|
Back to Main page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Did you know? The Society for Automotive Engineers Technical Paper Series document number 2000-01-2206 states, “It is well known that hydrogen addition to spark-ignited (SI) engines can reduce exhaust emissions and increase efficiency.”
Below are testimonials and validation results using Hydrogen Command. More testimonials may be found under news letters. 02/25/2010 On February 25, 2010 a Hydrogen Command Boost electrolyzer (powered by a pair of battery chargers) was installed onto a 2004 Series 60 12.7 liter Detroit Diesel Engine rated at 515 horsepower attached to a dynamometer at the University of Northwestern Ohio. Pictures below show the engine, dynamometer, control console, and university staff
Data was collected at 100hp, 200hp, 300hp, and 400hp at both 1400 rpm and 1800 rpm. The data collected included RPM, intake air temperature measured at the intake manifold, Turbo Boost pressure measured after the air to air heat exchanger, exhaust gas temperature, torque, carbon monoxide emissions, NOx emissions, carbon dioxide percent in exhaust gases, and oxygen percent in exhaust gases, and mass of fuel used over each two minute period (measured with digital scales by reading the mass of the fuel tank before and after the two minute test intervals). This series of tests was repeated three times, once with no hydrogen production, once with the electrolyzer running at 32 amps average, and once with the electrolyzer running at 46 amps average. Data was recorded by hand since there was no capability to collect all the data with the same computer. No data was available for hydrocarbon emissions because the gas analyzer used for that was inoperative. Also the opacity of particulate matter in the exhaust was unable to be accurately measured because of equipment malfunction. Below is a graph of the fuel used during each two minute session, measured in kilograms.
Below is a graph of the same data but expressed as a fuel flow rate in gallons per hour.
Average reduction in fuel flow using 32 Amps on the electrolyzer was 9.28%. Average reduction in fuel flow using 46 Amps on the electrolyzer was 11.3%. Average exhaust gas temperature increase using 32 Amps was 5.2%. Average exhaust gas temperature increase using 46 Amps was 7.9%. Average reduction in Carbon monoxide emissions using 32 Amps was 19%. Average reduction in Carbon monoxide emissions using 46 Amps was 10.2%. Average reduction in NOx emissions using 32 Amps was 5.8%. Average reduction in NOx emissions using 46 Amps was 6.5%. No operable equipment was available to measure unburned hydrocarbon emissions or particulate matter emissions. Average reduction in total CO2 emissions is equivalent to the reduction in fuel flow stated above. As expected, because of more complete burning of the fuel, the % CO2 in the exhaust increased and the % O2 decreased with the Hydrogen Boost. Since power for the electrolyzer was furnished by an independent source, for comparison of a tractor trailer engine providing power to the electrolyzer by way of the alternator, the reduction in fuel flow would have been slightly less. The average power to the electrolyzer throughout the tests with hydrogen would have taken 0.73 horsepower. The average horsepower output during the tests was 250 hp. A 0.73 horsepower addition to that would have increase the fuel used by 0.3%. The average fuel savings of over 10.3% would therefore be only 10.0% if the power to the electrolyzer was provided by the alternator. This is consistent with Hydrogen Boost’s experience with dynamometer testing and in testing on Tractor trailer trucks using ECM reports to verify fuel savings.
Martin Bulk Milk - Truck #245 Hydrogen ECM Analysis 2nd truck 1st truck average 8.8% 02/23/10 I have two ECM reports on truck number 245 (vehicle ID 736835D and engine serial number NXS17366) taken on the same date (1/12/2010), one ECM covers 328095.3 miles and the other covers 116001.7 miles. We can calculate the baseline mileage by subtracting the 116001.7 miles from the 328095.3 miles to get the previous 212093.6 miles previously driven before the installation of the hydrogen injection system. Also we can calculate the drive fuel used during that time by subtracting the total fuel of 67865.1 minus total idle fuel of 4724.1 to get the total drive fuel of 63141.1 gallons since the truck was new. Also on the second ECM only we take the 21825.1 total fuels minus the 607 idle fuels to get drive fuel of 21218.5 gallons for the second ECM when hydrogen injection was operating. That leaves drive fuel for the initial 212093.6 miles to be 41922.6 gallons for a baseline drive fuel economy of 212093.6 divided by 41922.6 = 5.06 mpg. For the hydrogen injection trip of 116001.7 miles the drive fuel calculated above was 21218.5 gallons for a drive fuel economy of 116001.7 divided by 21218.5 = 5.47 mpg which agrees with the ECM reported drive fuel economy for the last trip. Comparing this with the baseline fuel economy of 5.06 we have a new drive fuel economy of 5.47 mpg for an increase of .41 mpg for an 8.1% increase in drive fuel economy. Doing similar calculations with the idle fuel economy we have a baseline of 1.31 hours per gallon and an average of 1.36 hours per gallon after hydrogen injection was installed for an improvement of 3.82% in idle fuel economy. Remember that idle is when the hydrogen injection system is turned off by the pressure switch and this improvement is due only to the cleaning of the carbon from the combustion chamber and the engine treatment. Now we must also look at other contributing factors to fuel economy. Notice that the cumulative average load on the truck since it was new as reported on the first ECM was 36% but the load for the last trip with hydrogen was 45%. The baseline portion of the total ECM would therefore have had an average load of only 31% so our improvement in drive fuel economy of 8.1% was despite an increase in load to almost half again as much load. Given the same load I would expect that the improvement in drive fuel economy would have been much closer to 10%. Below are the actual readings from the trucks computer.
01/10/2010 Our exclusive distributor for Hydrogen Boost/Command products in UK, Italy, Holland and Hungary, has coordinated testing on a diesel municipal bus in Hungary and here is a report from the municipality major about the results.
Magyarhertelend Község Önkormányzata 7394 Magyarhertelend, Kossuth u. 46. Tel/Fax: 72/390-758 E-mail: magyarhertelend@gmail.comGlobal Energy Technology 39 Airport House. Purley Way, Croydon. United Kingdom George Németh Úr részére Tárgy: Visszajelzés Tisztelt Németh Úr! Az önök által forgalmazott HIDROGEN BOOSTER üzemanyag megtakarító eszközzel kapcsolatos visszajelzést tesszük. A jármű, amelyben beszereltük (az Önök segítségével) Mercedes Sprinter 2.500 cm3 diesel üzemű 18+1 személyes busz. A próbaúton (Pécs-Budapest-Pécs) a jármű az eddigi 48 liter helyett cca. 44 litert fogyasztott, megtakarítás kb. 10%. Mivel a felszerelt Booster viszonylag nagy teljesítményű, ezért az előírtak szerint csökkentettük a benne lévő sav mennyiségét. A továbbiakban szerzett tapasztalatainkról tájékoztatjuk Önöket. Magyarhertelend, 2010-01-04. Tisztelettel: ENGLISH TRANSLATION Dear Shareholders Please note the Attached letter from the Major of Magyarhertelend Pecs Hungary. The content of the letter
says: The results are positive but It appears that they did the test with too much caustic soda in the system, hence there will be a new test that should give us far greater results. Imagine a country saving 10% of petrol !! surely for britain it could run in the billions !!! The system its a great news for saving energy and reduce CO2 !! Sincerely Francesco Fucilla MD Here is the report of the test published on our
distributor’s web site at Martin Bulk Milk 8.8% increase First truck of 3
From:
"VORPAHL
TRANSIT/MAINTENANCE
PLUS"
Mike,
Just a quick note to update you on
our ECM readings. Baseline, when
we started, was 5.4 mpg. After
two weeks with the system on, our
reading are 5.9 mpg. Noticeable
increase in power.
Sincerely, Dan Vorpahl
FRANCIS HOPKINS, INDEPENDENT TRUCKER Going from Reading, Pa. to Oklahoma City, a 1453 mile trip, and all the mountain climbing encountered with a 72,000 pound truck at 70 mph. I averaged 15% increase in mpg. That comes out to around $350.00 per week in fuel savings for me. Thanks again I HAVE ALSO NOTICED THE OIL HAS GOTTEN CLEANER WHICH I BELIEVE AT THIS TIME IS DUE TO BETTER BURNING OF THE FUEL AND THE OIL ON THE DIPSTICK IS NOT SHOWING ANY SIGNS OF UNBURNED FUEL IN THE OIL WHICH IS ANOTHER GOOD SIGN SINCE I INSTALLED THE HYDROGEN COMMAND THE INCREASED TORQUE HAS ALLOWED ME TO KEEP IT IN HIGHER GEAR, MAKING IT MUCH EASIER ON THE DRIVER AS WELL AS ANOTHER PLUS FOR MY FUEL MILEAGE. THE HYDROGEN COMMAND HAS BEEN A POSITIVE EXPERIENCE IN MY LIFE AND I AM GRATEFUL FOR YOUR SUPPORT DURING INSTALLATION. Can you imagine the savings on a fleet? Pick up the phone NOW! Testimonial by Gary Bailey by email on 8-30-07 I am Gary Bailey From Sedgwick Kansas I put a Model 40 Hydrogen Command System on my 1996 Freightliner with a 60 Series Detroit engine. Before the Hydrogen I got 6 MPGs. I filled my truck up west of St Louis, MO. and drove to Hagerstown, Maryland where I fill up again. I added up my miles from my GPS at 900 miles and I bought 110 Gallons and I have a generator I ran for 2 day that burns 5 gallons a day. The speed limits for trucks across IN, IL, & OH are 55 & 60 mph so that helps the fuel mileage. But I calculated my fuel mileage at 9 mpg. That looks like 50% improvement to me. I checked my fuel mileage going to Salt Lake City. Nebraska and Wyoming speed limits are 75 mph and out across the Mountains my fuel mileage was 6 ˝ MPGs. There was another Freightliner truck going to the same military base that had the same 60 Series Detroit engine without the Hydrogen Command and he got only 4 MPGs. That looks like over 50% improvement to me. THIS HYDROGEN SYSTEM WORK'S ! Gary Bailey Factory Comments: Knowing that speed has a lot to do with mileage and knowing that a Hydrogen Command equipped loaded tractor trailer can get mileage as follows: 5.8 mpg at 75 mph 6.4 mpg at 70 mph 7.9 mpg at 55 mph So Gary’s improvement from 6 mpg to 9 mpg was partially due to decreased speed and his increase in mileage due to the Hydrogen Boosted Command system was closer to 20%.
RV Results 20%-50% Better
Mileage 12/08 -01/09 Jon T. Wolf Trucking Green Bay, WI To Hydrogen Command: We had our first unit installed mid-summer of 08’. The unit worked well for a short period of time and then Hydrogen Command discovered there was a factory defect with the unit. They came out and installed a new unit and stood behind their product. Since the new unit was installed, our hydrogen command system has been operating efficiently; the most current ECM rating reports showed a fuel savings of 11.7%. Our driver has reported to us and our Hydrogen Command rep. an improvement in the overall performance of the truck; greater pulling power, less down-shifting uphill, and more torque. We have a second unit to install, and look forward to equipping the rest of the fleet. I was very skeptical at first. But I must say, "This product does indeed work." Thank you, Hydrogen Command. Sincerely, Jon T. Wolf
These statements are from actual customers. They
have not been paid or asked to lie. These are there own words, they are
customers just like you. Not friends we picked to tell a story. There results
may vary. But it is an obvious increase in fuel mileage. All above our 5%
guarantee.
Fox Valley Technical College Dynamometer Test Analysis 7-13-08 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. At each of the following load % and RPM settings, data was recorded. 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% load, 1200, 1400, 1600, and 1800 RPM. Data recorded included horsepower, torque, estimated fuel used, 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 injection 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. Following are charts presenting the data collected during the tests:
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.
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 injection gives the greatest benefit under "stressed combustion" as defined at http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/August%202007.html .Overall the hydrogen injection showed an average improvement in work done per unit of fuel burned of 16.6% 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 1500RPM). 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 injection shown in that section of the chart above (50% engine load and 1300-1400 RPM). This would increase mileage due to reduced speed but it would also take the best benefit of the hydrogen injection in relieving any stressed combustion caused by operating outside the sweet spot of the engine’s operation envelope. I 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 minor increases in fuel mileage but also notable increases in average speed, top gear distance, idle time per gallon of fuel, and top gear time. Notice the results reported below that were achieved with our hydrogen injection 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 PURDUE university RESULTS Another In Depth Analysis Going back to the tables of raw data for the petroleum diesel tests with and without Hydrogen Command, we once again take each data point and divide the torque by the fuel consumption to get the work done per gallon of fuel. Below we put those results side by side in a table form so you can easily compare the diesel alone results with the hydrogen assist results for each data point individually. Notice that the benefits of the hydrogen are really evident at high throttle settings, especially full throttle at less than 2300 RPM. I have been told that accelerating a tractor trailer down the road and powering up hills, the RPM is usually kept 1300 and 1900 which happens to be the range where Hydrogen Boosting gave a 17-31% increase in work done per gallon of fuel used at full throttle. I am also told that cruising RPM is usually kept between 1100 and 1500 which in a range where Hydrogen Boosting gave a 1-27% increase at 50% throttle. So if we can shut off the Hydrogen Command at idle and low throttle, low RPM conditions we could expect to see even better improvements than the 15% overall average for the operating envelope of the engine. Our plan is to make a change to our wiring kit to include a vacuum switch or throttle position switch that will turn on the hydrogen generator only at cruise and acceleration condition. This should enable us to expect a 20% increase in mileage on tractor trailers if they are driven whenever they are running, and not sitting all night idling.
Savings With Hydrogen Command In the charts below notice that hydrogen production is not free. It takes energy to produce the hydrogen and this energy does not always get compensated for with improved combustion and efficiency. The key is to produce only the hydrogen you need to ignite the combustion mixture at the ultra lean mixture we produce with our electronic control circuit or the normal fuel mixture in a diesel engine. If excess hydrogen is produced the improved mileage will be lower than what is possible a negative savings and at low cruise the savings may be negative or slightly positive. As stated in recent newsletter and documents the Hydrogen Command benefits are especially prevalent when high power and torque are being produced (when lots of fuel is being combusted). This really shows that Hydrogen Command can be most valuable with vehicles that are heavily loaded or underpowered. The conditions where Hydrogen Command may improve mileage the least is when the driver is already implementing driving tips like slow acceleration and cruising at low speeds and throttle settings. It may be possible that the cost of the hydrogen production could be higher than the benefits of that hydrogen to the miniscule amounts of fuel that are being combusted while using these efficient driving techniques. This is exaggerated when the operator sets his hydrogen production too high for the engine he is operating.
WHO has tested Hydrogen & our system? We have gone to great lengths to ensure. We bring you this system, being the best in quality, reliability, and performance.
ICEC Holding AG Zug (in Grundung) Tel.
+41-41-754-4090 Purdue University, University of NW Ohio
Fox Valley Technical College Diesel
Division NW Ohio State University US DOT Canadian Hydrogen Association President of American Hydrogen Association The Facts are here. If you want to save on fuel costs and lower emissions. Our product has a 6-8 month ROI. It works and if you maintain it it will work for years.
NEWS LETTER
Austrian
Road Tests Show Improvements in Mileage and Acceleration
University
Testing Promised This Month, EU Certification Depends On It
Diesel
Vehicle Achieves Better Than Expected Improvements
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
