Add hydrogen for better mpg
01-23-2009, 01:22 AM
#526
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: MN
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is perpetual motion.
I work on engines that cost millions of dollars and use 1/2 gallon of fuel a second. The same engine has 1/4 a gallon a second of water injected and never has anyone ever suggested we should try to make our own fuel from water. A 4% saving would be HUGH on our equipment. We have customers that spend 2 million every 3 years to over haul the engine and they have operating fuel costs of over $4000 an hour (and much worse then that recently) and don't you think that they would want to save a few percent of that?? If there were even a 1% gain we would have customers beating on the door of the guy that could give them that savings. HHO is a nice experiment but it does not result in any net gain.
I work on engines that cost millions of dollars and use 1/2 gallon of fuel a second. The same engine has 1/4 a gallon a second of water injected and never has anyone ever suggested we should try to make our own fuel from water. A 4% saving would be HUGH on our equipment. We have customers that spend 2 million every 3 years to over haul the engine and they have operating fuel costs of over $4000 an hour (and much worse then that recently) and don't you think that they would want to save a few percent of that?? If there were even a 1% gain we would have customers beating on the door of the guy that could give them that savings. HHO is a nice experiment but it does not result in any net gain.
01-23-2009, 06:55 AM
#527
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: St Paul , MN.
Posts: 2,888
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure I mentioned it in past posts here , but it seem a reminder , adding a gas as an aid to combustion has been used and accepted for many decades , and all the sudden , it can not work with H .
Propane , or nitrous are the 2 most common , propane being a direct example to H .
If there is an issue , then it may be with the production systems that some are using to make the gas , but then electrolyzing H2O has been going on for many decades also , and these systems , both propane & H , are using very small amounts as additives , not fuel source .
Propane , or nitrous are the 2 most common , propane being a direct example to H .
If there is an issue , then it may be with the production systems that some are using to make the gas , but then electrolyzing H2O has been going on for many decades also , and these systems , both propane & H , are using very small amounts as additives , not fuel source .
01-23-2009, 11:20 AM
#528
The chemical reaction is not efficient. If it worked,all the large fleets would use it. It has been talked about for at least 40 years that I know of. It still dosen't work.....just gets brought up ever time fuel is in demand.
01-23-2009, 11:39 PM
#529
Banned
Not to sidetrack from the thread, but you should post up some pics and specs of these massive engines. That's a lot of fuel and a lot of dough... what are they used for? Ships, gigantic generators? I'm sure that even if everybody was understanding that this process works on most vehicles that it would be an awfully large investment to try to feed an engine like what you describe... shoot, you'd darn near need a 500kW generator just to provide the electricity to perform electrolysis on some massive stainless parts... A little too extreme I'm sure.
01-24-2009, 10:45 PM
#530
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-resea...Vs-Nov2007.pdf
This is the report I was talking about. I didnt have the link off hand, but I was able to locate it by googling 'dot hydrogen' and looking through a couple of pages of results.
If you look at the Page numbers on the report, it is page 11 where hydrogen on demand injection systems are mentioned regarding the 4% fuel reduction. If you use your browser page index it might be page 23/24.
As for why fleets arent using it now....they are, there are several large fleets using them with good luck. But there are a host of reasons why all arent using them....
Here is the excerpt of the report:
1.2.3 Hydrogen Injection Systems
A hydrogen injection system for a diesel engine produces small amounts of hydrogen and oxygen on demand by electrolyzing water carried onboard the vehicle. The electricity required is supplied by the engine’s alternator or 12/24-volt electrical system (see Section 1.5 for a description of electrolysis). The hydrogen and oxygen are injected into the engine’s air intake manifold, where they mix with the intake air. In theory, the combustion properties of the hydrogen result in more complete combustion of diesel fuel in the engine, reducing tailpipe emissions and improving fuel economy (CHEC, n.d.). Limited laboratory testing of a hydrogen injection system installed on an older diesel truck engine operated at a series of constant speeds showed a 4 percent reduction in fuel use and a 7 percent reduction in particulate emissions with the system on (ETVC, 2005).
A hydrogen injection system for a diesel engine produces and uses significantly less hydrogen than a hydrogen fuel cell or hydrogen ICE, and does not require that compressed or liquid hydrogen be carried on the vehicle. The system is designed to produce hydrogen only when required, in response to driver throttle
This is the report I was talking about. I didnt have the link off hand, but I was able to locate it by googling 'dot hydrogen' and looking through a couple of pages of results.
If you look at the Page numbers on the report, it is page 11 where hydrogen on demand injection systems are mentioned regarding the 4% fuel reduction. If you use your browser page index it might be page 23/24.
As for why fleets arent using it now....they are, there are several large fleets using them with good luck. But there are a host of reasons why all arent using them....
Here is the excerpt of the report:
1.2.3 Hydrogen Injection Systems
A hydrogen injection system for a diesel engine produces small amounts of hydrogen and oxygen on demand by electrolyzing water carried onboard the vehicle. The electricity required is supplied by the engine’s alternator or 12/24-volt electrical system (see Section 1.5 for a description of electrolysis). The hydrogen and oxygen are injected into the engine’s air intake manifold, where they mix with the intake air. In theory, the combustion properties of the hydrogen result in more complete combustion of diesel fuel in the engine, reducing tailpipe emissions and improving fuel economy (CHEC, n.d.). Limited laboratory testing of a hydrogen injection system installed on an older diesel truck engine operated at a series of constant speeds showed a 4 percent reduction in fuel use and a 7 percent reduction in particulate emissions with the system on (ETVC, 2005).
A hydrogen injection system for a diesel engine produces and uses significantly less hydrogen than a hydrogen fuel cell or hydrogen ICE, and does not require that compressed or liquid hydrogen be carried on the vehicle. The system is designed to produce hydrogen only when required, in response to driver throttle
01-24-2009, 11:14 PM
#531
Link please.....and which fleets.....How come none of the major manufactures recommend them. It does state the HHO results in an apparent 4% reduction in fuel use. However it makes no claim of an effective reaction or improved MPG.....nice try.
01-26-2009, 11:06 PM
#532
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: MN
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A major manufacturer does not have the time or resources (especially in current economic conditions) to research this in a short time frame, and they are not simply going to recommend them. That's a massive liability if they overlook something. I interned at Cummins Power Generation (engineering intern) and had the opportunity to speak with a former manager of a mid-range engine development team and believe it or not he acted like he had never heard of this before when I asked him. Free experience... take it for what it's worth.
01-26-2009, 11:24 PM
#533
Well how much energy is expended to see a 4 % decrease in fuel consumption (if it actually was).....is it a trade off? How were those results measured? (double blind?). No, decreased fuel consumption does not necessarily relate to better MPG. It is energy spent.
01-27-2009, 11:59 AM
#534
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: MN
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article created the impression that this was a typical HHO installation in which the engine alternator was supplying energy for the electrolysis (ie, 4% NET gain). If this is true, then we can both agree that reduced fuel consumption relates directly to better fuel economy.
01-27-2009, 12:49 PM
#535
Banned
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but a 4% reduction in fuel use transfers directly to an increase in MPG. If you are burning less fuel and traveling the same distance you are improving your MPG...
A major manufacturer does not have the time or resources (especially in current economic conditions) to research this in a short time frame, and they are not simply going to recommend them. That's a massive liability if they overlook something. I interned at Cummins Power Generation (engineering intern) and had the opportunity to speak with a former manager of a mid-range engine development team and believe it or not he acted like he had never heard of this before when I asked him. Free experience... take it for what it's worth.
A major manufacturer does not have the time or resources (especially in current economic conditions) to research this in a short time frame, and they are not simply going to recommend them. That's a massive liability if they overlook something. I interned at Cummins Power Generation (engineering intern) and had the opportunity to speak with a former manager of a mid-range engine development team and believe it or not he acted like he had never heard of this before when I asked him. Free experience... take it for what it's worth.
HHO systems have been around for 60 plus years, didn't work as advertised then and still do not work as advertised now. So it is not a recent thing that could not be budgeted for. You have no idea the size of the R&D budgets that are being researched by all of the major players and many of the smaller ones that want to sell something to the big guys, for anything that will improve mpg and emissions.
01-28-2009, 02:28 AM
#537
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: MN
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CamperAndy:
Please see my above post for my experience with a certain engine company. Please read my entire post before attempting to point out incompetence. I assume you work for a major manufacturer so that you know how big the R&D budgets are?
Please see my above post for my experience with a certain engine company. Please read my entire post before attempting to point out incompetence. I assume you work for a major manufacturer so that you know how big the R&D budgets are?
01-28-2009, 11:30 AM
#538
Bottom line.....the reaction is not efficient......if it were it would be saving trillions of dollars and be front page news.....the concept has been around many years (40+ that I an aware of)......build it and waste your money....it is snake oil. End of subject.
01-28-2009, 04:44 PM
#539
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: MN
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snak oil... maybe, maybe not. Lots of people have been doubted in the past and I just hope people don't throw in the towel with new energy experiments and research (not just talking HHO here).
One thing we can all agree on... HHO balloons are FUN!
One thing we can all agree on... HHO balloons are FUN!
01-30-2009, 11:51 AM
#540
"Well how much energy is expended to see a 4 % decrease in fuel consumption (if it actually was).....is it a trade off? How were those results measured? (double blind?). No, decreased fuel consumption does not necessarily relate to better MPG. It is energy spent."
If decreased fuel consumption doesnt relate to better mpgs, then what does it mean? It means you ran an engine for a given time and used less fuel....
That sounds like it would give you more mpgs....does it not?
FACT - One major vehicle manufacturer and one engine company is working on coming out with an OEM system. (that I know of, im sure others are too)
If decreased fuel consumption doesnt relate to better mpgs, then what does it mean? It means you ran an engine for a given time and used less fuel....
That sounds like it would give you more mpgs....does it not?
FACT - One major vehicle manufacturer and one engine company is working on coming out with an OEM system. (that I know of, im sure others are too)