Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
I'm not so sure we are thinking of similar things.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
In this case, we are not replacing a car's engine with a combined cycle/ cogeneration gas turbine that can operate at 60% efficiency. We are using the existing car's engine. (You seem to be thinking about a highly efficient source of electric energy that is somehow onboard the car.)
|
I don't see how this is not what I already described as the difference between our paths.
As I said ... I went the direction of two things ... the limits of current science ... and the limits of current technology ... what is possible ... in contrast you focused instead on the averages from average devices.
Talking about the averages of what people have as a basis for saying it isn't possible I find to be flawed ... From my point of view to say what is or isn't possible ... and how much of a gap exists between them one is best done not by looking at average devices ... but instead looking at the very best devices... that is why I went the different direction than you on this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
The car's engine produces an electrical output at no more than 20% efficiency (even if the car is the best of the best, a Prius with a high efficiency alternator.)
|
You are incorrect in your claim of 'no more than' ... especially from 'the best'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
To make me believe that lower than 500% HHO unit efficiencies could reach break even, you would have to show me a production car that produces electricity from its alternator at better than 20% efficiency (from gasoline to electricity).
|
Like I said before that is the difference between your approach and mine ... you look to the average of what is in production ... and I was looking at what is possible ... But even then 500% is still too high ... there are production vehicles on the road already that are capable of converting gasoline to electricity at over 20% efficiency.
Attached bellow is the documented efficiency graph of the first generation production IMA motor from Honda ... converting between mechanical motion and electrical energy ... I direct you to the section of 95% Efficiency and the vast area of greater than 90% efficiency.
At ~13kwh/kg gasoline energy density in the 90% efficiency range of the IMA motor any part of the BSFC chart that overlaps and is bellow ~346 g/kwh is over 20% efficient at converting gasoline to electricity ... Now look at the non-Lean Burn BSFC Chart test of the Gen-1 Insight ICE ... I don't even see it going over 346 being in the operating window ... the worst I see is 280 ... which is still over 24% Efficient Gasoline to electricity ... and a peak of up to ~36.5% efficiency converting gasoline to electricity ... from a production vehicle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
500% is a convenient round number, but as I wrote above 666% is more realist very best case.
|
You are too high ... especially for best case technologies ... even for production vehicles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
Obviously, efficiencies over 100% are impossible.
|
of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
These HHO units do not operate in the endothermic region, and do not have a COP of remotely close to 1.2. (This can only occur with steam electrolysis -- and then only under certain conditions.)
|
I didn't say these units do ... as I said ... that was in relation to the exploration of the limits of science on this issue ... and the limits of technology on this issue... what is possible ... not what is being done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
I'm sticking to my story here. By "nothing at all" I mean nothing meaningful.
|
We disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
Do you realize what microscopic quantities of H2 we are talking about? A 2 liter engine might produce 100 kW, and use 25 kg of fuel per hour, or 417 grams per minute. The .06 grams of H2 that a 1 lpm HHO unit produces has the energy of .15 gram of gasoline. .15/417 is a very small percentage: .035%
|
Which to me ... only goes back to one of the values of the study you find not to have anything meaningful ... it shows quantities needed in order to achieve even the modest ~3.8% increases they got... and those quantities are are very relevant.