HH-O Hydromoving Technology

lorenz1955 · 01-28-2013, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEpointfive0

Dammit, I wanted you to lock it!!!

What if I yell at you? THEN will you lock it? LOL

Thanks for the very good welcome,
if it is a topic not interesting for you, you can also not read.
However if my posts you create problems, I will finish here my participation in the forum.
Excuse me prof for the trouble.
Many Thanks

wheee! · 01-28-2013, 07:21 AM

How many km's do you get out of the 6 litre water tank in the car? Is that just an experimental size tank or do you only need 6 litres per tank of gas?

lorenz1955 · 01-28-2013, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wheee!

How many km's do you get out of the 6 litre water tank in the car? Is that just an experimental size tank or do you only need 6 litres per tank of gas?

The tank was built only for testing, the car need 100 ml of gas for 100 Km,
with 6 litre distilled water in Tank .
Autonomy with 6 liters is 6000 Km, highway a 140 Km/hour speed with cruise control.
Of course at idle is lower , than highest speed is higher.
The average consumption are 100 ml of gas for 100 km .
Gas production is controlled by a control unit that produces gas according to the opening time of the injectors.
the best results are at constant speed
Thanks
lorenz

wheee! · 01-28-2013, 08:59 AM

Do you use the stock alternator for power generation or do you have larger batteries to create the energy for hyrdrogen separation?

wstar · 01-28-2013, 09:02 AM

Ok, I'll bite again...

Quote:

Originally Posted by lorenz1955

I choose Nissan 370Z with Hidro-System :

Nissan 370 Z 3700 cc 330Hp 258 Km/Hr

Ibrid ( 70% Gasoline + 30% HH-O )

30% HHO in what units (by volume? by weight?). I have a hard time imagining any on-board water splitter doing it fast enough to supply 30% of the car's fuel needs by either measure. What is the rate at which your system splits water on-board?

Quote:

Urban Conditions 10,3 Lt/100 Km CO2 = 243,8 g/Km

Extraurban Conditions 6,0 Lt/100 Km CO2 = 141,9 g/Km

Combined 7,6 Lt/100 Km CO2 = 179,5 g/Km

CO = 0,013 g/Km

HC = 0,007 g/Km

So these are the numbers for testing your modified Z, and are inclusive of changes to e.g. the weight of the vehicle? Does it include the weight of any on-board water storage? (and how long does that water last in kms or hours? Or are you picking up water vapor along the way to replenish? If so what are the limits on that at various relative humidities?) Do you have comparable numbers from the same test conditions for a stock 370Z?

I know you've mentioned dry-cell batteries in the past, which I assume are recharged by the alternator and use to provide current for splitting water. Is the test long enough that the existing charge in your battery array was not a factor (i.e. that you could pre-charge them to make everything work better and then drain them down during the test, or was it a complete cycle with the batteries maintaining the same average charge)?

There are a lot of questions you don't really answer. That's only scratching the surface. But the bottom line is that physics says you can't win this game on fuel efficiency, generally speaking. Maybe by combining the offset of several existing inefficiencies in the ICE design, you could pick up 5% or something, but then that would probably be offset by the additional vehicle weight and/or mfg cost and/or maintenance needs, etc. You've got an uphill battle against a brutal enemy, and his name is Science.

wstar · 01-28-2013, 09:03 AM

(And I see that you've already given some of the info above, e.g. water tank size. You mentioned in that post that other changes were made to the tuning, the idle speed, etc. The comparable test of a 370Z would have to be with similar efficiency tuning but without your system to be valid, IMHO).

wheee! · 01-28-2013, 09:09 AM

It seems that the lower rate of injection (100ml per 100kms) is part of the key to this technology. A lower consumption rate allows for a lower separation rate, hence the minimal 18A draw on the system in operation.
I would like to know what rate of consumption previous attempts were using to try and achieve similar efficiencies. I also think that the higher efficiency of the new VQ engines make this a more feasible proposition too. There is a lot to consider....

wstar · 01-28-2013, 09:17 AM

100ml of H2 + O2 is very very little. Sure, that would reduce current consumption and total water needed per km, but it also reduces the possible effects on fuel efficiency as well. The net power will still be a loss (in terms of energy from burning the H2 + O2 vs the current draw to separate them), that's guaranteed. Assuming his tests show positive overall efficiency gains, then we have to figure out where they came from.

He could be splitting more water for 18A than a pure-electric system would, by using some of the engine's waste heat to accelerate the process. As he's stated elsewhere, I think, it could be that he thinks he's upping the gasoline-burning efficiency of the engine with the addition of these gasses by affecting combustion temps, etc. Most likely (and this is what it has been in other cases in the past), he's made generic changes to the tuning of the vehicle (it's running too lean, idling slower, etc) and trading off long-term engine damage probabilities or tuning more specifically to the atmospheric conditions of the test (which could be done with a stock setup as well and has nothing to do with this HHO nonsense).

That it's known by all existing science that the water -> H2 + O2 -> burn cycle is less than 100% efficient means that part is bunk. If he's making up enough efficiency gains elsewhere in the system to offset that, chances are high those same gains can be realized in other ways without wasting energy on those conversions.

wheee! · 01-28-2013, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

100ml of H2 + O2 is very very little. Sure, that would reduce current consumption and total water needed per km, but it also reduces the possible effects on fuel efficiency as well. The net power will still be a loss (in terms of energy from burning the H2 + O2 vs the current draw to separate them), that's guaranteed. Assuming his tests show positive overall efficiency gains, then we have to figure out where they came from.

ILet's say a high power stereo system drawing 18 Amps or separating water at 18 Amps uses the same power. If that has minimal effect on the performance of the engine prior to adding the hydrogen and oxygen which results in more efficient combustion and reduced emissions, then he has achieved his goals. If the current draw reduces hp by more than the H + O combustion, then we have an issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

He could be splitting more water for 18A than a pure-electric system would, by using some of the engine's waste heat to accelerate the process. As he's stated elsewhere, I think, it could be that he thinks he's upping the gasoline-burning efficiency of the engine with the addition of these gasses by affecting combustion temps, etc. Most likely (and this is what it has been in other cases in the past), he's made generic changes to the tuning of the vehicle (it's running too lean, idling slower, etc) and trading off long-term engine damage probabilities or tuning more specifically to the atmospheric conditions of the test (which could be done with a stock setup as well and has nothing to do with this HHO nonsense).

Yes, I would agree that some tuning changes are definitely required to accommodate a system like this. He has already stated he wrote the software to change the ECU. He also stated that his system employs a multiple anonde cathode array for parallel separation and efficiency. All of which draws about 18 amps. If that is all it takes to generate 100ml of H+O per 100kms, then the results he is claiming are possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

That it's known by all existing science that the water -> H2 + O2 -> burn cycle is less than 100% efficient means that part is bunk. If he's making up enough efficiency gains elsewhere in the system to offset that, chances are high those same gains can be realized in other ways without wasting energy on those conversions.

This has yet to be proven conclusively I guess. I assume that is the point of his research.

I appreciate your serious comments and intelligent questions. Let's hope that there is real progress being made with this technology, merely for the sake of progress!

lorenz1955 · 01-28-2013, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wheee!

Do you use the stock alternator for power generation or do you have larger batteries to create the energy for hyrdrogen separation?

Dear Wheee,
I use an additional 13 .8V alternator 80 Amps, and a special lithium-lead battery by 55 Ah as power supply.
Thanks
lorenz

lorenz1955 · 01-28-2013, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

Ok, I'll bite again...

30% HHO in what units (by volume? by weight?). I have a hard time imagining any on-board water splitter doing it fast enough to supply 30% of the car's fuel needs by either measure. What is the rate at which your system splits water on-board?

The gas injection system Hydromoving, it picks up the signal from the ECU car, and with two microp, compare the car injector opening time, with quantity of gas available per ms,and establishes the opening time reduction car injector,at the same time regulates the opening time for gas injector.
Please excuse my english,bat the google translator is bull....and for me much more difficult.
Quite simply works this way.

Quote:

So these are the numbers for testing your modified Z, and are inclusive of changes to e.g. the weight of the vehicle? Does it include the weight of any on-board water storage? (and how long does that water last in kms or hours? Or are you picking up water vapor along the way to replenish? If so what are the limits on that at various relative humidities?) Do you have comparable numbers from the same test conditions for a stock 370Z?

If I can I attach an original car data file.
Ok. Filename-Z34 datasheet :
point 46,1 and 46,2.

Quote:

There are a lot of questions you don't really answer. That's only scratching the surface. But the bottom line is that physics says you can't win this game on fuel efficiency, generally speaking. Maybe by combining the offset of several existing inefficiencies in the ICE design, you could pick up 5% or something, but then that would probably be offset by the additional vehicle weight and/or mfg cost and/or maintenance needs, etc. You've got an uphill battle against a brutal enemy, and his name is Science.

Probably you forgot I studied Physics at the University...you aren't alone.
But is not a problem :
The result :That you like it or not, are carried out by an Italian State Agency, like "The US EPA " and certified, If you do not agree is not my problem.Who should decide is Nissan and then ...
By
lorenz

lorenz1955 · 01-28-2013, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

(And I see that you've already given some of the info above, e.g. water tank size. You mentioned in that post that other changes were made to the tuning, the idle speed, etc. The comparable test of a 370Z would have to be with similar efficiency tuning but without your system to be valid, IMHO).

the original Z34 data sheet in the next post.
Can you compare it.
By
Lorenz

lorenz1955 · 01-28-2013, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wheee!

It seems that the lower rate of injection (100ml per 100kms) is part of the key to this technology. A lower consumption rate allows for a lower separation rate, hence the minimal 18A draw on the system in operation.
I would like to know what rate of consumption previous attempts were using to try and achieve similar efficiencies. I also think that the higher efficiency of the new VQ engines make this a more feasible proposition too. There is a lot to consider....

The key to this technology is the Gas injection system with extra ECU.
Without injecting anything is possible.
By
lorenz

lorenz1955 · 01-28-2013, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

100ml of H2 + O2 is very very little. Sure, that would reduce current consumption and total water needed per km, but it also reduces the possible effects on fuel efficiency as well. The net power will still be a loss (in terms of energy from burning the H2 + O2 vs the current draw to separate them), that's guaranteed. Assuming his tests show positive overall efficiency gains, then we have to figure out where they came from.

Nissan protocol says....cars must original...setup....to have.
Not one screw change.
Now the car has 70,000 km without any problem, and run
always with system on.
By
Lorenz

DIGItonium · 01-28-2013, 12:34 PM

How about a thermalelectric generator since our engine and oil is like a crazy furnace?

01-28-2013, 07:21 AM	#62 (permalink)
wheee! A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Mod Capital of Canada Age: 57 Posts: 7,354 Drives: cars. lots of cars. Rep Power: 40181	How many km's do you get out of the 6 litre water tank in the car? Is that just an experimental size tank or do you only need 6 litres per tank of gas? __________________ H&R / Stillen / Berk / HKS / Swift / Michelin / UpRev / SPC / Amuse Rep / Seibon / Fringe XVO / TWM / more... My Journal

01-28-2013, 08:59 AM	#64 (permalink)
wheee! A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Mod Capital of Canada Age: 57 Posts: 7,354 Drives: cars. lots of cars. Rep Power: 40181	Do you use the stock alternator for power generation or do you have larger batteries to create the energy for hyrdrogen separation? __________________ H&R / Stillen / Berk / HKS / Swift / Michelin / UpRev / SPC / Amuse Rep / Seibon / Fringe XVO / TWM / more... My Journal

01-28-2013, 09:03 AM	#66 (permalink)
wstar A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 4,024 Drives: too slow Rep Power: 3594	(And I see that you've already given some of the info above, e.g. water tank size. You mentioned in that post that other changes were made to the tuning, the idle speed, etc. The comparable test of a 370Z would have to be with similar efficiency tuning but without your system to be valid, IMHO). __________________ 7AT Track Car! Journal thread / Car setup details

01-28-2013, 09:09 AM	#67 (permalink)
wheee! A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Mod Capital of Canada Age: 57 Posts: 7,354 Drives: cars. lots of cars. Rep Power: 40181	It seems that the lower rate of injection (100ml per 100kms) is part of the key to this technology. A lower consumption rate allows for a lower separation rate, hence the minimal 18A draw on the system in operation. I would like to know what rate of consumption previous attempts were using to try and achieve similar efficiencies. I also think that the higher efficiency of the new VQ engines make this a more feasible proposition too. There is a lot to consider.... __________________ H&R / Stillen / Berk / HKS / Swift / Michelin / UpRev / SPC / Amuse Rep / Seibon / Fringe XVO / TWM / more... My Journal

01-28-2013, 09:17 AM	#68 (permalink)
wstar A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 4,024 Drives: too slow Rep Power: 3594	100ml of H2 + O2 is very very little. Sure, that would reduce current consumption and total water needed per km, but it also reduces the possible effects on fuel efficiency as well. The net power will still be a loss (in terms of energy from burning the H2 + O2 vs the current draw to separate them), that's guaranteed. Assuming his tests show positive overall efficiency gains, then we have to figure out where they came from. He could be splitting more water for 18A than a pure-electric system would, by using some of the engine's waste heat to accelerate the process. As he's stated elsewhere, I think, it could be that he thinks he's upping the gasoline-burning efficiency of the engine with the addition of these gasses by affecting combustion temps, etc. Most likely (and this is what it has been in other cases in the past), he's made generic changes to the tuning of the vehicle (it's running too lean, idling slower, etc) and trading off long-term engine damage probabilities or tuning more specifically to the atmospheric conditions of the test (which could be done with a stock setup as well and has nothing to do with this HHO nonsense). That it's known by all existing science that the water -> H2 + O2 -> burn cycle is less than 100% efficient means that part is bunk. If he's making up enough efficiency gains elsewhere in the system to offset that, chances are high those same gains can be realized in other ways without wasting energy on those conversions. __________________ 7AT Track Car! Journal thread / Car setup details

01-28-2013, 12:34 PM	#75 (permalink)
DIGItonium A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Kansas Posts: 3,800 Drives: 09 Z34-TT 6MT Rep Power: 42	How about a thermalelectric generator since our engine and oil is like a crazy furnace? __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
370Z = old technology?	captain1	Nissan 370Z General Discussions	71	09-26-2012 08:44 PM
Tru Technology S44 Amp	TWYNBYZ	Audio & Video	1	08-10-2011 03:43 PM
New Paint Technology	Mergnthwirker	Exterior & Interior	2	10-29-2009 10:08 AM