EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   The Unicorn Corral (https://ecomodder.com/forum/unicorn-corral.html)
-   -   Hydrogen on demand system? (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/hydrogen-demand-system-33996.html)

spacemanspif 06-23-2016 08:03 PM

Hydrogen on demand system?
 
Please link threads where this has already been discussed if this is not a new idea.

I saw on Facebook a video of some yahoo with a Mohawk and pony tail talking about "hydrogen on demand" by adding a teaspoon of baking soda to about a liter of distilled water, add electricity and boom! 50% better mpg, internal cleaning of the engine, more hp and torque and absolutely no emissions. Even says that the "engineers" will come out and install it on your car for you!

While i know the ad makes a lot of big promises it will never deliver, I'm curious if there is any merit to the idea

Not sure how to link videos thru Facebook, I'm sure it's nothing new but will try to find it on YouTube for reference.

Gasoline Fumes 06-23-2016 10:35 PM

Is this a late April Fool's joke? :D

Frank Lee 06-24-2016 12:03 AM

Come on, Man. You've been here a while. :rolleyes:

Unicorn all the way.

Xist 06-24-2016 02:15 AM

Baking soda is an electrolyte, but that is about all they get right.
Quote:

“More energy is needed to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds than can ever be recovered from its use,” Bossel explains to PhysOrg.com.

Read more at: Why a hydrogen economy doesn't make sense
I miss these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhGmx7JM7Hw

RedDevil 06-24-2016 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacemanspif (Post 517011)
... adding a teaspoon of baking soda to about a liter of distilled water, add electricity and boom!

This describes a Browns gas generator. it can generate about 2 cubic meter of HHO, using up several liters of 'gas' (the liquid car food stuff) to produce the electricity needed...

You need a lot of current to produce just a trickle of gas. Hydrogen atoms are that hard to part from oxygen.
The boom is impressive though. Lighting just a liter of HHO is already quite dangerous. Storing the gas in a large container may be a lethal mistake.

ChazInMT 06-24-2016 08:44 AM

http://i60.tinypic.com/sq14e9.jpg

http://i63.tinypic.com/j10o5y.jpg

Xist 06-24-2016 12:07 PM

I read that hydrogen disassociates from oxygen when magnesium oxidizes in the presence of water. Back in Germany, I put the metal powder from ten or fifteen MRE heaters in a black garbage bag. It about half inflated, but then the hydrogen escaped.

Back home, I think I put the metal powder from two heater pouches in a jar with a hole in the lid, added water, and lit the gas. There was a small flame for a surprising long time.

acparker 06-24-2016 01:37 PM

From what I understand, adding hydrogen into the combustion mix aids combustion and emissions under some circumstances. Whether the energy required to produce the amount of hydrogen needed for any improvement would be worth the cost depends on the energy cost of current emissions controls.

While conventional hydrolysis is power hungry, plasma, in conjunction with a catalyst can be cost effective. The Plasmatron Fuel Converter research performed by MIT for the DOE proved the concept back in the mid-90's. The study was to reform diesel, but they strayed a bit and tried injecting water vapor into the system to see how it would do. Running a rich air/fuel mix through the plasmatron should provide the hydrogen needed, without the addition of water vapor. It is vaguely similar to the jet ignition systems being used in some Formula 1 engines.

To stay in unicorn territory, GEET claims to be a similar process. I think they are correct, regarding the reactor, but I don't support the rest of their claims.

oil pan 4 06-24-2016 04:18 PM

I love hearing about all this proven technology that you can't buy, can not be replicated and has never been seen by anyone.

acparker 06-24-2016 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oil pan 4 (Post 517092)
I love hearing about all this proven technology that you can't buy, can not be replicated and has never been seen by anyone.

It takes more than proven technology to get a product to market.

A plasmatron reactor might be easier to replicate than a GEET reactor, which is pretty simple. Tweaking all the parameters to get best performance is where it becomes pricey and time consuming. Many inventors have a terrible time deciding to freeze a design for manufacture.

oil pan 4 06-24-2016 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acparker (Post 517095)
Tweaking all the parameters to get best performance is where it becomes pricey and time consuming. Many inventors have a terrible time deciding to freeze a design for manufacture.

The hallmark of a unicorn and still doesn't explain why no one can replicate the technology.

spacemanspif 06-24-2016 06:15 PM

I figured as much about the unicorn aspect, I was just wondering if the idea had any kind of merit. The website is How2SaveFuel.com but I can't seem to find the video on YouTube...

Lots of dead links on the site and the "upcomming calendar" on the right is all dated for 2009.

