Based on well-documented research conducted by a plethora of scientific sources since the 1970?s, it has become a known scientific fact that the addition of hydrogen to internal combustion engines (ICE) offers a number of significant benefits including increased fuel efficiency and horsepower alongside reduced greenhouse gases and emissions. These benefits can be attributed to the more complete combustion of the fuel when hydrogen is injected into the air/fuel mixture.
An increase in fuel efficiency by as much as 40% has been seen in certain applications such as stationary gensets. Typically, the introduction of hydrogen into an ICE will realize fuel savings from 10 to 25% dependant on several factors which influence fuel economy, including driving habits and the condition and make of the engine.
The significant increase in horsepower is considered by some to be a side benefit, but truck drivers interviewed have expressed that the increase in horsepower warrants enough benefit on its own to justify the purchase of the unit, irrespective of fuel savings.
The customary black smoke that is typical of diesel powered trucks and buses is virtually eliminated in the case of hydrogen injection. The emissions reductions include:
? 8 to 25% reduction in Co2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
? Up to 98% reduction in particulate matter
? Up to 98% reduction in carbon monoxide
? Up to 75% reduction in hydrocarbons
? Up to 51% reduction of nitrous oxides
Leading the perpetually ignorant and uninformed into the light of scientific knowledge. Did I really say that?
a new policy....I intend to ignore the nescient...a waste of time and energy.
I imagine that its effect on common diesel engines would differ from its effect on common gasoline engines.
I personally would not argue that hydrogen added to fuel would or would not help, but my only question is if it helps more than generating it onboard hinders. If you try to tell me that it only takes X energy to make it but you get X*2 energy by burning it, I won't believe it. If you want to suggest that it catalyzes the other fuel or enhances the combustion, well that's more realistic.
If you're talking about generating it elsewhere and just carrying it onboard, that's a whole other story.
That all said, I suspect I will eventually try it. It can be tried with minimal investment (maybe zero money, and just a few hours time), and some people do report success, so why not...
I have been waiting for someone to test out the whole hho scenareo in a real car and share data with a gas log and I do realize that results vary from car to car but with so very little data to go by, we have to use what we have.
if you are interested, please search for "rolling box car" in the garage. if you have issues just search for "jeep". read his gas log. I think it speaks for itself.
Be the change you wish to see in the world
There is no doubt that adding EXTERNALLY SUPPLIED hydrogen will improve mileage, and reduce emissions.
But all af the hydrogen threads I've read describe hydrogen produced ON BOARD the car from hydrolysis of water using electricity generated by the alternator. These schemes cannot reduce fuel consumption because of the energy losses in the alternator, rectifier, the electrolytic cell, and the hydrogen combustion itself.
Continuous hydrogen generation creates alternator drag on the engine and uses more energy than it creates by combustion.
On board hydrogen generation could reduce fuel usage IF AND ONLY IF it is electrolytically generated during braking, or from a thermoelectric? generator mounted on the tailpipe or other waste heat source.
Capitalism: The cream rises. Socialism: The scum rises.
Increasing engine load by X percent does not necessarily increase fuel consumption by X percent. See the BSFC graphs that are floating round. So, you can get 3KW more out of a motor, for less than 3KW more gasoline burned, in some cases a lot less, then even with conversion inefficiency, you're at break-even with the energy in the HHO... however, that's not all, because the thermodynamic efficiency of burning hydrogen is DRASTICALLY better than the thermodynamic efficiency of burning gas, your HHO is worth twice it's equivalent in gasoline, because you don't get only 25% of it's energy as power, like you do for gas, it's more like 50%. Add to that that H2 injection can modify the lean limit of gasoline combustion from around 16:1 to as high as 26:1 and you can also burn a lot less gasoline for the same RPM... it makes the gasoline burn better than 25% efficient too... provided it's all tuned in and compensated for.
So you can divert 10% of output into HHO production which makes 5% of the total gas used, but to get the extra 10% because BFSC typically improves with load, you only have to spend 2% more gas. So the HHO "cost" half it's heating value in gasoline, then you burn it at double the efficiency in the motor, now it's 4x the actual extra gas used, then you can lean back your fuelling by a third, as well as the gasoline you don't need to burn that the HHO at 4x the output displaces....
This is actually scavenging "waste" heat, but it's doing it inside the motor, best place of all to do it. It's all a numbers game with the thermodynamics made possible by the fact that H2 has a humungous specific heat capacity relative to it's combustion product. 7:1 whereas with gas it's around 2-3:1 This means that the combustion product cannot possibly absorb much heat at all from the combustion process and must expand instead. Expansion is good, expansion is what we want, heat must be got rid of, expansion moves the pistons, so we get over double the expansion out of burning H2 as we get from burning gasoline, and less heat wasted. Making the gasoline flame front burn faster is another thermodynamic "heat scavenging" benefit, because it allows less time for a slow heat soak into the walls of the chamber and piston as the gas lazily nudges at the piston, more gasoline energy goes into combustion product expansion and pressure when the flame front is faster and less goes into the coolant.
It's virtually all about the thermodynamic inefficiency of gasoline as a fuel, there's no free energy, it's a method to take the energy that's there, re-apply it and make it push pistons and turn wheels instead of heating air and exhaust gases. Take away the gasoline and you've got nothing, no car that runs on water alone, you're scavenging energy big time, but not making it.
I remember The RoadWarrior..To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time..the world was powered by the black fuel & the desert sprouted great cities..Gone now, swept away..two mighty warrior tribes went to war & touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel, they were nothing..thundering machines sputtered & stopped..Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice
Next week my carbed 351C will be ready to do an HH0 test on.
Flapdoodle did some tests some time back. But did he do a scientific test even with the engine up too 1800rpm no load to see if the is a higher rpm with HHO than not?
This debate is getting very old! I'd like too settle it!