Anyone tried HHO on a diesel?

[chuckm]

How do you know that it "costs" the same 128 kcal to reverse the reaction?
It may cost more or less, with some heat coming or leaving, for example.

The 118kcal/mole of energy expended to dissociate water (or the 118kcal/mol released when hydrogen is burned) is something that God determined when He set the laws of universe. It's kinda like gravity... it just is. That said, you will always have to expend a little bit more than that to pay Entropy (he's the man who invented friction and other energy taxes). If you have a very good process, you don't pay him much. If your process sucks, you'll pay a lot. But you will never pay less than 118kcal/mol; God says so.

Think this: when water change its state from liquid to vapor, it takes heat from the environment. What happen in the opposite direction?

Umm... condensation? Seriously, though, the latent heat of vaporization (thermal energy required to boil water or released during condensation) is the same in both directions. Most thermodynamic textbooks have tables showing the latent heat of vaporization for different conditions.

[some_other_dave]

Originally Posted by oldbeaver

The car runs on pure hydrogen. The problem is at time they produce hydrogen.

That is simply burning hydrogen, not trying to use it as a "catalyst" for gasoline or diesel fuel.

How do you know that it "costs" the same 128 kcal to reverse the reaction?
It may cost more or less, with some heat coming or leaving, for example.

The 128 kCal is the absolute least it could possibly cost, the minimum amount of energy it takes to "knock loose" the hydrogen from the oxygen. In practice, it will take more than that, because none of these systems can be absolutely 100% thermodynamically efficient. Nothing is, as far as physics can determine...

Testing is good. Set up a reliably repeatable test that shows meaningful results. You may yet surprise us all--but it's not necessarily the way to bet.

-soD

[chuckm]

Testing is good. Set up a reliably repeatable test that shows meaningful results. You may yet surprise us all--but it's not necessarily the way to bet.

Amen. The test I'm offering design help on is using a hydrogen tank, rather than an onboard generator. Onboard generators, besides being pvc pipe bombs waiting to happen (hydrogen is being generated on electrically charged plates - potential spark -> fire), introduce a whole host of variables. Just think of these few: alternator loads, water purity, voltage, electrolyte chemistry and concentration, water level, temperature.
Instead, if a particular and precisely meter amount of H2 is metered into the intake, then we can quite easily determine the effect on combustion. Is the net gain only equal to the ~53,100 btu/lb of hydrogen? Or is it more?

[rbtree]

Lol

[oldbeaver]

I tried two of them. The first consumed 30 A of current (like an air conditioner) and generated little gas. The second which I made myself following plans of a guy in the net, produced a lot of gas and consumed 20 A. Production was so much that I had to use a pump to blow out the gas from the generator, otherwise, the gas blowed part of the liquid electrolite out of the generator, lowering production.

The action of the pump has a drawback though: a lot of foam is produced, so electrolite become foam in part, diminishing production also. Not solved yet.

Cannot say for sure if yield improve or not. I am developing a real time fuel yield meter (not easy on a diesel), so to compare yield switching the HHO generator on and off. Not finished yet. This will tell me if improvements are worth the try or not.

Engine used is a naturally aspirated diesel, 6 cylinders in line, 2.8 liters.

Feel free to question more.

OldBeaver

[moorecomp]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Find me an HHO system that works at all- on anything- first.

Hey Frank, I am not using HHO and probably never will, but in Canada there has been success by trucking companies using the technology.

Here's a manufacturer: Innovative Hydrogen Solutions Inc.

And another: Hy•Drive Technologies Ltd.

Here's a third party report: http://www.hydrivesaves.com/PSI%20Fi...Aug%205-09.pdf

Here's some news storys: http://ihsresearch.com/CBC-TV-Vid.swf

http://ihsresearch.com/TV-News-Vid.swf

Just sayin'

[Christ]

1 - The news is hardly a credible source of information when you want specifics instead of speculative comments.

2 - I've worked with PSI on construction sites. If the testing that I saw on those sites was anything like the testing performed in that report, well... I'm just sayin', too.

3 - Neither of those businesses appears to have passed the certification criteria to make claims that their system enhances fuel economy, and they're both fairly young in the scheme of things (even 5 years still qualifies as a starter business according to the US IRS).

[oldbeaver]

What about gasoline and diesel? They come in "OIL" as a mix of several bituminous substances. You mean we spend more energy to chemicaly separate and filter gasoline, diesel, kerosene, tar and so on than what we can get from it all?

OldBeaver

Originally Posted by some_other_dave

That is simply burning hydrogen, not trying to use it as a "catalyst" for gasoline or diesel fuel.




The 128 kCal is the absolute least it could possibly cost, the minimum amount of energy it takes to "knock loose" the hydrogen from the oxygen. In practice, it will take more than that, because none of these systems can be absolutely 100% thermodynamically efficient. Nothing is, as far as physics can determine...

Testing is good. Set up a reliably repeatable test that shows meaningful results. You may yet surprise us all--but it's not necessarily the way to bet.

-soD

[naturalextraction]

I posted this in another part of ecomodder and felt I should repost: Because I've ventured into the HHO crap many times from a chemical and scientific approach in many forums I've grown tired. There are many sound physics, mathematical and scientific methodologies applied that have more than proven the many on board electrolysis methods available on the net do not work. Regardless of the claims by many. Many of the claims are based far from credible scientific applicable means. Or more, sudo-science. Below are links to a engineering forum that have other links to more appropreate tests. Dr. John Heywood from MIT, for example, has done such tests on HHO units/concepts and the results are made available on the SAE site (for a fee as all their papers are) that show the testing and the methodology used in testing. What cracks me up is the slyness as to how the "water for fuel" site lists his name (recognizing the clout Dr. Heywood caries in the automotive field of engineering) to an unrelated paper related to hydrogen in general as a fuel for automotive use. The paper referenced Dr. Heywood, had nothing to do with HHO but the pure compressed gas of Hydrogen or hydrogen fuel cells. Yet they listed it as a reference to some kind of affirmation for their systems. Anyway, here are a couple links to read that will carry the reader to many others:
http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/35169#newcomments
http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/464...ut-of-Business
The video posted at the end of this paragraph is based off what the basic principles of the I.C.E. functionality with the math involved. This is a ridiculously simplified method to get the point across, but you'll find it's validity if you have any understanding of basic physics and an base understanding of thermodynamics and chemistry.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Silverad.../5/dISUpy6uNHw
There are 5 or so in this series. Of course the true believers will always find a way to disagree with real math and science.

[tangomar]

Have you read this: http://smacksboosters.110mb.com/HHOdiesel.pdf?