Anyone tried HHO on a diesel?

[stonebreaker]

Originally Posted by oldbeaver

Dear all,

My best electrolyzer is improving almost nothing the fuel yield and power of my diesel, while consuming like a big air conditioner.

See figures:

Well, I do not know how much HHO is my best electrolyzer producing. However, based on the info Stonebreaker took from a physics site, I am still able to make an estimate of the volume it is producing by proportionality:

Based on that physics site (cited by Stonebraker): "The energy required to electrolyze one mole of water is 237 kilojoules. So 11.78 moles requires 2791 kilojoules of energy - call it 2800 kilojoules. That's 2800 kJ per minute. To figure out the wattage, divide by 60 to get 46.7 kJ per second, which works out to 46,700 watts. Which, at 14.4 volts, is 3200 amps."

He made this calculation to establish how much HHO gas should be produced to feed a 6L diesel engine with 5% of Hydrogen to improve it´s fuel consumption. Five percent (5%) is the ideal Hydrogen Q to stimulate the combustion of the engine, gaining in power and yield.

As my engine is only 2.8 L , then I would need a little less than half the quantity of the 6 L engine, say only 0.466 times as much.

This yields to 21,793 watts and about 1,493 Amps.

As my electrolyzer is consuming only 20 Amps, then it should be producing only 0.0133 times as much (1.3% of what is necessary), which is in terms of total fuel used:

0.0133 x 5% = 0.00067 of total volume used by the car.

Conclussion: My electrolyzer, the best one, is producing a nill quantity of HHO improving in almost nothing the combustion of the diesel fuel.

On the other hand, it is consuming 20 Amps, like a big air conditioning equipment at full !

In fact, when I connect the electrolyzer, revs per minute diminish, the same way as I connect the air conditioning. If the engine were gaining power, revs should increase.

Any comments?

Maybe Stonebreaker or someone else can help calculating how much HHO absolute volume is my electrolyzer generating.

Tks.

OldBeaver

One mole of any gas at Standard Temp and Pressure is 22.7 liters. 3200 amps = 11.78 moles, so 20amps/3200 * 11.78 = .078 moles per minute HHO production. You said you needed .466*11.78 moles, which is 5.49 moles which equals about 125 liters. You're making .078 moles, which is about 1.75 liters. You're making less than 1/70 of the required amount. Assuming 100% efficiency on the conversion.

[oldbeaver]

Just a different angle of the issue: HHO generation (HHO engine) is not a closed loop, as water is coming in as a fuel. (In the Otto engine gasoline is coming in, in the Diesel engine, diesel is coming in, etc).

There are differences in the power of the different fuels, though.

Therefore, there are differences in balance of the energy also: energy extracted from the fuel vs energy consumed to extract the chemical energy stored in all these fuels. While in the Otto engine the balance is positive by 22%, in the diesel engine is positive by 30%, in the HHO engine the balance is negative.

When I connected the HHO generator the rpm of the engine diminish, like as when I connect the air conditioner. If the balance were positive, the rpm would increase.

OldBeaver.

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...can you say: "...another 'perpetual motion' contraption..." sure you can!

...I'm not saying the "use" of H2 to augment ICE operation isn't productive, just the idea of using a "closed-loop" system whereby a car's own generator is used to create the H2 it's going to consume to make the power to drive the generator to make more H2...etc.

...last time I did the math, 90% of 90% is only 81%...

[stonebreaker]

No, water is not a fuel. Water is burnt hydrogen. It's the exhaust from burning hydrogen and oxygen. that's why you have to put a sh!tload of energy back into it before you can burn it again.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by stonebreaker

No, water is not a fuel. Water is burnt hydrogen. It's the exhaust from burning hydrogen and oxygen. that's why you have to put a sh!tload of energy back into it before you can burn it again.

There's this thing I've been studying called "equivalent exchange", wherein something of equal value may be substituted for an end one wishes to achieve. IOW - Energy in = Energy out, Mass = Mass, etc.

It only relates to Alchemy, which is a long-forgotten art, but it seems funny that even those who ventured to turn lead into gold understood that you can't have something for nothing.

[cfg83]

Christ -

Originally Posted by Christ

There's this thing I've been studying called "equivalent exchange", wherein something of equal value may be substituted for an end one wishes to achieve. IOW - Energy in = Energy out, Mass = Mass, etc.

