Tweet
Hydrogen burns with oxygen to form water vapor. In other words, the ECU will lean out the intake mixture because some of the gasoline required will be displaced with hydrogen to form the proper stoichiometric ratio. You can't possibly ever generate enough hydrogen on board from water on a car to make any difference. Period. Its just not ever going to happen. Even if you dedicate your electrical system to making hydrogen, you get about enough to run a cigarette lighter. There have only been alleged success's done in private, and you'd need sophisticated equipment to even have a hope of compiling reliable data (i.e. a peak pressure transducing spark plug and etc) plus complete control of injection and ignition.
But, in the end, HHO is simply not "good science". This garbage has been around for 100 years now with absolutely no legitimate results. The losses in generating hydrogen are extremely high. The amount you get off a car alternator are very little. The energy to run the alternator comes from the cars engine. Burning hydrogen results in water...so even at %100 efficiency a "HHO" generator will only result in a complicated way of moving water down into the exhaust pipe...rendering -ZERO- power output. The laws of conservation of energy apply here.
In a controlled experiment NASA experienced a %3 (three) increase in energy conversion efficiency. So that it already means HHO doesn't work, because everyone running HHO claims improvements over ten times higher then that. This was a NASA test to find hydrogen's overall energy benefit and they got all of three percent in a controlled environment, which a car is not.
But just to make sure this horse is beat to death properly, how much hydrogen did they inject into this engine? The engine is in excess of a 7 liter engine, so extrapolating, NASA needed to inject 0.231 kilograms per hour into this engine to get that %3.
Lets divide that by seven for fun. 0.033 kilograms per hour. This is poor math and bad scientific application, but needless to say you need /at least/ that much hydrogen per hour to even approach the claims that NASA paper makes. 0.033 doesn't sound like a lot except for one problem. To get 1 kilogram of hydrogen, it requires about 55kWh of energy. The energy requirements are massive. Doing the math, 55000 watts / 1 kilogram translates to 1815 watts of power / 0.033 kilograms.
1815 watts an hour. /1815/. Per hour. That is how much energy we're talking you need to generate enough hydrogen to get a %3 increase in efficiency. Bearing in mind, NASA considers an increase in efficiency to be an increase in total usage of gasoline energy. That entire paper says nowhere that the engine, itself, is generating the hydrogen.
1815 / 13.4 = 135.4 amps of current. Awesome; your alternator is absolutely maxed out or way over its capacity at this point. Most cars don't even have an alternator capable of over 80 amps constant. This also eliminates everything else in your car operating. This is how much current is necessary to produce /less then/ enough hydrogen to match the NASA test. Bearing in mind, I divided the required figures /by seven/, meaning this extrapolates to something around the hydrogen required to increase the efficiency in a 1.1 liter engine a whopping %3.
And I could easily calculate the horsepower draw but needless to say, people disabling their alternator already net more gains then %3 (closer to 10%). According to Google, with a perfect translation of energy, 1815 watts equates to 2.43395509. The 1.3 liter engine generates 63 horsepower. Using 2.5 horsepower to generate hydrogen to net a %3 gain means you're getting less than 2 horsepower in increased power output from more efficient fuel burn. 63 - 2.5 + 2 = 62.5 Not a huge loss, but with the added cost of ruining your alternator it'll add up.
So, we done yet with HHO? I'd love to know why its so popular when nobody has any logical science behind it and nobody has any independent tests to prove it. There's a reason why. Its a fraud. And being so enthusiastic about it without any verified claims insane or buying into a fad because you want to be right.
But, in the end, HHO is simply not "good science". This garbage has been around for 100 years now with absolutely no legitimate results. The losses in generating hydrogen are extremely high. The amount you get off a car alternator are very little. The energy to run the alternator comes from the cars engine. Burning hydrogen results in water...so even at %100 efficiency a "HHO" generator will only result in a complicated way of moving water down into the exhaust pipe...rendering -ZERO- power output. The laws of conservation of energy apply here.
In a controlled experiment NASA experienced a %3 (three) increase in energy conversion efficiency. So that it already means HHO doesn't work, because everyone running HHO claims improvements over ten times higher then that. This was a NASA test to find hydrogen's overall energy benefit and they got all of three percent in a controlled environment, which a car is not.
But just to make sure this horse is beat to death properly, how much hydrogen did they inject into this engine? The engine is in excess of a 7 liter engine, so extrapolating, NASA needed to inject 0.231 kilograms per hour into this engine to get that %3.
Lets divide that by seven for fun. 0.033 kilograms per hour. This is poor math and bad scientific application, but needless to say you need /at least/ that much hydrogen per hour to even approach the claims that NASA paper makes. 0.033 doesn't sound like a lot except for one problem. To get 1 kilogram of hydrogen, it requires about 55kWh of energy. The energy requirements are massive. Doing the math, 55000 watts / 1 kilogram translates to 1815 watts of power / 0.033 kilograms.
1815 watts an hour. /1815/. Per hour. That is how much energy we're talking you need to generate enough hydrogen to get a %3 increase in efficiency. Bearing in mind, NASA considers an increase in efficiency to be an increase in total usage of gasoline energy. That entire paper says nowhere that the engine, itself, is generating the hydrogen.
1815 / 13.4 = 135.4 amps of current. Awesome; your alternator is absolutely maxed out or way over its capacity at this point. Most cars don't even have an alternator capable of over 80 amps constant. This also eliminates everything else in your car operating. This is how much current is necessary to produce /less then/ enough hydrogen to match the NASA test. Bearing in mind, I divided the required figures /by seven/, meaning this extrapolates to something around the hydrogen required to increase the efficiency in a 1.1 liter engine a whopping %3.
And I could easily calculate the horsepower draw but needless to say, people disabling their alternator already net more gains then %3 (closer to 10%). According to Google, with a perfect translation of energy, 1815 watts equates to 2.43395509. The 1.3 liter engine generates 63 horsepower. Using 2.5 horsepower to generate hydrogen to net a %3 gain means you're getting less than 2 horsepower in increased power output from more efficient fuel burn. 63 - 2.5 + 2 = 62.5 Not a huge loss, but with the added cost of ruining your alternator it'll add up.
So, we done yet with HHO? I'd love to know why its so popular when nobody has any logical science behind it and nobody has any independent tests to prove it. There's a reason why. Its a fraud. And being so enthusiastic about it without any verified claims insane or buying into a fad because you want to be right.
Comment