+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: alternator load vs fuel economy

  1. Default

    all i know is it was between a 2%-3.9% fuel consumption increase. but really it's more likely that it is a 2-3.9% increase in engine load so my car would show the most increase since its old and the engine is small. being a diagnostician i have a wide range of vehicles i come in contact with. i plan on continuing this study with newer vehicles that i can use a scan tool on instead of a lab scope and have more data to look at one time and i can take a snapshot of the entire data field and record it.

  2. Default

    still haven't found a proper calculation yet. but looking at injector duty cycle makes it a little easier to understand. at the given rpm and pulse width the injector duty cycle with no load is 11.84%. with over 40 amps applied to alt injector duty cycle went to 12.08% - 12.33%. that means it only went up .49%. thats a pretty small number and i do believe my hypothesis has stood. the power to make hho will be greatly overcome by the power it gives the engine when burned in the combustion chamber especially on a newer engine and a bigger engine. but it must be done properly if i had to guess it would be the hho is causing it to be too rich thus lowering engine power output and raising fuel consumption and/or not altering ignition timing enough for the amount of hho. just a hunch

  3. Default

    Even if the calculation is correct the .49% dose not mean much to a simple person like me. Unless you can relate it to fuel per mile or HP it is not something I can relate to. I do understand that it takes just less than 1 HP to generate 40 amps on a vehicle that is operating properly. Maybe we are saying the same thing but if we are, it is unknown to me. There are many studies out there showing that turning off the alternator saves fuel by a good bit. Now adding a 40 amp draw should make that number even bigger. The only way the small amount of HHO being used adds significant HP is if something that is unknown to most is happening in the combustion chamber that creates a fuel that is more powerful than just HHO and can push the piston through more of the power crank angle than just HHO, which is just to fast of a burn and in some cases over before the piston is at TDC in some cases. The best thing you could do is try it and report back. I will be very interested in your findings. Your hard work so far is more than most are able to do so keep it up.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb."

    ONE Liter per minute per 10 amps which just isn't possible Ha Ha .

  4. Default

    FINALLY!!! i figured out how to convert pulse width to mile per gallon. ok so here goes

    Alt. unloaded
    injector 235/cc x 0.0049 = 1.1515 cc/pulse
    cc/pulse = 1.1515
    gal/pulse = 0.000303996
    gal/min = 0.01823976
    gal/mile = 0.01823976
    mile/gal = 54.82528

    Alt. loaded by 45ish amps
    injector 235cc/min x .0051 = 1.1985 cc/pulse
    cc/pulse = 1.1985
    gal/pulse = 0.000316404
    gal/min = 0.01898424
    gal/mile = 0.01898424
    mile/gal = 52.67527

    only other thing is i don't quite get that good of gas mileage, but i guess this is just a snap shot so it will vary to my tank to tank readings.
    Last edited by motocross1550; 10-29-2013 at 03:20 AM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    490
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Nice work, @motocross1550. So the data you presented is from your test at 2,900 RPM?

    To recap: you mentioned in a previous test that at idle pulse width was increased by 19% at idle when load was added and then by 58% with the same load at 2000 RPM which makes sense.

    It appears as though fuel comsumption was only increased by ~4% with load added at >=2,000 RPM.

  6. Default

    thanks stevo, im trying to make more sense of the test at idle. i didn't really expect to see that because it seems my engine does better at higher rpms. i get better gas mileage at 65 mph than i do at 55 mph, go figure. so when i increased the rpm i expected to see less alt impact than at idle when engine potential is the lowest. i would still like to do one more tests at medium speed. i haven't had much time to mess around with anymore cars but a 99 Lincoln continental. but i need to find injector capacity and it doesn't appear readily available. otherwise i have the snapshots i need. you wouldn't happen to know that off the top of your head would you? lol

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myoldyourgold View Post
    Even if the calculation is correct the .49% dose not mean much to a simple person like me. Unless you can relate it to fuel per mile or HP it is not something I can relate to. I do understand that it takes just less than 1 HP to generate 40 amps on a vehicle that is operating properly. Maybe we are saying the same thing but if we are, it is unknown to me. There are many studies out there showing that turning off the alternator saves fuel by a good bit. Now adding a 40 amp draw should make that number even bigger. The only way the small amount of HHO being used adds significant HP is if something that is unknown to most is happening in the combustion chamber that creates a fuel that is more powerful than just HHO and can push the piston through more of the power crank angle than just HHO, which is just to fast of a burn and in some cases over before the piston is at TDC in some cases. The best thing you could do is try it and report back. I will be very interested in your findings. Your hard work so far is more than most are able to do so keep it up.
    i can see how turning off the alt. would save fuel consumption. but i think the draw from an hho generator gives back what it takes in amps. its like a supercharger, it takes power from the engine to run but it gives more than it takes. i read some test about removing the alt and using a high efficiency alt. with the high efficiency alt test i don't think over a year with city tractors is a good test. the variables for fuel consumption can change so much through out the year. in both tests i question the integrity of the alt they test. a worn alt or a alt with a worn diode bridge that is leaking ac current can play games with the on board computers and due some pretty funny things, the least it can due is cause the computer to operate less than normal. with removing the alt, it shows gains but shortens the distance the car can be driven and makes it even shorter if any electrical load is used. i think the best of both worlds can be achieved if you turn off anything not needed at idle. its the draw at idle that makes the most load on an engine and raises fuel consumption the most. when i get some time i am going to do a test of pulse width over a per-determined distance with no load and with 40 amps. mostly with engine under acceleration so engine load will be taken into consideration
    .

  8. Default

    after further review i figured out why i got better mileage in the calculations than in real world driving. i will re-calculate my numbers because i remembered my rpms were a little higher and my speed o meter is a little fast so it was closer to 2975 rpms and 57-58 mph.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts