NASA Report on Hydrogen and gasoline

[BoyntonStu]

Have you read this NASA report?

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770016170_1977016170.pdf

A snapshot or 2 below:



Abstract

May 1977
6. Performing Organization Code

8. Performing Organization Report No. E-9105

~
~~
10. Work Unit No. 505-05

11. Contract or Grant No

13. Type of Report and Period Covered Technical Note

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

An experimental program using a multicylinder reciprocating engine was performed to extend the efficient lean operating range of gasoline by adding hydrogen. Both bottled hydrogen and hydrogen produced by a research methanol steam reformer were used. These results were compared with results for all gasoline. A high-compression-ratio, 7. 4-liter (472-in. 3) displacement production engine was used. Apparent flame speed was-used to describe the differences in emissions and performance. Therefore, engine emissions and performance, including apparent flame speed and energy lost to the cooling system and the exhaust gas, were measured over a range of equivalence ratios for each fuel. The results were used to explain the advantages of adding hydrogen to gasoline as a method of extending the lean operating range. The minimum-energy-consumption equivalence ratio was extended to leaner conditions by adding hydrogen, although the minimum energy consumption did not change. All emission levels decreased at the leaner conditions. Also, adding hydrogen significantly increased flame speed over all equivalence ratios. Engine performance and emissions with hydrogen from the methanol reformer were about the same as those with bottled hydrogen.

Total energy consumption. -The total energy consumption was obtained over a range of equivalence ratios for gasoline, gasoline with bottled hydrogen, and gasoline with hydrogen produced by the methanol reformer. A sample analysis of the reformed methanol product gas is contained in table IV, which shows the composition, the mole fraction, the flow rate, and the energy content. For a conversion efficiency of 37 percent, a hydrogen flow rate of 0.231 kilogram per hour (0.51 lb/hr) was produced, and

>>>>the gain in energy due to the system's endothermal reactions was approximately 3 percent.

****YES FOLKS. THREE PERCENT using pounds of hydrogen!***


The total energy consumption was computed by multiplying the gasoline flow rate by its lower heating value and adding the product of the liquid-methanol flow rate into the reformer and its lower heating value of 4802 joules per gram (8644 Btu/lb).

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Apparent flame speed and energy balance measurements were used to explain performance and emissions differences between gasoline and gasoline enriched by bottled hydrogen and hydrogen produced by a methanol reformer.

For a single load and engine speed condition, a multicylinder engine operating with lean mixture ratios with and without hydrogen addition gave the following results:

1. Adding small amounts of hydrogen to gasoline produced efficient lean operation by increasing the apparent flame speed and reducing ignition lag.

WHAT IS SMALL?

BoyntonStu

[Smith03Jetta]

I like what the excerpt says but the link is busted. Please provide a better link if possible.

[cougar gt-e]

linky no worky

[HYDROTEKPRO]

The International Space Station uses electrolyzers with KOH to produce Hydrogen and Oxygen btw!

[BoyntonStu]

linky no worky

I fixy. See above or:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770016170_1977016170.pdf

Sorry,

BoyntonStu

[Smith03Jetta]

Let me guess. The International space station uses solar energy to charge batteries. With the batteries they turn water/POH into Hydrogen and Oxygen. They use a re-breather system to replace the used up oxygen in the space station air supply and capture the excess Carbon Dioxide for disposal later. That makes perfectly good sense. Now, what do they do with the extra Hydrogen. It does not make sense that they would collect and store large volumes of Hydrogen on the space station unless they intended to use it for fuel of some kind.

[BoyntonStu]

The International Space Station uses electrolyzers with KOH to produce Hydrogen and Oxygen btw!

Nice information. Do you have a link?

Have you read the NASA report?

BoyntonStu

[Stratous]

I read several pages, and I find the report to confirm what we already know.
Total energy consumption is significantly lower at equivalence ratios below 0.70 for both hydrogen-gasoline mixtures at the same flow rate. It appears that modest additions of hydrogen increase the flame speed sufficiently
to allow smooth and efficient lean operation.

[HYDROTEKPRO]

Nice information. Do you have a link?

Have you read the NASA report?

BoyntonStu

Haven't read the report, not sure it will make any difference to me. Here are a couple of links.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://space.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn10104/dn10104-1_600.jpg&imgrefurl=http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn10104-toxic-spill-on-the-international-space-station.html&h=446&w=600&sz=39&hl=en&start=77&tbnid=3to8gT-4K873LM:&tbnh=100&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSpace%2BStation%2BElectrolyzer%26star t%3D60%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dof f%26sa%3DN

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040329/040329_spacestation_bcol10a.h2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6800245/&h=275&w=371&sz=24&hl=en&start=17&tbnid=Y-gKYklZ_cTcFM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=122&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSpace%2BStation%2BElectrolyzer%26gbv% 3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/eclss-air/exp1_crew.jpg&imgrefurl=http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast13nov_1.htm&h=154&w=154&sz=10&hl=en&start=18&tbnid=5ylAdhRy_oFMrM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSpace%2BStation%2BElectrolyzer%26gbv% 3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.jamesoberg.com/image/k-unit.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.jamesoberg.com/elektron2_tec.html&h=600&w=366&sz=63&hl=en&start=37&tbnid=x37w0-VWVGyHlM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=82&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSpace%2BStation%2BElectrolyzer%26star t%3D20%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dof f%26sa%3DN

Here's some cool stuff:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/images/content/108838main_MarsPlaneAres_300x225.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/fuel_cells.html&h=225&w=300&sz=20&hl=en&start=56&tbnid=WdrPFIL21xbCLM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSpace%2BStation%2BElectrolyzer%26star t%3D40%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dof f%26sa%3DN

[BoyntonStu]

I read several pages, and I find the report to confirm what we already know.
Total energy consumption is significantly lower at equivalence ratios below 0.70 for both hydrogen-gasoline mixtures at the same flow rate. It appears that modest additions of hydrogen increase the flame speed sufficiently to allow smooth and efficient lean operation.

Correct! Exactly!

Now read what "MODEST ADDITIONS" of hydrogen means to NASA.

They are talking POUNDS of the stuff, not sparrow farts.

BoyntonStu

[BoyntonStu]

Haven't read the report, not sure it will make any difference to me. Here are a couple of links.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://space.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn10104/dn10104-1_600.jpg&imgrefurl=http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn10104-toxic-spill-on-the-international-space-station.html&h=446&w=600&sz=39&hl=en&start=77&tbnid=3to8gT-4K873LM:&tbnh=100&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSpace%2BStation%2BElectrolyzer%26star t%3D60%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dof f%26sa%3DN

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040329/040329_spacestation_bcol10a.h2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6800245/&h=275&w=371&sz=24&hl=en&start=17&tbnid=Y-gKYklZ_cTcFM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=122&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSpace%2BStation%2BElectrolyzer%26gbv% 3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/eclss-air/exp1_crew.jpg&imgrefurl=http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast13nov_1.htm&h=154&w=154&sz=10&hl=en&start=18&tbnid=5ylAdhRy_oFMrM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSpace%2BStation%2BElectrolyzer%26gbv% 3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.jamesoberg.com/image/k-unit.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.jamesoberg.com/elektron2_tec.html&h=600&w=366&sz=63&hl=en&start=37&tbnid=x37w0-VWVGyHlM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=82&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSpace%2BStation%2BElectrolyzer%26star t%3D20%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dof f%26sa%3DN

Here's some cool stuff:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/images/content/108838main_MarsPlaneAres_300x225.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/fuel_cells.html&h=225&w=300&sz=20&hl=en&start=56&tbnid=WdrPFIL21xbCLM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSpace%2BStation%2BElectrolyzer%26star t%3D40%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dof f%26sa%3DN

Indeed:

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

In the September 1993 3rd Edition of “Soviet Space Stations As Analogs”, B.J. Bluth and Dennis Fielder, produced by Grumman Aerospace in Reston, Va., section 1.4.7.3.4 (p. I-238) contains technical data on the electrolysis reaction. Electrolysis of pure water at normal temperatures is enhanced by the presence of an alkali to support ionization and increase conductivity:

KOH = K+ + OH-

Maximum electrolyte conductivity can be achieved with its concentration at about 30% KOH. At the anode, negative ions of the hydroxyl group OH- migrate towards the positive anode and discharge, releasing electrons

4 OH- - 4e = 2H2O + O2 , releasing oxygen and forming water, while water molecules combine with the hydroxyl molecules, migrate to the cathode, oxidize, and release hydrogen thusly:

2H2O + 2e = 2 OH- + H2

According to this document, the Mir electrolysis system had a mass of 140 kg, had twelve cells each with a cell voltage of 2v and a size of 0.8m x 0.13m, used 800 w with max current at 2V of 400 amp.

30% and 2 Volts is what I learn from the above.

Their plate is 161.28 sq inches and they are pushing 2.4 Amps per square inch through it.

How do you measure for a 30% KOH electrolyte?


BoyntonStu

[justaguy]

Boynton, if you don,t believe in hho then why the f#$%k are you here. As long as we get mpg gains we don,t care what you, nasa or anyone else thinks.

[mikestrikes]

Boynton, if you don,t believe in hho then why the f#$%k are you here. As long as we get mpg gains we don,t care what you, nasa or anyone else thinks.

No matter what we say "they" say it doesnt work, if it takes more energy to make it than it puts out why are people seeing MPG gains ? :rolleyes:

I dont fully understand it all, but all I know is if you have to give up some energy to make it, and you "cant" get that much out of it, yet we are "seeing" MPG gains then I think something here is working RIGHT !

[mneste8718]

I did a little bit of a test by programing the ECU of my car for a target AFR of 15.6:1 to see if what the skeptics are saying is true. They say that the hydroxy fools the ECU into running the engine lean and causing and increase in MPG. Well I can say right now that there is a little bit of an increase from leaning out, but it is nothing compared to when you have HHO hooked into it. Also, someone might say, well you are not leaning it out enough. All I can say is that the exhaust gas temperature of my car did not change while on HHO and so leaning out my car anymore could cause an increase in EGTs which would indeed shorten the life of my car's engine. This I think is a fair comparison. My conclusion is that HHO does help increase efficiency.

[stickittoopec]

The guys in the Oregon Chapter of the American Hydrogen Association did the same thing with a 1978 Cadillac and saw a 23% increase in mileage. Source: The Philosopher Mechanic by Roy McAlister page 94. Now what do these guys know that NASA doesn't? I'll bet it's got something to do with the timing. http://www.knowledgepublications.com...etail_page.htm

[BoyntonStu]

The guys in the Oregon Chapter of the American Hydrogen Association did the same thing with a 1978 Cadillac and saw a 23% increase in mileage. Source: The Philosopher Mechanic by Roy McAlister page 94. Now what do these guys know that NASA doesn't? I'll bet it's got something to do with the timing. http://www.knowledgepublications.com...etail_page.htm


A single question.

How much hydrogen did they use in their experiment?


Is 100 liters a minute anywhere near the amount of Hydrogen that they used?

BoyntonStu

[Stratous]

A single question.

How much hydrogen did they use in their experiment?


Is 100 liters a minute anywhere near the amount of Hydrogen that they used?

BoyntonStu


I really wish you would get off the NASA report. It is painfully obviously that we dont need 100 LPM to effectivly lower fuel consumption. Its actually getting really annoying. You know, I know everyone here know that what NASA did is not the same as were doing. NASA obviously did something wrong, because I only inject 1.5LPM in my 5.9 Diesel engine to achieve 24MPG. It doesnt take .5lbs an hour to achieve this. You ask alot of questions that most average people dont know and instead of answering the questions you attempt to confuse people even more. I for one dont mind answering certain questions, if you disagree with my answers thats fine. Supply the correct answer and move on. I find your lofty better than us attitude to be very agitating as do most of us I think. If you have so much knowledge then share it or go away.

[kajreklaw]

I really wish you would get off the NASA report. It is painfully obviously that we dont need 100 LPM to effectivly lower fuel consumption. Its actually getting really annoying. You know, I know everyone here know that what NASA did is not the same as were doing. NASA obviously did something wrong, because I only inject 1.5LPM in my 5.9 Diesel engine to achieve 24MPG. It doesnt take .5lbs an hour to achieve this. You ask alot of questions that most average people dont know and instead of answering the questions you attempt to confuse people even more. I for one dont mind answering certain questions, if you disagree with my answers thats fine. Supply the correct answer and move on. I find your lofty better than us attitude to be very agitating as do most of us I think. If you have so much knowledge then share it or go away.

I AGREE.

Stratousor any one willing to help, I want to use a multi-cell design with no N plates. I'm planning 304SS 2"wx6"lx21g.. how far should the +&- be spaced?? Series (as I understand it) is +|-|+|- like flashlight batteries??

[Stratous]

I AGREE.

Stratousor any one willing to help, I want to use a multi-cell design with no N plates. I'm planning 304SS 2"wx6"lx21g.. how far should the +&- be spaced?? Series (as I understand it) is +|-|+|- like flashlight batteries??

1/16" to 1/8 seems to be the best for production. Yes a series cell would be wired positive to neg all the way through.

[RMForbes]

If anything the NASA report proves that hydrogen injection works. It works because it causes the flame speed to increase so that more of the primary fuel is ignited and burns many times faster. I don't understand what hydrogen flow rate was used. About a half a pound of compressed hydrogen a hour relates to how much volume/min at room temperature? It was not converted. Can it be converted accurately? They used the same flow rate for all their experiments. They did not try to vary hydrogen levels to see where flame speeds were no longer affected. That was not in the scope of their test.

We have experimented with seemingly lower hydrogen flow rates and we all know it still works fine with the lower levels too. We may not be able to lean our engines all the way to the lean limits like they did but we aren't getting their problems either, like higher NO2 and hydro-carbon emissions. This is because we are also adding oxygen that lowers the combustion temperature and increases the efficiency of the the combustion even farther.

[stickittoopec]

A single question.

How much hydrogen did they use in their experiment?


Is 100 liters a minute anywhere near the amount of Hydrogen that they used?

BoyntonStu

Well guys I don't mind answering lagit questions. And this is one. This is what I have.
It is a 1978 Cadillac, converted to Hyboost operation at about 138,370 miles.
Range in mixed highway and city driving using 22 gal.
286 miles with gasoline alone.
352 miles with hydrogen.
Hydrogen use was 5% heating value of the gasoline.
According to them this comes out to 413 cubic ft.
They said city and highway, but lets keep it high way to get nice round numbers.
I will assume 55 mph, so it took 6.4 hours (with city driving it most likely took longer) to travel the 352 miles and consume the 413 cubic ft. of hydrogen. That gets me 64.53125 cubic ft a hour of hydrogen or 1.0755 cubic ft a minute (30.45 liter a minute).
What I don't know about this vehicle is if they ran it unthrottled like their other vehicles.
The Geo Metro and a 1979 Dodge D-50 pick-up are run unthrottled (no throttle plate). They run them like a diesel. Filtered air and inject more or less fuel to throttle. As long as there is hydrogen, everything runs fine, take away the hydrogen and nothing runs.
You can download a short clip of the test drive. It is a big file(68 meg) but worth it.
http://www.stickittoopec.com/video/h2-test-drive.zip