Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RDKamikaze

Ethanol running with hydrogren? Can it happen?

Recommended Posts

Interesting...I just want to make sure I have all this straight:

 

From your other post, you indicated that there is a 165 mile trip you have taken quite a few (100000?) times.  On that trip, your mileage has been:

 

1. No alternatives - 1/2 tank (8 gal.)

2. E85 fuel - ~7 gallons

3. Generator #1 - 5 gallons

4. Generator #3 - 4 gallons

5. NEWEST generator (#5 I think?) - 2 gallons!!

Ok, well here you are thinking "WTF, that's a jump...?" Ok, ok, so it wasn't 2 gallons on the dot, it was like 2.4 gallons at most.

 

And all these trips were in your '06 Solara listed in your signature?...EPA rated 24mpg city / 33 highway?  The generator has been different variants the 32 oz HHO generator also listed in your signature? Then, you had quoted approximately 1L HHO production per minute?

 

And I'm producing a little under 1LPM if I calculated it right (video coming soon!)

 

So looking at your posted results, I calculate these mileages to be:

 

1.  Regular Gas - 165mi/8gal = 20.6mpg

2.  E85            - 165mi/7gal = 23.6mpg

3.  Generator 1 - 165mi/5gal = 33.0mpg

4.  Generator 3 - 165mi/4gal = 41.3mpg

5.  Generator 5 - 165mi/2.4gal = 68.8 mpg

 

We're missing a little tidbit of info of about how long this trip lasts, but looking at the description and guessing from my own travels...maybe looking at 4 or 5 hours?

 

So the basic claim is that running Generator #5 design @ 1 liter/minute HHO on a 5 hour trip has eliminated the need for 5.6 gallons of gasoline?  Additionally, 1L/min HHO = .54g/min = .54 mL water consumption per minute.  Then, .54mL / minute * 60 minutes * 5 hours = 162mL water consumption, or about 6 ounces for the trip.

 

So the ultimate bottom line would be that 6 ounces of water replaced 5.6 gallons of gasoline?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Dan, I wasn't sure if I could post links but I did anyways..?

 

First thing's first.  I'm going to tell you to throw away all your calculations, because it's not EXACTLY how it works.  The HHO doesn't "replace" gasoline, it helps it burn more efficiently, therefor requiring a lot less of gas to produce the same, if not more, output.  I'm not chemical scientist, but if it works, it works.

 

My drive actually takes ME about 2.5 hours, because some of us don't like speed limits too much...But the average person it takes about 3hr from my house to the college.  And yes, the generator has saved me at least a good 5 gallons of gas, which is a HUGE savings if you think about it.  I got $20 from one of my rfiends who I transported as a flat gas payment, and heck, they paid for my whole trip!  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that is what I've been trying to find out all along...EXACTLY how does this work?  You say it helps burn fuel *more* efficiently?  But looking at some parameters for late model cars, they probably emit less than 20ppm unburned hydrocarbons...you'd likely fail an emissions test if the unburned HC's were 200 ppm...then even assuming pre-cat emissions were 10 times that level would only be 2000 ppm. 

 

So an absolute worst case 'gross polluter' - that is still only 0.2% of the fuel that is not getting burned.  It just doesn't seem to add up that burning 99.8% of the fuel under normal conditions would give you 20mpg and assuming HHO magical properties could burn that last 0.2% ...to make it 100% efficient would get 70mpg.

 

Either way, if the results you have claimed are true, I guess you're a millionaire now!  :)  :rstar: :star::)Congrats!! :) :rstar: :star: :bstar:

 

The first thing I would do is call a good patent attorney and get that design patented.  Then I'd be on the phone to Toyota...I'd probably be pretty cocky...be like, "Yeah, you know how your engineers spent thousands of design hours to get the Solara up to 20mpg...Well, I've got this little bubbly, fizzy, water thing that can do over three and a half times that!  How does 70mpg sound? ... This technology can be yours for a cool million bucks!"

