JetStar ReportERMD 2004-32 v2 Final

Study of Heavy Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emissions and Fuel Consumption with the use of a JetStar Hydrogen Gas Generator

Prepared by: Peter Barton P.Eng

Head, Engineering and Vehicle Testing

Emissions Research and Measurement Division

Environmental Technology Centre

Environment Canada

24 February 2005

ERMD Report # 2004-032

Jetstar Hydrogen Gas Generator #2004-032 1

Table of Contents

1. Abstract ..............................................................................................................3 2. Project Title........................................................................................................4

2.1 Objective ......................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Project Participants ......................................................................................................... 4

3. Background........................................................................................................4 4. Test Description .................................................................................................5

4.1 Test Vehicle .................................................................................................................... 6

4.2 Test Fuels ........................................................................................................................ 6

4.3 Fuel Temperature and Fuel Cooling ............................................................................... 7

4.3.1 Flash Point .............................................................................................................. 7

4.3.2 Fuel Density ............................................................................................................ 7

4.4 Fuel Heat Exchanger....................................................................................................... 7

5. Test Program Methodology ..............................................................................8 5.1 Service Accumulation..................................................................................................... 8

5.2 Chassis Dynamometer Testing ....................................................................................... 8

5.3 Facility and Equipment Description ............................................................................... 9

5.4 Chassis Dynamometer .................................................................................................... 9

6. Testing Procedure............................................................................................10 6.1 JetStar Installation..................................................................................................... 12

7. Results and Discussion....................................................................................15 7.1 Fuel fraction hydrogen of water.................................................................................... 15

7.2 JetStar Advertised Water Consumption.................................................................... 16

7.3 Empirical Measurements and System Efficiency ......................................................... 17

7.4 Overall System Efficiency ............................................................................................ 19

8. Exhaust Emissions and Fuel Consumption Results.....................................20 8.1 Combustion Efficiency ................................................................................................. 20

9. Conclusions ......................................................................................................23 10. Appendix ..........................................................................................................25


Study of Heavy Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emissions and Fuel Consumption with the use of a JetStarTM Hydrogen Gas Generator

1. Abstract

At the request of Synergic Distribution Inc., the fuel consumption and exhaust emissions were evaluated for a 2004 International class 8 Diesel Truck, equipped with a Cummins ISX400 engine while operating with and without the JetStar hydrogen gas generator.

The JetStar is an aftermarket retrofit hydrogen powered generator that uses electrolysis to produce hydrogen and oxygen on demand, from water, and injects it into the intake manifold after the turbocharger. JetStar literature states that the product, when used as a retrofit for diesel engines, results in increased power, cleaner emissions and a significant savings in fuel and maintenance costs.

Chassis dynamometer exhaust emission tests were conducted in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the JetStar product to reduce fuel consumption and exhaust emissions. Modified Arterial and Commuter heavy duty vehicle chassis dynamometer exhaust emission test cycles were used during this program.

The evaluation regime indicated that the use of the JetStar hydrogen generator product did not affect combustion efficiency of the test vehicle engine nor did it improve exhaust emission rates or fuel consumption. The combustion efficiency of the engine remained above 99.59% through out the program, regardless of the test cycle or whether the JetStar was operational or not.

Exhaust emission rates of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, total hydrocarbons, and total particulate mass (soot) did not show any statistically significant change with use of the JetStar generator. Similarly, fuel consumption did not indicate any statistically significant change from the vehicle baseline configuration with the use of the JetStar system.

The second question is whether the on-board generation of a hydrogen/oxygen gas mixture through electrolysis is efficient from an energy balance standpoint.

The calculations based on the advertised water consumption and empirical measurements made during the program indicate that the JetStar electrolysis system is, in the best case, 60.3% efficient at converting electrical energy from the alternator to a process gas mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. In other words, it requires approximately 1.65 times the electrical energy from the alternator compared to the chemical energy in the form of hydrogen.

Similarly, the efficiency of using the electrical system of a vehicle to generate hydrogen through electrolysis was calculated to be approximately 11.4%. To generate one unit(MJ) of hydrogen energy with the JetStar system requires 8.77 units (MJ) of energy from diesel fuel.

Based on the JetStar advertised water consumption of 1.8 litres per 5000 miles (8047 km), the energy from hydrogen injected into the intake manifold of the diesel engine is equivalent to 0.00829 litres of diesel fuel per 100 kilometres.


2. Project Title

The study of a heavy-duty diesel fuelled vehicle exhaust emissions and fuel consumption with the use of a JetStar hydrogen gas generator.

2.1 Objective

To characterize and compare the exhaust emissions and fuel consumption from a diesel fuelled heavy duty vehicle operating with and without the hydrogen generator.

