www.tdiclub.com

Economy - Longevity - Performance
The #1 Source of TDI Information on the Web!
Forums TDIFAQ Articles Links Meets
Orders TDI Club Cards TDIFest 2014 Gone, but not forgotten VAG-Com List Unit Conversions TDIClub Chat Thank You



Go Back   TDIClub Forums > VW TDI Discussion Areas > TDI Fuel Economy

TDI Fuel Economy Discussions about increasing the fuel economy of your TDI engine. Non TDI related postings will be moved or removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 18th, 2006, 12:30   #16
schwechel
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hartford, WI
Fuel Economy: 55/50/40
Default

Ummmm........I'm no molecular engineer or anything, but isn't HH0 = H20 = water????? I think the Man Show did a bit on this once, where they tried to outlaw di-hydrogen oxide (H20) because it could be fatal if enough of it got into your lungs..........this thread reminds me of that.
__________________
Use the TDI GTG Wiki Page to organize your next local GTG!
03' Galactic Blue 225,000 miles. Ventectomy, Euro Spec side mirrors, Monster Mats, PhatNoise, clear side markers, Key Fob Mod, grille badge, Euroswitch, E-codes, PP520s, Zerostart, 5 Brake Light, EGR Delete, Boost/EGT gauge, RC2, and boostvalve.
schwechel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2006, 20:48   #17
hank miller
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Monticello, MN
TDI(s): '06 Jetta
Fuel Economy: 47mpg
Default

I wish reporters would get a chemist to comment on stories such as these. Or should I say editors refuse them until someone qualified comments?

Any chemist would have screamed BS as the idea that his flame was cool to the touch, yet heated instantly to the temperature needed. When something burns it burns AT the heat of fusion, no hotter or colder. You can look that temperature up in a book. Burn more fuel and it all burns at that temperature. The heat may seem hotter, but it is just more intense, the temperature is the same.

As for putting his finger in the flame, that is no problem, so long as you don't hold is there too long - the sweat from your finger evaporates (this works better if you are nervous - some professors have demonstrated this so often they got confidant, didn't sweat, and burned their hand) and insulates your hand from the heat - until the steam blows away.

Now using electrolysis to inject hydrogen into a diesel engine is known to be a net win in some cases, but it isn't a miracle. (It doesn't violate any laws of physics, it changes characteristics of the combustion for the better)
hank miller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2006, 19:51   #18
Hobbes22
Veteran Member
 
Hobbes22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Michigan
Fuel Economy: 40.8/46.8/57.3 - min/avg/max
Default

www.hydrogen-boost.com is selling these hydrogen units for $750+. The "great claim" is they finished a 2005 Tour De Sol event and got 99 mpg. Their scoop is at: http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/June%202005.html

I tracked down offical results at: http://www.nesea.org/transportation/...y-RESULTS5.xls

At the bottom of the page for vehicle #81 (hydrogen-boost), Note 9 says "Judges deemed driving style unsafe". Also the notes make you wonder how well the event was actually monitored when you read Note 1: "Entrant filled car at home (20 miles away) and unable to top off at start site - Adj. -.5G"

Wouldn't you think an official would be in charge of filling each car before they go and when they come back? The whole things just doesn't sound quite right.
__________________
2006 New Beetle TDI, 5M, Salsa Red
MPG (Min/Avg/Max): 40.8/46.8/57.3

Last edited by Hobbes22; May 22nd, 2006 at 06:42.
Hobbes22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2006, 20:01   #19
mrGutWrench
Veteran Member
 
mrGutWrench's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Wallace, NC
Fuel Economy: 63 MPG/56/47 (2nd tank) '02 Sedab
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobbes22
(snip) Wouldn't you think an official would be in charge of filling each car before they go and when they come back? They whole things just doesn't sound quite right.
__. Oh, yeah. Total ripoff. If they only had part of their apparatus using some kinda oil, I'd smack 'em upside the head with my reppty bat!
'
__________________
MrG, Wallace NC (2002 Jetta, Totalled by drunk, 11/'06) 130K mi in 4 1/2 years/~57 MPG lifetime; New car, '03 Jetta Wagon, CAT, .681 top gear, 170K mi. in 5 1/2 yr, ~53 MPG.
mrGutWrench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2006, 21:22   #20
Fortuna Wolf
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wilmington, NC
Fuel Economy: 36 mix
Default

Well, when I get a bit more free time I'll build a test chamber (just a liter or 2 of water and stainless electrodes) and exhast it with Y into the CCV before the CCV filter. I shouldn't need an air pump. I'll use a potentiometer or similar device to adjust the current through the electrolysis cell. Vag-Com and a copilot on the highway should give me enough data to determine the veracity of the claim.

The people claiming 50-150% more mileage are full of crap btw. I'm expecting a maximum of 15% gain, and more realistically 0-5%.
__________________
2002 Jetta Sedan ALH-01M: 2 um Cat FF, Wingnut-3 CCV filter, polyurethane fuel lines, 5 brake light mod, Ventectomy, Polysiloxane vacuum tubing, Pioneer DEH-3800MP w/ KFC-1389ie, Panzer Plate, EGT+Boost+Oil Temp Gauges, Boost Valve, KERMA Line Pressure Mod, LED Lighting, HC-12a refrigerant, Optima 75/35 AGM, .187 nozzles, Hawk HPS pads.
Coming Soon: ESP retrofit, Custom Greasecar.

Wish List: Tow Bar, DSG or CVT transmission, or even a 5 speed manual. To hit 42+ mpg

Fortuna Wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2006, 13:21   #21
Fortuna Wolf
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wilmington, NC
Fuel Economy: 36 mix
Default

Jezz, I can't believe I forgot about the turbo!
1 ATM is ~14.7 PSI. The turbo boosts to 13 PSI continuously, nearly doubling the air intake pressure. This will result in nearly doubling the compression. Thus, we need 1.87 times less hydrogen for autoignition.

This is really looking like it might work.
__________________
2002 Jetta Sedan ALH-01M: 2 um Cat FF, Wingnut-3 CCV filter, polyurethane fuel lines, 5 brake light mod, Ventectomy, Polysiloxane vacuum tubing, Pioneer DEH-3800MP w/ KFC-1389ie, Panzer Plate, EGT+Boost+Oil Temp Gauges, Boost Valve, KERMA Line Pressure Mod, LED Lighting, HC-12a refrigerant, Optima 75/35 AGM, .187 nozzles, Hawk HPS pads.
Coming Soon: ESP retrofit, Custom Greasecar.

Wish List: Tow Bar, DSG or CVT transmission, or even a 5 speed manual. To hit 42+ mpg

Fortuna Wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2006, 13:53   #22
TDIMeister
Moderator at Large
 
TDIMeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Canada
TDI(s): TDI
Default

Yes, please do share your results when you get it up and running.
__________________

TDIMeister's German-imported 1998 Audi A4 Avant TDI quattro

Are you receiving unwelcome sales solicitations or inappropriate, harassing messages in your PM? You can report them by pressing the image on the top right of the message in a similar way as reporting inappropriate posts.
TDIMeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2006, 18:57   #23
silvershad0w
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location:
Default

Before I bought my TDI I was looking at electrolysis on gasoline engines as a mileage booster. I believe what is necessary for this to be effective is operating the engine in a safe lean state. Now a standard gasoline engine will begin to lean misfire upwards of 16.5:1 afr. At this ratio the EGT is also becoming prohibitively high. For years engine researchers have used brown's gas/hydrogen injection devices (aka electrolysis) to test the lean burn characteristics of SI engines on dynos. Using the gas as a supplement, the engine will continue to fire reliably into the 20:1 AFR range and above. What is interesting is the EGT's at this ratio are also on the back side of the curve, into the safe range once again.

At light throttle i.e. steady state cruise where low HP is required, the lean burn operation could potentially save a substantial amount of fuel by increasing fuel efficiency in this operating range. Therefore it has been hypothesized that this, while being a net energy loss, can indeed create a more efficient running gasoline engine under controlled and specific circumstances. Of all the electrolysis garbage out there I have never seen a proof of concept presented in this fashion with reasonable scientific method and explanation. In order for this to work, you either need a wideband tunable injection system that is programmed to allow for this operation, or a carburetor where the system is simply leaned out on the primary jet to what would normally be lean misfire range.

I have no additional thoughts currently on the applicability of this scheme to CI engines unfortunately, although a similar situation could exist. Sorry for the long first post.
silvershad0w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2006, 20:48   #24
mrGutWrench
Veteran Member
 
mrGutWrench's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Wallace, NC
Fuel Economy: 63 MPG/56/47 (2nd tank) '02 Sedab
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silvershad0w
(snip) I have no additional thoughts currently on the applicability of this scheme to CI engines unfortunately, although a similar situation could exist. Sorry for the long first post.
__. Hey, Shad. Welcome to the Club! And a good, thoughtful first post. But has anyone discussed where electrical energy to split water into "HHO" (I'm NOT making this up, you know!) is going to come from? If someone is making the point that it's "free", then the whole equation falls into the "snake oil" region, and that becomes a open target for the Reppty bat!
'
__________________
MrG, Wallace NC (2002 Jetta, Totalled by drunk, 11/'06) 130K mi in 4 1/2 years/~57 MPG lifetime; New car, '03 Jetta Wagon, CAT, .681 top gear, 170K mi. in 5 1/2 yr, ~53 MPG.
mrGutWrench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2006, 21:28   #25
nicklockard
Torque Dorque
 
nicklockard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Tucson, AZ
Fuel Economy: Tdi avg 48.6mpg. BMW avg 10 CPM and practically NO MAINTENANCE!
Default

A diesel engine is always in the ultra-lean burn regime, except when overfueled and spewing smoke out the back. Combustion efficiency is damned close to 100% under nominal operating conditions. At startup when the engine is still cold and a lot of heat energy is lost to warming the block and head, there *may* be a smidge of room for improvement.

In order for H2 injection to give a net gain, it would have to contribute more to the overall efficiency of a diesel engine than the inefficiency of electrolysis, which is significant. It's been mentioned that it moves the effective ignition timing up. Fine, why don't we just tweak timing up with chiptuning and forget the unneeded expense and hassle? Because NOx would go up. So the argument I see being proposed is that hydrogen injection (a great reducing agent) prevents the formation of more NOx whilst simultaneously advancing timing.

Still, that advance in timing, how many more miles per gallon can that net? I'd guess on the order of 5% at the cost of higher peak cylinder temperature and pressure. The original claim is that his system costs about 70 cents per hour. Translated into gallons of diesel (at today's prices of $3.14/gallon), that's 22% of a gallon, or nearly a quart of diesel *extra* being burnt per hour.

Examining the simple case at steady state: my car travelling at 70 mph gets about 45 mpg, consuming 1.56 gallons of diesel in that hour. Running the hydrogen electrolysis cell would bump that up to 1.78 gallons/hour. In order to just break even, it would have to save 0.22 gallons in that same hour, or net me 51.3 mpg at the same speed.

Their claim is that it does better.

Does this seem likely?
__________________
EnviroFit..Edmund's TCO..NIST applet..Slow Fueling Warning..What tire psi?[..ROAD LOAD CALCULATOR, or: how much power does it take to...?/Do I need nitrogen in my tires?
.
.

ALH: "Drive more. Worry less."
PD: "Drive more. Smile more."
CR: "Drive less. Hope more."
nicklockard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2006, 06:42   #26
mrGutWrench
Veteran Member
 
mrGutWrench's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Wallace, NC
Fuel Economy: 63 MPG/56/47 (2nd tank) '02 Sedab
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicklockard
(snip) Their claim is that it does better.
Does this seem likely?
__. Nope, at least not without an alternator about the size of ... um, Iowa -- and what would it do to fuel economy to have the engine load to generate that much electricity? This whole concept is a practical nonsense IMHO.
'
__________________
MrG, Wallace NC (2002 Jetta, Totalled by drunk, 11/'06) 130K mi in 4 1/2 years/~57 MPG lifetime; New car, '03 Jetta Wagon, CAT, .681 top gear, 170K mi. in 5 1/2 yr, ~53 MPG.
mrGutWrench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2006, 08:44   #27
LurkerMike
Veteran Member
 
LurkerMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Atlanta Jawja
Fuel Economy: -Whitey: 38-40 mpg Hwy @ 80 mph / -Red 46 mpg Hwy @ 80 mph
Default

What if you use a wagon and line the hood and roof with PE cells to make the electricity and you only drive on bright days in the dessert?

Of course people in Seattle would be screwed, but who cares about them, eh? ;~P
LurkerMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 8th, 2006, 10:20   #28
dieselgeezer
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Fuel Economy: 46-49 mpg
Default

So, this device basically generates a cetane enhancer that may or may not increase combustion efficiency? This is beginning to read like the acetone thread.
dieselgeezer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 14:43.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright - TDIClub Online LTD - 2014
Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Forum Rules | Disclaimer
TDIClub Online Ltd (TDIClub.com) is not affiliated with the VWoA or VWAG and is supported by contributions from viewers like you.
1996 - 2013, All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.18001 seconds with 9 queries
[Output: 118.73 Kb. compressed to 100.01 Kb. by saving 18.73 Kb. (15.77%)]