View Single Post
Old 11-24-2014, 01:47 PM   #28 (permalink)
RustyLugNut
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 982
Thanks: 271
Thanked 385 Times in 259 Posts
Thanks for a good post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecky View Post
Might want to check this out:

EDIT: That 60% loss is not from inability to effectively combust fuels, but rather, comes from heat soaking through cylinder walls and being lost out of the exhaust. There's very little you can do to get more energy out of the fuel itself, which is what most HHO proponents suggest is happening.
I am a "proponent" of HHO to the point I know it affects combustion. And trust me, I know the difference between thermal efficiency and combustion efficiency and I appreciate your definition as both terms are misused constantly on this forum.

However, I disagree that little can be done to to get more energy out of the fuel. By your own presentation, you admit roughly 60 % of thermal energy is lost in a good engine. And yet research has shown combustion engines that use the HCCI ( homogenous charge compression ignition ) mechanism can exceed 50% thermal efficiency for various reasons. Large advanced diesels also do the same.

I am simply supporting the thought that a small addition of HHO can affect the combustion profile to push an engine of 30-35% thermal efficiency into the 40-45% range by virtue of more rapid combustion ( similar to the advantages of HCCI ) or by extended lean burn ( similar to large diesels ).

I suggest that we let folks like Hypermiler and the original poster continue the qualitative analysis of "does it work". That can be stretched into the quantitative analysis of "how much". Theoretical understanding can come later.
 
The Following User Says Thank You to RustyLugNut For This Useful Post:
Ecky (11-24-2014)