2.2 Project Participants Synergic Distribution Inc. Emissions Research and Measurement Division, Environment Canada

3. Background

With increasing pressure on governments and vehicle manufacturers to improve fuel consumption and exhaust emissions from all forms of vehicle and internal combustion engines, a myriad of concepts have been brought forward in an effort to improve overall vehicle efficiency.

The typical internal combustion engine used in the modern vehicle is fuelled with gasoline, propane or natural gas for spark ignition (SI) engines or diesel fuel for diesel engines.

For spark-ignition engines, running at stoichiometric air/fuel ratio, the combustion efficiency is usually in the range 95 to 98 percent.1 For diesel engines, which always operate lean, the combustion efficiency is normally higher above 98 percent.2

With the advent of stricter exhaust emission standards for passenger cars and light trucks, vehicle and engine designers have incorporated electronic engine management systems in order to ensure that the air/fuel mixture is always at the chemically correct or stoichiometric proportion for complete combustion. These electronic engine systems continuously monitor the exhaust gas composition, throttle position, and mass of engine intake air, among other parameters, and adjust the amount of fuel delivered to the engine.

Current electronically fuel injected spark ignited engines have done away with the traditional tune-up that was conducted to recalibrate the carburettor in an attempt to maintain the stoichiometric air/fuel ratio and allow close to complete combustion. A present day tune-up consists of evaluating the various sensors, like the very important oxygen sensor, to ensure proper operation and changing oil, fuel, and air filters, and spark plugs.

In comparison to an uncontrolled gasoline vehicle built in the late 1960s, three-way catalytic converters and electronic engine management have reduced exhaust emissions by well over 95%.

Fuel consumption of a vehicle is a function of more than simply the combustion efficiency of the engine. Driving style, traffic patterns, ambient temperature and wind conditions, the overall condition of the vehicle and the vehicle load, all play a role in vehicle fuel consumption.

1 Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, John B. Heywood, McGraw-Hill 1988, P.82 2 Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, P.83


In a SI engine, only 25% to 28% of the heat energy from the combustion of the fuel is used to produce usable power to drive the wheels. The rate is 34% to 38% for a diesel engine.3 As a result, an improvement in the combustion efficiency for a SI engine of 5% could only produce a maximum theoretical reduction in fuel consumption of the engine of 1.25%.

4. Test Description

In this study a heavy-duty vehicle was subjected to an exhaust emission test schedule, which simulates typical operating cycles of a heavy-duty duty truck. The following is a general outline of the exhaust emissions evaluation portion of the development project.

3 Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, table 12.1, P. 674


4.1 Test Vehicle

Table 1. Vehicle Description

Test Vehicle International Tractor Model 9200i6X4

Chassis Manufacturer International Truck Model Year 2004 Chassis Serial # 2HSCEAPRS5C051252 Engine Manufacturer Cummins Engines Engine Model ISX400400ST Engine Model # 79047047 Engine Family 4CEXH0912XAJ

P/N 3683289 S/N 23027738 D/C 05082004 ESN 79047047

Engine #s

ECM CODE : AB10417.04-80 000SC

Engine Displacement 15 litres Advertised Engine Power 400 bhp @ 2000 rpm

Eaton Fuller Transmission Manual 10 speed

Air Intake Turbo Charged Alternator Leece-Neville BLP2309

12V, 160 Amps

Certified Emission Rate (engine dynamometer) EPA/CARB NOx+NMHC 2.5 grams/bhp-hr Particulate Mass 0.10 grams/bhp-hr

Table 2. Chassis Dynamometer Testing Conditions

Chassis Dynamometer Testing ConditionsInertia Weight kgs 23551

lbs 52000Absorbed Power @ 50 miles/hr hp 43.7

@ 80.45 km/hr kW 32.6 4.2 Test Fuels

Commercially available seasonal diesel fuel was used. The specifications of the test fuel can be found in the appendix.


The ERMD purchases test fuel in bulk in order to ensure that the fuel supply remains constant within each test program. Test fuel is supplied to the vehicle directly from fuel barrels in order not to have to drain and refill the vehicle fuel tanks. This set-up also facilitates the use of a fuel cooler to ensure that the fuel does not overheat during testing.

4.3 Fuel Temperature and Fuel Cooling

Very high fuel temperatures affect fuel density and present a potential safety hazard.

Fuel density changes with temperature, and therefore the mass of fuel that can be injected into the cylinder. There is growing anecdotal evidence to suggest that heavy duty vehicles with low air flow around the fuel tanks are experiencing engine de-rating due to high fuel temperature. The fuel temperature presents a very real variable that needs to be taken into account in a comprehensive chassis dynamometer testing program.

4.3.1 Flash Point

The Flash Point4 of a fuel is the temperature at which the quantities of vapour, which a combustible fluid emits into the atmosphere, are sufficient to allow a spark to ignite the vapour-air mixture above the fluid. Safety considerations (transport, storage) indicate that diesel fuels must meet the requirements for Class A III (flash point >55C).

4.3.2 Fuel Density

There is a reasonably constant correspondence between a diesel fuels calorific value and its density; higher densities have a higher calorific value. Assuming constant injectionpump settings (and thus constant injection volume), the use of fuels with widely differing densities in a given system will be accompanied by variations in mixture ratios stemming from fluctuations in calorific value. Higher densities provoke increased particulate emissions, while lower densities lead to reductions in engine output5.

4.4 Fuel Heat Exchanger

The heat exchanger used by the ERMD to cool the fuel is a tube and shell design using the domestic water supply as the cooling medium. The heat exchanger is connected into the fuel return line between the engine and the fuel barrel. The heat exchanger is used to maintain the fuel temperature in a stable fashion and with-in the operating parameters of both the engine and the fuel. Figure 1 illustrates the heat exchanger set-up.

4 Bosch Automotive Handbook 5th Edition, Society of Automotive Engineers. P. 242 5 Bosch Automotive Handbook 5th Edition, Society of Automotive Engineers. P. 242


Figure 1 Fuel Barrel and Fuel Heat Exchanger Set-up

The heat exchanger was used to maintain the fuel temperature in a stable fashion and with-in the operating parameters of both the engine and the fuel.

5. Test Program Methodology

5.1 Service Accumulation

Service accumulation was conducted to allow for activation of the product as per instructions in the product literature or product spokesperson. Three hundred kilometres of accumulation was performed with the JetStar installed to allow for any electronic learn functions in the vehicle electronic management system to stabilize. The accumulation was performed on the chassis dynamometer simulating both city and highway driving.

When delivered to the ERMD, the initial odometer reading was 4830 km. Service accumulation began at 4912 km and was completed at 5218 km.

5.2 Chassis Dynamometer Testing

The driving cycles used were a modified Arterial and the Commuter heavy-duty chassis dynamometer exhaust emission driving cycles. Three repeats of these cycles were performed


with and without the JetStar installed in order to provide a measure of the repeatability of the tests.

5.3 Facility and Equipment Description

The test equipment for this program consists of an environmentally controlled vehicle test cell containing a heavy duty vehicle chassis dynamometer and a corresponding exhaust emissions sampling system and analyzer bench. This test instrumentation complies with the set-up requirements for light duty vehicle exhaust emission compliance testing as designated in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) Division 5. The testing procedures and requirements are identical to those found in the USEPA Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), volume 40, part 86.

The emission rates of THC, CO, CO2, and NOx were determined by collecting a proportional sample of the dilute exhaust in Tedlar "bags" and analysing the contents of the bag using a Heated Flame Ionization Detector (for THC), Non-Dispersive Infrared instruments (for CO and CO2) and a Heated Chemiluminescence instrument (for NOx). Continuous analysis of these exhaust components was also performed. Particulate Mass (PM) rates were determined using the gravimetric method. Fuel consumption was determined by the carbon balance method used throughout the industry. The fuel consumption calculation is located in the Appendix.

5.4 Chassis Dynamometer

The exhaust emission chassis dynamometer has the capability of simulating both road load power (RLP) or absorbed power and the inertia weight of the vehicle. Control of the vehicle load is controlled by an electronic dynamometer controller that continuously adjusts the forces exerted on the vehicle based on the initial input parameters and the indicated vehicle speed. Figure 2 illustrates the truck set-up on the chassis dynamometer.


Figure 2 2004 International Truck Set-up in Chassis Dynamometer Test Laboratory

6. Testing Procedure

All of the laboratory test procedures comply with the protocols detailed in the CEPA 99 Division 5 document, and the USEPA CFR Volume 40, Part 86 and Part 600 for heavy-duty vehicle exhaust emissions testing and calculation of fuel consumption.

With all of the baseline tests complete, an ERMD technician installed the JetStar in accordance with instructions in the Installation Manual and per discussions with Synergic representatives.

Chassis dynamometer service accumulation of 300 kilometres was conducted before the product tests were conducted.

A series of three Arterial and Commuter heavy-duty chassis dynamometer exhaust emission driving cycles were conducted with the product in operation on the vehicle.

Table 3 provides details of the test cycles and both cycles are illustrated graphically in Figures 3 and 4.

