Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
The Prius has the highest operating efficiency of any car sold in the US.
|
You need more qualifiers / restrictions to be correct... as it is the claim is too open ended... and is not correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
Its hybrid system allows the engine to spend more time near its best operating efficiency than on any other car sold in the US,
|
100% agree ... that is one of the strongest advantages of the synergy drive system.
But it is not all one sided either ... the synergy drive system of the Prius is a less efficient transmission , than many Manual Transmissions in any one gear of that manual transmission can do ... or said another way ... more of the energy input into the transmission gets to the drive shaft in 1st gear from say a MT I1 than from the planetary gear set of the Prius trying to accomplish the same gear ratio as that 1st gear.
In many conditions the ICE benefits can be larger than the transmission penalties ... which is why they did it ... but it is not always the case... it depends on the context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
and its peak operating efficiency is the highest of any spark ignition car sold in the US. Although its engine can peak at 37-38% efficiency, it does not operate at anything close to that efficiency routinely.
|
Bold Claim ... especially sense I've already showed you graphs of the I1 engine even when it is not in Lean Burn it peaks at up to ~38% ICE efficiency ... and in Lean Burn it is even more efficient than that by a significant margin.
I'll give you it can operate at a higher average efficiency over it's operating range ... but that is not the same as what you are claiming here about it being the highest of any ... that's a very tall claim... and I don't see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
I provided a link,
|
Yes I know ... but it didn't show me anything I didn't already know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
But what if we go beyond alternator efficiency and instead use 90% for the Prius motor generator and .85 for its DC-DC converter.
|
Why waste the energy?
The IMA motor is more efficient than the Prius electric motor in just about the entire operating window. ( see attached )
The IMA is a BLDC motor ... while spinning it produces 3 phase DC electricity ... which one could set up an electrolyzer to use ... converting it to straight +/- DC is a waste of 15% of your energy ... and for the vast majority of the operating window the IMA motor is more efficient than the Prius's electric motor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
In fact, because a lead acid battery is involved in the cycle at times, (and because the DC-DC converter is fed from the main battery bank, with its own charge cycle inefficiencies) even this .184 this figure is too high to be realistic.
|
You can add in as many energy wasting steps as you like ... but I don't see how that makes a good case for HHO not being viable ... you only leave gaps open for people to come along and say ...what if I don't waste that energy here or that energy there ... etc ...
That's why I instead showed it didn't work even when taking science and technology to their limits... because it eliminates the chances ... even if someone had the time and money to design a entire system from the ground up using the very best technology ... as I showed it still wouldn't be good enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
So the very best of the best current tech still does not exceed the 20% figure on which I base my need for 500% electrolysis efficiency to just break even.
|
As long as you keep using descriptions like "the very best of the best current tech" ... your claims of 20% are incorrect...
The correct number to statements like the very best of the best current tech , puts it over 60% ... and still over 20% even with a production vehicle qualifier / limitation.
The very best of the very best is not even what they put into cars ... and as I have already shown there are 12+ year old cars out there that can easily and regularly do better than 20%.
If you down grade it to something like slightly better than average of current production vehicles ... than you can be correct ... but not as long as you keep insisting on making such much larger claims about the 20%.
It is just incorrect ... and the data that shows it to be incorrect has already been shown to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
For 99% of the light vehicles on the road in the US my 20% figure is generous-to-very-generous,
|
Than use a correct descriptor like 'the vast majority' or 'the average' ... and do not incorrectly refer to it as an upper end limit or a best case , or 'very best of the best current tech' ... that it is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
Yes, I want to rule out "production vehicles with more efficient devices" than are representative of the market.
|
Which is what I said I thought the difference between our approaches was.
Which is 100% fine ... I only object to it when you seem to imply these inferior devices are some kind of best case or upper limit... because they are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
The HHO scammers are not selling the product as an enhancement to some future science-fiction vehicle. They are selling it as an enhancement to current vehicles, and the devices cannot and do not work on such vehicles.
|
Which I think is best shown ... by showing that they can't even work on the actual best case ... even on that future science fiction vehicle it still is not good enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
even on the Prius, the very best of the best,
|
debatable at best ... flat out incorrect at worst.
When you make a claim of 'very best of the best' ... you need either restrictions ... or you face very stiff competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
Sure, a fuel cell vehicle (with further development) could get close to 60% efficiency from H2 to electricity, But the HHO promoters are not selling to that market.
|
Even if they were ... my actual best case of what is possible ... shows that even 60% is still not good enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
Yes, my 500% figure is "too high" for the scenario you created.
|
Which means that 500% can not be a upper limit.
or a 'very best of the best current tech'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
BTW sorry for the 86% reference. It was intended to be 83%.
|
No big deal ... don't sweat it.
I was confused more than anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
HHO works just fine if you power it from a faired-in solar panel on the car's roof. Then you get an input energy gain without any additional use of gasoline. If you want to show what's scientifically possible, would that not be a better example?
|
It would be a good example ...
The only tweak I would want to add for those HHO advocates ... would be what else you could be doing with that same solar panel's electrical output if it were not going to the HHO device... in order for the HHO device to be the better alternative it would have to do better than the alternative uses of that solar panel's electricity.
Be it to charge the conventional 12V battery ... or provide mechanical power ... etc... for example while moving we can fall back to a 90% to 95% efficient IMA motor at converting it to mechanical power ... which is way better than any ICE can do even before electrolysis losses... etc... while parked the combination of electrolysis + storage + ICE have to be better than the cycle efficiency of a battery + the electric motor ( 90% to 95% IMA ) ... I've tested some batteries over 90% cycle efficiency... that means even while it sit stationary it sets the bar very high for the required electrolysis efficiency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
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'm sorry you misunderstood ... it was not meant as any of those things ... and I am baffled as to how you took me coming up with it not working under the actual very best case with the very best technology ... technology far superior to what you used I still came up with it not working ... so I am baffled how you took that to be a HHO promotion?
As I said I objected because the 500% you claimed came from your representing 20% as a upper limit ... which it is not... a above average amount yes ... but upper limit or best base ... no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
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.
|
Or use the technology in production vehicles that has been sold for over 12 years... which I do not see as a serious distortion ... especially as long as you kept setting that bar soo crazy high by presenting the 500% as an upper limit ... and the best of the best technology ... because it is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Fry
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.
|
I don't see how it encourages them to show that the limits of science are still not good enough ... achieving that 83% is along the science limits of making worm holes for our anti-matter powered space ships.
In contrast from my point of view , your approach encourages HHO advocates ... because all they have to do is show someone they can get from gasoline to electricity at better than 20% and your argument is gone ... that is the key stone you've based it all on ... they did what you claimed they couldn't ... so they might know something you don't ... when in reality getting past 20% is not exceptionally hard ... getting past 60% is exceptionally hard... and still not good enough... I think showing them even getting to 60% is not good enough is more useful ... as they are very unlikely then to get lead astray by someone claiming to have made it work because they show they can past the 60%.
And I thought I sucked as an investor. 
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
HHO: Good, bad, or ugly?