It only relates to Alchemy, which is a long-forgotten art, but it seems funny that even those who ventured to turn lead into gold understood that you can't have something for nothing.

Are you the Full Metal Alchemist?

CarloSW2

[Christ]

Originally Posted by cfg83

Christ -



Are you the Full Metal Alchemist?

CarloSW2

Fully Rusted Alchemist, more like it.

Just something I've studied for a few years, is all.

[Daflea66]

I tried a HHO system on a Duramax and it yielded good mileage increase. It did not double my mileage but for the few months of experimenting I was above 25mpg. Typical unloaded driving with easy throttle foot was 21 to 22 mpg (pre HHO).

Most disbelievers in using hydrogen like this immediately start off with laws of thermal dynamics and such. They all still apply of course but are irrelevant when looking at if and how hydrogen increases efficiency.

Here is something I didnt see mentioned in the first several pages of posts in the thread, apologies if it gets covered later on. On any ignition cycle a set amount of fuel will be injected. Lets say that hypothetical amount for our parameters (cruising speed, low load, minimal throttle) is .100 grams of diesel. Let is also say that .015 gram is passed out the exhaust unburned. Adding HHO must have the effect of reducing that .015 gram of waste to say .005 gram. There is where the fuel savings and energy to split the the molecules comes from.

The computer is going to inject that .100 grams regardless if it gets burned or not. The hydrogen having the effect of reducing the waste then allows for a slightly less throttle setting and thus reducing the injected fuel for the same speed/throttle/load parameters to say .085


Of course this is just my theory on why I gained several MPG. I dont really need the answer, just knowing it made a difference was enough. My mileage was hand calculated not from the driver information center readout which is often times several percent off plus or minus.

[oldbeaver]

Hello Daflea66,

I love people that do the things, that try them, despite any previous law that said he shouldn´t.

I think people that use the Thermodynamics law to say HOH will not work are wrong. They are making a wrong use of the law. They are not considering water as a fuel. It is.

The difference is that the refinery of diesel or gasoline works out of the car. There, it uses lots of energy to refine the fuel. From carbon, from diesel, from hydroelectricity, from Uranium.

In the case of HOH, we "refine" the fuel (put it in condition to work) onboard, so the energy expense is onboard.

However, to be sure that you are getting more fuel yield thanks to HOH, you must make measures rigorously.

In fuel yield there are many factors that affect results:

- wind speed (very important)
- slope of the road
- surface nature of the road
- traffic.
- speed of car (very important)
- load of car
- air density, depending on temp
- tires condition
- gear you are driving
- how you maintain or not a constant speed

to mention some.

Tell me how you made yr measures to compare fuel yield first, then I can give you my opinion on the validity of yr results and give you some suggestions to improve the method and the validity. Describe exactly how you did yr fuel yield calculation, with and without yr HOH generator.

Besides, put some pictures of it, to have an idea on how powerful it should be. I constructed two of them, the first used 30 amps of current and produced little gas. The second used 20 amps and produced lots of gas. As on any process, you may have an efficient generator or a very inefficient one.
That for the concrete results.

Second, what are yr fundamentals to think that HOH is improving diesel combustion over normal diesel engine? Is it a logical thought of yours based on yr results or is there some seroius research that demonstrates that?

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Oldbeaver

[silly]

I experimented with a few different HHO generators I had built, and running it was like unhooking a trailer. Granted, this was a non turbo, mechanical pump without any sensors or computers to compensate any ratios. I also had a 6" lift and 35" tires, TH400 Automatic Trans. Not a eco friendly, nor great on hills, or anything over 55mph. I did average 17 mpg, and that's not bad for an 1983 Suburban, lifted with over sized tires on mountain highways, if you didn't mind using turnouts to let others pass, and so on.

With my poorly built HHO generators, my burn was more complete, I could see it in the exhaust, and accelerated quicker, and as a result, I pushed the throttle pedal less, because I didn't have too. With a mechanical injector pump, RPM and throttle directly dictate fuel used. Anecdotal information at best, and it gave that old sub more pep.

[user removed]

On any mechanical injected old style diesel, like an 82 Benz 240 or 300, when they get old the break off pressure of the injectors gradually drops off from 1800psi + new to 1500 psi or so depending on age and mileage.

Just shimming or replacing the springs in the injectors and getting the break off pressures near new again will make a huge difference in performance and economy due to better fuel atomization.

regards
mech