| wstar |
01-29-2013 10:12 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheee!
(Post 2134291)
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 just want to be clear about what we're saying is or isn't conclusive. It's a conclusive fact of known science that the process of using input electrical current to split water into H2 and O2, and then burning that H2 and O2 for energy, is a net loss of energy. There are inefficiencies in every conversion, and you cannot get out more than you put in (or even the exact same amount you put in - always less). Whatever drag 18A of electrical charge places on an engine through an alternator *has* to be less than the amount of additional engine power provided by throwing the resulting H2 and O2 into the combustion chamber.
This is very basic science. If these constraints are violated, we're in the realm of whacko perpetual motion machines, or entirely new physics that would completely change the course of the future for everyone. These are the kinds of things that, if they happen at all, are going to happen based on man-centuries of work by PhD's at particle accelerator labs. It would be completely unheard of for physics to be upended by a simple car engineering experiment.
What's questionable is the other little engineering bits: it's possible he could be making a net gain on the whole car system by exploiting *other* inefficiencies (e.g. engine tuning, waste heat) that have nothing to do with the "HHO" conversion, which give him a net positive result overall. If that's the case, I would argue those changes would be even more effective without wasting energy on the HHO step. |
