|
This scheme is really easy to dismiss. Even engineers and scientists with lots of experience tend to want to throw it on the trash heap of perpetual motion machines. That said, I think it could be real, at least to some extent. It is hard to feature the claims made, but most of the informed skeptics start by pointing out the efficiencies in the process. First, car alternators only make about 50% efficiency, so the skeptics say even if everything else was 100% efficient you can only get back 50% of the energy you put in as fuel. And since engine thermodynamic efficiency might be about 30%, it is a losing proposition anyway you look at it. What these astute and informed critics ignore is the ways in which the combustion process itself works and the nature of hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen will burn in air at a concentration of 4%. That is a remarkably low figure, and any hydrogen present could cause fuel which would otherwise go unburned to be burned. Added oxygen, would help as well. So I have stated this before, and I'll state it again, This scheme might very well work. I don't think it will work as well as the "inventor" claims. I don't think it is worth $1,500 by any measure. It will work better on a primative operating system like a carb vs. F.I. Remember, the Honda stratified charge lean burn scheme? It sought to reduce unburned hydrocarbons by eliminating hydrocarbons from the end gas which is quenched by the combustion chamber walls. This scheme seeks to reduce unburned hydrocarbons by promoting combustion even though the walls are trying to quench the flame. A secondary effect that will boost FE is an increase in inlet temperature. Smokey U., with his hot vapor engine, and others would chime in here if they could.
What is really needed is some objective testing, to get to the bottom of this.
The biggest laugh I got out of this was the anti-explosion coating. I am going to ask for that at the store next time I am there.
|