Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > DIY / How-to
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-28-2011, 11:16 AM   #411 (permalink)
Grrr :-)
 
Nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Levittown PA
Posts: 800

Cherokee - '88 Jeep Cherokee
90 day: 19.44 mpg (US)

Ryo-Ohki - '94 Geo Metro Xfi
90 day: 50.15 mpg (US)

Vger 2 - '00 Plymouth Grand Voyager SE

Ninja - '89 Geo Tracker
90 day: 30.27 mpg (US)
Thanks: 12
Thanked 31 Times in 25 Posts
I would appreciate it if you stopped posting arguments here in the thread since your INTENT seems to be to CAUSE metrompg to close the thread. I replied to you privately and you RETURNED the conversation to the thread.

NO water is being injected.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 01-28-2011, 12:02 PM   #412 (permalink)
MPGuino Supporter
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Hungary
Posts: 1,807

iNXS - '10 Opel Zafira 111 Anniversary

Suzi - '02 Suzuki Swift GL
Thanks: 828
Thanked 708 Times in 456 Posts
Well, let's see...

You're taking water from a reservior of some sort, expending energy to convert the water into a form that can be sucked into the engine, allowing this form to interact with the combustion process to lower in-cylinder temperatures and bring the process farther away from detonation, and expelling the water out the tailpipe when you're done.

Because of the beneficial effects of lowering in-cylinder temperatures and moving the combusion process away from detonation, you can then run a much leaner air/fuel mix than before, and you end up reducing throttling losses and allow your engine to push your car forward with better fuel economy than before.

How is this not water injection? Simply because you're electrolyzing the water?

Quit trying to stifle the debate, please. The idea must be able to stand on its own merits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 12:32 PM   #413 (permalink)
DieselMiser
 
ConnClark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Richland,WA
Posts: 985

Das Schlepper Frog - '85 Mercedes Benz 300SD
90 day: 23.23 mpg (US)

Gentoo320 - '04 Mercedes C320 4Matic
90 day: 22.44 mpg (US)
Thanks: 46
Thanked 231 Times in 160 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by t vago View Post
Then, you take that 600 watts at about 95% efficiency (wire and probe resistance, etc.) and get 570 watts equivalent of H2 and O2 flow.
IF you can do electrolysis and come close to 95% efficient I'll make you a rich man. Using platinum electrodes the best you can expect is 50% to 70% efficiency in reality. Otherwise you looking at 20% to 40% at best.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 01:16 PM   #414 (permalink)
Grrr :-)
 
Nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Levittown PA
Posts: 800

Cherokee - '88 Jeep Cherokee
90 day: 19.44 mpg (US)

Ryo-Ohki - '94 Geo Metro Xfi
90 day: 50.15 mpg (US)

Vger 2 - '00 Plymouth Grand Voyager SE

Ninja - '89 Geo Tracker
90 day: 30.27 mpg (US)
Thanks: 12
Thanked 31 Times in 25 Posts
it can't stand on its own merits. its inefficient. but argue with logic not with intent to discredit.

no water is being injected into the engine. period. Hydrogen is being injected.

the fact that the result of this combustion is water is irrelevant.

My problem with HHO is not can it work but that it can not work efficiently and if you DO make a battery big enough to make HHO practical it will give you 3-6 times MORE RANGE if you just used it to run an electric motor.

IE its just not a good idea. but that does not mean it won't work.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 01:28 PM   #415 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

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 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Hydrogen as an aid to lean burn i.e. "homogenous charge compression ignition" DOES work, but this has been known for a long, long, time and yet as far as I know it hasn't made it out of the lab yet because it requires a much higher degree of control over the combustion process than is available on our road going stuff at this time. Maybe a backyard tinkerer can make it work... maybe not. I'm thinking "not".
__________________


  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
cfg83 (01-28-2011)
Old 01-28-2011, 01:36 PM   #416 (permalink)
Grrr :-)
 
Nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Levittown PA
Posts: 800

Cherokee - '88 Jeep Cherokee
90 day: 19.44 mpg (US)

Ryo-Ohki - '94 Geo Metro Xfi
90 day: 50.15 mpg (US)

Vger 2 - '00 Plymouth Grand Voyager SE

Ninja - '89 Geo Tracker
90 day: 30.27 mpg (US)
Thanks: 12
Thanked 31 Times in 25 Posts
On a modern computer car? probable not. the system will fight and resist you.

on a carburated car? yes but you will get a bigger gain by going to FI and Computerized so again no real point.

as an experiment? as a way to have fun and tinker? YES but as a real useful thing for the automotive industry? no.

I want SIMPLER not "more complex"
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 01:41 PM   #417 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

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 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Right. I think it's safe to say modern cars aren't up to it, even modded. The sensors and controls aren't good enough.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 01:44 PM   #418 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
euromodder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4,683

The SCUD - '15 Fiat Scudo L2
Thanks: 178
Thanked 652 Times in 516 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by t vago View Post
How is this not water injection? Simply because you're electrolyzing the water?
Because its chemical properties and physical composition are drastically changed by the electrolysis.

It's made out of water, and it will return to water after combustion.
But it isn't water when it enters the engine.
You don't stuff corn or rapeseed plants into your engine either, but ethanol as E85 or biodiesel.


Anyway, displacing diesel with LPG - or better still CNG - shows significant reductions in emissions, including C02, lower temperatures, more complete burning (hence the claims of increased efficiency), and reduced operating cost (as LPG and CNG are usually cheaper).

So the idea of simultaneously burning combustible gas isn't without merit.
__________________
Strayed to the Dark Diesel Side

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 03:35 PM   #419 (permalink)
MPGuino Supporter
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Hungary
Posts: 1,807

iNXS - '10 Opel Zafira 111 Anniversary

Suzi - '02 Suzuki Swift GL
Thanks: 828
Thanked 708 Times in 456 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by euromodder View Post
Because its chemical properties and physical composition are drastically changed by the electrolysis.
Okay, so instead of a two molecules of water, you get a molecule of diatomic oxygen and 2 molecules of diatomic hydrogen.

The point is, burning this stuff requires that you put in approximately 14 times as much power to generate this hydrogen gas, as you're going to get in return, by burning this stuff in an internal combustion engine.

You'd be better off introducing an equivalent amount of water into the engine, as you would with these fancy and dangerous HHO mechanisms. It's a lot less dangerous, and a lot more economical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by euromodder View Post
So the idea of simultaneously burning combustible gas isn't without merit.
You're introducing hydrogen gas that has an octane rating of 130, into a combustion chamber that has gasoline that has a minimum octane rating of 87. Of course, the octane rating of the resulting mixture will go up. Of course, the system will move away from detonation. Of course, that means you can lean out the 87 octane stuff as a result.

Again, how is this different from water injection?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 04:08 PM   #420 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: US
Posts: 76

sukisuki - '00 Suzuki Grand Vitara 4wd
90 day: 21.88 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 15 Times in 6 Posts
t_vago, HHO supporter don't claim that when you inject hydrogen (orto or para I don't remember what one is the most reactive) you add energy.
They know very well that the energy to dissociate the H2 and O2 from H2O would be bigger to the energy you would get from recombining them (because of the electrolysis efficiency ...).
They claim that H2 + gas + spark leads to a faster combustion (so all it changes is the speed of the burn) in a lean situation, much better than gas + spark.
This allows to extract more useful work from the combustion (we are talking about us) in a lean situation than what would happen normally.
At the end everything burns but with a different speed.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
what do you think of hydrogen mods (with video) igo EcoModding Central 18 11-13-2008 01:54 PM
Hydrogen Less than Gas Arminius The Lounge 4 08-03-2008 03:48 PM
GM's new hydrogen car SVOboy Fossil Fuel Free 0 01-08-2008 01:34 PM



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