems since cars first came around, none have yet to make one that actually works. It has nothing to do with computers or fuel type. Its plain, simple, physics.

The only way I would believe the HHO myth is thousands of hours of sustained RPM on something like a kubuto motor. Two of the, running side by side, one with and one without HHO. There are way to many factors to make 23% variations.

The only way to get a car to run on water is to use water from the Gulf of Mexico.

Any changes in dyno output are probably due to the engine being warmed up. Further more IF any gains were due to hydrogen it was because this thing was probably sapping power from the engine on the first dyno run.

(06-13-2010 06:40 AM)ForcedInduction Wrote:  

(06-12-2010 08:51 PM)tiptopsaidhe Wrote:  the hho gas has converted some of the unburnt fuel into torque onto the road.

I see nothing in your dyno test to back up the claim of a 23% improvement in MPG. The opacity is well within the margin of error for the test machine, especially since the zero shift result is not given, and the fact the engine was hotter after being run once already.

Also, those HP figures are very low, a completely stock car should be putting 85-90hp to the wheels even at Colorado altitude. That also leads to the hypothesis that your 23% claim is simply the result of basic maintenance and/or cleaning the carbon out of the engine from your hard driving ("Italian tuneup").

this is the type of feedback i was hoping for. i will go back to the test dyno guy with better questions as to the testing process. the 2nd test was run 30 seconds later than the first, and the car had been running for an hour prior to the first, so "hotter" would be marginal at best.

---

(06-14-2010 01:54 PM)ConnClark Wrote:  Any changes in dyno output are probably due to the engine being warmed up. Further more IF any gains were due to hydrogen it was because this thing was probably sapping power from the engine on the first dyno run.

the amps pull is a reasonable thought, but it was already warm. the unit was running during the first test, but the vapor wasn't in the airflow to the engine, so the unit was making the 1.5 lpm but pulling 16 amps. so, if i turn it off for the first run, i get the amps back which will help some. when i turn it on, i get less pollution and perhaps equal torque. that's a test i need to do.

(06-14-2010 03:41 PM)tiptopsaidhe Wrote:  this is the type of feedback i was hoping for.

What about using reproducable results like I said. Two constant RPM engine sitting next to each other? Anything else is half baked.

(06-14-2010 03:41 PM)tiptopsaidhe Wrote:  the 2nd test was run 30 seconds later than the first, and the car had been running for an hour prior to the first, so "hotter" would be marginal at best.

Just 1200*f exhaust.

Quote:the amps pull is a reasonable thought, but it was already warm. the unit was running during the first test, but the vapor wasn't in the airflow to the engine, so the unit was making the 1.5 lpm but pulling 16 amps.

That is a key point there. Its drawing power from the first test as well but you were storing the resulting hydrogen. Then during the second test it was dumped in at a higher rate than if the device was producing it normally. That pretty much renders both runs scientifically invalid.

I'd find another pursuit : http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alt...ge/4310717

That Popular Mechanics article along with the Dateline report is as flawed as the hho proponents own tests. The author refers to dozens of research papers and simply says "they don't apply" to the small volume of HHO produced by the electrolysis units. Just because they used a Certified Emissions Test Lab doesn't mean the lab is able to run "science experiments" - they only do testing. The Dateline report focused on known scammers.

The sweeping conclusion that HHO doesn't work because the tested units don't work, is not a valid scientific conclusion. A more proper conclusion would have been to say, "The units failed to perform as advertised". As to the science of HHO, they simply should have said, "improbable, but inconclusive" since they didn't run extensive research or tests of their own.

There are a few college level research papers that were done specifically on HHO generators, but they seem to be unavailable online. The senior project run by the engineering department of Purdue University a few years back showed about a 15% over all reduction in BSFC during their tests on a diesel engine, but little else reported about their methods and measurements. The HHO community jumped on the sketchy report to tout their wares but until the full project is published, very little can be derived.

There are numerous papers on general combustion theory that give insight into what is going on in a hydrogen augmented fuel mix. But, unless you are adept at divining the "species production pathways of thermally decomposing hydrocarbons" and the " effect of reactive radicals" on those pathways; those papers are useless to you. But, if you know that monomolecular hydrogen and oxygen are effective radicals and spend some time running that through some CFD scenarios, you will realize you don't need much HHO to have an effect on combustion, with a little juggling of variables such as pressure and temperature.

I don't believe we will see 100% or more increase in fuel efficiency ( reduced BSFC). At least we haven't seen it, but 10 to 15% seems like very realistic reduction of BSFC. The Caveat is that these improvements are made at very specific points in the power curve, and at relatively low speeds.

All of this is moot of course because there are far better ways of making hydrogen on board. But, it is interesting to see these forum discussions.

Once serial hybrids such as the GM Volt become common place, the need to extend the IC efficiency will result in some form of augmented combustion as the constant speed IC generator pack is ideal for these applications. I believe GM will go to direct injected HCCI engines for the Volt in the next model iteration. Hydrogen augmentation helps tremendously with control of the HCCI process.

(06-16-2010 02:43 PM)RustyLugNut Wrote:  The sweeping conclusion that HHO doesn't work because the tested units don't work, is not a valid scientific conclusion.

Wrong. They don't work because they would have to violate several fundamental laws of science to do so. Its not a matter of design, trial and error or human ingenuity, its nature.

Electrolysis has been around for 203 years, the internal combustion automobile 116 years. In all that time of milti-million$ R&D budgets, thousands of genius minds (Ford, Edison, Westinghouse, Tesla just to name a few), millions of independent designers, millions of independent testers and millions of failures, don't you think it stands to reason that if it were possible that at least one of them would have been made into a working, reproducible, prototype by now?

Quote:you will realize you don't need much HHO to have an effect on combustion

Just about a liter per second. Much more if you want to run the engine directly on hydrogen.

Quote:At least we haven't seen it, but 10 to 15% seems like very realistic reduction of BSFC.

If thats all you can hope for then its far cheaper, less maintenance intensive and proven that using an Atkinson cycle camshaft will return that much efficiency.

Quote:All of this is moot of course because there are far better ways of making hydrogen on board.

Such as? Sodium Hydroxide and aluminum reaction? Reforming natural gas?
Electrolysis is the only viable process of producing it while mobile.

Quote:Once serial hybrids such as the GM Volt become common place

Not going to happen. Low-volume production hybrids like the Prius and Insight are already draining the world's resources to make batteries, plus those batteries have been proven worse for the environment than normal combustion propelled vehicles (materials transport, manufacture, recycling and vehicle safety).

Quote:I believe GM will go to direct injected HCCI engines for the Volt in the next model iteration.

If they decide to produce the Volt in the first place.

An interesting story on HHO and what can happen http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jun/17/1...alley-ind/

EDIT: more details including info on an indictment http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jun/18/a...mi-valley/

Big Oil did it to keep him quiet.

(06-25-2010 06:46 AM)ForcedInduction Wrote:  Big Oil did it to keep him quiet.

I am assuming you are being facetious. I wonder specifically what they did to make the boom. HHO generation at the house?

no, big oil doesn't have anything to worry about. we just make theirs last longer so they can stay in business forever.

sorry to leave you hanging. i know how important it is to skeptics to keep the flame going.

been working to find information to bring you closer to the light so you can feel comfortable knowing that hho works in our cars.

btw, forcedinduction, i am inviting you to my facility to come and see the product. you are in colorado, as am i. you can't be far away and you are welcome to inspect it for yourself. i will wire the one from my benz onto yours and you can drive it and feel for yourself. it will take 10 minutes to install. then, you can decide to be the promotor or not. you are welcome here.

here is a conclusion paragraph from a 3rd party study regarding diesel and hho. the link to the pdf is attached.

The impacts of using a small amount of H2/O2 mixture as an
additive on the performance of a four-cylinder diesel engine were
evaluated. The required amount of the mixture was generated using electrolysis of water considering on-board production of H2/
O2 mixture. Hydrogen which has about nine times higher flame
speed than diesel has the ability to enhance overall combustion
generating higher peak pressure closer to TDC resulting in more
work. The experimental results showed that with the introduction
of 6.1% total diesel equivalent H2/O2 mixture into diesel, the brake
thermal efficiency increased by 2.6% at 19 kW, 2.9% at 22 kW, and
1.6% at 28 kW. The brake specific fuel consumption of the engine
reduced by 7.3%, 8.1%, and 4.8% at 19 kW, 22 kW, and 28 kW,
respectively. However, adding H2/O2 beyond 5% does not have significant
effect in enhancing the engine performance. The emissions
of HC, CO2 and CO were found to be reduced due to better combustion
while NOx increased due to the higher temperature reached
during the combustion.

http://www.allhho.com/manuals/HHOdiesel.pdf

there are many studies just like this one. we don't have to violate laws to make a fuel more efficient.

---

(06-14-2010 08:16 PM)ForcedInduction Wrote:  

(06-14-2010 03:41 PM)tiptopsaidhe Wrote:  the 2nd test was run 30 seconds later than the first, and the car had been running for an hour prior to the first, so "hotter" would be marginal at best.

Just 1200*f exhaust.

Quote:the amps pull is a reasonable thought, but it was already warm. the unit was running during the first test, but the vapor wasn't in the airflow to the engine, so the unit was making the 1.5 lpm but pulling 16 amps.

That is a key point there. Its drawing power from the first test as well but you were storing the resulting hydrogen. Then during the second test it was dumped in at a higher rate than if the device was producing it normally. That pretty much renders both runs scientifically invalid.

no, my unit doesn't store hydrogen. it's made on-demand. the tube was just removed from the air intake tube is all. i don't need to be a scientist because scientists already proved that it works for exactly what i said it will do. my dyno results just confirm what they already know. i haven't gotten back to the dyno guy yet, but they will say the same things again with numbers that better reflect hp and torque.

come to my facility and try it. if you like it, buy one. if you don't, don't.

i do appreciate this forum though.

(06-29-2010 05:40 PM)tiptopsaidhe Wrote:  i don't need to be a scientist because scientists already proved that it works for exactly what i said it will do.

URL?

From the paper you referenced in section 3 page 379 "In this experiment, the H2/O2 mixture was generated using 24 V external power supply and the power needed to produce the H2/O2 mixture is included in the input energy of the engine." . This method would be valid only if one would assume 100% efficiency in the generation of electricity.

A realistic representation of hydrogen generation on demand would would have to be divided by the measured break thermal efficiency and then divided again by an alternator efficiency and that energy subtracted from the output of the engine. So in its best case it would be ((energy used to create hydrogen)/0.363)/0.70) or roughly 4 times the energy they accounted for.

