PDA

View Full Version : problem with hho on 5500 w diesel generator



biksas
12-07-2008, 09:11 PM
Hi,
trying to get any suggestions on project with hho and 5500 w generator.
I have hooked hho drycell to diesel generator, took the gas tank off so i can put exactly 500 ml of diesel in special can i made.I want to be sure that hho really works.
I want to see if it runs longer with hho gas sprayed into air intake.
I also put 3 kw load on generator, and let it run about an hour before I do actual test.
So far I got only 8% gain.
My drycell is running on 20A, it is water and backing soda.
It is producing about 1.5 l a minute, which should be enough for that kind of engine.
Is it anything else that needs to be done in order to have beter fuel saving on this project, or thats about all I can get, which is disapointing.
I have one unit on my car also, no impressed too.
I'm doing this in lab, they have the right aquipment. the pwm i'm useing cost about 15k, so it is acurate.
But I'm thinking mabe I'm doing something wrong, mabe hho gas needs to go not to air intake but somewere else.I'm believer that hho works, just can't get it wright.
Any suggestion helps.
So thanks a lot !

higherpoweredh2o
12-08-2008, 12:52 AM
Well 8% isnt bad. I am in the market for a diesel genset also for testing. So far in automotive testing diesels get roughly 50% less gain than similar sized gas engines. diesel is much more efficient from the get go.

Try this, use koh and step up to 25-30 amps. 2+ lpm. baking soda is a poor chice in elyte-it muds the cells and is used up in the process. take cell apart and clean then recharge with koh and distilled water. then all you do is recharge with water. almost never have to add more koh. Also the volatility of the gas is slightly less when baking soda is used.

biksas
12-08-2008, 01:31 AM
Probably I need to try that than, I was afraid baking soda isn't doing too good. So you think 8% isn't that bad...
I was looking at 15%, but probably won't happen.
Also on 20 amps, i'm running like 6 volts, thats all it takes, probable have too much of baking soda in it too.
What do you think, is there any chance to get hho gas with diesel fuel, make like injector to it, and spray together.
I was reading something that new diesel engines have pilot injection, also called preinjection, which means all hho gas is burned before main combustion.
Do you know anything about that?

BioFarmer93
12-31-2009, 06:35 PM
Hmmm, Boy it really seems to depend on who you talk to. The diesel guys I talk to on other forums say throw as much HHO at it as you can, but they are probably overdriving their cells and getting a good amount of water vapor in there also which helps in its own way (think water injection). Some of the big rig boys are saying that their mpg gains are so high that they won't give the actual numbers for fear of being called liars. I personally know a gentleman that increased his DuraMax's mileage from 12 to 19mpg using an 8x8 21 plate unit and minor improvements to his engines intake & exhaust flow. HHO gives you an approx. 60% fuel burn efficiency improvement if you can get enough of it into the intake air to reach the point of combustion influence. As to your other question about pilot injection or "double shot" as the motor heads call it, Yeah, it plays hell with HHO, and the newer Ford Powerstroke diesels are using it and those guys are pretty much S.O.L. when it comes to supplementing with HHO because of timing issues and comparative burn rate problems... BUT- you most likely do not have a double shot system on your little diesel genny because they cost a lot, are solenoid actuated and highly unlikely to be found on anything less than an expensive large displacement engine. It sounds like you just need more HHO- go with KOH and a bigger unit or add another unit in series so you can run higher amps and lower voltage.. Later

astrocady
01-01-2010, 09:32 AM
This is an interesting thread. I have always been told that diesels require LESS HHO than gasoline engines. The formula I was given is 1/2 liters of HHO for each liter of gasoline engine displacement and only 1/4 liter of HHO for each liter of diesel engine displacement. I do wonder, though, if this formula is truley for HHO or is it for bottled pure hydrogen? What do y'all think -- IS this the accepted ratios???

I do agree that a generator will almost certainly hae the simplist of mechanical fuel injection systems.

It does seem from my experience that getting 1.5 LPM of HHO from only 20 amps is a bit optomistic. Are you sure half of that isn't steam?

Roland Jacques
01-02-2010, 09:34 AM
8% gain is significant IMO. The problem is, how much of that gain is from Water Vapor?

I just bought a 3250 Watts Gen last week for testing WV and HHO. I hope to isolate the gains from the two.

Roland Jacques
01-02-2010, 09:39 AM
HHO gives you an approx. 60% fuel burn efficiency improvement

How did you come up with 60%???

I believe the burn efficiency of a new modern engine is about 95%.

BioFarmer93
01-05-2010, 08:57 PM
Roland, perhaps this is simply a semantics issue? Everything I've have been able to find in literally thousands of hours of reading/studying says mid to high twenty percentile range for gasoline and low to mid thirty percentile range for diesel... It is my understanding that were this not the case there would be no need for catalytic converters to complete the combustion process on gasoline engines nor exhaust "filters" on the newest Ford diesels (which seem to be causing a fairly significant performance loss) in their attempt to limit soot, which is nothing more than incompletely burned hydrocarbon. A lot of fuel is wasted in both types of engines just cooling the valves. A good example can be obtained by smelling the exhaust of even the best tuned non-cat gas engine, then take a whiff of a well tuned engine with a good working catalytic converter- it's like day and night. The fumes you smell on the non-cat engine are nothing more than heat gasified petroleum that didn't have sufficient available oxygen to complete its burn, that's why there is an air pump (smog pump) to supply fresh air to the cat... BUT- I live to learn, and am always ready to learn something new. If you know differently, please share it with me (and all). -Gus

Roland Jacques
01-05-2010, 10:01 PM
This is the way i understand it. I'm not an expert on this and am probably using the wrong terms. But I'll share my opinion based on what I've read and understand.

People commonly confuse ICE efficiency, fuel efficiency, auto efficiency.... They are different things but folks commonly interchange them. This is what i think you are confusing. Kind of like semantics, but not really.


As far as unburnt gasoline in modern auto engines leaving the combustion chamber, 5-10% sounds consistent with all info Ive seen. I believe this varies with wear... I think this numbers also changes within the same engine do to driving condition, load/acceleration...

The 20 - 30% efficiency numbers seems consistent also. But this efficiency is likely the total number for the efficiency of the whole car. This involves far more factors than just the percentage of fuel that is burnt or not. The way i look at the efficiency in cars is, fuel burn efficiency, fuel to crank shaft efficiency,(motor) motor to drive shaft efficiency,(transmission +motor) motor to wheels( so on and so on) and fuel to ground (energy in to energy out).
So the 20=30% number is most likely a measure of fuel energy consumed, then minus all the different factors that waste energy before the energy reaches the ground, propelling the car.

Ooops, Forgot about heat energy, and I'm sure a few others that go into wasting of energy.

BioFarmer93
01-06-2010, 10:44 AM
..when you go looking for specific information. You were right- thank you.

pwteng
04-29-2011, 12:12 PM
How did you come up with 60%???

I believe the burn efficiency of a new modern engine is about 95%.


not even close if your gas engine was over 75% efficient you'd get water out the exhaust constantly so check that #

myoldyourgold
04-29-2011, 05:49 PM
The newer cars are much more efficient when it comes to fuel than most people think. I believe that there is only 2 to 4 % fuel that is unburnt and used in the catalytic converter on a new car that is in perfect condition. As far as total efficiency goes it is in the 60 plus % range. I will try an dig up documentation for this. I have it somewhere if I can find it. If not some one else will. Anyone with documentation one way or the other now is the time to get it posted.

What is interesting is that by burning most, if not all, of that 2 to 4% gives you in the the range of 20 to 30% increase in MPG. Now that is what I want explained. The total efficiency has to have gone up because of this and exhibits its self in lower exhaust temp and cooler overall engine temperatures. Now you add other things like water injection etc. and it goes up even more.

pwteng
04-29-2011, 06:06 PM
in a carburated stock engine is around 30% -hydrogen injected 50-60%
fuel injected low compression around 45 to 60% - hydrogen injected 65- 80%
high compression fuel injected well tuned up to 75% - hydrogen injected 85%+
kawasaki 750cc n/a with hydrogen injected reports 97% with 20%increase in hp but cant find the data on that so that off top of my head
but this is from a bottle not a generator

keiththevp
04-29-2011, 06:47 PM
OK, here is one thing that bothers me about the whole the engines today are better and more efficient.

http://www.pennyburners.com/geoprius.png

pwteng
04-29-2011, 08:32 PM
ya its an epa thing i have a 22000#truck with a 5.9l mechanical diesel engine (low tech) that gets 12mpg and my neighbor has a new dodge 7500# pick up 6.? cummins (high tech) computer controlled and he only gets 16mpg and mine puts out 50 more hp:eek: so much for technology

Roland Jacques
05-01-2011, 10:42 PM
not even close if your gas engine was over 75% efficient you'd get water out the exhaust constantly so check that #
I do believe we do get water out constantly. (George Wiseman's book)
Sometimes you can see the vapor, but even if you cant see the vapor doesn't mean it not there.

Clarification on my understanding with efficiency numbers.

Fuel BURNING efficiency, and FUEL efficiency are two completely different things.

Fuel burning efficiency is what is going on in the combustion chamber. How much of the fuel going in is burned before leaving the cylinder.
Best case, this number has been said to be 95% for some current car models. (I don't remember where i read the 95% number, but it was the newest engine. 95% did sound high to me also, but the source was very credible.)
Older models much less. more worn engine less also.

Fuel Efficiency - is fuel energy value in, compared to kinetic energy value out.
The best case here on most gasoline engines is about 35% range. This is where the improvements can be best realized

Roland Jacques
05-02-2011, 10:24 AM
Numbers

Burn Efficincy-
After some more thought. I'd assume the 95% burn efficiency number that I read also includes the results of the waste spark. The before waste spark number is the one that is relevant to us & I don't know what that number is so yeah it is sure to be a good bit lower.

Fuel Efficiency -
It can be confusing some energy numbers could be measured at the crank shaft, some at the wheels, some possibly at the piston before the rotary power loss conversion.

myoldyourgold
05-02-2011, 10:48 AM
Roland there is a article showing exactly how much unburnt fuel is in the exhaust and it is a small portion in new modern cars just enough to keep the cat working. This has nothing to do with fuel economy but just unburnt fuel. People keep saying that we are wasting 30 to 50% of our fuel out the tail pipe and that is just not true. I will try and put my hands on it and post it. As I remember it was 2 to 4 % of fuel is unburnt. Any more than that and the O2 sensor shuts down the amount of fuel being injected.

Now fuel economy is a total different thing and is related to a host of things which are not limited to internal friction, outside friction, thermodynamics, combustion, and yad yad yad. Fuel economy has to do with work done over some amount of time. Unburnt fuel is just that unburnt fuel.

Roland Jacques
05-02-2011, 06:47 PM
Roland there is a article showing exactly how much unburnt fuel is in the exhaust and it is a small portion in new modern cars just enough to keep the cat working. This has nothing to do with fuel economy but just unburnt fuel. People keep saying that we are wasting 30 to 50% of our fuel out the tail pipe and that is just not true. I will try and put my hands on it and post it. As I remember it was 2 to 4 % of fuel is unburnt. Any more than that and the O2 sensor shuts down the amount of fuel being injected.

Now fuel economy is a total different thing and is related to a host of things which are not limited to internal friction, outside friction, thermodynamics, combustion, and yad yad yad. Fuel economy has to do with work done over some amount of time. Unburnt fuel is just that unburnt fuel.
Yep, that is my understanding as well.

As far as the Waste spark goes.
I thought it was used on the exhaust stroke to give a second chance to burn any residual fuel. As i look into it, it turns out to be just to simplify some ignition systems so probably has minimal effects on unburnt fuel.

nelshaun
06-02-2011, 12:59 PM
This is an interesting thread. I have always been told that diesels require LESS HHO than gasoline engines. The formula I was given is 1/2 liters of HHO for each liter of gasoline engine displacement and only 1/4 liter of HHO for each liter of diesel engine displacement. I do wonder, though, if this formula is truley for HHO or is it for bottled pure hydrogen? What do y'all think -- IS this the accepted ratios???

I do agree that a generator will almost certainly hae the simplist of mechanical fuel injection systems.

It does seem from my experience that getting 1.5 LPM of HHO from only 20 amps is a bit optomistic. Are you sure half of that isn't steam?

That is correct. This is really getting interesting.