Slashdot Mirror
Truckers Choose Hydrogen Power
hipernoico writes to tell us Wired News is reporting that hundreds of semi trucks now on the roads are being partially powered by hydrogen. From the article: "These 18-wheelers make hydrogen as they go, eliminating the need for high-pressure, cryogenic storage tanks or hydrogen filling stations, which, by the way, don't yet exist. These truckers aren't just do-gooders. They like Canadian Hydrogen Energy's Hydrogen Fuel Injection, or HFI, system because it lets them save fuel, get more horsepower and, as a bonus, cause less pollution."
Perhaps we should investigate additionally using methane as a source of fuel for these trucks. Not only could we keep these guys in business, but in some cases (such as trucks that haul cattle) they might actually produce more energy than they burn.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
That doesn't fit the rugged stereotypical trucker at all! "Goshdernit, we're gonna pollute all we need to get this convoy to San Antonio by Saturday!"
The trucks aren't using hydrogen as their main source of fuel. They are using hydrogen to enhance the combustion of the diesel.
Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
How are they getting the hydrogen again?
Electrolysis powered by the alternator.
How do they start the vehicle moving down the road?
It's still a diesel-fueled vehicle. Adding hydrogen to the mix is supposed to improve milage somehow.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
They like Canadian Hydrogen Energy's Hydrogen Fuel Injection, or HFI, system because it lets them save fuel, get more horsepower and, as a bonus, cause less pollution."
Could our root problem be that we consider less pollution a bonus instead of a motivating factor?
The faster and farther we get away from oil the better IMHO. I think the bonus should be the extra MPG, and the environmental impact should be the reason. We can spare a few $$$ for environmentally friendlier vehicles. I guess the real problem is, if the government does not intervene, companies will only do what will profit them, and if it does, we end up with violations of rights. Will we ever make the switch in consumer end vehicles in the long run?
Help Fight SPAM today!
This pdf file might be helpful (or search for it on google to see the html version).
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
But the HFI system uses electricity from an engine's alternator to power the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen as needed from small amounts of distilled water.
R Given that diesel engines are not 100% efficient, and even assuming that water->hydrogen is. How is it this produces a net gain in energy? The burning hydrogen should only produce as much energy as is used to seperate the oxygen and hydrogen. Disconecting the alternator (which many cars do right now to increase fuel efficiency) should save more gasoline than seperating the water to hydrogen/oxygen.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I assume it starts like any diesel vehicle. You heat up the glow-plugs, and turn the engine over. Compression ignites the diesel fuel.
Removing the hydrogen shouldn't make the engine any more difficult to start.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
This is not the first marketable apparatus using this technology. H2N-Gen has their very own unit that will cost about 4 grand, will fit under your car's hood, and will be on the market by March. There's been several articles on this (and a recent one in Popular Science, December issue). Here's one http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000373059415/
I assume that their hydrogen source is probably mostly produced from electricity from coal burning plants.
Umm, No...read your own quote: Electricity (from the alternator in the engine) is used to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen.
The fact that water weighs in at over 8lbs is fairly moot -- gasoline weighs in closely, so adding a tank that holds a few gallons of water is not a major addition to trucking weight. Additionally, FEWER emissions. All in all, a good idea, if it is all that it's cracked up to be.
Ignorance is not a crime; neither should it be a way of life
Congress control $ = inmates run the asylum
Oh and don't forget the company's website. Under the technology tab they have some info as well.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Are we talking about perpetual motion?
...this fuel source may not be exactly the "less" polluting alternative as one may think.
No, the trucks still run mainly on diesel augmented with hydrogen.
It's less polluting because the hydrogen boosts the performance of the engine over burning diesel alone, lowers particulates, and all that good stuff. So it does pollute less, by burning the fuel more efficiently.
quote...
