Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > The Unicorn Corral
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-13-2012, 02:20 AM   #141 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,173
Thanks: 1,739
Thanked 588 Times in 401 Posts
Dyno? Wouldn't we all?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fastegg View Post
Hi.. what's a BSFC chart ?
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 02-13-2012, 03:20 AM   #142 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,761

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,546 Times in 2,215 Posts
Yeah, another eco gas saving site got destroyed when HHO idiots took it over. Too much for too long.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2012, 06:33 AM   #143 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
IamIan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 692
Thanks: 371
Thanked 227 Times in 140 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastegg View Post
I'm getting soooooooo tired of reading about it... maybe the ecomodder web site should ban all writing about HHO.
I disagree with the ban idea.
It is where it belongs ... here in the Unicorn Corral ...


Welcome to the Unicorn Corral.
Come one come all ...
Uncle Al's amazing Miracle Tonic cure all.
A real live unicorn.
Mr Ed the Talking Horse.
The Aether Energy Extractor.
The Gravity Generator Wheel.
All these amazing sites ... only here in the Unicorn Corral.
( Claims made by Unicorn Corral Devices do not reflect the opinions or beliefs held of the site staff, the scientific community, rational minded people. Contents are for entertainment purposes only. Support these well debunked ideas can result in financial loss, personal injury, property damage, social ridicule, and psychological stress. Do not try at home. )
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2012, 10:54 AM   #144 (permalink)
UFO
Master EcoModder
 
UFO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,300

Colorado - '17 Chevrolet Colorado 4x4 LT
90 day: 23.07 mpg (US)
Thanks: 315
Thanked 178 Times in 138 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan View Post
I disagree with the ban idea.
It is where it belongs ... here in the Unicorn Corral ...
Yes, I have to say I am loving it too. Provides a nice sandbox in which to treasure hunt. Too bad all we keep finding are these HHO turds.
__________________
I'm not coasting, I'm shifting slowly.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2012, 12:57 PM   #145 (permalink)
A Legend in his Own Mind
 
Ken Fry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 281
Thanks: 52
Thanked 90 Times in 53 Posts
Quote:
We are thinking of similar things... just a hair different details... mainly along the limits of what current science would allow ... and the best current tech available... vs I think you were thinking of more average real world devices.
I'm not so sure we are thinking of similar things. HHO has a very specific meaning these days. It has essentially nothing to do with the science of water electrolysis and the various means to obtain good round trip efficiencies in, for example, going from electricity-to-H2-to-fuel-cell-to-electric-motor-to-car-wheels. Real scientists ask, "Does it makes sense to go from solar energy to electricity to H2 through a fuel cell back to get electricity again, through a motor and to the ground?" "Does it make more sense or less sense to start with methane, and reform it into H2?" "Does it make more sense or less to simply charge batteries with PV, and avoid all the losses of fooling with H2?" These are questions to which scientists and engineers can provide supported answers and informed opinions (and some of the answers are complex).

There are no scientists and engineers involved with "HHO*," in any meaningful sense. The term "HHO" (in the context of this thread) has the meaning that Dennis Lee (the guy the FTC sued, and probably the largest promoter of HHO units and perpetual motion machines) and similar folks have given it: An onboard electrolyser, powered by the car's alternator, the output of which is fed into the intake airstream, with the supposed goal of improving fuel efficiency. These units, to work, would have to work by magic, and have never been demonstrated to work. When Lee's unit (a "better" unit than most) was tested by arguably the most prominent, highly-respected guy in the automotive combustion field, the results were just as the science would predict: no effect at all. Even the negative effect of the energy loss was too small to measure: turning on an HHO unit is like turning on the headlights: 140 watts is too small to measure in an engine that can produce 100,000 watts or more.

(One unit was advertised as using almost no water -- you filled the tank monthly or some such. Of course, if it is not using water, it is doing nothing at all -- a stunningly obvious point missed by customers.)

The web is chock full of demonstrations of oxyhydrogen burning with a bang, as "proof" that these units work. Some of the people offering this as proof might be sincere, but completely uninformed. The issue is not that "HHO" units make a burnable gas -- of course they can. The issue is that the gas they make is produced with a huge (percentage) loss in energy. It is a smokescreen: "See, there's the bang... it works!"

Ironically, if an HHO unit were made that had significant output (20 liters per minute,for example) then the losses would be measurable (and a 200 amp alternator would be smoking). As it is, the units are placebos, so some people are convinced they are getting better mileage.

In this case, we are not replacing a car's engine with a combined cycle/ cogeneration gas turbine that can operate at 60% efficiency. We are using the existing car's engine. (You seem to be thinking about a highly efficient source of electric energy that is somehow onboard the car.) The car's engine produces an electrical output at no more than 20% efficiency (even if the car is the best of the best, a Prius with a high efficiency alternator.) If the HHO unit were 100% efficient, it would produce an output energy (in the form of H2) of 1/5 the the input energy (gasoline). In other words, for each ounce of gasoline burned, you get back 1/5 of an ounce energy equivalent in H2. Clearly, even with an impossibly efficient HHO unit, you operate at a net loss. To break even on an energy balance, you would need 500% efficiency at the HHO unit.

I think you are answering a different question: "If we wanted to make a perpetual motion machine, using electrolyzed H2 in the process, and using the highest conversion rates demonstrated in heat engines, then what efficiency would be required for the electrolysis step?" That is not the question that applies to HHO units as used in an attempt to improve fuel efficiency. These people are not considering replacing their engines.

To make me believe that lower than 500% HHO unit efficiencies could reach break even, you would have to show me a production car that produces electricity from its alternator at better than 20% efficiency (from gasoline to electricity).

500% is a convenient round number, but as I wrote above 666% is more realist very best case.

Obviously, efficiencies over 100% are impossible. These HHO units do not operate in the endothermic region, and do not have a COP of remotely close to 1.2. (This can only occur with steam electrolysis -- and then only under certain conditions.) They are not heat pumps, and if they were, the typical car engine would have a difficult time making productive use of low grade heat: engineers have worked for decades on just making use of the abundant waste heat from engines, with only the most minor successes.)

But obviously, breaking even is not the goal. The goal is a large increment in fuel efficiency (50% gains, 100% gains 200% gains -- you name it, it's been advertised) Dennis Lee used to advertise 100 mpg from a Honda Accord, and his site provided all sorts of creative and outlandish explanations for how that might be possible.

*The people who make welding units use the term oxyhydrogen.

Quote:
While I agree with the differences ... I wouldn't go so far as saying 'has nothing at all'
I'm sticking to my story here. By "nothing at all" I mean nothing meaningful. Results of a study in which injection amounts are more than 2 orders of magnitude greater and in which the H2 is supplied for free energetically have no bearing on the physics of HHO applications. Yes, a study on dress making and a study on electrolysis have something in common (physics affect both), but it is reasonable to say, less literally, that one has nothing to do with the other.

Do you realize what microscopic quantities of H2 we are talking about? A 2 liter engine might produce 100 kW, and use 25 kg of fuel per hour, or 417 grams per minute. The .06 grams of H2 that a 1 lpm HHO unit produces has the energy of .15 gram of gasoline. .15/417 is a very small percentage: .035%
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2012, 06:50 PM   #146 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
IamIan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 692
Thanks: 371
Thanked 227 Times in 140 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
I'm not so sure we are thinking of similar things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
In this case, we are not replacing a car's engine with a combined cycle/ cogeneration gas turbine that can operate at 60% efficiency. We are using the existing car's engine. (You seem to be thinking about a highly efficient source of electric energy that is somehow onboard the car.)
I don't see how this is not what I already described as the difference between our paths.

As I said ... I went the direction of two things ... the limits of current science ... and the limits of current technology ... what is possible ... in contrast you focused instead on the averages from average devices.

Talking about the averages of what people have as a basis for saying it isn't possible I find to be flawed ... From my point of view to say what is or isn't possible ... and how much of a gap exists between them one is best done not by looking at average devices ... but instead looking at the very best devices... that is why I went the different direction than you on this issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
The car's engine produces an electrical output at no more than 20% efficiency (even if the car is the best of the best, a Prius with a high efficiency alternator.)
You are incorrect in your claim of 'no more than' ... especially from 'the best'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
To make me believe that lower than 500% HHO unit efficiencies could reach break even, you would have to show me a production car that produces electricity from its alternator at better than 20% efficiency (from gasoline to electricity).
Like I said before that is the difference between your approach and mine ... you look to the average of what is in production ... and I was looking at what is possible ... But even then 500% is still too high ... there are production vehicles on the road already that are capable of converting gasoline to electricity at over 20% efficiency.

Attached bellow is the documented efficiency graph of the first generation production IMA motor from Honda ... converting between mechanical motion and electrical energy ... I direct you to the section of 95% Efficiency and the vast area of greater than 90% efficiency.

At ~13kwh/kg gasoline energy density in the 90% efficiency range of the IMA motor any part of the BSFC chart that overlaps and is bellow ~346 g/kwh is over 20% efficient at converting gasoline to electricity ... Now look at the non-Lean Burn BSFC Chart test of the Gen-1 Insight ICE ... I don't even see it going over 346 being in the operating window ... the worst I see is 280 ... which is still over 24% Efficient Gasoline to electricity ... and a peak of up to ~36.5% efficiency converting gasoline to electricity ... from a production vehicle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
500% is a convenient round number, but as I wrote above 666% is more realist very best case.
You are too high ... especially for best case technologies ... even for production vehicles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
Obviously, efficiencies over 100% are impossible.
of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
These HHO units do not operate in the endothermic region, and do not have a COP of remotely close to 1.2. (This can only occur with steam electrolysis -- and then only under certain conditions.)
I didn't say these units do ... as I said ... that was in relation to the exploration of the limits of science on this issue ... and the limits of technology on this issue... what is possible ... not what is being done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
I'm sticking to my story here. By "nothing at all" I mean nothing meaningful.
We disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
Do you realize what microscopic quantities of H2 we are talking about? A 2 liter engine might produce 100 kW, and use 25 kg of fuel per hour, or 417 grams per minute. The .06 grams of H2 that a 1 lpm HHO unit produces has the energy of .15 gram of gasoline. .15/417 is a very small percentage: .035%
Which to me ... only goes back to one of the values of the study you find not to have anything meaningful ... it shows quantities needed in order to achieve even the modest ~3.8% increases they got... and those quantities are are very relevant.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	05AccordIMAMotorEfficiency.JPG
Views:	21
Size:	72.1 KB
ID:	10275   Click image for larger version

Name:	ICEEfficiency.jpg
Views:	17
Size:	27.9 KB
ID:	10276  
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2012, 11:54 PM   #147 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,173
Thanks: 1,739
Thanked 588 Times in 401 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan View Post
As I said ... I went the direction of two things ... the limits of current science ... and the limits of current technology ... what is possible ... in contrast you focused instead on the averages from average devices.
There's a difference between a technological limit and natural law. The law of thermodynamics is not a technological limit.

And the limit is, once you've converted energy two to three times, you're never going to end up with enough energy to adequately power the process creating it or to effectively offset it. Hybrid-electric works only because it allows you to completely shut off the ICE when you don't need it. Hydrogen injection doesn't. It's just adding an extra step and an extra set of losses which are better spent simply storing that electricity in a battery.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to niky For This Useful Post:
UFO (02-14-2012)
Old 02-14-2012, 08:43 AM   #148 (permalink)
EV convert
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 9,550

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 228
Thanked 3,123 Times in 2,443 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
Do you realize what microscopic quantities of H2 we are talking about? A 2 liter engine might produce 100 kW, and use 25 kg of fuel per hour, or 417 grams per minute. The .06 grams of H2 that a 1 lpm HHO unit produces has the energy of .15 gram of gasoline. .15/417 is a very small percentage: .035%
I don't think the HHO belivers have any idea how little gas their machines produce. Just because its sucking down 20 amps and use a lot of water doesn't mean its producing that much hydrogen.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 10:32 AM   #149 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: pjs NY
Posts: 59

Elle - '10 Honda Element SC
Thanks: 1
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
I remember reading something about why these machines fail to produce.

its the lack of being able to get our hands on some source materials inside hydride.one of the components of hydride is classified as a weapon material. and can only be used in thermo nuclear weapons. Lithium-6 deuteride. can not be purchased. so you need a particle accelerator to make your own.....

check out this site. United Nuclear - Hydrogen Fuel Systems its the reality of any car running on hydrogen. as hho assist is just too small to be effective.

!
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 03:18 PM   #150 (permalink)
A Legend in his Own Mind
 
Ken Fry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 281
Thanks: 52
Thanked 90 Times in 53 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan View Post
I don't see how this is not what I already described as the difference between our paths.
To me, it seems as if you have switched positions. Our numbers (for required efficiency of the electrolysis unit to break even on an energy balance) are much different, and you have reiterated that you think that 500% (as an electrolysis break even point) is too high. But you wrote:

Quote:
We are thinking of similar things... just a hair different details... mainly along the limits of what current science would allow ... and the best current tech available... vs I think you were thinking of more average real world devices. reneged that
500% vs the 86% you mentioned indicates a far bigger difference than "just a hair different details".

I am referring to HHO as it has been promoted, and as it continues to be promoted, as a means to very large fuel mileage increases, in existing cars. I have used figures that represent better-than-average efficiencies for fuel-to-alternator electrical output. (Delco, in a 2008 paper promoting the sales of high efficiency alternators in diesel trucks, says that current efficiencies are 21% in trucks that are operating at 40% engine efficiency. [But they correctly make the point that truck engines do not routinely operate a 40% efficiency, so that real efficiency is much lower.]

http://www.delcoremy.com/Documents/H...ite-Paper.aspx

The figure I used for alternator efficiency is not average, it is significantly better than better than average. Per Delco, 50% is average and 60% would be an improvement.

In average cars, engines do not routinely operate at either the 25% engine efficiency figure nor the 75% alternator efficiency figure that I have used to come up with 20% fuel-to-electricity-efficiency (and thus the 500% required electrolyser efficiency to break even). My 20% figure would seem to be very high given Delco's figure of 21% for a diesel truck.

You can verify that cars do not operate routinely at 25% efficiency by using the this site's calculator. To get to the demonstrated 50 mpg of a Prius at 60 mph on a level road, if you plug in the known figures for a Prius, (which has the best fuel efficiency x mass figure of any SI production car) you need to plug in .24% for engine efficiency.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aero-rolling-resistance.php?Weight=3400&WeightUnits=lbs&CRR=.00 6&Cd=.25&FrontalArea=24&FrontalAreaUnits=ft^2&Fuel Wh=33557&IceEfficiency=.24&DrivetrainEfficiency=.9 4&ParasiticOverhead=0&rho=1.22&FromToStep=5-200-5

Everything else is worse, and most cars are much worse. My 4-cylinder 2004 Honda Accord at cruise operates at substantially lower than 25% engine efficiency, and substantially less than 75% alternator efficiency. (Your IMA efficiency chart is not applicable, given that the Hondas with IMA have no alternator. I think both I and the original poster made it clear that alternator efficiency is part of the equation.)

So, perhaps we will have to agree to disagree. I think 500% is reasonable as a measure of required electrolysis efficiency to just reach break even in real cars, even highly efficient real cars. You think a lower number is appropriate, because you appear to think that many of these customers might be installing HHO units on fuel cell vehicles or vehicles powered by cogeneration turbines. I just don't think that is a reasonable answer to the OP's question.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com