Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:57:31 -0700
Reply-To: Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Subject: Re: Water 4 Gas. com Does it work? Has Anyone Tried it? Know of
It?
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
I don't think you're especially missing anything David.
I thiink you are pretty close to Right On.
in ALL CASES of 'magic fuel devices'............
common' .............if it was that easy to get a 20 % fuel effeciency with
no penalties other than some added equipment and a water tank ..........
the manufactuurers would be doing it or at least offering it.
They do after all, invest billions in engine research , fuel economy,
emissioins, driveabllity, power, etc.
The combined might of say ...........Honda, BMW, Mercedes and
GM............research wise........if there was a simple add-on device that
would even yield a 3 % increase in fuel economy with no other
downsides...............they would offer it.
there is no free lunch.
I don't think the HHO idea is total bunk though.
Perhaps charge up a large battery at home, then use that energy to turn the
water into Brown Gas, added by the standard alternaotr......that could
reduce gasoline costs per mile. I'll have to check it out more. But
generally..........it's not likely it's a pure near free 'for sure 20 %
better fuel economy' device with no special requirements or downsides.
Heck, if it was that good .......
we'd have been running them a long time by now. It's not like it's a new
idea .
scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Beierl" <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: Water 4 Gas. com Does it work? Has Anyone Tried it? Know of It?
> At 06:38 PM 7/13/2008, miguel pacheco wrote:
>>Uhm, read on, the O2 thing is no longer an issue..............
>>Possible or not, it looks like a fun project.
>
> I've got one question, in two* parts.
>
> A: How much energy does it take to electrolyze the water to H and O?
> B: How much energy do you get back by burning the stuff? Is it as
> much as you spent to make it? Hint: No, it isn't.
> C: What's the efficiency of the gasoline --> mechanical -->
> electrical cycle that generates the current to electrolyze the
> water? Guessing 30% in the engine times 80% in the alternator... :-(
> D: Where does the energy come from to do this? Hint: The Gasoline.
>
> *Our THREE main weapons are surprise, fear, ruthless efficiency and
> fanatical devotion to the Pope!
>
> TANSTAAFL. The three laws of thermodynamics say you can't win, you
> can't break even, and you can't get out of the game. There's no
> question that you suffer a net loss of energy by hydrolyzing water
> and then burning the products, made worse by the various
> inefficiencies attendant on generating the electricity. So *IF* this
> method works at all, it has to be by somehow increasing the
> efficiency of the Otto engine cycle by a considerable amount, i.e.
> getting considerably more mechanical output from somewhat less
> thermal input. AFAIK the only remaining area for large improvements
> in recovery of mechanical effort from the thermal cycle involve
> raising the operating temperature of the engine which is currently
> constrained by materials (Smokey Yunick once hoped, maybe still does,
> to build a ceramic engine that would run continuously red-hot for
> just this reason).
>
> So what am I missing? Help me out here...
>
>
> --
> David Beierl - Providence RI USA -- http://pws.prserv.net/synergy/Vanagon/
> '84 Westy "Dutiful Passage," '85 GL "Poor Relation"
|