Incidentally they conveniently left out all information on how much energy it took to generate the hydrogen or how they measured it so its impossible to calculate a correction factor.

(06-29-2010 05:40 PM)tiptopsaidhe Wrote:  i know how important it is to skeptics to keep the flame going.

Its the True Believers™ that keep us active, they continually make up new ways to try and get around the laws of nature.

Quote:btw, forcedinduction, i am inviting you to my facility to come and see the product.

You and I both know how that would turn out, its in both of our interests that I decline.

Quote:Hydrogen which has about nine times higher flame
speed than diesel has the ability to enhance overall combustion
generating higher peak pressure closer to TDC resulting in more
work.

Quote:The experimental results showed that with the introduction
of 6.1% total diesel equivalent H2/O2 mixture into diesel

Unfortunately thats FAR higher than any HHO "generator" on the market can produce.
Please reference this post: http://www.superturbodiesel.com/std/hho-...ml#pid5617

Quote:The emissions of HC, CO2 and CO were found to be reduced due to better combustion

In other words the engine wasn't properly tuned to begin with.

Quote:allhho

Again, if a little bottle of water could produce such significant gains then EVERY manufacturer would be using it. I'm sure the cool blue lights enhance efficiency too!

Quote:no, my unit doesn't store hydrogen.

If it was on and functional, it was producing a reservoir inside the electrolysis chamber.

Quote:i don't need to be a scientist because scientists already proved that it works

(06-29-2010 06:07 PM)winmutt Wrote:  URL?

Ditto. I have yet to see a single credible, degree holding, field related scientist back the claims of HHO Believers™.

Quote:my dyno results just confirm what they already know.

Which is that you don't know/care how to conduct a scientifically valid and controlled test. The fact that you used a known malfunctioning dyno, ran only one test session and still presented the results as fact shows you have no consideration for factual accuracy or quality.

(06-16-2010 05:38 PM)ForcedInduction Wrote:  

(06-16-2010 02:43 PM)RustyLugNut Wrote:  The sweeping conclusion that HHO doesn't work because the tested units don't work, is not a valid scientific conclusion.

Wrong. They don't work because they would have to violate several fundamental laws of science to do so. Its not a matter of design, trial and error or human ingenuity, its nature.

Several years ago Windsor University ran an HHO test using dry bottled gasses to simulate an electrolyser output without the variable of ingested water vapor. The research paper conclusion statement is of the proper form. "As tested, the HHO gas mix" produced a "net loss of energy" as measured on the dynomometer. The "as tested" part of the statement is true, since their tests were not all encompassing. They didn't tune or modify the test engine to try to take advantage of the augmenting hydrogen. The PopMech article should have followed suit in its conclusions. But then again, like the TV show Mythbusters, they are in the entertainment business and do not need to submit to peer review.

When viewed from a macroscopic perspective and viewing the fuel as two separate combustible gases - your conclusion becomes obvious. The gasoline or diesel, which ever the case may be, must be assisted by a combustible mix of hydrogen which must burn independent of the hydrocarbon fuel with enough pressure to result in a net energy gain above the energy expended to produce the hydrogen through electrolysis. The 4% LFL (lower flammability limit ) by volume of hydrogen would dictate the need to produce liters per second of hydrogen for all but the smallest engines. Electrolysis generators cannot provide this volume of hydrogen flow without an inordinate amount of engine power resulting in a net loss of energy.

However, if we view the interaction of hydrogen radicals on the hydrocarbon fuel, we see that a decrease in BSFC ( Brake Specific Fuel Consumption ) is possible without breaking any fundamental laws of chemistry and physics.

If you take our test subject engines ( both 1984 model 4 cylinder, 2.2 liter, gasoline and diesel engines, respectively), you can see that an idle speed of 600 rpm ( 10 cycles per second) results in 5 intake events per second leading to an ingestion of 2.75 liters of air ( for the unthrottled diesel engine, much less for the gasoline engine ) per cylinder per second. Add to this a flow resulting from 1 ampere of current running through an electrolysis cell. This results in one coulomb equivalent of hydrogen ( 6.24x10E18 ) being ingested into the same 2.75 liters of air. When compressed to 8:1 (Dodge gas engine) or 22:1 ( Mercedes diesel ) the resulting increase in pressure and temperature produce highly reactive H+ radicals that railroad the production of side radicals and strip even more hydrogen atoms from the hydrocarbon chain within a few picoseconds of the start of ignition. A domino effect of H+ radicals stripping more hydrogen from their carbon bonds resulting in even more H+ radicals to do the same, means that if the variables of initial H+ concentration, turbulence, temperature and pressure are correct, a hydrogen mixture exceeding the required LFL for combustion is achieved resulting in the fuel mix releasing its heat energy in a narrower time period. If this heat release is narrow enough and timed correctly, most of the pressure gain will fall in the area 0 - 180 degrees after TDC resulting in an increase in the BMEP ( Brake Mean Effective Pressure ). A small increase in BMEP results in a several horsepower gain for the expenditure of a few hundred watts of electrical power.

' Wrote:Electrolysis has been around for 203 years, the internal combustion automobile 116 years. In all that time of milti-million$ R&D budgets, thousands of genius minds (Ford, Edison, Westinghouse, Tesla just to name a few), millions of independent designers, millions of independent testers and millions of failures, don't you think it stands to reason that if it were possible that at least one of them would have been made into a working, reproducible, prototype by now?

Need. There was no need for it. Economy and emissions were not a concern until the last few decades. An obscure German device from 1911 used an alkaline electrolyser to produce "make up" hydrogen for Zeppelin airships and give them more flight time. The drawings also show manifolding that directs the gas output into the intake of the aero engines. I can find no evidence that it was ever implemented and used, but it shows someone was thinking along such lines a long time ago.

Dozens of patented devices have been devised to increase efficiency and reduce emissions over the years. They never reached prototype or production status because there was no perceived need for lowered fuel use and emissions. Until they were needed. Then they were revisited and revised.

The principle of catalytic conversion has been known for a hundred years plus, but it took legislation in the 70's to see its production and implementation as the current catalytic converter on cars.

Mitsubishi's stratified charge engines of the 70's and Toyota's direct injection engines of the 80's now result in direct injected lean burn engines that EVERY manufacturer is looking to bring into their engine line ups.

That mythical 200 mpg carburetor from the 30's? You can see a direct and modern attempt at it's execution in the work of a small company in Oregon. Will it see production use? Maybe, maybe not. But it does reduce fuel use by 30% and emissions are also greatly reduced. And it has been tested by EPA certified labs.

Private corporations as well as colleges and Universities are pulling in loans, grants and government handouts to deepen our understanding of combustion and the questions of increased efficiency and reduced emissions. A local university just a few miles from our office has benefited in the way of an EPA quality testing lab facility installed on campus for use in research.

The need is here, now.

' Wrote:

Quote:you will realize you don't need much HHO to have an effect on combustion

Just about a liter per second. Much more if you want to run the engine directly on hydrogen.

I answered this in the above discussion. You continue looking at the fuels in parallel. However, the fuel interaction is the key. Is it enough to obtain 200-300% greater fuel economy in current automobiles? Not a chance! But, a relatively small inclusion of hydrogen in a hydrocarbon fuel effects the oxidation paths measurably - assuming you add enough pressure, turbulence and temperature.

' Wrote:

Quote:At least we haven't seen it, but 10 to 15% seems like very realistic reduction of BSFC.

If thats all you can hope for then its far cheaper, less maintenance intensive and proven that using an Atkinson cycle camshaft will return that much efficiency.

The original question seemed to be: " does HHO work"? I have answered that in principles of science. Now you are asking, "is HHO economically viable"? That can only be answered in the market place. We decided to pursue more productive ways to create hydrogen gas on board a vehicle. We still have and manufacture electrolysis hydrogen generators for industrial purposes but they do have poor ROI for most on road use.

Of certain interest, is the efficiency found at singular test points. 10-15% was the average. We found reductions of BSFC in the range of 30-50% at specific load/augmentation points. If you have an application that can take advantage of this, it can certainly be a viable product. The research paper done by Purdue University, mirrors our findings to a large degree, for the diesel engine test.

' Wrote:

Quote:All of this is moot of course because there are far better ways of making hydrogen on board.

Such as? Sodium Hydroxide and aluminum reaction? Reforming natural gas?
Electrolysis is the only viable process of producing it while mobile.

POx (partial oxidation) reformers have been in use for decades in various applications. Catalyst aided POx reformers extend the capability to de-polymerize the longer chains found in gasoline and diesel. MIT's plasma reformer increases reformer response to better match varying engine loads and speeds. It has been tested in diesel buses with about a 30% reduction in fuel use. The biggest hurdle other than device longevity, is the ability to match the reformate production with engine needs as there is some lag in gas production. MIT's plasmatron ( the name they have given the device) is capable of reforming the majority of the fuel stream for a fairly large diesel application.

' Wrote:

Quote:Once serial hybrids such as the GM Volt become common place

Not going to happen. Low-volume production hybrids like the Prius and Insight are already draining the world's resources to make batteries, plus those batteries have been proven worse for the environment than normal combustion propelled vehicles (materials transport, manufacture, recycling and vehicle safety).

Battery shortage? Really? Ni-Cad and NiMH aside, Lithium-ion batteries are relatively new and still in a development cycle that is relatively steep. Thus, the so called "shortage". Lithium is not rare. It just has been untapped to this point due to the lack of need. Deposits are found on all continents with varying degrees of recover ability. Factories are being built monthly. And the batteries hold such value even after they have reached their "end of life" use as vehicle drive batteries that the overwhelming majority will see the use of their remaining 70% capacity in areas such as load leveling schemes and power storage. Battery recycling will probably approach 100%. There are government grants available to find uses for these power packs.

Unfriendly to the environment? With the BP spill still out of control in the Gulf and a whole region affected for years, I think it is safe to say battery driven vehicles will be no more unfriendly to the environment than traditional fossil fueled vehicles.

' Wrote:

Quote:I believe GM will go to direct injected HCCI engines for the Volt in the next model iteration.

If they decide to produce the Volt in the first place.

They will produce the Volt. What with close to a billion dollars invested in R&D and factories for the vehicle and battery packs. There are production test units running around the US and Europe finalizing the software for the broadest consumer appeal as well as working through any traditional problems that shake out. At this point, I wouldn't bet against them to NOT make the Volt.

Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) engine schemes are already being tested by GM and others. They are speed limited at this point. Hydrogen augmentation is being investigated as a way to extend the operational speed of an HCCI engine. The two constant speed/load points for the Volt's ICE recharger means something like a simple rendition of MIT's plasmatron would be ideal in increasing the ICE fuel economy of the Volt with an HCCI engine.