Table 3. Exhaust Emission Test Cycles

Test Cycle

Cycle Duration (seconds

)

Average

Speed (kph)

Maximum Speed (kph)

Distance (kilometers)

Distance (miles)

Modified Arterial 450 21.91 49.68 2.74 1.70

Modified Commuter 450 42.13 68.30 5.27 3.28


50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4000

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 450

Time (sec)

Spe

ed (m

ph)

Figure 3. Modified Arterial Test Cycle

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Time (sec)

Spe

ed (m

ph)

Figure 4. Modified Commuter Test Cycle


6.1 JetStar Installation

The JetStar system was installed as per the Dynamic Installation Manual provided. The main unit was installed on the back of the tractor as illustrated in Figure 5. Two issues dealing with wiring and safety arose during the installation and required clarifications from Synergic technicians. The JetStar system comes with a heavy duty six conductor wiring harness, however, only four of those wires are used, the other two wires being redundant. No mention of this could be found in the installation manual and advice from the Synergic technicians was required. Additionally, the system is designed to be active when the ignition switch is turned on. This could be a safety issue as there could be hydrogen/oxygen gas produced with out the engine running, the result being a build-up of an explosive gas mixture in the engine intake manifold. As a safety precaution, and under the advice of the Synergic technicians, the JetStar electrical power was routed through the switch for the vehicle driving lights. This strategy prevented any electrolysis from taking place unless the driving light switch was turned on.

Figure 5 Installation of JetStar


Figure 6 JetStar Water bottle installation.

The injector was installed in the intake manifold after the turbocharger. The turbocharger raises the air pressure in the intake manifold, significantly above atmospheric. In order to flow the hydrogen-oxygen gas mixture from the electrolysis process, the JetStar system must build up enough pressure to overcome the high pressure in the engine intake manifold. The system comes with a Swagelock pressure relief valve rated at 50 to 150 psi. It was assumed the valve was preset to open at 50 psi. To verify this, an oil filled Winters pressure gauge was installed ahead of the valve. A picture of the set-up can be found in Figures 7 and 8.


Figure 7 JetStar installed and operating in intake manifold.

Figure 8 Pressure gauge reading >50psi.


7. Results and Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of using an on-board electrolysis system to produce a hydrogen/oxygen gaseous mixture and inject it into the intake manifold of an internal combustion engine. There are two issues in this study. Firstly, is there any benefit in injecting minute quantities of hydrogen/oxygen mix into an internal combustion engine with respect to exhaust emissions or fuel consumption? Secondly, is the production of the hydrogen/oxygen gas mixture from an on-board electrolysis system efficient from an energy balance standpoint?

The original premise of an on demand hydrogen generator is that by adding hydrogen to the intake manifold of an internal combustion engine, the hydrogen will either add energy to the air/fuel mixture thus displacing some of the carbon based fuel (diesel, gasoline), or the hydrogen will improve the combustion efficiency of the engine thereby improving exhaust emissions and reducing fuel consumption.

The following tables are the results of calculations to determine system efficiency of the JetStar electrolysis hydrogen production and the possible diesel fuel displaced by the injection of hydrogen into the combustion chamber.

Inputs to the tables were derived from the advertised water consumption of the JetStar system and empirical data taken during the course of the study.

The final table, Table 11, illustrates the efficacy of on-board hydrogen production for vehicles.

7.1 Fuel Fraction Hydrogen of Water

The fuel fraction hydrogen of water (FFH2) is the portion of water that is hydrogen, based on the molecular weight of each constituent. The FFH2 is used in the calculation of energy in the form of hydrogen that the JetStar electrolysis system produces from a given quantity of water.

The formula for determining the FFH2 is :

H20 + Energy H2 + O2 FFH2 = MWH2/MWH2O MWH2O : Molecular Weight of Water (H2O)

MWH2 : Molecular Weight of Hydrogen (H2)


Table 4 Determination of Fuel Fraction Hydrogen of Water

C

@ 0C @ 20C of Hydrogen 0.09 0.08 kg/m3 of Oxygen 1.43 1.33 kg/m3 of Diesel 0.8522 kg/l of Wate

alorific Value (MJ/kg)

Properties 120Properties 0Properties 42.5Properties r 1.00 kg/l

raction Hydrogen of Water(H2O)0

Fuel F

Carbon Monoxide

(CO)Carbon

Dioxide (CO2) Water (H2O) Hydrogen (H2) O

12.011 28.011 44.01015.9991.008 18.015 2.016

Density

Molecular Weights (MW)

xygen (O2)

CarbonOxygen 31.999Hydrogen

Fuel Fraction of H2 = MWH2/MWH2O = 0.1119 Mass of H2O

7.2 JetStar Advertised Water Consumption

The Dynamic Fuel Systems Inc. JetStar brochure indicates that the water consumption of the system is 1.8 litres per 5000 miles or 90 hours. Table 5 calculates the volume of water used per kilometre and minute.

Table 5 Calculated Water Consumption

Water consumptionadvertised water consumptionone 1.8 litre bottle per 5000 miles or 90 hours.

Volume (litres)distance

(kilometres) litres/kmml/km (g/km)

Volume (litres) time (minutes) litres/minute

millilitres/minute of Water (ml/min,

grams/minute)

1.8 8047 0.000224 0.2237 1.8 5400 0.000333 0.3333

5000 miles 90 hours


Table 6 illustrates the quantity of energy in the form of hydrogen that is produced when the electrolysis is conducted at the rate calculated in Table 5. For simplicity, the electrolysis is considered to be 100% efficient at converting water to hydrogen and oxygen.

In order to better illustrate the amount of energy released by the electrolysis process, a conversion is made to the equivalent energy from diesel fuel. If the hydrogen was free, not produced on board, then the hydrogen energy would have the possibility of displacing 0.00829 litres/100km of diesel fuel.

Table 6. Hydrogen Energy Calculations based on Water Consumption

Water Consumption of Jetstar 1.8 litres Water/5000 miles

grams H2O/km FFH2

grams H2/km

Calorific Value

(MJ/kg)

Energy contribution of H2/kilometer

0.2237 0.1119 0.0250 120 0.0030 MJ/km

Diesel Fuel 42.5 MJ/kg

0.00007 kg/km of diesel fuel 0.00008 litres/km of diesel fuel 0.00829 litres/100km of diesel fuel

Water Consumption of Jetstar 1.8 litres Water/90 hours

grams H2O /minute FFH2

grams H2/minute

Calorific Value

(MJ/kg)

Energy contribution of

H2/minute0.3333 0.1119 0.0373 120 0.0045 MJ/minute

Diesel Fuel 42.5 MJ/kg

0.00011 kg/minute of dies0.00012 litres/minute of dies0.00742 litres/hour of dies

Energy from Hydrogen is equivalent to el fuel el fuel el fuel

Energy from Hydrogen is equivalent to

7.3 Empirical Measurements and System Efficiency

The JetStar requires electrical power from the vehicle alternator to operate. The current was measured over several driving cycles and the average was found to be 15.1 amps at a nominal 12 volts. When the system was running there was little variation in current draw, regardless of the vehicle speed and load.

The electrical power to the JetStar system is calculated at 0.651 MJ/hr. The calculation of the diesel fuel needed to generate that quantity of electrical power is based on the conversion efficiency of using the internal combustion engine to burn diesel, convert that heat to rotating motion, and turn the alternator. The partial calculation table is illustrated below in Table 7. The complete table can be found as Table 11.


Table 7 Conversion Efficiency

Chemical uel (Diesel)

Combustion Efficiency

Mechanical Efficiency

Alternator Efficiency

100% 99.5% 38.0% 50.0%Cumulative

fficiency 99.5% 37.8% 18.9%

F

E

Averge Electrical Current Draw Electrical Power IN

Current (A)Voltage (V) (nominal) Power (W)

15.1 12 180.7 0.651 MJ/hr

Conversion Efficiency Diesel to Electrical 18.9%

Power (J/hr)650546

Diesel Fuel required to continuously generate 0.081 kg/hr180.7 Watts 0.095 litres/hr

Where:

Combustion efficiency: >99.5% (tables 11 and 12)

Mechanical Efficiency: typical is 34 38% 6

Alternator Efficiency: typical is 50%7

Table 8 Electrical Power IN

To measure the gaseous flow rate from the JetStar system a Bios International DryCal DC-Lite Primary Flow Meter was used. The flow rate was measured to be 0.65 litres/minute. The documentation from Dynamic Fuel Systems Inc. indicates that there is no separation of the hydrogen and oxygen gases as would be typical in a commercial electrolysis unit. That being said the assumption is that there is no separation and the following calculations are based on a gaseous mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. Therefore, since one mole of water disassociates into one mole hydrogen and half mole of oxygen, the mass flow rate of hydrogen can be calculated and thus based on the density and calorific value (heating value), the energy is calculated on a per minute basis. Since power is energy/time, the power OUT due to hydrogen in the gas is written in MJ/hour.

