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


Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-14-2012, 09:01 PM   #151 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
IamIan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 692
Thanks: 371
Thanked 227 Times in 140 Posts
Apologies to anyone / everyone for this posts length.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
So, perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.
I guess so.

The rest of this post addresses the earlier part of yours ... feel free to just skip it if you like.

- - - - - - - - -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
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.
Average for average cars maybe ... but highly efficient ones , or the best case ... no ... I've already posted that ... you just ignore it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
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.
You have misunderstood... I've never claimed that.

I explored the limits of what science allows and what the best technology could potentially do as a best case under ideal conditions ... to set a real best case ... to show that even at those limits under ideal conditions it is still not good enough.

To me ... you seem to want to rule out any current production vehicles using more efficient devices ... and you want to use averages to claim upper end limits ... I showed you real production vehicle getting from gasoline to electricity in a window of a minimum of about ~24% and a Max of ~36% ... and you want to ignore it and pretend that 20% is still an upper limit or best case ... that does not agree with the data ... even for real production vehicles ... The Gen-1 Insight in my example is now 12 years old... the tech in it is even older than that.

- - - - - -
That is the gist ... the rest is similar to what is posted above... I'm just addressing individual points in more detail.
- - - - - -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
To me, it seems as if you have switched positions.
I haven't changed positions at all ... the only change I've made was that in my initial post about you're 500% being a bit too high ... was that , as I already wrote ... I had not originally added in the possible use of the heat from a Co-Generation Facility... which is not a change as much as an addition... and I wrote that as well previously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
Our numbers (for required efficiency of the electrolysis unit to break even on an energy balance) are much different
of course they are... because of the different direction ... as I've already written ... I went the path of what is the limit of what science allows and what is the limit of current technology ... you went a different path ... we should end up with different numbers.

60% conversion from fuel to electricity is a current technology that is in use today ... as such it applies to my path of looking at the best case of what is possible ... in contrast you insist on 20% ... because you have a different path you took ... you ignore the best case ... and instead insist on 20% ... which is not the best case ... it is not the limit of current technology and it is not the limit of what science allows ... thus the difference between our paths... even though both of our results still show it is not viable , and won't work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
, and you have reiterated that you think that 500% (as an electrolysis break even point) is too high.
To high as long as you use the terms like 'best case' and/or are talking about what is or is not possible or what the upper limit is ... average operating % is not best case ... production vehicles are not the best case ... nor are either of these the limits of what is possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
But you wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan
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.
500% vs the 86% you mentioned indicates a far bigger difference than "just a hair different details".
Two Things:
  • I don't recall ever claiming 86% ... the lowest I ever got for the electrolysis to break even was:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by IamIan
    This UBER ideal case would still need an over ~92% Efficient electrolysis ... at least it is under 100% ... but even with every ideal case I can think of , it still isn't enough ... I don't know of any electrolyzer over 92% efficient.
    Maybe if you included the ~3.8% from the study it would come down to ~88.2%... so I don't know where you got 86% from ???
  • Perhaps you are thinking of my use of ~83%:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by IamIan
    Given the 1.21 heat pump effect ... that is where I got the maximum even under ideal conditions of the Chemical to Electrical back to Chemical cycle would have to be ~83% Efficient ... which won't happen with all those steps.
    But I am not claiming it could reach ~83% ... I'm claiming ... under these ideal conditions the combined steps of Chemical to Electrical Back to Chemical would have to be a net of ~83% to break even ... if the maximum ideal case Heat Pump effect could be reached ... and I wrote there too that even in that ideal case for the heat pump that ~83% was still not going to happen for all those steps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
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.
Exactly my point.
We took different paths ... I looked at it from the limits of current science and current technology ... in a true best case scenario ... you did not ... in your path 20% is the 'best case' for gasoline to electricity ... even though it is not actually the best case ... even for production vehicles.

We both came to the same results of those large increases not being possible ... even though we used different paths to get there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
I have used figures that represent better-than-average efficiencies for fuel-to-alternator electrical output.
Slightly better than average ... then refereed to them as some kind of upper limit ... which they are not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
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.)
This position you insist on is incorrect ... they can produce more than 20% ... 20% is not the best case... even from production vehicles ... as I've shown and you ignored.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
[But they correctly make the point that truck engines do not routinely operate a 40% efficiency, so that real efficiency is much lower.]
ie average efficiency ... not the limit of what they can do ... but the average of what they can do ... and they are not the most efficient production vehicles at converting fuel to electricity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
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.
Both of which are significantly lower than the large window of 90% and above from other devices converting between mechanical and eelectrical energy ... even in other production vehicles ... as I already showed previously with the IMA ... and you ignored it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
In average cars, engines do not routinely
Average being irrelevant to the limits of what is possible ... or the best case ... or defining a 'no more than' upper limit.

