Cooking with Hydrogen.

[jeremy556]

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.

Actually, it is, as the VFR, and most bikes used a fixed magnet generator, which is different than the type used on cars.

[jeremy556]

Hydrogen as a supplement

Main article: Hydrogen fuel enhancement

In addition to claims of cars that run exclusively on water, there have also been claims that burning hydrogen or oxyhydrogen in addition to petrol or diesel fuel increases mileage. Around 1970, Yull Brown developed technology which allegedly allows cars to burn fuel more efficiently while improving emissions. In Brown's design, a hydrogen oxygen mixture (so-called "Brown's Gas") is generated by the electrolysis of water, and then fed into the engine through the air intake system. Whether the system actually improves emissions or fuel efficiency is debated.^[35] Similarly, Hydrogen Technology Applications claims to be able increase fuel efficiency by bubbling "Aquyen" into the fuel tank.

A common fallacy found in connection with this type of modification is the mistaken assumption that cars generate excess electricity via their alternators that normally goes to waste and therefore is available for electrolysis. The amount of force required to turn an alternator or generator depends strictly on the electrical resistance of the circuits it is supplying, and residual heat lost due to friction. If an electrolysis unit is added to a car, the amperage it draws from the car's electrical system will make the alternator harder to turn, which will put additional drag on the engine. As a result more fuel will be required to maintain the same rotational speed (RPM.) ^[36]

A number of websites exist promoting the use of oxyhydrogen (often called "HHO"), selling plans for do-it-yourself electrolysers or entire kits with the promise of large improvements in fuel efficiency. 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]

[SereniTTy]

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.

I was basing my statement on a previous post, I don't know much about the differences between motorcycle equipment and automobile.

So it's the same as a car alternator, load increases based on power requirements. That would change things a lot. Electrical power generation isn't terribly efficient. part of the reason why I scratch my head when people say that electric cars are going to save the environment. You've got to produce the power (not terribly efficient, but can be clean), transmit the power (and transmission line capacities are based on their ability to dissipate heat before they melt, so there's a lot of heat being generated here), charge the batteries, then use that power through a control device into a motor. So 5-6 steps, each with an efficiency loss.

[MadScientist]

Being a chemist (though more into the biochemical aspects rather than physics/thermodynamics) I understand the principals here, though the system is slightly more complex than throwing LeChatlier and the laws of conservation at it.

We Have:

1) Excess oxygen to begin with (more hydrocarbons than stoich.)

2) A power source that shunts waste energy to heat (stator->R/R)

3) Inefficient extraction of energy (loss as heat or incomplete reaction)

4) Fuel injection system that will deliver a quantity of HCs independent of what is in the gas phase (air, HHO)

You are adding:

1) More oxygen (since you are not pressurizing above atmospheric -that I can see- this will displace air that is ~18% oxygen with HHO that is 33% oxygen at best (complete electrolysis))

2) Hydrogen (which is also a combustible fuel, already in the gas phase)

3) Water?

Possible Outcomes:

1) The oxygen and hydrogen recombine upon ignition and create water vapor (gas phase). This may occur before any HC fuel has a chance to react with the added oxygen. This would do 2 things:

A) Move some of the heat energy that would be lost anyway at the R/R into the cylinder. We do not gain any volume expansion from the combustion of hydrogen except through heating something else (like air or the water vapor product). 2 mol H2 + 1 mol O2 -> 2 mol H2O + heat -- a net 1 mol loss of a gas.

B) Increases the kinetic energy of the HC fuel (the chemical energy is fixed in the bonds), allowing it to volatilize quicker to the gas phase (which we want anyway) from the liquid phase. This would give a quicker, more even combustion if the result is a more homogeneous and highly concentrated charge of HC vapor. (This is also why finer "atomization" of fuel leads to increases efficiency)

The benefit to this is that the increasing the temperature increases the reaction rate (Arrhenius equation) no matter what order the reaction. This is good, but the amount of energy you add will be less than that generated by the rotor/stator.

2) (Unlikely, but possible) The added oxygen is present long enough to react with HC fuel. - This only applies if the HC combustion is at least 1st order in oxygen (I would guess it is). Thus more reactant = faster reaction...

3) (Bad News?) The HHO system delivers mainly water vapor (or some other non-combustible vapor?) Sure this might expand a bit, but nothing like water injection.

Now I didn't go looking up the reaction rate equations/constants for any of the combustion reactions that are taking place (well, what did you expect for free) so most of what I figured is just assuming that the reactions are 1st order in all species.

What I am curious about is why wouldn't they use a variable field exciter like an automotive alternator? Seems like a lot of energy to dissipate continuously as heat.

[MadScientist]

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.

If this is the case, the only way that you will get any energy back from this type of system would be if you increased k (the reaction rate) to a point where the energy gained by more efficient combustion (reaction in the cylinder) would offset the energy lost to power the electrolysis cell.

[Guest dendron]

:lurk: :lurk: :lurk:

[JES_VFR]

First off let me say that someone poked me on an aside and said "don't promise things"

So let me make myself clear, I'm not guaranteeing that this cell, or any cell I can build today can or would be able to get us to the point where we are doubling the work that we can get out of the potential energy locked in a liter of gasoline...

Maybe I should have said instead of the 7 MJ that a current ICE can get work from what if we could alter the combustion enough to get 10 MJ of energy from the pool of 34.2 instead??

I mean spending even 300 watts to allow the combustion to utilize release an additional 3 MJ from the gasoline combustion would be a huge win.

I intend to research this and experiment with it to find out just how much can I gain.

Jes,

I am very much interested in seeing the numbers.

Like wera, I wouldn't put this system on the bike, 'coz the ROE just doesn't pan out IMHO.

BUT my truck sure can use an improvement in MPG and it's got plenty of room to install pretty much what ever I want in the engine bay.

I've read a lot on HHO conversions and there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus. Some claim up to 300% gains in MPG, some claim 5-15% and some just say that it will kill your engine.

It looks like the 300% crowd are a bunch of lunatics while the 'kill your engine' crowd are sponsored by the oil companies.

So I would realistically expect about 5-15% gain in MPG. Dyno run would show the power gain/loss.

Can't wait for the results!

And kudos for trying this :lurk:

Well as I wrote earlier, I don't have a big pickup, I ride my VFR as my primary vehicle(I'm hovering around 38 mpg with all the around town running I do). The next vehicle in the family is wife's car which gets 14 mpg gallon in city driving and I can't remember what it gets highway as it has been that long since it had a day trip on it. Its next on my list to get an HHO cell.

Realistically, I'm expecting about a 20% increase in mileage on the VFR and something more on the wife's.

Remember that this cell has no flow control, so it only makes gas at a fixed rate, therefore the effects are the greatest at low rev's. So my bike which sees a large range of rpm is going to have smaller results compared to my wife's car that has a usable rev range of less than 6000 rpm.

Testing will give real numbers.

I liked this post, I featured it. Are you at all concerned about the bubble dryer placement being in a position to get crushed and perhaps catch fire if the bike should crash on it?

No I'm not concerned about the drier's placement. If I go down on that side and actually crack the drier, the gas in it will vent to the atmosphere. In order for it to burn I would have to have a fire going already right near the damage. Second when the bike is shut down, the cell is shut down so only the gas that is already in the lines could possibly be an issue.

The last point to address is just this, HHO by itself burns very very rapidly, it gone an a flash. So it would need something like a large quantity of gas vapor to incite a major fire.

:lurk:

I am sceptic too but look forward to seeing some numbers.

Nice...

Great !!!! Keep pushing forward on your ideas....ignore the doubters.....go to you tube and watch "The Power of Dreams" , failure is the key to success .....realize you can never fail, many prototypes & problems sure but eventually you will get there.

Thinking this way is THE KEY to HONDA DEVELOPMENT. Best Wishes on your project...remember Mother HONDA had millions of set backs just to get that 2 wheeled machine in your driveway, they did not quit. When I ride I am always thinking "what an amazing machine" We all get to enjoy the benefits of these machines, we just turn the key and go....nobody thinks about the thousand of hours it took to design something. Good Luck, I am with you, now get back to work, DOUG

Oh I'm okay with the doubters as I was a major skeptic when I started looking at this. But I've done a bunch of research and looked at a lot of sincere individual's efforts, and I cannot believe that they are all just hokus pokus frauds.

[Knife]

Let me see if I understand all this correctly. You're saying it will levitate the bike and fly? Am I close?

[MadScientist]

Let me see if I understand all this correctly. You're saying it will levitate the bike and fly? Am I close?

No, no all wrong. It's for time travel, see the flux capacitor...

[Dutchy]

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

[Knife]

What is the best oil for this setup?

[wera803]

Yeah, the computer is actually programmed to dial the mixture back to a particular level of emissions and waste.

In order to stop this you have to do something to alter the either the computers allowed fuel ratios (with a chip or reflash fuel map), intercept/alter the signal of the o2 sensor itself or install a power commander type device between the computer and the fuel injectors to override the fuel demands of the pcm.

On my bike I'm using the power commander.

I could be wrong here (wouldn't be the first time) but I thought you were using a PC with Autotune?? Doesn't that have an O2 sensor?? The 2001 VFR also has an O2 sensor even if you aren't using the Autotune and that would cause issues with the PC. Or did are you using a different header?

[The Phantom]

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.

[timmythecop]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D27r1qiPC-8

[kaldek]

Ahh Professor Frink. Is there a smarter man on Earth? I think not!

[JES_VFR]

At a guess I would think it should be a non-issue. Plenty of people out there have run water injection on engines. Makes no difference (corrosion/wear wise). If anything running water injection helps get rid of carbon build-up in the combustion chamber and exhaust valves. Think of steam cleaning something. Appearently on the tear down of water injected engines, the combustion chambers are as clean as a whistle.

Now, granted, this isn't a water injection setup. The Oxygen and the Hydrogen are seperated at the begining, but they are being recombined into water, so I should think the end product is similar. If anything I wonder if that is where the cylinder cooling claim is coming from, possibly. Water has a fairly high thermal mass, so it suckes up alot of the heat from the combustion process, flashes to steam (which if I remember correctly has expansion rate of like 1600 times - say you had one cubic inch of water and flashed it to steam, it would now occupy 1600 cubic inches) which in turn helps push the piston.

Or I could be completely wrong, because I have no idea how the extra O's and H's are going to react to the rest of the combustion process. Chemistry was never my strong suit but, I would like to see a bit more detailed explanation of what is actually happening in the combustion chamber.

This is great, your thinking about this not just spouting "it can't". And your not too far off either.

The gases (because that is what HHO really is two gases that would love to react with each other) when ignited burn, recombining to water vapor (not steam). The change of state from liquid to vapor takes a large amount of energy, but since we are only dealing with a gas to gas combustion there is no latent heat of vaporization. So the heat lost to vaporization and steam expansion does not apply.

I guess my problem is with this statement:

"Adding a moderate amount of Hydroxy gas to a gasoline or diesel engine, can radically change the rate of combustion in the cylinder. It accelerates the rate of combustion of the primary hydrocarbon fuel (Gas, Diesel, Ethanol, etc). This leads to more pressure on the piston on the power stroke so there is more torque, less heating of the block, and less unburned hydrocarbon fuel going out the exhaust port."

No offense, but last I checked, we really don't want to speed up the combustion process because that is what happens in detonation. A proper air/fuel ratio in a combustion chamber at the proper temperature *burns* rapidly and smoothly pushing down nicely on the piston. When it gets too hot (either through compression or a hot spot in the combustion chamber) or the A/F ratio goes too lean, the mixture detonates and literally explodes which is too sudden of a shock for the piston and rotating assembly. This is why we have higher octane fuels. To raise the ignition point of the fuel when need be.

Well we don't want detonation, that is true. But thanks to the buildup of heat in the cylinder Stoichiometric mixtures can and do detonate. Now that is violent uncontrolled burning, essentially explosions in the chamber, traveling at greater than the speed of sound.

HHO 'boosting' does not increase the rate of combustion to those speeds, but it is much faster than the speed of un-assisted gasoline combustion.

That does allow the tuning of fuel ratios to get much closer to the 14.7:1 AF ratios that are accepted as stoichiometric for gasoline.

Also it would seem by your statement that somehow by adding this extra fuel to the combustion process raises the pressure of the combustion event, but does not raise the overall temperature. That would seem to be a direct violation of Charles's Law. For a given volume, if pressure goes up, the temperature goes up. Simple as that. Heck, that's how a diesel engine works. Compress the snot out of A/F mix until it heats up to a point where it ignites on its own. No spark needed.

Not quite what I was saying, what I said was that since the combustion rate is so much faster the heat generated in combustion does not get time to soak into the walls of the cylinder, piston and head.

Just think about it a blow torch makes enough heat to melt metal, but it can't do it quickly.

However. In the case of the water injection, volume goes up, pressure goes up, but the water is being used to absorb the heat - since it is not actually being combusted, less heat is transfered to the cylinder and combustion chamber. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. I'm thinking its a glorified water injection system, but I could be wrong. As is frequently the case.

As to Lee's comment about added system ineffiency - Maybe I misread it, but during one of the discussions a while back on the operation of the electrical supply system, basically it generates full power all the time, and sends left over to the R/R to be turned into waste heat anyways. If that is right, he would just be using potentially wasted energy anyways. Kind of like running a turbocharger as opposed to a supercharger.

That has always been my undertanding of the stator, it always operates at full output and the Rectifier Regulator is left to clean up and control the voltage and current.

That's why the r&r has so many issues with heat.

[jeremy556]

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.

[JES_VFR]

Yeah, the computer is actually programmed to dial the mixture back to a particular level of emissions and waste.

In order to stop this you have to do something to alter the either the computers allowed fuel ratios (with a chip or reflash fuel map), intercept/alter the signal of the o2 sensor itself or install a power commander type device between the computer and the fuel injectors to override the fuel demands of the pcm.

On my bike I'm using the power commander.

I could be wrong here (wouldn't be the first time) but I thought you were using a PC with Autotune?? Doesn't that have an O2 sensor?? The 2001 VFR also has an O2 sensor even if you aren't using the Autotune and that would cause issues with the PC. Or did are you using a different header?

I have the PC V with zero map in it, I've added the o2 eliminators so the PCM is not having issues with the sensor output. I don't have the autotune in my hands,... Yet.

I may grab a short dyno tune, until the autotune arrives, but so far it seems to be running okay.

[JES_VFR]

Where are you mounting a water supply? I didn't see that in your pictures.

Good luck!

here are the shots of where main tank is and the fittings running to and from it.

first the rear view

then the view from below

It doesn't need a large tank as one liter of H2O will make around 1700 liters of gas.

[MadScientist]

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

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

At 4000 rpm ->

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

1700 L * (1 min/780 L) = 2.2 minutes

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

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.

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.

[JES_VFR]

You are definitely on the right track here.

Being a chemist (though more into the biochemical aspects rather than physics/thermodynamics) I understand the principals here, though the system is slightly more complex than throwing LeChatlier and the laws of conservation at it.

We Have:

1) Excess oxygen to begin with (more hydrocarbons than stoich.)

Don't you mean a lack of oxygen or a rich mixture. I don't know of any ICE that is ever tuned to be leaner than stoich under load, as that is just begging for detonation. Most fuel tables that I see never closer than 13.7, when stoich is 14.7 (or that's the accepted stoic ratio for regular gasoline

2) A power source that shunts waste energy to heat (stator->R/R)

Right, so really the electical power that the cell uses is normally wasted so its not 'free', but I am recovering it.

3) Inefficient extraction of energy (loss as heat or incomplete reaction)

All you have to do is look at a video of an ice running higher rev's with the exhaust header off the head. What do you see, flashes of flame. Who here has never seen a picture of an engine running on test stand with the exhaust headers glowing cherry red? The heat in them is not being used to make power to do work, it's just being wasted heating the exhaust.

4) Fuel injection system that will deliver a quantity of HCs independent of what is in the gas phase (air, HHO)

You are adding:

1) More oxygen (since you are not pressurizing above atmospheric -that I can see- this will displace air that is ~18% oxygen with HHO that is 33% oxygen at best (complete electrolysis))

well not really as the hydrogen needs that same amount of oxygen to burn completely so its kind of a wash as far as that goes.

2) Hydrogen (which is also a combustible fuel, already in the gas phase) yeah that's going in for its reactivity

3) Water?

actually this is the one thing that we don't want. In this case. That is the point of the bubbler/drier to condense out any water vapor that may have escaped the cell and keep it out of the intake.

Possible Outcomes:

1) The oxygen and hydrogen recombine upon ignition and create water vapor (gas phase). This may occur before any HC fuel has a chance to react with the added oxygen. This would do 2 things:

A) Move some of the heat energy that would be lost anyway at the R/R into the cylinder. We do not gain any volume expansion from the combustion of hydrogen except through heating something else (like air or the water vapor product). 2 mol H2 + 1 mol O2 -> 2 mol H2O + heat -- a net 1 mol loss of a gas.

B) Increases the kinetic energy of the HC fuel (the chemical energy is fixed in the bonds), allowing it to volatilize quicker to the gas phase (which we want anyway) from the liquid phase. This would give a quicker, more even combustion if the result is a more homogeneous and highly concentrated charge of HC vapor. (This is also why finer "atomization" of fuel leads to increases efficiency)

The benefit to this is that the increasing the temperature increases the reaction rate (Arrhenius equation) no matter what order the reaction. This is good, but the amount of energy you add will be less than that generated by the rotor/stator. True, but the energy taken from the stator and used to produce the gas is not the only effect here. As you point out the gas increases the volatility of the gasoline charge, resulting in more even combustion as well as an increase in rate of combustion

2) (Unlikely, but possible) The added oxygen is present long enough to react with HC fuel. - This only applies if the HC combustion is at least 1st order in oxygen (I would guess it is). Thus more reactant = faster reaction...I don't know if any of this occurs or if it even matters as the hydrogen is going to need oxygen to balance its combustion reaction and if it must 'filter' it out the atmosphere its reaction is going to slow down.

3) (Bad News?) The HHO system delivers mainly water vapor (or some other non-combustible vapor?) Sure this might expand a bit, but nothing like water injection.Well since I've yet to see the gas recombine on its own in any short period of time, and I've even had the gas sit in a sealed soda bottle for a few hours with out condensing out and water, I doubt that there is any significant amount of water vapor being introduced into the gas stream

Now I didn't go looking up the reaction rate equations/constants for any of the combustion reactions that are taking place (well, what did you expect for free) so most of what I figured is just assuming that the reactions are 1st order in all species.

What I am curious about is why wouldn't they use a variable field exciter like an automotive alternator? Seems like a lot of energy to dissipate continuously as heat.

That is a question for the motorcycle manufacturers not me. I'm just trying to take advantage of it.

If this is the case, the only way that you will get any energy back from this type of system would be if you increased k (the reaction rate) to a point where the energy gained by more efficient combustion (reaction in the cylinder) would offset the energy lost to power the electrolysis cell.

That is pretty much what we are doing altering the gasoline's reaction rate to a point where we not only gain back the relatively small amount of power to make the HHO gas, but we also get more usable power. The energy is there in the gasoline, its just that with the current ICE technology up this point, were just throwing most of it away.

[Trace]

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. :biggrin:

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

:offtopic:

[JES_VFR]

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

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?).

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.

[Solomoto]

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

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

[Dutchy]

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,

It's quite simple--money talks. Period. :fing02:

:fing02:

I know almost nothing of science but do know my money..... marks have been replaced by the euro ages ago...... :offtopic:

I guess you still have that Tina Turner's song in your head... :biggrin: