Testing Home-Built HHO Dry Cell on 2006 Dodge Sprinter 2500

As we test various kinds of HHO generators, one single problem keeps popping up with all brute force electrolyzers (wet cells with the electrode assembly immersed in water) is the overheating of the cell – we discussed this problem here earlier:

http://autofuelsaving.com/info/problem-of-overheating-for-hho-generators

As we mentioned at the above link, the only solution – without using a current-limiting electronic circuit – is to switch to the dry cell configuration. So we built one and installed it on our 2006 Dodge Sprinter cargo van. Here are pictures of the cell installed at the back of the passenger seat and the reservoir/bubbler used for the cell:

So we did some road tests with it and here is the most recent one that was done on April 14, 2009 for a trip to Edmonton. In order to make this test result comparable to the one we did on August 19, 2008 and reported here, we chose to keep the cell OFF for the trip from Calgary to Red Deer and then ON from Red Deer to Edmonton. The cell current was very steady (around 14A), unlike the wet cell design. For or curiocity and convenience, I chose to inject HHO before the air filter this time. The weather on that day was not good: icy snow all the way from Calgary to Edmonton with the temperature around zero degree. That explains why the fuel consumptions were quite high compared to those of Auguest 6 and 19 last year. As usual, we filled the tank to the rim on each fill-up. Anyway, here is the fresh and raw data, together with the last year’s August 19 result listed as well for comparison purposes:

As the baseline test established on August 19, 2008 shows, the second lag of the trip consumed about 20% more fuel than the first lag. With this factor considered, the fuel saving percentage should be:

1- (12.4/15.4) x (9.7/12.6) = 0.38 =========> 38%

With all conditions being kept the same, the fuel consumptions for the first and second lags may not be as big as 23% (1 – 9.7/12.6). Maybe 10 or 15% is more a realistic figure – we need to confirm this. So a saving of 27% might be a more realistic result.

We also did three short distance (46.8KM) round-loop (Calgary to Airdrie and back to Calgary) tests on April 1, 2009 with (1) HHO turned OFF for the first loop and (2) HHO turned ON for the second and (3) HHO cell turned ON but with HHO released into the air rather into the air intake. Interesting enough, the results show not much difference with these three conditions, just like what we tested before. Here are the raw data with both the tank-fill ScanGauge CTE (current trip economy) results listed:

So these short-distance test results are consistent with our previous results – fuel saving seems to pick up when traveling over a relatively long distance (greater than 100KM). Don’t know why it is this but it appears to be so for all our earlier tests. If you can come up with an explanation, please post it using the comment area below. Thanks!

Note that turning the cell ON but releasing HHO to air (with no HHO injection) does not affect the fuel consumption much. This shows the cell does not cause more fuel consumption – at least not for short distance drivings.

Update on June 3, 2009 – Just came back from another trip to Edmonton after getting the van serviced. This time was the baseline test – we took the HHO production and injection completely off to see if the second lag of driving (from Calgary to Red Deer) indeed consumed more fuel than the second lag (from Red Deer to Edmonton). The result was a bit of something unexpected:

As you see from the first two lines above, the second lag does show the second lag consumes more fuel than the first, but not as much as the Aug 19, 2008 result indicated. The weired thing is the Edmonton city driving result – it consumed less fuel than the highway driving, which is certainly not right as we all know city driving should have consumed more fuel than the highway driving.

The only explanation for these results is the fuel stations as we used three different fuel stations: Calgary Shell, Red Deer Shell and Nisku Shell. They are all Shell stations but their pumps may not be the same even if they use the exactly same diesel. I feel the Nisku station pumps more fuel than the first two, that may explain why the fuel consumption results for lines 3 and 4 (obtained after filling both at the same Nisku station) are both smaller than lines 1 and 2.

We may have to avoid the lag trip test in the future and take a long loop test instead to eliminate the pump variations involved with different fuel stations. So the same pump and the almost same route for all future tests – note that it is impossible to make the Edmonton city driving route exactly the same as each trip I go to either the same or different customers. Hopefully the same highway driving for each loop route test is long enough to keep the Edmonton city driving variations to the minimum. The best way, as someone suggested, is to rent a dynamometer and do all these tests inside a dynamometer shop to fully eliminate all unwanted variations – but there is an extra cost involved and that is not a real-life test either.

Popularity: 14% [?]

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.