Rotten test run - need help!

[TwinTurbo]

I have a few thoughts to contribute to this discussion since i have some experience with both engines, i can only speculate though on the hho portion, first off I realize you guys know alot of what i'm going to post but will include some basics for others reading. The 8v92 is as has already been established, a two stroke supercharged (mechanically driven blower) diesel engine. Now the ones i'm more familiar with also had a turbo feeding the blower, which in itself is a needed variable in the equation to determine how much air is moving through the engine. A two stroke is going to flow almost double the amount of air (CFM's) as a 4 stroke of the same size (CID) at the same rpm's. I say almost because of the inherent inefficiencies of the two stroke you are not able to completely fill the cylinder to its total volume or completely remove all exhaust gasses until you add forced induction which i will get to in a moment. While they are capable of making more power than a 4 stroke, they require higher rpms to do it, so again, more air moving through the engine. as an example, and for easy figuring lets use a 500 cubic in motor, in one revolution of the crankshaft, it requires 250 cubic inches of air for a 4 stroke, 500 for a 2 stroke (not figuring in boost pressure for either one) now if the 4 stroke runs at 1800 rpms for peak power it requires a flow rate of 260 cfm. If the two stroke makes its peak power at 2500 rpm, it is flowing 723 cfm's. now if we figure in the volumetric efficiency (1.6 for the turbocharged 4 stroke, 1.9 for the turbo and supercharged 2 stroke) the requirements become 417 cfm and 1374 cfm respectively. So now we have more than tripled our air requirement and I can only assume that if the hho is not increased at the same ratio it will have become to diluted to offer much if any benefit. Correct me if I am wrong but it would seem that tuning for the proper hho amount should have just as much, if not more, to do with the amount of air going in than the fuel should it not? I don't know if that helped at all but I feel like i at least tried to contribute something to this forum finally On a side note i have built my first generator of my own design and am in the testing process, but that's for another thread.

[myoldyourgold]

I have a few thoughts to contribute to this discussion since i have some experience with both engines, i can only speculate though on the hho portion, first off I realize you guys know alot of what i'm going to post but will include some basics for others reading. The 8v92 is as has already been established, a two stroke supercharged (mechanically driven blower) diesel engine. Now the ones i'm more familiar with also had a turbo feeding the blower, which in itself is a needed variable in the equation to determine how much air is moving through the engine. A two stroke is going to flow almost double the amount of air (CFM's) as a 4 stroke of the same size (CID) at the same rpm's. I say almost because of the inherent inefficiencies of the two stroke you are not able to completely fill the cylinder to its total volume or completely remove all exhaust gasses until you add forced induction which i will get to in a moment. While they are capable of making more power than a 4 stroke, they require higher rpms to do it, so again, more air moving through the engine. as an example, and for easy figuring lets use a 500 cubic in motor, in one revolution of the crankshaft, it requires 250 cubic inches of air for a 4 stroke, 500 for a 2 stroke (not figuring in boost pressure for either one) now if the 4 stroke runs at 1800 rpms for peak power it requires a flow rate of 260 cfm. If the two stroke makes its peak power at 2500 rpm, it is flowing 723 cfm's. now if we figure in the volumetric efficiency (1.6 for the turbocharged 4 stroke, 1.9 for the turbo and supercharged 2 stroke) the requirements become 417 cfm and 1374 cfm respectively. So now we have more than tripled our air requirement and I can only assume that if the hho is not increased at the same ratio it will have become to diluted to offer much if any benefit. Correct me if I am wrong but it would seem that tuning for the proper hho amount should have just as much, if not more, to do with the amount of air going in than the fuel should it not? I don't know if that helped at all but I feel like i at least tried to contribute something to this forum finally On a side note i have built my first generator of my own design and am in the testing process, but that's for another thread.

Great contribution. This is one thing that is not taken into consideration and that is the amount of remaining exhaust in the two stroke compared to the remaining exhaust in a 4 stroke. In my limited testing on a 2 stroke (not a diesel) I found over all for the same HP it took less HHO than a 4 stroke. I am not sure how that would apply to the diesel and have no good explanation as to why but I think is has to do with the oil in the fuel of a gasoline 2 stroke when you add HHO. It seams to make more HP at lower rpm. Depending on the amount of exhaust left in the combustion chamber one could be making other very explosive gases in the combustion chamber too which would contribute to the process. Like you said to make the same HP it would be at higher rpm normally and here again it is going to depend on how the timing of the ports are. To build bottom end power there is less over lap and power is built at lower rpm. It would be interesting to here from someone who has actually put HHO on a 2 stroke diesel. Some times HHO does not follow the logical and theoretical explanation.

