Anyone have a look at these water & fuel hybrid retrofits?
The idea is that you use electrolysis to separate water into H and O. Then add this to your fuel as you go. Don't need a tank to store the H since you generate it on the fly. Save $$$.
Hum...
Sounds like one of those "Too good to be true." deals.
The old time physics, such as I know, suggests that in a closed system like this, the amount of extra energy out will be more than offset by the extra energy in that's needed to generate it.
Or is this the "new physics" we've got going here? ;-)oo
What you've got going here is a 60-year-old scam that's being revived for maybe the tenth time. Don't fall for it. And don't get confused by the remarks you're going to draw about using water injection to prevent detonation at high compression ratios -- unless you have a compound Roots blower on your engine and you're running at 20 pounds of boost. d8-)
Not necesarily a scam, as I understand the concept. Cracking water, and using the H2, O as the only fuel.. Major scam.
This is how it was explained to me. Maybe these ideas are wrong, but it sounded plausible.
The idea behind adding a little H to the intake is that it burns faster than gasoline, and lights easier. IOW it can still burn in a fairly lean state. It is used to actually "light" the gasoline. Like using gasoline to light wood, if you'll pardon the analogy. Since it can still light in a lean state, you can do without the throttle body, and lose the intake restriction, (just) one of the reasons for a diesels better afficiency. The throttle control then controls just the amount of fuel. Also, if it burns faster, then you don't nead as much ignition lead angle. Another possible improvement in effeciency, according to the proponenets of the system.
With the H addition, many fuels are possible to burn in a converted Spark ignition motor. Supposedly, even vegtable oil, gaseous fuel, oil, diesel, whatever.
You are only using the Hydrogen, and a small amount of it at that, to act as an igniter for whatever fuel you want to burn.
I forget the other reasons for it, but it seemed plauible as it was explained to me.
Again, cracking water, and using it for the actual fuel IS A SCAM.
Cracking just enough water to improve the ignition process, and reduce pumping losses might possibly have some merit.
Think of it as an ignition catalyst.
Does it make more sense like that? Or does it still seem like a scam?
I'm curious what other think too.
(not an advocate, just an interested observer)
There is a company in Canada, that is selling a system for trucks, I've heard (third hand) that it does work, although I didn't track down the trucker to verify that.
Not necesarily a scam, as I understand the concept. Cracking water, and using the H2, O as the only fuel.. Major scam.
This is how it was explained to me. Maybe these ideas are wrong, but it sounded plausible.
The idea behind adding a little H to the intake is that it burns faster than gasoline, and lights easier. IOW it can still burn in a fairly lean state. It is used to actually "light" the gasoline. Like using gasoline to light wood, if you'll pardon the analogy. Since it can still light in a lean state, you can do without the throttle body, and lose the intake restriction, (just) one of the reasons for a diesels better afficiency. The throttle control then controls just the amount of fuel. Also, if it burns faster, then you don't nead as much ignition lead angle. Another possible improvement in effeciency, according to the proponenets of the system.
With the H addition, many fuels are possible to burn in a converted Spark ignition motor. Supposedly, even vegtable oil, gaseous fuel, oil, diesel, whatever.
You are only using the Hydrogen, and a small amount of it at that, to act as an igniter for whatever fuel you want to burn.
I forget the other reasons for it, but it seemed plauible as it was explained to me.
Again, cracking water, and using it for the actual fuel IS A SCAM.
Cracking just enough water to improve the ignition process, and reduce pumping losses might possibly have some merit.
Think of it as an ignition catalyst.
Does it make more sense like that? Or does it still seem like a scam?
I'm curious what other think too.
(not an advocate, just an interested observer)
There is a company in Canada, that is selling a system for trucks, I've heard (third hand) that it does work, although I didn't track down the trucker to verify that.
===============================================
It's a scam. Most of what you were told is not true. First, the most efficient industrial processes for electrolysis of water run around 65% efficiency. Theoretical peak efficiency lies in the 80% range. Nothing you can do in a car-scale setup is going to come close to either figure. That's
*before* you burn the hydrogen, which, like the real fuel, will burn at an overall efficiency approaching 28% at best. That's a matter of physics and the temperature limitations of the process, not inefficient design. So you've lost at least 50% before you start, then the results may be running at around 26% of *that*, given excellent design.
This could get tedious so I'll let someone else take over after this, but throttle restriction has nothing whatever to do with the efficiency of diesels. Diesels are efficient for three reasons: they always run at their nominal compression ratio; that compression ratio is very high; they can run at mixtures leaner than stoichiometric (too much air) without losing much, if any, efficiency. And they always do run lean, at any part-throttle setting.
There is practically no loss in efficiency today that results from poor ignition in a spark-ignition engine. Ignition in modern engines is not a limiting factor.
Again, it's a scam. Making scams sound "plausible" is how people scam other people. d8-)
Let's grant for the sake of argument that adding a little hydrogen to the fuel mix could act as a combustion catalyst or igniter, or whatever. You would never opt to generate the hydrogen on board--you would plumb in a hydrogen cylinder and meter it in.
And how is this possible other than the FACT that a deisel engine is unthrottled. Unthrottled means less pumping losses - and therefore higher efficiency. Not the WHOLE advantage but a very large one.
You are missing the point and not fully understanding the issue.. Gasoline spark ignition engines can not run excessively lean because you cannot ignite an over-lean mixture. The theory expounded here (whether true or not) is that a hydrogen augmented mixture would light even if terribly lean, making the lean mixture possible with gasoline as well as with deisel. Remember, the only reason a deisel runs lean at less than full power is because it is a NON THROTTLED engine. Power output is controlled by controll fuel only, not air as in a spark combustion engine.ing
I think it's a scam too, but the theory IS SOUND - even if it doesn't work out in practice.
Never say never. The "hydrogen economy" is not yet here. Onboard hydrogen production may actually make sense if a small enough quantity of hydrogen is required. Personally, I'm not convinced it can work - bottled or not - but in THEORY it could.
The diesel engine is unthrottled. A modern throttled, spark-ignition, fuel-injected engine has no significantly greater restriction, when it's running at full throttle. And the pumping losses are trivial in either a spark-ignition OR a diesel, compared to the loss of thermal efficiency that results from the lower effective compression ratio in the spark-ignition engine.
If you said that the throttle results in less filling of the cylinder at part-throttle operation, and that the resulting lower effective compression ratio shot thermal efficiency to hell, you'd have it. But pumping losses, even at part throttle, are not the significant issue. Not in an injected engine, which is to say, virtually all modern automotive engines.
Chrysler and Honda experimented with all kinds of ignition and lean mixtures back in the '70s. After a brief, initial increase in efficiency (and combustion temperature) as you pass stoichiometric on the downside, thermal efficiency actually falls off as the mixture is leaned further.
It's a case of chasing your tail. With spark ignition and normal compression, fuel efficiency doesn't get much better than it is at stoichiometric mixtures, no matter how lean you go. And, at the slightly lean mixtures where there *is* a slight improvement in fuel efficiency, you're in the combustion temperature range where you generate large amounts of NOx. All it all, it wasn't worth it.
But NOx isn't the issue here, of course, and there are benefits to running somewhat lean. And yes, research shows that hydrogen, in some combinations, lets you run leaner. But it's not that simple.
Yeah, I know.
Which theory? The idea of adding hydrogen to the mix in a SI engine is based on sound theories. It's being experimented with all over the world. Some university in Norway has been publishing papers on it, and I've seen others. It's very tricky to get the supposed benefits. It ain't going to happen with some piece of bolt-on junk that runs on an otherwise normal engine.
For reference, the researchers are using various types of hydrogen generators; mostly using an external source of power, for the experiments. One generator I read about was producing around 5% hydrogen mixtures (the minimum that seems to give a benefit) and requires 2.4 kW of power in a highly efficient thermal/electrolytic setup. Now, running at a typical 50% or so efficiency, a car alternator would require close to 7 hp just to generate the electricity to produce the hydrogen in such a setup -- and a
400-amp alternator, running at peak output all the time.
What do you think these little "electrolytic crackers" are running at? Certainly nothing like that. What they're doing is borrowing some theory and exploiting it to produce a scam. How long have "water crackers" like that been around? I remember seeing ads for them when I was a kid. They were a scam then; they're a scam now.
The theories that Half-Nutz were talking about, which you've sort of picked up on, are what I said were wrong. Look at this statement he made, based on what he was told:
"Since it can still light in a lean state, you can do without the throttle body, and lose the intake restriction, (just) one of the reasons for a diesels better afficiency."
