My HHO Generator

[nsgrossman]

hdenter, excellent post.

I don't see how anyone can interpret this as prepetual motion, when it is so clearly not? The HHO isn't CREATING energy, but rather releasing the potential energy thats already stored in the gasoline. Consider that up to 30% of gasoline used leaves the engine unused in the exhaust (check me on that, thats just a number I've heard thrown around on the forums.) Why then would something that burns that wasted 30% not make the car more efficent. Its like patching a hole in your gas tank!

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

I regard the "unburned gas" theory as a BS way of explaining it, yes a tiny % HC are deliberately allowed to remain in the exhaust to heat the cat up so it can get rid of NOx, but we're not talking 30%.

However another BS way of explaining it is to say it doesn't work "because of the first law of Thermodynamics" anyone who says that is using a delicate piece of statistical theory as a blunt instrument and doesn't understand what it really says and where it comes from, how it should be used and what even the thermodynamics of the system is in the first place.

Another BS way of explaining it is that it is vacuum energy, zero point energy, quantum background energy, well 99% of the time it isn't, the smackbooster for example shows no signs of it. That other 1% can drive you nuts.

A correct theory should focus on the thermodynamics of the entire system, IC engine, gasoline, HHO and all... the thermodynamic efficiency of a gasoline IC motor on it's own is friggin' 'orrible. It makes heat rather than torque, you have to throw heat away to get it to run at all and you run it at it's least efficient power output and rpm range. 3/4 of the energy in the gasoline is thrown away in heat. At typical cruise speeds, the burn happens late and slow, giving up 80% of it's energy to the chamber walls, developing peak pressure long after TDC, and failing to develop peak optimum cylinder pressure. Then that 20% of the gasoline's energy you do manage to haphazardly capture to the crank is further reduced by the resistance of the air in the next cylinder trying to force it's way past the throttle plate, aka pumping loss.

So first you have to be aware that putting more load on a motor can increase it's efficiency due to reduced pumping loss. At low load levels, 25% increase in output can be had for 5% increase in fuel consumption. So you've got 25% more energy to play with? Stick it through a HHO cell, and that energy due to inefficiency in the conversion is reduced to 10% of the original output. But already, we're 5% ahead when we put it back into the engine assuming it only burns as efficiently as gasoline However, hydrogen has a very fast flame speed and makes a lot more pressure than gasoline without releasing so much heat, pure H2 motors are 50% efficient, where the limiting factor is the ability of reciprocating pistons to get out of their own way fast enough to capture it. So in minor amounts buffered by other gases it's potentially possible that damn near 100% of the energy in the H2 goes into expansion. Let's split the difference at 75%.

So H2 could be 3x more efficient at burning than gas... so obviously our 10% of original output is actually worth 30% of it.

But.. ignition advance curves are set so conservative that 40% of peak optimum peak cylinder pressure is wasted at 3000 rpm and lower. If the flash of the hydrogen burn speeds up the gasoline burn such that peak cylinder pressure is reached at the optimum time, then the gasoline goes from 25% efficiency to 35% efficiency.

So all in all, for a steady cruise state at around 2000-3000 rpm you've got your original 30 mpg say minus 5% more usage plus 30% more efficiency by displacing gas with H2 plus 40% more efficiency in the burn of the gas = somewhere between 48 and 52 mpg.

This neglects the increase in cylinder pressure possible due to further heating of the steam combustion product of the HHO by the gasoline instead of that heat going into the coolant. It also neglects pumping loss reduction by introduction of HHO gas after the throttle plate, but since less throttle would be required to make more power when the HHO is in full production this probably evens out.

Anyway, no free energy here, you already paid $4 a gallon for it, you've just been throwing $3 away for every $1 that actually pushed you around.

[opelgt73]

Originally Posted by RoadWarrior

Whole post.....

Interesting post but you're playing it fast and loose with a lot of assumptions and leaps of logic. The biggest is how much Hydrogen a the HHO generator can produce. Can a HHO generator produce enough Hydrogen to supply 5% of the fuel? And in relation to that you say "At low load levels, 25% increase in output can be had for 5% increase in fuel consumption." Where did that come from?

And I understand the thermodynamics of the entire system, I just haven't seen any hard data to compute the efficiencies of any part of the HHO system. You need to know how much Hydrogen can be produced for a given amount of time for a given amount of input energy. And then how much energy is gained by the addition of an amount of Hydrogen to the fuel system.

It's really not that complicated to prove, but nobody has proven it yet as far as I know.

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

Originally Posted by opelgt73

"At low load levels, 25% increase in output can be had for 5% increase in fuel consumption." Where did that come from?

http://www.autospeed.com/cms/gallery...0&a=110216&i=9

If you're bumbling along at about 20% load on the highway, 30 on the right edge of that graph, at about 3000 rpm, typical cruise RPM for an auto, you're using about .65lb/hp then going up to 25% load, i.e. increasing current load by 5 or 25%, you end up using .55lb/hp, so although you might have gone from 20HP to 25HP, your consumption has gone from .65x20=13lb/hr to .55x25=13.75lb/hr, whereas you might think it went to .65x25=16.25lb.hr, so in this case to get 5hp of mechanical energy, to convert into 3hp worth of electrical energy, to convert into ~2.5 HP worth of hydrogen costs what was only ~1HP worth of fuel at the original load, not the 5HP worth of gas that might be imagined.

[Tyeo098]

Originally Posted by RoadWarrior

http://www.autospeed.com/cms/gallery...0&a=110216&i=9

If you're bumbling along at about 20% load on the highway, 30 on the right edge of that graph, at about 3000 rpm, typical cruise RPM for an auto, you're using about .65lb/hp then going up to 25% load, i.e. increasing current load by 5 or 25%, you end up using .55lb/hp, so although you might have gone from 20HP to 25HP, your consumption has gone from .65x20=13lb/hr to .55x25=13.75lb/hr, whereas you might think it went to .65x25=16.25lb.hr, so in this case to get 5hp of mechanical energy, to convert into 3hp worth of electrical energy, to convert into ~2.5 HP worth of hydrogen costs what was only ~1HP worth of fuel at the original load, not the 5HP worth of gas that might be imagined.

Scuze the tech talk, but does this mean its good?

[usedgeo]

I have posted similar before. Don't know if it helps. No one seems to notice. Maybe I am reading this wrong.

Look up "hydrogen fuel enhancement." On the wikipedia link below click on the small chart on the right, third item down. This is from an SAE paper, but is numerical results rather than a live experiment. It predicts the same torque at various fuel reductions. It looks pretty legitimate. A lightly loaded engine managed the same torque at half the fuel. I don't quite know how to interpret the hydrogen reformer efficiency though. Since reformer is mentioned it probably ties in with the next link.

I have not done this but I am going to give it a bloody go. One comment in this article suggests flame stability with high levels of EGR when hydrogen is added. That is the first angle I am going to work on as I suspect that my Saturn uses higher levels of EGR with higher intake temperature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_injection

Here is another well know name claiming it makes a difference. There results are from a generally accepted simulation program though. You can click to the previous or later page for a bit more information.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/how-a-...ine-works1.htm

I hope this is a start at legitimizing this.

[R.I.D.E.]

Downsized engine, higher compression, lean burn, more egr. That's not an add on scenario.

The emissions improvements allow higher compression and leaner mixture, which will result in better mileage.

Cold starts can be addressed in the same way as the Prius which uses a thermos jug to keep coolant hot to reduce warm up time.

The quote was 90% of the emissions occur during warmup. Block heaters and coolant heat retention could be a part of that system.

NOX has always been the key issue when you raise compression and use lean burn.

I think they claim a 10% increase in economy due to better combustion characteristics.

Thats a long way from the claims you read.

"Run your car on hydrogen"
"Twice the gas mileage"

I can guarantee you my VX engine is more efficient than 20%, so the fuel map rationale about the cost of generation does not apply.

I actually think it may be possible that the 10% ethanol in the current blend may actually make the engine more efficient, even though the totl BTU content is lower, which would indicate enhanced combustion characteristics.

Not a criticizm or an endorsement. The lure of fuel from water is very tempting, but it's not free. It may be a lot closer to free in a huge diesel engine especially one that spends a significant asmount of time at very light loads, when the percentage of hydrogen would be significant.

I remember the Mercedes diesels before 1981, when the throttle butterfly was eliminated.

When one of the vacuum servos in the door locking system started leaking, the engine would not shut off. Enough air was being sucked through a 2 MM id vacuum line to keep the engine idling. You had to open the hood and use the manual shutoff to stop fuel delivery to the engine to shut it down.

After 1982, when they eliminated the throttle butterfly, they had to add a vacuum pump to work the central locking system. Fuel shutoff was when you turned the key off, and any vacuum leak had nothing to do with unwanted air getting into the engine.

Hard to imagine you could get enough air into a 3 liter engine through such a small orfice. I wonder how much air that engine needed to idle normally.

I usually run my car with no accessory loads. The Idle speed is so low that you can feel the load on the alternator increase when you tun the turn signal on.

regards
gary

[quadancer@bellsouth.net]

Between RW and R.I.D.E. this is GREAT! I do recall from my mechanicing days that alternator load varies with consumption, so that is correct; there is no wasted amps running off to nowhere. Also, we used to put spark plugs in the tailpipes of our motorcycles hooked to a coil and a switch to make flames shoot out the back when we wanted. That's wasted gas, so it exists, IMO.

i could and probably will, just make a smack's booster and stick it in my car. drive for several days, see if the computer agrees with it or not and see how my engine runs and sounds. i really think that if my computer has a problem and the engine begins to ping, that i could just drop the amount of HHO going into the engine, rather than installing and fiddling with my o2 sensors and fuel/air mix.

I intend the same, but with the fiddling. I believe at this point of study that I should add in the cylinder head temp. unit. I do not for one wish to fry an engine.

Put your car on a dyno and see how much more power you use to create HHO.
Then create HHO without using the car as the generator while its on the dyno. Do this by using a different battery not the battery in the car.

The net gain in power (if there is one) will be the increase in efficiency.
No net gain in power or even a loss is a decrease in efficiency.

NOW we're talking real sense. Everyone should take note of this suggestion and someone should do it. IMO the test should run over a decent time period, say an hour or 5 gals fuel over mileage. The test vehicle could do tests with and without the MAP sensor enhancer too. Brilliant.

[R.I.D.E.]

Thanks quaddancer.

My VX just hit 32K original miles. My plan is to drive it another 8 years. This situation is unique to me and this particular car. It also justifies my conservative approach to actions that could cost me later.

The key to any hypothetical experiment is verification by scientific testing.

My last tank at 68.5 MPG represented a much different operational tactic.

Limit speed to no more than 55 MPH, preferrably 50 or less.

Much lower speed differential in P&G.

Extreeme use of DFSO, to minimize idling.

38 PSI tires (remember they are 15 year old originals)

Always coast when going downhill, gradual speed loss on uphill grades (very slight grades here).

Leave WAI in place.

Drafting when practical and not dangerous, reasonable distance (around here the traffic can be bad at times, 1 car length per 10 MPH is too close 2 is better but close to max).

No EOC, not necessary with the extreeme DFSO, light timing is essentail.I have passed the same car 6 times coasting through the intersection they raced up to and caught the light before it changed.

I think it beat the previous tank by 13 MPG!

regards
gary

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

Originally Posted by R.I.D.E.

No EOC, not necessary with the extreeme DFSO, light timing is essentail.I have passed the same car 6 times coasting through the intersection they raced up to and caught the light before it changed.

That's always fun! The ones I really don't get are when it's not very far to a light that's already red, and they race around you to slam on the brakes... I can understand it a bit when you're further away from the light.... but sometimes it must take sheer idiocy to even contemplate it. I've seen people get mad as well... One series of lights, this guy kept racing off from the light harder and harder to get past me, and was looking like he was gonna run a red... last light he swerved in front of me and brake checked me... now that actually meant he slowed down early enough that he made that light still rolling, which I guess made him happy, since he finally got through a light ahead of me... maybe he "got it" right then.....but i doubt it.