6 Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, John B. Heywood, McGraw-Hill 1988, P.674 7 Bosch Automotive Handbook 5th ed Pg. 881


Table 9 Gaseous Flow Rate from JetStarTM

Gasous Flow Rate from Jetstar

H2 H2

Energy contribution of H2/minute

Energy contribution of H2/hour

Displacement of Diesel Fuel by H2

Measured Gaseous Flowrate kg/minute MJ/kg MJ/minute MJ/hr litres(diesel)/minutelitres/min m3/min

0.65 0.00065 0.00005 120 0.00654 0.392 0.00018

H2O + E ---> H2 + O2 H2 2.01594 g/moldensity 0.0839 kg/m3 MJ/hr litres(diesel)/minute

0.392 0.00018Bios International DryCal DC-Lite Primary Flow MeterModel No. DCL-H Rev. 1.08.Serial No. 1851

Chemical Power OUT

Jetstar EfficiencyChemical Power OUT 0.392 MJ/hr 60.3%Electrical Power IN 0.651 MJ/hr

Example of Large Commercial Electrolysis Hydrogen Generator

Hydrogen Generator Efficiency

Electricity consumption

per MJ of Hydrogen

The JetStar system efficiency is now simply the power OUT divided by the power IN. In other words the system requires approximately 1.65 times more electrical power from the alternator than is available in the process gas injected into the intake manifold of the engine.

Table 10 JetStar Efficiency

This compares reasonably well with the example below of a commercial electrolysis hydrogen generator.

4.2 kWh/m3 46.67 kWh/kg 0.389 kWh/MJ 1.4 MJ(elec)/MJ(chemical)71.4% Efficiency

http://www.stuartenergy.com/our_products/hydrogen_generation.html

Ratio of Electrical energy IN to Chemical energy OUT

Electricity consumption per volume of Hydrogen

Electricity consumption per mass of Hydrogen

7.4 Overall System Efficiency

Table 11 describes the overall efficiency of converting diesel fuel to hydrogen using a vehicle on-board electrolysis hydrogen generator.


Table 11

Calculated System EfficiencyChemical Fuel (Diesel)




100% 99.5% 38.0% 50.0%Cumulative Efficiency 99.5% 37.8% 18.9%

H2 Gen Efficiency

Overall System Efficiency

60.3% 11.4%

11.4%

Combustion Efficiency Measured


Internal Combustion Engine Fundementals, Pg. 674

Chemical Energy to Heat Energy (diesel fuel to heat)

Heat Energy to Mechanical Energy


Bosch Automotive Handbook 5th ed, Pg. 881

Hydrogen Generator Efficiency Calculated above.Overall System Efficiency

Efficiency of converting Chemical energy (diesel) to Chemical energy (Hydrogen, Oxygen)

Electrical Energy to Chemical Energy

Mechanical Energy to Electrical Energy

8. Combustion Efficiency, Exhaust Emissions and Fuel Consumption

The purpose of this test program was to evaluate the product for its effect on vehicle exhaust emissions and fuel consumption. The test vehicle had a series of chassis dynamometer exhaust emission and fuel consumption tests conducted in the baseline or original equipment manufacturers (OEM) configuration, and an identical series while using JetStar fuel conditioning product.

8.1 Combustion Efficiency

The combustion efficiency calculation is based on the carbon balance calculation.

Combustion efficiency = (CO2*MWC/MWCO2)

(CO2*MWC/MWCO2+ CO*MWC/MWCO+ HC*FFC+TPM* MWC/MWTPM)

Where:

CO2, CO, HC are mass based exhaust emissions rates (grams/mile, grams/kilometre, grams, grams/kW-hr)

MWC is the molecular weight of elemental carbon, (12.0112)

MWCO2 is the molecular weight of CO2 (44.0100)

MWCO is the molecular weight of CO (28.0106)

FFC is the fuel fraction carbon for the fuel or HC


Test fuel FFC = 0.8656 from fuel analysis

MWTPM is the molecular weight of the Total Particulate Mass, (12.0112)

For the purposes of this study TPM is assumed to be 100% elemental carbon

The combustion efficiency of the Cummins engine remained very steady throughout the test program. Over the course of 6 Arterial cycles and 6 Commuter test cycles the combustion efficiency of the engine only varied between 99.59% and 99.71%, irrespective of the of the test cycle or whether the JetStar product was installed or not.

The following tables describe the emission rates of the regulated emissions of Total Hydrocarbons (THC), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX ) , Total Particulate Mass (TPM, soot) and the unregulated emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) over the Arterial and the Commuter Heavy Duty Truck test cycles conducted in this study. All of the emission rates are reported in grams/mile (g/mi). The fuel consumption was calculated from the exhaust emission rates using the carbon balance method and is reported in litres/ 100 kilometres.

The arithmetic mean and standard deviation of the exhaust emission and fuel consumption test results are presented in the results to provide an indication of the test repeatability and statistical significance of the results.

The coefficient of variation (COV) is a measure of the relative dispersion of the data and is calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the mean of the data. The COV is generally expressed as a percentage.

The small standard deviation shown in Tables 12 and 13 indicates good repeatability of the vehicle during the test program

Table 12 and 13 illustrate the comparison of the Commuter and Arterial cycle results and indicates that the JetStar product does not have a statistically significant effect on exhaust emissions or fuel consumption.


