|
| MAD |
|
|||
|
I would say so.
You would see more economy benefit from the EFIE alone, than you would with the HHO generator. As I said, the EFIE is a load of crap. The theory, sorry excuse, behind it is that they are suggesting the the extra oxygen of the "HHO" generator is not going to participate in the combustion, which will give a higher concentration of oxygen in the exhaust (lean condition) which will cause your car's ECU to add fuel. The EFIE is an interceptor that alters the signal from the O2 sensor, so the ECU thinks it is always in a rich condition and will reduce the fuel accordingly. If they seriously think that the extra oxygen, and the hydrogen gas, are not going to react in the combustion process, they really need to go back to basic chemistry classes. The fuel economy benefits seen by adding the EFIE are purely from leaning out the fuel mixture. The EFIE alone will save you on fuel, without the HHO generator. If that is something you want to do to your car, you could. You will save some fuel, but I'd be very worried about the increased cylinder temperatures. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| haggis |
|
|||
|
MAD wrote: The combustion of hydrogen is the same as, "reversing the reaction". To burn hydrogen you need oxygen. When it burns, you end up with water vapour. Oh yeah. Not sure why I didn't see that. Herp derp.
_________________ I can see through wooden doors. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Shen Long |
|
|||
Age: 49 Posts: 391 Joined: 22nd Aug 2008 Ride: 2002 AUII Fairlane Sportsman V8 Location: Roxby Downs |
MAD wrote: I would say so. You would see more economy benefit from the EFIE alone, than you would with the HHO generator. As I said, the EFIE is a load of crap. The theory, sorry excuse, behind it is that they are suggesting the the extra oxygen of the "HHO" generator is not going to participate in the combustion, which will give a higher concentration of oxygen in the exhaust (lean condition) which will cause your car's ECU to add fuel. The EFIE is an interceptor that alters the signal from the O2 sensor, so the ECU thinks it is always in a rich condition and will reduce the fuel accordingly. If they seriously think that the extra oxygen, and the hydrogen gas, are not going to react in the combustion process, they really need to go back to basic chemistry classes. The fuel economy benefits seen by adding the EFIE are purely from leaning out the fuel mixture. The EFIE alone will save you on fuel, without the HHO generator. If that is something you want to do to your car, you could. You will save some fuel, but I'd be very worried about the increased cylinder temperatures. i am no scientist however wouldnt adding the Hydrogen into the fuel (ULP) increase the power output of the 2. its like Diesel trucks running Diesel fuel alongside with a small concentration of LPG which increases the combustion & power etc. is the theory behind the HHO & ULP the same? |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| MAD |
|
|||
|
Possibly, but you need to use power from the engine to make the HHO. Power that you won't get back 100%.
LPG + diesel is different because the LPG is in a tank that can be filled. No power from the enigne is used to make the LPG. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Shen Long |
|
|||
Age: 49 Posts: 391 Joined: 22nd Aug 2008 Ride: 2002 AUII Fairlane Sportsman V8 Location: Roxby Downs |
MAD wrote: Possibly, but you need to use power from the engine to make the HHO. Power that you won't get back 100%. LPG + diesel is different because the LPG is in a tank that can be filled. No power from the enigne is used to make the LPG. So what you're saying is that because the HHO generator uses power from the engine (more specifically the alternator) it needs energy to create energy. So the energy it needs to create the HHO Gas would need to somehow be less than the energy to aid in the vehicle running more leaner. Sorry about the confusing sentence. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| MAD |
|
|||
|
Exactly. You cannot get energy for free.
With each conversion of energy there is a loss due to efficiency. Engine to alt to HHO generator back to engine. Each stage has a loss. The biggest loss is in the engine itself. Internal combustion engines have an upper limit of around 37% thermal efficiency. That means, of all the fuel that gets pumped in the engine, only 37% of it's total energy is converted in to useful work. The other 63% is given off as heat to the radiator, heat out the exhaust. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Shen Long |
|
|||
Age: 49 Posts: 391 Joined: 22nd Aug 2008 Ride: 2002 AUII Fairlane Sportsman V8 Location: Roxby Downs |
MAD wrote: Exactly. You cannot get energy for free. With each conversion of energy there is a loss due to efficiency. Engine to alt to HHO generator back to engine. Each stage has a loss. The biggest loss is in the engine itself. Internal combustion engines have an upper limit of around 37% thermal efficiency. That means, of all the fuel that gets pumped in the engine, only 37% of it's total energy is converted in to useful work. The other 63% is given off as heat to the radiator, heat out the exhaust. i am not 1000% sure but doesn't the introduction of the HHO gas into the combustion chamber increase the 37% thermal efficiency to a greater number (I am unsure of the percentage) which therefor means less fuel, better economy & better thermal efficiency? |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| tickford_6 |
|
||
Posts: 6449 Joined: 11th Nov 2004 |
HHO can not change how much heat is lost in the exhaust gas and it can not change the thermal conductivity of cast iron and aluminium.
It might, and that is a BIG might, improve the efficiency of the burn. But it will never be able to create more energy that it consumes. If you really want to use water to lower your fuel costs, get a decent water injection kit, rip the head off and shave the crap out of it, get an EFIE to lean the mixtures, run it on the cheapest lowest octane fuel you can get and use the water injection to keep the cylinder temps and detonation under control. Otherwise buy a smaller car. |
||
| Top | |
||
| MAD |
|
|||
|
Shen Long wrote: MAD wrote: Exactly. You cannot get energy for free. With each conversion of energy there is a loss due to efficiency. Engine to alt to HHO generator back to engine. Each stage has a loss. The biggest loss is in the engine itself. Internal combustion engines have an upper limit of around 37% thermal efficiency. That means, of all the fuel that gets pumped in the engine, only 37% of it's total energy is converted in to useful work. The other 63% is given off as heat to the radiator, heat out the exhaust. i am not 1000% sure but doesn't the introduction of the HHO gas into the combustion chamber increase the 37% thermal efficiency to a greater number (I am unsure of the percentage) which therefor means less fuel, better economy & better thermal efficiency? Most engines are around 25-30%. It may slightly increase the efficiency of combustion, but will it be enough to overcome the 75% odd that is lost in the process of making the HHO gas? If you really want to save fuel and keep your current car, do as tickford_6 says. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Shen Long |
|
|||
Age: 49 Posts: 391 Joined: 22nd Aug 2008 Ride: 2002 AUII Fairlane Sportsman V8 Location: Roxby Downs |
MAD wrote: That 37% is the theoretical maximum thermal efficiency of an naturally aspirated internal combustion engine. the alternator is producing electricity whether or not we want to or not.Most engines are around 25-30%. It may slightly increase the efficiency of combustion, but will it be enough to overcome the 75% odd that is lost in the process of making the HHO gas? If you really want to save fuel and keep your current car, do as tickford_6 says. doesnt matter if the alternator make 50A or 100A it still requires the same amount of power from the engine....no??? All the HHO system is doing is using up the charge from the alternator to create HHO gas which is fed back into the engine to create a better burn of the primary fuel whether it be LPG, ULP or diesel. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| evxr6 |
|
|||
|
Shen Long wrote: MAD wrote: That 37% is the theoretical maximum thermal efficiency of an naturally aspirated internal combustion engine. the alternator is producing electricity whether or not we want to or not.Most engines are around 25-30%. It may slightly increase the efficiency of combustion, but will it be enough to overcome the 75% odd that is lost in the process of making the HHO gas? If you really want to save fuel and keep your current car, do as tickford_6 says. doesnt matter if the alternator make 50A or 100A it still requires the same amount of power from the engine....no??? All the HHO system is doing is using up the charge from the alternator to create HHO gas which is fed back into the engine to create a better burn of the primary fuel whether it be LPG, ULP or diesel. Actually, if you put more load on the electrical system, the alternator will put more load on the engine. That's why if you have a loose alt belt, it will be more likely to slip if you have more stuff on. Eg, high beams, radio, rear window de-mist etc on all at the same time. The alternator is designed to keep the voltage at around 13.6v. When you turn on a electrical device, this will drop the voltage, so the alt will have to work harder to keep the status quo, as it were. If it didn't convert electrical load into mechanical load, it probably would convert it to heat load... maybe... As many people keep saying, you don't get something for nothing.
_________________ Current ride: MY03 Liberty RX Wagon |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| MAD |
|
|||
|
Shen Long wrote: the alternator is producing electricity whether or not we want to or not. An alternator is always generating voltage, but the output of current is variable.doesnt matter if the alternator make 50A or 100A it still requires the same amount of power from the engine....no??? All the HHO system is doing is using up the charge from the alternator to create HHO gas which is fed back into the engine to create a better burn of the primary fuel whether it be LPG, ULP or diesel. You're forrgetting, the only thing reducing your fuel usage is the EFIE, not the HHO. Hypothetically, let's say adding HHO increased the efficiency by 10%. So now, your engine is operating at 35% thermal efficiency. The alternator is producing an extra 30A to generate HHO (13.7x30=411w). lets assume an alternator operates at about 90% efficiency, so it needs 411/0.9=452w to make the HHO. So you've used 456w to make 411w power to feed the HHO generator. Now you've built a really good HHO generator, so it also operates at about 90% efficiency. So that 411w makes 370w potential of HHO. Now you feed that HHO into the engine and of all it's 370w, the engine converts 35% of it to useable work. What did we get for the trouble? 130w. So at the end of the line, it took 452w to get an extra 130w from our engine. Or in other words, the engine was making 322w less than before you added the HHO generator. If there is a way to make that balance in favour of adding a HHO system, I'd like to see it. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Shen Long |
|
|||
Age: 49 Posts: 391 Joined: 22nd Aug 2008 Ride: 2002 AUII Fairlane Sportsman V8 Location: Roxby Downs |
MAD wrote: An alternator is always generating voltage, but the output of current is variable. You're forrgetting, the only thing reducing your fuel usage is the EFIE, not the HHO. Hypothetically, let's say adding HHO increased the efficiency by 10%. So now, your engine is operating at 35% thermal efficiency. The alternator is producing an extra 30A to generate HHO (13.7x30=411w). lets assume an alternator operates at about 90% efficiency, so it needs 411/0.9=452w to make the HHO. So you've used 456w to make 411w power to feed the HHO generator. Now you've built a really good HHO generator, so it also operates at about 90% efficiency. So that 411w makes 370w potential of HHO. Now you feed that HHO into the engine and of all it's 370w, the engine converts 35% of it to useable work. What did we get for the trouble? 130w. So at the end of the line, it took 452w to get an extra 130w from our engine. Or in other words, the engine was making 322w less than before you added the HHO generator. If there is a way to make that balance in favour of adding a HHO system, I'd like to see it. Mate dont take it the wrong way, i really honestly dont know, but when you put the figures down you seem to be correct. You have made 'x' amount of watts but in the process you have also saved 'x' amount of primary fuel. Is that not what is important factor to consider? Not the final RWKW but the RWKW & L/100KM combined. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Shen Long |
|
|||
Age: 49 Posts: 391 Joined: 22nd Aug 2008 Ride: 2002 AUII Fairlane Sportsman V8 Location: Roxby Downs |
evxr6 wrote: Actually, if you put more load on the electrical system, the alternator will put more load on the engine. That's why if you have a loose alt belt, it will be more likely to slip if you have more stuff on. Eg, high beams, radio, rear window de-mist etc on all at the same time. Yes that is correct however the load on the engine is not significant enough to cause a massive rate of fuel consumption. It would in all honesty be very miniscule IMHO.
The alternator is designed to keep the voltage at around 13.6v. When you turn on a electrical device, this will drop the voltage, so the alt will have to work harder to keep the status quo, as it were. If it didn't convert electrical load into mechanical load, it probably would convert it to heat load... maybe... As many people keep saying, you don't get something for nothing. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| tickford_6 |
|
||
Posts: 6449 Joined: 11th Nov 2004 |
Seriously, just go out and waste you money one it. But you'd be better off just handing that money over the counter at the servo.
You're about to spend money creating a device that will only serve to shorten the life of your alternator. |
||
| Top | |
||
| Who is online |
|---|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests |
