![]() |
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
|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 (permalink) |
A True Z Fanatic
![]() Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 4,024
Drives: too slow
Rep Power: 3595 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]()
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.
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). 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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 (permalink) | |||
A True Z Fanatic
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Mod Capital of Canada
Age: 58
Posts: 7,354
Drives: cars. lots of cars.
Rep Power: 40182 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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!
__________________
![]() H&R / Stillen / Berk / HKS / Swift / Michelin / UpRev / SPC / Amuse Rep / Seibon / Fringe XVO / TWM / more... My Journal |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 (permalink) | ||
A True Z Fanatic
![]() Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 4,024
Drives: too slow
Rep Power: 3595 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
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. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 (permalink) | |
Base Member
|
![]() Quote:
your theory is correct, perfect and known by us all.I have not violated any law of physics.I've only had luck in finding a new power system for low energy electrolysis. The results that you see are the real test of what I did. The tests are not homemade.Every car company, brings the car by National Office consumption and emissions control,that certifies, leave the car and after one day back to pick up the car with the report file.End. Anyway, read the attachement of my system, you will have much clearer ideas. This is the reply of my Patent report. Best regards Lorenz |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 (permalink) | |
Base Member
|
![]() Quote:
Not one screw change. Now the car has 70,000 km without any problem, and run always with system on. By Lorenz |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
370Z = old technology? | captain1 | Nissan 370Z General Discussions | 71 | 09-26-2012 08:44 PM |
Tru Technology S44 Amp | TWYNBYZ | Audio & Video | 1 | 08-10-2011 03:43 PM |
New Paint Technology | Mergnthwirker | Exterior & Interior | 2 | 10-29-2009 10:08 AM |