Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan
I don't see how this is not what I already described as the difference between our paths.
|
To me, it seems as if you have switched positions. Our numbers (for required efficiency of the electrolysis unit to break even on an energy balance) are much different, and you have reiterated that you think that 500% (as an electrolysis break even point) is too high. But you wrote:
Quote:
|
We are thinking of similar things... just a hair different details... mainly along the limits of what current science would allow ... and the best current tech available... vs I think you were thinking of more average real world devices. reneged that
|
500% vs the 86% you mentioned indicates a far bigger difference than "just a hair different details".
I am referring to HHO as it has been promoted, and as it continues to be promoted, as a means to very large fuel mileage increases,
in existing cars. I have used figures that represent better-than-average efficiencies for fuel-to-alternator electrical output. (Delco, in a 2008 paper promoting the sales of high efficiency alternators in diesel trucks, says that current efficiencies are 21% in trucks that are operating at 40% engine efficiency. [But they correctly make the point that truck engines
do not routinely operate a 40% efficiency, so that real efficiency is much lower.]
http://www.delcoremy.com/Documents/H...ite-Paper.aspx
The figure I used for alternator efficiency is not average, it is significantly better than better than average. Per Delco, 50% is average and 60% would be an improvement.
In average cars, engines do not routinely operate at
either the 25% engine efficiency figure nor the 75% alternator efficiency figure that I have used to come up with 20% fuel-to-electricity-efficiency (and thus the 500% required electrolyser efficiency to break even). My 20% figure would seem to be very high given Delco's figure of 21% for a diesel truck.
You can verify that cars do not operate routinely at 25% efficiency by using the this site's calculator. To get to the demonstrated 50 mpg of a Prius at 60 mph on a level road, if you plug in the known figures for a Prius, (which has the best fuel efficiency x mass figure of any SI production car) you need to plug in .24% for engine efficiency.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aero-rolling-resistance.php?Weight=3400&WeightUnits=lbs&CRR=.00 6&Cd=.25&FrontalArea=24&FrontalAreaUnits=ft^2&Fuel Wh=33557&IceEfficiency=.24&DrivetrainEfficiency=.9 4&ParasiticOverhead=0&rho=1.22&FromToStep=5-200-5
Everything else is worse, and most cars are much worse. My 4-cylinder 2004 Honda Accord at cruise operates at
substantially lower than 25% engine efficiency, and
substantially less than 75% alternator efficiency. (Your IMA efficiency chart is not applicable, given that the Hondas with IMA have no alternator. I think both I and the original poster made it clear that alternator efficiency is part of the equation.)
So, perhaps we will have to agree to disagree. I think 500% is reasonable as a measure of required electrolysis efficiency to just reach break even in real cars, even highly efficient real cars. You think a lower number is appropriate, because you appear to think that many of these customers might be installing HHO units on fuel cell vehicles or vehicles powered by cogeneration turbines. I just don't think that is a reasonable answer to the OP's question.