|
Global
Energy Technology Test Results Analysis for Hydrogen Boost
I am
very pleased with the test results forwarded by Global Energy Technology
who had the Hydrogen Boost diesel system tested by a University in Europe. They were concerned that the results
were “slim” but I would not call them “slim.” However the man at the
University may be correct in his suggestion about the benefit of the
hydrogen being less than optimized because of a multiple squirt injection
pattern caused by electronic fuel injection. I have discussed this with a
Caterpillar official and Caterpillar will not disclose the exact timing
of their multiple squirt injection but admits that they do use multiple
squirts. I have theories about why
it may or may not influence the benefit of hydrogen injection. But I could not put any analysis to my
theories without knowing the timing of the multiple squirt
injection. But I think we have
proof that even with multiple squirt injection, if that is what this
engine has, hydrogen injection still has a significant benefit.
As mentioned in the previous
report, optimization of hydrogen gas production rate is important when
testing engine efficiency, especially when using a low power setting as
was used in all the tests done so far.
To emphasize this point we can look at the following chart
reporting the specific fuel consumption at various gas production rates
or electrolyzer currents comparing to no hydrogen production.
Notice
that there was an optimum benefit from the hydrogen injection at 19 amps
gas production, and that when gas production was increased to 31 amps we
sacrificed some of the benefit by producing more gas than needed, with en
energy cost that exceeded the energy returned to us with the combustion
of the excess hydrogen produced.
So for this particular engine at this power setting it seems that
around 19 amps is the optimum gas production current for the
electrolyzer.
However if we had more power
settings tested we might find that overall throughout the engine
operating envelope, when we weight each power setting with the frequency
of each power setting’s use during normal operation of the vehicle, we
might find that for this size engine the overall optimum gas production
current is actually 12-15 amps, or maybe 20-25 amps, depending on the
normal power settings of the vehicle.
The single setting tested may
be a good gauge for highway cruise driving. But I would like to see the test
results for all power settings and gas production rates, before making a
recommendation other than what we have used as a result of experience and
feedback from our customers.
It is important to note here
that the results we have from the most recent tests are indeed proof that
hydrogen injection can indeed improve fuel consumption. I would also like to repeat what I have
always said about our complete system, this is just the results we have
proven from only one part of the system.
With the proven benefits of our fuel heater, engine treatment, and
recommended increased tire pressure, we should easily be able to see the
typical 10% improvement in fuel mileage that we saw in tests done and
reported on in our January 2006 newsletter.
Anyone expecting or
advertising an increase in mileage of 20% or more without changing in
driving habits, is likely deceiving himself and
his customers.
Emissions
Reductions Analysis
Again I
am greatly encouraged by the present test results. As seen in our initial tests, the
unburned hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions were greatly reduced
(50+%).
In the present test results there are reductions of carbon
monoxide emissions by up to 67%, and reductions in unburned hydrocarbon
emissions by up to 75%, even though there was a catalytic converter
installed on the vehicle. I would
still like to see what the reductions were in front of the catalytic
converter. More notable on the
present test is the fact that the NOx emissions
were also reduced, while in the last test they were slightly elevated
(3.5%). In the present test
results the NOx emission were reduced by up to 6.6%,
which may not be a big number but it sure is better than an increase in
emissions. One thing that was not
tested, which is most important on larger diesel vehicles, is opacity or
particulate matter emissions (soot).
Hydrogen injection has always reduced this type of emissions, as
it does with HC and CO.
I am
still a little disappointed to see the length of each on these tests. These extremely long tests were a waste
of time and money. The lab time
that was charged for could have given us 5-10 times as much data, and that would have been a comprehensive test
worth paying for. This test was
like flying around the world just to prove that an airplane can fly. But I am pleased with the data
obtained. It certainly proves
beyond any doubt that hydrogen injection has benefits of reduced fuel
consumption, increase torque, and reduced exhaust emissions, everything
we have been saying in our web site since 2001. I will publish a report of these
excellent results in the newsletter section of our web site. Good job guys. Keep up the good work.
Summary
Specific Fuel
consumption g/kWh reduced
2.56%
Carbon Monoxide
Emissions % reduced up to 67%
Hydrocarbon
Emissions ppm reduced up to 75%
Nitrous Oxide
Emissions ppm reduced up to 6.6%
Particulate
Emissions/opacity not
tested
|