Quote:
Originally Posted by wstar
100ml of H2 + O2 is very very little. Sure, that would reduce current consumption and total water needed per km, but it also reduces the possible effects on fuel efficiency as well. The net power will still be a loss (in terms of energy from burning the H2 + O2 vs the current draw to separate them), that's guaranteed. Assuming his tests show positive overall efficiency gains, then we have to figure out where they came from.
|
ILet's say a high power stereo system drawing 18 Amps or separating water at 18 Amps uses the same power. If that has minimal effect on the performance of the engine prior to adding the hydrogen and oxygen which results in more efficient combustion and reduced emissions, then he has achieved his goals. If the current draw reduces hp by more than the H + O combustion, then we have an issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wstar
He could be splitting more water for 18A than a pure-electric system would, by using some of the engine's waste heat to accelerate the process. As he's stated elsewhere, I think, it could be that he thinks he's upping the gasoline-burning efficiency of the engine with the addition of these gasses by affecting combustion temps, etc. Most likely (and this is what it has been in other cases in the past), he's made generic changes to the tuning of the vehicle (it's running too lean, idling slower, etc) and trading off long-term engine damage probabilities or tuning more specifically to the atmospheric conditions of the test (which could be done with a stock setup as well and has nothing to do with this HHO nonsense).
|
Yes, I would agree that some tuning changes are definitely required to accommodate a system like this. He has already stated he wrote the software to change the ECU. He also stated that his system employs a multiple anonde cathode array for parallel separation and efficiency. All of which draws about 18 amps. If that is all it takes to generate 100ml of H+O per 100kms, then the results he is claiming are possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wstar
That it's known by all existing science that the water -> H2 + O2 -> burn cycle is less than 100% efficient means that part is bunk. If he's making up enough efficiency gains elsewhere in the system to offset that, chances are high those same gains can be realized in other ways without wasting energy on those conversions.
|
This has yet to be proven conclusively I guess. I assume that is the point of his research.
I appreciate your serious comments and intelligent questions. Let's hope that there is real progress being made with this technology, merely for the sake of progress!