Through electrolysis, the Hydrogen Fuel Injection (HFI) kit generates hydrogen and oxygen, which are injected directly into the intake manifold. Published data show that hydrogen burns nearly one order of magnitude faster than petroleum fuels, thus approaching ideal thermodynamic cycle; and hydrogen has a shorter flame quench distance, allowing flames to travel closer to the cold zones, thus improving combustion. These hydrogen properties improve engine performance and emissions.
Not quite. BMW has been researching and promoting hydrogen cars for some time now. They installed a hydrogen refilling station in Munich in '99(IIRC) and more are on the way, some in the US. The interesting thing about the BMW hydrogen car is that it can burn either hydrogen or gasoline so you can burn hydrogen when its available but not be hampered by the current dearth of hydrogen stations. As for the source of the hydrogen, Electricity generated from solar power is used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. . The range on the 750H is only 400 km right now. The other trade-off of course is that there is still combustion so it's not as clean as fuel cell cars. Nonetheless, it's a start and not a bad way to transition us into a hydrogen economy.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
The trucks are NOT "partially powered by hydrogen" except in a meaningless technical sense. The trucks are generating small amounts of hydrogen that they have generated (somewhat inefficiently) from water and alternator electricity, using energy derived from diesel fuel as usual. They then inject some of that hydrogen back into the engine for a cleaner burn.
Diesel engines produce soot (dirty filthy polycyclic aromatic compounds) which represents wasted energy and this is merely a way to cut down on the inefficiency represented by the unextracted energy leaving the exhaust. The mechanism by which adding hydrogen to the air-fuel mixture actually accomplishes this involves some complicated physical chemistry beyond the scope of the article- which goes into a misleading nonsequitur about how trucks might use hydrogen-powered fuel cells someday.
> This pdf file might be helpful (or search for it on google to see the html version).
Yes, very helpful. Note that the test appears to have been made WITHOUT the alternator being loaded with the hydrogen extraction. When something sounds too good to be true, always look for what they skate around. In this case the report discusses where the manufacturer claims to obtain their hydrogen but by implication that means they didn't actually have one on hand, so they didn't have one connected to the electrical system.
So I'd say snake oil barring a more honest test. Yes it might provide some green benefits, but as for fuel savings, bull. And anyway, even if we take them at their word it isn't anything to write home about. Run the numbers people. Up to $14,000 for the initial investment for at best a 10% fuel savings? And I suspect there is some installation expenses as well. So lets round the numbers and say $15,000 to save 10%. Assume diesel averages $2.75 (It is back down to levels way under that here) for the next couple of years. That means until you save 5,454 gallons you aren't ahead. Even for a big rig that translates to a LOT of hours of operation. And that assumes no additional expenses to maintain either the device or additional wear on the engine from running it hotter.
Democrat delenda est
Conservation of energy and thermodynamics tells us that this system has to operate with a net loss in efficiency for the *same* operating conditions. Perhaps the enhanced combustion improves the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine enough to offset energy required to produce the hydrogen and yield a 10% reduction in fuel consumption.
For all the naysayers, keep in mind, these truckers make their LIVING hauling product long distances. If this didn't work, or made the overall process less effecient, they'd know it. We're talking about their own profits it would be eating into, not some mystery lab result.
Sorry, but doubt hundreds of truckers are going to do that just to help out a company that involved in "psuedo science".
A very clever system, I hope whoever came up with it has a patent on it, I'm not a big fan of IP, but that sounds like a real invention.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"You know the one thats been posted to slashdot before.
2 32253&mode=thread&tid=134
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/20/0
Did nobody read up on this? The hydrogen helps the engine burn more of the fuel that would have been released unused. That is why you use less fuel and have lower emissions.
Based on the tests done with a Jeep Cherokee outfitted with the Canadian device, fuel economy increased by 40% and burn efficiency increased from somewhere around 30% to 97%. There were also no detectable CO emissions and the tailpipe remained cool after an hour drive. So therefore the amount of electricity required from the alternator to split the water is far outwieghed by the increase in burn efficiency.