Now, how does lean burning eliminate the need for a throttle body? How do you then throttle an SI engine? Somebody was handing him a line. I was surprised to see your comment about restriction; maybe you missed what he actually said. Are you suggesting that you don't need a throttle with this engine?
Anyway, from here we'd have to look at a specific system to see just where the scams are.
Propane on Diesels has been around a LONG time. It has the same effect on a Diesel as Nitrous Oxide has on a gas engine. Gives you an extra power boost. BUT you don't run it full time because it WILL destroy the engine.
The Hydrogen crap has also been around a LONG time. It has been proven as crap every time but some people believe that magnets and tornado intake spinners add mileage as well. If you do the math and physics it is REAL easy to show the crackpots how wrong they are.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You know some super-efficient way to make hydrogein in small quantities? As far as I know, you would do it by passing electric current through water. The electricity would have to come from the engine power. Auto engines are very inefficient compared to stationary power plants. So you would wind up "spending a dollar to gain a dime."
============== Every time there is a spike in fuel prices this shows up. Some articles of interest
formatting link
?v=ZuUeMSVqKaY
formatting link
{ among thousands}
Cow magnets taped to the fuel line are also popular, and have the additional benefit they don't damage the engine unless they come lose and fall into something.
Unka' George [George McDuffee]
------------------------------------------- He that will not apply new remedies, must expect new evils: for Time is the greatest innovator: and if Time, of course, alter things to the worse, and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better, what shall be the end?
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman. Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).
Do you need to resort to misquoting to make a point? I'm Very dissapointed with you tonight... Why did you delete the Very Next line of mine? It answers the question of "how do you throttle a SI motor without the throttle?"
Secondly, if you know how to build a vacuum pump with practially no power consumption, you will be a very rich man! A SI engine, running with a manifold vacuum, is a big vacuum pump. It has pumping losses. Period.
And HOW can fuel injection eliminate pumping losses??? What differnce could it possibly make if the fuel is sprayed in electronically, or via the carburetor? The intake vacuum is determining (amongst other factors, for the pedantic) the amount of airflow through the motor. At partial load, the motor will have intake vacuum weather it is injected, or carbuerated. Eliminating the throttling of the air, will alleviate some of that pumping losses, similar to a diesel engine.
Ed - you did not read what I wrote very well - I said "at less than full throttle" and pumping losses "at less than full throttle" are virtually no different between a properly sized carb and a fuel injection system, as at full throttle their manifold pressures will be almost identical.
As I said, It is EXTREMELY difficult to light and burn an extremely lean mixture of gasoline and air effectively (and therefore efficiently). Adding a bit of Hydrogen could make a huge difference as the flamability range of hydrogen is MUCH wider - and if the hydrogen burns and provides adequate heat, the lean fuel mixture could burn smoothly as well. Not saying it WOULD, but the theory is viable. Same thing happens with propane augmentation in a deisel - virtually NO particulates as the fuel burn is MUCH more complete with the aid of the "dry gas" fuel component (Propane).
IF you could properly combust an extremely lean fuel mixture you COULD control the output of the engine STRICTLY by the amount of fuel injected - just like in a deisel - with no throttle. And IF you could do this, there would be virtually NO NOX produced because the excess air at idle would cool the combustion gasses enough to keep the nitrogen in the air from being oxidized - same principal as EGR if you study it a bit closer.
I doubt the amount of hydrogen produced by in on-car cracker would be sufficient to provide this range of combustibility - if hydrogen is even the fuel most suited for this "experiment" - but it is DEFINITE that IF you could acheive a wide enough combustibility range, a spark ignition engine COULD be run throttle-less and still have reasonable power control. Low power/speed operation would be tricky, but on a hybrid the low speed could be regulated by controlling the load of the generator - and when no power was required the engine could be shut off as in current synergy drive practice.
Not true. It is NOT used as a supercharger in an augmentation system. It is a fuel economy and emission control strategy that DOES work, full time, at low concentrations. There IS a moderate power output increase due to increased burn efficiency if you want to maintain the same fuel burn. We are talking something less than 5% propane if my memory serves me correctly, and ONLY after the engine has come up to a minimum operating temperature. Propane has a LOUSY Cetane rating!!!!!
Something a bit more sophisticated than simple electrolysis would almost definitely be required. Possibly some kind of noble metal catalyst to improve the efficiency of the reaction??? Doesn't exist YET as far as I know - so the current product could likely best be described as a hoak - but the possibility of it being a viable technology in the future cannot be totally discounted.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.