HHO-only Diesel car

[ar5boosted]

Use Steam instead, it's safer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb7UAnvIT80

(entertainment value) or a Hydrogen Truck

[smallscaleH2]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Browns gas is a mixture of 2 molecules of hydrogen for every molecule of oxygen. Therefore it is 2/3 + 16/3 = 6 times as heavy as hydrogen, and it only has 2/3 of the hydrogen molecules.

So Browns gas has just 1/9th or 11.111% of the BTU pure hydrogen gas has per weight, and just 2/3ds or 66.666% of the BTU per volume.

So while Brown's gas is less powerful as a combustible than you think, the real problem is that, in essence, it is not a combustible at all. It is an explosive, and as an explosive it has no equals when it comes to bang per weight.
When it explodes it will not complete the reaction; the temperature gets so high that some of the hydrogen and oxygen start to lose their bonds again, and the reaction will only complete when it can shed its heat or mix with the surrounding gases.

Yes, I was worried about that too.
I dropped the concept and won't work it out, but just for the hell of it, I'll calculate it out further in this thread.

Originally Posted by seifrob

Trouble is he does not listen, or at least it looks like he does not want to hear. Instead of that he simply makes another thread with similar content.

I indeed don't listen to idle comments. I only listen to comments that are backed up by hard data. So, if you reply to me and include calculations to back up your thoughts, I'll listen.

Originally Posted by teoman

He is a little bit late in the game an generally anyone who is capable of crunching the simplest numbers now knows how inefficient hydrogen generation is. Combined with the fact that people have been trying to push hydrogen boosters and other nonsense to the market people are generally fed up with topics related to hydrogen.

I've been working on related issues since many years. I never did the calculations on hydrogen though since I also always considered it a lost cause. However, given that it is a completely clean fuel (and little other transport technologies are, -and if they are, they're expensive, ie batteries/electric motors-), I'm reconsidering it, and trying to make it at least better then the current way of using hydrogen.

[oil pan 4]

Batteries and electric motors are the improvement over using a fuel burning engine.

[smallscaleH2]

Ok, now some more number crunching:
We determined that HHO can have a energetic value between 0,0015 kWh and 0,00225 kWh, whereas hydrogen has an energetic value of 0,003.
RedDevil mentioned that HHO has 2/3 (66%) of the energy in hydrogen, so 0,00198 kWh. This is in line with this data.
That said, we won't need this data now as we'll calculate the range another way.

The range when using HHO in a Diesel engine:
A Diesel engine (running on Diesel) can have a fuel consumption of say 6l/100km.
Diesel has an energetic value of 37,95 kWh/gallon = 10 kWh/l
So it uses 60 kWh/100km or hence 0,6 kWh/km

A 1 kWh battery can generate (with a 50% efficient HHO electrolyser) 0,5 kWh on HHO gas
Using this in Diesel engine, you can hence cover: 0,83 km (0,5/0,6)

So if you would say have a 50 kWh battery, you'd be able to cover 41,66 km.
I don't think that's bad really. Seems practical if you consider just this data.
But obviously, if the energy isn't transferred suitably in the engine and blows up your engine instead, it's useless.

Next for the amount of gas the electrolyser would need to be able to supply to the engine per minute:
We assume using a diesel engine that consumes 6l/100 km and which drives at a speed of 100 km/h.
6l -> in 1 hour (=60 minutes)
6l -> 0,1 l/min (6/60)
Diesel has an energy content of 10 kWh/l, so 0,1 l = 1 kWh
So we need to supply it 0,1l/min
Those HHO electrolysers can generate up to 10-15 lpm, so that's more than plenty.

[seifrob]

O.K, guys. This smallscaleH2 nick must be alternative account of Frank Lee, and now he is loughing madly about how he got us. There is no other explanation.

[oil pan 4]

I would just use the 50kwh battery to power electric motors and go 100 to 200 miles on a charge, with the reliability and repeatability of electronic motors.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by smallscaleH2

So if you would say have a 50 kWh battery, you'd be able to cover 41,66 km.
I don't think that's bad really. Seems practical if you consider just this data.
But obviously, if the energy isn't transferred suitably in the engine and blows up your engine instead, it's useless.

Let's do a comparison, as it touches one of the cores of the problem.

A Hyundai Ioniq electric has a 28 kWh battery and a range of over 200 km.
So it has 5 times the range from less than 3/5 of the capacity.
The running costs on electricity alone would be just 12% of your setup.
In other words, yours is 8 times as expensive to run.

If you have a battery the best way to transfer the power within to motion is by using an electric motor and motor controller. The efficiency of that is typically way above 50%.

And it would be fun.
I've driven all kinds of vehicles on gas, diesel, hybrid and electric. Of those the EVs were by far the best when it comes to comfort and power delivery (no gear changes, instant delivery, constant torque, very fast acceleration).

The thought you would have a big battery on board and just use that to make a diesel engine tick over goes against logic. Like if in the time of the first real cars you'd build a mechanical horse to pull carts instead.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by seifrob

O.K, guys. This smallscaleH2 nick must be alternative account of Frank Lee, and now he is loughing madly about how he got us. There is no other explanation.

Hey Man, I don't resemble that remark! Well, OK.... maybe I do.

Notice how so far I've not touched this with a ten foot pole?

[seifrob]

I know, but I think you surely would appreciate absurdity of these last few posts.

[Frank Lee]

This whole thread is comedy gold!