HHO Dyno results
HHO Dyno results
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 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 carYou'd need to start with a VW to get that.
(06-12-2010, 08:51 PM)tiptopsaidhe 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 carYou'd need to start with a VW to get that.
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(06-12-2010, 08:51 PM)tiptopsaidhe 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").
(06-14-2010, 01:54 PM)ConnClark 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(06-12-2010, 08:51 PM)tiptopsaidhe 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").
(06-14-2010, 01:54 PM)ConnClark 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.
(06-14-2010, 03:41 PM)tiptopsaidhe this is the type of feedback i was hoping for.
(06-14-2010, 03:41 PM)tiptopsaidhe this is the type of feedback i was hoping for.
(06-14-2010, 03:41 PM)tiptopsaidhe 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.
(06-14-2010, 03:41 PM)tiptopsaidhe 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 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.
Quote:you will realize you don't need much HHO to have an effect on combustionJust 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?
Quote:Once serial hybrids such as the GM Volt become common placeNot 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.
(06-16-2010, 02:43 PM)RustyLugNut 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.
Quote:you will realize you don't need much HHO to have an effect on combustionJust 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?
Quote:Once serial hybrids such as the GM Volt become common placeNot 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/
(06-25-2010, 06:46 AM)ForcedInduction Big Oil did it to keep him quiet.
(06-25-2010, 06:46 AM)ForcedInduction Big Oil did it to keep him quiet.
(06-14-2010, 08:16 PM)ForcedInduction(06-14-2010, 03:41 PM)tiptopsaidhe 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, 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(06-14-2010, 03:41 PM)tiptopsaidhe 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.
(06-29-2010, 05:40 PM)tiptopsaidhe 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 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 introductionUnfortunately thats FAR higher than any HHO "generator" on the market can produce.
of 6.1% total diesel equivalent H2/O2 mixture into diesel
Quote:The emissions of HC, CO2 and CO were found to be reduced due to better combustionIn other words the engine wasn't properly tuned to begin with.
Quote:allhho
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 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.
(06-29-2010, 05:40 PM)tiptopsaidhe 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 introductionUnfortunately thats FAR higher than any HHO "generator" on the market can produce.
of 6.1% total diesel equivalent H2/O2 mixture into diesel
Quote:The emissions of HC, CO2 and CO were found to be reduced due to better combustionIn other words the engine wasn't properly tuned to begin with.
Quote:allhho
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 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.
(06-16-2010, 05:38 PM)ForcedInduction(06-16-2010, 02:43 PM)RustyLugNut 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 combustionJust 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 placeNot 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.
(06-16-2010, 05:38 PM)ForcedInduction(06-16-2010, 02:43 PM)RustyLugNut 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 combustionJust 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 placeNot 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.
(06-29-2010, 06:07 PM)winmutti'm not sure what url you desire, so thanking you for the opportunity to plant a link,(06-29-2010, 05:40 PM)tiptopsaidhe i don't need to be a scientist because scientists already proved that it works for exactly what i said it will do.URL?
(06-29-2010, 06:07 PM)winmutti'm not sure what url you desire, so thanking you for the opportunity to plant a link,(06-29-2010, 05:40 PM)tiptopsaidhe i don't need to be a scientist because scientists already proved that it works for exactly what i said it will do.URL?
(06-30-2010, 01:07 AM)ForcedInductionQuote: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.
(06-30-2010, 01:07 AM)ForcedInductionQuote: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.
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 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 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, 02:16 PM)winmutt Lol busted website always screams creditability to me
(06-30-2010, 02:16 PM)winmutt Lol busted website always screams creditability to me
(07-02-2010, 10:58 AM)winmutt 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 I was referring to the busted html.
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 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 here is a nice write up on how to do the math
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_fraud.shtml
(07-02-2010, 01:11 PM)RustyLugNut But, with the right manipulation of variables, measurable gains can be found.
(07-02-2010, 01:11 PM)RustyLugNut But, with the right manipulation of variables, measurable gains can be found.
(07-02-2010, 05:20 PM)ConnClark(07-02-2010, 01:11 PM)RustyLugNut 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(07-02-2010, 01:11 PM)RustyLugNut 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.
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 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 Being an Indirect Direct Injection diesel engine won't the glowing prechamber ignite the hydrogen before the intake valve even closes?
(07-02-2010, 01:11 PM)RustyLugNut(07-02-2010, 12:14 PM)ConnClark 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.
(07-03-2010, 12:51 PM)RustyLugNut(07-02-2010, 07:52 PM)willbhere4u 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(07-02-2010, 12:14 PM)ConnClark 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.
(07-03-2010, 12:51 PM)RustyLugNut(07-02-2010, 07:52 PM)willbhere4u 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.
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 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 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.
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 Lol busted website always screams creditability to me
(06-30-2010, 02:16 PM)winmutt Lol busted website always screams creditability to me
(06-13-2010, 06:40 AM)ForcedInduction 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").
(06-13-2010, 06:40 AM)ForcedInduction 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").
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 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 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.
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 btw, forcedinduction, i am inviting you to my facility to come and see the product.
ForcedInduction You and I both know how that would turn out, its in both of our interests that I decline.
tiptopsaidhe btw, forcedinduction, i am inviting you to my facility to come and see the product.
ForcedInduction You and I both know how that would turn out, its in both of our interests that I decline.
(07-28-2010, 11:53 PM)SurfRodder 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 I can't believe you wont take him up on this... I would do it for the shits and grins alone!
(07-29-2010, 06:33 AM)ForcedInduction 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 Have at it. Conflict on an internet forum is one thing, I prefer to avoid it in my daily life.
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 (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.
Quote:http://hydrogen-tek.com/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.
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.
koya1893 http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.n...016170.pdf
(08-10-2010, 09:03 AM)koya1893 (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.
Quote:http://hydrogen-tek.com/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.
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.
koya1893 http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.n...016170.pdf