Are you suggesting a purge because of the actual topic, or that it would not raise an appropriate technical discussion within this forum?
The former may well be appropriate, but I would caution against the latter.
To close down and reject an idea merely because it looks highly questionable rather than dig into its scientific basis, or otherwise lack of it, may have a bearing on the credibility of an open forum that, itself, is focussed on a subject that is highly questionable in the eyes of people not appropriately educated in it. There are legitimate objective critiques of it that can be simply made. I don't believe the idea has any value either but I've volunteered a few supportive comments to be countered, if only to offer a balance with subjective critisisms. It's not pitched as a perpetual motion machine, but an aid to efficiency. One way or the other it will affect the efficiency!
Another perpetual motion device?
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Another perpetual motion device?
I'm never keen on purges myself, I rather like to keep data/information/etc. for future reference.
I come from forums which have archived every message for 20+ years!
And now with this new fangled internet thing, I find I can try and go back to a site less than a year old and what was written there is gone now and its now selling Viagra
I come from forums which have archived every message for 20+ years!
And now with this new fangled internet thing, I find I can try and go back to a site less than a year old and what was written there is gone now and its now selling Viagra
-
Carl Willis
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
- Real name: Carl Willis
- Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
- Contact:
Re: Another perpetual motion device?
Posts don't get purged unless they're advertisements or have flagrantly trollsome content.
Of course, John's right that this hydrogen-burning nonsense is not topical. I believe it was brought up for the purposes of casual ridicule. A good belly-laugh is appropriate from time to time.
Those who think this idea has a snowball's-chance-in-hell of working (at least as "intended") need only consider the energy balance, that is, the energy inputs and outputs in the system.
E[out] = E[in]
The first thing to note is that energy is conserved, which means that the chemical energy (CE) in the "HHO" can only be used to regenerate the "HHO":
CE[hho] = CE[hho].
In reality, generating and burning the HHO are lossy processes, making heat (Q) as well as HHO and thus requiring another source of input energy.
CE[hho] + Q[hho] = CE[hho] + E[other]
E[other] is the combustion of gasoline in this case, and the equation is not yet balanced because E[other] also provides the car's shaft energy (SP) and some heat losses associated with that, Q[other].
SP + CE[hho] + Q[hho] + Q[other] = CE[hho] + E[other]
Since CE[hho] shows up on both sides, i.e. is internal to the system, it's irrelevant.
SP + Q[hho] + Q[other] = E[other]
Efficiency (N) is SP / E[other]:
N = 1 - (Q[hho] + Q[other]) / E[other]
The HHO energy is completely internal to the system, and furthermore, adds the loss of Q[hho] to the output, unequivocally lowering the efficiency while the car is cruising, coasting or accelerating. It does not matter how efficient HHO is at burning in the engine, how hot it burns, how clean it burns, etc. It is still made by burning "other" in the engine, which is a loss.
The technique only redeems itself, if ever so slightly, on courses where the car must brake. Here, the electrolysis cell loads the shaft and decreases the amount of non-conserved frictional loss the driver must incur by using the brake. Thus, the HHO can be used to recoup braking losses. But if the inventor here realized that, he'd have simply put a relay in the electrolysis circuit that came on with the brake light. Every moment that cell is bubbling and the car is NOT braking, it is wasting energy.
Finally, there's this, from Chris:
>The REAL question here is; how much evidence would you need to satisfy yourself that it doesn't work?
Answer is "none." Being such an implausible idea according to established scientific principles, the burden of proof that it does work falls upon the originator. All the originator provides in the way of evidence are some informal anecdotes and a YouTube clip from the dreaded Faux News.
-Carl
Of course, John's right that this hydrogen-burning nonsense is not topical. I believe it was brought up for the purposes of casual ridicule. A good belly-laugh is appropriate from time to time.
Those who think this idea has a snowball's-chance-in-hell of working (at least as "intended") need only consider the energy balance, that is, the energy inputs and outputs in the system.
E[out] = E[in]
The first thing to note is that energy is conserved, which means that the chemical energy (CE) in the "HHO" can only be used to regenerate the "HHO":
CE[hho] = CE[hho].
In reality, generating and burning the HHO are lossy processes, making heat (Q) as well as HHO and thus requiring another source of input energy.
CE[hho] + Q[hho] = CE[hho] + E[other]
E[other] is the combustion of gasoline in this case, and the equation is not yet balanced because E[other] also provides the car's shaft energy (SP) and some heat losses associated with that, Q[other].
SP + CE[hho] + Q[hho] + Q[other] = CE[hho] + E[other]
Since CE[hho] shows up on both sides, i.e. is internal to the system, it's irrelevant.
SP + Q[hho] + Q[other] = E[other]
Efficiency (N) is SP / E[other]:
N = 1 - (Q[hho] + Q[other]) / E[other]
The HHO energy is completely internal to the system, and furthermore, adds the loss of Q[hho] to the output, unequivocally lowering the efficiency while the car is cruising, coasting or accelerating. It does not matter how efficient HHO is at burning in the engine, how hot it burns, how clean it burns, etc. It is still made by burning "other" in the engine, which is a loss.
The technique only redeems itself, if ever so slightly, on courses where the car must brake. Here, the electrolysis cell loads the shaft and decreases the amount of non-conserved frictional loss the driver must incur by using the brake. Thus, the HHO can be used to recoup braking losses. But if the inventor here realized that, he'd have simply put a relay in the electrolysis circuit that came on with the brake light. Every moment that cell is bubbling and the car is NOT braking, it is wasting energy.
Finally, there's this, from Chris:
>The REAL question here is; how much evidence would you need to satisfy yourself that it doesn't work?
Answer is "none." Being such an implausible idea according to established scientific principles, the burden of proof that it does work falls upon the originator. All the originator provides in the way of evidence are some informal anecdotes and a YouTube clip from the dreaded Faux News.
-Carl
Re: Another perpetual motion device?
For what it is worth, I built a version of cornish design and run my car [Audi 100 ] for a few miles on the Hydrogen, successfully. The Audi had been converted to run on Propane and had been running on Propane for several months and the change to hydrogen easy - but - it backfired a lot and as live in N. Ireland, this was not good.
I am not into debate on this - any one can build the design if they want to - but the Hydrogen release, works as described. I keep intending to set up a unit at home - will get round to it someday soon.
Gas station of the future will dispense Aluminum not petrol.
Hi Thomas - glad to see you back - I still use the Hornyak's
I am not into debate on this - any one can build the design if they want to - but the Hydrogen release, works as described. I keep intending to set up a unit at home - will get round to it someday soon.
Gas station of the future will dispense Aluminum not petrol.
Hi Thomas - glad to see you back - I still use the Hornyak's
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Another perpetual motion device?
This is a little worrying because you've said;
>Being such an implausible idea according to established scientific principles, the burden of proof that it does work falls upon the originator.
which I read as a bit of a debunker's mantra. There's nothing explicitly wrong with the sentiment, but it seems anti-science to me. This is because the other person who has built this thing has, supposedly, already considered that they have provided enough evidence. it's just that you don't. The next step is for you to say what you would expect to see before acceptance. For example "I would need to see independently taken lab based rolling road data, then I would accept it."
The question would be then is, would you *really* accept it after getting such data? Sounds like you wouldn't? So how are these folks going to be able to second-guess what your *real* expectation of valid proof is, because I can't (yet I don't even believe it will work either)??
So the anti-science bit here is because the burden of proof on originator is quite fine, but to progress a scientific debate/development it is also for the doubter to specify what hoops need to be jumped through before a thing is validated.
Let's say you run Carl Sr and extrapolation shows that you could break even at some higher operating voltage. To do so would mean releasing fatal quantities of neutrons, so you're clearly not going to want to do that. So you write into the DoE, or wherever, and say 'hey, here are my figures, I reckon it could break even. How about giving me a suitable lab environment so I can show you.'
And their reply would be..."The burden of proof falls on you, so go prove to us it can break even first".
Stalemate!
Further to your calculations, you appear to have disregarded any possibility that the Q[HHO] is not independent of the E[other], and thus Q[other]. Unless I have misunderstood the intent of your calculations, you appear to have disproved supercharging can work aswell!
>Being such an implausible idea according to established scientific principles, the burden of proof that it does work falls upon the originator.
which I read as a bit of a debunker's mantra. There's nothing explicitly wrong with the sentiment, but it seems anti-science to me. This is because the other person who has built this thing has, supposedly, already considered that they have provided enough evidence. it's just that you don't. The next step is for you to say what you would expect to see before acceptance. For example "I would need to see independently taken lab based rolling road data, then I would accept it."
The question would be then is, would you *really* accept it after getting such data? Sounds like you wouldn't? So how are these folks going to be able to second-guess what your *real* expectation of valid proof is, because I can't (yet I don't even believe it will work either)??
So the anti-science bit here is because the burden of proof on originator is quite fine, but to progress a scientific debate/development it is also for the doubter to specify what hoops need to be jumped through before a thing is validated.
Let's say you run Carl Sr and extrapolation shows that you could break even at some higher operating voltage. To do so would mean releasing fatal quantities of neutrons, so you're clearly not going to want to do that. So you write into the DoE, or wherever, and say 'hey, here are my figures, I reckon it could break even. How about giving me a suitable lab environment so I can show you.'
And their reply would be..."The burden of proof falls on you, so go prove to us it can break even first".
Stalemate!
Further to your calculations, you appear to have disregarded any possibility that the Q[HHO] is not independent of the E[other], and thus Q[other]. Unless I have misunderstood the intent of your calculations, you appear to have disproved supercharging can work aswell!
-
Dan Ullfig
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:20 am
- Real name: Daniel Ullfig
Re: Another perpetual motion device?
Hi everyone:
It should take exactly the same amount of energy to split the water molecule, as what you get from recombining it, which is what you do when you burn H2 + O. Assuming zero losses (impossible), you would get a net zero gain of energy. In other words, the energy you get by burning H2 + O is completely used up in the process of splitting water into H2 and O. No extra energy left over to power the car.
Dan
It should take exactly the same amount of energy to split the water molecule, as what you get from recombining it, which is what you do when you burn H2 + O. Assuming zero losses (impossible), you would get a net zero gain of energy. In other words, the energy you get by burning H2 + O is completely used up in the process of splitting water into H2 and O. No extra energy left over to power the car.
Dan
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15024
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Another perpetual motion device?
As Carl might note and as I have stated many times.....
There are no free lunches. The energy comes from somewhere and you WILL pay for it, no matter what. You will buy it at a service station, or hunter gather it yourself.
This is not to say you can't save money, you can, with new technology or clever use of what you have...........It is rather to say that there is no free energy. It is all a matter of hunter gathering nature's little cocked energy guns and squeezing the triggers in clever ways.
Science just tells us whether there is or is not energy in the molecular system we are eyeballing as fuel.
Richard Hull
There are no free lunches. The energy comes from somewhere and you WILL pay for it, no matter what. You will buy it at a service station, or hunter gather it yourself.
This is not to say you can't save money, you can, with new technology or clever use of what you have...........It is rather to say that there is no free energy. It is all a matter of hunter gathering nature's little cocked energy guns and squeezing the triggers in clever ways.
Science just tells us whether there is or is not energy in the molecular system we are eyeballing as fuel.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: Another perpetual motion device?
Daniel,
The energy comes from burning Aluminum and there is a loss, but you get enought residual energy from burning the Hydrogen with air to run the car. This is not claimed to be perpetual nor is it a free-be - the guy at the Aluminum smelter puts in a lot more energy than the car uses.
- Why don't you build one and measure - simple physics, or is it all theory?
This is an energy accumulator process same as hydrocarbon fuel and has losses, but so does petrol - it is just that you don't see the energy input extracting oil and at the oil refinary which is used to distill and process the oil to make your petrol. This is not claimed to be an energy efficient system but it works.
The big advantage of Aluminum, is that this process it is polutant free and recycleable [ the Aluminum oxide is returned to the smelter for re-smelting and you can drink the water byproduct from the exhaust ] and it lends itself to transfering fusion power to automotive use. - we just have to get the fusion working.
The energy comes from burning Aluminum and there is a loss, but you get enought residual energy from burning the Hydrogen with air to run the car. This is not claimed to be perpetual nor is it a free-be - the guy at the Aluminum smelter puts in a lot more energy than the car uses.
- Why don't you build one and measure - simple physics, or is it all theory?
This is an energy accumulator process same as hydrocarbon fuel and has losses, but so does petrol - it is just that you don't see the energy input extracting oil and at the oil refinary which is used to distill and process the oil to make your petrol. This is not claimed to be an energy efficient system but it works.
The big advantage of Aluminum, is that this process it is polutant free and recycleable [ the Aluminum oxide is returned to the smelter for re-smelting and you can drink the water byproduct from the exhaust ] and it lends itself to transfering fusion power to automotive use. - we just have to get the fusion working.