Jump to content

Cooking with Hydrogen.


JES_VFR

Recommended Posts

What is the best oil for this setup? :biggrin:

Hmmm...would that be snake oil? :offtopic:

Not sure about oil, but I am going to assume that one would not want to run tap/natural source water in this setup? As it will introduce dirt, sediment, minerals, and other contaminates to the system? So we are also talking about the additional(marginal) cost of filtering the water used(or buying distilled bottled water?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Member Contributer

What is the best oil for this setup? :warranty:

Hmmm...would that be snake oil? :goofy:

He turned me into a newt!

Holy_grail_witch_burn_small.jpg

I.....ummm...... I got better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member Contributer

Uhh, 1700 liters you say. That is not really very much.

The 1700 was a conservative figure as you can find many references to 1833 liters of gas from a single liter of water and even some claims that it is 2037 liters per liter of water. I just check some of my notes and I have been using the 1833 figure for most of my calculations.

Well lets assume 4 revolutions = 1 intake event on each cylinder = ~.780 liters/4 revs

close, two cylinders fire every time the crank turns, (assuming no pumping losses or a Volumetric efficiency of more than 1), its .782 liters/2 revs or 391 liters/rev

Derr....Yeah, brain fart. 4 stroke != 4 revolutions. So yes, .782 L/2 rev, you fixed all the other calculations.

At 4000 rpm ->

(4000 rev/min) * (.780 L/4 revs) = 780 L/min

At 4000 rpm, the engine displaces 1560L/min

if we were trying to run the engine entirely on HHO that means a liter of water would last 1.18 minutes at 4000 rpm.

You can easily say that it is good fortune that we are not trying to run the engine solely on HHO.

So, lets safely say the engine will consume every bit of HHO gas as fast as it is made.

That it does..

From smacksboosters:

The rated output of this 5" x 5" 4 cell unit is .5LPM of high potency HHO gas

Well at that rate, you will have

1700 L * (2 min/ 1L) = 3400 minutes.

Again that is a bit of a conservative figure, from the company (better to under quote the output than over quote it). With the pump, I'm getting a little more than .75 lpm. I'm not sure why, but I've measured using the old displacement method and consistantly gotten about .75 l of gas in a minute. It may have something to do with pump generating pressure flow and the flow scrubbing small bubbles off the plates, which clears the plate to form more gas. I do know that units without the pumps make fairly large bubbles that rise in the tubes like bubbles in soda, cling side wall of the tube. My unit even when it was setup on a bench test, makes white froth in the output tubes more like the bubbles rising in draft pint of guiness (ie. there are no recognizable bubbles until the gas rises to the surface).

based on what I saw on the bench a liter of water will last

1833 L * (4 min/3L) = 2444 minutes or more than 40 hours.

The question now is if that tiny bit of hydrogen and oxygen is going to really change the thermodynamic conditions inside the cylinder enough to realize any gain. I mean we are talking about ~640 parts per million or 0.064% HHO.

Hmmm....

Well, nothing to do but wait for data, seeing as how you already have the stuff installed. I guess I now have some reservations about the efficacy of this system.

I'd have to look up the number of liters of liguid gasoline you would need to make the number of liters of gas vapor you would need, assuming you need 1 mole of gasoline for every 14.7 moles of O2 (which is what % by volume of a liter of atmosphere?).

18-22% depending where you are and who you ask. 14.7:1 is a mass ratio, not a mole or volume ratio. You need to figure in the density of air to determine how much fuel you will use (assuming stoich, of course). THEN, you would need to figure out the composition of gasoline (or some idealized test fuel) and you could then plug all the individual component information into a gas law equation of some kind to figure out the volume of gasoline vapor generated from a given mass of gasoline (see what I mean about complicated). Not to mention that there are generally oxygenating agents in gasoline as well....MTBE, EtOH, etc...

but here is a rough equation.

if the motor displaces 1560 L/min at 4000 rpm, then its pumping 280 L/min of O2, and so if we assume an ideal set of conditions use a stoich air fuel ratio, we need 19.1 liters of gas vapor. .75 liters of HHO is not as far away from the quantity of gasoline vapor as it seems at first.

Now I know that equation is not 100%, but it gives you some other idea into how much gasoline is needed to make and engine run and also how little HHO would be needed to have an effect.

As you say its installed, so we will see how it does when I get the tuning finished.

And I have some other things to try to improve the hho production as well.

The other thing I haven't mentioned is how throttle position effects the ratios. I'm guessing everything suggested so far is more equivalent to WOT conditions. If you are at part throttle, the HHO tank is still generating the same amount of gas as at WOT and the throttle plates are letting less air in. I would assume then that the concentration of HHO in each cylinder would be greater than that at WOT. This is probably why little HP gain would be seen, as the engine is pumping a LOT of air at 10k+ rpms and the HHO will be very dilute. However, at part throttle with the higher concentrations, some thermodynamic changes may be more easily affected.

At this point, this is all mental masturbation. Get this thing running, inquiring minds want to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure about oil, but I am going to assume that one would not want to run tap/natural source water in this setup? As it will introduce dirt, sediment, minerals, and other contaminates to the system? So we are also talking about the additional(marginal) cost of filtering the water used(or buying distilled bottled water?).

Forget about the oil, but yeah your right NO tap or spring water.

Distilled or other wise purified water (I'm using Reverse Osmosis purified water as always for a couple of reasons)

1. I already have a filter setup attached to a faucet, for filling a medium size fish tank, as my tap water is that bad.

2. Over the long run the cost of using filter is cheaper by the gallon than buying distilled (its about 1.00/gal as opposed to 2.99/gal). Out on the road I suppose I'll just hit a drug store if I needed it desperately.

3. Since I'm doing some work on a renewable bio-mass based fuel process, one of the by products is RO water. So for me its just more serendipity.

by the way I'm using KOH (Potasium Hydroxide) as the electrolyte right now, but that may be changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really interesting, some smart guys on here... so the only conclusion I can come up with is that by riding a VFR I am increasing my intelligence quotient :warranty: :goofy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to look up the number of liters of liguid gasoline you would need to make the number of liters of gas vapor you would need, assuming you need 1 mole of gasoline for every 14.7 moles of O2 (which is what % by volume of a liter of atmosphere?).

18-22% depending where you are and who you ask. 14.7:1 is a mass ratio, not a mole or volume ratio. You need to figure in the density of air to determine how much fuel you will use (assuming stoich, of course). THEN, you would need to figure out the composition of gasoline (or some idealized test fuel) and you could then plug all the individual component information into a gas law equation of some kind to figure out the volume of gasoline vapor generated from a given mass of gasoline (see what I mean about complicated). Not to mention that there are generally oxygenating agents in gasoline as well....MTBE, EtOH, etc...

By George, I think he's got it :idea3: :idea3: :idea3:

:warranty: :bliss: :bliss: :goofy:

By bad on the mass ratio versus molar or volume equation, but my points are the following.

1. Atmosphere is not oxygen, its mostly nitrogen and even the experts can agree on what percentage of oxygen is in the ambient atmosphere. Never mind what happens when you in a location that is being pointedly altered (like say behind that car or bus at a stoplight, near a power plant or factory, or something as simple as near a waterfall or the shore. Its all over the place.

And gasoline is not a single hydrocarbon, nor even the basic variations of a single hc like say the variances in bottle of reference octane. Its some mixture of 87 HC's and god knows how many additives. Calculations with ethanol are easy compared to trying handle all the possibilities of Gasoline.

2. Everything in these calculations are equations, almost nothing is a constant. The mathematical model is a nightmare to layout and requires a lot of computing power. That is why a self tuning pcm needs a wideband sensor as it cannot compute all the variables at once and needs to look at the results of the last combustion to try and adjust for next event.

The other thing I haven't mentioned is how throttle position effects the ratios. I'm guessing everything suggested so far is more equivalent to WOT conditions. If you are at part throttle, the HHO tank is still generating the same amount of gas as at WOT and the throttle plates are letting less air in. I would assume then that the concentration of HHO in each cylinder would be greater than that at WOT. This is probably why little HP gain would be seen, as the engine is pumping a LOT of air at 10k+ rpms and the HHO will be very dilute. However, at part throttle with the higher concentrations, some thermodynamic changes may be more easily affected.

At this point, this is all mental masturbation. Get this thing running, inquiring minds want to know.

I believe that the technology to make great quantities of HHO is coming soon, then there will need to be controls adjust the HHO production to match it into lockstep with the fuel demand curves of the oem pcm. At that point the efficiency of the combustion will make a quantum leap and going a hundred miles on a gallon the primary fuel will be common place.

Note I did not say gasoline, I don't know that we will be able to afford gasoline by then.

That is why I'm working on this stuff.

You and I could probably for days about this and the issues with trying to model all of it and more.

but it is running, so now we test and tune and test some more.

As I said earlier build it, prove it, then explain it with mathematics.

Science has blasted a huge hole in the HHO theory of "something for almost nothing". But let's look at something that is FAR more important that science: MONEY!

With all the bazillions of dollars (yen, marks) being invested by auto makers, independent research institutions (and colleges) AND the oil companies in hybrids and battery technology, direct fuel injection, variable displacement, diesel-two-stroke-opposed-piston engines and ALL the other endeavors over the past 40 years to increase mileage and reduce emissions.....does anyone really think that all these very smart and motivated researchers have overlooked something as simple and effective as HHO is proclaimed to be?

Hardly.

I recently had an email conversation with Neil Cavuto (Fox News Channel) when he had Pat Boone on his show, pushing a silly "compressed air" car. [You gotta watch this dingbat Boone talk about saving the world with this air car]-- http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fv%2F4028558%2Fpat-boone-pushing-air-cars%2F%3Fplaylist_id%3D87249&rct=j&q=pat+boone+air+car&ei=W3HrS5aIIIK78gbfpdSxBA&usg=AFQjCNH53Sw_o-IqLfcND8W1ip__XoYeeA Cavuto is no engineer and thus didn't know to toss some basic technical questions to Boone to debunk the air car. I wrote to him and discussed two simple things to keep in mind when he has to evaluate crank concepts in future interviews: Energy density and MONEY. Energy density is why we've been using gasoline (and diesel) for 100 years....and MONEY is why we've been using gasoline (and diesel) for 100 years.

Hey Pat...how do you MAKE the compressed air, huh? Perhaps in an enormously inefficient air compressor run by electricity produced from coal? What a dingbat!

Anyway, science is good......the 2nd Law of Thermo is immutable. But MONEY is an easier theory to follow. It's quite simple--money talks. Period. :cheerleader:

I applaud JES for all his hard and clever work, and I hope he somehow proves science wrong.

:lurk:

Hey Trace you bring up a good point, but I think you don't see the real truth. None of the breakthroughs in the alternate energy arena started with these big industry leaders, Its all these small little companies that design and develop the technology, then GM, Ford, Exxon, LUK or even the USAF comes along and wants to buy out the patent. Some of the stuff the try and produce, a lot of it they just bury.

Add in all the scammers, liars and idiot, it quickly becomes apparent that this industry has major credibility issues. Hell I'm employed in it now and I'm still a skeptic when it comes to other technologies.

You are 100% correct it is all about Money and Energy Density. Gasoline has just about the highest density out there. That's why we have been using for all these years. The problem I have is that we never mastered efficiently combusting it. Heck that is why we don't and can't use something like methane is energy density is so low that you have to use a supercharger to compress enough of it into our inefficient combustion chamber to make close to the same power as gasoline.

All I'm trying to do with this is add my own additive to the gasoline and make it burn more completely while still in the cylinder.

I don't know that I'm trying to break any laws of science, I'm just trying to bend the equations in my favor for a change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Trace you bring up a good point, but I think you don't see the real truth. None of the breakthroughs in the alternate energy arena started with these big industry leaders, Its all these small little companies that design and develop the technology, then GM, Ford, Exxon, LUK or even the USAF comes along and wants to buy out the patent.

Well, actually I think I DO see the truth, and it does not include conspriacy theories about surpressing promising new technologies just so Big Oil can continue to rule the world. Everybody is working Everything, Everywhere, all the time, so that's why I don't feel that HHO has been "missed" as viable. In fact, the truth that I saw a long time ago was the mania surrounding the Three Mile Island incident (with no resulting radiation leak, as designed!) and the resulting moratorium on nuke power to this day. Now look at the fix we're in....coal and oil to generate electricity, when the best Energy Density available has been staring us in the face for years. Yep, I'm big on nukes. In fact, do a little research on Traveling Wave Reactors. THAT is the solution for all energy needs, forever. And ever. And it's almost a viable technology.

You are 100% correct it is all about Money and Energy Density. Gasoline has just about the highest density out there. That's why we have been using for all these years. The problem I have is that we never mastered efficiently combusting it.

Well, that may or may not be true. We're nearing the efficiencies of the various Carnot/Rankine/Otto cycle theories of the textbooks....harnessing waste heat and all that. I understand that you're hoping HHO will somehow increase combustion efficiency...but I think you're just changing water to water and losing energy (electricity) in the process. It would be great if I'm wrong.

I don't know that I'm trying to break any laws of science, I'm just trying to bend the equations in my favor for a change.

Bending doesn't set well with Mother Nature, but I think that's absolutely great that you're having a go at it. It's very interesting, regardless of my Money Truth and Energy Density Truth rantings! :warranty:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member Contributer

By bad on the mass ratio versus molar or volume equation, but my points are the following.

1. Atmosphere is not oxygen, its mostly nitrogen and even the experts can agree on what percentage of oxygen is in the ambient atmosphere. Never mind what happens when you in a location that is being pointedly altered (like say behind that car or bus at a stoplight, near a power plant or factory, or something as simple as near a waterfall or the shore. Its all over the place.

And gasoline is not a single hydrocarbon, nor even the basic variations of a single hc like say the variances in bottle of reference octane. Its some mixture of 87 HC's and god knows how many additives. Calculations with ethanol are easy compared to trying handle all the possibilities of Gasoline.

2. Everything in these calculations are equations, almost nothing is a constant. The mathematical model is a nightmare to layout and requires a lot of computing power. That is why a self tuning pcm needs a wideband sensor as it cannot compute all the variables at once and needs to look at the results of the last combustion to try and adjust for next event.

Indeed, some fast processors and a wideband setup is about the limit for the enthusiast. Even then, you are only altering a basic fuel/RPM/throttle position table. To really optimize the system would require mega $$$ mass air rig with the necessary sensors to adjust injection, cam, and ignition timing. If preliminary testing shows a good return on investment, a corporation, government agency, or research lab certainly has more resources at their disposal. Of course there also has to be a certain scalability factor on both the microlevel (781cc -> 3.0L engine size) and the macrolevel (hand made -> industrially produced and distributed) for any consideration of serious research/funding.

All I'm trying to do with this is add my own additive to the gasoline and make it burn more completely while still in the cylinder.

I don't know that I'm trying to break any laws of science, I'm just trying to bend the equations in my favor for a change.

That really does sum it up, you are generating a gas phase additive in situ. Something that cannot be bottled up and poured into the tank (well...technically you could pour water in the tank but that isn't really the point here). Alright, now get off the forums and get to work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member Contributer
As a system that uses electricity that the bike is throwing away and then taking that byproduct to improve combustion I find it very intriguing.

The bike isn't throwing away electricity. The load on the engine from the stator is the resistance of the system attached to it. As you draw more amps, the stator will be harder to turn, using more fuel.

No, the stator generates full output (for the rpms it is turning) at all times. You can't increase the load on it, you can only siphon off the power it generates (which is why we have a regulator to soak up the power that the bikes systems don't burn up).

"According to a spokesman for the American Automobile Association, "All of these devices look like they could probably work for you, but let me tell you they don't."[37]

Anytime you hear words like "Can I just say" or "That's a very good question" or "let me tell you"... you're listening to either a politician or a spin doctor.

You're right, permanent magnet generator, not field controlled generator on bikes.

First up I need to say that I think what JES_VFR is trying to do is admirable. Experimenting to find out if there is a better way of doing something. That is exactly how the human race got to where we are today. (and lets not have some smart arse come back with "Chocking the planet with CO2"). Experimentation in the face of doubt, IMHO, produced so many of the advances we now take for granted.

Now , regarding this part of the thread about power demand on the alternator, All power flow, no matter if it is electrical or Mechanical needs something capable of generating it, and something capable of using it. Think of a 10 HP motor sitting on the floor. If it has no power supply, It becomes just a paper weight, capable of doing nothing interesting. Now, if you hook this motor up to the wall socket and turn it on, it will start to turn, probably at it's nominal speed. A little bit of power is used to accelerate the rotor, but once it reaches it's operating speed, it is not drawing or delivering any power apart from maybe blowing some air around, or warming up the Bearings a little.

It is only if we connect that motor to some mechanical device that is going to move things, like lifting something up, or draging something along or pumping something from one height to another, that any real power flow is going on, and if you organize the load correctly you just might match the load to the 10 HP the motor is rated to do.

ok , so we got to have something to generate power and something to use it before you get a power flow.

The same applies to your VFR alternator. I may not have had a lot to do with Modern Motor cycle electrics, but the theory of electric machines has not change much since the 1920's

Basically, the excitation on the alternator is fixed, by virtue of the permanent magnets. As the RPM's go up, the voltage goes up.

Now the R/R clamps this rising voltage by shunting some current from the alternator directly to frame using the SCR's in the R/R.

Back at University we learned that power is equal to Current squared times Resistance (P = I*I*R), now in the Circuits I have seen for the R/R the only resistance in the circuit is the forward conducting volt drop in the SCR itself and whatever resistance there may be in the plug connections and the wires themselves. Thus, even thou there may be a fair amount of current flowing (remember we have to think of it being squared, as in the formulae), the resistance part of the circuit is normally very very low, therefore, from the equation, the power required to circulate this current in the "Stator-R/R-Frame" circuit is not all that high and so the actual mechanical load on the crankshaft is equally low, Thus the short circuited current that is clamping the voltage at it's correct level, is not taking very Much power out of your trusty V4 Engine.

When it comes to power, there is no free lunch. The HHO Generator will require power to separate the water into it's components, and every Watt (or HP) that it requires will translate directly to HP delivered by the alternator, using power taken from the Crankshaft. The actual mechanism is that the Cell will operate at a certain voltage and require a certain amount of current, Multiply the two together and you will have the number of WATTs the unit requires to work. 746 of these WATTs will be one HP from the shaft.

so the statement ......

No, the stator generates full output (for the rpms it is turning) at all times. You can't increase the load on it, you can only siphon off the power it generates (which is why we have a regulator to soak up the power that the bikes systems don't burn up)........

is not true.

The R/R shunting is not really a power soak, just a current soak, You need both Current AND Voltage (from resistance) before you get power.

This is not to say that the idea of the HHO addition to the fuel will not increase the net power output from the engine, based on your arguments about more complete burning, etc, But What I am saying is that any power required to operate the HHO generator will be an extra power demand on the Engine that will need to be accounted for.

I sincerely hope that your experiment will produce real results in both savings on fuel and a general increase in our collective knowledge about this innovation, I just think it will help to clear up the misconception about the energy required to run the HHO unit.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, some fast processors and a wideband setup is about the limit for the enthusiast. Even then, you are only altering a basic fuel/RPM/throttle position table. To really optimize the system would require mega $$$ mass air rig with the necessary sensors to adjust injection, cam, and ignition timing. If preliminary testing shows a good return on investment, a corporation, government agency, or research lab certainly has more resources at their disposal. Of course there also has to be a certain scalability factor on both the microlevel (781cc -> 3.0L engine size) and the macrolevel (hand made -> industrially produced and distributed) for any consideration of serious research/funding.

Well I can scale the 5x5 cell to an 8x8 and even package them as single/double and triple parallel stacks.

we have put an 8x8 double on a 6.6 duramax diesel and had it yet large gains in city mileage (about 40% increase)

It pulls 40 amps of power into a dual 8x8 stacks without the pump.

That really does sum it up, you are generating a gas phase additive in situ. Something that cannot be bottled up and poured into the tank (well...technically you could pour water in the tank but that isn't really the point here). Alright, now get off the forums and get to work

yes Sir, loading a test map into the pc tonight and riding tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Trace you bring up a good point, but I think you don't see the real truth. None of the breakthroughs in the alternate energy arena started with these big industry leaders, Its all these small little companies that design and develop the technology, then GM, Ford, Exxon, LUK or even the USAF comes along and wants to buy out the patent.

Well, actually I think I DO see the truth, and it does not include conspriacy theories about surpressing promising new technologies just so Big Oil can continue to rule the world. Everybody is working Everything, Everywhere, all the time, so that's why I don't feel that HHO has been "missed" as viable.

But that IS the problem everybody from the idiots to the conmen to the real researchers are working on solutions to the energy problem. An every one is so focused on proving JUST their technology that many spend too much time knocking all the others.

Have you ever tried to talk about the possible benefits to an electric vehicle nut, Most of them will be shouting at you in about three minutes when you point out that their precious electricity is generated by coal and/or oil fired plants.

In fact, the truth that I saw a long time ago was the mania surrounding the Three Mile Island incident (with no resulting radiation leak, as designed!) and the resulting moratorium on nuke power to this day. Now look at the fix we're in....coal and oil to generate electricity, when the best Energy Density available has been staring us in the face for years. Yep, I'm big on nukes.

I have no issue with nukes, the navy has successfully used them on carriers and subs for years. I'm just against the letting the private corporations build and run their own plants.. See I remember growing up down wind from TMI and wondering if that next big cloud was rain or radioactive crap for a few years. I don't know what the solution is on how to fix the whole private business/government regulation model to make it work. I've lived near limerick plant and oyster creek and peach bottom, so no I don't think that Nukes are unsafe per se. I just don't think that the public safety should ever oppose corporate greed. Maybe only "Not For Profit" corporations should be allowed to operate Nuclear plants.

In fact, do a little research on Traveling Wave Reactors. THAT is the solution for all energy needs, forever. And ever. And it's almost a viable technology. much like current electric vehicles, my issue is that last statement almost viable technology.

You are 100% correct it is all about Money and Energy Density. Gasoline has just about the highest density out there. That's why we have been using for all these years. The problem I have is that we never mastered efficiently combusting it.

Well, that may or may not be true. We're nearing the efficiencies of the various Carnot/Rankine/Otto cycle theories of the textbooks....harnessing waste heat and all that. I understand that you're hoping HHO will somehow increase combustion efficiency...but I think you're just changing water to water and losing energy (electricity) in the process. It would be great if I'm wrong.

See I have a problem with any process that throws away 65-70% of the potential energy being labeled as efficient. That is plain crap.

Now you may be correct, I may just be playing with splitting water and then making reform. But I think that there is something there. I mean if I can whittle some work out of that 10 - 20 % from that big pool of potential energy in gasoline, then I'll feel like I have something.

I don't know that I'm trying to break any laws of science, I'm just trying to bend the equations in my favor for a change.

Bending doesn't set well with Mother Nature, but I think that's absolutely great that you're having a go at it. It's very interesting, regardless of my Money Truth and Energy Density Truth rantings! :fing02:

No worries there Trace, I've been a skeptic for years of all sorts of energy devices, but the sheer level of wasted energy is ridiculous. Even with Nuclear power all the energy wasted as heat is insane I mean you could use the steam that goes up those cooling stacks for many things (making fuel ethanol, processing other chemicals, heating manufacturing processes and more).

the day of single technology solutions to the worlds energy problems is over. Its going to take having multiple technologies overlapping to solve the worlds energy problems.

renewable fuels and new generator technologies are going to have to shake hands with better energy storage solutions to drive new hybrid power systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest IrrerD

No worries there Trace, I've been a skeptic for years of all sorts of energy devices, but the sheer level of wasted energy is ridiculous. Even with Nuclear power all the energy wasted as heat is insane I mean you could use the steam that goes up those cooling stacks for many things (making fuel ethanol, processing other chemicals, heating manufacturing processes and more).

the day of single technology solutions to the worlds energy problems is over. Its going to take having multiple technologies overlapping to solve the worlds energy problems.

renewable fuels and new generator technologies are going to have to shake hands with better energy storage solutions to drive new hybrid power systems.

Thank you, JES_VFR!! That has got to be one of the most sensible statements I've ever heard. Unfortunately, most people seem to grab at the first solution offered rather than the best one. Fast and easy just does not fit every problem.

I'm looking forward to your continued testing, and wondering how such a system might work (or not) with earlier carbed bikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member Contributer

The R/R shunting is not really a power soak, just a current soak, You need both Current AND Voltage (from resistance) before you get power.

Tom

Please tell me that you don't have an EE.

I don't even know where to start to explain where the train left the tracks here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member Contributer

I think this is an interesting concept. If the generated gas can act as an effective additive which increases the burn efficiency of the gasoline then there are no laws of thermodynamics being violated. I don't think this should be a difficult concept for many to grasp here, but reading this thread it seems that it really is. Perhaps it is a critical reading deficiency? He's not trying to produce a primary fuel source here -just produce an additive that might increase the amount of energy the ICE is extracting from the gasoline.

This isn't a perpetual motion machine. He's still using gas. Think of the system as a wind-up toy car. He's not going to replace the wind-up mainspring -just oil it so that it moves better when it is unwinding. He's not trying to get any real energy out of the "oil" (hydroxy gas) -just using it to lube and improve the efficiency of the "spring" (the gasoline-powered ICE engine).

About the only issue I can see with the whole idea so far is the statement that distilled water is $2.99/gallon. I can buy it at the little local grocery store across the street for about $1.50 gallon. In a time when some people on this board are paying $6-8/quart (or even more) for boutique synthetic crank oil I would think that $1.50 for a gallon of clean/pure water isn't really a big deal. It's practically free. Since he's got a good water filter on his tap, it's even less of an issue. Every grocery store in the USA sells distilled water. It's not unobtanium or very expensive. What is the issue?

But what do I know...

The real question is; hHow well will the additive change the burn properties of the pump gas? And can the EFI map be changed to take advantage of these changes to increase HP and/or fuel mileage. I think it's worth the effort for someone to find out -especially as the only effort I personally have to put into the experiment is to wait for the dyno charts to be made and posted online.

Yes, it's worth the wait.

Oh, the humanity!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The R/R shunting is not really a power soak, just a current soak, You need both Current AND Voltage (from resistance) before you get power.

Tom

Please tell me that you don't have an EE.

I don't even know where to start to explain where the train left the tracks here...

Hey for what it is worth my Dad is a retired EE and told me that I was full of sh!te when I said that were just recovering power wasted as heat in the regulator. That is until I showed him the electrosport web site.

Then He said that Honda's rectifier/regulator design the "most cheap-assed piece of crap" he'd ever seen and that I was right any surplus power from the stator (which is supposed to be most of the time) just gets shorted to the frame as heat.

This is coming from a man who spent his career building military and space radios, getting down and dirty with their power supplies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is an interesting concept. If the generated gas can act as an effective additive which increases the burn efficiency of the gasoline then there are no laws of thermodynamics being violated. I don't think this should be a difficult concept for many to grasp here, but reading this thread it seems that it really is. Perhaps it is a critical reading deficiency? He's not trying to produce a primary fuel source here -just produce an additive that might increase the amount of energy the ICE is extracting from the gasoline.

This isn't a perpetual motion machine. He's still using gas. Think of the system as a wind-up toy car. He's not going to replace the wind-up mainspring -just oil it so that it moves better when it is unwinding. He's not trying to get any real energy out of the "oil" (hydroxy gas) -just using it to lube and improve the efficiency of the "spring" (the gasoline-powered ICE engine).

About the only issue I can see with the whole idea so far is the statement that distilled water is $2.99/gallon. I can buy it at the little local grocery store across the street for about $1.50 gallon. In a time when some people on this board are paying $6-8/quart (or even more) for boutique synthetic crank oil I would think that $1.50 for a gallon of clean/pure water isn't really a big deal. It's practically free. Since he's got a good water filter on his tap, it's even less of an issue. Every grocery store in the USA sells distilled water. It's not unobtanium or very expensive. What is the issue?

But what do I know...

The real question is; hHow well will the additive change the burn properties of the pump gas? And can the EFI map be changed to take advantage of these changes to increase HP and/or fuel mileage. I think it's worth the effort for someone to find out -especially as the only effort I personally have to put into the experiment is to wait for the dyno charts to be made and posted online.

Yes, it's worth the wait.

Oh, the humanity!

That is exactly what I have been saying, I'm making an additive to improve the combustion of the gasoline.

the toy car reference was a good analogy. Another buddy that used to work as ground staff at the confederate air force stunt shows put it this way. It's like the atom bomb effect. We know that gasoline has all this energy in it but if you just put it in a bucket with a wick, it only gives off some light, a lot of smoke and some heat and takes hours to burn out. But spread the same amount of gas on the flash pan and light it. You get a huge flash, a big fire ball, lots of heat and it burns out in only a couple of minutes. The HHO gas acts as the flash pan to get the gas to burn much quicker that it will in its normal bucket.

I was just quoting my local stores prices CVS, Walgreens, Target and "gasp" Walmart all want 2.99 for a gallon of distilled water. But even if it is 2.99 a gallon, I'm spending 2.899 on 87 octane gas around here right now and the summer balloon pricing has not started yet. It won't take much savings of summer priced gasoline to pay for the gallon of water. Plus as I said, I'm Already using RO water filters in the house and will be generating even more RO purified water with another fuel research experiment.

How well will the HHO gas change the pump gas?? We will see. Testing is really just getting started, so results are to come.

And as for tuning, I have the Power Commander V on the bike already, so I can tune the fuel mixtures to even radically lean numbers if I want. I'm getting the autotune module this week I think- sorry gang, the budget for this right now is my beer and pizza money. When I get that in, I'll be able to tune based on Af ratio targets and let the wideband processing dial it in.

To be honest, I find it refreshing that some of you are as impatient to have results as I am. I wish that I had been able to get this all together back in January, but it did not happen.

It will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member Contributer

Hey for what it is worth my Dad is a retired EE and told me that I was full of sh!te when I said that were just recovering power wasted as heat in the regulator. That is until I showed him the electrosport web site.

Then He said that Honda's rectifier/regulator design the "most cheap-assed piece of crap" he'd ever seen and that I was right any surplus power from the stator (which is supposed to be most of the time) just gets shorted to the frame as heat.

This is coming from a man who spent his career building military and space radios, getting down and dirty with their power supplies.

It doesn't so much get shorted TO the frame as it gets shorted THROUGH the frame and back to the negative side of the R/R-battery circuit.

This is called I2R loss. The current squared times the DC resistance of the circuit is converted into heat.

It's just math -but if you don't understand the equations and know how to mix I=E/R with P=IE then it's never going to work out. Mix in a little bit of 3-phase AC theory and most people get totally lost.

wheel3993279.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, JES_VFR!! That has got to be one of the most sensible statements I've ever heard. Unfortunately, most people seem to grab at the first solution offered rather than the best one. Fast and easy just does not fit every problem.

I'm looking forward to your continued testing, and wondering how such a system might work (or not) with earlier carbed bikes.

If I learned anything back in college, its that you never get as much out of anything as you put into it. Be it an energy conversion, a sport, a project, cooking a meal or a personal relation ship. But there has to be a point where the result is of a high enough quantity and quality that you say <que heavy german accent> 'Gut Enuf!'.

I look at so many things that people do these days and the waste is just about enough to make me scream.

The Internal Combustion Engine is just one item. All of them; gasoline piston, diesel piston, wankel rotary, spherical radials and (Yes Trace) even these new opposed piston designs, are all designed wrong. Not a single one of them is optimized to get complete combustion in the chamber. The very best of these designs is only capable of managing about 35% of the combustion in the cylinder, and they have other issues.

I'm not saying that a lot of brilliant people are not struggling to say in the performance envelope bordered by power output, emissions and mileage. What I am saying is that someone needs to figure out how to change the envelope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member Contributer

Again you make good points, but the two things to remember are what does the HHO do to the combustion of the gasoline mixture and how inefficient is the combustion of gas before.

The combustion in just about every ICE out in the world today is so slow that most of it goes out the exhaust port unburned.

What's a source for this claim? I think you are confusing the combustion efficiency with the thermal efficiency. Yes, most of the energy generated by combustion is lost (the thermodynamic conditions are stacked against you from the start) but most of the fuel is burned. Only a small amount is unburned. From this source:

However, unburned fuel and fuel-derived organic combustion products representing ~1–2% of the HC mass in the initial fuel mixture are present in the engine-out exhaust. These emissions are subsequently reduced by 95–99% by the exhaust catalyst.

Dirk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking forward to your continued testing, and wondering how such a system might work (or not) with earlier carbed bikes.

It certainly can work with a carbed bike. The work there is going to be dealing with the jetting changes and how much of a compromise you might have to make across the rev range.

Still I would expect it to be very effective as carbs are not very efficient at getting gasoline into a true vapor form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member Contributer

The R/R shunting is not really a power soak, just a current soak, You need both Current AND Voltage (from resistance) before you get power.

Tom

Please tell me that you don't have an EE.

I don't even know where to start to explain where the train left the tracks here...

Serenity_VFR

Actully I do have a Degree in Electrical Engineering, And I have spent the past 30 years working with power electronics and with very large DC and AC Machines, (up to 30 MW) and, I might add, very successfull at getting them to work, and fixing them when they break in places all over the world.

I am correct in what I say, and just because You do not have the working knowledge of this type of equipment to fully understand it, does not mean that you have to start getting personal and throwing insults around.

You said, .....

It's just math -but if you don't understand the equations and know how to mix I=E/R with P=IE then it's never going to work out. Mix in a little bit of 3-phase AC theory and most people get totally lost.........

Yes, you are dead right, But 3 phase and DC power are my native environment, I LOVE IT, If you want to tell me I am full of shit, then you better come up with a better line then

".......I don't even know where to start to explain where the train left the tracks here......" Specifics Please !!!!

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serenity_VFR

Actully I do have a Degree in Electrical Engineering, And I have spent the past 30 years working with power electronics and with very large DC and AC Machines, (up to 30 MW) and, I might add, very successfull at getting them to work, and fixing them when they break in places all over the world.

I am correct in what I say, and just because You do not have the working knowledge of this type of equipment to fully understand it, does not mean that you have to start getting personal and throwing insults around.

You said, .....

It's just math -but if you don't understand the equations and know how to mix I=E/R with P=IE then it's never going to work out. Mix in a little bit of 3-phase AC theory and most people get totally lost.........

Yes, you are dead right, But 3 phase and DC power are my native environment, I LOVE IT, If you want to tell me I am full of shit, then you better come up with a better line then

".......I don't even know where to start to explain where the train left the tracks here......" Specifics Please !!!!

Tom

Well Tom, I'm not an engineer, and wouldn't claim to know everything there is to know about generating systems. My Father who is a retired Electrical Engineer with 30 plus years of experience with radio power supplies, is someone that I think knows a thing or to about power (hint two different radios that he was part of the design of went up on Atlantis on this its last flight).

He sounded a lot like you did until I went to the electrosport website and showed him the following page.

Electro's page on how charging systems work

Now I'm not saying that I'm now the expert just because I read that (nor is it because I slept in a holiday inn).

All I'm saying is the people that make these things and should know a thing or two about how they work wrote.

This generator-setup we call a permanent magnet generator. This is because the flywheel contains magnets that are magnetic all the time. The output of a certain stator is depending on the engine-speed (the higher the speed of the magnetic-field variation, the higher the stator-output), and the force of the magnetic field (which is constant) Basically the stator produces a certain output at a certain rpm.

Then the AC-current is led through the rectifier inside the regulator-rectifier-unit. The rectifier converts the three AC-phases to a single 14.4 Vdc output, a ground and a positive. Because the stator is producing power according to the engine-speed the stator-output is too high all the time. This would mean the output voltage of the regulator-rectifier would be way over 14.4 Vdc all the time, which would result in an overcharged battery and blowing electrical components on the bike that were meant to run on a voltage between 12 and 15 Vdc.

Luckily there is also a regulator-part inside a regulator-rectifier. The regulator looks at the DC-voltage across the battery-terminals and short-circuits a certain amount of power that is produced by the stator to ground. This is regulated constantly, so the output-voltage of the regulator-rectifier (which ideallyis the same as the voltage across the battery-terminals) stays at 14.4 Vdc all the time.The permanent magnet generator-setup is not very efficient, but it is very simple and quite reliable. This explains why it is the most commonly used system on motorcycles.One of the problems with these systems is the short-circuiting of the excess power itself. This is done by the regulator-rectifier and this part has to dissipate the power that it shorts to ground, meaning it will get very hot. This is mostly because of the regulator and partly by the rectifier-diodes themselves that get hot just because of the current flowing through it. The regulator-rectifier internals need to be built so that the heat is transferred efficiently from the electronical components themselves to the housing of the unit, mostly equipped with cooling-fins. This is the most important bit in designing a regulator-rectifier for use in a permanent-magnet generator-setup.

Now they could be wrong and you could be correct, but I still don't think that is a deal breaking issue.

I mean we are dealing with liberating and utilizing KW's of additional power, or at the very minimum not wasting them like we were before.

a few watts to make the gas is not going to toss over the applecart.

once I get the led marker and brake lights and maybe the HID system, then I seriously doubt that it could still be an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be easy to tell if the Stator caused more work when under a load...check the HP output with and without a huge load applied.

As part of the testing it would make sense to dyno tune it as best you can on just gas, and measure the HP. Then hookup the HHO setup, but only the generation part, and measure the HP, then connect the HHO gas and tune it the best you can and measure again.

The difference between reading 1 and 2 would be the additional work the Stator might be doing...lost HP if any. The difference between 1 and 3 would be the benefit (or lack of) of using the HHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be easy to tell if the Stator caused more work when under a load...check the HP output with and without a huge load applied.

As part of the testing it would make sense to dyno tune it as best you can on just gas, and measure the HP. Then hookup the HHO setup, but only the generation part, and measure the HP, then connect the HHO gas and tune it the best you can and measure again.

The difference between reading 1 and 2 would be the additional work the Stator might be doing...lost HP if any. The difference between 1 and 3 would be the benefit (or lack of) of using the HHO.

I wasn't really all that concerned about step #2. I mean as long as #3 is the same or higher than #1 (because I'm assuming that I'll get at least some mileage and emissions benefits), then I'll be happy with this stage of the research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think of the system as a wind-up toy car. He's not going to replace the wind-up mainspring -just oil it so that it moves better when it is unwinding. He's not trying to get any real energy out of the "oil" (hydroxy gas) -just using it to lube and improve the efficiency of the "spring" (the gasoline-powered ICE engine).

the toy car reference was a good analogy.

Good try, but not really a good analogy... It would be if you were taking a can of oil off the shelf and oiling the spring.

What you are actually trying to do is use the spring to drill, refine, transport and consume the oil by robbing it of it's finite contained energy.

Everything you do in that sentence costs you energy. Unless you strike the Well-Full-Of-Oil-That-Violates-The-Second-Law you've wasted a lot of energy moving oil around for nothing. (AKA turning water into water)

Link to comment
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.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy.