Car on water which instead of over 20 l/100km burns only aroun 5 liters per 100 kilometers
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: Eeyore on 20 Jun 2008 15:23 BobG wrote: > Lets say the dissocoator is using 125 amps at 12V... 1500W... 2HP... > Lets assume the disoociation is 80% efficient. So we have 1200W we can > get back from burning the H2. Almost 2HP. If the car was using 20HP to > cruise with the gizmo off and was getting Xmpg, when he switches it > on, I suppose he is now using 22HP to cruise at the same speed, and > gettin X-Ympg. Now adding the H2 cancels out the Y and we are back to > X mgp like before. Wheres the win? Who said there was a win ? The entire video was a joke. Graham
From: Eeyore on 20 Jun 2008 17:49 Uncle Ben wrote: > If we try to help Dr. Pajak get this discussion back on track, we will > find that he is famous for many things, including the invention of a > perpetual motion machine Right. In Disney World ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 20 Jun 2008 18:16 Bret Cahill wrote: > > A gasoline ICE is about 30% efficient, > > A new perfectly tuned gas engine. Which is how they stay with modern ECUs. > > and a diesel one about 45%. > > 40% for diesel and large high pressure ratio gas turbines. NO. 50% for large marine diesels actually. And that's excluding the co-gen aspect. Graham
From: janpajak on 20 Jun 2008 23:43 On Jun 20, 9:39 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: ... > >http://au.video.yahoo.com/network/100000095?v=2865566 > > I see the kid reckons his ancient wreck only burns 70% of the fuel going in > the engine but adding hydrogen increases it to 80-90 %. > > So even if there were any truth in it, it only makes it ~ 25% more efficient > not 400%. > > He says "I'm saving about 20% on the fuel bill". OK. And then they show an > uncalibrated comparison with *another car* ! > > Graham Paper (or a computer screen) is patient and takes everything that you write on it. But it does NOT make it true in the real life. So we can admire the skill of turning aruments around from "pro" into "contra", but we cannot admire moral consequences that your arguing causes. If humans could put the same energy into implementing new ideas and inventions as they put into criticising these inventions and into preventing everything new from the completion, our planet would look completely different. I call this kind of human destructiveness the "curse of inventors". But in reality this is NOT a curse, but just specific people acting in specific way. One may wonder what kind of interest they have in stopping the progress. Perhaps the answer for this I provided on the web pahe "boiler.htm" which can be run if one types in www.google.com the key words "Jan Pajak boiler.htm" (but without quotes). Similar people and similar actions appeared also on the thread http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1ec304a0b8533c5a/1bcfda7cc9e40aa6 about mechanical everlasting motion. Is it possible that these kind of individuals especially targed and criticise a specific kind of inventions which they consider to be the most dangerous? With the totaliztic salute, Jan Pajak
From: Eeyore on 21 Jun 2008 10:11
janpajak(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Jun 20, 9:39 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > ... > > >http://au.video.yahoo.com/network/100000095?v=2865566 > > > > I see the kid reckons his ancient wreck only burns 70% of the fuel going in > > the engine but adding hydrogen increases it to 80-90 %. > > > > So even if there were any truth in it, it only makes it ~ 25% more efficient > > not 400%. > > > > He says "I'm saving about 20% on the fuel bill". OK. And then they show an > > uncalibrated comparison with *another car* ! > > > > Graham > > Paper (or a computer screen) is patient and takes everything that you > write on it. But it does NOT make it true in the real life. So we can > admire the skill of turning aruments around from "pro" into "contra", > but we cannot admire moral consequences that your arguing causes. > > If humans could put the same energy into implementing new ideas and > inventions as they put into criticising these inventions It was proved nonsense over 100 years ago. Stop trying to reinvent the square wheel you clot. It's a technological dead-end and this stupid thread was fuelled by an incompetently presented news report of ZERO value. Graham |