ChazInMT 06-25-2016 02:07 AM

The galactic douche nugget showed up on my facebook page....here's link to it I found. Needless to say.....so I won't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5nld6HzEjM

acparker 06-25-2016 01:58 PM

On a positive note, he dropped the free energy claim...at least in that video. This kind of techno-evangelist hype is typical of the genre. Using glass canning jars instead of a purpose built shatter-resistant setup or a dry cell is also part of the appeal for that target market. Folks want to see bubbles.

In checking out some hho videos and sites, it was pointed out that with computer controlled engines, the benefits are short-term. Once the computer compensates for the imbalance, it negates the benefit. You have to have the computer tuned for the new mix. With the improved combustion, there is also a risk of overheating the engine before you get things tweaked. It is highly recommended that there be an exhaust manifold temp sensor installed.

Frank Lee 06-25-2016 02:01 PM

Why why god why???

spacemanspif 06-25-2016 08:30 PM

Thanks Chaz, that the guy! Case closed, nothing but hot air apparently.

ctmaybury@yahoo.com 06-26-2016 02:05 PM

Use lots of big solar cells at home for the electrolysis and a high pressure commpressor to store the h and the o then use them in a car or truck for water vapor emissions. The whole setup would be fun and expensive to make, but would never pay for itself. Using the charging system in your car to run one is a joke. Water is made of h and o, but it's like ash in that it has already burnt.

oil pan 4 06-26-2016 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the hho web site
In checking out some hho videos and sites, it was pointed out that with computer controlled engines, the benefits are short-term. Once the computer compensates for the imbalance, it negates the benefit. You have to have the computer tuned for the new mix. With the improved combustion, there is also a risk of overheating the engine before you get things tweaked. It is highly recommended that there be an exhaust manifold temp sensor installed.

The typical unicorn "it wont work because" statement.
A few years ago it wouldn't work because the HHO would rust the exhaust manifold out and you need a stainless steel one, which is not true.
Those garbage HHO bubblers don't do enough to over heat the engine under any circumstances.
Plus if that much heat was being rejected through the exhaust and coolant system then its highly inefficient. "Over heating" is not a condition of "improved efficiency".

oil pan 4 06-26-2016 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctmaybury@yahoo.com (Post 517237)
Use a high pressure commpressor to store the h and the o

A few years ago a retard HHO scientists Darwin awarded him self and injured 2 other people doing this.

RustyLugNut 06-27-2016 01:56 PM

You don't need the compression step.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ctmaybury@yahoo.com (Post 517237)
Use lots of big solar cells at home for the electrolysis and a high pressure commpressor to store the h and the o then use them in a car or truck for water vapor emissions. The whole setup would be fun and expensive to make, but would never pay for itself. Using the charging system in your car to run one is a joke. Water is made of h and o, but it's like ash in that it has already burnt.

Electrolysis is unaffected by pressure, thus, you simply use a version of the Hoffman Apparatus and let the electrolyser compress your O2 and H2 gasses to your desired pressures. There is the issue of the unbalance output of H2 vs O2 so there will be some valving at the least.

RustyLugNut 06-27-2016 02:05 PM

I believe he is speaking about separating the gasses.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by oil pan 4 (Post 517240)
A few years ago a retard HHO scientists Darwin awarded him self and injured 2 other people doing this.

It is true that mixing the output gasses together under pressure can result in the hydrogen reaching the point of spontaneous combustion. Hydrogen has a very low energy of ignition even if it's ignition temperature is high at standard temperature and pressure (STP). By adding pressure, the added latent energy causes the lowering of the ignition temperature. Once the ignition temperature coincides with the energy of ignition . . . Boom!

But, if you know what you are doing, things are perfectly safe. And I know what I'm doing.

Ryland 06-27-2016 02:11 PM

With 22 million views, $0.0008 per view, this guy made over $17,000 off his video!
It doesn't matter if he knows he's spreading bs, he's figured out how to make something from nothing.

RustyLugNut 06-27-2016 02:22 PM

There is some basis for the hype.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by spacemanspif (Post 517192)
Thanks Chaz, that the guy! Case closed, nothing but hot air apparently.

It is just buried deep within the drivel.

Hydrogen seeding to form reactive radicals before the onset of ignition is a basic fact of combustion science. Research continues in this.

Electrolysis produces a measured amount of ozone in the oxygen stream. Research has shown that 40ppm (parts per million) can measurably accelerate the combustion reaction. Common mineral "impurities" found in common tap water can bias electrolysis to produce more ozone.