In summary, there are scientific pathways for HHO to be effective in improving combustion engine efficiency and emissions. The inclusion of sufficient hydrogen in the fuel mix, along with the proper conditions of pressure, temperature and turbulence can extend the lower flammability limit of the hydrocarbon fuel, accelerate the flame front and concentrate the resulting heat release. When timed properly, this concentrated heat release results in an increase in effective cylinder pressure that can give a net gain in energy over the losses needed to produce the hydrogen gas in the first place.

However, larger volumes of hydrogen give even greater benefit, and by using devices such as the compact and powerful MIT "plasmatron", a portion of the fuel stream can easily be reformed on board resulting in significant fuel efficiency gains with a device that will be robust and needs little attention to function in the long term.

(06-29-2010 06:07 PM)winmutt Wrote:  

(06-29-2010 05:40 PM)tiptopsaidhe Wrote:  i don't need to be a scientist because scientists already proved that it works for exactly what i said it will do.

URL?

i'm not sure what url you desire, so thanking you for the opportunity to plant a link,
H2HyPod the company

the link to the scientists work is already in the thread.

Lol busted website always screams creditability to me

(06-30-2010 01:07 AM)ForcedInduction Wrote:  

Quote:btw, forcedinduction, i am inviting you to my facility to come and see the product.

You and I both know how that would turn out, its in both of our interests that I decline.

no worries. offer stands. i doubt any other company has extended the invite to feel it for yourself for free. no need to live within the allegory of the cave, though. what you perceive and conjecture can be confirmed or can be evolved into a new perception. i don't have the desire to prove you wrong. i think it's cool to have a hybrid diesel benz which runs quieter, smoother, faster, cleaner, and more efficiently...thought you might also.

no need to pontificate on whether or not i can run a scientific test on my car. i don't own the dyno. when you pay someone to do something, it is generally understood they know what to do. that's primarily the reason i posted the test here, so i could get feedback from other owners. frankly, i don't see a bunch of others willing to do it, which is likely due to the critical reviews from the highandmighty. i will have it retested and post it.

You would be far better off investing your time tuning up and making you engine transmission rear diff and such work more efficiently

Check your alignment tire pressure! Replace all of your fuel filters use synthetic oil's do a valve adjustment! Aerodynamics and rolling resistance are what you should aim on fixing ! you should see a bigger difference in power and fuel economy tackling those obstacles!

rather than waste time with some hokey battery gas thingy!

(06-30-2010 03:46 PM)willbhere4u Wrote:  You would be far better off investing your time tuning up and making you engine transmission rear diff and such work more efficiently

Check your alignment tire pressure! Replace all of your fuel filters use synthetic oil's do a valve adjustment! Aerodynamics and rolling resistance are what you should aim on fixing ! you should see a bigger difference in power and fuel economy tackling those obstacles!

rather than waste time with some hokey battery gas thingy!

I for one, would like to see tiptop* continue his efforts. With improved understanding and methodology, we might learn something useful from his interest in electrolysis HHO generators applied to our beloved diesel Benz.

Repair, maintenance and tuning can only get you so far. Reduction in rolling resistance is difficult beyond improvements in tires. Significant reductions in mass ( for city driving ) and aerodynamic loads ( highway driving ) require far more work then the average tinkerer would really have resources for. If he wants to trail blaze, let him. If he gets lost in the wilderness of research, he will not be the first one. If he returns with a road-map to riches, you benefit with a paved road to travel on. If you find allegorical answers difficult to follow . . . remember the old cereal commercial? "Let Mikey eat it!"

(07-01-2010 02:49 PM)RustyLugNut Wrote:  If he wants to trail blaze, let him.

Well said.

Let us know how it works out.

(06-30-2010 02:16 PM)winmutt Wrote:  Lol busted website always screams creditability to me

link took me right to it.

h2hypod.com

I was referring to the busted html.

ok, so from the report the other day it was suggested that one couldn't get those percentages and numbers of hydroxy gas to impact the fuel. so, please help me again, but with the math this time.

if a td gets 28mpg on 16 gallons of diesel, that's 448 miles. at 60 mph, that would be 7.5 hours, or 2.13 gal/hour, which is .0355 gal/min, or .1344 liters per minute of diesel fuel. the regular hypod makes 1 liter/min of h2/o2, and the one on my 300 makes closer to 2 lpm, but lets just go with 1 lpm.

the paper referred to any amount over 5% wasn't going toward the combining, but was burning as it's own. so, 5% of .1344 is .007 lpm, which is the negligible at best and, clearly, i'm thinking about this wrongly.

the guys who built the industry many years ago suggest that for each liter of engine size you need .5 lpm of h2/o2, which means we need 1.5 lpm for the 300td, which is why i chose the larger generator.

so, from this earlier referenced paper, i am having trouble understanding how to covert their info of 19kw and so forth, into real life engine information. i will keep working at it and get back.

---

(07-02-2010 10:58 AM)winmutt Wrote:  I was referring to the busted html.

oh, sorry. we had a couple of "experts" doing web design, but they were dragging ### getting anything done. so, that website is built on a mac with iweb. when you buy a hypod , and convince a bunch of more people to also, i can afford to pay the "experts" to do whatever it is takes them 20 times longer than i can do it.

here is a nice write up on how to do the math

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_fraud.shtml

(07-02-2010 12:14 PM)ConnClark Wrote:  here is a nice write up on how to do the math

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_fraud.shtml

That page has nice easy high school chemistry principles working with the gasses as SEPARATE parallel fuel sources. You cannot fault their math. But I will fault their naivete in assuming this is all there is to the story.

I have stated in my post above, in a relatively simplistic form, the certainty of gas interactions. I also pointed out that those interactions cannot provide the 100% fuel savings many people are touting for their HHO electrolysis generators. But, with the right manipulation of variables, measurable gains can be found.

If you are a marketeer that says "my HHO unit will give 100-300 % gains", I can't support your delusions, and neither will good science. If you are a Naysayer who believes "HHO doesn't work, and science says so", I'll challenge you on that and say, science provides pathways for a small amount of hydrogen to effect a change in combustion - under the right conditions.

Now, will Tiptop* be able to find enough of a benefit to create a business model around? That's the question he is trying to find an answer for. He might just find something that all of us over educated and corporately restricted types have overlooked. It has happened before.

Incidentally, the aardvark site link, references a 2004 paper that is very good and very understandable in its discussion of hydrogen addition to a diesel engine. It is worth a visit.

(07-02-2010 01:11 PM)RustyLugNut Wrote:  But, with the right manipulation of variables, measurable gains can be found.

okay,

what variables do you want to manipulate?

Lets say someone used large amounts of platinum to do their electrolysis that would bump the efficiency up from 50% to 75%. You still end up loosing 1.5HP instead of 3HP.

I can say that his assumption of 12V is not an entirely accurate one but a better one of say 13.8V to better approximate an automotive electrical system isn't going to change the outcome either.

(07-02-2010 05:20 PM)ConnClark Wrote:  

(07-02-2010 01:11 PM)RustyLugNut Wrote:  But, with the right manipulation of variables, measurable gains can be found.

okay,

what variables do you want to manipulate?

Lets say someone used large amounts of platinum to do their electrolysis that would bump the efficiency up from 50% to 75%. You still end up loosing 1.5HP instead of 3HP.

I can say that his assumption of 12V is not an entirely accurate one but a better one of say 13.8V to better approximate an automotive electrical system isn't going to change the outcome either.

How about the variables of intake air temperature? The higher the temperature in the combustion chamber right before ignition, the more reactive the hydrogen radicals are and the more capable they are of rending the hydrocarbon molecules.

How about pressure? The higher the pressure in the cylinders, the more reactive the hydrogen becomes and again, the more capable it is of stripping the hydrogen off the carbon chain.

How about mixture turbulence? It is simple and obvious to realize the homogenizing effect a highly turbulent combustion chamber has on the reactivity of the combustible mix.

How about injection timing? All the reports I have seen including the aardvark link to the Spanish college paper, do not attempt to take advantage of the focused heat release and the delay in this heat release.

These variables can be manipulated with tremendous influence on the reactivity of the hydrogen.

The idea is to influence the combustion so that it releases as much heat energy and the consequential pressure rise in as narrow a crank range as possible and time this to happen in the power stroke angle minimizing the "negative" energy release found in pressure rise before TDC and after 180 degrees after TDC on the power stroke. Take that energy, and focus it, and you will see an increase in power and efficiency.

And, you don't need liters per second of hydrogen to do so.

Being an Indirect Direct Injection diesel engine won't the glowing prechamber ignite the hydrogen before the intake valve even closes?

(07-02-2010 07:52 PM)willbhere4u Wrote:  Being an Indirect Direct Injection diesel engine won't the glowing prechamber ignite the hydrogen before the intake valve even closes?

This is an excellent question.

When we look at the compression temperature of a diesel, much depends on the compression ratio, materials of construction and supercharging. Temperatures can range from as low as 325 deg C to as high as 550 deg C. The Mercedes Classics that we deal with on this forum have the 22:1 compression and turbo charging to bring the possible temperature into the higher end of the aforementioned range. Diesel will ignite as low as 210 deg C to as high as 285 deg C.

Hydrogen's autoignition temperature is in the range of 535-585 deg C. (depending on testing procedures). So, except for the most hellish of operation (long periods of max loading), hydrogen will not ignite. Of interest is the ignition temperature of gasses such as methane, butane and propane whose ignition temperature is around 400 deg C. They may work as augmenting fuels up to a point, then they can cause uncontrolled combustion as load, boost and temperature rise. This is why Gale Banks does not recommend propane augmentation for true performance diesels.

Back to the HHO electrolysis generator. Again, we are talking about a concentration of hydrogen that is below the flammability limit of 4% by volume in air. There is not enough of a concentration for the hydrogen to auto-ignite on it's own.

(07-02-2010 01:11 PM)RustyLugNut Wrote:  

(07-02-2010 12:14 PM)ConnClark Wrote:  here is a nice write up on how to do the math

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_fraud.shtml

That page has nice easy high school chemistry principles working with the gasses as SEPARATE parallel fuel sources. You cannot fault their math. But I will fault their naivete in assuming this is all there is to the story.

I have stated in my post above, in a relatively simplistic form, the certainty of gas interactions. I also pointed out that those interactions cannot provide the 100% fuel savings many people are touting for their HHO electrolysis generators. But, with the right manipulation of variables, measurable gains can be found.

If you are a marketeer that says "my HHO unit will give 100-300 % gains", I can't support your delusions, and neither will good science. If you are a Naysayer who believes "HHO doesn't work, and science says so", I'll challenge you on that and say, science provides pathways for a small amount of hydrogen to effect a change in combustion - under the right conditions.

Now, will Tiptop* be able to find enough of a benefit to create a business model around? That's the question he is trying to find an answer for. He might just find something that all of us over educated and corporately restricted types have overlooked. It has happened before.

Incidentally, the aardvark site link, references a 2004 paper that is very good and very understandable in its discussion of hydrogen addition to a diesel engine. It is worth a visit.

i can't find the link to the hydrogen/diesel article easily, and i don't have the heart to search through their drivel. they spend an awful lot of energy trying to disprove something that works. his math doesn't work for real life. first, the oxygen itself has a certain reaction to the diesel in the combustion reaction, hydrogen has its own reaction to diesel, and the combination has a different reaction. hydrogen can be combusted in a wide range of air to fuel ratios that range from 34:1 to 180:1, while diesel is 14.6:1. the "expert" there doesn't know how those combine, and moreover, doesn't know how hydroxy differs from pure hydrogen. and it takes half the hp to cruise than he says. my tests showed no increase in horsepower, which what was lost by the draw was given back with the hydroxy added. it was the increase in work that contributed to the gains.

i realized while driving that my math may not be working because i have the diesel fuel in a liquid state and the hydroxy in vapor form. is that valid, and if so, how can i convert the diesel into lpm in a vapor form?

---

(07-03-2010 12:51 PM)RustyLugNut Wrote:  

(07-02-2010 07:52 PM)willbhere4u Wrote:  Being an Indirect Direct Injection diesel engine won't the glowing prechamber ignite the hydrogen before the intake valve even closes?

This is an excellent question.

When we look at the compression temperature of a diesel, much depends on the compression ratio, materials of construction and supercharging. Temperatures can range from as low as 325 deg C to as high as 550 deg C. The Mercedes Classics that we deal with on this forum have the 22:1 compression and turbo charging to bring the possible temperature into the higher end of the aforementioned range. Diesel will ignite as low as 210 deg C to as high as 285 deg C.

Hydrogen's autoignition temperature is in the range of 535-585 deg C. (depending on testing procedures). So, except for the most hellish of operation (long periods of max loading), hydrogen will not ignite. Of interest is the ignition temperature of gasses such as methane, butane and propane whose ignition temperature is around 400 deg C. They may work as augmenting fuels up to a point, then they can cause uncontrolled combustion as load, boost and temperature rise. This is why Gale Banks does not recommend propane augmentation for true performance diesels.

Back to the HHO electrolysis generator. Again, we are talking about a concentration of hydrogen that is below the flammability limit of 4% by volume in air. There is not enough of a concentration for the hydrogen to auto-ignite on it's own.

i understand that when we separate the h2o molecule, the hydrogens don't stay in the monatomic state, but instead recombine very quickly into a diatomic (h2) state. but on the compression stroke, that giant diesel molecule is broken by both thermal and catalytic cracking, so there are open ended molecules needing something to attach to. even if the hydrogens enter the combustion process as diatomic, is there a chance they too are broken and could attach to the open ended broken molecules from the long-chain diesel molecules, effectively making smaller, complete molecules of something else? if there is less pollutants, which there is, something is happening to the chemistry at the combustion event enabling the engine to use the fuel for efficiency instead of exhaust.

hydrogen has an octane rating of 130+ and diesel has a cetane rating of 48. what effect does the hydrogen portion of hydroxy gas have on the cetane rating of the combined fuels and the overall stoichiometry of the combustion event? that probably goes back to willbehere's suggestion as to whether the hydrogen has the ability to ignite on its own. his suggestion that it doesn't would point toward the chemical change on the compression stroke.

Tiptop*,

Your post is very fractured and filled with both statements and questions. Can you re-post in a more orderly fashion? Re-frame your questions and statements to allow us to better understand and reply to more concise logic.

This is the link the aardvark site referenced.
http://www.fisita.com/students/congress/...s/sc11.pdf

It is a student research paper, but looks well done.

(07-06-2010 12:10 PM)RustyLugNut Wrote:  Tiptop*,

Your post is very fractured and filled with both statements and questions. Can you re-post in a more orderly fashion? Re-frame your questions and statements to allow us to better understand and reply to more concise logic.

This is the link the aardvark site referenced.
http://www.fisita.com/students/congress/...s/sc11.pdf

It is a student research paper, but looks well done.

thanks for the link.

yes, i can format questions differently. i should just start with one.

how can i convert .1344 liquid lpm of diesel into vaporous lpm to match the hydroxy measurement?

Why don't you guys just simulate it http://www.tfd.chalmers.se/~hani/kurser/..._NL_HN.pdf

(06-30-2010 02:16 PM)winmutt Wrote:  Lol busted website always screams creditability to me

As does using a 9 year late Apple "i" namealike.

(06-13-2010 06:40 AM)ForcedInduction Wrote:  Also, those HP figures are very low, a completely stock car should be putting 85-90hp to the wheels even at Colorado altitude. That also leads to the hypothesis that your 23% claim is simply the result of basic maintenance and/or cleaning the carbon out of the engine from your hard driving ("Italian tuneup").

would you guys know the rear end ratio of a stock 83 300td? i was told by the dyno guy to divide the torque readings posted on the test by the rear end ratio to get torque at the flywheel. he also said the hp ratings were correct but an altitude factor of 25% is needed.

Diff ratio doesn't matter for decent dyno system like Mustang or Superflow. There was a 5hp difference on my 240D with a 3.69 and 3.46 and that was due to the different turbo.
What really matters is that you pick a well calibrated, well operated dyno and stick with it for future comparisons. Established performance shops are the best option as they aren't likely to go defunct and they know what they're doing.
Emissions stations are a bad option as they aren't calibrated to measure power, they're simply to put a load on the vehicles engine and measure MPH to simulate driving on the road.

(07-23-2010 05:12 PM)ForcedInduction Wrote:  Diff ratio doesn't matter for decent dyno system like Mustang or Superflow. There was a 5hp difference on my 240D with a 3.69 and 3.46 and that was due to the different turbo.
What really matters is that you pick a well calibrated, well operated dyno and stick with it for future comparisons. Established performance shops are the best option as they aren't likely to go defunct and they know what they're doing.
Emissions stations are a bad option as they aren't calibrated to measure power, they're simply to put a load on the vehicles engine and measure MPH to simulate driving on the road.

thanks fi. yes, i will find a performance dyno company. believe it or not, this guy is the only diesel emissions reader in my town. when asked if he could read the various pollutants, he referred me to denver to find a 6-gas analyzer...that the 4-gas will clog up immediately. it's almost like i need a full university to get any real information.

Emissions stations will not test diesels using g@s engine equipment as the soot will foul instruments. Colorado emissions only test for smoke opacity and the equipment is designed to factor sensor soot contamination in the measurement (zero shift).

tiptopsaidhe Wrote:btw, forcedinduction, i am inviting you to my facility to come and see the product.

ForcedInduction Wrote:You and I both know how that would turn out, its in both of our interests that I decline.

I can't believe you wont take him up on this... I would do it for the shits and grins alone!

(07-28-2010 11:53 PM)SurfRodder Wrote:  I can't believe you wont take him up on this... I would do it for the shits and grins alone!

Have at it. Conflict on an internet forum is one thing, I prefer to avoid it in my daily life.

(07-29-2010 06:33 AM)ForcedInduction Wrote:  Have at it. Conflict on an internet forum is one thing, I prefer to avoid it in my daily life.

I have no need for conflict either, but I would definitely run one of these on my car if someone offered to let me test one. If I saw any benefit, I would even consider shelling out money for it, but I think the price point is a bit high considering there are plenty of ways to build similar devices.

Hello everyone. I am new to the forum and new to MB turbo diesel, but not so new to the subject being discuss here. I recently purchase a 1985 300SD to apply my design. I found this forum to learn more about making adjustment on the IP to retard timing to better increase the gain I've been experiencing on this car (44 mpg mix driving) with lots of power and great acceleration and smooth that's an understatement.

I thought I would pop in contribute to support the originator of this post. I am here to get educated on the mechnical aspect of this 617 engine to fine tune it to take advantage of it's new life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2ehGu1VOUU

That link will show the system running onboard.

Holy knocking engine, batman!!
Also please prove the 44 MPG claim.

(08-10-2010 09:03 AM)koya1893 Wrote:  (44 mpg mix driving)

Okay, I'm going to call out the BSflag on that since I know for a fact it isn't true.

Quote:That link will show the system running onboard.

It must not be operational in the video, the engine isn't accelerating on its own.

Also, from a peachparts post about your website: http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/show...p?t=282510

Quote:http://hydrogen-tek.com/
Gasoline is but only 18% efficient on average when it comes to actual power produced by the combustion process. Adding an additional element [Hydrogen] and oxidizer [Oxygen] "aka HHO" causes the inefficient gasoline to burn at a rate of better than 95% efficiency.

That is a flat out lie that relies on consumer ignorance. A 95% efficient engine would not only revolutionize the world as we know it but the exhaust would be little more than ambient air temperature and the coolant would never warm up. Since that clearly doesn't happen, your device has been proven false right out of the gate.
Modern (postwar) engines in proper tune burn nearly all of the fuel consumed.
The "18%" figure you're using is whats converted to mechanical energy. The rest is wasted as heat and sound, through frictional losses and blowby. Claiming "95%" is in the same group as every other perpetual motion machine; impossible, especially when combustion is involved.

Your "44mpg" lie is based on simple math. 25 actual mpg +77% (difference between 18% and 95%).

koya1893 Wrote:http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.n...016170.pdf

1: That has nothing to do with diesels.
2: The volume of hydrogen they use is exponentially higher than any onboard system can produce. 1.42lb/hr compared to the average 0.0228lb/hr (2L/min) production of common hydrogen generator scams.
3: The engine isn't generating the energy to release the hydrogen from its stable water bond, they use premade bottled gas.
4: They are using clean hydrogen, not Oxyhydrogen.
5: Hydrogen "generator" scams have been around for over 100years and not a single one has proven itself to actually work in controlled, scientific and repeatable conditions. The laws of thermodynamics always prevail over flawed ideas and scams.

Also koya1893, I notice you've deleted your posts from that thread. Why?
My account was "banned" but my posts still remain, so the "mods deleted it for being off topic" excuse won't fly.

If this post comes off as "harsh" or "unwelcoming", it should be. I don't have any tolerance for scammers, especially those trying to take advantage of fellow MB Dieselers. The system you sell doesn't have anything new, or even slightly different, from any other scam that would lead us to believe yours could be "the one that actually works where a million others have failed completely".

So if yours actually DOES work, what makes yours different?