Jump to content

No this doesn't work either


Guest otchie1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest otchie1

Yea Gods

The best bit is at the end in red when Mick from Dorset attests that,

" at 2400 rpm in 3 rd gear i used to do 40 mph on the flat NOW it is 1750 rpm & 48 mph

on the same bit of road !!!! "

Perhaps he discoverd 4th gear?

Don't be fooled for a moment, it's snake oil technology.

As an aside, an American called Garrett (unrelatred to the Turbo people) patented the Browns Gas Carburettor in the 30s. It didn't work then for the same reasons it doesn't work now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so let me get this right it's £40 for a jam jar, scraps of wire/connections and some cheap plastic pipe.

oh no silly me I forgot

ALL THE FITTINGS YOU NEED
- some cable ties and a little wire cage :rofl:

think I'll pass..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there's a lot of people think there's a big beardy man who lives in the sky and that when they die they'll go and live with him for ever, that doesn't make them right.

David Lovejoy lives in the sky ? I thought he lived in Devon somewhere !

Mo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

second_law_thermodynamics.png

^^^^ That's just what i was about to say... :unsure::unsure::unsure::unsure:

/innocent whistle/........

Second law of thermodynamics...

The laws of thermodynamics could also be expressed - in a sligthly less scientific way:

1: You can't win

2: You can't even break even

3: And you can't even stay out of the game

In all chemical and physical reactions the total entropy will be the same or greater than before. There is no "free" energy - it has to come from somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest otchie1
Someone there seems to think it works

Particularly the people selling it and those ghost forum accounts marketing it (or creating a 'buzz' as ad folk would term it) :P

Just because nigel numpty 8 posts and his mate say it works doesn't change the laws of physics. You kannae change the laws of physics (laddie).

Electrolyisis of Hydrogen from water requires energy and here you are burning petrol/diesel to turn your engine to turn your alternator to liberate tiny amounts of it and losing chunks to conversion losses at every stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...as has been said, energy is not free and you are using energy to create/convert the HHO.

Is it possible then, that combining the HHO with petrol and oxygen etc. is allowing a more efficient release of the energy they contain and thereby arriving at a net gain?

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...as has been said, energy is not free and you are using energy to create/convert the HHO.

Is it possible then, that combining the HHO with petrol and oxygen etc. is allowing a more efficient release of the energy they contain and thereby arriving at a net gain?

I wondered that too.

If I were to add propane to my diesel's air inlet, would the energy out exceed the original energy out plus the energy of the propane burning? Or do the suggested power gains simply come from burning the propane? Does the propane actually improve the efficiency of the diesel burn? And if it does, might HHO not too?

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Kim has either misinterpreted or poorly explained the laws of thermodynamics,

What Kim is trying to say (I think is this)

Some chemical molecular bonds are energy releasing (exothermic), and some are energy absorbing (endothermic) Ie, when the bond is broken and the individual atoms reformed into other molecular bods they release or absorb energy, (this is what hapens in your combustion chamber) (as a very rough general guide, the easier a bond is to break, the more energy it will give on reformation and vice versa)

Water is an extremely strong bond and is very definitely ENDOTHERMIC it takes a very great amount of energy to break the molecular bond and electrolysis will use much more energy in the production of small amounts of Hydrogen than said small amounts will produce in the combustion chamber, All you will do is give back maybe 50% of what the alternator is using!

Production of very complex and expensive Hydrogen "water fueled" vehicles can be done, it has been done! but not in a jam jar!!!!

More interestingly, it won't improve your gearing by 66% either as it inadvertently states in their advert by mr 4x4 user!!!

Lara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Kim has either misinterpreted or poorly explained the laws of thermodynamics,

What Kim is trying to say (I think is this)

Some chemical molecular bonds are energy releasing (exothermic), and some are energy absorbing (endothermic) Ie, when the bond is broken and the individual atoms reformed into other molecular bods they release or absorb energy, (this is what hapens in your combustion chamber) (as a very rough general guide, the easier a bond is to break, the more energy it will give on reformation and vice versa)

Water is an extremely strong bond and is very definitely ENDOTHERMIC it takes a very great amount of energy to break the molecular bond and electrolysis will use much more energy in the production of small amounts of Hydrogen than said small amounts will produce in the combustion chamber, All you will do is give back maybe 50% of what the alternator is using!

Production of very complex and expensive Hydrogen "water fueled" vehicles can be done, it has been done! but not in a jam jar!!!!

More interestingly, it won't improve your gearing by 66% either as it inadvertently states in their advert by mr 4x4 user!!!

Lara

Actually I don't see where you think we are disagreeing, but I am a bit resticted by the fact that english is not my native language...

Let me try to explain...

The Thermodynamical laws are probably some of the most important in physics. And a lot of people claming to have invented so-called free-energy devises should have been trying to understand theese laws before they tried to break them.

To my knowledge, there has never been any kind of experimental data which could be used to dispute the correctness of these laws. (That is, unless you define systems as beeing sub-molecyle in size, some of the thermodynamical laws looses ther significance when applied on a really small scale)

The first law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. But it can change from a higher quality to a lesser quality. This could be totally non-scientific summarised as : "You can't win", as energy cannot be created from nothing.

The second law states that systems will - over time - increse their total entropy. Entropy is a measure of un-orderd energy (chaos). Wildly flowing molecyles in a hot gas have higher values for entropy than the ordered rows of molecyles in a crystal.

This law can equally be stated in a less scientific way as: "You can't even break even", as the total amount of entropy will increse over time.

The third law states that for a given system, the total entropy falls to a minimum as the temperature approaches the absolute minimum. Entropy is thereby connected to molecylar movements (warmth). This third law has equally been stated as: ""You cant even stay out of the game"

Therefore, without even questioning wether the reaction is endothermic or exothermic, if you have a specific amount of energy i a high quality state (as for instance, electrical energy from the alternator) and then uses this energy to produce energy in another (chemical) state you will loose some energy in this conversion. The total entropy will never decrese (unless a little version of maxwells demon have been appointed to the jam jar!).

Even the most exothermic reaction will still increase the total amount of entropy. Therefore there is no free energy - it cannot be harvested out of blue air - at least on a macroscopi scale. For each conversion between energi states some of the energy is lost due to friction, warmt, etc (entropy)

Taking the high quality electrical energy from the alternator, and using this energy to produce a substance which carries higher chemical energy than the amount of electical energy invested in the reaction is therefore bound to fail. Otherwise you would have contructed a perpetum mobile, which violates several of the thermodynamic laws.

As you correcly states, the fact that the hydrogen-oxygen bond in water is endothermic further adds to the insanity of the persons who claims these mechanims should work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kim - thermodynamics in a second language - top explanation!

Just to add to what was above, I'm looking at some of this stuff in work. There are fuel additives which give a net benefit but generally around 1-5% by catalysis or normalising the chemical makeup of the fuel - the latter only works if you can then calibrate your engine for this single fuel, and the benefit comes from the difference in calibration. Knock off the cost of the additive and they all look commercially unattractive unless you've got some other motivation to spend the same overall, while burning less fuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened to the zeroth law...? :unsure:

It was there when I was a student, did they decide to abandon it?!

Al.

That could quite possible be the most humoristic remark I have ever read on this forum!

(On a serious note - I didnt think that the zeroth law (regarding thermal equilibrium between several bodies) had much relevance for this debate)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kim,

We were probably not disagreeing just that your statement,

"In all chemical and physical reactions the total entropy will be the same or greater than before. There is no "free" energy - it has to come from somewhere"

Although I understand from your other references what you meant, It reads as though an internal combustion engine would not work either :blink: as it is a Chemical and physical reaction in one! We are feeding it with un-liberated chemical energy and getting energy out, People are then asking "why then can,t we use "water" as a chemical energy fuel supply" Which is why I added my post to try to make things a little simpler. I hope I explained why not, or why it was very difficult.

Not to dispute your post. <_<

Lara.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kim,

We were probably not disagreeing just that your statement,

"In all chemical and physical reactions the total entropy will be the same or greater than before. There is no "free" energy - it has to come from somewhere"

Although I understand from your other references what you meant, It reads as though an internal combustion engine would not work either :blink: as it is a Chemical and physical reaction in one! We are feeding it with un-liberated chemical energy and getting energy out, People are then asking "why then can,t we use "water" as a chemical energy fuel supply" Which is why I added my post to try to make things a little simpler. I hope I explained why not, or why it was very difficult.

Not to dispute your post. <_<

Lara.

OK!

Thanks for your explanation!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest otchie1
OK!

Thanks for your explanation!

It's all about scavenging wasted energy. If the kit came with a couple of solar panels for the roof (maybe a weigh issue here) or a Peltier-Seebeck heat engine for the exhaust then all would be good for the couple of extra % of mpg you might get BUT only because the existing engine was woefully inefficient and wasted so much in the form of heat.

And, NO, a chuffing great windmill on the roof wouldn't work either :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all about scavenging wasted energy. If the kit came with a couple of solar panels for the roof (maybe a weigh issue here) or a Peltier-Seebeck heat engine for the exhaust then all would be good for the couple of extra % of mpg you might get BUT only because the existing engine was woefully inefficient and wasted so much in the form of heat.

And, NO, a chuffing great windmill on the roof wouldn't work either :P

Actually, if you would be scavenging wasted energy, using a thermoelectric device would probably be less effective than running a stirling of the exhaust heat. The electric energy produced by the peltier-seebeck would need some kind of converting to actually help move the vehicle. The mecanical energy from the stirling could be used directly.

Of course, it is a totally other scenario if you were to use the electrical energy from the thermoelectric device for electrolysis.

But I still dont think the result would merrit the work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I still dont think the result would merrit the work.

You are dead right,

We always seem to forget the "human" energy input :rolleyes:

Hours spent tiddle balling about to gain a Nano MPG gain! Spend the time on the wife :lol::lol:

Lara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website you agree to our Cookie Policy