Diesel + Hydrogen = WHOooaaa!

rhkcommander

Full Access Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Posts
2,603
Reaction score
90
Location
Oregon
I forgot to mention that when hydrogen and oxygen (O2) rebond to make H2O the reaction releases alot of heat. Seperating water into flamable gases works, the naysayers are just wondering if its worth the effort :D

I'm still in the middle, but I am rootin for ya Biofarmer.
 

BioFarmer93

OPEC Hater
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Posts
687
Reaction score
26
Location
Jacksonville, Florida
Jim,
Yes, there is an unavoidable high production lag, though continuous production is always available even at idle. The complete benefit is most easily attained during cruising conditions. That being said, you must understand that in city driving with widely varying rpm's the lag is almost unnoticable. Now that I think about it, it would probably be a couple percent more efficient on an automatic tranmission vehicle since there is less variation in rpm.

Recombination- (done in the voice of Foghorn Leghorn) SON, I say SON... If you're gonna read the book, be sure an' read the WHOLE book, not just the innerestin' parts... (voice off) The time frame involved between production and combustion does not lend itself to recombination at any level above miniscule. There is no storage of the gasses as it is an 'on demand' style system, so you could essentially say that the only recombination taking place is during combustion.
 

WrickM

Full Access Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Posts
519
Reaction score
1
Location
Richmond VA
BioFarmer. . . have you had the truck properly timed before implementing the HHO kit? If not then you should have that done before doing any testing.(on engine output) if for no other reason than to eliminate one other variable.
i do love testing and research :) wouldl ove to see if the hho kit affects ignition timing, as i said in a previous post that could go a log way to proving or disproving the validity of the gas.
 

jim x 3

1988 F-350 DRW
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Posts
225
Reaction score
8
Location
northern california
1200 watts is the equivelant of 1.608hp.

So if his setup is taking 1.6hp to run his HHO system, we will need to know how much hydrogen it takes to make 1.6hp. Then we also have to factor in that he will introduce oxygen into the intake as well...which will help out as well.

Fordguy, your calculation is correct 1200W = 1.6 HP. However that is the output of the alternator. A good 12V alternator is about 50% efficient, so the engine provides 2400W = 3.2 HP to drive the alternator.

And if the electrolysis is 80% efficient, then we only get 1200*0.80 = 960W of electrochemical power in H2 and O2. (And I don't really know what the efficiency is - if we are making a lot of heat the process will be much less than 80% efficient.) So the boost from the gases produced needs to provide at least that much power for us to break even.

To carry this a little further, if the reactor runs for 1 minute at 1200W input and 80% efficiency, it will produce .24 moles of H2 gas and .12 moles of O2 gas. At STP, .36 moles of gas = 8 liters (and since we ran for 1 minute, we are making 8 liters/minute of combined H2 and O2).

So we ought to be able to fill about 3 balloons of explosive H2 & O2 mixture in a minute with 3.2 engine HP.

If the 8 liters/minute were just burned in the engine, this would make about 1/4 HP. But we have already agreed that this is not the mechanism of action - instead the mechanism is the enhanced combustion of the diesel fuel.

Regards,
 
Last edited:

FordGuy100

Registered User
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Posts
8,749
Reaction score
282
Location
Silverton, OR
Fordguy, your calculation is correct 1200W = 1.6 HP. However that is the output of the alternator. A good 12V alternator is about 50% efficient, so the engine provides 2400W = 3.2 HP to drive the alternator.

And if the electrolysis is 80% efficient, then we only get 1200*0.80 = 960W of electrochemical power in H2 and O2. (And I don't really know what the efficiency is - if we are making a lot of heat the process will be much less than 80% efficient.) So the boost from the gases produced needs to provide at least that much power for us to break even.

To carry this a little further, if the reactor runs for 1 minute at 1200W input and 80% efficiency, it will produce .24 moles of H2 gas and .12 moles of O2 gas. At STP, .36 moles of gas = 8 liters (and since we ran for 1 minute, we are making 8 liters/minute of combined H2 and O2).

Sorry about that I suppose. But 1200 watts AT the HHO system is still 1.6hp. It may be more at the alternator because of effeciency, but just converting watts to hp shows the setup in a "perfect" world would need 1.6hp.

So we ought to be able to fill about 3 balloons of explosive H2 & O2 mixture in a minute with 3.2 engine HP.

If the 8 liters/minute were just burned in the engine, this would make about 1/4 HP. But we have already agreed that this is not the mechanism of action - instead the mechanism is the enhanced combustion of the diesel fuel.

Regards,

Sorry about that I suppose. But 1200 watts AT the HHO system is still 1.6hp. It may be more at the alternator because of effeciency, but just converting watts to hp shows the setup in a "perfect" world would need 1.6hp.

Honestly I think the the IDI is the perfect test mule for this HHO setup. Old N/A diesel's are not all effecient at higher rpm's (as no boost to push oxygen in at higher rpm's).

I think like said it will all be about how much that H2, and O2.

I think we should just let him come out with info. Enough bickering, nobody will truly know until he does a dyno or fuel milage test over thousands of miles.
 

jimmys f250

Full Access Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Posts
52
Reaction score
0
Location
NIOBRARA, NEBRASKA
To all i may have offended,,sorry ,,,didn't mean to just that I have been on this road before with this issue, when fuel went way up i seen some hho plans so I tried it,,then went to other better plans,,,and this one I used kicks out a lot more hho than the first one and doesn't get really hot like the first one did,,so i did it then heard bout used oil for fuel,,,so got some filters and tried it,,,yu know what my hoss loves both jus have a lil harder time staartin it in winter as i have only one tank,,, so use block heater no gloow plugs and a shot of strating fluid,,,DID THIS EVEN WHEN FUEL WENT BACK DOWWN,,, as i knew it was gonna go back up. So am always lookn for ways to save and am always gonna try somethin new like maybe in the future an oil press to make my own fuel.
but to Biofarmer93 keep perfectn Henry, Good job will get yu some pics when I get my camera back
 

Clydesdale

Full Access Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Posts
1,155
Reaction score
0
Location
Nampa,Id
Friend of mine has been telling me to do this to an IDI for 2 years... waiting with bated breath at the edge of my seat.
 

MR.T

Full Access Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Posts
273
Reaction score
1
Location
PNW
The 100 MPG Carb

Ok -- I'll byte. I'm one of those "arm chair physicists" that predict it can't increase MPG for various reasons.

However, I believe experimentation like this can be a good learning experience, both technically and in psychology, even if the device completely fails to increase mileage.

As they say, been there, done that, with a collection of T-shirts. Back in the late '70s I belonged to a club call the "100 MPG club" in California. We'd been through two fuel "crisis" where everyone waited in long lines to buy fuel at high prices. We could only buy fuel every other day based on whether the last digit of your license plate and the date was odd or even (no vanity plates back then). There were seminars at the local college, people with degrees in science and engineering, people that claimed to have seen it, done it, and said it was suppressed by the oil companies, etc. The key element to the "theory" (actually a hypothesis) was better atomization of fuel into a pure gaseous form, as well as a lean mixture will double, triple, or more the MPG. When confronted by the physics of only so many BTU's being available, the answer was that there was something unknown happening -- sort of more energy available then a calorimeter could measure. That's the only explanation since people right there would "testify" that they had seen these great results in there experiments, but there are also a lot of technical details to get it work 100% reliably, and of course more work to get it commercial, then potentially make a ton of money. And if you do get it to work, you could get bought-off (or knocked-off) by big oil.

I'll interrupt the story for a moment to note the similarities to the HHO movement. People "testify" about the successes they've had, it defies the laws of physics, and the explanation is that something unknown is creating more energy then routine physics can explain.

Meanwhile, after buying a lathe and a milling machine, plus access to even more tools, I built the ultimate true vapor carb. It evaporated fuel in a stainless steel boiler located in a custom exhaust manifold, then went to a custom high temp pressure regulator, then to a custom vapor carb that was actually a variable area flowmeter with an air/fuel ratio adjustable from inside the passenger compartment. A regular carb sat under the new carb, using a two way solenoid valve to shift fuel between carbs -- start on the old one, then switch to the new one after exhaust heat starts. I had to leave the hood off, it looked like some type of super charger. Leaving the hood off also provided safety ventilation in case it leaked and ignited -- forgot to mention this was a 1973 Pinto. ;Really

I had to use water injection to control the detonation at high load. It had noticeably crisper throttle response, and I even ran it through one of the smog check stations for an emissions print out. However, preliminary MPG was looking only slightly better then stock, which I finally confirmed on a long freeway round trip. The roughly 10% improvement I saw was the same as fuel injection would give at a much lower cost, etc. About three years of all my spare time wasted, except for all that I learned.

I just wanted to prove I could build it, and also prove whether the "theory" was true or false. The technical stuff learned from this is self evident. But more interesting is that some people just make $hit up to get attention. Others live in self delusion with a shot of incompetence -- they fill up the tank to the top for a test, then yank the nozzle out at the first click on refill, and they only drove a few miles downhill for a test. Some are educated with degrees, some are self taught. Some are true believers, and some are in it for a buck. Some of us are interested in the facts, the truth, and real science, whatever the outcome.

Best of luck. The education can be worth the effort regardless of the outcome.
 
Last edited:

BioFarmer93

OPEC Hater
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Posts
687
Reaction score
26
Location
Jacksonville, Florida
Now I know why plumbers make so much money...

Because you really have to know what you are doing- I thought the electronics would be the part that gave me trouble, but apparently I would make a better electrician than plumber! I think I have most of the leaks fixed now but obviously not all of them. The system has had about three gallons through it now but I estimate that at least one gallon of that was just to replace what was lost through leaky hose to barb fitting problems. It seems that zip ties are not the hot set up with clear vinyl tube, because they pinch up a little triangular gap under the pass-thru about 60% of the time. Also found out that I shouldn't have tapped the HDPE end plates so deep with the tapered pipe thread tap I used for the 5/8" nylon elbows because they taper too and don't seat properly (and leak!) if the tapped hole doesn't taper... You know, like what would happen if you kept turning the tap past the point where its shoulder disappears into the material.. Live and learn, I won't forget that one. This coming weekend my buddy and I are going to remove the bed so I can replace the pickups on both tanks, as I can only use 8.5 gal. from the front and 9.5 gal from the rear. I get 135 miles on that 8.5 gallons in mixed city/highway (more city than highway) driving for 15.88mpg. That's with 4.10's, a five speed, unknown timing and an unmitigated delight in hearing that nasty-ass blattblattblatt exhaust note that 20 feet of pipe makes at 3200 in second and third:D:D So, the performance is somewhat improved, the mileage is somewhat improved and chances are that If I can seal all the leaks that margin will move up a bit more. The entire system is coming off for a complete cleaning and re-assembly in a couple weeks to address all of the threaded fitting issues with some plastic-on-plastic thread sealer I found at Home Depot. I bought a small sand blast rig to do all of Henry's rust spots, so I'm going to media blast all of the S.S. plates and be MUCH more careful this time around on the electrolyzer assembly and not get finger prints on the plates. Both of these issues were pretty much ignored the first time around and as a result my gas production is not what it could be, even though it looks pretty good to me. Currently I'm trying to find a gross of Corbin style hose clamps, all of one size. I can find assortment packs all over the place, but so far no luck on buying all of a single size. If it proves to be too much of a pita to locate, I think I'll just use some stout little o-rings over the barbed fittings. At least those will pull equally all the way around the tube...
 

OB_WAN

Full Access Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Posts
219
Reaction score
0
Location
woodland, ca
what was your mpg prior to the install? Also, I recently installed a turbo on mine, folks are asking for mpg comparison pre and post the turbo install but with the increase in power came an increased interest in the skinny pedal so I need to calm that down a bit before running some tests.

It's very true that the plates need to be exceptionally clean when installing. use of gloves and get some acetone or alcohol to wipe them down should improve your output.
 

BioFarmer93

OPEC Hater
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Posts
687
Reaction score
26
Location
Jacksonville, Florida
Yes master... I too feel the call of the darksi- errr, skinny pedal. MPG before was between 13 and 14 depending on mood. Yeah, I know about the clean aspect of the build, but was having trouble believing that it was actually THAT important. I've recently read some carefully documented info that has changed my mind on that... Which is why I'm also going to media blast the plates this time around and invest in several pairs of X-Large rubber gloves.
 

Clydesdale

Full Access Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Posts
1,155
Reaction score
0
Location
Nampa,Id
k, so you claim (playing devils advocate) 3 mpg gain, what did it do to your EGT's?
 

BioFarmer93

OPEC Hater
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Posts
687
Reaction score
26
Location
Jacksonville, Florida
Please see bold italic text below...


1989 F350 CC 5spd DRW 7.3 N/A idi "Henry"
Taurus '04 velour bucket seats & '07 F350 center console powered up for 750W inverter & built in cell phone booster.
Hidden disable on Holley Red with 40/20/10 micron filters in line for stock filter bypass.
Pillar pod with Sun-Pro gauges (EGT & fuel pressure yet to come)
AmsOil dual bypass filters, running AmsOil Diesel & Marine
Soup bowl removed (lyric- "I hear ya mo-wo-woan)
Diamond plate running boards & rail caps
Single mass flywheel & Lucky clutch
Extra 150A alt for HHO system
NAPA bypass coolant filter
Sprayed in bed liner
Baja driving lights
100A alternator
Vacuum Gauge
Headlight Mod
 
Last edited:

BioFarmer93

OPEC Hater
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Posts
687
Reaction score
26
Location
Jacksonville, Florida
And, actually I would say closer to 2 mpg gain than 3 mpg. 'Cause if you average 13 and 14 you get 13.5, and this last tank worked out to 135 miles for 8.5 gallons which comes out to 15.88mpg, minus 13.5 equals 2.38, which isn't really all that fantastic compared to some of the claims you hear in the HHO community. I'll take it for now though, because next on the agenda is.... I'm not sure. There is about 29,000 to 30,000 on the rebuild and the timing is unknown. Are fresh injectors in order this soon? Or should I go with the ram air hood scoop and 4" open exhaust to get more air in and out? A turbo is out of the question, so any airflow increases will have to be semi-passive.
 
Top