Table 12 Commuter Cycle Chassis Dynamometer Exhaust Emission Test Results and Fuel Consumption

ENVIRONMENT CANADAEmissions Research and Measurement Division

International Model 9200i6X4

Fuel: Commercially available low sulphur dieselDriver: Mike WhiteLab # 1

Configuration Test Date

Carbon Monoide

(CO)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Oxides of Nitrogen

(NOx)

Total Hydrocarbon

(THC)Total Particulate

Mass (TPM)Combustion Efficiency

g/mi g/mi g/mi g/mi g/mi %

Baseline 22-Dec-04 1 1.04 807 8.48 0.26 0.102 99.65%22-Dec-04 2 1.12 819 7.70 0.26 0.113 99.64%22-Dec-04 3 1.01 821 7.94 0.32 0.088 99.65%

Number of Sample 3Average 1.05 815 8.04 0.28 0.101 99.64%

stdev 0.06 7.70 0.40 0.03 0.01 0.00Coefficient of Variance 5.32 0.94 4.95 12.37 12.02 0.01

Configuration Test Date CO CO2 NOx THC TPM

Fuel Consumption

L/100km

18.7018.9919.03

18.910.180.95


g/mi g/mi g/mi g/mi g/mi %

with JetStar 23-Dec-04 1 1.00 808 9.28 0.24 0.1052 99.66%23-Dec-04 2 0.99 811 9.04 0.26 0.0940 99.67%23-Dec-04 3 1.08 805 8.41 0.27 0.1054 99.64%

Commuter Test Cycle

Commuter Test Cycle

FuelL/100km

18.7318.8018.66

Number of Sample 3Average 1.02 808 8.91 0.26 0.102 99.66% 18.73

stdev 0.05 3.00 0.45 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.07Coefficient of Variance 5.10 0.37 5.06 5.95 6.44 0.02 0.36

Baseline vs. JetStarsigma 0.05 5.84 0.43 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.14

t distribution 0.66 1.58 -2.51 1.07 -0.05 -1.04 1.60 95% confidence level 2.78 2.78 2.78 2.78 2.78 2.78 2.78

n =N1+N2-2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4% difference( (final-initial)/initial)*100

Significant ? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO


Table 13 Arterial Chassis Dynamometer Exhaust Emissions and Fuel Consumption

ENVIRONMENT CANADAEmissions Research and Measurement Division

International Model 9200i6X4

Fuel: Commercially available low sulphur dieselDriver: Mike WhiteLab # 1

Configuration Test Date

Carbon Monoide

(CO)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Oxides of Nitrogen

(NOx)

Total Hydrocarbon

(THC)Total Particulate

Mass (TPM)Combustion Efficiency

Fuel Consumption

g/mi g/mi g/mi g/mi g/mi % L/100km

Baseline 21-Dec-04 1 3.15 1685 7.87 0.67 0.3883 99.50% 39.1121-Dec-04 2 2.94 1666 8.48 0.64 0.3426 99.53% 38.6621-Dec-04 3 3.00 1637 7.56 0.64 0.3339 99.52% 37.99



Configuration Test Date CO CO2 NOx THC TPMCombustion Efficiency Fuel

g/mi g/mi g/mi g/mi g/mi % L/100km

with JetStar 23-Dec-04 1 3.13 1698 9.68 0.58 0.3172 99.53% 39.4123-Dec-04 2 3.22 1742 8.91 0.61 0.3388 99.53% 40.4323-Dec-04 3 2.94 1697 8.29 0.65 0.3484 99.53% 39.38



Baseline vs. with JetStarsigma 0.13 25.04 0.60 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.58

t distribution -0.64 -2.43 -2.03 1.93 1.05 -2.25 -2.42 95% confidence level 2.78 2.78 2.78 2.78 2.78 2.78 2.78

n =N1+N2-2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4% difference( (final-initial)/initial)*100

Significant ? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

Arterial Test Cycle

Arterial Test Cycle

9. Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of using a JetStar on-board electrolysis system to produce a hydrogen/oxygen gaseous mixture and inject it into the intake manifold of an internal combustion engine. There are two issues addressed in this study. Firstly, is there any benefit in injecting minute quantities of a hydrogen/oxygen mix into an internal combustion engine with respect to exhaust emissions or fuel consumption? Secondly, is the production of the hydrogen/oxygen gas mixture from an on-board electrolysis system efficient from an energy balance standpoint?

A total of 12 valid chassis dynamometer exhaust emission and fuel consumption tests were conducted in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the JetStar product to reduce fuel consumption and exhaust emissions. The Arterial and the Commuter Heavy Duty Vehicle chassis dynamometer exhaust emission test cycles were used during this program.


