Project HHO

[Kirk]

I don't suppose a 500 ftlb 500 bhp 50 mpg supercharged charge-cooled w/m injected Supra would be of much interest anyway

 

See now when you make statements like that your asking for negative comments to come flying your way.

 

Either way i see it as over complicating things and something else to go wrong but good luck.

[David P]

I don't suppose a 500 ftlb 500 bhp 50 mpg supercharged charge-cooled w/m injected Supra would be of much interest anyway

 

See now when you make statements like that your asking for negative comments to come flying your way.

Either way i see it as over complicating things and something else to go wrong but good luck.

 

 

These figures are from the Supracharger project thread.

 

Could someone who can, complete these calcs into theoretical power figures please.

 

Using the 6.78" ATI crank pulley, here are the M112 cubic inch per revolution (1835cc) supercharger boost/pulley size figures;

 

4.50” = 11.9psi (0.82 bar) = dynamic compression 15.8:1 - 664 cfm (18,802 lpm) @ ambient temp - engine 6,800rpm s/c 10,245rpm

 

4.25" = 13.5psi (0.93 bar) = dynamic compression 16.8:1 - 703 cfm (19,907 lpm) @ ambient temp - engine 6,800rpm s/c 10,848rpm

 

4.00” = 15.3psi (1.05 bar) = dynamic compression 17.9:1 - 747 cfm (21,152 lpm) @ ambient temp - engine 6,800rpm s/c 11,526rpm

 

3.80” = 16.9 psi (1.16 bar) = dynamic compression 18.8:1 - 786 cfm (22,257 lpm) @ ambient temp - engine 6,800rpm s/c 12,132rpm

Edited November 30, 2010 by David P (see edit history)

[Dave]

good luck david your pushing the boundries,it will be thanks to you we will all know if this works or not ,respect

[Terminator]

When I first heard of this a few years ago, I researched it, as it initially sounded interesting, and I found some experimental data, which I can't find now, but basically it supported what Chris said. You just can't make anywhere near enough hydrogen to meet the induction needs of the engine. Just do the maths, cylinder volume X rpm even assuming one induction cycle per one crank revolution, the % of hydrogen that can be made is insignificant when compared to the huge quantity of inducted gasses, and that is with out the added volume required when the the charge is boosted by a turbo or supercharger. The the energy required to make enough hydrogen, weight of the equipment to make a significant difference just does not add up. You can't get something for nothing. If it was viable you can bet one of the big manufacturers would have adopted it by now. The only people getting anything out of this are the con artists that sell the kits.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Terminator (see edit history)

[jagman]

theoretical power would be 100 bhp for each 150 cfm , but you will get losses and not 100 per cent efficiency ,

The HHO is interesting , I dont see any fuel savings but the detonation limits could be raised , this could allow greater boost and less timing so more power .

good to see someone trying these things out its all a bit unknown at this point , instant boost should be fun

[Chris Wilson]

When I first heard of this a few years ago, I researched it, as it initially sounded interesting, and I found some experimental data, which I can't find now, but basically it supported what Chris said. You just can't make anywhere near enough hydrogen to meet the induction needs of the engine. Just do the maths, cylinder volume X rpm even assuming one induction cycle per one crank revolution, the % of hydrogen that can be made is insignificant when compared to the huge quantity of inducted gasses, and that is with out the added volume required when the the charge is boosted by a turbo or supercharger. The the energy required to make enough hydrogen, weight of the equipment to make a significant difference just does not add up. You can't get something for nothing. If it was viable you can bet one of the big manufacturers would have adopted it by now. The only people getting anything out of this are the con artists that sell the kits.

 

 

David has already posted some air flow figures for his supercharger, which, although obviously somewhat greater than an N/A engine will consume, put the amount of air flow into perspective. 2 three litre per minute hydrogen generators - 6 litres per minute (which sounds optimistic, but still), feeding an engine that is consuming say 8000 litres per minute of gas isn't really going to do very much. In my head it's about .075% I think?

[Terminator]

Probably more usable energy in a fart.

[David P]

Chris,

 

Not expecting economy at 8,000 & WOT, but maybe a little more power with the N/A build, and maybe additional det protection when supercharged.

 

Cruising would be more like 2,000lpm which multiplies your figure by 4, and the gas is 2/3rds O2, so 4lpm could be multiplied by 5, not sure of any calcs for the Hydrogen.

 

We soon will have a better understanding.

Edited November 29, 2010 by David P (see edit history)

[JustGav]

 

The idea behind this is cute, and I've also looked into it, and like WSB2 even made a kit in the shed for giggles... Never did bother fitting it to a car purely because it made so little.

 

HHO is also known as Brown's gas (Linking into termie's above quote )

[David P]

Chris,

 

Interested in your comment re. consuption of air by N/A engine, but really should be in the s/c thread.

If the T.T. engine with the restriction from the turbo(s) can pass greater volumes of air, then why not the N/A with a free flowing exhaust?

[Chris Wilson]

An N/A uses ambient air pressure to fill the cylinders, if you are lucky a bit of tuned resonance will pull a bit more throughflow via a depression in the chamber on the intake stroke. A turbo engine is pumping air in well above ambient pressure, so, of course, the volume of air flow increases. Is that what you are asking? An engine is just an air pump, adding fuel is easy, but increasing the air needed to combust more fuel is harder given no capacity or RPM increases.

[David P]

We are talking about different things.

 

The flow rates I posted are for supercharged air, in response to the doubts of power from this build.

[David P]

theoretical power would be 100 bhp for each 150 cfm , but you will get losses and not 100 per cent efficiency ,

The HHO is interesting , I dont see any fuel savings but the detonation limits could be raised , this could allow greater boost and less timing so more power .

good to see someone trying these things out its all a bit unknown at this point , instant boost should be fun

 

Adam,

 

Thank you for your input, excuse my delay in responding, your post was left behind on page 2, consumed within a minor flurry of negativity.