It is sometimes HARD to communicate with EDUCATED IDIOTS! Some people with an education are more dangerous that the ones without. It looks like the professor reads an article with blinders on. IT has been stated many times that the purpose of the HHO is to enhance the burning of the diesel, not to replace it. The whole idea is to help the average guy with his fuel bill , by building a unit that most people have the ability to fab.
Thanks for the chuckle this morning.
I made me imagine you were on something.
.
I am not educated either, that is why I participate in this forum, so that I can glean the benefit of other peoples education.
__________________
Dan
1999 F550 4x4 ZF6 pulling a Cedar Creek 36RLTS. Lotta mods.
1999 VW Jetta TDI 5speed stick, all stock.
1996 Audi A4 Quattro. Unstoppable in the snow and ice. God and Dog
It is sometimes HARD to communicate with EDUCATED IDIOTS! Some people with an education are more dangerous that the ones without. It looks like the professor reads an article with blinders on. IT has been stated many times that the purpose of the HHO is to enhance the burning of the diesel, not to replace it. The whole idea is to help the average guy with his fuel bill , by building a unit that most people have the ability to fab.
You should be aware that the moderators on this site try to enforce a firm policy of not allowing personal attacks on fellow members. However, my skin (not skull) is thicker than most, so I take no particular offense when called an "EDUCATED IDIOT", and since I've already admitted to having a PhD in engineering, at least you got it half right!
Now back to technical issues. My whole idea is to help the average guy not waste his hard earned $ on this hydrogen scam!
You state that "IT has been stated many times that the purpose of the HHO is to enhance the burning of the diesel, not to replace it.", however, if you read item 3 in my post # 409, the HYDRO-4000 website states that "The non-polluting hydrogen adds combustion energy, replacing some of the ordinary fuel needed to power the vehicle." Please note that it says "replace fuel", not enhance the combustion of fuel!
That's why I did the analysis in post # 409 to prove that using electrical power from a PSD alternator to generate hydrogen to "replace" some of the diesel can't possibly work. It results in a net HP loss, and the 1.5 HP required to run the alternator only returns 0.3 HP when the hydrogen is combusted. In my book, claiming that you can use your alternator to generate hydrogen to replace diesel and get a HP gain constitutes a scam!
I've addressed the possibility that hydrogen might somehow "enhance the burning of the diesel", as you claim to be the case, in my posts # 398, 402, 403, 416, and 417, but neither you nor anyone else has produced any analyses, data, or even explained in plain old words how hydrogen will "enhance the burning of the diesel" so as to produce more HP with less diesel, and I think the burden of proof rests on the scam artist, not on the debunker of scams!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ernesteugene
...In summary, the hydrogen concentration is so low at engine loads of interest that it's hard to see how it can have much of an effect. On the other hand, conventional DFAs maintain a constant concentration independent of engine load, they keep the injectors clean to enhance fuel atomization, they provide a Cetane boost, they provide lubricity, clean water from the fuel, anti gel, and on and on, etc...
I recommend that you stick with conventional DFAs, even though they cost a few $, which is rapidly becoming a smaller and smaller % of the diesel cost, they don't rob power from your alternator and 1.5 HP from your flywheel. Working your alternator at near full capacity 100% of the time will wear it out, and those aren't cheap, and they're a pain to replace. Also, if you tow with your headlights on, you don't have much reserve capacity to begin with!...
I welcome you or anyone else to refute this analysis which very strongly suggests that at normal engine loads the concentration of hydrogen is far too low to have any significant effect for "enhancing the burning of diesel", whereas it's well know how conventional DFAs at the recommended concentration do enhance the burning of diesel.
Apparently, the potential benefit of hydrogen suplementation, in terms of enhancing the native combustion of diesel, is sourced from the differences in combustion adn auto-ignition temperatures of the two fuel sources.
Diesel reaches auto-ignition at about 500°F, and burns at 1300°-1650°F
Hydrogen reaches autoignition at about 1000°F and burns at 2000°-3000°F
Therefore, the hydrogen cannot ignite until the diesel is already in the "burn" phase of combustion yet results in a higher overall combustion temperature, which is where the improved diesel combustion efficiency has a chance to exist.
However, the engine's overall exhaust temperatures have been reported to be lower when injecting HHO as a supplement. The theory behind this has some merit, but I have not seen any real-world date to substantiate it yet. The theory is that due to the fact that the combustrion by-product from burning hydrogen gas is water. The reports indicate that it is the presence of this byproduct that is responsible for the reduction in exhaust gas termpatures due to the "collapsing" exhaust gases.
Gene:...Here's a link to an interesting article that talks about BMW's experience with a hydrogen engine that talks about some of these principles...
I'll read your links, and get back to you on those. However, have you considered my point below, regarding the extremely low hydrogen concentrations for which these various claims of performance enhancement are being made?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ernesteugene
...Lets assume the maximum production rate of 3 L/min=0.1 ft3/min=0.1 CFM of hydrogen that's claimed in item 2. This amounts to 0.0005 lb/min or 0.03 lb/hr of hydrogen. Since diesel weighs about 7 lb/gal, this means the concentration of hydrogen as a % weight of the diesel fuel varies from about 0.9% at idle to 0.017% at WOT, full load!...
So when a PSD is under a full load, you're only adding 0.00017 lb of hydrogen for each 1 lb of diesel, and since the AFR is about 18, that's 0.0000094 lb of hydrogen for each 1 lb of dry air!
Now since you're also adding oxygen as well as the hydrogen, I'll calculate the corresponding lbs of oxygen to go with the lbs of hydrogen given above. It works out to be 0.0013 lb of oxygen for each 1 lb of diesel, and 0.000073 lb of oxygen for each 1 lb of dry air! Compare these numbers with the fact that it requires 3.45 lbs of oxygen to combust each lb of diesel.
Either my calculations are incorrect, or you and the other hydrogen advocates on this thread are claiming that a vanishingly small amount of hydrogen is enough to provide all these claimed performance benefits, and to me, this is starting to sound like Homeopathic medicine where a so called active ingredient is diluted to the point that not even one molecule of it remains, but the medicine is still claimed to have pronounced effects.
your concerns are valid. But since the generators are so simple to make, we have the unique opportunity to prove or disprove the concept for ourselves. Educated or not, I don't think it really matters because the device is very simple. This is not a situation of "overunity" as some would call it.
The logic of using hydrogen is to promote better flame propagation across the combustion chamber. Yes, there is a very small portion of brown's gas in there, but remember how confined the space is at TDC. The theory is that it only takes a little bit to make a difference. But the results will have to speak for themselves.
And guys, please go easy on the personal stuff, I would really hate to see this thread locked.
__________________
1986 F250HD Ex cab Fresh built up 6.9L diesel, Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
1986 F150 Ex cab Lariat rollercam 5.0L on LPG AOD trans 3.55 gears 390 000Ks
I'll read your links, and get back to you on those. However, have you considered my point below, regarding the extremely low hydrogen concentrations for which these various claims of performance enhancement are being made?
If so, how do some report that they achieve improved fuel economy?
Are they all mistaken?
I only covered my radiator grill blocking it off completely and get 22mpg on the freeway.
I did not check, but the previous owner said it only got 18 on the freeway.
If I remove the mirrors and cover the bed I believe (because of reports from others that have done it) I should be able to get it up to 25 mpg or better.
At $4.50 a gallon and 22 mpg it's about .20c per mile.
With all the things I intend to do (bed cover, remove mirrors, add HHO system, I hope to get it to the 30mpg range and that's .15c per mile.
1000 miles a 22mpg and $4.5 a gallon costs $204.
1000 miles a 25mpg and $4.5 a gallon costs $180.
1000 miles a 30mpg and $4.5 a gallon costs $150.
The last truck I drove for work got 7 mpg loaded and cost......
50c per mile at $3.5 in Diesel fuel alone.
64c per mile at $4.5 in Diesel fuel alone.
If by adding a HHO generator I could get an extra 5 mpg or better on my personal vehicle, on the freeway, is well worth it to me!
If it does as well as some say, the commercial fuel savings should be worth it as well.
__________________
Gray 1991 F250 standard cab, 7.3, E4OD, 3.55:1, stock wheels and tires.
Verified 19 mpg city taking off slow as hell the shutting down at red lights, and with the radiator grill blocked flush, no bed cover, "drag shoot" mirrors on I get 24 mpg at 50 to 55 mph on the freeway empty!
However, with a bed cover, no mirrors and Hydroxy
Gene...the engine's overall exhaust temperatures have been reported to be lower when injecting HHO as a supplement. The theory behind this has some merit, but I have not seen any real-world date to substantiate it yet. The theory is that due to the fact that the combustrion by-product from burning hydrogen gas is water. The reports indicate that it is the presence of this byproduct that is responsible for the reduction in exhaust gas termpatures due to the "collapsing" exhaust gases...
Well the theory that EGTs are lowered due to the water that's produced when the hydrogen and oxygen combust might sound reasonable, but if you bother to crunch some actual numbers you'll see that this theory, if you'll pardon the pun, simply doesn't hold water.
Consider that for each 1 lb of dry air that your PSD ingests, you're only adding 0.0000094 lb of hydrogen and 0.000073 lb of oxygen from the HYDRO-4000 device, and this is only 0.0000824 lb of water for each 1 lb of dry air. At full load your PSD is ingesting about 500 CFM of air, which gives a MAF of about 35 lb/min of air, and this gives a MWF=Mass Water Flow into the engine of about (35)(0.0000824)=0.00288 lb/min=0.0216 GPH due to the addition of a HYDRO-4000.
Now compare this MWF from a HYDRO-4000, with the MWF that naturally occurs at various temperatures and % relative humidity which I previously analyzed in the thread below...
...Below are a few quick calculations, As can be seen, there's a 10 to 1 increase in the MWF=Mass Water Flow into an engine in going from a 50 F, 50% day to one with 100 F and 100% relative humidity.
1) Dry air at 0% relative humidity contains no water vapor so, MWF=0 lb/min for all air temps.
2) At 100 F and 100% relative humidity, the water vapor density is about 50 gm/m3=0.0031215 lb/ft3, so that with a volume air flow into the intake of 500 cfm, the MWF=1.56 lb/min=11.7 GPH of water flow into the engine due to the water content of the moist air. This MWF will combine with (add to) the MWF that's injected by the water injection system.
3) At 70 F and 100% relative humidity, MWF=0.624 lb/min=4.7 GPH of water flow at 500 cfm.
4) At 70 F and 50% relative humidity, MWF=0.312 lb/min=2.3 GPH of water flow at 500 cfm.
5) At 50 F and 50% relative humidity, MWF=0.156 lb/min=1.17 GPH of water flow at 500 cfm.
So depending on temperature and relative humidity, your PSD is typically ingesting about 1 to 10 GPH of water, and your theory says that ingesting an additional 0.0216 GPH of water due to the addition of a HYDRO-4000 is going to lower EGTs???
Not to discourage, but i dont think you'll hit 30 mpg. If you DO, you better tell me how.
I've never heard of 30 mpg out of a 3/4 ton truck of any brand. (I've experienced certain years of 5.9's than came scarily close on a 2wd dodge)
The last time I made a freeway round trip, it was 65 miles of freeway and about 15 off freeway to the addresses, and I fueled up before and after at the same gas station at the same pump facing the same direction, I took the same route both ways and I got 21.8 mpg, so I assume without the off freeway miles it would have gotten the additional .2 mpg to round up to personally verified 22 mpg at 60 to 65 mph.
Had I gone 50 or 55 I should have done a little better but traffic was pissed at me for going as slow as I did.
The bed was not covered and the tail gate was up/closed and the mirrors were out, both that are known to hurt mileage and those with similar vehicles have gained 3 mpg on the freeway with removing the mirrors and added a standard flush camper shell or removed/lowered the tail gate.
That would get me to 25 as some have reported getting and an additional 3 mpg does not sound unreasonable.
Now, the only question is, can adding a SMACK type Hydroxy booster get me an additional 20% mpg (20% of 25mpg = 5 mpg) with my engine, trans, and rear end set up?
Improvements from 15% to 30%+ and more have been reported and no doubt, some if not most reports, should be taken with a "grain of salt", so I'll hope for 20%.
That gets me into 30 mpg freeway.
I doubt my around town mileage will change much if at all with any of these modifications.
__________________
Gray 1991 F250 standard cab, 7.3, E4OD, 3.55:1, stock wheels and tires.
Verified 19 mpg city taking off slow as hell the shutting down at red lights, and with the radiator grill blocked flush, no bed cover, "drag shoot" mirrors on I get 24 mpg at 50 to 55 mph on the freeway empty!
However, with a bed cover, no mirrors and Hydroxy
Don't let anyone discourage you. If you can already get 22 MPG out of a 7000lb truck you have little to loose by trying to improve on that. I was able to get 21 MPG the other day (3.78L gallons), but its very rare that I can run completely empty. Drivers are VERY agressive too, usually expect at least 20kph over the limit (thats what the cops do at least).
I'm not in this discussion to make predictions, I'm in this discussions to make observations. The proof will be in the pudding
__________________
1986 F250HD Ex cab Fresh built up 6.9L diesel, Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
1986 F150 Ex cab Lariat rollercam 5.0L on LPG AOD trans 3.55 gears 390 000Ks
Improvements from 15% to 30%+ and more have been reported and no doubt, some if not most reports, should be taken with a "grain of salt", so I'll hope for 20%.
That gets me into 30 mpg freeway.
I doubt my around town mileage will change much if at all with any of these modifications.
You should also remember that the % increases you read about would be based on a stock configuration. If you add everything you're talking about I believe you will see diminishing returns since drag, weight, and rolling resistance will still be your biggest challenges. The mirrors and tailgate don't catch near as much air as the rest of the vehicle.
You should also remember that the % increases you read about would be based on a stock configuration. If you add everything you're talking about I believe you will see diminishing returns since drag, weight, and rolling resistance will still be your biggest challenges. The mirrors and tailgate don't catch near as much air as the rest of the vehicle.
Well, blocking off the radiator added 4 mpg on the freeway alone, and the tail gate closed in an open bed along with the mirrors are a bigger drag that you might think.
It was more than I thought.
You also have to remember, if you were to double your speed you need quadruple the power, so each MPH faster you go the bigger the mirrors become.
The wind resistance difference of the mirrors at 55 and then going 1 mph faster to 56 is not much compared to the wind resistance of the mirrors at 75 and then going 1 mph faster to 76.
After what I read recently, I'd bet if I made the same trip at no faster that 45 mph (the minimum speed for high gear to kick in) I might have gotten up to 30 mpg.
BYW guys, I almost NEVER carry anything other than a spare tire.
I hauled a trailer and a heavy duty mower last weekend and on Tuesday Grammy wants her pine tree in the back yard cut down and hauled away.
__________________
Gray 1991 F250 standard cab, 7.3, E4OD, 3.55:1, stock wheels and tires.
Verified 19 mpg city taking off slow as hell the shutting down at red lights, and with the radiator grill blocked flush, no bed cover, "drag shoot" mirrors on I get 24 mpg at 50 to 55 mph on the freeway empty!
However, with a bed cover, no mirrors and Hydroxy
Things are not always so cut and dried. The tailgate issue was busted on Mythbusters some time ago. And weight is not the factor some think it is. Took the signature truck about 20 miles mixed driving, lieometer said 12.6 at the start. (several week running average). At the end of the 20 miles, meter said -12.7, essentially no change. Threw a bunch of heavy angle iron and 10" thick wall pipe in- estimated about 800 lbs. Checked the meter after the return trip, 12.7. Next day drove to work, (with the steel), from work to pick up a lathe about 30 miles away, loaded an approx 200 lb lathe in the back, and 45 miles home. Round trip was some freeway, some stop and go in town, and some stop and go freeway (I695 around Baltimore at rush hour). Checked the meter again, 12.8. Next day, same load, 50 mile trip, mixed driving, 12.8. When I offload and drive home, I expect I'll see 12.7, 12.8. So, loaded to 1000 lbs or empty, same mileage............. While the meter may not be accurate, the relative readings loaded and empty should be. Go figure.
__________________ TRITON V10 - THE BEST KEPT SECRET - (But word is getting out). '08 F350 Scab SRW V10 w/ 4:10
07 Gulfstream Prarie Schooner
'05 Escape
' Passed the exam today! I am now a licensed instigator!
The tailgate thing isn't as cut and dried as it seems. There was a guy in the super duty section a while back playing with a wind tunnel. He found the shortbeds did not have the tailgate issue, and leaving their tailgate down actually caused the wind to hit the horizontal tailgate. He didn't have a long bed to test, but it appeared the longbed tailgate would catch the wind.
Gray, sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm not arguing that the mirrors make a big difference, I was just saying the mirrors take a lot less air than the front end of the truck. I was saying if you chose 10 modifications that by themselves gave you a 20% increase in fuel economy, combining all 10 would not give you a 200% increase.
Your truck will come a lot closer to 30 than the newer trucks will though.
I apoligize for stirring the POT ( I like seeing what surfaces). I am just tired of hearing all the NAY-SAYERS. IF we had listen to them over the past, we would still be walking and sending messages on rocks. I believe that keeping an open mind about any subject then more knowledge is passed around. We are all done for when we stop trying to do something because someone tells us that it won't work. Edison said he found a lot of ways NOT to make a light bulb befor he found the right way. SO everybody that trys a different approach is narrowing down the other ways until the best way is found.
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