1 8/1638204&tid=187&tid=14
I would assume similar results are to be found in a diesel engine.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/
the link inside the Slashdot article no longer works.
http://www.physorg.com/news3700.html
Now that's what I'm talking 'bout
H2 is BS.
Gizmos Gagets For Ninjas
The alternator is being driven regardless of whether you use some of the electricity to split water into hydrogen or not. This isn't a matter of getting something for nothing... it's a matter of not throwing away electricity that's already being generated by the alternator.
...they might actually produce more energy than they burn...
;)
[HOMER]
In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
[/HOMER]
Shh.
When will people finally figure out that causing less pollution should be a goal, not just a pretty side-effect? Unless people do, our planet is doomed.
You get more energy back than it took to produce the hydrogen because you are burning the deisel fuel more efficiently. So instead of unburnt deisel fuel being pumped out the smoke stack that causes all the black smoke, you are burning it. You will get more energy out of the now burnt deisel fuel than it takes to make the hydrogen. So, you have more energy doing work in the engine. Thus it is more efficient, and cuts down on fuel costs. You don't have to mash your foot on the floor and waste fuel.
They made an engine that could run on water but the Big Oil companies bought the patents and hid it in a dark room and behind closed doors, black helicopters, Area51, republicans, Bob Lazar, tin foil hats, mind control beam, yada yada yada.
This isn't replacing the diesel fuel at all. Somehow the injection of Hydrogen into the intake air improves the efficiency or burning of the diesel, resulting in a more complete burn.
From the article, and from the CHEC HFI page, I'm assuming that what they're doing is allowing the fuel to burn more efficiently at points such as going uphill, flooring the gas, shifting and so on, which are generally weak points for diesel engines. The engines can't burn all the fuel fed, and as a result create the familiar black-clouds-of-crap. If you could burn more of that, you would directly increase horsepower/torque and decrease emissions. By adding the hydrogen, the engine will run a bit hotter, and probably burn the diesel a bit more efficiently.
So it's basically energy recollection. Generate electricity when the engine's doing fine, and re-use that energy when the engine runs poorly. Sorta like regenerative breaks on a hybrid, except not as obvious.
All in all, however, I have a hunch that a well designed computerized fuel injection system could probably result in just as much polution reduction and energy consumption. Although it may not give as much horsepower as the hydrogen method does. (Mind you, it's not really the hydrogen giving the power.)
This is not hydrogen power. Not even close. All it's doing is generating a small amount of hydrgen to make the diesel combustion more efficient and complete. This is not perpetual motion (taking energy out and putting a greater amount back into the system), it's just a bit of fancy chemistry to make the existing diesel burn better. This has nothing to do with the hydrogen fuel debate.
...considering where the hydrogen is produced, this fuel source may not be exactly the "less" polluting alternative as one may think.
I am so f sick and tired of gd SUV wanks and oil company astroturfers trotting this one out everytime someone mentions anything that sounds at all like it's going to challenge rotten dinosaur corpses as the fuel of choice.
RTFA numbnuts! The hydrogen is generated in the engine by the alternator. Despite the vast overhead of this electrolytic separation these guys are still saving 10 grand a year in fuel which easily pays for the simple bolt-on mod within a year or too. The source of the hydrogen is no more polluting than the engine it modifies because it is the engine it modifies.
Then I notice another equally brilliant mind observing the vast additional burden of 8 lb of water on an 80,000 lb truck. Grab a snatch of a clue as it goes over your head, Sparky. By my calcuations, the entire system, water and all weighs less than the fuel it saves every day.
For those who can't be bothered to RTFA and aren't completely offended, the system basically adds a small amount of hydrogen to the diesel. The effect is similar (though the mechanism may not be...IANACE) to adding a squirt of acetone to your gas tank.
I'll take a stab at this one...
If you think about the alternator that exists in every automotive vehicle with an internal combustion engine, it's probably reasonable to assume that not all of the power output from the alternator is needed at any given time to power the vehicle's components, especially at highway speeds, where the alternator is really moving along; why let that excess energy go to waste?
