coozer
|
| posted on 17/1/13 at 02:29 PM |
|
|
Hydrogen Additive System
Yesterday I was at Walkers crisp factory for driver induction. During a walkaround in the yard I was introduced to a small box that looked like a big
battery case with a blue pipe coming out the top and going towards the engine.
I pointed and asked.. and was told its a hydrogen generator that pumps gas into the intake and has been proved to
improve mpg on their fleet of trucks by 3%. It gets topped up with distilled water every 6 weeks or so..
I've had a look on google and it seems this is indeed a good way to improve the efficiency of your engine.
Anyone know about this, or use it?
I think it may be a good way of improving the mileage on my V8... every little bit helps
1972 V8 Jago
1980 Z750
|
|
|
|
|
matt_claydon
|
| posted on 17/1/13 at 02:55 PM |
|
|
Snake oil, worrying that big companies fall for this sort of thing.
I'm sure I did some maths on this a few years back and found the amount of hydrogen produced is so small you'd be lucky to get more than a
few molecules into each cylinder per stroke.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/gas-mileage/4310717
[Edited on 17/1/13 by matt_claydon]
|
|
|
balidey
|
| posted on 17/1/13 at 03:02 PM |
|
|
I seem to remember it 'works' by being a charge cooler.
Dutch bears have terrible skin due to their clogged paws
|
|
|
designer
|
| posted on 17/1/13 at 03:05 PM |
|
|
It's a water injector, the same as you could buy twenty years ago.
|
|
|
coozer
|
| posted on 17/1/13 at 03:08 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by designer
It's a water injector, the same as you could buy twenty years ago.
No, its a gas generator, he said it was like a battery inside, plates and what not and unlike a battery where you have ot ventilate it this stuff was
collected and fed into the intake manifold. Mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gas, not water.
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/hydrogen-generators-cars.htm
[Edited on 17/1/13 by coozer]
1972 V8 Jago
1980 Z750
|
|
|
balidey
|
| posted on 17/1/13 at 03:24 PM |
|
|
Does it generate hydrogen?
Yes.
Is the hydrogen the part of the injected gas what improves the mpg?
Probably not.
Does the mpg reduce?
Perhaps.
Does reduced weight help with mpg?
Yes.
Would removing the system all together reduce weight and therefore improve mpg?
Yes.
etc etc
Trouble is that you can run the same truck, same route, same driver a dozen times and get quite a variance in mpg. I know as doing HGV fuel trials and
aerodynamic work is one of the things I am heavily involved in at work.
Infact those Walkers trucks are probably part of 'my' job.
Dutch bears have terrible skin due to their clogged paws
|
|
|
balidey
|
| posted on 17/1/13 at 03:28 PM |
|
|
Reducing amount of fuel going into the charge will do two things.
1: reduce amount of fuel burned.
2: initially increase power.
perhaps the 'magic gas' that is injected is actually leaning off the mixture. Perhaps this is whats giving the improved fuel
efficiency.
Those 50p resistors you can buy off ebay to fool your ecu to run lean do actually work, to an extent. This to me is along similar lines.
Dutch bears have terrible skin due to their clogged paws
|
|
|
Oddified
|
| posted on 17/1/13 at 04:20 PM |
|
|
Whilst not having use a system myself, i have a mate that had it fitted to his car and ran it for several years and did back to back tests. It does
work and does improve the mpg by a few % which on a vehicle with poor mpg (like a truck or v8 etc) makes it woth looking at.
There's loads of theorys as to why it will or won't work or indeed how it does or doesn't (eg, uses power to make the
hydrogen+oxygen which only has to be made by the alternator etc etc).
If everyone in the world said any thinking out of the box was snake oil we'd still be living in the stone age...
Ian
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 17/1/13 at 04:25 PM |
|
|
Snake oil -- whoever sanctioned fitting this quite expensive system to a fleet of vehicles needs to get demoted.
A couple or more years back one of the monthly car magazines ran a major article to this type of system and promised a follow up article showing
the mpg gains, but the follow up article never appeared.
Even if the electrolysis system generated enough hydrogen to have an effect it would not be a good idea, because of pre-ignition hydrogen is not a
good fuel to put in any kind of internal combustion engine.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 17/1/13 at 04:35 PM |
|
|
This apperas to be different to the usual using electricity to break down water and burn the gas, which true enough is unlikely to work, but if
charging a car or truck battery gives off hydrogen anyway, why couldnt collecting this by product work? Maybe charging an extra battery takes the
extra energy it MAY produce. The water would just be the same as the way you used to have to top up batteries with water from time to time I guess?
Yes I think its unlikely to give the results they claim, but just wondering...
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 17/1/13 at 04:40 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
Even if the electrolysis system generated enough hydrogen to have an effect it would not be a good idea, because of pre-ignition hydrogen is not a
good fuel to put in any kind of internal combustion engine.
Especially a diesel I would think. However, since these snake oil devices produce such tiny amounts of hydrogen I suspect the danger from
pre-ignition is pretty minimal.
|
|
|
dinosaurjuice
|
| posted on 17/1/13 at 04:54 PM |
|
|
just an idea (ive never had ANY experience of these things)
diesel burns slow...
hydrogen burns fast.. really fast.
so maybe a little hydrogen helps the diesel burn 'spread' quicker and maybe more efficiently?
a bit like the petrol engines with 2 spark plugs perhaps?!
Kind of makes a little bit of sense to me. not enough to spend my hard earned on a system though...
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 17/1/13 at 04:57 PM |
|
|
It is not even a new con back in the 1900's some smart operator was trying to sell shares in a company building cars that ran water which
was dissociated to hydrogen and oxygen by extreme heat.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
matt_claydon
|
| posted on 17/1/13 at 06:32 PM |
|
|
You don't even have to think about the science to know these (and all similar devices: magnets, rocks in the fuel tank, spinny propellors in the
intake or exhaust, yada, yada) are bunk. In a world where major OEMs go to incredible lengths to shave even 0.1 mpg from their economy figures, they
would have been fitting these for decades if they even gave a fraction of the benefit claimed.
(cue delusional ravings about a conspiracy by the oil companies...)
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 17/1/13 at 11:23 PM |
|
|
I had the chance to walk through a well known manufacturers power train dept. a few days ago. They had a chart showing the improvements they've
made on an engine. Each gain they made was less than 1%. In fact quite a lot less, but having made about 10 changes they got a worthwhile percentage
improvement. IF they could get 3% by doing this believe me they would. I'd therefore say snake oil.
|
|
|
hughpinder
|
| posted on 18/1/13 at 10:10 AM |
|
|
I looked at this some years ago, but never got round to trying it. At a very basic level of physics/chemistry it make no differerence, however I think
it could. Playing devisl advocate a bit here, here's some arguments:
The engery used to produce the gas comes from the alternator, which is driven by the engine, so the engine has to make more power to produce the gas
and it all cancels out. Superficially this is true, but assumes the engine is only producing exacly the amount of power to maintain the cars speed, so
that adding load to the alternator makes a difference to the fuel consupmtion. I don't believe this to be the case most of the time, so the
alternators energy is (to an extent) free, so it MAY work.
The manufacturers tune the engines so carefully there is no gain to be made. True, but they base their tuning on worst case fuel, and in the uk you
can rechip most engines for uk fuel grades and have better consumption - most people who re-chip use the chip to gain more power instead.
The chemistry I did at university says you get the same energy out buring you hydrogen/oxygen as goes in to disassociate them, so no gain. However,
even in the combustion part of my course (chemical engineering) we NEVER considered if the chemistry was different when buring say diesel in an
ionised gas stream, which may or may not then act as a catalyst - I certainly don't know. Most chemistry is done in controlled conditions. Also,
you are slightly boosting the %oxygen in the gas stream as H2O -> gas is 33% oxygen, not 21% as in air.
Most induction systems measure gas flow using a wire in the inlet air strean and looking at the electrical characteristics - you are passing an
oinised gas over this wire with this system fitted, so its electrical response will change - this could cause the system to lean out or enrich the mix
- I never got as far as working out which!
Just some 'food for thought'. If I beleived it could make a significant difference, I would have been doing it for years!
Regards
Hugh
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 18/1/13 at 10:38 AM |
|
|
Is the difference the drivers know the bosses are monitoring fuel consumption and have fitted a device to improve it so don't dick about as
much? Perhaps even subconsciously.
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 18/1/13 at 06:12 PM |
|
|
quote:
If everyone in the world said any thinking out of the box was snake oil we'd still be living in the stone age...
True, but you wouldn't believe the number of people (business people who have a vague idea and some practical skills but no theoretical
knowledge usually, not just random shed-dwellers) who visit university departments trying to get their vehicle efficiency improvement schemes
investigated, or perpetual motion machines checked out. I swear, I worked in engineering departments in academia for 10 years and over that time I
personally got invited to 5 meetings with people who got the university to sign NDAs and present the next best thing.Only they didn't work, in
theory or when tested PROPERLY under lab conditions rather than with human intervention. What's funnier is most of them you could point out that
a large manufacturer had already tried it 30 years earlier and proved it made no difference. One or two were at least worthy of merit, but gained so
little (<1%) that they were more of a reliability hazard than was really applicable for the gain. I almost took a job offer working for a test
house doing such proof tests but ended up elsewhere.
In this case, the basic theory could be sound (i.e. IF hydrogen SIGNIFICANTLY improves burn quality in a catalytic manner, a small amount could make a
difference, and a small amount could be generated easily despite the generation process being horrendously inefficient and sapping power off the
crank). But in reality the human reaction and simple variance is far more likely to deliver the differences they identify.
You show me a lab engine with even 1% efficiency gain while self powering a hydrogen generation pack etc and I'll spin on the spot, until then I
just don't believe it and I do truly believe it's snake oil.
|
|
|
