Anyone tried HHO on a diesel?

[Christ]

Originally Posted by naturalextraction

I don't know We don't use any chemicals at all. I can get decent power at 35%. Anything over 45% is inconsistent. We will have final testing of all the incorporating systems done at Sandia Labs in Livermore CA.

Lecithin is in food products, it's used as an oil emulsifier. Usually, if you look at food products, you'll see "soy lecithin". I hear it's been linked to a few illnesses and such, but I haven't had any problems, and I don't specifically watch out for it.

You can delete bad/unnecessary posts in the edit menu, you click edit, click DELETE next to "go advanced", click the "delete message" radio button, add a reason at your leisure, then click "delete this message button at the bottom right.

Yep, lots of steps.

[oldbeaver]

Hello all,

While some of our Forum members focus their comments on physics theory for denying the possibility of improving performance of a diesel engine based on onboard HHO production and a mix of about 5% of HHO on total fuel used by the engine, I will continue questioning the issue based on practical issues:

I would like to see some of them with math knowledge to make a rigorous test themselves.

The paper cited by Tangomar is the only one systematichal test I have seen. There may be other, but I haven´t seen them. What I have seen are two kinds of opinions, covering 95% of all comments:

1) People claiming from 10% to even 50% and 60% of fuel yield improvement using HHO (onboard).

2) People denying the possibility of any improvement based on only one fact: there will be more expense on electrolysis than fuel improvement. So balance must be negative. Argument: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

For me none of these opinions are convincing.

I prefer people that make serious tests using the device.

From the devices I have seen in the Internet, very few look efficient to me.

The only serious paper I have seen is the one quoted by Tangoman (Bari & Esmaeil, 2009).

The experiment setup looks well to me, however, not very accurate, due to several facts I named on a past post. Moreover, there are four additional issues the paper do not quote:

1) How they measure the fuel consumed. The setup shows only one fuel meter, while the majority of diesel engines need two of them to an accurate measure, due to the fact that there is a return fuel flow to the fuel tank. So one need to substract that flow from total fuel delivered from the tank.

2) Besides, there is a warming of the fuel that implies volumen expansion, and they didn´t mention any correction on this.

3) More: measuring so tiny flows of fuel is not easy. They mention a Dwyer gas meter for gas input, but they do not mention how they measured fuel flow. I havent seen any Dwyer flow meter capable to measure that.

4) They generated HHO out of board, for practical reasons. But, how accurate is the measure of the energy consumed by the batteries or by any other power supply? This is necessary to make an accurate balance between energy inputs and outputs.

I think a similar experiment is necessary, but with more accuracy.

OldBeaver

[naturalextraction]

Oldbeaver, there is no theory, it's all been tried in labs. Even MIT, Sandia Labs, etc. We've proven there are some minimal benefits. More comes from Hybriding diesels utilizing Hydrogen fuel cells. (Iceland utilizing them now) Plenty to google. Read some of the links on this thread. Mechanics illustrated and Popular Science have made their own on-board devices (and with higher efficiency output than whats typically made) with accurate testing. Search their sites for the articles. With real numbers derived from these on board units, the math is quite simple and pretty straight forward, no theories. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel. But enough said on this subject.

Christ, thanks for the info on deletion!

[Christ]

Originally Posted by naturalextraction

Oldbeaver, there is no theory, it's all been tried in labs. Even MIT, Sandia Labs, etc. Plenty to google. Read some of the links. Mechanics illustrated and Popular Science have made their own on-board devices (and with higher efficiency output than whats typically made) with accurate testing. Search their sites for the articles. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel. But enough said on this subject.

Christ, thanks for the info on deletion!

As much as I get into OT conversations, I had to learn it pretty good, myself. :P

[oldbeaver]

Hey NaturalExtraction,

Ok, it sounds good to me... I will check those papers of MIT, Sandia Labs, Mechanics Ilustrated and Popular Mechanics. It is an important issue to me to definitely discard or continue improving the system.

If you remember the precise mentioned links, I will thank you much.

OldBeaver

Originally Posted by naturalextraction

Oldbeaver, there is no theory, it's all been tried in labs. Even MIT, Sandia Labs, etc. We've proven there are some minimal benefits. More comes from Hybriding diesels utilizing Hydrogen fuel cells. (Iceland utilizing them now) Plenty to google. Read some of the links on this thread. Mechanics illustrated and Popular Science have made their own on-board devices (and with higher efficiency output than whats typically made) with accurate testing. Search their sites for the articles. With real numbers derived from these on board units, the math is quite simple and pretty straight forward, no theories. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel. But enough said on this subject.

Christ, thanks for the info on deletion!

[naturalextraction]

Hi Oldbeaver, I didn't realize you were already trying to utilize the concept. You also live in South America? I would see the need for reaching for any viable gains
I will look through some files much later tonight and find you some links. I believe some are SAE papers and have to be bought online. But please understand the basics of trying to generate it on board through electrolysis, it's diminishing returns and even if you tried to generate 5% from the total fuel volume from the energy derived from diesel, it would be incredibly in-efficient in energy expended from the system related to any gain. You'd achieve more from a compressed cylinder (plus you'd be able to meter the volume you need under load, which is where any significance is recognized) of hydrogen more so financially and long term efficiency net gains from the diesel engine related to useable power, maybe. Most results I've ever read, as displayed elsewhere in this thread, are minimal. Particularly in overall fuel consumption. Energy in (and expense) vs overall net gain (-energy consumed)

[tangomar]

I am adding also the "famous" NASA article.
These results are with:
- gasoline,
- gasoline+bottled H2,
- gasoline+reformed on board H2.

I apologize for being outside topic (this thread is for diesel), but I believe it could be interesting info.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1977016170.pdf

[stonebreaker]

I've got an idea. Get rid of the diesel altogether. If burning hydrogen with oxygen to get water returns more energy than it costs to separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen, then there's no reason to involve diesel at all. Just set up a big ol' HHO generator and fill the gas tank with water.

Even assuming a 5% concentration of H2 did everything claimed for mileage and emissions:

A duromax diesel displaces 6.6 liters. Even neglecting the turbo charger's boost, that's 5.28 cubic meters of air per minute at 1600 rpm. At a 5% mix as suggested in the above emissions test, that's .264 cubic meters, or 264 liters, of hydrogen per minute used in the test as a "catalyst". A mole of hydrogen is 22.4 liters at STP. So we're talking about 11.78 moles of H2 per minute.

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.

The alternator on the duramax trucks is 145 amps. Even dumping 100% of the alternator's output into the HHO generator, you could only produce less than 1/20th of the required 5% H2. Plus you'd run your battery down in 15 or 20 miles.

Incidentally, 46,700 watts is equivalent to 63 horsepower. Never mind whether your alternator could make that wattage, your fan belt couldn't deliver the power in the first place!

So it doesn't matter if HHO works or not. Your car doesn't have the ability to make enough hydrogen anyway.

Incidentally, hydrogen isn't made commercially by electrolyzing water. (It's too expensive.) Commercial operations create H2 by injecting superheated steam into natural gas. The reaction is CH4 + 2(H2O) -> CO2 + 4(H2). the H2 is compressed and bottled and the CO2 is sequestered underground.

Really, really useful unit converter:
Unit Converter - Digital Dutch Unit Converter

[jedi_sol]

I've been testing my HHO for about a year now without definitive results, until just recently I installed an MPG guino.

Did some A-B-A testing and the MPGuino results were = 0.6% increase in mpg.

To me, that's hardly any proof that HHO works and I'm going to give up on this project and focus on AERO!

[oldbeaver]

Good point that of the 5% need of HHO. , by Stonebreaker.

Back to Jedi_sol comment: what is AERO? Please explain. Tks.

Originally Posted by jedi_sol

I've been testing my HHO for about a year now without definitive results, until just recently I installed an MPG guino.

Did some A-B-A testing and the MPGuino results were = 0.6% increase in mpg.

To me, that's hardly any proof that HHO works and I'm going to give up on this project and focus on AERO!