If my assumption is correct there (someonle please correct me if this idea is full of bunk), then this idea could be expanded even further by having a larger, yet more efficient alternator which doesnt take any more kinetic energy from the drivetrain, yet still puts out more volts/amps, which, since it isn't needed anywhere else at the time, can be used in electrolysis and saved for later use - or used on the spot - or slowly put into the engine at a controlled rate.
Just my thoughts, anyway.
People in the know: did I guess this right or is it just ignorant speculation?
Anyway it seems like an interesting idea to me. And no, I didn't RTFA, I admit it...
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Some news. It's amazing how we forget. A similar technique was achieved nearly 10 years ago WITHOUT the need for hydrogen --it just applied the electrolysis to the fuel itself. Our car engines could be 90% more efficient right now, but hmmmm for some reason the techonology never came about --oh, that's right, the problem was it offered no way to increase consumption addiction. Silly me V-8
Do you have any idea how much fuel a truck buys at one time? I usually fuel when I get down to about quarter tanks, which that means I will getting about 175 gallons, using your average of 2.759 gallon comes out to about $483. This fill up will get me about 1200 miles, being that My truck is an team operation with an average of 4500 miles weekly. This adds up to a lot of money out of my pocket monthly/yearly. Trucks most generally do not get good fuel milage. So every little bit that can help save on fuel consumption helps in the long run.
The way they do this is actually much less efficent than it could be!
it should be performed similar to the way NO2 is used on sports cars with the trucker changing bottles when required and the injection controled by a new EMS it would work out signifigantly cheaper to buy and run and deliver more power and better milage
the truck isnt optimised to make hydrogen so having it do it instead is far less efficent than buying it made from natural gas by a gas company and means that benifits of using hydrogen as a catalyst are reduced
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own" - Adam Savage
Exactly. What's confusing people is the assumption that the hydrogen is being used to power the vehicle. The article summary is quite misleading.
Think of the hydrogen here as something a bit like a spark plug, though IIRC diesel engines have something a bit different from spark plugs. Spark plugs used stored power to initiate combustion, spending stored chemical energy in the battery to release more chemical energy fromm the fuel. The hydrogen here is using stored chemical energy to release more energy from the fuel than would normally be released. The chemical energy from the hydrogen doesn't power the vehicle, just like the chemical energy from the battery doesn't; it's the diesel fuel. The benefits are higher fuel effeciency.
You get the hydrogen for free basically, especially if the vehicle were equipped with more advanced ways to generate electricity like regenerative braking. This isn't in violation of thermodynamics or anything, it just squeezes a little more effeciency out of the system than you'd otherwise get.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
not all of the power output from the alternator is needed at any given time to power the vehicle's components... why let that excess energy go to waste?
That energy isn't going to waste. The greater the load, the harder it is to turn the alternator, so the more power it consumes from the engine.
But that's not how this gadget works. The hydrogen generated isn't really used to get more power directly, but to make the existing combustion of diesel more efficient. Which results in more power, and less incompletely combusted crud (that noxious cloud of soot when the truck accelerates represents wasted energy). At least, that's what TFA says.
Yes, it takes energy to separate the water. That's not the whole story.
The hydrogen and oxygen don't just re-combine - that would clearly not make up the energy spent - they improve combustion of the diesel fuel. Presumably that improvement more than makes up for the energy spent.
Think: SUPERCHARGER. That also takes energy away from an engine by putting a mechanical load on it, and it's worthwhile because the higher air pressure gives a better fuel burn. Plus, as anyone who watched "Mad Max" knows, you can put an electrical clutch on a supercharger so you're only using it at high speed when that tradeoff is most effective.
As others have noted, truckers and trucking companies are in business to make money, and they wouldn't be doing this if it didn't work on the road. And for everyone whining about how ecology should be the primary issue: Nobody wants to pollute, they're just saving short-term money on prevention. Make NON-pollution cost less and everyone will adopt it in a heartbeat.
The effects of hydrogen injection sound similar to the effects from water injection, except that it may work better without additional engine tuning.
