again. simple physics. Law of energy conservation. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. If it produces 4 hp it consumes 4 hp. If you can make a device that consumes 4 hp and makes 4.1 hp you will rule the world. end result where the rubber hits the road, takes energy to make energy. no free lunch or free gains or free mpg.
Diesel + Hydrogen = WHOooaaa!
- Thread starter BioFarmer93
- Start date
idi traveler
Full Access Member
You are absolutely correct if you were making hho as the only fuel and not using it like a propane supplement to more fully burn the diesel in the cylinder.
BioFarmer93
OPEC Hater
Actually, it's not simple physics, it's extraordinarily complex physics coupled with chemical engineering at a level I can never hope to achieve understanding of. Having stated that, I will say that I have read some dumbed down synopsis' of what is really happening in that happy little enhanced combustion process and there is whole lot more going on than I could have ever guessed. Suffice it to say that I'm not even going to attempt paraphrasing what I have learned in the last year for fear of getting a tiny something wrong. Also let it suffice to be said that it is very far from a simple 1 in = 1 out equation. Over simplifying it gives an erroneous conclusion and does everyone including yourself a disservice.
-No, I won't go into specifics again- do your own research, deep research, and a lot of it. I'm talking at least an hour a night almost every night for 6 or 7 years. Then come back and tell me I'm full of *****.
oldblue05
PIN IT TO WIN IT!!!
i'll take your word
Sw1tchfoot
Full Access Member
I looked into it quite a bit further and it does seem that this is the case. Converting H2O to Hydrogen and Oxygen is much more inefficient than I thought. So if you were going to use energy to simply extract the hydrogen and store it; then burn it later by itself it would be a big waste of time and the energy it took to extract the hydrogen in the first place.
So the only real gain you would get from this would be if it increases the efficiency of the diesel burning, which is basically what has been said in several of the previous posts. I think it is certainly possible since so many little factors can affect the power output and efficiency of engines so much.
Diesel JD
Full Access Member
HHO might work. I think Gus is too smart to be taken in by a bunch of garbage. The way in which it might help though is that more of your diesel completely combusts to H20 and CO2 rather than exits the system as particulate pollution or other intermediaries. We'd agree it's like a catalyst like LPG injection only cheaper (but harder). The question then becomes is it worth having all that garbage under your hood and is HHO the best catalyst or not. If you could make the diesel engine say 38% efficient instead of 35 (just pulled those numbers up randomly) that might be significant over the long term.
seawalkersee
It needs a turbo...
Im not sure if this is what you are typing about or not, but a 4 hp gain at the rear wheels absolutely does not equal 4hp used to make that. If that were the case, then cars would all be making the same bhp per litre from each manufacturer. There are other factors here as he stated in his post. Like this, if an engine makes 100 hp, you are saying that it uses 100hp to make that hp thus making 0 at the crank and unable to power its self. Energy can not be created or destroyed is ONLY HALF of that equasion. It CAN be converted and used in a different manner than which it was used. A car crash for example will be ultimately measured in miles per hour at impact. This can be calculated (for simplicity sake a simple car into a parked car) by measuring skid, crush, movement of the vehicle it hit, and post impact distance of the car that did the striking. You will NEVER account for all of the energy used. You can not account for sound and light which as miniscule as they may be, can not be caputred by the eye/ear alone. With that, you would have to use different formulas to incorporate each of the aformentioned things and then convert them to like/same values to get the speed of the striking vehicle.
Example: to measure crush, you need to find kenetic energy used to smash the vehicles. Different ways to do this I won't go into. To calculate the skid of the vehicles, you take the friction surfaces, distances, etc to get a speed. Then to essentually use the common denominator, you convert them to the like valuse and combine them to get the initial speed.
That said, you HAVE to have a gain in certain things to make power. I understand that 1 gal of petrol does not equal 1hp. But to change the chemical composition of the fuel burned and stating there is no gain is like saying nitrous does not make a vehicle faster.
SWS
Example: to measure crush, you need to find kenetic energy used to smash the vehicles. Different ways to do this I won't go into. To calculate the skid of the vehicles, you take the friction surfaces, distances, etc to get a speed. Then to essentually use the common denominator, you convert them to the like valuse and combine them to get the initial speed.
That said, you HAVE to have a gain in certain things to make power. I understand that 1 gal of petrol does not equal 1hp. But to change the chemical composition of the fuel burned and stating there is no gain is like saying nitrous does not make a vehicle faster.
SWS
Have you tried this? Shouldn't take more then 15 minutes, and would give quick, non-subjective data. MPG during normal driving is notoriously hard to get accurate comparisons with.
If the RPM goes down with the HHO system on in this test, then it's a net power loss -- Just like what happens when a properly working A/C compressor turns on, or when the viscous drive for the fan kicks in. If the opposite is true, you have a net power gain, just like what happens if you were to flow some propane into the air intake during this test.
If the RPM really goes up in this test, I'd like to build one. Thanks,
BioFarmer93
OPEC Hater
It's not a non-subjective test at all, the drag on the alt for an extra 30-40 amps being demanded of it at idle rpm represents a much higher percentage of the then currently available horsepower. At driving speed rpm's, the alternator's output efficiency goes up and the percentage of HHO system dedicated horsepower goes down tremendously in relationship to what is being produced, since the gas output of the HHO system is typically almost a constant. T-man, just build one, or buy one. I'll help you with it either way you want to go, but quit saying that it doesn't work, because you're just flat wrong. It worked for me and it works for all the people I know, and it'll work for you and work again for me as soon as I get my new unit put together. If you haven't actually installed a (*good) one, then you're just talkin' trash bubba- straight up.
1800 RPM -- NOT idle RPM. I'd say that's about the same fuel flow you'd have going ~40 MPH on flat land at a bit lower RPM.
You could also reduce the amperage and gas output to whatever is supposedly optimal, observing if there's a point where RPM's increase above that when switched off.
You mentioned a 4MPG increase, what did it increase too?
yARIC008
Drives really slow
So I started thinking about this lately and I have the following thoughts... Sure you can't create or destroy energy but in this case is it at all possible the reaction to release hydrogen from oxygen requires less energy than is generated with hydrogen bonding with other molecules in diesel fuel and oxygen? It is conceivable, no?
If you were simply pulling hydrogen off of oxygen then putting it back it should be a net energy gain of zero if 100% efficient (I think anyways, hydrogen is a funny element. Makes water move against gravity up trees and makes the density of ice less than that of water...) But in this case maybe your end product is different than what you started with hence different energy levels and hence no energy is destroyed.
If you were simply pulling hydrogen off of oxygen then putting it back it should be a net energy gain of zero if 100% efficient (I think anyways, hydrogen is a funny element. Makes water move against gravity up trees and makes the density of ice less than that of water...) But in this case maybe your end product is different than what you started with hence different energy levels and hence no energy is destroyed.
BioFarmer93
OPEC Hater
Sorry- I can't believe I missed that. At 1800 rpm there is no observable variation in rpm, up or down- it's not like hitting it with a spray of NOS or LP.
~16mpg.
rhkcommander
Full Access Member
I still think using chemical reactions might be better for hydrogen production. Only problem is the cost of chemicals vs startup cost of an hho system, and byproducts
Thanks for that info, it's an interesting topic. Here's a related technical paper from a university in Bulgaria, it's the only one I've found on the subject. They had a separate hydrogen/oxygen source (not engine driven) and calculated a 14.8% increase in power, with 2.44% of that attributable to hydrogen/oxygen combustion itself. The remaining ~12% power increase was attributed to increased efficiency in burning the diesel fuel along with hydrogen and oxygen.
The engine was a small 0.31 litre diesel. The HHO flow rate was 4 liters per minute (240 L/h). Scaling that up to a 7.3 L engine, that's about 93.5 liters per minute of hydrogen and oxygen. That's a fair amount of gas, about 1.6% of the total airflow at 1800 RPM on a 7.3L engine (assuming 90% volumetric efficiency).
If the efficiency of converting mechanical energy to electrical energy is 50%, and separating hydrogen and oxygen is also 50%, the total efficiency would be 25% -- So that 2.44% would cost 9.76% at the crankshaft, leaving a bit over 5% for a net power increase. If it was 70% efficiency for both conversions (49% overall) -- That's roughly 5% from the crankshaft, leaving 10% for a net power increase.
Bottom line is that this technical paper supports Biofarmers description of increasing the efficiency of the diesel burn with the addition of hydrogen and oxygen. But, also based on this paper, the net gain was about ~12%, to which one must subtract the inefficiencies of converting crankshaft power to hydrogen and oxygen.
Silver Burner
Burnin' Oil&Rubber
I am going to build this one day when I wrap my mind around it properly. I know it works, I just have to set my mind to actually putting the materials together and building it. The naysayers are just wrong on so many levels. Imagine if they were right, then the energy it took to drive a supercharger from the engine would net a 0 hp gain or a loss of power. Same with the energy of the hot exhaust gas to drive a turbo's turbine. The electrical energy from an extra alternator making HHO is going to yield a positive gain even with the extra drag on the engine. The math works, just like it does with a supercharger or a turbocharger.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
“Need help using my DTI 3300s timing meter on my 6.9 IDI.”- Latest: WrenchWhore
-
-