Every HHO aficionado I have contacted knows nothing of the above. Most of the detractors fall into the same lack of knowledge. In more learned circles a "wait and see" or " more work needs to be done" conclusion usually follows a heated discussion. And that is my conclusion on this subject.

RustyLugNut 06-27-2016 02:25 PM

This is true.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryland (Post 517316)
With 22 million views, $0.0008 per view, this guy made over $17,000 off his video!
It doesn't matter if he knows he's spreading bs, he's figured out how to make something from nothing.

But this is just an aside to the original question of " could there be something to this".

Xist 06-28-2016 12:00 AM

I prefer this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6GsXhBb10k

oil pan 4 06-28-2016 01:45 AM

Anyone trying to compress hho does not know what they are doing. A tank filled with hho is a cheap bomb.
The only thing to this will be more people killed and injured.

ChazInMT 06-28-2016 02:18 AM

Rustylugnut.....You need desperately to explain something to me. We have to assume that by adding 1 part in 100 to the fuel stream, (I'm just guessing that you are disassociating a quart of water for every 25 gallons of gas) that it is going to be exceedingly difficult increase the efficiency of the ICE. You can talk flame fronts and hydrogen seeding till yer blue in the face, but Gasoline IS HYDROGEN!! It isn't some sorta nerfgas, it is hydrogen loosely attached to carbon, that's it. The air is 21% oxygen, so when you add tiny amounts of hydrogen and oxygen that you have disassociated on board your car, you are really only adding a modicum of fuel to the stream.

Now it stands to reason that if it takes more energy to split the hydrogen and oxygen than you can get by recombining them....just alone! You can't get more energy when you recombine no matter what. And since an engine is 30% efficient, and an alternator is like 70% efficient, you only are getting 1 watt of energy in electricity for every 5 needed in fuel to power you hydrogen diffusing apparatus.

How the hell are you supposed to see any efficiency gain whatsoever when it takes 5 times the amount of energy to create the minuscule amount of extra fuel that requires 80% more energy to take apart than can be derived by burning it in your engine?

Where is your disconnect from reality here? Seriously, if you cannot explain how you are supposed to overcome these very basic principles of physics than you need to just go away and quit posting nonsensical drivel.

Numbers Rusty, show us numbers about where this magical energy comes from to improve a vehicles combustion enough to see any improvement at all when you are starting from a 5 to 1 energy deficit at the outset. How do you go from 5 to 1 to improvement? Tell us where the 500% efficiency gain is JUST TO BREAK-EVEN? Then explain where the 10,000% gains in efficiency are produced by adding tiny amounts of hydrogen and oxygen to the engines fuel stream which might be seen as an actual small improvement in MPG by someone who is very carefully testing their mileage?

Fact is you can't, because physics won't allow you to get more energy out of a system than you put into it, unless you're talking about nuclear power, which you clearly are not.

And by numbers you need to provide volumetric data on hydrogen produced and added to the fuel stream along with the volume of fuel in the form of gasoline on a like basis. Then explain what fantastic phenomena occurs at these volumes, which you are able to produce, that create so much extra energy. And tell me how much electric current/power is required to produce this hydrogen, and run that back through the alternator and engine to see how much fuel is required to generate the electricity that creates the hydrogen from water.

Here's a handy link to the Wiki page on the electrolysis of water to help you get a start.
Here's another handy link to determine the megajoules of energy in a gallon of gasoline (you'll need to know that in order to figure out it'll take at least 1.5 gallons of gas to perform electrolysis on a quart of water.)

RustyLugNut 06-28-2016 05:04 AM

I have argued this point with you in other threads.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ChazInMT (Post 517377)
Rustylugnut.....You need desperately to explain something to me. We have to assume that by adding 1 part in 100 to the fuel stream, (I'm just guessing that you are disassociating a quart of water for every 25 gallons of gas) that it is going to be exceedingly difficult increase the efficiency of the ICE. You can talk flame fronts and hydrogen seeding till yer blue in the face, but Gasoline IS HYDROGEN!! It isn't some sorta nerfgas, it is hydrogen loosely attached to carbon, that's it. The air is 21% oxygen, so when you add tiny amounts of hydrogen and oxygen that you have disassociated on board your car, you are really only adding a modicum of fuel to the stream.

Now it stands to reason that if it takes more energy to split the hydrogen and oxygen than you can get by recombining them....just alone! You can't get more energy when you recombine no matter what. And since an engine is 30% efficient, and an alternator is like 70% efficient, you only are getting 1 watt of energy in electricity for every 5 needed in fuel to power you hydrogen diffusing apparatus.

How the hell are you supposed to see any efficiency gain whatsoever when it takes 5 times the amount of energy to create the minuscule amount of extra fuel that requires 80% more energy to take apart than can be derived by burning it in your engine?

Where is your disconnect from reality here? Seriously, if you cannot explain how you are supposed to overcome these very basic principles of physics than you need to just go away and quit posting nonsensical drivel.

Numbers Rusty, show us numbers about where this magical energy comes from to improve a vehicles combustion enough to see any improvement at all when you are starting from a 5 to 1 energy deficit at the outset. How do you go from 5 to 1 to improvement? Tell us where the 500% efficiency gain is JUST TO BREAK-EVEN? Then explain where the 10,000% gains in efficiency are produced by adding tiny amounts of hydrogen and oxygen to the engines fuel stream which might be seen as an actual small improvement in MPG by someone who is very carefully testing their mileage?

Fact is you can't, because physics won't allow you to get more energy out of a system than you put into it, unless you're talking about nuclear power, which you clearly are not.

And by numbers you need to provide volumetric data on hydrogen produced and added to the fuel stream along with the volume of fuel in the form of gasoline on a like basis. Then explain what fantastic phenomena occurs at these volumes, which you are able to produce, that create so much extra energy. And tell me how much electric current/power is required to produce this hydrogen, and run that back through the alternator and engine to see how much fuel is required to generate the electricity that creates the hydrogen from water.

Here's a handy link to the Wiki page on the electrolysis of water to help you get a start.
Here's another handy link to determine the megajoules of energy in a gallon of gasoline (you'll need to know that in order to figure out it'll take at least 1.5 gallons of gas to perform electrolysis on a quart of water.)

What you are speaking of is the simple viewpoint of the HIGH SCHOOL student. If I remember right, you came from a nuclear technology background so it should not come as a surprise to you that there are specialties in engineering .

I refer you to a book called "Combustion", by Glassman and Yetter. It is used in many undergraduate/graduate courses in combustion science. In the first part of the book the discussion centers on the complexity of combustion. Octane (C8H18) does not simply thermally de-polymerize and go directly to the combustion ashes of CO2 and H2O. There are many pathways and side reactions that the de-polymerization can take. This takes time. Thus you have a flame front and flame speed. One reaction pathway may release heat which is robbed by another pathway. A plethora of smaller chain molecules may exist at some point all competing for the energy or releasing energy as it may. This takes time. Yes, you can simply take the heats of formation of C8H18 and CO2 and H20 and get the total heat of combustion, but that is only part of the story. Time is the other. During de-polymerization, highly reactive radicals such as H+, OH- , OOH, HOOH and so forth are created. Their existence was theorized decades ago and only in the last decade has instrumentation and detection techniques allowed us to verify them. These radicals are important in that they "rip apart" the long chain hydrocarbons into shorter species. By adding a small amount of H2 and O3 before the ignition point free radicals can be formed via the heat addition of compression, radiation and turbulence since the energy of dissociation for H2 and O3 is quite low. This rich cloud of active radicals is now ready to pounce on the long chain hydrocarbons and release even more hydrogen and form even more radicals in a domino effect. The seeding of the fuel mix with these radicals "railroads" some of the side reactions resulting in a faster flame front. No more energy is created in this reaction, but the combustion TIME is shorter. If you have an engine that needs 30 degrees of ignition lead to produce a required amount of torque, it means you are wasting 30 degrees of pressure rise for that power stroke. If you can accelerate the flame rate and now only need 20 degrees of ignition lead, you are wasting much less of your pressure rise and can use it in the productive down stroke. You can now use less fuel.

All the above takes place in an engine that is in detonation. If your fuel mix is heated via intake turbulence, absorptive radiation from the engine mass and then by compression heating, you may just have produced the conditions for thermal de-polymerization to start BEFORE the ignition spark as free radicals are formed from the oxygen in the air, traces of exhaust gas and trapped active radicals from crevices in quench zones. If your conditions are sub-detonation, you can push the combustion in that (detonation) direction by seeding of hydrogen or ozone.

So, how much HHO is needed? That is not a simple question because all engines and power regimes are not the same. But, the best engines to respond to HHO addition are the same ones that want to detonate. Iron blocks with iron heads and high compression along with high swirl intakes need the least amount of HHO to see effect. I have built and tested to some degree, a 2.4 liter iron block and iron head engine that had a Siamese intake/exhaust configuration that heated the incoming air and thus the engine could run at very lean (28:1 AFR) and could produce useful power levels (20 hp) at cruise (1500 RPM) by using a 22:1 compression ratio. This engine was to power our AutoXprize entrant. By adding an exceedingly small amount of HHO, a reduction in ignition lead time as described above was seen. Thus a measurable fuel savings of a few percent could be gained depending on variables. So how small an amount? 1:750 - 1:2000 ( HHO:air). Since the engine cruised un-throttled, that means you would need only 1 liter per minute of HHO to only several hundred cubic centimeters per minute.