[BioFarmer93]

I have a few thoughts to contribute to this discussion since i have some experience with both engines, i can only speculate though on the hho portion, first off I realize you guys know alot of what i'm going to post but will include some basics for others reading. The 8v92 is as has already been established, a two stroke supercharged (mechanically driven blower) diesel engine. Now the ones i'm more familiar with also had a turbo feeding the blower, which in itself is a needed variable in the equation to determine how much air is moving through the engine. A two stroke is going to flow almost double the amount of air (CFM's) as a 4 stroke of the same size (CID) at the same rpm's. I say almost because of the inherent inefficiencies of the two stroke you are not able to completely fill the cylinder to its total volume or completely remove all exhaust gasses until you add forced induction which i will get to in a moment. While they are capable of making more power than a 4 stroke, they require higher rpms to do it, so again, more air moving through the engine. as an example, and for easy figuring lets use a 500 cubic in motor, in one revolution of the crankshaft, it requires 250 cubic inches of air for a 4 stroke, 500 for a 2 stroke (not figuring in boost pressure for either one) now if the 4 stroke runs at 1800 rpms for peak power it requires a flow rate of 260 cfm. If the two stroke makes its peak power at 2500 rpm, it is flowing 723 cfm's. now if we figure in the volumetric efficiency (1.6 for the turbocharged 4 stroke, 1.9 for the turbo and supercharged 2 stroke) the requirements become 417 cfm and 1374 cfm respectively. So now we have more than tripled our air requirement and I can only assume that if the hho is not increased at the same ratio it will have become to diluted to offer much if any benefit. Correct me if I am wrong but it would seem that tuning for the proper hho amount should have just as much, if not more, to do with the amount of air going in than the fuel should it not? I don't know if that helped at all but I feel like i at least tried to contribute something to this forum finally On a side note i have built my first generator of my own design and am in the testing process, but that's for another thread.

-Indeed.. Which puts the ball back into the court of my original premise, with the caveat that fueling (Myold) amount vs. HHO amount will also play a role. I suppose I'll have to buy a screamin' Jimmy to test to know for sure. Another diesel, oh darn...

[TwinTurbo]

-Indeed.. Which puts the ball back into the court of my original premise, with the caveat that fueling (Myold) amount vs. HHO amount will also play a role. I suppose I'll have to buy a screamin' Jimmy to test to know for sure. Another diesel, oh darn...

Yup - I've got one in a '73 Peterbilt, runs great just to many irons in the fire and not enough fuel to keep it lit

[myoldyourgold]

I made a preliminary proposal a few years ago to add HHO to a Wartsila Sulzer RTA96C 12 cylinder, which required some major rehashing based on further testing. The Sulzer RTA96C type engine is a low-speed, direct-reversible, single-acting two-stroke engine, comprising crosshead-guided running gear, hydraulically operated poppet type exhaust valves, turbocharged uniflow scavenging system and oil cooled pistons. The Sulzer RTA96C is designed for running on a wide range of fuels from marine diesel oil (MDO) to heavy fuel oils (HFO) of different qualities. I have been working on the revised proposal but am waiting for some further testing to be completed before I complete it. Unfortunately I had to sign a very tight Non-Disclosure agreement so can not post any details. I think for one where we are a little confused is in the fact that you are assuming a much higher rpm and I am not. The above referenced engine is only a 102 rpm engine with a maximum output for the twelve-cylinder engine of 68,640 kW. This engine weighs over 2 metric tons and is found in many container ships. To complicate everything the engine not only burns 171 g/kWh of fuel but also burns slightly less then 2 gallons of engine oil per kWh after it is broken in.

Main features:
Bore>>>>>>>>>>>>>>960 mm
Stroke>>>>>>>>>>>>>2500 mm
Number of cylinders>>>>>6 to 12

Main parameters (R1):

Power (MCR)>>>>>>>>>5720 kW/cyl
Speed (MCR)>>>>>>>>>102 rpm
Mean effect. press.>>>>> 18.6 bar
Mean piston speed>>>>>>8.5 m/s

Additionally we need to consider the amount of hydrocarbons that the HHO can react with, the formation of highly reactive nitrogen elements, other gases some unknown all formed in the combustion process which add additional HP by using the HHO and wasted heat from the combustion process. This wasted heat would normally go out the exhaust or into the cooling system. Things are not totally like one would think. More testing is necessary before I am willing to make a final decision or statement so as not to mislead anyone because of the many variables not yet tested. To put it simply there is more to it than just the volume of air per power stroke to calculate the amount of HHO needed. Of course this has to be taken into consideration when trying to get the ratio correct but all the rest is just as important. I would be very interested in anyone's experience using HHO with both 2 stroke and 4 stroke diesels especially ones with EGR's and water injection.