an environmental rant..

Yachts use wind generators to charge their batteries. Do you really think the wind generator has any effect on the yacht? You are producing 12 volts (or whatever) from a fan that is being driven from a car travelling through the air, using the air that is required anyway, flowing through the radiator. It only needs to be big enough to drive a hydroxy unit. Not take off

Negligible losses. The wing mirrors alone would have a drag factor of tens more.

C

[yorkie_chris]

It needs to be big enough to provide some useful electrical power. (or KERS, which would work)

A yachts wind generator is many orders of magnitude smaller than the yacht, you couldn't use the 12v generator to power the yacht itself.


Reason I think it flawed is you would have this thing there all the time adding drag. It might cost you 0.5mpg on the motorway for example, but I don't think you'd gain any more than that anywhere else as the efficiency cannot be more than 1.
For something like this to work you need to gain from a waste, you can't gain from a loss. So the KERS one would be great, or use the waste heat somehow. But not aerodynamically.

thats why more modern petrol engines are now using turbo's,

the BMW i drive is packed with efficient technology, I feel more smug about driving that than if I was enforced to have a prius!

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by 454697819

thats why more modern petrol engines are now using turbo's,

Turbos don't recover any energy in that way
They add power, not efficiency. fact that some turbo engines are more efficient than others is because of design and refinement.
(i.e better to have a 1.5l engine at tickover, off boost, in traffic than a 2.5l N/A one)



there is no intrinsic reason a turbo(-supercharged) engine is any more efficient than a naturally aspirated one.

Turbo-compound engines on the other hand are a different animal. They do actually recover waste from the exhaust gas directly into shaft power.

Its pretty much irrelevant anyway as as you have seen from that link, its possible to run a car (or truck) completely on water. The only additional fuel required is for high load applications. And that fuel could also be stored, pressurised hydrogen (gathered at home from an hydroxy unit driven by wind turbine, solar cell or hydro system). If there is a 60psi reserve at the end of the journey then this could be used to start the car [system] the next time it is used So the only "fossil" fuel required would be to prime the system at inital start up and this again could be HHO mix gathered from a previous system.

One system begat all following systems. We could all be running on water and be producing nothing but water.

So why aren't we?

C

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Turbos don't recover any energy in that way
They add power, not efficiency. fact that some turbo engines are more efficient than others is because of design and refinement.
(i.e better to have a 1.5l engine at tickover, off boost, in traffic than a 2.5l N/A one)



there is no intrinsic reason a turbo(-supercharged) engine is any more efficient than a naturally aspirated one.

Turbo-compound engines on the other hand are a different animal. They do actually recover waste from the exhaust gas directly into shaft power.

I know what you mean.. I typed my lamen response with little thinking,

they use the pressure from the exhaust to spin the turbo though...

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Berlin

Its pretty much irrelevant anyway as as you have seen from that link,

I think it's full of sh*t that one actually.

Where are they producing energy from? There's lots of stuff about psi, and ionising the gas mixture, which is all well and good.

They take power from the alternator, which is driven by the petrol engine!

So, petrol engine, 40% efficient, generator, 80%, hydroxy cell 90%???, petrol engine, 40% efficient.
11.5% efficient.
Looking quite like you might as well not bother...

Anyway, I still think they're a bunch of f***in conmen like all the rest of the people selling "free energy" to idiot Americans.
Their cell apparently makes 50l of hydrogen at 3.02V 55A. Or 166W.

50l of hydrogen, conservative guess at stp condition (0.08988g/l) = 4.494x10^-3 kg of gas/min.
Per min, better in per secs.
7.49x10^-5 kg/s
H2, 141790kJ/Kg.

calorific value out of the cell, 10,620W.

From 166W? Even with my guess being probably a factor of 2 or 3 out... they're full of sh*t.

If they are going to try tell you that, no such thing as owt for nowt.


Got to love irony that you said about principle of enthalpy earlier, then link to a system which tries to con people who don't understand the idea of entropy

Originally Posted by 454697819

I know what you mean.. I typed my lamen response with little thinking,

they use the pressure from the exhaust to spin the turbo though...

Aye, they do, but that just stuffs more air into the engine. It's a power-adder not an energy recoverer.

I'd be interested to see what would happen if the power recovered was fed to the shaft rather than a turbine.

[Paul the 6th]

I wonder if there was anyone smarter than YC on his engineering course? Bet he had a bit of an inferiority complex

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Paul the 6th

I wonder if there was anyone smarter than YC on his engineering course? Bet he had a bit of an inferiority complex

Loads of eggheads! I was the daft, drunk one!

I Understand effiecience modelling.

and if you happen to come up with a way around it?

http://www.futureenergyconceptsinc.com/products


They intend to give the technology away when its finalised so what use would a con be?

http://www.youtube.com/user/FutureEnergyConcepts

Very easy to Poo Poo this stuff.

I'd go and work for them

C