The Acura Legend & Acura RL Forum - View Single Post

GrumpySteelMan · 06-22-08, 07:52 PM

Rower4VT,

You aren't 'making' hydrogen; you are freeing it from the oxygen bond in the water itself. This is nothing like the 'perpetual motion machine' as there is energy being added and water being consumed, no trap doors there. I know all about the second law of thermodynamics also, so don't get started with me. I know there is no such thing as a free lunch. I'm waiting for the first episode of Top Gear's 11th season to come out, so I've got nothing but time to write.

You make very valid points on the outside but you didn't actually put any facts into your post. All your 'optimistic' numbers are obviously produced by 'brotelligence.' Your attitude isn't helping you either, pick up your own chemistry book, and back up your own ideas. I haven't ever looked at a 'gassaver' website, nor have I done extensive research about HHO. I do like the idea, so here is my theory and I've secured some facts to support it.

Why would hydrogen gas only be twice as efficient as a complex hydrocarbon? Think McFly, Think. We know that every atom of hydrogen has combustion potential. How about gasoline?

1kg of Gaseous Hydrogen has an energy potential of 141 megajoules. Gasoline (without Ethanol or other additives that would lower this number) only has an energy potential of 34.8 megajoules per liter or about 46.2 megajoules per kg. HYDROGEN HAS THREE TIMES THE POTENTIAL PER KG. Notice I said 'potential.' So here is the absolute maximum enthalpy of the two. 141Mj - 46.2Mj (Hydrogen FTMFW).

Gasoline burns in a complex process. Optimally: Gasoline + 02 = C02 + H20 + PM (Particulate matter, soot). Gasoline is never completely burned in the engine and varying amounts of raw fuel enter the exhaust unchanged. The optimum efficiency for actual combustion is the stoichiometric ratio 14.7:1 Air/Fuel. The fuel would simply not burn in a large excess of air. If you increase the Air/Fuel ratio you begin to get NO(x) and CO. These higher A/F ratios, known as a 'lean burn' also create more heat than useful explosive/motivative power. This is why I suggested an EGT gauge to the OP. Lean burns make lots of heat and burn up inexpensive parts like exhaust valves. Gasoline burns optimally at a 6.8% fuel ratio by mass, with the aforementioned unburned fuel and byproducts.

So the hydrocarbon process itself is dirty. Granted most of my experience is in the performance venue and not mpg (more like gal/hp), but stick with me. We've always got an incomplete burn, and under lean conditions, the high temperatures we get cause greater reactions without benefit and more byproducts. All of these are things that can contaminate the next combustion event.

Hydrogen burns in a very simple process. 2-H2(gas) + 02 (gas) = 2-H20 (liq) + 572kJ So that's energy and water...that's absolutely it. Hydrogen is highly flammable and will ignite and burn completely in concentrations as small as 4% in atmosphere. Hydrogen burns completely at an Air/Fuel ratio of 34:1 by mass or 2.9%. So for a given mass, comparing these ratios, we see obviously a 2.3 times greater combustion efficiency with a given amount of oxygen.

So we could say that 3 times the energy potential and 2.3 times greater combustion efficiency mass/volume is significant. In a perfect world, for a given cylinder displacement, at complete burn, you would require 2.3 times more gasoline for complete combustion, and you'd make 1/3 the power. You're right, this hydrogen stuff is NONSENSE.

Now let's move back to the bigger picture, I'll pick a big one that the detractors hang on, according to you.

Here we are back at the second law of thermodynamics. HHO is made with electrolysis. The theoretical maximum for electrolysis efficiency to Hydrogen chemical energy is 80-94% with more reasonable claims in the 50-70% range. Sounds pretty bad right? For arguments sake we'll say we're only getting 60% of the energy out that we're putting in. Consider that this is a comparison of JOULE energy put in against absolute JOULE energy potential of the resulting hydrogen gas. So it takes about 225Mj to release 141Mj potential energy in the form of 1kg pure hydrogen.

So here is where it is weak, and I haven't done enough research...perhaps the research hasn't even been done yet. So here are my theories.

The Hydrogen alone, gained from the electrolysis process itself, is not enough to offset the energy needed to free it, in an internal combustion engine. This is undeniable fact. Another fact is that internal combustion with hydrocarbons yields only about 20% average efficiency from absolute energy potential (measured in Joules above). So there must be room to improve upon that, especially since we’re wasting 80% of the potential energy of every single ounce of fuel. Of course some of the losses are impossible to overcome in that 80%, but even a 2% improvement in total efficiency would yield 10% greater fuel economy.

When it comes to fuel economy, if you ask me, the royal pair is Volumetric Efficiency and Combustion Efficiency. HHO has some effect on VE, but I don’t think it is worth talking about. So we’ll talk about combustion efficiency. The HHO system adds Oxygen as well as Hydrogen to the intake system, increasing burn efficiency of the gasoline as well as the hydrogen fuel. Of course the HYDROGEN doesn't need any help. I'm surprised the shit won't burn in water.

So we add oxygen to the intake, effectively displacing say, nitrogen, an inert component in the atmosphere...and improve the burn properties of the combustion of the gasoline. A double-edged benefit, the byproduct of electrolysis improves the use of the primary fuel in the engine. How would one measure this? I’m really not sure, but it makes sense on the surface. There is more pure O2 in the cylinder for combustion and less inert atmospheric gas. This boost in efficiency is not accounted for in any science I’ve seen, probably because this is not a mainstream idea. Regardless, an oxygen rich environment will improve combustion efficiency. This is why nitrous oxide works.

So the question is, does the additional energy required to split the Oxygen and Hydrogen from Water pay for itself by improving the combustion of the primary fuel, gasoline?

There really isn’t much solid research on using Hydrogen for Internal Combustion in the first place. I know the Mazda Wankel was originally designed to burn hydrogen…great. Most of the automotive manufacturers are looking into fuel cells, since they demonstrate around 50% efficiency from absolute energy potential. So I don’t have any hard numbers as to how much better hydrogen is than gasoline in actual use, but the science seems to point at it being much better. I feel like with enough research and proper implementation the HHO system could really work. Here are a few of my points:

1. More power without using additional fuel.

The byproduct of Hydrogen gas combustion is water. Where we are trying to evacuate every last possible breath of normal hydrocarbon combustion, the small amount of H20 left in the combustion chamber would be excellent at controlling combustion temperatures and burn characteristics, which in turn would allow for more power to be made by increasing ignition timing, with zero additional fuel being used. A smart engine computer would advance the ignition timing automatically, but we don't all have those, sadly.

2. Improving hydrocarbon burn characteristics

I’ve exhausted this argument above.

3. More usable top end power from a smaller engine.

Another side effect of the H20 byproduct is that a greater amount of overlap that could be run on the camshafts. A reasonable amount of overlap makes more power at high RPM, at the cost of combustion chamber contamination on the low end, which would be a lesser factor with a cleaner combustion process.

Honda uses VTEC to accomplish a similar goal, which I will use to explain overlap. Overlap is the time when both the intake and exhaust valves are open at the same time during the transition between exhaust and intake stroke.

VTEC Low-RPM operation has little overlap, is very efficient, and reduces combustion chamber contamination by greatly reducing reversion of exhaust gases being drawn back into the cylinders from the exhaust. If you had high overlap at low-RPM the exhaust would be drawn back in, with the intake charge, reducing effective displacement.

VTEC High-RPM operation has more overlap to promote cylinder filling and reduce combustion chamber contamination by using the greater airflow through the motor to help clear the spent charge in the cylinder. If you have narrow overlap at high-RPM the exhaust valve wouldn’t be open long enough to clear the cylinder.

I'm no scientist, and I am in a state of suspended disbelief at this time. You can get as excited as you want, and please bring the sarcasm, but leave your ignorance at the door.

06-22-08, 07:52 PM	#39 (permalink)
GrumpySteelMan Find Em Fuck Em Forget Em Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 983 Car 1: 2004 Nighthawk RL Car 2: 2005 Nighthawk TL Car 3: 2002 525i Sport Wag iTrader: (0)	Rower4VT, You aren't 'making' hydrogen; you are freeing it from the oxygen bond in the water itself. This is nothing like the 'perpetual motion machine' as there is energy being added and water being consumed, no trap doors there. I know all about the second law of thermodynamics also, so don't get started with me. I know there is no such thing as a free lunch. I'm waiting for the first episode of Top Gear's 11th season to come out, so I've got nothing but time to write. You make very valid points on the outside but you didn't actually put any facts into your post. All your 'optimistic' numbers are obviously produced by 'brotelligence.' Your attitude isn't helping you either, pick up your own chemistry book, and back up your own ideas. I haven't ever looked at a 'gassaver' website, nor have I done extensive research about HHO. I do like the idea, so here is my theory and I've secured some facts to support it. Why would hydrogen gas only be twice as efficient as a complex hydrocarbon? Think McFly, Think. We know that every atom of hydrogen has combustion potential. How about gasoline? 1kg of Gaseous Hydrogen has an energy potential of 141 megajoules. Gasoline (without Ethanol or other additives that would lower this number) only has an energy potential of 34.8 megajoules per liter or about 46.2 megajoules per kg. HYDROGEN HAS THREE TIMES THE POTENTIAL PER KG. Notice I said 'potential.' So here is the absolute maximum enthalpy of the two. 141Mj - 46.2Mj (Hydrogen FTMFW). Gasoline burns in a complex process. Optimally: Gasoline + 02 = C02 + H20 + PM (Particulate matter, soot). Gasoline is never completely burned in the engine and varying amounts of raw fuel enter the exhaust unchanged. The optimum efficiency for actual combustion is the stoichiometric ratio 14.7:1 Air/Fuel. The fuel would simply not burn in a large excess of air. If you increase the Air/Fuel ratio you begin to get NO(x) and CO. These higher A/F ratios, known as a 'lean burn' also create more heat than useful explosive/motivative power. This is why I suggested an EGT gauge to the OP. Lean burns make lots of heat and burn up inexpensive parts like exhaust valves. Gasoline burns optimally at a 6.8% fuel ratio by mass, with the aforementioned unburned fuel and byproducts. So the hydrocarbon process itself is dirty. Granted most of my experience is in the performance venue and not mpg (more like gal/hp), but stick with me. We've always got an incomplete burn, and under lean conditions, the high temperatures we get cause greater reactions without benefit and more byproducts. All of these are things that can contaminate the next combustion event. Hydrogen burns in a very simple process. 2-H2(gas) + 02 (gas) = 2-H20 (liq) + 572kJ So that's energy and water...that's absolutely it. Hydrogen is highly flammable and will ignite and burn completely in concentrations as small as 4% in atmosphere. Hydrogen burns completely at an Air/Fuel ratio of 34:1 by mass or 2.9%. So for a given mass, comparing these ratios, we see obviously a 2.3 times greater combustion efficiency with a given amount of oxygen. So we could say that 3 times the energy potential and 2.3 times greater combustion efficiency mass/volume is significant. In a perfect world, for a given cylinder displacement, at complete burn, you would require 2.3 times more gasoline for complete combustion, and you'd make 1/3 the power. You're right, this hydrogen stuff is NONSENSE. Now let's move back to the bigger picture, I'll pick a big one that the detractors hang on, according to you. Here we are back at the second law of thermodynamics. HHO is made with electrolysis. The theoretical maximum for electrolysis efficiency to Hydrogen chemical energy is 80-94% with more reasonable claims in the 50-70% range. Sounds pretty bad right? For arguments sake we'll say we're only getting 60% of the energy out that we're putting in. Consider that this is a comparison of JOULE energy put in against absolute JOULE energy potential of the resulting hydrogen gas. So it takes about 225Mj to release 141Mj potential energy in the form of 1kg pure hydrogen. So here is where it is weak, and I haven't done enough research...perhaps the research hasn't even been done yet. So here are my theories. The Hydrogen alone, gained from the electrolysis process itself, is not enough to offset the energy needed to free it, in an internal combustion engine. This is undeniable fact. Another fact is that internal combustion with hydrocarbons yields only about 20% average efficiency from absolute energy potential (measured in Joules above). So there must be room to improve upon that, especially since we’re wasting 80% of the potential energy of every single ounce of fuel. Of course some of the losses are impossible to overcome in that 80%, but even a 2% improvement in total efficiency would yield 10% greater fuel economy. When it comes to fuel economy, if you ask me, the royal pair is Volumetric Efficiency and Combustion Efficiency. HHO has some effect on VE, but I don’t think it is worth talking about. So we’ll talk about combustion efficiency. The HHO system adds Oxygen as well as Hydrogen to the intake system, increasing burn efficiency of the gasoline as well as the hydrogen fuel. Of course the HYDROGEN doesn't need any help. I'm surprised the shit won't burn in water. So we add oxygen to the intake, effectively displacing say, nitrogen, an inert component in the atmosphere...and improve the burn properties of the combustion of the gasoline. A double-edged benefit, the byproduct of electrolysis improves the use of the primary fuel in the engine. How would one measure this? I’m really not sure, but it makes sense on the surface. There is more pure O2 in the cylinder for combustion and less inert atmospheric gas. This boost in efficiency is not accounted for in any science I’ve seen, probably because this is not a mainstream idea. Regardless, an oxygen rich environment will improve combustion efficiency. This is why nitrous oxide works. So the question is, does the additional energy required to split the Oxygen and Hydrogen from Water pay for itself by improving the combustion of the primary fuel, gasoline? There really isn’t much solid research on using Hydrogen for Internal Combustion in the first place. I know the Mazda Wankel was originally designed to burn hydrogen…great. Most of the automotive manufacturers are looking into fuel cells, since they demonstrate around 50% efficiency from absolute energy potential. So I don’t have any hard numbers as to how much better hydrogen is than gasoline in actual use, but the science seems to point at it being much better. I feel like with enough research and proper implementation the HHO system could really work. Here are a few of my points: 1. More power without using additional fuel. The byproduct of Hydrogen gas combustion is water. Where we are trying to evacuate every last possible breath of normal hydrocarbon combustion, the small amount of H20 left in the combustion chamber would be excellent at controlling combustion temperatures and burn characteristics, which in turn would allow for more power to be made by increasing ignition timing, with zero additional fuel being used. A smart engine computer would advance the ignition timing automatically, but we don't all have those, sadly. 2. Improving hydrocarbon burn characteristics I’ve exhausted this argument above. 3. More usable top end power from a smaller engine. Another side effect of the H20 byproduct is that a greater amount of overlap that could be run on the camshafts. A reasonable amount of overlap makes more power at high RPM, at the cost of combustion chamber contamination on the low end, which would be a lesser factor with a cleaner combustion process. Honda uses VTEC to accomplish a similar goal, which I will use to explain overlap. Overlap is the time when both the intake and exhaust valves are open at the same time during the transition between exhaust and intake stroke. VTEC Low-RPM operation has little overlap, is very efficient, and reduces combustion chamber contamination by greatly reducing reversion of exhaust gases being drawn back into the cylinders from the exhaust. If you had high overlap at low-RPM the exhaust would be drawn back in, with the intake charge, reducing effective displacement. VTEC High-RPM operation has more overlap to promote cylinder filling and reduce combustion chamber contamination by using the greater airflow through the motor to help clear the spent charge in the cylinder. If you have narrow overlap at high-RPM the exhaust valve wouldn’t be open long enough to clear the cylinder. I'm no scientist, and I am in a state of suspended disbelief at this time. You can get as excited as you want, and please bring the sarcasm, but leave your ignorance at the door. __________________ "A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally." -Oscar Wilde 3.5RL With/Without Nitrous Comparo Video