Rotten test run - need help!

[RobertC]

Did an HHO test run in a diesel RV. The bus is a full size coach at 40,000 lbs. Engine is a Detroit diesel 8V-92, 2-stroke. Displacement is of course 92 cubic inch per cyl. the math puts it at 12 liters. I built 2 dry cell units each with 2 stacks configured with 9 neutrals per stack. Between both cells there was 44 plates. the plates measured 5.25 by 7.5 inches with a 1/2 wide gasket. After several tests I found the best gasket thickness was .25 inch. Total output was a steady 12 liters per minute drawing 60 amps per dry cell.



We filled the tank drove 182 miles and refilled at the same pump. Mickey (the bus owner) said he got a steady 5.7 mpg before HHO. Our test mpg was 6.1 mpg. This was an increase of only 7%. I was very discouraged wit a .4 mpg improvement. We were hoping to get perhaps 1.5 mpg or better.



Would love to get any advice or input you guys have as to what to do to improve results.

RobertC

[Buster]

Just one thing I would look into.....

One of the main advantages of an HHO installation is the potential to increase the air to fuel ratio. This is what NASA's research highlighted, namely, that HHO allows a leaner fuel mix than is possible with straight fuel alone.

Presently you are only experiencing some of the potential gains from your HHO, I would guess, and by leaning the fuel mix you could achieve the rest of it's potential. If this is an old vehicle this adjustment may be simply a turn of a screw, but if it's a modern vehicle with an ECU you would need to use electronic means such as an Efie or AFC. I think some of the more electronically minded members may be able to give you some more help in this regard.
I hope this is of some help.

[hhonewbie]

Same as above & being a 24V application it might need reconfiguration(plate gaps, N plates, etc.) for efficiency & increased production.

[RobertC]

Hey,

Thanks for the replies, here's more info on the bus. The Detroit Diesel is all mechanical, no air to fuel ratio adjustments, no computer. I've learned that on a diesel 2-stroke, the turbo blows air into the cylinder when the piston approaches the bottom of the stroke. At this point the exhaust valve is opened and the force of the turbo (not the piston) blows the burnt gases up and out. My question is, how much air travels through the cylinder before the piston rises and closes the intake ports? Is there 2 or 3 times more air passing through the cylinder than is necessary? If so, we are blowing excess hho through the cylinder and out the exhaust unignited.

Some weeks ago I talked to an HHO seller and he told me that 3 liters per min. was a good starting point for a diesel that size. He further said that his bus (of similar size) has gained about 1.5 mpg with hho. He also said that “the more the better” and we really can't put too much to the engine. So I felt 12 lpm would be a measurable amount to work with.

When I was bench testing the cells I had to jump across both mine and my wife's car to get 24v to run the cell. Note: wife was not thrilled seeing this, had to cancel a trip to Wally-Mart . As the cell drew more current (25 A) the voltage dropped to about 22v. Confident that the cell was in working order I installed it on a luggage rack slid into the bus hitch receiver. The bus had 2, 8d batteries in the engine compartment plus 4 more (8d) house batteries up front. This fed the cells with 27+ volts at more amps that the cells could handle with the engine running. Using 2, 60A pwm's I could easily feed 100 amps per cell. Had to throttle back to 60A to keep the pwm's from heating up. I was testing the hho output with a ½ liter bottle inverted in a column of water. The bottle would fill up in two and a half seconds. WOW! So I constructed a 2 liter bottle hhometer to give more accurate readings. Now the bottle would fill In 7-10 seconds measuring a solid 12 to 15 lpm.

Question: is the hho injection point critical? Ours was in the 8” rubber hose connecting between the air filter and turbo. From the nipple to the turbo is about 18”. Does it need to be as close to the turbo as possible?

Mickey is in the HVAC test and balance business. So he had the gauges to test the pressure in the intake line at the hho injection point. It was 2.5 inches negative to outside air. So we felt confident that the hho gas was not leaking out of the intake line.

I am really stumped at the poor results of the trip. So any questions and advice you have is welcome.

