| [GMCnet] My book about over 100 improvements [message #277889] |
Fri, 15 May 2015 17:47  |
glwgmc
Messages: 1014
Registered: June 2004
Karma: 10
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Kerry,
I think you are confusing cold cranking amps for the amp hour capacity of the battery (measured by how long it will last under a 20 amp continuous load). A typical 12vdc car battery will have 60 to 80 amp hours of capacity. A 12vdc car battery with 750 amp hours of capacity would weigh well over 500 pounds and be a “bit” large for our GMC use!
Jerry
Jerry Work
The Dovetail Joint
Fine furniture designed and hand crafted in the 1907 former Masonic Temple building in historic Kerby, OR
glwork@mac.com
http://jerrywork.com
=============
Message: 11
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 14:03:51 -0600
From: Kerry Pinkerton
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] My book about over 100 improvements
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I admit to not understanding the installation of the HHO system. I get the concept and I get the 'can't get something for nothing' aspect. That is,
you loose more energy in reduced engine performance due to increased alternator load than you gain from improved fuel combustion.
HOWEVER, we have a little advantage. That is, many (if not most)of us plug into campground power most nights. This means that we could charge a
battery (or two) and run the HHO system off the resulting 'free' energy. I see that Chuck used 14 Amps as input to his system. I'm electrically
challenged but would not even a typical 750 amp hour battery provide 14 amps for 53 hours or so? That's well over a week of driving for most of us
and I expect the vast majority would plug in somewhere every week or so.
Does the aspect of not using the engine to power the device change the cost benefit analysis?
===============
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Jerry & Sharon Work
78 Royale
Kerby, OR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] My book about over 100 improvements [message #277929 is a reply to message #277897] |
Sat, 16 May 2015 18:55  |
 |
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
USAussie wrote on Fri, 15 May 2015 22:50G'day,
With all due respect as far as I'm concerned the only way to PROVE if HHO really reduces fuel consumption is to take an engine, put
it on a dyno and test it with the HHO system "running" and with off.
Regards,
Rob M.
Rob,
It has been done. As a small part of an absolutely massive program.
We ran an HHO, H2, pure water vapor, and liquid water/alcohol (mix to not freeze at -40°).
HHO was not a measurable improvement.
H2 could increase combustion efficiency, but was not cost effective to carry H2 in HO bottles in a passcar.
Pure water vapor was an improvement in fuel efficiency at most intake temperatures, but it posed throttle body icing issues.
Water/alcohol injection worked just as it did on an R2800 at take-off power. At very high manifold pressures in can reduce detonation, but is very difficult to control in and "over the road" situation.
Matt - the refugee dyno lab rat.
Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] My book about over 100 improvements [message #277958 is a reply to message #277931] |
Sun, 17 May 2015 07:03 |
|
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
A Hamilto wrote on Sat, 16 May 2015 20:04Matt Colie wrote on Sat, 16 May 2015 18:55...Water/alcohol injection worked just as it did on an R2800 at take-off power. At very high manifold pressures in can reduce detonation, but is very difficult to control in an "over the road" situation.
Matt - the refugee dyno lab rat. What was the level of instrumentation and control technology available at the time? "Difficult to control" 10 - 20 years ago could very well be "easily manageable" today.
This was 1990+MY hardware and it was the Ford sequential ECU (monitored operation as by cylinder) with an expanded memory, and we had to substantially rewrite the code to make it work at all. We did make the ADI work on dyno, but in both the road simulator and vehicle tests, there were problems. A big one was that if the operator let the engine off WOT the ADI would momentarily put the fire out and the hydrocarbons would skyrocket.
Could it be done with today's controls? Possibly. I don't have an engine lab to play in these days.
Matt
Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
|
|
|
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
