Dodge Cummins Diesel Forum banner
  • Hey everyone! Enter your ride HERE to be a part of this month's Ride of the Month Challenge!

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
241 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
For you HHO guys.

As to H injection and "secret ingredients"...

Sometimes BELIEF is a major factor in dealing with the world around us. I have no problem with this. I believe in a Supreme Being. While my belief may be questioned by many, it remains impossible to prove or disprove. Not so with chemistry. The proof is there and it's rather easy to discover... And it won't change because we wish it so.

Thus, I have a problem when "belief" flies in the face of verifiable fact. One can drink salt water and call it fresh. Calling salt water fresh doesn't change the fact that when boiled or evaporated a measure of salt will remain.

The same being the case for WVO. WVO is a mixture of various components that can be easily separated. Glycerin, salts, and other contaminates are a part of the mix and a "secret ingredient" does not exist to convert these substances into fuel oil. WVO is washed with water to remove soluble components. Lye is used to essentially make soap and leave a quality fuel oil. Believe what you will, but this is a fact.

Hydrogen... We argue this subject all the time. Whether we choose to believe or not, the addition of gaseous H to induction air will result in a net loss of ambient atmosphere equal to the mass of H being induced. This leads to two important facts if nothing else is considered.

1. Remove a mass of ambient atmosphere and replace it with an equal mass of a lighter substance and we remove ambient O.

2. H takes up the most mass per volume of any chemical substance. H weighs 1/8 of O by volume if I remember the Periodic Chart properly.

Consider only these two facts and remember that we're not dealing with the unknown nor unproved...

Remove O from the combustion process. Add a light gas that has very little potential energy by volume. What do we get?

First, by adding H we reduce the available O in an already somewhat oxygen starved environment and mix it with a charge of fuel oil. This makes for an even more incomplete fuel burn than before we induced H into the system. Look at it this way...

Have we not added a super light gas containing little energy by volume and needing O to burn while reducing total available O?. Pray tell where the extra O will come from that is needed for complete combustion? Are we not making an already inefficient process even worse?

Any reasonable onlooker might conclude that a common jackass could see what we "believers" don't seem to see. We somehow look at H and conclude that it's the holy grail of better economy while totally forgetting that any little bit of increased O is really the key to a better fuel burn.

Do we not agree that the reason for turbos is to stuff more air into our cylinders? And more air equals more O, doesn't it? Isn't it true that the amount of fuel has never been an issue? Getting a complete burn of fuel has always been the issue, hasn't it?

We're so engrossed in our H beliefs that we either forget or overlook proven facts. Facts being that only liquid H contains enough energy by volume to compete with fuel oil and that the last thing we want or need is to reduce the amount of O being induced into the combustion chamber.

I've attempted to speak as plainly as possible. I don't discount H as a potential fuel, nor do I claim that WVO can't be used in its raw state. I've merely laid out why the addition of gaseous H to the induction system of an internal combustion engine won't work very well and pointed out that improperly prepared WVO is contaminated oil, not fuel grade oil. I suspect that some systems will deal with contaminated oil better than others.

I don't mean to be argumentative. I have no wish to discourage those who think "out of the box", and I certainly entertain new ideas. I merely require that claims be backed by verifiable facts and that we not attempt to tweak natural laws beyond reason.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for those of us who dream to invent a more efficient engine than attempting to make an inefficient engine more efficient? Remember... It's all about the transfer of energy. If we could somehow remove the parasitic components of converting a measure of fuel into useful work, then all of our previous discussions would be moot.



I can't take credit for this posting, but I think it brings up a lot of valid points.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,404 Posts
Now if we could just get the guys who push H to read this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
241 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
Maybe I should have titled it differently.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
161 Posts
I think you are missing the point here. You don't just wind up with H2 gas after the electrolysis strips the hydrogen from the oxygen - you also get O2 gas. These gases are compressible and are both pulled into the intake, compressed with the combustion stroke and ignited with the injection of fuel. The burning of the H2 in the presence of additional O2 occurs FASTER than the normal combustion of fuel - enhancing the burn and contributing to additional power and greater efficiency. Adding propane injection is similar - you end up with a more volatile and efficient explosion if the turbo is able to keep up with the oxygen demands.

That's the theory anyway - just a more efficient burn rate. We can talk theory all day - but the only real proof is in the doing. I'm a bit skeptical myself, but I'm planning on giving it a shot and experimenting myself before I laugh it off or endorse it.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say about WVO, but it works pretty well as a fuel if done properly. So does biodiesel - only biodiesel doesn't require the same modifications to the vehicle. Glycerin is a byproduct of a chemical reaction used to convert the WVO into biodiesel and salts and other contaminants are easily enough to wash/filter out.

I do agree that it is about time for a modern, efficient engine design to come out. I've love to see a rotary burning diesel fuel - preferable WVO/SVO - at startup! Something that can provide a decent level of power while weaning us off a foreign oil dependency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
241 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
dieselburps, unfortunately that post wasn't mine, but one from another forum that I am on. From what I've read, most people are trying to use the HHO in the same way that propane is being used, but the space that the hydrogen takes up outweighs the added oxygen that is produced during electrolysis.

I think that one day we will be able to use hydrogen as an alternative fuel, but I don't believe that using the onboard HHO generators are an effective solution. I haven't seen any posts that show any noticeable improvements that I haven't seen myself by adjusting my driving style.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
161 Posts
dieselburps, unfortunately that post wasn't mine, but one from another forum that I am on. From what I've read, most people are trying to use the HHO in the same way that propane is being used, but the space that the hydrogen takes up outweighs the added oxygen that is produced during electrolysis.
The space...? It appears that you get 2 units of hydrogen for every 1 of oxygen. That's a pretty sizeable amount of oxygen - nitrous produces roughly 33% by volume of oxygen and it does wonders for power!

Most HHO generators seem to be producing 2-4% of the volume of gas that an engine would take in - it's not enough to generate a serious amount of power, but if it speeds up the burn of the diesel fuel that accompanies it, it could make the combustion more complete and therefore more efficient. It's not about using hydrogen as a fuel source as much as just making the internal combustion engine more efficient.

I haven't seen any posts that show any noticeable improvements that I haven't seen myself by adjusting my driving style.
I have seen some posts in which the person claimed a substantial increase in mpg. Your driving style definitely makes a huge difference also - but perhaps a combination of the two could make for a much more efficient vehicle.

The theory seems possible - I haven't tried one of these HHO generators yet, so I cannot really say they work. I'm more than a little hesitant to say they cannot work either - they are cheap enough to build though, so I'll give it a shot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
241 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
The space...? It appears that you get 2 units of hydrogen for every 1 of oxygen. That's a pretty sizeable amount of oxygen - nitrous produces roughly 33% by volume of oxygen and it does wonders for power!
Unfortunately one part oxygen and two parts hydrogen doesn't equal 33% oxygen by volume. Remember, we have too look at volume being displaced here. When we look at the volume of gases, one part hydrogen doesn't equal one part oxygen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,404 Posts
IIRC several here on Cummins Forums said they were buying the Mag HHO set up. I don't recall a single one of them posting back after installing HHO generators that they got any increase in fuel mileage. So far the only post I've read that claim they got better mpg from HHO are the ones selling HHO generators or how to info.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
161 Posts
Unfortunately one part oxygen and two parts hydrogen doesn't equal 33% oxygen by volume. Remember, we have too look at volume being displaced here. When we look at the volume of gases, one part hydrogen doesn't equal one part oxygen.
I am wrong here - you are correct - but not in the way you had thought. Check out this - with the key sentence of "Oxygen constitutes 88.8% of the mass of water".

It would seem that we gain a much greater amount of oxygen. Enriching the oxygen component of our controlled combustion would have a very positive effect on efficiency. At least that's the theory.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top