tr6 HHO the answer to better MPG ?

[Guest ntc]

To right Peter

Andy

Please read again the Kinetic energy does not use brakes 60 kw generated sorry but this should be at the bar,as nowt to do with Tr's

[Andy Moltu]

The whole snake oil topic is not TR specific! So why not have some Friday fun.

 

I stand my my statement that most of these vehicles have brakes. Low levels of retardation may well be done by the kinetic energy recovery system but the capacity to convert the KE of the car to electrical charge is simply not enough to eliminate brakes in the event of an abrupt stop from speed.

However slam on the anchors and conventional brakes come into play - usually controlled by the electronics.

 

If your electric motor was able to power your car from 0-60 in say 8 seconds (roughly 150 bhp (111kw approx) in a TR6) would you be happy to take 8 seconds to stop because that's pretty much what would happen if the same motor was converting the KE back to electrical energy. In reality this has to be supplemented by more conventional braking systems that waste energy as heat. Unless of course your generator has vastly more capacity as a generator than as a motor.

 

As Pete points out hybrid petrol-electric cars are likely to be a evolutionary dead end although even with hydrogen cells the need for electricity generation to produce it will be massive.

 

I fear we are likely to be the last generation of petrol heads.

[Guest ntc]

I fear we are likely to be the last generation of petrol heads.

 

Without doubt Andy.

[RogerH]

They keep finding bigger and bigger deposits of the stuff even though they say it is running out.

Of course it is running out because we are using it.

But how much was there and how much is there now.

 

Only when it is really running out will progress be made to produce a replacement.

 

Roger

[Guest ntc]

They keep finding bigger and bigger deposits of the stuff even though they say it is running out.

Of course it is running out because we are using it.

But how much was there and how much is there now.

 

Only when it is really running out will progress be made to produce a replacement.

 

Roger

But you will not be able to afford it Roger

TFIF

[terry]

Denis,.. please tell your energy saving Boffin neighbour that he is wasting his time and money in fitting one of these useless onboard

oxygen and hydrogen converters .

 

i posted these in the Useless Upgrade thread,....Please please,and i will say again,...steer Clear of them.or you will be wasting your money as well

 

terry

[RogerH]

Hi Neil,

I don't doubt that for one minute.

 

Roll on the nuclear TR

 

Roger

[Rob Briggs]

An Energy-Saving 'Boffin' neighbour of mine is in the process of fitting an HHO kit to his 'Eurobox' to save fuel.

 

He reckons by Oxygenating his induction he'll save between 20 to 50% on his mpg !

 

This got me to wondering wether adding more oxygen to my TR's induction would counterbalance my cars over rich mixture which is sooting up my Plugs causing misfiring? (Re my '5 Cylinder Woes' thread)

 

The entire HHO kit could be hidden from view in front of the radiator with the air-pipe fed straight into the airfilterbox.

 

What do the boffins amongst you reckon?

 

I'm going to risk sounding like a new age loony.

 

I haven't had first hand experience of this process but I know a man who has. He has looked after my engines for the past 25 years having previously worked as a development engineer for Ford Special Vehicles and subsequently making a living from producing racing engines for Sierra Cosworths. Some years ago this came up in conversation and he told me that he had been contracted by two separate manufacturers to look into the effect.

 

His results showed measurable improvements in economy under certain circumstances. The improvements are strongest at small throttle openings and for steady running. There seems to be no improvement in high performance running. Best results were found in boat engines which tend to do lots of steady running. Several road cars, petrol and diesel, were tried and all showed some improvement but this was dependent on driving style. The electrolysis kit used was a lot more sophisticated that the stuff that was generally being touted around at the time.

 

Although there was no explanation for the effect at the time, there certainly seemed to be possibilities given the right car/driving style combination of improving economy. It's clear, of course that the improvements can't be due to extra energy being available from the recombination of the oxygen and hydrogen. Sophisticated electronics and heavy current (70-80amps I remember being quoted) are required to produce good volumes of gas.

 

I suppose, if anyone wanted to look into it, a couple of bottles of gas from BOC and some nitrous oxide injection control hardware could be used to test whether the effect can be reproduced before finding the right electrolysis process.

 

Rob Briggs

[Peter Cobbold]

 

I'm going to risk sounding like a new age loony.

 

I haven't had first hand experience of this process but I know a man who has. He has looked after my engines for the past 25 years having previously worked as a development engineer for Ford Special Vehicles and subsequently making a living from producing racing engines for Sierra Cosworths. Some years ago this came up in conversation and he told me that he had been contracted by two separate manufacturers to look into the effect.

 

His results showed measurable improvements in economy under certain circumstances. The improvements are strongest at small throttle openings and for steady running. There seems to be no improvement in high performance running. Best results were found in boat engines which tend to do lots of steady running. Several road cars, petrol and diesel, were tried and all showed some improvement but this was dependent on driving style. The electrolysis kit used was a lot more sophisticated that the stuff that was generally being touted around at the time.

 

Although there was no explanation for the effect at the time, there certainly seemed to be possibilities given the right car/driving style combination of improving economy. It's clear, of course that the improvements can't be due to extra energy being available from the recombination of the oxygen and hydrogen. Sophisticated electronics and heavy current (70-80amps I remember being quoted) are required to produce good volumes of gas.

 

I suppose, if anyone wanted to look into it, a couple of bottles of gas from BOC and some nitrous oxide injection control hardware could be used to test whether the effect can be reproduced before finding the right electrolysis process.

 

Rob Briggs

Rob,

Interesting!

Hydrogen might act to accelerate combustion, so needing less spark advance and improving thermal effciicnecy at cruise. Theres some published data here, but at very high percentages of hydrogen, which I very much doubt would ever be achieved with an onboard electrolysis kit. Except perhaps at very small throttle openings when less petrol air mixture is present

http://www.dragonfly75.com/gas/

But the benefit would only be realised if the sprak timing was adjusted to benefit. We need more detail.

 

80A at 12V is nearly 1kW equal to 1.3 HP. So the power gain has to be even more than that to allow for losses in the alternator and battery. So it has to cover that extra load on the crank and then lower the fuel counsumption.

 

I think it would be worth searching if hydrogen has been used in those special prechamber spark plugs**. Propane or methane is usually used - on big gas generator engines. Pumping hydrogen into the plugs that Nick described could be really interesting. The flow need not be fast and could be delivered down a find bore stainless capillary ( Coopers Needleworks). Or buy sampling spark plugs and weld a chamber over the elctrode. H2 Injection might work at modest pressures, but findinga 12v hydrogen-safe pump could be a task. An on-board hydrogen tank might be the answer.(eg BOC 16kg) Avoiding blowback under power stroke pressures could be done with miniature fast acting one-way valves (Lee).

And never park it in the garage!

Is you engineer still interested in the effect?

Peter

 

Edit: ** yes Mahle used hydrogen in their early prechamber plugs.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/10/tji-20101027.html

Edited October 26, 2013 by Peter Cobbold

[Peter Cobbold]

brain>finger fade

Edited October 26, 2013 by Peter Cobbold

[Rob Briggs]

Rob,

Interesting!

Hydrogen might act to accelerate combustion, so needing less spark advance and improving thermal effciicnecy at cruise. Theres some published data here, but at very high percentages of hydrogen, which I very much doubt would ever be achieved with an onboard electrolysis kit. Except perhaps at very small throttle openings when less petrol air mixture is present

http://www.dragonfly75.com/gas/

But the benefit would only be realised if the sprak timing was adjusted to benefit. We need more detail.

 

80A at 12V is nearly 1kW equal to 1.3 HP. So the power gain has to be even more than that to allow for losses in the alternator and battery. So it has to cover that extra load on the crank and then lower the fuel counsumption.

 

I think it would be worth searching if hydrogen has been used in those special prechamber spark plugs**. Propane or methane is usually used - on big gas generator engines. Pumping hydrogen into the plugs that Nick described could be really interesting. The flow need not be fast and could be delivered down a find bore stainless capillary ( Coopers Needleworks). Or buy sampling spark plugs and weld a chamber over the elctrode. H2 Injection might work at modest pressures, but findinga 12v hydrogen-safe pump could be a task. An on-board hydrogen tank might be the answer.(eg BOC 16kg) Avoiding blowback under power stroke pressures could be done with miniature fast acting one-way valves (Lee).

And never park it in the garage!

Is you engineer still interested in the effect?

Peter

 

Edit: ** yes Mahle used hydrogen in their early prechamber plugs.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/10/tji-20101027.html

 

Hello Peter,

 

About 10 years ago my engineer moved into property development and dropped all interest in motor cars so I'm pretty sure that he won't have progressed any further. I'm trying to remember which manufacturers he did the work for. One of them might have been Alfa Romeo since he had a lot to do with racing Alfa saloons - producing a heroic twin turbocharged GTV. Whoever it was clearly saw no future in the process at the time.

 

Happily for me he is still prepared to work on my (Sierra Cosworth) engine from time to time. He has to dust off an old lap top and call back one of his old mechanics into service. He's over 70 and the mechanic is over 80!

 

Rob.

[Denis]

My Bof' neighbour says all new innovations are Poo-pooed...but Cars do run on Hydrogen...and he's continuing with the project.

[Peter Cobbold]

My Bof' neighbour says all new innovations are Poo-pooed...but Cars do run on Hydrogen...and he's continuing with the project.

A triumph of optimism over experience I fear.

[Davidw]

I can vividly recall a BBC Horizon documentary in about 1978 called "Hydrogen; the Forever Fuel" The claim was made that most cars then in production in the USA would happily run on hydrogen (as a burning agent) and only produce water.

 

It was even pointed out that fears over its comburibility were largely unfounded because its lightness meant that spills would burn upwards instead of spreading out like petrol/diesel liquid with a thin combustible layer of vapour on top.

 

If you google the title above you get a lot of hits, including a book of the same name by Peter Hoffman. I await the comments of the scientists on this with great interest.

[Peter Cobbold]

David,

Its not so much converting ic engines to run on hydrogen, its the problems of making it -needs power - and storing it.

Theres a lot of recent research on hydrogen re transport summarised here:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/h2/index.html

Green Car Congress gives a flavour of the sheer volume of research going on many topics.

I'm not so sure hydrogen is a front runner, its difficult to store. A leak in a garage could be exciting when the ceiling lights are switched on.

If storage can be made simple and safe I think we will see H2 used in fuel cells in electric cars,and not for ic engines as their fuel conversion efficiency is much lower.

 

But making H2 needs power, over and above present generating capacity. That means lots of extra nuclear or vast numbers of wind turbines, vast acreages of solar pv. The numbers for UK transport are given in MacKay's on line book:

http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html

I recommed it highly. MacKay's numbers are scary but valid - he's a Cambridge physics Prof and FRS.

The synopsis fig 6 shows we use about 40kWh per day each on transport. Currently thats oil's contribution. Even if transport can be made much more efficient with electric power we'd still need about 20units per day. Thats extra electrical power. Multiply by 60million souls = 1.2 billion units of electricity per day. That's equal to extra power generation of 50 million kW = 50000MW or 50GW. About 25 new nuclear stations.

 

And what have we got? -a grid thats close to failing to meet demand. And politicians struggling to find investors to build replacement capacity for lost coal plant.

 

Peter

Edited October 31, 2013 by Peter Cobbold

[PaulAA]

Excellent post, Peter.

 

Another observation would be the specious use of the phrase 'zero emission' to describe electrically-powered vehicles, be it battery or fuel-cell. The majority of electrical power (with which the batteries are charged or the hydrogen for the fuel cell produced) is derived from fossil fuel. Just 11% of UK power was produced by renewables and 18% by nuclear power last year, with not dissimilar figures in the US, meaning that the remaining 70+% of power production resulted in emissions at the source of generation.

 

Until vastly more efficient ways of capturing solar, wave and wind power obviate the need for coal, gas and oil-fire power stations, not to mention the colossal legacy created by nuclear power, electric cars do little more - in simplistic terms - than disguise their contribution to power production-derived short-term and long-term pollution.

 

Two wrongs do not make a right, but mine is a conscious decision to be a repentant, but honest, polluter. Anyway, with the damned fumes still finding their way into the cabin, I'm mainly polluting myself.

 

Now, maybe I should think this through before pressing the 'post' button - it's been a tough week.

[winston]

Petrol is expensive, sure it is!

TR's are not the cheapest means of transport out there either.

I can't claim to be without financial restraints, far from it, however, I for one believe that the sheer pleasure produced from the conventional combustion of petrol in my TR6 far outweighs the need to search around for better fuel economy.

I am fortunate in that my 6 has no running fueling problems at this time though,( that's a sure fire recipe for trouble) for me running the 6 is an indulgence, and I love it, simple as that.

 

Winston

[Davidw]

David,Its not so much converting ic engines to run on hydrogen, its the problems of making it -needs power - and storing it.Theres a lot of recent research on hydrogen re transport summarised here:http://www.greencarcongress.com/h2/index.htmlGreen Car Congress gives a flavour of the sheer volume of research going on many topics.I'm not so sure hydrogen is a front runner, its difficult to store. A leak in a garage could be exciting when the ceiling lights are switched on.If storage can be made simple and safe I think we will see H2 used in fuel cells in electric cars,and not for ic engines as their fuel conversion efficiency is much lower.But making H2 needs power, over and above present generating capacity. That means lots of extra nuclear or vast numbers of wind turbines, vast acreages of solar pv. The numbers for UK transport are given in MacKay's on line book:http://www.withouthotair.com/download.htmlI recommed it highly. MacKay's numbers are scary but valid - he's a Cambridge physics Prof and FRS.The synopsis fig 6 shows we use about 40kWh per day each on transport. Currently thats oil's contribution. Even if transport can be made much more efficient with electric power we'd still need about 20units per day. Thats extra electrical power. Multiply by 60million souls = 1.2 billion units of electricity per day. That's equal to extra power generation of 50 million kW = 50000MW or 50GW. About 25 new nuclear stations.And what have we got? -a grid thats close to failing to meet demand. And politicians struggling to find investors to build replacement capacity for lost coal plant.Peter

 

As always, Peter, you make your point lucidly and without hyperbole and the science backs your assertions. Our politicians miss the point as usual. The last administration allowed the accumulated nuclear power knowledge base of 60 years to completely dissipate and the current administration is more interested in splurging about 100 billion on a pointless railway line that most people do not want and which is based on the assumption that business people do absolutely no work at all on trains.

 

Spending this money on electricity generation right now might mean that my grandchildren can keep at least one 60 watt bulb running in their (rented) homes in the 2030's. Instead of which, the taxpayer subsidises already wealthy landowners to erect huge numbers of bird mangling propellers each of which apparently produces enough power to run my wife's hair dryer!

 

The ability of politicians to pick completely the wrong issue on which to make a stand has grown exponentially over the last 25 years. It seems to me to dare back to the Poll Tax, via the ERM, through the Iraq War and now Press regulation.

 

As a general rule, it seems to me that if a UK government proposes something, it will all end in tears and an eye watering bill!

[Peter Cobbold]

David,

I agree entirely.

HMG displays a qute staggering degree of ineptitude, especially when it comes to power generation. Our present supplies were designed by engineers in the CEGB. Privatisation killed that, so there's been no long term planning for decades. Politicos' enthusiasm for wind power will come home to roost when the lights go out in a winter high **. They permittted wind power generation to be built without gas backup. And no-one wants to build gas plant that has to be switched off when the wind is blowing. That is where the HS2 cash should be spent - filling in the holes in the power supply that private companies refuse to cover. Centrica wanted to build ten (?) OCGTs to do this a few years back, with subsidy to cover dead time when wind was up. It was refused by HMG.

Peter

 

 

** when the top left dial goes into the red:

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Edited November 1, 2013 by Peter Cobbold

[Davidw]

That is a scary site, Peter. No doubt our masters will try and shut it down - to save electricity!

[Peter Cobbold]

That is a scary site, Peter. No doubt our masters will try and shut it down - to save electricity!

I doubt they'd understand it - too many numbers....

[Peter Cobbold]

Resurecting this thread as there is a breakthrough in producing hydrogen from methane without any CO2, just pure carbon.

http://phys.org/news/2015-11-energy-fossil-fuel-carbon-dioxide.html

They bubble methane up a column of molten tin and the carbon powder can be collected off the top along with a stream of hydrogen gas, in a continous pocess suitable for industrail scale-up.

Looks promising although the energy input is not stated.

 

Not that I'd want a tank of hydrogen anywhere near the garage....

 

Peter

[Blue cedar]

Andy

If you need to be convinced about 'hybrid' systems.......March this year I bought the new Merc C 300 Hybrid. Most journeys are in town, rush hour traffic. With 8.5K on the clock my average mpg = 48.7. The beauty of the system is the engine does not fire up unless you are doing more than 21 mph, or accelerating hard. When you take your foot off the accelerator the engine stops and the car free wheels, without any engine braking, all this time the battery gets a trickle recharge until you brake, then full recharge. If you need to motor, 0 to 60 in 6.4 secs. 1.3 secs faster than it's non hybrid relative.

 

In summary....more ecomony and lots more power when you want it. However, where the marketing brochure says ....Urban 72mpg , I have to ask what sort of environment that is evidenced within ?

 

Andy, I like you was a sceptic, but there is greater progress being made.

 

 

Cheers Peter

[Peter Cobbold]

That is a scary site, Peter. No doubt our masters will try and shut it down - to save electricity!

We are now down to just 1.2% spare capacity on the grid

http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Energy-capacity-warning-1f11.aspx

A windless 'high' over much of UK could easily tip that balance.

Peter

[Graham Robson]

Sorry, try again ....

Edited November 20, 2015 by Graham Robson