[doityourselfer]

Robert, did you ever get anywhere with this coach bus

[BioFarmer93]

Did an HHO test run in a diesel RV. The bus is a full size coach at 40,000 lbs. Engine is a Detroit diesel 8V-92, 2-stroke. Displacement is of course 92 cubic inch per cyl. the math puts it at 12 liters. I built 2 dry cell units each with 2 stacks configured with 9 neutrals per stack. Between both cells there was 44 plates. the plates measured 5.25 by 7.5 inches with a 1/2 wide gasket. After several tests I found the best gasket thickness was .25 inch. Total output was a steady 12 liters per minute drawing 60 amps per dry cell.



We filled the tank drove 182 miles and refilled at the same pump. Mickey (the bus owner) said he got a steady 5.7 mpg before HHO. Our test mpg was 6.1 mpg. This was an increase of only 7%. I was very discouraged wit a .4 mpg improvement. We were hoping to get perhaps 1.5 mpg or better.



Would love to get any advice or input you guys have as to what to do to improve results.

RobertC

Before anyone hammers me, I know the thread is almost 4 years old- it does bring up an interesting point though about two-stroke jimmy's. To get equivalent gains in mpg you would have to make TWICE as much HHO, because besides the slight wastage of unburnt HHO used in the exhaust purge of blown 2-stroke GMC diesels, the cylinders are firing on every other stroke, rather than every fourth stroke. Big difference in the the amount of intake air between one of these Jimmy's and a 12L Cat or Mercedes at 1800rpm. I think a 1.5mpg gain in this instance is about right on target..

[myoldyourgold]

Bio I agree unless he goes post turbo which I have not tried on a two stroke. I would like to try though.

[BioFarmer93]

Bio I agree unless he goes post turbo which I have not tried on a two stroke. I would like to try though.

Hey Carter,
I think I must have missed the boat on that little change- not that I think the overall amount of HHO necessary is actually dictated by the pre- or post- turbo injection point, as has been the sea change on this forum over the last year or two, but the straight up fact that you're having a power stroke every revolution rather than every other revolution necessarily dictates that you will need twice the HHO. Take Care- Gus

[myoldyourgold]

Bio, I have some doubts popping up in my mind about needing twice as much HHO in a 2 stroke. That would mean that a 2 stroke uses twice as much fuel to make the same HP as a four stroke. Help me out here. On first thought I agreed but this nagging doubt has popped up. I need to think about this a little more. I think it can not be related simply to 2 or for stroke but the volume of air and fuel ratio to HHO ratio, regardless of 2 or 4 stroke, that is running through the engine. If there is twice as much fuel per power stroke in a 4 stroke compared to a power stroke in a 2 stroke then yes if not then no. Does that make sense. Like I said I need to think about this a little more.

[BioFarmer93]

Bio, I have some doubts popping up in my mind about needing twice as much HHO in a 2 stroke. That would mean that a 2 stroke uses twice as much fuel to make the same HP as a four stroke. Help me out here. On first thought I agreed but this nagging doubt has popped up. I need to think about this a little more. I think it can not be related simply to 2 or for stroke but the volume of air and fuel ratio to HHO ratio, regardless of 2 or 4 stroke, that is running through the engine. If there is twice as much fuel per power stroke in a 4 stroke compared to a power stroke in a 2 stroke then yes if not then no. Does that make sense. Like I said I need to think about this a little more.

Well, I guess if the exhaust gas purging is sufficient (via blower) to provide all clean air for the compression stroke, then a blown two stroke 6 cyl. diesel should probably make more horsepower at a given rpm than a turbo'd 4 stroke 6 cyl. diesel. Why? My thinking is that at any rpm the two stroke is hitting on every cyl. every revolution, where the 4 stroke is only hitting on half of its cyl's every revolution. But, this doesn't answer your question does it? Since reading your response, I have been thinking about it more- diesels don't really run "rich" or "lean", they just run fast or slow... So- (thinking now, watch out for flying debris) if power stroke every revolution, then perhaps (probably) less fuel per injection because of double the number of power strokes for any given rpm? If not less fuel per injection, then roughly double the rpm? If it is truly only necessary to use half the amount of fuel to attain a given rpm, as may be the case, then yes I agree with you, the HHO usage ratio should be similar... Take care, and thank you for helping to shake out some of the cobwebs