Routinely being irrelevant to the best case of that engine ... or the 'no more than' limit of that engine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
My 20% figure would seem to be very high given Delco's figure of 21% for a diesel truck.
And if you listed it as an average for the diesel trucks in that group of vehicle reference it would be fine.

But instead you listed it in reference to other vehicles ... and as a type of upper limit ... neither or which it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry View Post
You can verify that cars do not operate routinely at 25% efficiency by using the this site's calculator.
What the average car or even a specific car averages or routinely gets is not and never will be a upper limit or best case ... or the upper limit that no other can go above.

Any ICE that has a BSFC of less than ~307 g/kwh is operating at over 25% efficiency at that point ... anything less than ~256 g/kwh is over 30% ... etc ... If you look at a high efficiency ICE's BSFC chart you will see parts well above 25% ... The lowest point in the operating window of the Gen-1 Insight's ICE BSFC chart I already posted is 280g/kwh ... which from 13kwh/kg Gasoline is a minimum of over 27% efficiency ... and the 200g/kwh peak is over 38% efficient ... And there are more efficient ICE's out there... some even in production vehicles.

20% is fine for an average ... it is not an upper end limit ... and it is not a best case ... and it is not the limits of current technology ... and it is not the limits of what science allows.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 02-14-2012, 09:02 PM   #152 (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 niky View Post
There's a difference between a technological limit and natural law. The law of thermodynamics is not a technological limit.
100% agree.
Which is why I had two different thing ... one is the limits of science allows ... which includes thermodynamics but is not just about thermodynamics ... which is better than the best technology we have today ... the 2nd was the limits of current best technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by niky View Post
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.
Never is a very close ended thing ... I don't see enough conditions on what you have presented for that to be correct... perhaps if you added the additional condition of ... no outside source of energy ... or others like that ... then maybe.

As it is ... even with 2 or 3 conversions ... I could violate what you post by using the energy from oil to extract more oil , thus paying for the oil used for extraction and still ended up further ahead with more oil ... or using the energy from solar cells to make more solar cells ... or using x% energy to improve the efficiency of the entire system by >x%... etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by niky View Post
Hybrid-electric works only because it allows you to completely shut off the ICE when you don't need it.
Nope... That is a reason not the 'only' reason.
  • It also works because regenerative braking is always more efficient than friction braking.
  • It also works because of the torque differences between a ICE and Electric Motor at low RPM ... and how much larger a ICE would otherwise have to be over sized for the design criteria torque at low RPM.
  • It also works because of the large efficiency swings in a ICE ... vs the HEV path... Load Leveling.
  • It also works because a single basic HEV motor can do the job of both a starter and an alternator in less weight than the starter and alternator combined.

Quote:
Originally Posted by niky View Post
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.
90% agree... remaining 10% being ... sometimes it is better to not burn the extra fuel than it is to convert it to be stored in a battery.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 09:48 PM   #153 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,173
Thanks: 1,739
Thanked 589 Times in 401 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan View Post
As it is ... even with 2 or 3 conversions ... I could violate what you post by using the energy from oil to extract more oil , thus paying for the oil used for extraction and still ended up further ahead with more oil ... or using the energy from solar cells to make more solar cells ... or using x% energy to improve the efficiency of the entire system by >x%... etc.
We start out with a given input, then we convert it to the type of energy we want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan View Post
Nope... That is a reason not the 'only' reason.
  • It also works because regenerative braking is always more efficient than friction braking.
  • It also works because of the torque differences between a ICE and Electric Motor at low RPM ... and how much larger a ICE would otherwise have to be over sized for the design criteria torque at low RPM.
  • It also works because of the large efficiency swings in a ICE ... vs the HEV path... Load Leveling.
  • It also works because a single basic HEV motor can do the job of both a starter and an alternator in less weight than the starter and alternator combined.
Actually, perhaps that was oversimplification on my part.

But do note: There are diesels that can achieve hybrid-level efficiency while moving (while idling, no). I've driven a few of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan View Post
90% agree... remaining 10% being ... sometimes it is better to not burn the extra fuel than it is to convert it to be stored in a battery.
Quite agree with that. It's frustrating that the major stumbling block for better efficiencies is the consumers' "need" for powerful engines, bigger cars and ever more luxury and convenience. I've driven traditional cars that can get between 55-70 mpg... but which would never be accepted by the mainstream market because they're too small and too cheap.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 01:22 AM   #154 (permalink)
Corporate imperialist
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 11,266

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: 273
Thanked 3,569 Times in 2,833 Posts
Why not stick with mods that have been proven in wind tunnels and dynometers?
__________________
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 02-15-2012, 01:55 AM   #155 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
fastegg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Gosford
Posts: 49
Thanks: 3
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Hho

All this HHO talk is getting way-way too technical for me....
__________________
UCF20R LS400 VVTi
Lexus Mad
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 02:36 AM   #156 (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 179 Times in 138 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastegg View Post
All this HHO talk is getting way-way too technical for me....
But that's why the subject keeps coming and getting hashed over again and again. People seem to want shortcuts, and if they took the time to understand the discussion they wouldn't be so susceptible to the unicorn fodder.
__________________
I'm not coasting, I'm shifting slowly.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to UFO For This Useful Post:
IamIan (02-15-2012)
Old 02-15-2012, 04:49 AM   #157 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
fastegg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Gosford
Posts: 49
Thanks: 3
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Mpguino

I have just ordered and paid for a MPGuino for 65 euro's ($80AUS) so i can accuratly see my fuel usage and start fiddling with things to improve my economy..... woo hoo . .. ...
__________________
UCF20R LS400 VVTi
Lexus Mad
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 07:19 AM   #158 (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 niky View Post
But do note: There are diesels that can achieve hybrid-level efficiency while moving (while idling, no). I've driven a few of them.
I agree.

Just don't forget there are also HEVs that operate at higher levels of efficiency than some diesels ... even while moving ... not all diesel's are equally efficient vehicles , just like not all HEVs are equally efficient vehicles.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 01:54 PM   #159 (permalink)
A Legend in his Own Mind
 
Ken Fry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 281
Thanks: 52
Thanked 91 Times in 54 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan View Post
Apologies to anyone / everyone for this posts length.
At least it's no longer than mine.

Quote:
Average for average cars maybe ... but highly efficient ones , or the best case ... no ... I've already posted that ... you just ignore it.
I didn't ignore it, and in fact I think I responded directly. The Prius has the highest operating efficiency of any car sold in the US. (Its system works better than the Honda Insight's*, with the current Insight being 20% lighter, with similar aero drag, but with substantially lower fuel efficiency numbers.) Its hybrid system allows the engine to spend more time near its best operating efficiency than on any other car sold in the US, and its peak operating efficiency is the highest of any spark ignition car sold in the US. Although its engine can peak at 37-38% efficiency, it does not operate at anything close to that efficiency routinely. Unlike the typical car that gets less than 20% actual installed average engine operating drive cycle efficiency, the Prius gets about 24%.

I provided a link, but if you go to the calculator and enter 3400 lbs, .24 engine efficiency, .94 transmission efficiency, .25 Cd, 24 sq ft frontal area, (the two figures providing the generally accepted CdA of 6.0 sq ft for the Prius), and .006 Crr, you will get 50.49 at 60 mph, a reasonable figure for the Prius**. With the Delco figure for typical alternator efficiency (.55), the electrical generation efficiency comes out lower than .20, of course, at .132. But what if we go beyond alternator efficiency and instead use 90% for the Prius motor generator and .85 for its DC-DC converter. Then we end up with .24 x .9 x .85 = .184, still lower than my 20% figure. In fact, because a lead acid battery is involved in the cycle at times, (and because the DC-DC converter is fed from the main battery bank, with its own charge cycle inefficiencies) even this .184 this figure is too high to be realistic.

So the very best of the best current tech still does not exceed the 20% figure on which I base my need for 500% electrolysis efficiency to just break even.

But the Prius is a ridiculously efficient car to use as being representative of anything close to "average." Every other car or light truck is much worse and hybrids make up only .5 percent of the light vehicles cars on the road in the US. For 99% of the light vehicles on the road in the US my 20% figure is generous-to-very-generous, even for the most efficient of those.

So I think my approach was well-enough defined in this paragraph:
Quote:
(per K Fry The requirement for 500% efficiency from the electrolyser device itself comes from the efficiency with which an engine and alternator produce electricity. The 20% I usually use for the sake of argument is actually high, because engines do not really operate at 25% efficiency, and alternators don't operate at over 75% efficiency. Realistically, engines in non-hybrid cars operate at more like 22%, and alternators are more like 65-70% -- we'll say 67%. So the efficiency from fuel to electricity is 15%. To just get to break even the electrolyser would have to operate at 666% efficiency.
Quote:
(your quote) To me ... you seem to want to rule out any current production vehicles using more efficient devices ... and you want to use averages to claim upper end limits ... I showed you real production vehicle getting from gasoline to electricity in a window of a minimum of about ~24% and a Max of ~36% ... and you want to ignore it and pretend that 20% is still an upper limit or best case ... that does not agree with the data ... even for real production vehicles ... The Gen-1 Insight in my example is now 12 years old... the tech in it is even older than that.
Yes, I want to rule out "production vehicles with more efficient devices" than are representative of the market. The HHO scammers are not selling the product as an enhancement to some future science-fiction vehicle. They are selling it as an enhancement to current vehicles, and the devices cannot and do not work on such vehicles. My 20% figure is giving them the benefit of the doubt, because even on the Prius, the very best of the best, the 12 volt battery is not charged with significantly better than 20% efficiency, and I doubt that it is really 20% -- 18% seems likely. But that is of little consequence. On every other vehicle, (more than 99% of the vehicles on the road) my figure is very generous.

Sure, a fuel cell vehicle (with further development) could get close to 60% efficiency from H2 to electricity, But the HHO promoters are not selling to that market.

Yes, my 500% figure is "too high" for the scenario you created. It is not too high, (and in fact is conservative) for the market into which these devices have been sold, and for the scenario I defined.

BTW sorry for the 86% reference. It was intended to be 83%.

* Which I find disturbing, having worked for Honda, having raced Hondas, and being the current owner of three Honda cars.

** And, of course the ludicrously high figures produced (in the chart) for lower speeds mean that, at those lower speeds, engine efficiency is even lower than the 24% input.

HHO works just fine if you power it from a faired-in solar panel on the car's roof. Then you get an input energy gain without any additional use of gasoline. If you want to show what's scientifically possible, would that not be a better example?
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 08:12 PM   #160 (permalink)
A Legend in his Own Mind
 
Ken Fry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 281
Thanks: 52
Thanked 91 Times in 54 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan View Post

We took different paths ... I looked at it from the limits of current science and current technology ... in a true best case scenario ... you did not ... in your path 20% is the 'best case' for gasoline to electricity ... even though it is not actually the best case ... even for production vehicles.
I'm sure I am appearing unduly prickly, but this gets to the route of the issue. Your "different path" is not applicable to the situation in which the 500% came up. It is a complete and total non sequitur, and came across to me as bickering for the sake of bickering, or as intentional promotion of the HHO concept.

I first wrote the 500% figure in reference to a Triumph motorcycle. Given that these 600 cc crotch rockets get only 40 mpg, one can see that they operate with stunningly low operating efficiencies. Again, you can use the calculator if you want: Cd = .65, A= 6sq ft. Loaded Weight = 600 lb Crr = .15, Drive train = .94. Engine efficiency = .10

As it happens, bike alternators are even less efficient than car alternators, but we'll use 50%. So in the case about which I was writing, the gasoline to electrical efficiency would be 5%. Therefore, to break even, an onboard electrolysis process would need to be 2000% efficient, just to recoup the energy value of the squandered gasoline.

I' d written, regarding the motorcycle:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
For an HHO unit to "work" to improve fuel efficiency, the electrolysis process would have to operate at greater than 500% efficiency.
Your response was:
Quote:
It isn't quiet that bad ... especially from a 'energy I pay for' perspective.
But in fact, it is much worse. (You pay for 20 gallons of gasoline to get one gallon's energy equivalent of hydrogen.) I was giving the scammers the benefit of the doubt. You'd have to apply some very serious distortion to the real world figures to bring my figure down to 500%, let alone lower. Just as UFO did in post #123, and just as most people who know about HHO units often do, I used 20% gasoline to electric efficiency as a rule of thumb -- and you can use it as a rule of thumb and never be accused of painting a too-gloomy picture of HHO for 99% of the cars on the road.

You then went on to write:
Quote:
As an absolute limit, I think the combined steps from chemical energy to electrical energy back to chemical energy would have to reach ~83% Efficient ... not currently possible that I know of.
This apparently makes sense to you for some system you envision. But to me, it just encourages the enemy. An otherwise intelligent and successful acquaintance lost over $1,000,000 by investing in one of the larger HHO companies. One Florida company sold over a million dollars of these units in four weeks. I see no need to distort reality to help the HHO promoters.


Last edited by Ken Fry; 02-15-2012 at 08:18 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com