For Chuckm and the Forum,
I gave the definition for that. Maybe you didnīt read it. I repeat it here:
20% efficient: it gives 20% of output energy compared to input electricity spend in electrolysis (taken from the engine via alternator).
50% efficient: it gives 50% output energy compared to electricity spent.
80% efficient: it gives 80% of energy taken and so on...
More precisely:
As an overall, the sum of burning HHO and its catalytic effect, generates more energy than the extra energy taken from the engine via alternator-battery ?
My third system produces a lot more HHO with 70% of energy spent, compared to the first one. Will that big amount of HHO obtained improve the overall engine performance? I donīt know. It has to be measured.
Anyway, under my definition, gas and diesel produce more energy than the energy used to burn them, so they are more than 100% efficient. A lot more. Otherwise, the cars wonīt move. Again,
under my definition.
Of course, in a thermodynamic point of view, under the thermodynamics definition, the Otto engine is maybe 20% efficient and the Diesel engine is only 27% efficient. But this is not the definition I used.
Under the thermodynamics point of view and definition,
any system can be, at most, 100% efficient, of course, you are right! But, there are lot of loses, friction, etc.
Sorry if you didnīt read, or didnīt understand the definition I used. Or if I didnīt emphasize my definition enough. Maybe it is my fault.
My intention was just to answer with caution, in simple words (not thermodynamics), to the member of the Forum that asked if someone has tried HHO in a diesel engine.
I did, it works, but ... is it generating more performance? Is it producing more, equal or less energy than that taken from the engine through the alternator-battery? That is the question!
I can say for sure, unless I measure it. Have you measured it? Then give your results.
I hope this time I was clear enough.
May The Force be with all of us
OldBeaver