|
Fox Valley
Technical College Dynamometer Test Analysis
On July
8, 2008 a Model 40SS hydrogen generator was temporarily installed onto
the Caterpillar C15 turbo-diesel engine attached to a Taylor engine
dynamometer in the diesel lab. A fresh
baseline test was performed, followed by turning on the hydrogen
generator and doing the same test procedure again with hydrogen gas
production at 40-50 amps supplied by the alternator of the dynamometer
engine.
At each
of the following load % and RPM settings, data were recorded. 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% load, 1200,
1400, 1600, and 1800 RPM. Data
recorded included horsepower, torque, hydrogen gas production rate, and
the weight of the fuel tank at the beginning and end of each 5 and/or 10
minute test period beginning after the dynamometer was set for load % and
RPM. For the 25% load tests a 10
minute period was used for better accuracy, given the low fuel
consumption. During the test with
Hydrogen Boost the 10 minute period was also used for the first few
settings at 50% load, because the results were slightly better than
expected and confirmation was desire by extending the test to 10 minutes
to get double data. The data was
indeed confirmed with the extended period so after the first few extensions
the 5 minute test period was resumed for the remainder of the tests.
The
charts below represent the data and calculations after anomalies and
miscalculations were corrected, including work achieved per unit of fuel
consumed (HP hr/lb) and % improvements caused by the Hydrogen Boost.
|
|
|
Baseline
run 7-8-8 without Hydrogen
|
|
|
RPM
|
Load
%
|
lbs
fuel/hr
|
HP
|
Torque
|
Amps
H2
|
HP
hr/lb
|
|
1200
|
25
|
40.8
|
90
|
395
|
0
|
2.206
|
|
1400
|
25
|
58.8
|
107
|
402
|
0
|
1.82
|
|
1600
|
25
|
54.6
|
85
|
277
|
0
|
1.557
|
|
1800
|
25
|
61.8
|
91
|
281
|
0
|
1.472
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1200
|
50
|
67.2
|
158
|
692
|
0
|
2.351
|
|
1400
|
50
|
102
|
180
|
670
|
0
|
1.765
|
|
1600
|
50
|
115.2
|
171
|
562
|
0
|
1.781
|
|
1800
|
50
|
108
|
178
|
520
|
0
|
1.648
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1200
|
75
|
93.6
|
231
|
1008
|
0
|
2.468
|
|
1400
|
75
|
117.6
|
266
|
1000
|
0
|
2.262
|
|
1600
|
75
|
126.
|
278
|
908
|
0
|
2.206
|
|
1800
|
75
|
146.4
|
288
|
832
|
0
|
1.967
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1200
|
100
|
105.6
|
259
|
1133
|
0
|
2.453
|
|
1400
|
100
|
159.6
|
355
|
1330
|
0
|
2.224
|
|
1600
|
100
|
156
|
383
|
1250
|
0
|
2.455
|
|
1800
|
100
|
174
|
400
|
1165
|
0
|
2.299
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1663.2
|
3520
|
12425
|
0
|
2.116
|
Notice on this second chart an extra column is added
to show the increase in HP hr/lb (horsepower hour per pound of fuel)
expressed as a percent increase compared to the baseline figure for each
data point.
|
|
|
With
Hydrogen Boost
|
|
|
|
|
RPM
|
Load
%
|
lbs
fuel/hr
|
HP
|
Torque
|
Amps
H2
|
HP
hr/lb
|
%
increase
|
|
1200
|
25
|
45
|
90
|
395
|
25
|
2
|
-9
|
|
1400
|
25
|
48
|
105
|
388
|
37
|
2.187
|
20
|
|
1600
|
25
|
45
|
83
|
270
|
44
|
1.845
|
18.5
|
|
1800
|
25
|
45
|
93
|
270
|
46
|
2.067
|
23.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1200
|
50
|
63
|
156
|
680
|
48
|
2.737
|
12.2
|
|
1400
|
50
|
78
|
174
|
651
|
48
|
2.231
|
26.4
|
|
1600
|
50
|
78
|
168
|
552
|
49
|
2.154
|
20.9
|
|
1800
|
50
|
90
|
175
|
510
|
50
|
1.944
|
11.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1200
|
75
|
78
|
228
|
995
|
49
|
2.923
|
18.4
|
|
1400
|
75
|
90
|
265
|
1000
|
48
|
2.945
|
8.2
|
|
1600
|
75
|
114
|
279
|
906
|
48.5
|
2.447
|
10.9
|
|
1800
|
75
|
132
|
291
|
846
|
48
|
2.205
|
12.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1200
|
100
|
96
|
259
|
1133
|
42
|
2.698
|
10
|
|
1400
|
100
|
138
|
354
|
1320
|
43
|
2.565
|
15.3
|
|
1600
|
100
|
138
|
380
|
1250
|
43
|
2.754
|
12.2
|
|
1800
|
100
|
150
|
394
|
1136
|
45
|
2.627
|
14.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1416
|
3494
|
12302
|
|
2.468
|
16.4%
|
These
results were quite consistent with tests that were done over a year ago
by Purdue University students and reported on in the May 2007 and
September 2007 newsletter pages at www.hydrogen-boost.com
Internet web site. Noticed on both
sets of results are areas in the operating envelope that showed major
improvements and similar areas on both tests that showed only minor improvements.
Most notable was the mid RPM range of the 75% load data that had
similar minor improvements. This
point may be when the unequipped diesel engine performs under optimum
conditions and hence may confirm the theory that Hydrogen Boost gives the
greatest benefit under “stressed combustion” as defined at http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/August%202007.html
.
Overall
the Hydrogen Boost showed an average improvement in work done per unit of
fuel burned of 16.4% over the operating range tested, but that should not
be used to develop an expectation of 16% increase in mileage for a
tractor trailer equipped with this common engine, especially if the
majority of driving happens to be done at the lowest improvement data
point (75% engine load and 1400 RPM) where only a 8.2% improvement was
noticed. However it should be
noticed that a conservative adjustment in driving speed that brings the
engine load closer to the 50% range and slightly lower RPM, would achieve
the benefits of the Hydrogen Boost shown in that section of the chart
above (50% engine load and 1300-1400 RPM), an improvement of 20-26%. This would increase mileage due to
reduced speed and wind resistance, but it would also take the best
benefit of the Hydrogen Boost in relieving any stressed combustion caused
by operating outside the sweet spot of the engine’s operation envelope.
It
should also be noted that the benefits of the hydrogen injection are not
usually evident in fuel mileage increase alone. When a typical driver finds greater
torque available it will be used in getting up the hills faster and
therefore shorter trip times. The
ECM report analyses done on numerous fleet vehicles have shown notable
increases in fuel mileage but also notable increases in average speed,
top gear distance, top gear time, and idle time per gallon of fuel.
Notice
the results reported below that were achieved with our hydrogen boost
system installed on a tractor trailer owned by Titletown.
Parameter Baseline with Hydrogen 2nd trip 3rd
trip difference
Drive
fuel economy 5.59 mpg 5.92 mpg 5.83 mpg 5.957mpg up 6.56%
Average
speed 54.4 mph 54.67 mph 54.4 mph 56.62mph up 4.1%
Idle time per gallon 1.411 hr/gal 1.585 hr/gal 1.596 hr/gal 1.646hr/gal
up 16.7 %
Top
gear distance 71.5 % 78.4 % 78.1% 75.15% up 5.1%
Top
gear time 58 % 65.3 % 59.83% 64.16% up10.6%
Mpg x mph 304.09 323.65 317.15 337.29 up 10.9%
This last parameter is a good overall calculation
introduced by Hydrogen Boost in our August 2001 newsletter. It takes into account both fuel mileage
and average speed.
Watch WBAY-TV News story about Hydrogen Boost by clicking here or on video below.
|