Engine use of Hydroxy calculation

[BoyntonStu]

Engine use of Hydroxy calculation to get into the ballpark of understanding.

Assume this model: 2 Liter engine at 2,000 rpm 60 mph 30 mpg

In 1 minute the 4 cycle engine will suck in 2 million L of 14.7:1 air/fuel (1000 intakes x 2 L)

2,000 / 14.7 = 136 liters of vaporized gasoline per minute

The car will use 2 gallons of gas per hour or 2/60 or 1/30 Gallon or gas per minute.

A gallon of gas equals 3.8 Liters

1/30 of 3,800 Ml = 127 ml liquid gasoline.

Therefore this model car uses 127 ml of gasoline per minute vaporized into 136 L of gas at the same time we are feeding it 1 LPM of hydroxyl gas.

The ratio of Hydroxy to gasoline is 1/136 or 0.7%

IICRC NASA reported that 3% was the magic number.

If so, 4 LPM would do it.

BUT! Hydrogen is 2/3 of Hydroxy and therefore 4 x 1.33 = 5.32 LPM

Please check my calculations.

BoyntonStu

[Painless]

I just went cross-eyed going through your math! :eek:

The only thing I can think of to point out is that despite it being a 2-litre engine, surely the amount of fuel/air combination sucked in per minute would also be a factor of throttle position too?

[BoyntonStu]

I just went cross-eyed going through your math! :eek:

The only thing I can think of to point out is that despite it being a 2-litre engine, surely the amount of fuel/air combination sucked in per minute would also be a factor of throttle position too?

Where did you get stuck?

I'll try to explain it further to clear it up for you.

Throttle position in the calculation is fixed to give you 60 MPH.

The calculation is approximate in order to get a general understanding of what is happening.

I hope that this helps.

BoyntonStu

[Q-Hack!]

Too bad NASA didn't test with Hydroxy instead of just Hydrogen. :cool:

It does help fill the gap between what people are seeing and what NASA is reporting though. When I first read the NASA report I was assuming it was talking about 3% of the fuel and not 3% of the fuel/air mixture. That does make a huge difference.

[Jaxom]

Consider the volumetric efficiency of the engine. It will throw that calculation off by a significant margin.

An engine rarely fills it's cylinders all the way...the ratio of the amount of air actually drawn into the engine (per revolution) to the total displacement of the engine is it's volumetric efficiency (normally expressed as a percentage.) This may be as low as 20% at idle and can reach over 100% in forced induction applications where the intake charge is pressurized. VE is a function of engine speed, throttle position, engine load, friction through the intake and exhaust tracts, and other minor factors.

Under the conditions you describe (part-throttle cruise at highway speed) my IROC-Z runs at about 45-50%VE. This means the 5.7L engine is only drawing in approximately 2.75L of air per revolution, and that's on a 300+HP V8.

Also, the 14.7:1 "stoichiometric fuel mixture" is weight-based, not volume based, therefore it's not valid for this calculation.

[florida horseman]

In an effort to ballpark minimum HHO production necessary for my vehicle, I did a similar computation to boynton's, projecting conventional fuel burn @ 20 MPG/60 MPH X 1 hour = 11.355 LPH mogas (after metric conversion). Then anticipating manual leaning with a MAP enhancer of 25%, targeting a 25 MPG goal, the liquid fuel volume deficit = 2.839 LPH (11.355 LPH - 25%) With max efficiency, an HHO cell (1 qt) @2v, 2.5a (low amp, low temp) = 1.57 LPH HHO. X 2 cells = 3.14 LPH, sufficient to replace the 25% fuel deficit. Or so I THOUGHT! If you can, please explain how the stoich WEIGHT varies from volume and how to compute it. Whatever that value might be, if even a managable 6 cell, 9.42 LPH HHO system doesn't meet it, then what are we doing with this stuff at all? ~FH

[BoyntonStu]

In an effort to ballpark minimum HHO production necessary for my vehicle, I did a similar computation to boynton's, projecting conventional fuel burn @ 20 MPG/60 MPH X 1 hour = 11.355 LPH mogas (after metric conversion). Then anticipating manual leaning with a MAP enhancer of 25%, targeting a 25 MPG goal, the liquid fuel volume deficit = 2.839 LPH (11.355 LPH - 25%) With max efficiency, an HHO cell (1 qt) @2v, 2.5a (low amp, low temp) = 1.57 LPH HHO. X 2 cells = 3.14 LPH, sufficient to replace the 25% fuel deficit. Or so I THOUGHT! If you can, please explain how the stoich WEIGHT varies from volume and how to compute it. Whatever that value might be, if even a managable 6 cell, 9.42 LPH HHO system doesn't meet it, then what are we doing with this stuff at all? ~FH

Great work and good logical thinking.

(I have not checked your math)

Exactly what we should be doing in parallel to our experiments.

Fuel deficit, most likely not the case with low LPM.

Fuel additive or fuel catalyst; most likely.

If Hydroxy can increase the burn rate and if we can properly harness the effect, we can gain MPG.

The density of Hydrogen is 0.08988 g/L

(In Hydroxy the value is 2/3 of that)


I hope that this helps.

BoyntonStu

Where in Florida?

[JojoJaro]

Folks, I think our analysis here is proceeding in the wrong direction.

We need to understand that HHO is not being used to replace the BTU content of any fuel we lean out. HHO production levels will never achieve that. What we need to be looking at is how HHO can modify the burn characteristic of the main fuel.

To me, the entire benefit of HHO is how it enables us to lean the mixture, without making the combustion too hot such that your NOx emissions goes thru the roof. With HHO and lean mix, we we continue to operate the engine at a safe temp which would not be possible without HHO.

Thinking of HHO as a substitute for the BTU lost is a zero-sum game. You'll never come out ahead because of that nasty thing called the 'Conservation of Energy' principle. Doing straight BTU calculations is the wrong approach. We should be analyzing how HHO can make our combustion safe and compliant with emissions regs.

[florida horseman]

I'm in Lakeland, stu.


Folks, I think our analysis here is proceeding in the wrong direction.... Doing straight BTU calculations is the wrong approach. We should be analyzing how HHO can make our combustion safe and compliant with emissions regs. I'm just still struggling to find some sort of standard starting point to keep my engine from self destructing, jojo. If you read the majority of posts on these HHO boards there is no "standard" for construction, production or delivery. It's mostly "keep adding catalyst" advice and reports. That's why I've hung my flag on a low amp, low temp 2v, 2.5 amp cell based upon the neighborhood where electrolysis likes to live for at least SOME production standard to start with. I find it hard to believe the history of HHO experimentation hasn't arrived at a definable proportion of HHO to a/f ratio yet. I simply thought targeting the volume of a/f reduced by leaning could be a starting point.

My math skills are admittedly skimpy. And my chemistry acumen is non-existent. But I'm fairly certain delivering the bulk of HHO to the rearmost part of the intake manifold doesn't make the HHO + a/f distribution and burn efficient either. But I also know that's where the hottest cylinders are.

On the news yesterday, it was reported an ice shelf the size of Manhattan Island has broken off in the Canadian arctic. The GOOD news is... the Canadian government says that opens up new area for off-shore oil exploration and drilling. My NOx emissions are now redirected at that ice shelf to try and melt it to a size that won't interfere with shipping channels.

But seriously... Overall, I'm just trying to find a way to squeeze a few more MPG's out of my Detroit iron without turning my dashboard into something that looks like it came out of Werner von Braun's workshop or my Aunt Margie's cupboard full of preserves. So I ask again: are production and delivery standards for HHO still too much to strive for? ~FH

[Cadillac]

I guess I could give an example off of my engine that has HHO.

RPM x c.i.d. x 0.5 x VE = "X"

"X" / 1728 = cfm

So:

6500 x 181 x 0.5 x 85% = 500012.5

500012.5 = 289.36 cfm

That is maximum airflow at the maximum rpm. The 0.5 is used as only half the cylinders fire in a given RPM or in the case of this blind equation you will only use half the cubic inches. The VE stands for volumetric efficiency. The reason you divide by 1728 is to convert cubic inches into cubic feet. CFM is cubic feet per minute.

Now if we take Jaxom's guess at 45-50% VE at highway cruising speed, which sounds good to me we can get a better picture. This engine with the current 4 speed automatic transmission does roughly 1700 rpms at 55 mph.

1700 x 181 x 0.5 x 45% = 69232.5

69232.5 / 1728 = 40.07 cfm

To really do any further we would have to know air temperature and elevation to get some rough guess as to air density and therefore weight of the air.

It looks as though I have been interupted and will post again later.

I must say though I do like the way this thread is going and thinking.

[JojoJaro]

I'm in Lakeland, stu.

I'm just still struggling to find some sort of standard starting point to keep my engine from self destructing, jojo. If you read the majority of posts on these HHO boards there is no "standard" for construction, production or delivery. It's mostly "keep adding catalyst" advice and reports. That's why I've hung my flag on a low amp, low temp 2v, 2.5 amp cell based upon the neighborhood where electrolysis likes to live for at least SOME production standard to start with. I find it hard to believe the history of HHO experimentation hasn't arrived at a definable proportion of HHO to a/f ratio yet. I simply thought targeting the volume of a/f reduced by leaning could be a starting point.

My math skills are admittedly skimpy. And my chemistry acumen is non-existent. But I'm fairly certain delivering the bulk of HHO to the rearmost part of the intake manifold doesn't make the HHO + a/f distribution and burn efficient either. But I also know that's where the hottest cylinders are.

On the news yesterday, it was reported an ice shelf the size of Manhattan Island has broken off in the Canadian arctic. The GOOD news is... the Canadian government says that opens up new area for off-shore oil exploration and drilling. My NOx emissions are now redirected at that ice shelf to try and melt it to a size that won't interfere with shipping channels.

But seriously... Overall, I'm just trying to find a way to squeeze a few more MPG's out of my Detroit iron without turning my dashboard into something that looks like it came out of Werner von Braun's workshop or my Aunt Margie's cupboard full of preserves. So I ask again: are production and delivery standards for HHO still too much to strive for? ~FH


The theory that I've been working on for gaining the most out of HHO is what I call the 'Coasting' effect. That is, I think to gain the best MPG, we should produce enough HHO to enable an engine to coast longer. In my thread below, I theorize that a certain level of HHO concentration will achieve self ignition at a certain temp. If we can achieve that level of concentration, we will achieve self-ignition during DFCO conditions. I extrapolated data from a study that seems to indicate that to achieve self-ignition, our fuel concentration should be around .7%. For a large engine like my Duramax, this is around 22 LPM. Quite large for current HHO devices to achieve.

http://hhoforums.com/showthread.php?t=1150&page=2

[Jaxom]

Cadillac you've got the right idea. What we need is a base ratio of the airflow into the engine and the HHO flow required to maximize the burn rate inside the cylinders. Surely this information is somewhere...the figure 3% HHO sticks in my mind but I don't know where I'm getting that number so don't trust it. Lean burn is a whole different issue.....

Jojo is right that trying to use equivalent BTU's of HHO is not going to work. This is all about increasing the burn efficiency of the gasoline.

Florida: The accepted stoich ratio of air to gasoline is 14.7:1 by weight. That's 14.7 pounds of air per pound of fuel. One pound of fuel takes up less than 1 quart of liquid volume, while one pound of air is somwhere in the range of 100 gallons at atmospheric pressure (if memory serves.)

[Cadillac]

Instead of me trying to explain alot of this stuff. Which I am no where near qualified to do I have a link. All of the conversions are the same as a books I crossed referances to check for accuracy.

Altitude-Density explanation and equations (wahiduddin.net/calc/density_altitude.htm)

You can check online with you current or past weather to come up with some of the input numbers to enter in to the easy calculator at the bottom. The current conditions in my area are as follows:

900 ft (above sea level)

Temperature @ 88.1* F/ 31.2* C

Humidity @ 41%

Dew Point @ 61* F

Pressure @ 29.86 in-Hg

After entering this into the bottom calculator I came up with an answer of 1.1496 Kg/m3. Now kilograms per cubic meter did me no good. I had to find another site to do this conversion. Conversion Link. (www.easysurf.cc/cnver19.htm#kgcmtoppcf)

After doing this conversion I came up with 0.07 pounds per cubic foot. You can then pick back up with the previous 40.07 cfm at 55 mph and 1700 rpms.

0.07 lbs x 40.07 cfm = 2.8049 lbs per minute

As to where to go next I have no idea. I think my logic in how I came up with this is correct. If anyone has any ideas or corrections to what I have posted feel free to share. I am pretty interested in what others have to say.

[Cadillac]

You could probably do some equations with the various elevations in your area vs summer/winter extremes to come up with some numbers to work around. Or just use information from past weather via the internet to see some differances that you will encounter out on the road.

Hopefully we can all come up with some good numbers to build off of. Skeptics would take us more seriously and we could advance the system designs/control functions.

Sorry for the double post.

[RMForbes]

Cadillac,

I think you slipped a decimal point or two. That seems very high.

[florida horseman]

...Florida: The accepted stoich ratio of air to gasoline is 14.7:1 by weight. That's 14.7 pounds of air per pound of fuel. One pound of fuel takes up less than 1 quart of liquid volume, while one pound of air is somewhere in the range of 100 gallons at atmospheric pressure (if memory serves.) I understand that OEM specs on these engines set stoich @ 14.7:1. But that's a factory figure toward the rich side for internal cooling and lubrication safety margins. Better (but risky) fuel economy is accomplished by stretching the a/f mixture into the 15.5:1 and above range. Isn't that what we're doing with the MAP enhancer by fooling the ECU into believing there is less engine demand? And gas weighs between 5.8-6.5 lbs per gallon. 1 quart would be 1.5 lbs or so. But we still have to change everything to metric and liters in these comps with HHO.

This may be apples vs. oranges, but I've got a lot of left seat time manually leaning normally aspirated aircraft engines to economy cruise (55% power) by just easing the mixture back until RPM drops, bump it up a tad and then keep an eye on the CHT gauge. And yes, the mixture has to be occasionally re-adjusted with changes in altitude, air density and air temp. They occur a lot more frequently in one flight than a whole week of driving on the surface. I know gradual or severe weather changes on the surface for driving have to be compensated for too, especially if the HHO system is tuned to operate on "the edge" of max fuel economy. But I'd be happy with an elusive "ballpark setting" to eliminate the necessity of constantly fidgeting with the equipment at every turn of the key.

With my HHO gas system shut off and using only the MAP enhancer I can delicately induce limited leaning adjustments just shy of bringing the CEL on. I KNOW it's affecting other power train systems too because my 4L60E tranny will go into OD without lugging at 45-47 MPH instead of it's usual 57-60 MPH. More fuel savings there... WITH the HHO gas I definitely notice smoother and quieter operation but I'm still on my first tank of gas, so no MPG assessment yet.

Monitoring CHT without a gauge is a problem. H2O temp is some indication of over lean condition. But I also run Duralube oil treatment in all my vehicles ( and aircraft) and that alone reduces normal operating temps 25-40F. So far, WITH the MAP enhanced AND HHO injected my engine temp is still below 150F. That's NO CHANGE from running without the system.

The business about just injecting HHO into the engine at the air intake as a primary point on a NA gas burner seems a bit fruitless to me, since max vacuum only occurs there at WOT. I think that's why most HHO designs I've seen only have a secondary connection at the snorkel to assist with a sudden drop in manifold Hg when accelerating.

But back to the HHO volume conundrum. I can't imagine being able to efficiently produce more than 9-10 LPH (HOUR) from a 6 cell system. And jojo is is shooting for 22 Liters Per MINUTE??? I've noticed that some posters here and elsewhere also speak in terms of LPM rather than LPH. Are they mistaken or is most of the HHO community wrong? The only place I've seen LPM being theoretically achieved is in design specs for an engine that runs COMPLETELY on HHO, where the operational demand was calculated to be 75 LPM. So what are we saying? Are these home brew low LPH units worthless? ~FH

PS: When citing ambient air temperature for these engine calculations, remember the venturi effect is going to dramatically reduce air temp at the base of the throttle body and intake.

[Roland Jacques]

Good thread.
Florida, what is WOT?

It Is Liters Per Minute LPM. A well designed HHO electrolyser can put out 2 LPMs at 400 watts = 5.0 MMW efficiency.

Why do you/we want vacuum on our HHO gens. Im feeding mine only Before the air filter because I think there is more value in having HHO more evenly mixed to All cylinders.

[BoyntonStu]

Good thread.
Florida, what is WOT?

It Is Liters Per Minute LPM. A well designed HHO electrolyser can put out 2 LPMs at 400 watts = 5.0 MMW efficiency.

Why do you/we want vacuum on our HHO gens. Im feeding mine only Before the air filter because I think there is more value in having HHO more evenly mixed to All cylinders.

That is 29 Amps. 5 MMW is correct and quite efficient.

Is your gen doing that?

Details?

BoyntonStu

[Jaxom]

Florida....we are talking in the range of 1-2 liters per minute for most of the guys on this board. That's not enough to replace any significant amount of gasoline as a primary fuel source, but it's plenty to modify the combustion characteristics of gasoline to make an ICE more efficient. I agree with you that peak efficiency is acheived at leaner than 14.7:1 ratios, but the manufacturers specifically designed our EFI systems to run at that ratio to keep the catalytic convertor operating properly so that's what we've got to work with. I'm not real keen on the idea of leaning an engine out "until the CEL comes on" without monitoring the engine's operation while doing it. It's just too easy to overdo it and burn a valve or worse. ECT (engine coolant temp.) is a poor indicator of combustion temp. as there is a significant heat transfer delay from the chamber into the coolant. CHT (cyl. head temp.) is a little better, but EGT (exhaust gas temp.) is the best indicator of combustion temp.

Roland: WOT=Wide Open Throttle. Some folks believe that applying a vacuum to an electrolyzer will increase it's efficiency...I personally don't buy it but it's a popular theory. I think that evenly mixing the HHO into the airstream is more advantageous than having it sucked out of the generator.

[Roland Jacques]

Mine is like this one. I have not tested mmw yet, but they say they got 6.6 MMW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2Bd7Psifw

This is my next one. im modeling mine after. they say they got 8.34 MMW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2Bd7Psifw
(from what i know these are over-unity numbers, but beleive the numbers)

[florida horseman]

Florida....we are talking in the range of 1-2 liters per minute for most of the guys on this board... I think that evenly mixing the HHO into the airstream is more advantageous than having it sucked out of the generator. Thanks for clearing that up for me Jax. I finally tore a page out of my memory and built a gas output measuring device similar to one I saw used in a science class during the Eisenhower administration. My paltry HHO output from (2) 1 qt jars, twisted wire w/baking soda (2 1/2 tsp ea.) averages 150 mlPM each. No digital DC ammeter yet but estimating about 4 amps each and a 10 amp fuse is holding. No heat in the feed wire but the jars seem to be on the cusp of thermal runaway. A 6 cell system like this would still leave me short of 1 LPM for a V8.

I agree there needs to be a better way to evenly introduce HHO into the engine and I am beginning to tilt toward a single hook up in the PCV line at the base of the throttle body. It seems to offer the best distribution point for all cylinders at the point of highest average velocity between the air filter and the intake manifold. Running a line to the breather needs to have a volume restricting check valve to prevent the manifold Hg feed from trying to equalize through it at idle and transitions. And there's also those pesky air circulation patterns around the air filter. Plus the HHO is in a prime location for "possible" atmospheric ignitiion from backfire in the air filter housing. But I suppose it's all moot for me at less than 1 LPM output. I guess it's time for me to look for a little four banger to experiment on rather than keep throwing $$$ at my big V8.

I still like the vacuum assisted delivery for a couple of reasons though. With vacuum Hg across the system the individual cell bubblers scrub HHO off the electrodes. And the accumulator bubbler roughs up the gas enough to settle out a good deal of scruff from the electrolyte.

BTW- The Motor Week TV show on PBS had a segment today that scoffed at HHO and other fuel assist experimentations. Somebody that's already achieved good MPG improvements with these systems needs to take those yahoos for a ride to the local roadkill cafe for a serving of crow. ~FH

[Cadillac]

The 2.8 lbs of air a minute can be taken a step further. In one hour 2.8 lbs would become 168 lbs/hr.

2.8 lbs X 60 min = 168 lbs/hr

You could then take the assumed ratio 14.7:1 and divide the air over an hour to guess at fuel consumption. So:

168 lbs / 14.7 = 11.4 lbs/hr

11.4 lbs/hr of course is how much gas is used in an hour. Rough estimates of a gallon of gas are any where between 5.8-6.5 lbs as earlier said.

11.4 lbs / 5.8 lbs = 1.9 gallons
or
11.4 lbs / 6.5 lbs = 1.7 gallons

This car at exactly 55 (or as best as my foot can manage) gets 30 MPG. That would fall right into the middle with 1.8 gallons used in an hour. I would say that using the outside ambient air temperature is some what off.

I guess these equations are hard to get right as temperature and VE of the engine would be forever changing. Hard to figure out the VE.