Water injection (often mixed up to 50% with alcohol or methanol) has been used to improve the detonation resistance of combustion engines for many years. It was pioneered by WWII engineers looking to extract more power out of their engines during takeoff and landing, but now is typically only used by people modifying or racing their cars/trucks.
In your typical combustion engine, maximum power is very often limited by a phenomenom call detonation, also called ping or knock. What happens is that during the compression stroke, the air/fuel mixture overheats and spontaneously combusts which results in a huge spike in combustion chamber pressure. If it is bad enough, it can break pistons or damage rod/crank bearings leading to engine failure.
There are a number of ways to reduce the chance of detonation which primarily involve cooling temperatures in the combustion chamber. A very common way of doing this is to add extra fuel to the mixture, but obviously this is not efficient or clean.
By injecting a small mist of water into the air/fuel mixture, the presence of water will help cool the mixture and prevent detonation, letting you lean out the engine to where maximum power is produced as well as adding additional timing advance and/or add boost (if running a turbo or supercharger).
As a side effect, the water ends up "steam cleaning" your combustion chamber which keeps carbon deposits to a minimum and your engine running well.
However, water injection does nothing unless your power output is detonation limited. In fact, if you inject water with no other changes, power output will go down a small amount.
It sounds like hydrogen injection may improve power and combustion efficiency in all situations.
Since the amount of hydrogen generated can't be that large, I imagine that using hydrogen injection in addition to water injection for heavy engine loads would be a great combination.
Hmm, maybe I better patent that idea.
When something sounds too good to be true, always look for what they skate around.
Or, look for failures of logic and/or math. Using your numbers, and the numbers of a reply to your post: his truck drives 4500 miles a week, and he gets about 7mpg (1200 miles on 175 gallons). 4500/7=640 gallons consumed a week; 2.75/gallon=$1767 in fuel per week.
Your numbers assumed that this device might allow for a 10% in fuel savings--that'd be $176/week, or x4=$707/month, or very close to what the article estimated the savings were--$700/month. On a $14K device, you'd make it back in 20 months or so-although I also question the consequences of running a (10%?) hotter engine for those kinds of periods ie does it stress the cooling system, or wear the engine components faster?
The only ones suggesting that there is some magic in the hydrogen didn't RTFA. It was pretty clear to me, at least, that the extra power/fuel savings isn't from the hydrogen burn itself, but that the energy released by that burn allowed otherwise unburned (and therefore uncaptured) exhaust particulate to be consumed.
When you go to light a fire with a match, you get more energy in return than what it took to produce the match; you burn the kindling. Here we have kindling flowing out the tailpipe because it wasn't ignited--so the hydrogen is just a match. You naysayers are forgetting that ICE aren't 100% efficient already--so this process raises the efficiency of the primary fuel source, which apparently it can do in greater gains than it took to produce the hydrogen in the first place.
--
$tar -xvf
Diesel engines use MUCH less fuel at idle than gasoline engines do. At idle, a gasoline engine is fully throttled, so it's got to strain itself t opull air through the Idle Air Control valve or idle circuit of the carb. A Diesel engine, however, is not throttled at all, its speed is controlled by the fuel mixture (it doesnt have to be as perfect a mix as gas, because a diesel engine wont asplode from leaning out.)
Incomplete combustion occurs because too much fuel is present per mass of air in the cylinder.
Ever have a campfire? Although you had unlimited air supply, why did you have unburned logs at the conclusion of it? Answer: because the material that didn't burn didn't reach the heat needed to combust. If you took a blowtorch to those remaining logs, you may be able to get another fire going, as the particulate that didn't reach it's combustion point the first time is burned off. With enough unburned logs, you might be able to get more energy back than the blowtorch uses. Same principal here.
At least in my view this entire system is bunk and the person interviewed must have some financial interest in the promotion of this product.
Or maybe he just knows what he's talking about, and doesn't draw conclusions from a single faulty premise.
--
$tar -xvf
So doing some number crunching, you have about 235 gallons on a full tank which gets you 1600 miles. Or $648.37 to get you 1600 miles.
So you'll save $64.84 every 1600 miles.
216 tank fulls and you've saved the original $14000 investment.
(Or around 285 fill ups since you fill up at quarter tanks.)
Let's say you're driving 2500 miles a week. That's 138 weeks driving to break even. 2 and a half years, last time I heard trucks last much longer than that so you're going to save money in the long term.
If you mean that 4500 miles is your truck on it's own, then you'll break even even sooner, after only 77 weeks.
Perhaps it's not worth it for a family car going to the shops once a week, but it's *very* worth it for truckers on the road every day.
> ...hence it is producing (especially when the battery is full) more power than is
:)
> used, but still causing the same amount of load on the engine.
Oh God, what are they teaching kids in school these days. No. The more electrical load on an alternator the more force is required to drive it.
When a high load device, such as a high torque motor, starts up a generator will noticably bog down for a moment and the engine will rev to compensate. Trust me on this, I'm in Southwest Louisiana, Rita taught us a thing or two about generators.
Same thing on a rig with one of these puppies. If it is going to generate non-trivial amounts of hydrogen it is going to require a non-trivial quantity of energy in the form of electrical current and an alternator driven by an internal combustion engine isn't very efficient. Most use simple shunt regulators for heaven's sake! That means the power you get from burning the hydrogen is a lot less than what went into seperating it from water. So unless it makes the diesel burn a LOT better it won't be paying its way.
It will make the engine run 'greener' though, which is what this is likely mostly about.
Democrat delenda est
Air normally contains (roughly) 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 1% Argon, and trace amounts of a couple of dozen other molecules. This is increasing the amount of Oxygen and Hydrogen in the air entering the engine and conversely lowering the ratio of the Nitrogen, Argon and other (mostly nonvolatile) gases. This will naturally allow for a quicker, hotter, more complete burn that generates more power and less naughty parts like Nitrogen oxides and particulate matter.
I would imagine that the additional Oxygen provides a large chunk of the benefits, rather than it just being attributed to the Hydrogen.
They've actually invented a way to use some handy prepackaged "air for burning" (distilled water) that is (relatively) efficient and simple to make by using electrolysis. Not too much of it, because there it can be too much of a good thing. Try running an engine off pure oxygen and see what you get. You'd still get explosions, but they'd likely be uncontained this time around. The amount of electricity to electrolyse a lot of water would be quite counter-productive anyway.
I would imagine you could get much of the same results if you could figure out a way to filter some of the Nitrogen out of the incoming air. Unfortunately, there's no good, cheap, efficient way to do that... yet....
If you go read the manufacturer's web site they don't claim that the introduction of hydrogen itself will increase the fuel efficiency, but that the hydrogen will clean out the carbon deposits in the engine.
.001% hydrogen to air ratio in the cylinders during combustion.
The process will take "from 0 to 9 months" depending on the type of vehicle, amount of build-up, the weather, the speeds driven, the idling time, start/stop driving, etc. Once the engine is cleaned you can see up to "40% increase in fuel efficiency".
We're talking about some insanely small amounts of hydrogen here.
The standard kit holds about 4 liters of water and will run for about 12,000KM. If 2/3 of the water is converted to H and captured for use, that means there's 2,261 liters of hydrogen extracted.
I randomly took a Volvo VE D12 395 engine for specs:
12.13L displacement and 1500RPM suggested cruise RPM, I'll guess 95Km/h is "cruise".
12,000KM / 95KM/H = 124.3 hours
Hydrogen is produced at 18 liters per hour
124.3 hours * 1500RPM = 11,187,000 revolutions
11,187,000 revolutions * 12.13L = 135,698,310 Liters of displaced air/fuel mixture
If my conversions and guesses are close, that means there's
I say scrap the entire thing. Don't hack in to your electrical system and don't carry around the extra weight of the machine and water. If you want to reduce operating costs, increase fuel efficiency and reduce pollution then BURN BIO-DIESEL!! Bio-Diesel has a net zero effect on atmospheric carbon, is low cost (about $.50us/gal to produce yourself), and is a tremendously powerful solvent that cleans engines of deposits like nobody's business.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
My point is that if it's economically ripe, the truckers will be the first to use a new form of energy. If they ain't using it, it ain't ripe (unless it's an amphetamine). Moreover, "If you got it, a truck brought it."
Nitrous Oxide in of itself is not hard on the engine. What makes it hard on the engine is the amount injected into it. Being that speed and performance is an addiction most street racers, they often get greedy on the Nitrous shots. Ever more and more, they crank up the mixture. And for the really clueless idiots, burn a fucking hole in the piston head.
Point being, it can be safe for everyday use so long as its computer controlled automatically. But, let the user control the amount injected...and you will end up with a short lived engine.
Life is not for the lazy.
On the downside, the alternator is now constantly loaded, which is an unusual situation and does require additional power.
Apparently the increase in overall combustion efficiency from the addition of H2 and O2 more than offsets the additional power requirement for the electrolysis. So in the end the engine is more efficient and saves money. Cleaner combustion should also lengthen engine lifespan.
It should be possible to do the same thing easily with most automobile engines. The only problem I see is ensuring that the alternator is not overloaded, which is primarily a function of the electrolysis electrode size.
This should also make automobiles easier to start, something useful in wintertime in high-altitude regions such as California where CARB gasoline is a requirement (and is a poor starting fuel).
Diesels actually have excess air available, with the possible (but unlikely) exception of full demand. They emit carbon because there is not enough time for all the fuel to burn fully. The hydrogen /may/ improve the combustion efficiency to reduce this, or even prevent it.
Of course, if they then richen the mixture again (and knowing truckies that's quite likely) then you are back where you started, but with more power.
I don't necessarily believe the hype, but the benefits of using hydrogen to improve efficiency and reduce emissions has been demonstrated by several groups over the past decade.
You're absolutely correct, as far as I can see. Diesel smoke is influenced by a) the air-fuel ratio b) the timing of the injection of fuel into the cylinder. Since diesel engines typically rarely run at stoichiometric (where some smoke could result) ratio for very long, I don't see the hydrogen having a smoke reducing/power+efficiency increasing ability as a result of being used purely as a fuel.
The thing is, after the diesel is injected into the cylinder, there is a sort of lag in the combustion of the fuel, because of oxygen availability and proximity. It's not instantaneous, just like gasoline in an engine, it takes time for the flame to propagate in the cylinder, however short that time is. Obviously, more efficiency is obtained when the flame is contained going at full blast for the entire power stroke, but since there is a lag in combustion, the fuel has to be injected before the cylinder reaches top dead center on the power stroke. Under full load conditions, the combustion lag is longer because the increased fuel, but similar fuel/air proximity. This results in unburnt fuel getting exhausted, resulting in higher exhaust gas temperatures, and typically more boost if there is a turbocharger present--the unburnt fuel is being combusted in the manifold, just before the turbo. It's not obvious, but in the diesel truck tuning industry, this is actually desirable--it increases efficiency and performance because that fuel is still being utilized--to increase boost pressure (increasing the effective compression ratio and therefore efficiency) and allow for even more fuel to be injected, but I'm sure it causes more stress on the engine's materials.
Consumer trucks can already have propane injection installed as aftermarket modifications. Propane is injected into the intake manifold. It's just a guess, I'm not a diesel guy, but I know a bit about it... I'd guess the result of doing so is to effectively decrease the ignition lag of the diesel fuel itself, thereby allowing injection timings nearer TDC... Thus giving the fuel more time to completely burn in the power stroke, increasing efficiency, power, and reducing particulate emissions--but only at high load conditions. If any of that makes any sense, particularly to a non-gearhead, I'd be surprised, but oh well.
