Quote:
Originally Posted by IsaacMTSU
The injectors were pulsing about 1/8th the normal rate while maintaining the same idle speed.
|
Is the Triumph system that much different than the others? In most closed loop fuel injection systems, pulse width determines mixture, and pulse rate relates directly to rpm. Injection occurs when the intake valve is open.
How is this set up in the Triumph? What was their reasoning for going with this different route when the standard system has been shown to work so well?
How was your "HHO" unit powered? Directly from the alternator?
The Dennis-Lee-promoted "HHO" unit was reliable and provided consistent mixtures, but was shown by John Heywood to have no effect at all when tested in an EPA-certified dynomometer lab. This is exactly in keeping with the science involved, because the 1 liter/minute input of H2/O2 would be expected to have no measurable effect at all, even if the power source for the "HHO" unit was offboard (such as a battery charger, external battery, etc.)... or if 1 liter per minute of H2 was supplied by from a tank. The quantity is almost an order of magnitude too small to have a measurable effect.
With a 1000 watt electroyser (14.5 v x 69 amps) then the net fuel economy loss would be measurable only by the very best $25,000 per day dynos: you'd need to apply (e.g.) a constant 30 hp load, and cycle the HHO unit on and off to see that with it on, fuel consumption would go up slightly.
To get 1000 watts (1.34 hp) out of the alternator requires about 2 hp from the engine (because the alternator is cheap and lossy). This 2 hp of engine output requires 8 hp (6000 watts) worth of fuel (assuming 25% engine efficiency). The 1000 watt electrolyzer, if it is well built, will supply 600 watts worth of H2. So the net loss is (6000 watts in - 600 watts out) 5400 watts. This is big enough to measure. But as John Heywood found, the loss from using a standard ( ~ 10 amp) HHO unit is just too small to measure with a sophisticated chassis dyno.