So how much electrical energy is that? I'll leave that to you. That is simple high school stuff.

Start with a Coulomb. Divide that into the moles to produce 1 liter of HHO gas then convert that back into amperes and apply your alternator efficiency. I've skipped some steps but I'm sure you can fill them in.

RustyLugNut 06-28-2016 05:28 AM

I feel a disclaimer is in order.
 
Just like Aerohead defends and corrects posts associated with the subject of aerodynamics , I feel inclined to defend and correct posts related to the subject of combustion theory. By simplifying the subject, I may do a disservice and skew or err. However, my position is simple and clear. I do not support the HHO salesmen who make unsubstantiated claims and outright fallacies. At the same time, the simple rebuttal of "science says HHO can't work" is itself false. I have repeatedly outlined theories and text books that support the possibility that HHO could have an effect if certain variables are met. Also, ignoring the effect of the other component of HHO, ozone, is ignoring a large portion of the effect. SWI and NRL has determined exceedingly small amounts of ozone accelerate combustion. This effect should not be ignored in discussions if dialogue is to be complete.

I have tried to reply to some of the most brutal and abusive dialogue ever put out by members of this forum. It is seemingly allowed by the Moderators. ChazInMT is only one of many. His failure of understanding is simply that of education. But, his hubris is one that permeates this forum. If you do not have an understanding of a subject, why do you argue?

RedDevil 06-28-2016 05:38 AM

Under very special conditions, like your extreme lean burn engine with heated intakes running stationary, a minute addition of hydrogen and ozone may have a measurable benefit.
As it apparently solves a problem with that process.
We never have found any proof that it works on an engine under 'normal' conditions.

You can lash ChazInMT for having a high school students viewpoint.
That just indicates it is time to ride this beasty back to where it belongs - the corral, where this subject has already been discussed over and over again.

RustyLugNut 06-28-2016 06:02 AM

Because it worked under specific conditions, it is not a viable process?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedDevil (Post 517385)
Under very special conditions, like your extreme lean burn engine with heated intakes running stationary, a minute addition of hydrogen and ozone may have a measurable benefit.
As it apparently solves a problem with that process.
We never have found any proof that it works on an engine under 'normal' conditions.

You can lash ChazInMT for having a high school students viewpoint.
That just indicates it is time to ride this beasty back to where it belongs - the corral, where this subject has already been discussed over and over again.

No, it does not work as HHO scammers claim. But it can be made to work with caveats. Just because mason jars are ineffective on the common auto does not mean the science is bunk. Just because it will never be a market success, does that mean it has no value?

And I was very clear, ChazInMT, as well as others do not have the background to discuss thermochemistry and yet they do. Just because this forum is uneducated in a subject matter, does that mean it belongs in the Corral? Take the subject to a university professor or a specialist in the field and the subject is seen to have possibilities or at least is in need of more research. But, the effect to condense the pressure profile in the combustion chamber can lead to more power produced than the energy to make the HHO. That power comes from the WASTED energy always found in heat engines! For some reason this escapes comprehension.

RedDevil 06-28-2016 07:12 AM

Mmm. The inefficiency of heat engines is mostly due to thermodynamical limitations, not the combustion process itself. HHO cannot change that.

The challenge is to make the subject understandable for the audience you are communicating with. Unless you just want to make them believe you are right, not truly understand it.
I for one am interested but sceptical; I will not accept HHO does any good until I understand why - or see proof.

I have taken the subject to a specialist in the field, by the way; namely my physics PhD brother in law, who has been working on stirling engines and is now involved in a generator project.
Like many he thinks that small amounts of HHO cannot have a significant effect on the efficiency of an engine.
He is willing to discuss almost any aspect of combustion engines - but not HHO. He said it is just a waste of time.

ChazInMT 06-28-2016 09:16 AM

Again Rusty....Only a bunch of gibberish and NO NUMBERS!!!!!

EXPLAIN The High School chemistry to me!!! You say a few percent gain can be achieved when I show that it takes more than a few percent chunk of your fuel to create it.

Tell us how much water is disassociated to create a fuel stream?
What percentage does one get of your magic ozone in this reaction and what percentage of efficiency does it contribute?...A Number please. Not "Gosh it sure is significant!!"
Tell us WHAT PERCENT efficiency gain is achieved in the combustion?
How much energy is required to disassociate the amount of water you are talking about and where does this come from?
These are all legitimate questions I am asking you for answers on since you are an expert in this field, you can tell me. If they're not legitimate questions explain why and tell me how it works.

These are real numbers you can tell us, with your "Post Doctorate" level of knowledge on the subject, it should be like flicking a fly off your shoulder.

And quit accusing me of being a low brow academically, I'm able to understand and comprehend anything you can explain to me.
I'm just asking you to explain this so I see it works.

BTW, I am fully aware that the HHO may indeed improve the combustion....I have never said that it won't help a small amount, it's just that for all the trouble and energy you would have to put into it, not to mention again that it takes far more energy to create the fuel than the added output from it. I say under ALL circumstances, even under your ideal edge of the envelope of combustion conditions, the idea that you can create HHO on board and utilize it to improve efficiency to generate more power than you would have otherwise to not only overcome the energy required to produce the HHO, but have a surplus that finds its way to driving the tires is unabashed crap.

Other than tell me I am stupid, and you are smart, then spew a bunch of crap about how a small amount of HHO may improve combustion (which I concede it may), you NEVER show numbers.

Never Show Any NUMBERS.

Why Don't you organize these, 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,., in such a way that they can let us all know that this can work.

You're good at saying we're all just too stupid to get it. Your good at throwing around a bunch of information on the intricacies of combustion. You really, really, suck at relating these improvements to NUMBERS that we all can understand that show how the

"Time is the other. During de-polymerization, highly reactive radicals such as H+, OH- , OOH, HOOH and so forth are created. Their existence was theorized decades ago and only in the last decade has instrumentation and detection techniques allowed us to verify them. These radicals are important in that they "rip apart" the long chain hydrocarbons into shorter species. By adding a small amount of H2 and O3 before the ignition point free radicals can be formed via the heat addition of compression, radiation and turbulence since the energy of dissociation for H2 and O3 is quite low. This rich cloud of active radicals is now ready to pounce on the long chain hydrocarbons and release even more hydrogen and form even more radicals in a domino effect. The seeding of the fuel mix with these radicals "railroads" some of the side reactions resulting in a faster flame front. No more energy is created in this reaction, but the combustion TIME is shorter." Effect

increases the efficiency of the engine using a NUMBER.

Do you get it Mr. Post Doc?
Numbers.
Show us NUMBERS.

Don't call me stupid anymore. I'm not.
Don't tell us about the whiz bang effects of 0³ & H² unless you are giving us...
Numbers!
Numbers!
Numbers!
Numbers!
Numbers!
Numbers!
Numbers!

acparker 06-28-2016 01:09 PM

I did a google search using: introduction of hydrogen to enhance combustion

There is a wikipedia article, "Hydrogen fuel enhancement".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_enhancement

I have included some articles from the search results below:

Effect of hydrogen-diesel fuel co-combustion on exhaust emissions with verification using an in–cylinder gas sampling technique.
Effect of hydrogen-diesel fuel co-combustion on exhaust emissions with verification using an in?cylinder gas sampling technique

Use of Hydrogen-Methane Blends in Internal Combustion Engines
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/40243.pdf

Effect of Hydrogen Enriched Hydrocarbon Combustion on Emissions and Performance (The author, Jacob Wall, is an hho true believer and internet advocate)
http://pesn.com/2009/01/17/9501513_1...Combustion.pdf

RustyLugNut 06-29-2016 11:11 AM

I have a physics PHD brother in law too.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedDevil (Post 517390)
Mmm. The inefficiency of heat engines is mostly due to thermodynamical limitations, not the combustion process itself. HHO cannot change that.

The challenge is to make the subject understandable for the audience you are communicating with. Unless you just want to make them believe you are right, not truly understand it.
I for one am interested but sceptical; I will not accept HHO does any good until I understand why - or see proof.

I have taken the subject to a specialist in the field, by the way; namely my physics PhD brother in law, who has been working on stirling engines and is now involved in a generator project.
Like many he thinks that small amounts of HHO cannot have a significant effect on the efficiency of an engine.
He is willing to discuss almost any aspect of combustion engines - but not HHO. He said it is just a waste of time.

He was as adamant as others at the first. He absolutely felt it broke the laws of conservation and so forth. Until I mentioned those same laws of thermodynamics apply to the chemical world and what happens in the combustion chamber. Even there, HHO cannot work as a "fuel". It is simply an ingredient. And in that way it can affect combustion and it can contract the pressure rise. He is not a believer but he sees the possibilities. He is now retired from the University of California, but he provides contacts there.

I have presented the idea to chemical engineers with masters, and some think it is more than plausible. There is no reason it should not be. However, the idea of a contracted combustion caused by seeding is not a very heavily invested research field until the last couple decades. The idea of "railroading the side reactions" is a term that is my own and would need research at the university/government level. It is far from a simple.

And the idea is simple. HHO is not a fuel. It is not a catalyst. It takes part in the combustion. The combustion is accelerated a measurable amount thus ignition timing is able to be optimized closer to top dead center and pressure losses before top dead center (TDC) are transferred to pressure gains after TDC. Is this breaking any laws of physics. No. Do gear heads understand this? Absolutely. Do mechanical engineers know this? Yes. Brake-mean-effective pressure (BMEP) calculations show that a few pounds per square inch rise in BMEP results in horsepower. Can this gain in power overcome the losses to generated quite inefficiently the HHO. With caveats, it can.

Is the gain double or triple the efficiency that HHO scamsmen claim? Of course not. At stoichiometric fuel mixtures, the gain is minimal - in single digits of percentage.

Has anything I said in the above post broken any laws of science? No. And, we haven't even discussed the real DIY value of HHO in extending the lean limit for lean burn. That is where there can be some value to us here on the forum.

RustyLugNut 06-29-2016 12:15 PM

Your foolishness is showing.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ChazInMT (Post 517396)
Again Rusty....Only a bunch of gibberish and NO NUMBERS!!!!!

EXPLAIN The High School chemistry to me!!! You say a few percent gain can be achieved when I show that it takes more than a few percent chunk of your fuel to create it.

Tell us how much water is disassociated to create a fuel stream?
What percentage does one get of your magic ozone in this reaction and what percentage of efficiency does it contribute?...A Number please. Not "Gosh it sure is significant!!"
Tell us WHAT PERCENT efficiency gain is achieved in the combustion?
How much energy is required to disassociate the amount of water you are talking about and where does this come from?
These are all legitimate questions I am asking you for answers on since you are an expert in this field, you can tell me. If they're not legitimate questions explain why and tell me how it works.

These are real numbers you can tell us, with your "Post Doctorate" level of knowledge on the subject, it should be like flicking a fly off your shoulder.

And quit accusing me of being a low brow academically, I'm able to understand and comprehend anything you can explain to me.
I'm just asking you to explain this so I see it works.

BTW, I am fully aware that the HHO may indeed improve the combustion....I have never said that it won't help a small amount, it's just that for all the trouble and energy you would have to put into it, not to mention again that it takes far more energy to create the fuel than the added output from it. I say under ALL circumstances, even under your ideal edge of the envelope of combustion conditions, the idea that you can create HHO on board and utilize it to improve efficiency to generate more power than you would have otherwise to not only overcome the energy required to produce the HHO, but have a surplus that finds its way to driving the tires is unabashed crap.

Other than tell me I am stupid, and you are smart, then spew a bunch of crap about how a small amount of HHO may improve combustion (which I concede it may), you NEVER show numbers.

Never Show Any NUMBERS.

Why Don't you organize these, 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,., in such a way that they can let us all know that this can work.

You're good at saying we're all just too stupid to get it. Your good at throwing around a bunch of information on the intricacies of combustion. You really, really, suck at relating these improvements to NUMBERS that we all can understand that show how the

"Time is the other. During de-polymerization, highly reactive radicals such as H+, OH- , OOH, HOOH and so forth are created. Their existence was theorized decades ago and only in the last decade has instrumentation and detection techniques allowed us to verify them. These radicals are important in that they "rip apart" the long chain hydrocarbons into shorter species. By adding a small amount of H2 and O3 before the ignition point free radicals can be formed via the heat addition of compression, radiation and turbulence since the energy of dissociation for H2 and O3 is quite low. This rich cloud of active radicals is now ready to pounce on the long chain hydrocarbons and release even more hydrogen and form even more radicals in a domino effect. The seeding of the fuel mix with these radicals "railroads" some of the side reactions resulting in a faster flame front. No more energy is created in this reaction, but the combustion TIME is shorter." Effect

increases the efficiency of the engine using a NUMBER.

Do you get it Mr. Post Doc?
Numbers.
Show us NUMBERS.

Don't call me stupid anymore. I'm not.
Don't tell us about the whiz bang effects of 0³ & H² unless you are giving us...
Numbers!
Numbers!
Numbers!
Numbers!
Numbers!
Numbers!
Numbers!

You see, I don't disagree with anything you said in your original post. It is all correct. But, you cannot discuss anything greater than that it seems.

Can you not see that there is a great amount of wasted energy in an internal combustion engine? Fast burning fuels can minimize the wasted pressure rise before TDC. I am sure you know this as this is common knowledge. Are you familiar with BMEP? A common term and calculation done by mechanical engineers.

HP = BMEP x (displacement / 12) x RPM x power-pulses-per-revolution / 33000

A good discussion and derivation of the above formula can be found at

Brake Mean Effective Pressure (BMEP): The Performance Yardstick

Using the 2.4 liter engine I mentioned in an above post, our engine would need 75 psi of BMEP to output it's 20 HP cruise rating. If we could use no more fuel but use it to produce just 5 more psi of useful pressure, our output jumps to just below 22 HP. You can now lift off the gas pedal to maintain your current speed.

That engine needed 230 cc of HHO gas to produce that 22 HP along with the attendant fuel. That 230 cc of HHO was produced by running 10 amperes through a 4 cell series electrolyzer. At 14v alternator output, that represents 140 watts. Even with gross conversion efficiencies as low as 33%, you would spend 420 watts to produce a gain of 1490 for a net gain of 1070 watts.

I explained the thermochemical pathways to improving combustion via seeding and you could not understand the undergrad dialogue.

You may not be stupid. But your lack of understanding means this discussion will end at your level.

I simply say, HHO affects combustion. There are so many parameters to take into account that giving percentages gain without discussion of Arrehnius rate equations and free energies and so forth is pointless.

acparker 06-29-2016 12:30 PM

HHO is a fuel. When it burns it creates heat or power. It is an expensive fuel, mainly because we must consume another fuel or other sources of energy to create it.

There is a lot of embodied energy in all fuels, but much of that energy is "free" to us, so we discount it when comparing to hydrogen and HHO. In most cases, it makes little sense to convert discounted energy into hydrogen or HHO when we can get desired work from the cheaper source directly.

An exception is when hydrogen or HHO can increase (cost effectively) the efficient combustion of discount fuels, and/or decrease (cost effectively) harmful emissions. Most of the mainstream (non-techno-evangelist) research is in those areas.

RustyLugNut 06-29-2016 12:33 PM

In the volumes used from on board generators . . .
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by acparker (Post 517495)
HHO is a fuel. When it burns it creates heat or power. It is an expensive fuel, mainly because we must consume another fuel or other sources of energy to create it.

There is a lot of embodied energy in all fuels, but much of that energy is "free" to us, so we discount it when comparing to hydrogen and HHO. In most cases, it makes little sense to convert discounted energy into hydrogen or HHO when we can get desired work from the cheaper source directly.

An exception is when hydrogen or HHO can increase (cost effectively) the efficient combustion of discount fuels, and/or decrease (cost effectively) harmful emissions. Most of the mainstream (non-techno-evangelist) research is in those areas.

. . . HHO's fuel contribution is insignificant.

RedDevil 06-29-2016 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut (Post 517481)
And the idea is simple. HHO is not a fuel. It is not a catalyst. It takes part in the combustion. The combustion is accelerated a measurable amount thus ignition timing is able to be optimized closer to top dead center and pressure losses before top dead center (TDC) are transferred to pressure gains after TDC.

Strictly speaking HHO is a fuel, even providing its own oxygen; but its contribution as a fuel is just a fraction of the cost of splitting it through electrolysis, so I get your not counting it as fuel.

The challenge is to prove that a small amount of HHO does indeed speed up the combustion.
Now that should be doable with a modern car engine and an ODB2 device,
driving at a constant speed, flipping the HHO supply on and off and watching the effect on timing retard and instant fuel consumption.
Am I right in that?
Someone must have tried this already?

RustyLugNut 06-29-2016 01:39 PM

I have . . .
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedDevil (Post 517499)
Strictly speaking HHO is a fuel, even providing its own oxygen; but its contribution as a fuel is just a fraction of the cost of splitting it through electrolysis, so I get your not counting it as fuel.

The challenge is to prove that a small amount of HHO does indeed speed up the combustion.
Now that should be doable with a modern car engine and an ODB2 device,
driving at a constant speed, flipping the HHO supply on and off and watching the effect on timing retard and instant fuel consumption.
Am I right in that?
Someone must have tried this already?

And the results are erratic. Software has a lot to do with this. Short term fuel trim is the best indicator. Using a variable output electrolyzer is imperative. Use too much HHO and the engine bogs if timing is not adjusted and the engine computer does things to compensate. Use too little and nothing happens. There is simply too much going on to even begin to "tune" for HHO. The work of pfgpro and others who have the ability to control their engine tune may answer more than simply dumping the gas into the intake of the common car.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:39 PM.

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