Anyone tried HHO on a diesel?

[oldbeaver]

Very interesting.

If the paper quoted by Tangomar is accurate, it is worth the try to use HHO on board production to feed a diesel. Despite the guys that claim it is not possible, because to 2nd law of Thermodynamics (these guys may be applying the concepts in a wrong way and I suspect they have never tried to do it by themselves).

However, that paper do not show several details on the experiment setup. For example:

1.- How the electrolysis is carried out.
My experience showed to me that efficiency of electrolisis is key. A bad electrolisis device may produce 20% of a good one, and that makes a huge difference. At least, I made two of them and the second produced 500% as much as the first using equivalent current.

However, the high efficiency HHO maker I constructed had two problems: a) Production was so high I needed to use a pump to blow HHO out of the HHO maker, otherwise, gas become to occupy electrolysis chamber, becoming less productive. b) After adding a pump to accelerate circulation of gas and water, the HHO gas went out, but, some foam begun to form, little by little, with the same result: electrolysis chamber went less efficient.

2. - The paper quoted by Tangomar omit another very important detail: how much current consumed the HHO generator.

3. The paper do not explain what electrolite was used, in what concentration.

4. Another problem of on board electrolysis I experimented is the corrosion of electrodes. The paper does not quote what material was the electrodes, for how long they were operative.

These lack of information make me think that the experience of the paper may be not accurate. At least, it show me very little practical knowledge on the matter of the author.

For me, there is no enough info to make a credible balance between INPUT and OUTPUT of the HHO onboard generation.

I am not denying the possibility based on theoretical assumptions, I am asking for more accurate information, that demonstrate they make the experiment.

Old Beaver.

[naturalextraction]

It still falls under pseudoscience. Even the Sloan School of Engineering has done studies related, practicality of utilizing on board generated hydrogen. Unless you understand the mathematical applications related and the surrounding math related to the I.C.E., will one NOT waste their time with this long and failing concept. It's mostly misconceptions and mis-information and not understanding the huge amount of science and physics that preempt the theories attempted. Mostly people don't wont to be wrong especially when there has been a personal or financial vested interest. Hence defensiveness and stubbornness prevails. Here is more on this phenomenon:
CR4 - Thread: Curbing the Spread of Pseudoscience
Also, utilizing a incredibly fast burning fuel like Hydrogen in very high compression engine, has very little validity for a productive outcome.

[tangomar]

NE,

are you trying to say that flame front speed doesn't impact efficiency?

More sources:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005...enenhance.html
http://www.sae.org/ohmag/techinnovat...2004/index.pdf

[naturalextraction]

In the case of a diesel, the system that is in place, the electronic control systems implemented, flame front related to the dynamics of the diesel engine, etc, etc, flame front for diesel fuel is optimized in that environment. In and I.C.E. without the proper controls and trying to mix two very different hydrocarbon chains proposed for use in a particular environment to produce a particular out put, flame front is very important. So in now way am I saying flame front does not impact efficiency, I'm saying the systems created, related to an established Diesel or I.C.E., all ready has optimal efficiencies installed and designed accordingly. Its very rare that you would be able to make one single change to receive a larger gain.
Incorporating changes throughout the entire system follows along the lines of optimizing total system operational efficiencies.
Introducing a significantly faster burning fuel like hydrogen, of any significant amount that can produce work energy, would create pre-detonation of varying proportions. The key being "significant amounts to produce work energy". Supplementing a fuel with another has to be done in a way that they work together, and have enough compatibility chemically combined with the proper controls, to provide a desirable effect or have an advantage if there is one to be had.
In having different "blends" of racing fuel, induction and operating controls can change considerably.
The real point being, is that one would expend an enormous amount of energy (system related and cost) to create enough hydrogen (in relation to the necessary chemical energy) to achieve any short or long term benefits.
I'm very familiar with the studies related to hydrogen supplemented and hydrogen fuel cell hybrid design power plants. Again they use compressed hydrogen in cylinders, have lots of controls and the hydrogen is not produced via electrolysis on board the vehicle.

[Christ]

According to Fuels and Chemicals - Auto Ignition Temperatures, Hydrogen has an autoignition temperature of 932degF (500degC), while the autoignition temperature of any grade of fuel oils is much, much lower.

I don't think autoignition will be too much of a problem in most diesel engines, though some can reach 1,000+* under fluid compression, I hear.

[naturalextraction]

Correct, the key is compression or in this case being compressed, not so much latent temperatures.
Having an homogenous mixture with a faster flame front, under the appropriate controls in and as part of the entire system obviously will typically net higher efficiency Again, as you know from Pgpro's project, that, as in the article linked the in post above, compressing the atmosphere for higher volumetric efficiencies make for larger gains under these principles.
From the article: Once an engine is developed that operates ultra-lean, is turbocharged—or super-charged—and is better able to withstand engine knock, engine downsizing while maintaining performance becomes a credible option that can lead to significant additional fuel economy and performance benefits.
—Beister and Smaling

[Christ]

So I'm not sure I understand exactly what your argument is, if there is one.

I think one effect that has been seriously overlooked that could be a use of hydrogen is pre-combustion, such as that in Honda's CVCC design, where a very fuel rich mixture (composed of hydrogen and intake air) is used to ignite the rest of the compressed charge, a very lean gasoline or diesel/intake air charge.

The fast expansion and flame front of hydrogen makes a seemingly perfect introductory fuel, wherein it's initial burn is used to ignite the remaining fuel mixture, achieving the same ends as the CVCC engine was designed to achieve, while using less fuel to do it.

I would then wonder if onboard production would be a usable method.

Of course, I probably just gave some HHO idiot scam artist another way to explain to people why his ball canning jars will get them 100% more power and over 9,000 gas mileage.

[naturalextraction]

Originally Posted by Christ

So I'm not sure I understand exactly what your argument is, if there is one.

I think one effect that has been seriously overlooked that could be a use of hydrogen is pre-combustion, such as that in Honda's CVCC design, where a very fuel rich mixture (composed of hydrogen and intake air) is used to ignite the rest of the compressed charge, a very lean gasoline or diesel/intake air charge.

The fast expansion and flame front of hydrogen makes a seemingly perfect introductory fuel, wherein it's initial burn is used to ignite the remaining fuel mixture, achieving the same ends as the CVCC engine was designed to achieve, while using less fuel to do it.

I would then wonder if onboard production would be a usable method.

Of course, I probably just gave some HHO idiot scam artist another way to explain to people why his ball canning jars will get them 100% more power and over 9,000 gas mileage.

Well, probably! Your right and saying what we all know and is being studied at MIT.
My base argument which got all over inundated with details (that were I to get into everything would be a book) is that one cannot remotely (in any efficient manner) produce enough hydrogen on board to take advantage of the benefits of hydrogen as you speak. Any efficiency gains made would be lost to the production aspects. Also the controls required are not for the layman. Pgfpro has the ability as may you to implement that type of engineering. As I reiterate Hydrogen with gasoline I.C.E., as with your Honda example, has much more compatible traits to the theories being implemented currently.
So that brings me back to this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Silverad...03F1BD08497C53
I know he's a little pissy about it during his little mathematical demonstration, but he is correct. Plus he's only using a 5% to 7% of the energy addition of Hydrogen where in reality the ratio is usually a bit higher.

[tangomar]

NE,

I don't think you are correct but I might misinterpreting your words. So I apologize for that.
But let's consider the facts:
Fact 1. Hydrogen has less BTU than gasoline. Does it make sense to replace gasoline with increasing amounts of hydrogen? No
Fact 2. In small amounts (how small? experimenters reports very small amounts as effective) hydrogen help gasoline to increase the turbulent flame front leading to a better transfer of heat and more useful work.
--> Very small quantity of hydrogen acts as "catalyst" (forgive me for the term, take it as a metaphor) improving the thermal transfer.

If what you're saying is that with the existing manufactured I.C.E. with they closed loop control and mapping it is almost impossible to add an open loop modification that would change the kinetics of the reactions, than I might agree with you.

Said that, on carburated engines the modification might still be viable once that proper tuning is in place.

I too have many pending questions on the safety of on-board hydrogen generators (hydrolysis, plasma reformer, ...). It has been proved for example that hydrolysis using standard stainless steel forms hex-4 CR that is really poisonous...

But the technology might work as advertised.

I just found this that I didn't know about:
http://www.ronnmotors.com/cms/
They seem to believe in it as well.

[cfg83]

naturalextraction -

Originally Posted by naturalextraction

Correct, the key is compression or in this case being compressed, not so much latent temperatures.
Having an homogenous mixture with a faster flame front, under the appropriate controls in and as part of the entire system obviously will typically net higher efficiency Again, as you know from Pgpro's project, that, as in the article linked the in post above, compressing the atmosphere for higher volumetric efficiencies make for larger gains under these principles.
From the article: Once an engine is developed that operates ultra-lean, is turbocharged—or super-charged—and is better able to withstand engine knock, engine downsizing while maintaining performance becomes a credible option that can lead to significant additional fuel economy and performance benefits.
—Beister and Smaling

The Rudy Smaling? Oh yeah, I was tracking that dude's progress for a while. First he did the MIT fuel-plasma-reformer. Then he tried to commercialize it with Arvin-Meritor. Then Arvin-Meritor sold it off and/or it died on the vine. Last I heard, Rudy Smaling was working at the Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC).

Hmmmm, HARC led me to this :

An Experimental Evaluation of NOx Reductions from Hydrogen Enhanced Diesel Combustion - 09/25/2009
http://files.harc.edu/Sites/TERC/NTR...inalReport.pdf

Hmmmm #2, I can't find Smaling at HARC anymore. Here is a 2009 patent filing with his name :

Engine exhaust treatment apparatus and method of - Japanese Patent Office. English Abstracts. (JPO) Patent 2009-101360

Where has he gone now?

CarloSW2