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 JetStar
TM
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
Conditions
Inertia Weight kgs 23551
lbs 52000
Absorbed 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 Point
4
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 output
5
.
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 5
th
Edition, Society of Automotive Engineers. P. 242
5
Bosch Automotive Handbook 5
th
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, CO
2
, and NO
x
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
CO
2
) and a Heated Chemiluminescence instrument (for NO
x
). 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
)
Averag
e
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
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 450
Time (sec)
S
p
e
e
d

(
m
p
h
)

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)
S
p
e
e
d

(
m
p
h
)

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 (FFH
2
) is the portion of water that is hydrogen, based on the
molecular weight of each constituent. The FFH
2
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 FFH
2
is :
H
2
0 + Energy H
2
+ O
2
FFH
2
= MW
H2
/MW
H2O
MW
H2O
: Molecular Weight of Water (H
2
O)
MW
H2
: Molecular Weight of Hydrogen (H
2
)

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 120
Properties 0
Properties 42.5
Properties r 1.00 kg/l
raction Hydrogen of Water(H
2
O)
0
Fuel F
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Carbon
Dioxide (CO2)
Water (H
2
O) Hydrogen (H
2)
O
12.011 28.011 44.010
15.999
1.008 18.015 2.016
Density
Molecular Weights (MW)
xygen (O
2
)
Carbon
Oxygen 31.999
Hydrogen
Fuel Fraction of H
2
= MW
H2
/MW
H2O
=
0.1119
Mass of H
2
O
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 consumption
advertised water consumption
one 1.8 litre bottle per 5000 miles or 90 hours.
Volume (litres)
distance
(kilometres) litres/km
ml/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
H
2
O/km FFH
2
grams
H
2
/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 H
2
O
/minute
FFH
2
grams
H
2
/minute
Calorific
Value
(MJ/kg)
Energy
contribution of
H2/minute
0.3333 0.1119 0.0373 120 0.0045 MJ/minute
Diesel Fuel 42.5 MJ/kg
0.00011 kg/minute of dies
0.00012 litres/minute of dies
0.00742 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/hr
180.7 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 JetStar
TM

Gasous Flow Rate from Jetstar
H
2
H
2
Energy
contribution
of H
2
/minute
Energy
contribution
of H
2
/hour
Displacement of
Diesel Fuel by H
2
Measured Gaseous Flowrate kg/minute MJ/kg MJ/minute MJ/hr litres
(diesel)
/minute
litres/min m3/min
0.65 0.00065 0.00005 120 0.00654 0.392 0.00018
H
2
O + E ---> H
2
+ O
2
H
2 2.01594 g/mol
density 0.0839 kg/m3 MJ/hr litres
(diesel)
/minute
0.392 0.00018
Bios International DryCal DC-Lite Primary Flow Meter
Model No. DCL-H Rev. 1.08.
Serial No. 1851
Chemical Power OUT
Jetstar Efficiency
Chemical 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 Efficiency
Chemical
Fuel (Diesel)
Combustion
Efficiency
Mechanical
Efficiency
Alternator
Efficiency
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
Mechanical
Efficiency
Internal Combustion
Engine Fundementals,
Pg. 674
Chemical Energy to Heat Energy (diesel fuel to heat)
Heat Energy to Mechanical Energy
Alternator
Efficiency
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 = (CO
2
*MW
C
/MW
CO2
)
(CO
2
*MW
C
/MW
CO2
+ CO*MW
C
/MW
CO
+ HC*FFC+TPM* MW
C
/MW
TPM
)
Where:
CO
2
, CO, HC are mass based exhaust emissions rates (grams/mile,
grams/kilometre, grams, grams/kW-hr)
MW
C
is the molecular weight of elemental carbon, (12.0112)
MW
CO2
is the molecular weight of CO
2
(44.0100)
MW
CO
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
MW
TPM
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 (NO
X
)

, Total Particulate
Mass (TPM, soot) and the unregulated emissions of carbon dioxide (CO
2
) 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 CANADA
International Model 9200i6X4
Fuel: Commercially available low sulphur diesel
Driver: Mike White
Lab # 1
Configuration Test Date
Carbon
Monoide
(CO)
Carbon
Dioxide
(CO
2
)
Oxides of
Nitrogen
(NO
x
)
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 3
Average 1.05 815 8.04 0.28 0.101 99.64%
stdev 0.06 7.70 0.40 0.03 0.01 0.00
Coefficient of Variance 5.32 0.94 4.95 12.37 12.02 0.01
Configuration Test Date CO CO
2
NO
x THC TPM
Fuel
Consumption
L/100km
18.70
18.99
19.03
18.91
0.18
0.95
Combustion
Efficiency
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
Fuel
L/100km
18.73
18.80
18.66
Number of Sample 3
Average 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 0.07
Coefficient of Variance 5.10 0.37 5.06 5.95 6.44 0.02 0.36
Baseline vs. JetStar
sigma 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 CANADA
International Model 9200i6X4
Fuel: Commercially available low sulphur diesel
Driver: Mike White
Lab # 1
Configuration Test Date
Carbon
Monoide
(CO)
Carbon
Dioxide
(CO
2
)
Oxides of
Nitrogen
(NO
x
)
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% 39.11
21-Dec-04 2 2.94 1666 8.48 0.64 0.3426 99.53% 38.66
21-Dec-04 3 3.00 1637 7.56 0.64 0.3339 99.52% 37.99
Number of Sample 3
Average 3.03 1663 7.97 0.65 0.355 99.51% 38.59
stdev 0.11 24.27 0.47 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.56
Configuration Test Date CO CO
2
NO
x THC TPM
Combustion
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% 39.41
23-Dec-04 2 3.22 1742 8.91 0.61 0.3388 99.53% 40.43
23-Dec-04 3 2.94 1697 8.29 0.65 0.3484 99.53% 39.38
Number of Sample 3
Average 3.10 1712 8.96 0.61 0.335 99.5% 39.74
stdev 0.14 25.79 0.70 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.60
Baseline vs. with JetStar
sigma 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
Commercial
Specification Low Sulphur
Current
rep 28/10/04
rcvd 22/9/04
Density(Kg/m
3
) 852.2
Specific Gravity 0.8526
Gravity deg API=141.5/SG-131.5 34
Cetane Number (ASTM D613) 44.4
Cetane Index
Carbon (wt%) 86.31
Hydrogen (wt%) 13.22
Nitrogen (mg/L)
Total Sulfur % (max) 0.039
Total Sulfur (ppm,ug/L) 392
Volume % Aromatics (minimum) 16.6
Volume % Saturates 82.2
Flashpoint, min

C 77
Flashpoint, min
F
Cloud Point, C -18.7
Viscosity, Centistokes 2.84
Distillation Range, % Evap
(corrected)(deg. C)
IBP (initial boiling point) 139.2
10% 197
50% 271
90% 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 12.00 176.52
high 0.0152 15.2 12 182.4
low 0.0138 13.8 12 165.6
Average 0.01511 15.11 12.00 181.33
high 0.016 16 12 192
low 0.0148 14.8 12 177.6
Average 0.01471 14.71 12.00 176.52
high 0.0152 15.2 12 182.4
low 0.0138 13.8 12 165.6
Average 0.01571 15.71 12.00 188.47
high 0.0166 16.6 12 199.2
low 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 (CO
2
) reported in grams per
mile

MPG
C
= miles per US gallon Carbon
MPG
C
= GCPG/ ((0.866*HC ) + (0.429*CO) + (0.273 * CO
2
))

To convert to fuel consumption in litres/100 kilometres:
Litres/100km = 235.22/MPG
C


JetStar ReportERMD 2004-32 v2 Final

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

JetStar ReportERMD 2004-32 v2 Final

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Study of Heavy Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emissions and Fuel Consumption with

the use of a JetStar Hydrogen Gas Generator

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi