Working on hydrogen kit 60%savings.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Hypermiler1995

I surrender!

If you know what you have, you should be firm in your belief - belief based on evidence. Continue forward to collect more evidence.

Just go ahead and build your devices and take your steps. Be as open minded as you can and continue to learn as you gain experience. That experience will allow you to filter out the dross that collects around provocative subjects such as HHO.

The important thing is to understand the skepticism toward HHO is well warranted. Starting a thread in the Unicorn Corral is not an issue if you understand this standing can be reversed and the topic/thread can be moved out of the Corral if you can provide substantial evidence that meets or exceeds the Sagan Test.

The bottom line is the need to build, test and document to a higher degree than the pie tin and Coraplast crowd. You will come under scrutiny that is greater than the norm on this forum. You must have a much thicker skin than the rest. And that is as it should be.

If you need any help on your build, go ahead and disclose on a build thread and I can provide help on the matter both theoretical, practical and with hardware.

Most of the reasonable ridicule will come from people who are good contributors on this forum. If you test well, you can sway them. The rest - don't worry about.

[oil pan 4]

The pie tin and coraplast crowd at least try to follow the teachings of aerodynamics, awell established subdiscipline of fluid mechanics.

The HHO crowd are a bunch of pseudoscience following perpetual motion machine builders.

[Hypermiler1995]

I think that aero mods are the easiest way to boost Fe, but I think engine efficiency needs to be looked into more, I mean, 22% efficiency? That's terrible!

And who said anything about running on hho? Fe boost has been the only goal.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by elhigh

You may find someone here who has installed such a system, but you will also find that that person is not often taken seriously.

Mods, I smell unicorn.

Do you care to ridicule my credentials?

This forum is a collection of hobbyists who enjoy a certain topic. At times, this forum tries to pretend it is otherwise.

On the side, it should be noted that the "HHO devices" I have designed, built and installed were for industrial process gas applications. Only a half dozen were placed on gasoline/diesel engines. However, this still puts me well ahead of the curve in experience and understanding.

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by Hypermiler1995

I think that aero mods are the easiest way to boost Fe, but I think engine efficiency needs to be looked into more, I mean, 22% efficiency? That's terrible!

And who said anything about running on hho? Fe boost has been the only goal.

Might want to check this out:

Toyota targets 45% thermal efficiency for engines in next-gen hybrids

According to Nakata, Toyota aims to develop a gasoline engine that operates at more than 45 percent thermal efficiency for use in future hybrid vehicles.

To put that number into perspective, the engine in the first- and second-generation Toyota Prius had a thermal efficiency of approximately 37 percent and the 1.8-liter mill in the third-gen Prius boasts a thermal efficiency of 38 percent.

Also:

Thermal efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When expressed as a percentage, the thermal efficiency must be between 0% and 100%. Efficiency is typically less than 100% because there are inefficiencies such as friction and heat loss that convert the energy into alternative forms. For example, a typical gasoline automobile engine operates at around 25% efficiency, and a large coal-fueled electrical generating plant peaks at about 46%. The largest diesel engine in the world peaks at 51.7%. In a combined cycle plant, thermal efficiencies are approaching 60%.

A 100% efficient engine would not need a radiator because it would not get warm. It would have zero friction and no heat would transfer through the cylinder walls or out of the exhaust.

Traditional power plants operate at around 40% efficiency, so the engine in a modern Prius is actually of similar efficiency to electricity produced in most power plants and diesel engines. Combined cycle plants use waste heated (what would end up in a radiator or coming out of the exhaust in a car) in a second stage to produce more electricity, but if we're talking apples to apples, what you have in your Prius is as good as any first-stage combustion engine in the world.

EDIT: That 60% loss is not from inability to effectively combust fuels, but rather, comes from heat soaking through cylinder walls and being lost out of the exhaust. There's very little you can do to get more energy out of the fuel itself, which is what most HHO proponents suggest is happening.