 

If they freak at that offer, just reply, "OK - I'm hanging up the phone and calling XXX now"...except you don't say "XXX"...just put in "Honda" or "Nissan" or "Chevy" or what ever. Seriously, though...I'd think any auto manufacturer would jump at the chance to boost the mileage of a car over three times what they have now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...the design I believe is already patented.  But it's a general patent if I understand correctly, that's why nobody's made it exclusive by now.  That was all Stanley Meyer's doing, but he's dead now.  Killed by a gas company, that sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canadian truckers and people using gas have been using hho for years in parts of the world where petro wasn't as cheap as it was here. To many people having success with it to just totally dismiss it. Hitting people who use hho is like the negative rap we've been complaining about on this forum against e85. Once again I Believe that hho will also work with e85 because of the 15% petro although the results probably will not be as great as with petro. I ran into obstacles with my '93 I believe because ethanol has so much oxygen and the additional clean burn with hho needs a controller for the ecu to give me mileage gains. Later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the only explanation that seems to make sense, and is the assumption I have been making regarding the real reason it might work. It is more of a catalytic effect where the added hydrogen "promotes" more efficient combustion of the fuel. That said, if that theory is true, to get maximum engine efficiency running one of those hydrogen generator setups you would need to completely re-map fuel and ignition timing with the system to really take best advantage of the effect.

 

A similar effect is seen in dust explosions. The addition of a very small amount of combustible fuel vapor added to the dust air mixture greatly increases the violence of the explosion.

 

One of the theories of why water injection works, is that it also promotes more efficient combustion. Water vapor is absolutely essential to full combustion of a hydrocarbon mixture, as it is key to the completion of the second stage of oxidation of the carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide. It is almost impossible to ignite a dry mixture of carbon monoxide and oxygen but add a bit of water vapor to the mixture and it burns to completion easily. When water is heated to very high temps it briefly breaks down into a mixture of free hydrogen and OH radicals, and the OH radical and free hydrogen promote that final stage of combustion of the CO and the stripping of more hydrogen from the long hydrocarbon chains. It is used to explain why cars seem to run so well on cool foggy nights, with a very smooth character to their operation. It would also explain why hydrous ethanol suffers little reduction in fuel mileage compared to dry ethanol mixtures.

 

It is possible in my mind that low intensity water injection might be nearly as effective and a lot cheaper to implement. Perhaps a mixture of both.

 

Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corey, here's your scientific explanation: http://kayakman.livejournal.com/98304.html

 

Assuming it's true, I don't know how that would affect e85 as a fuel.

 

I'm not trying to be an ass or anything - just open up some discussion (debate?) on this subject.  But if that link is the sum total of scientific testing / explanation on the subject, it leaves a lot to be desired.

 

Of course the link to what I suspect is supposed to be the "real" test is broken.  Searching for "Corrections Canada" leads me to a bunch of links on the Canadian penal system?  Is this who did the testing?  Looking at what passes for "facts" from the article...

 

The results of tests at Corrections Canada's, Bowden Alberta Institution and other independent tests reinforce the belief that combustion is significantly accelerated. They found with the HGS on, unburned hydrocarbons, CO and NO, in the exhaust were either eliminated or drastically reduced and at the same R.P.M. the engine produced more torque from less fuel.

 

This was measured how?  on an actual dynomometer?  exhaust gas analyzer? butt dyno?  what are the conditions of the HGS?  output l/min? were the changes instantaneous or require some 'conditioning'?

 

Recently I took part in the highway test of a vehicle driven twice over the same 200-kilometre course, on cruise control, at the same speed, once with the system off and once with it on. A temperature sensor from an accurate pyrometer kit had been inserted directly into the exhaust manifold, to eliminate thermal distortion from the catalytic converter. On average, the exhaust manifold temperature was 65?F lower during the second trip when the Hydrogen Generating System was switched on.

 

200km (125 miles) is a long way to say 'on average'.  Were there parts of the test with higher EGT, lower EGT?  what about  atmospheric conditions...even running 60mph would take over two hours to complete one run.  What happened to atmospheric conditions over this time?  What kind of driving did this course consist of? steady speed, some stop and go?  hills, flat road?  The cruise was set at 65 for the entire 125 miles?

 

The fuel consumption with the unit off was 5.13253 km/li. and 7.2481 km/li. with it on, giving a mileage increase of 41.2% and a fuel savings attributable to the unit of 29.18%

 

"5.13253 km/l" = about 12 mpg...what kind of vehicle was this again?  how was this efficiency measured?  There are lots of little quirks to measuring flow rate of fuel, was all this temperature and density corrected?  Did you really have accuracy to the 0.00001 km/l or did someone just run away with significant digits?  how scientific is that? "7.2481 km/l" = about 17 mpg so that is a pretty good improvement.

 

This bit actually surprises me a bit.  My Ford F150 4x4 with 33x13.50 all terrain tires will do 13-14mpg...probably a bit more if I did 65mph steady cruising, so what ever vehicle they tested is a pretty big gas hog.  Generally, to use that much gas, there has to be quite a bit of wind and rolling resistance - which are factors that even the wildest HHO claims don't cite as being improved with hydrogen.  So either they have a vehicle that is very poorly tuned, or they have a big/bulky/non aerodynamic brick in which case going from 12mpg to 17mpg is even more spectacular because they aren't changing the aerodynamics.

 

>From the forgoing, the near absence of carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons confirms a very complete and much faster burn. Cooler exhaust temperatures show that more work is taken out during the power stroke. More torque from less fuel at the same R.P.M. verifies that higher pressure from a faster burn, acting through a longer effective power stroke, produces more torque and thus more work from less fuel. The considerable reduction in nitrous oxides (NOx} was a surprise. I had assumed that the extreme temperatures from such a rapid intense burn would produce more NO.,. Time plus high temperature are both essential for nitrous oxides to form. As the extreme burn temperatures are of such short duration and temperature through the remainder of the power stroke and the entire exhaust stroke, will, on average, be much cooler. With this in mind, it is not so surprising that less NOx is produced when the HGS is operating.

 

Well, this speculation does seem to fit with the "scientific" testing outlined above.  The sad thing is, I have a stack of brochures a foot thick at work - all presenting as much or more "scientific" evidence on why the specific product improves efficiency.  You name it...combustion enhancers, combustion catalysts, cleaners, detergents, blue marbles, magnets, 'nearly' anti-matter generators, radiance redirectors, surface passivation coatings...the list goes on.  Sadly, not one has ever shown one ounce of verifiable fuel savings under controlled, truly scientific testing.

 

I guess, being from Missouri - "The Show Me State" means only one thing - I'll have to attempt to build one for myself and test it out.  The claims seem too good to ignore, but I still have to ask...if they are that good, why doesn't every car have a generator on it?  I'd think that car companies spending millions on R&D to scrape a few tenths of a mpg better performance would jump at the chance to get 10, 20, 30 or 350 percent better fuel mileage.

 

Until then, I'll pretty much have to treat this as a UFO sighting...so far, the best evidence we have are a few fuzzy blinking lights on a shaky video camera.  You can tune into America's Funniest Videos and see 10 shots on every episode of some guy getting hit in the balls with a foreign object, but when it comes to one good speck of evidence for UFO's - it's right back to the same shaky, fuzzy footage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest colchiro

 

I'm not trying to be an ass or anything....  But if that link is the sum total of scientific testing / explanation on the subject, it leaves a lot to be desired.

 

 

Well, if the shoe fits....  ;)

 

No one said it was the sum total, just a better explanation than I've heard before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corey, just a couple of points that are verified. It take very little H to enhance explosiveness. Second a little water vapor is included and when water is heated it increases its volume to 1500 times its liquid volume which is going to give you a bigger pop per piston firing. Just my couple of thoughts on this thread. Once again if it didn't work 18 wheelers in countries that didn't have the cheap fuel we used to have have been using it for decades. As far as the auto manufacturers, we all see the great job they are doing here. They would be grateful for hho instead of finding 1/10 of a mpg, then why won't Ford or Gm give us the same technology they are already using in Brazil and why is technology they are using around the world being band from this country. Let's take the 15 L buses that they are using in Sweden or Switzerland ( not sure which country, but you can find in another thread on this site ) that can run on e98 or biodeisel reg. petro products. So answer those questions for me and then we can discuss why there isn't enough empirical scientific data on Alt. processes.  ;) Later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...