The evaluation regime indicated that the use of the JetStar hydrogen generator product did not affect combustion efficiency of the test vehicle engine nor did it improve exhaust emission rates or fuel consumption of the vehicle. The combustion efficiency of the engine remained between 99.5% and 99.8% through out the program regardless of the test cycle or whether the JetStar product was installed or not.

Exhaust emissions rates of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, total hydrocarbons, and total particulate mass (soot) and calculated fuel consumption did not show any statistically significant change with use of the JetStar product.

The second question was whether the on-board generation of a hydrogen/oxygen gas mixture through electrolysis is efficient from an energy balance standpoint.

Based on the JetStar, advertised water consumption of 1.8 litres per 5000 miles (8047 km), the energy from hydrogen injected into the intake manifold of the diesel engine is equivalent to 0.00829 litres of diesel fuel per 100 kilometres.

The calculations based on the advertised water consumption and empirical measurements made during the program indicate that the JetStar electrolysis system is, in the best case, 60.3% efficient at converting electrical energy from the alternator to a process gas mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. In other words, it requires approximately 1.65 times the electrical energy from the alternator compared to the chemical energy in the form of hydrogen.

Similarly, the efficiency of using the electrical system of a vehicle to generate hydrogen through electrolysis was calculated to be approximately 11.4%. To generate one unit(MJ) of hydrogen energy with the JetStar system requires 8.77 units (MJ) of energy from diesel fuel.


10. Appendix

A -1. Diesel Fuel Specifications

CommercialSpecification Low Sulphur

Currentrep 28/10/04rcvd 22/9/04

Density(Kg/m3) 852.2Specific Gravity 0.8526

Gravity deg API=141.5/SG-131.5 34

Cetane Number (ASTM D613) 44.4Cetane Index

Carbon (wt%) 86.31Hydrogen (wt%) 13.22Nitrogen (mg/L)

Total Sulfur % (max) 0.039Total Sulfur (ppm,ug/L) 392

Volume % Aromatics (minimum) 16.6Volume % Saturates 82.2

Flashpoint, min C 77Flashpoint, minFCloud Point, C -18.7

Viscosity, Centistokes 2.84

Distillation Range, % Evap(corrected)(deg. C)

IBP (initial boiling point) 139.210% 19750% 27190% 337

End Point 378


A-2. JetStar Electrical Current Draw

Jetstar Current Draw measurements

Meter Reading Current (amps) Voltage Power (Watts)Average 0.01471 14.71 12.00 176.52high 0.0152 15.2 12 182.4low 0.0138 13.8 12 165.6

Meter Reading Current (amps) Voltage Power (Watts)Average 0.01511 15.11 12.00 181.33high 0.016 16 12 192low 0.0148 14.8 12 177.6

Meter Reading Current (amps) Voltage Power (Watts)Average 0.01471 14.71 12.00 176.52high 0.0152 15.2 12 182.4low 0.0138 13.8 12 165.6

Meter Reading Current (amps) Voltage Power (Watts)Average 0.01571 15.71 12.00 188.47high 0.0166 16.6 12 199.2low 0.013 13 12 156

Current (amps) Power (Watts)Overall Average 15.1 180.7


A-3. Fuel Consumption Calculation

The calculated fuel economy was based on the following carbon balance equation:

GCPG = grams of carbon per US gallon of fuel

GCPG = 3785.4 * fuel fraction carbon *fuel density

(for diesel assume GCPG=2778)

Hydrocarbons (HC), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Carbon Dioxide (CO2 ) reported in grams per mile

MPGC = miles per US gallon Carbon

MPGC = GCPG/ ((0.866*HC ) + (0.429*CO) + (0.273 * CO2))

To convert to fuel consumption in litres/100 kilometres:

Litres/100km = 235.22/MPGC


AbstractProject TitleObjectiveProject Participants

BackgroundTest DescriptionTest VehicleTable 1. Vehicle DescriptionTest FuelsFuel Temperature and Fuel CoolingFlash PointFuel Density

Fuel Heat Exchanger

Test Program MethodologyService AccumulationChassis Dynamometer TestingFacility and Equipment DescriptionChassis Dynamometer

Testing ProcedureJetStar Installation

Results and DiscussionFuel Fraction Hydrogen of WaterJetStar Advertised Water ConsumptionEmpirical Measurements and System EfficiencyOverall System Efficiency

Combustion Efficiency, Exhaust Emissions and Fuel ConsumptionCombustion Efficiency

ConclusionsAppendixMPGC = miles per US gallon Carbon

Documents

JetStar ReportERMD 2004-32 v2 Final