You might consider a project to try to capture exhaust and radiator waste heat. Some on here have suggested steam cycles or using TECs to generate electricity from waste heat. You could then use this electricity to make hydrogen, or better yet, just use it to power the car so you don't have the drag of an inefficient alternator pulling on your engine.

[JRMichler]

Welcome to Ecomodder.

You can get out of the Unicorn Corral if you test and report in accordance with this discussion: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ery-11445.html. Please. We just want modifications to be properly tested and reported. Bland assertions are not good enough.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The pie tin and coraplast crowd at least try to follow the teachings of aerodynamics, awell established subdiscipline of fluid mechanics.

The HHO crowd are a bunch of pseudoscience following perpetual motion machine builders.

You even made note of the fact that the complexity of my posts were the reason topics like this reside in the Corral. And that is fine by me. Why don't you debunk my numerous posts that a small amount of hydrogen and oxygen can affect the combustion profile through various thermochemical pathways? That is a well established discipline of chemistry.

I do not think the OP or Hypermiler pretend the addition HHO will allow us perpetual motion. You and others have put those words into this thread. Bad on you. In a court of law, your arguments would be disallowed.

They and myself are simply saying " a percentage gain may be had under the right circumstances - let us investigate".

If you want to add to the discussion - both pro and con - feel free. But do not drag the thread into the drivel that you suppose the Corral is filled with.

"Be kind to Unicorns". It's a simple concept to let them live or die on their own accord. They are fragile beings. They don't need your butchery.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Ecky

Might want to check this out:

EDIT: That 60% loss is not from inability to effectively combust fuels, but rather, comes from heat soaking through cylinder walls and being lost out of the exhaust. There's very little you can do to get more energy out of the fuel itself, which is what most HHO proponents suggest is happening.

I am a "proponent" of HHO to the point I know it affects combustion. And trust me, I know the difference between thermal efficiency and combustion efficiency and I appreciate your definition as both terms are misused constantly on this forum.

However, I disagree that little can be done to to get more energy out of the fuel. By your own presentation, you admit roughly 60 % of thermal energy is lost in a good engine. And yet research has shown combustion engines that use the HCCI ( homogenous charge compression ignition ) mechanism can exceed 50% thermal efficiency for various reasons. Large advanced diesels also do the same.

I am simply supporting the thought that a small addition of HHO can affect the combustion profile to push an engine of 30-35% thermal efficiency into the 40-45% range by virtue of more rapid combustion ( similar to the advantages of HCCI ) or by extended lean burn ( similar to large diesels ).

I suggest that we let folks like Hypermiler and the original poster continue the qualitative analysis of "does it work". That can be stretched into the quantitative analysis of "how much". Theoretical understanding can come later.

[Ecky]

Wouldn't a greatly increased combustion rate require a redesign of the engine to gain any benefit? That is, design an engine with much higher piston speeds? The valves will still be closed and the heat will be held in the cylinder for a given period either way.

I'm getting a bit out of my depth here, admittedly.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Ecky

Wouldn't a greatly increased combustion rate require a redesign of the engine to gain any benefit? That is, design an engine with much higher piston speeds? The valves will still be closed and the heat will be held in the cylinder for a given period either way.

I'm getting a bit out of my depth here, admittedly.

HCCI engines which ignite all the fuel within a short time frame are markedly different from early attempts. You are correct in assuming the dwell time at or around TDC ( top dead center ) is important and juggling crank stroke and connecting rod length will be needed to maximize advantages gained from contracted ignition/combustion events. However, a smaller gain can be derived from simple elimination of ignition lead time. I think you will agree in the classic discussion of ignition lead time that less lead is more efficient. An engine, under a specific load/rpm will be more thermally efficient if it's ignition lead is smaller to produce the specified power. We had another thread, which I should revive again, where pfgpro put up some very good graphics of pressure curves for combustion. It made it clear that the pressure rise before TDC is all negative work and lost energy. If you can contract combustion and reduce lead timing, you can gain back that energy. This can be done on any engine with varying levels of success. Pfgpro has shown this with some measured runs on his modified engine and his leaky nitrous "experiment" showed us a hint of what could be gained by adding an accelerant.