Yeah we all know its a scam

[Arragonis]

@Rusty - I've added a thanks to your post for taking the time to answer my question. Still not convinced, but thanks for the effort.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by P-hack

But that 144 watts is coming from a "maybe" %65 efficient alternator, being driven by a "maybe" %30 efficient ICE... So that 144 watts represents 740 "watts" of fuel.

That is roughly the expenditure of one horsepower.

If that expenditure can result in a 2-3% increase of BMEP then you gain several more horsepower at your loadpoint.

This is not power that comes from some magical ether. It is power inherent in the fuel and is lost. All an effective hydrogen augmented combustion system does is minimize the burn before top-dead-center and the pressure gradient at angles after bottom-dead-center. Those pressure gradients are "negative" or lost power potentials.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

@Rusty - I've added a thanks to your post for taking the time to answer my question. Still not convinced, but thanks for the effort.

This subject resides in the Corral, and should until it has passed the Sagan Test. I hope to find the spare time to conduct the tests to see one way or another. It would benefit our community to have our own insight into the subject instead of the noise generated on the internet.

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

That is roughly the expenditure of one horsepower.

If that expenditure can result in a 2-3% increase of BMEP then you gain several more horsepower at your loadpoint.

I'm merely pointing out that 144 watts in and of itself is misleading in this context. And also the displacement of the engine is a variable as well, since 144 watts isn't going to have the same effect. But it is a good starting point anyway. There are a fair number of variables but not infinite, so the best way to seganize it is to isolate those variables via experimentation. You stated that under certain conditions you can get more than 144 watt gain with hho, can you graph out the gain vs those variables for a given displacement/configuration? Is it largely tied to rpm?

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by P-hack

I'm merely pointing out that 144 watts in and of itself is misleading in this context. And also the displacement of the engine is a variable as well, since 144 watts isn't going to have the same effect. But it is a good starting point anyway. There are a fair number of variables but not infinite, so the best way to seganize it is to isolate those variables via experimentation. You stated that under certain conditions you can get more than 144 watt gain with hho, can you graph out the gain vs those variables for a given displacement/configuration? Is it largely tied to rpm?

I have a large amount of data from engines on test stands, so it cannot be said that this will translate directly to driving conditions. The data is the property of the investment group that funded the research so they own the rights. I cannot divulge much of the data collected while under their pay. However, HHO was just a step in the research path that they have moved on from and I am free to speak about the general principles. I hope to set up my own basic engine test stand and get our own set of numbers. The following is only for spark ignited engines. I absolutely cannot discuss diesel combustion and it's markedly different set of principles.

With that being said, you are correct, 144 watts is just a number. It happens to be the maximum wattage absorbed by our battery of Faraday cells. Twelve volts times 12 Amperes. The current is limited to that amount for automotive DC systems. But, that wattage is not what any particular engine needs to see an effective flow of augmenting gas. You are correct in your realization that there are certain variables to the equation, however, it is not as simple as "big displacement needs more gas" as the HHO purveyors like to say. It follows the principles of HCCI studies and all the variables that lead to "detonation". Engines that run hot, have high compression and have turbulent combustion chambers are ideal for HHO augmentation.

Thus engines can vary wildly as to how much HHO they need. But, the important thing is to understand that flame speed right below the detonation point is much more "sensitive" than it normally would be and that sensitivity is accentuated by the seeding of hydrogen, ozone and water vapor ( the real constituents of HHO). An example of the disparity is the 5.9 L Dodge engine that now resides in our work truck and one of the Daihatsu 1.0 L engines out of my wife's little car. The big Dodge is a 96 model with the high turbulence "magnum" heads and about 9:1 compression. It is all cast iron including the heads. It tends to run hot with the aggressive use of EGR that Chrysler programmed across a broad range of it's load map. At a 50-55% loading ( measured injector time compared to full throttle) and 1500 rpm the engine would knock with the electrolysis generator at 12 amps. It still knocked at 5 amps. It didn't knock at 4 amps and the injector pulse width was reduced 9% while maintaining the same RPM and load. Using the stock ECU we had no control of ignition timing and this truck has no spark retard. 87 octane US standard was used. The 1990 one liter Daihatsu engine has about 8:1 compression and aluminum hemispherical heads that are very lazy in the sense of turbulence. It uses EGR sparingly. It didn't knock even with 12 amps feeding the electrolysis generator. Even manually advancing the distributor timing to try to induce knock at the 50% at 1500 rpm load setting didn't yield much benefit. The injector pulse width did decrease 5% at stock timing and 12 amp generator feed rate. We were able to induce knocking and see greater than 10% injector reduction when hot air was pulled from the exhaust heatshield and the fuel was heated to coolant temps (85 degrees C). 87 octane US standard fuel was used.

In summary, the same things that allow HCCI engines to reach 50% thermal efficiency are the same things that can help out an HHO engine - pressure, turbulence and heat and time. Yes, time. RPM does come into play in the sense that time is needed to build the critical mixture and high RPM is not conducive to this. An HHO augmented engine is going to favor lower RPMs much like an HCCI engine.

I am in the process of obtaining and applying an Opterand pressure sensing spark plug into one of my engines. The pressure curve will tell the tale more than anything and the parameters mentioned above will be more easily tabulated.

[Arragonis]

Following my previous question, I have another. Actually we have another as I was pondering this with Eric, my pet Unicorn, this evening...

Assuming the negative energy in vs. energy out formula exists for HHO then is there a place for HHO as a lighter weight Hybrid replacement ?

Work with me here - batteries are as good at storing energy as we have, which is basically quite crap. A lot of the energy fed into (for e.g.) a Prius battery pack does not come out as energy - it kind of gets lost as heat etc. So we have a kind of "less energy out vs. energy in" model already.

So if you rigged HHO to only produce at the same points a Prius charges the batteries (e.g. overrun, regen, high speed cruise etc.) and store the Hydrogen then it could be available to use when needed just like the electric assist a Prius (or indeed a Gen 2 Insight) does.

Of course the energy needed to store a gas, a flamable gas at that, might just kill this idea as you have to compress it and carry a highly compressed cylinder somewhere which adds weight.

But then again batteries add weight too.

Just wondering.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Following my previous question, I have another. Actually we have another as I was pondering this with Eric, my pet Unicorn, this evening...

Assuming the negative energy in vs. energy out formula exists for HHO then is there a place for HHO as a lighter weight Hybrid replacement ?

Work with me here - batteries are as good at storing energy as we have, which is basically quite crap. A lot of the energy fed into (for e.g.) a Prius battery pack does not come out as energy - it kind of gets lost as heat etc. So we have a kind of "less energy out vs. energy in" model already.

So if you rigged HHO to only produce at the same points a Prius charges the batteries (e.g. overrun, regen, high speed cruise etc.) and store the Hydrogen then it could be available to use when needed just like the electric assist a Prius (or indeed a Gen 2 Insight) does.

Of course the energy needed to store a gas, a flamable gas at that, might just kill this idea as you have to compress it and carry a highly compressed cylinder somewhere which adds weight.

But then again batteries add weight too.

Just wondering.

Storing large amounts of stoichiometric hydrogen/oxygen is like storing explosives. My son and his brain damaged college buddies take balloons filled with the gas generator output down to the creek near the shop and ignite them. They sound like shotguns going off!

Storage is not recommended.

[Arragonis]

But more dangerous than a full tank of flammable liquid plus fully charged batteries, or even the same plus an autogas tank ?

Just pondering.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

But more dangerous than a full tank of flammable liquid plus fully charged batteries, or even the same plus an autogas tank ?

Just pondering.

We never consider the possible dangers of what we put into our gas tanks.

To answer your question:

Even if we separate the gasses and store them safely, the energy conversion of electrolysis is just too poor. P-hack was correct in assuming about a 30% efficiency in converting electrical energy to chemical energy via electrolysis. Using batteries is 50-85% efficient. Direct mechanical to mechanical is probably the highest in efficiency as a forum member has pointed out and his long work in hydraulic hybrids can attest to this. Just behind is electrical to Capacitor storage at about 85% and above though new capacitor technology is pushing 100%.

The other problem is use of the stored gasses. Augmenting the fuel stream in the gasoline engine will only return us probably 15% as I outlined in an above post - assuming ideal application. Using the gasses in a fuel cell sounds promising until you realize the cost and the need for a certain amount of batteries or capacitors to buffer the power output.

Off the top of my head, I think this is a non starter, but I haven't touched on all possibilities. Electrical to electrical storage is just more efficient.

[Arragonis]

ok.