[Ken Fry]

Originally Posted by IamIan

We took different paths ... I looked at it from the limits of current science and current technology ... in a true best case scenario ... you did not ... in your path 20% is the 'best case' for gasoline to electricity ... even though it is not actually the best case ... even for production vehicles.

I'm sure I am appearing unduly prickly, but this gets to the route of the issue. Your "different path" is not applicable to the situation in which the 500% came up. It is a complete and total non sequitur, and came across to me as bickering for the sake of bickering, or as intentional promotion of the HHO concept.

I first wrote the 500% figure in reference to a Triumph motorcycle. Given that these 600 cc crotch rockets get only 40 mpg, one can see that they operate with stunningly low operating efficiencies. Again, you can use the calculator if you want: Cd = .65, A= 6sq ft. Loaded Weight = 600 lb Crr = .15, Drive train = .94. Engine efficiency = .10

As it happens, bike alternators are even less efficient than car alternators, but we'll use 50%. So in the case about which I was writing, the gasoline to electrical efficiency would be 5%. Therefore, to break even, an onboard electrolysis process would need to be 2000% efficient, just to recoup the energy value of the squandered gasoline.

I' d written, regarding the motorcycle:

Originally Posted by Ken Fry
For an HHO unit to "work" to improve fuel efficiency, the electrolysis process would have to operate at greater than 500% efficiency.

Your response was:

It isn't quiet that bad ... especially from a 'energy I pay for' perspective.

But in fact, it is much worse. (You pay for 20 gallons of gasoline to get one gallon's energy equivalent of hydrogen.) I was giving the scammers the benefit of the doubt. You'd have to apply some very serious distortion to the real world figures to bring my figure down to 500%, let alone lower. Just as UFO did in post #123, and just as most people who know about HHO units often do, I used 20% gasoline to electric efficiency as a rule of thumb -- and you can use it as a rule of thumb and never be accused of painting a too-gloomy picture of HHO for 99% of the cars on the road.

You then went on to write:

As an absolute limit, I think the combined steps from chemical energy to electrical energy back to chemical energy would have to reach ~83% Efficient ... not currently possible that I know of.

This apparently makes sense to you for some system you envision. But to me, it just encourages the enemy. An otherwise intelligent and successful acquaintance lost over $1,000,000 by investing in one of the larger HHO companies. One Florida company sold over a million dollars of these units in four weeks. I see no need to distort reality to help the HHO promoters.