This refers to the practice of allowing a small amount of
combustible gas (LPG, CNG, natural gas, etc.) into the air intake of a diesel
engine for the purpose of increasing engine output or otherwise improving
performance. In a sense, it’s like
adding a nitro kit to a race car, giving a quick jolt of extra power when it’s
needed.
It can be as simple as what some truck drivers have been
doing for many decades now: keeping a BBQ gas bottle in the cab with them, with
a rubber hose trailing under the hood and into the air intake. When they need a little extra oomph to get up
a steep grade, they crack open the valve just a bit. There are also conversion kits available in a
variety of price ranges that can be purchased on the internet, with all that that
implies.
Proponents also claim that in addition to increased engine
output, fumigation reduces pollutants in the exhaust. The questions are these: Does it work?
Does it harm the engine? Is it
cost-effective? And finally, Why don’t manufacturers already supply equipment
designed to use this technique?
Does It
Work?
Anecdotally, truckies that use fumigation insist that it
works. I can certainly see no reason why
adding extra fuel to the charge in a combustion cylinder would not result in an
increase in pressure and temperature. It
makes sense. Higher cylinder pressure
translates directly into greater force on the piston and therefore torque on
the driveshaft.
It is also conceivable that higher combustion temperatures might
result in the fuel being burned more completely, leading to lower hydrocarbon
emissions and less soot particulates in the exhaust. On the other hand, higher temperatures will
also undoubtedly lead to more nitrogen oxides (NOx) pollutants in the exhaust.
Test reports I’ve read aren’t as clear as the theory, and
show that it is a mixed bag. Under some
conditions, exhaust quality is improved across the board, while in others, it
is unchanged or even worse. Under ideal
and controlled conditions, the hydrocarbon and particulates can be reduced with
only a minimal increase in NOx. But that
result was mainly found on engines for which there was a lot of room for
improvement to begin with.
Does It Harm
Engines?
Short answer, yes.
Yes, it most definitely does. Higher torque and
higher combustion temperatures means that pressure in the combustion chamber
was, in a word, higher. That places
additional strain on the cylinder head, walls, piston connecting rod, bearings,
crankshaft, and on all the bolts holding the engine together. Diesel mechanics have reported to me seeing
stretched head bolts, bent con rods, wiped and scored main bearings, snapped crankshafts, holes burned through
pistons, and burnt valve seats. In other
words, over-fumigating a diesel engine will wreck it more thoroughly than
almost anything else you could do on purpose.
The tricky part is that it doesn’t always wreck the engine,
and not always right away. A diesel
engine is designed to produce a certain amount of torque, and so its components
are designed to withstand a certain maximum stress, plus a margin for
safety. Many older engines were
over-built, to be on the safe side. It
didn’t matter if they ended up being much heavier as a result. But newer engines are more optimized. Besides being cleaner-burning with lower emissions,
they are also lighter weight, which improves the fuel consumption and
performance. But it also means that
components are exactly as strong as they need to be, and not much more. Forcing the engine to produce more torque
than it was designed for is really asking for trouble.
Is it
cost-effective?
Truckies that use fumigation very moderately (so as not to blow
up their engines) say that the gas (LPG, CNG etc) replaces some of the diesel
fuel that the engine consumes. And since
gas is cheaper per MJ (energy unit) than diesel fuel, they end up saving a few
dollars per trip. I would point out that
they are probably running older equipment that leaves a lot of room for
improvement in the efficiency department.
In any case, I hope they are putting that money aside in an interest-bearing
account for when they need to buy a new engine. Knowing truckies, I’d say this is unlikely.
Why Don't Manufacturers Do This?
Since modern, advanced technology diesel engines are designed
for optimum performance, efficiency and low emissions, they don’t need extra bits. They are already fairly clean-burning, and
are producing about as much torque as they can without blowing up. To get more torque, an operator should select
a larger engine. After-market fumigation
systems, aside from definitely voiding the warranty, will risk ruining a
perfectly good engine.
The
Crackpot Zone
"Do thou something stupid for Mine amusement!" |
Ignoring all of the above, some operators out there say, “What
if you didn’t even need to BUY the gas?
What if you could generate the gas for free as you drive and save fuel, increase torque, etc etc?” The
idea is to use electrical current from the alternator, pass it through a water
cell, and produce hydrogen gas that is then sucked into the air intake.
One hustler actually told me that God told him to create
this product. Really? God said that? Well, I know God, and He’s a real
kidder. He was just winding you up, mate,
having a go at you for being so ignorant about science! He’s up there on His cloud laughing his beard
off at you right now.
I did the calculations on this a couple of years ago, and
followed it up by analysing test data from a prototype hydrogen gas generator. If
your alternator produces 10 amps at 13.5 volts, and if your electrolysis cell
is far, far more advanced than just a water bottle with a couple of wires stuck in it (most
internet offerings are exactly this) with anything close to optimum gas
production, then those 10 amps are going to produce something like 10 g/h of
H2 gas.
THAT'S TEN GRAMS PER HOUR!!!
But most likely the “gas cell” will not be producing
anything measureable. Sure, you will see
a few gas bubbles forming on the wires, but they will not represent anything
close to the amount of gas needed to make any difference whatsoever.
A diesel engine consuming something like 12 liters of fuel per hour is using around 10 kg or 10,000 grams of fuel per hour. Ten grams (or less!) of gas is not going to be even measurable in terms of engine output. Any effect will be purely “placebo effect.” Drivers will convince themselves that it’s making a difference because they don’t want to admit they’ve been scammed. And to prove that they are not victims of a con, they will email me all kinds of anecdotal evidence that the idea works.
Right.
No comments:
Post a Comment