Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
That adding hydrogen stabilizes combustion such that ultra lean burns are possible is known; the problem is getting it to work out in the real world where the variables are so much greater than in the lab setting. And that doesn't even have a thing to do with getting the hydrogen.
|
Once physical principles are understood it becomes an exercise in problem solving.
I have a 3 cylinder Daihatsu that could run in lean burn with an AF ratio of at least 28:1 ( the limits of my O2 sensor range ). That was with the relatively miniscule addition of hydrogen from an electrolysis generator. However, that is a 1990 car with easily fooled electronics. It didn't throw a fit when the IAT and MAP signals were hacked. The car would perform sluggishly. It was obvious that a way to engage and disengage the lean burn was needed - much like what is found in the more modern Honda and it's ilk.
And HOW do you know the GEET is totally bogus? Did you build one and test it's limits? Paul Pantone's claims were bogus, but that doesn't mean the device is without it's merits. I expect to produce more hydrogen via fuel processing over a narrow operation band than what could be produced by an electrolysis generator. If the op band can coincide with light load/cruise operations, that will give us the potential for fuel savings. And, the greater hydrogen content should give us stronger performance compared to the sluggish.