If this is the case, they're obviously touting hydrogen because "everyone" knows hydrogen is "green", and propane is not, you know, even though it's probably more efficient and cheaper to just use propane.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Why are they getting the power from the distributer when there is all that lovely heat comming off the engine/exhaust that could be used to make electricity?
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
"Why can't we just work out the bugs with water injection?"
What are you talking about?!
Water injection works just fine, and has been on a production vehicle since at least 1962.
The Oldsmobile Jetfire was turbocharged, and came equipped with water injection, direct from the factory. It worked fine.
I used to run a turbocharged vehicle back in the 70's, and I added water injection to it because I'd made so many performance mods that it became a necessity.
Hydro lock?
More like brain lock...
Not exactly. Diesel engines cause ignition through compression; this is why diesel engines don't use spark plugs. Because they use compression to fire the charge (air mixed with fine particles of fuel oil) and the compression only rises to its peak for a short period, at high rpms some of the fuel particles are left unburnt because there isn't enough time to burn it completely before the exhaust valve opens and compression is lost.
And since horsepower is torque (twisting power) expressed through time (work), greater horsepower requires more rpm, all other things equal. Which makes the above situation worse.
This works because compressing a gas (the air in the mixture) causes the temp to rise (First law of thermodynamics) but only near the top of the stroke. Adding hydrogen causes the mixture, apparently, to fire quicker (at a lower temperature) so it can burn more completely, producing more power (efficiency) and less polluting compounds and unburnt fuel.
So it is not exactly a catalyst in that it has no part to play in the *chemical* reaction process. But it helps manage a diesel's combustion, appartenly, in a way that otherwise could not be accomplished.
I'd like to see an organization like Anandtech do a piece about this....
Well, according to this company http://www.dieselgas.com.au/home.htm it's possible but it takes about 100000KM to break even. Not worth it I'd say seeing how the truckers are already seeing $700 per month per truck in fuel savings without having to buy any LPG. This company in the article seems like a pretty good trial to me and more trucks should get this system in the future.
Sure it probably wouldn't make much sense for a regular car unless you drive a lot or really care about the environment, but for trucks that can be driving 12 hrs a day or 24 hrs a day sometimes with 2 drivers it's worth it.
People here are saying they have seen similar things sold on the internet (or to be announced) for insane amounts of money. I have seen these devices sold on Ebay - every time there is an "energy crunch", you see the number of auctions skyrocket. Most of these are for plans or sometimes actual devices - some knowledge of your car and engine, and some level of mechanical aptitude is required to install them.
At the same time, all of these things sound like a scam. I have heard all of the arguments, some make sense, some don't. So, instead of arguing about it, why don't we slashdotters construct our own, test it out, then see what is real? First off, start by googling hydro-boost. One of the first few links will take you to this page, which is a complete set of "plans" on how to build this kind of device from parts picked up at Home Depot (or the building supply place of your choice/location) and AutoZone or Checker (or whatever auto parts store is near you).
These devices are simple - they make what is known as Brown's Gas - a HIGHLY EXPLOSIVE MIXTURE of hydrogen and oxygen gases (note that if you build a "hydro-boost" cell for your car, that you want to make sure all of the gas is going into your engine, and not building up in areas under the hood/bonnet - unless you want a "car that goes BOOM!" literally) - used industrially for welding (similar to an oxy-acetylene torch system) - in fact, from that google search link you will find many suppliers of industrial Brown's Gas welding systems.
I don't know if these systems are the equivalent of fuel-line magnets or if they really work. If you are willing, try it yourself. Also note that I am not sure how your local environmental testing spot will treat you if you leave that device hooked up under your hood for a smog/emmissions test. They would probably fail you outright for unlawful engine modifications. However, they probably wouldn't have a problem helping you test such a system if you are willing to pay the fees needed - to see if emmissions go down if nothing else (other measurements they may or may not be willing to help out on). Just don't go through there "on the sly" - they don't look kindly on loose hoses, never mind funky emmisions modifications they don't approve...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon