Printable View
I am just beginning to experiment with HHO; reading through this forum I noticed everyone is talking about how many Litres Per Minute (LPM) their generators will make. This brings two questions to mind:
1- How many LPM are needed to begin to see a fuel savings in a four cylinder engine that runs at a constant 1800 RPM?
2- How many LPM will be needed to eliminate the need for any petrol in the same engine? The engine currently burns gas at a rate of 4.16 litres per hour (1.1 gallons per hour).
I have heard of units running with as little as .5 liters per minute and still saving people money.
how fast are you driving at 1800 rpm:eek: 35mph or so? for most of the 4 cylinder cars i have owned or own currently that is just above idle. I commute to work on the interstate and run around 3000-3300 rpm at speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Huck
Assuming you are talking about a generator or pump of some kind, I would say that you should see significant benefits at 1ltr per minute, maily because you are on a constant rev range and dont have any acceleration to cope with! All the best.
Per Question #2
The equation is
X=D*RPM/2
X is the liters per minute required.
D is the engine displacement in liters.
RPM is the speed of the crank shaft.
Assumes that a 4 stroke engine is used and that all cyclinders are fully saturated with HHO.
Realistically, you may only require about half as much flow.
I think you need to re-think your equation. With that equation, I would require 3000 liters per minute to run my 2.0 liter engine at 3000 rpms.
Mr. Smith
I agree MrSmith ...... if Dennis has a look around this site a bit he will come across some more realistic equations he can apply. :)
It looks like a lot of flow is needed bye my equations. However it is the volume of gas/air that runs through the engine.
My equations do state that the cyclinders are saturated. They may not have to be saturated to fully function.
The flow rate is correct. Its the displacement of the engine times the speed of the crank divided by 2(for a 4 stroke).
That's strange. Maybe it's your driving habits or the traits of a small engine. Personal I have a 3.8L v6 in a 1996 Buick Regal GS and just cruising I'm doing 1600-1800 RPM @ 55-60 MPH. If I use slow and steady acceleration I don't pass 2000 rpm and if I do pass 2k it's not by much. When you use rapid acceleration and changes in your speed that's when the RPMs go up.Quote:
Originally Posted by gasmakr
That post refers to 4 cylinder small displacement engines like 2.0L or less...
I have also had cars that ride at a much lower RPM like my 5.0 Mustang it rides at 1100rpm at 55mph....but that also depends on gear ratio of the rear end and final drive ratio of the transmission..my commuter car runs an average rpm of 3000 on my commute at 65mph.:)
that equation is for total displacement volume..... that's why he number is so large the ideal Air\Fuel ratio for gas is 14.7:1 so the fuel amount of that large volume is much smaller..how that ratio translates to HHO i'm not sure what the ideal combustion ratio is for hho if you figure out what the ratio is you could devide the ratio from the total displacement and that should be your number.:)
Thanks "gasmakr". I was missing this air/fuel ratio. However I did mention that saturation was probably not needed. I would like to find out what the air/HHO ratio is too for a normal engine. The 14.7:1 air/gas ratio makes my flow requirements 14.7 times smaller(thats great). I hope this ratio is close to the air/HHO ratio.
Its an interesting question:
There are a couple of videos on Utube and I have spoken to a number of people that have run an engine on straight HHO (all single cylinders) and they all say that to run the engines must be fully choked. ie getting all their charge from the HHO. Personally I find this hard to believe as we know that hydrogen's burn limits are very wide and that with petrol combustion a lot of the power is provided from the non active gases (nitrogen mainly) expanding as they are heated by the combustion.
Its definitely not the case for engines run on straight hydrogen because most of the successful conversions are running unthrottled all the time and only varying the fuel flow to vary revs and power. Why should HHO be so different ?
Just got a 20HP Kohler for some bench tests so in a week or so I hope to have some of my own answers both with straight hydrogen from a aluminium/NaOH reactor and a Tero cell if I get the bits I need.
Regards
John
All we need to know about the HHO is the enthalpy of formation (how much energy it releases per kilogram or whatever unit). Once you have that, you need to find out the enthalpy of formation for gasoline per kilogram. Then you can compare how much HHO you need to create the same explosion that a given amount of gasoline would give you. Then you would know exactly how much HHO is needed to run a car.
Later you can maybe log you injector duty cycle and see how much HHO is used while cruising and such.
hi John, if you dont run engine fully choked the oxygen content is to hi to burn seeing the HHO already has its own. although it dose run good with a pure hho mix, if you ran pure hydrgen you would have to and oxygen so it could burn.. im trying to find out how many liters of HHO it takes to keep a 12.5 hp. (1.4 liter) briggs running. i can run it for a wile of of a baloon, and am gueing it will take about 14 lpm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnh