Hydrogen Generator Experiment

[Nerys]

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.

[t vago]

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.

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by t vago

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.

[Nerys]

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.

[Frank Lee]

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".

[Nerys]

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"

[Frank Lee]

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.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by t vago

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.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by euromodder

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.

Originally Posted by euromodder

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?

[tangomar]

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.