4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Using HHO (Hydroxy) and hydrogen enriched castor oil biodiesel in compression ignition engine

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 42, 期 36, 页码 23366-23372

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.01.091

关键词

Biodiesel; Hydrogen; Castor oil; HHO (Hydroxy); Performance; Emissions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrogen and HHO enriched biodiesel fuels have not been investigated extensively for compression ignition engine. This study investigated the performance and emissions characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with hydrogen or HHO enriched Castor oil methyl ester (CME)-diesel blends. The production and blending of CME was carried out with a 20% volumetric ratio (CME20) using diesel fuel. In addition, the enrichment of intake air was carried out using pure HHO or hydrogen through the intake manifold with no structural changes with the exception of the reduction of the amount of diesel fuel for a naturally aspirated, four cylinder diesel engine with a volume of 3.6 L. Hydrogen amount was kept constant with a ratio of 10 L/min throughout the experiments. Engine performance parameters, including Brake Power, Brake Torque, Brake Specific Fuel Consumption and exhaust emissions including NOx and CO, were tested at engine speeds between 1200 and 2600 rpm. It is seen that HHO enriched CME has better results compared to pure hydrogen enrichment to CME. An average improvement of 4.3% with HHO enriched CME20 was found compared to diesel fuel results while pure hydrogen enriched CME20 fuel resulted with an average increase of 2.6%. Also, it was found that the addition of pure hydrogen to CME had a positive effect on exhaust gas emissions compared to that adding HHO. The effects of both enriched fuels on the engine performance were minimal compared to that of diesel fuel. However, the improvements on exhaust gas emissions were significant. (C) 2017 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据