Hydrogen fuel cell car! HAHA!

No that is ok, please see the previous links I have provided- I do not want to be little anyone here- I really do not- even if I could. I am simply sharing what I have learned over the years, and I expect everyone else to do the same thing- this way we have a good debate concerning this topic. It all begins with an Idea- See the O/P's initial post for proof.

 

Yes this is a very long thread of many good and bad ideas lol lots of good learning here

 

Careful... I don't think you are adding up all your losses. And natural gas is 98% efficient at what?

 

As a heat source- and I follow what you mean. In a different use this becomes a totally differnt issue- I am aware of this.

But please define your meaning of efficientcy- so we can communicate on the same level.

thank you.

 

Ok I will try my best here:

I am speaking in terms of this type of Plasma- note it's abilities.

please note the one I have placed in bold type.

These explain the "lights" you made mention to:

As for the rest, please use this link- Opps- forgot to include the link- sorry- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)#Plasma_properties_and_parameters, while general, it explains, very well, what can be done and created using plasma energy- with very little energy input, vrs output- it's the energy of the future- of this I am sure.

Have a look at upper Alaska, and see what is going on up there- names will make this political- so you'll have to look for yourself. But It is the largest array on planet Earth- then connect the dots.

Never mind- I was told this is not political so here ya go- wonder why your taxes are so high- have a look here- http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/ Dig into this and the funding behind it- you'll find you might not like what you learn.

 

one last link for all you techies- this stuff can get complicated, but is premiere- American Geophysical Union

type in "plasma"

 

Yes modern furnaces can capture 98% of the BTUs of the natural gas as heat into your home. That is not a engine though. A combustion engine's job is to convert chemical energy in gas into mechanical energy at the crank. There is no engine capable of turning 92% of the BTU content in fuel into mechanical energy at the crank.

You have heat loss off the engine. you have heat loss through the coolant. You have heat loss of the exhaust gas. Loss of igniton and excess O2 and of course you have frictional losses of the engine. Couple that with a 20% loss in the drive train and most cars on the road today are capable of turning 20-30% of the BTU content in gas into moving mass down the road.

 

... and to Ryland... that is why it is so hard to believe your numbers..... diesel engines are about 40% efficient at best.. just the engine... so there is plenty of room left for efficiency gains.... but there actually isn't in a internal combustion engine because most of those losses can't be recovered....

Yet here you are getting 20 MPG more... what were you getting before? 20-30 MPG? So you nearly doubled your fuel efficiency... yet is has to be from something....

You can't change exit temps, friction losses, drive train loss, or heat losses... what you can do is improve combustion... but even as was said... you are putting in such a small amount of H2 that the added energy input is negligible. And that is assuming you are combining H with O2 and not C which yields so much more. So while something can be happening... 20 MPG more??? And we know it is not a catalyst type reaction.

One thing to consider.... with all the people out there searching for more power... we have injected nitrous, methane, alcohol, turboed, super charged... and on and on.... I'm sure somebody somewhere with a dyno has hooked up a tank of H2 and tried this out at some point. So far it has not yielded much of a following.

 

I am sorry to tell you but you are simply ....wrong.

Ah come on you have been asked three times now, I mean no offense- but you need to define what you mean upfront, I wont get into a separate debate about gear statics, and transmission consumption and such that use this energy to create motive force- we are speaking in terms of ACTUAL engine efficiency at the end of a dyno. it would seem you do not understand how a combustion engine actually functions.

This is all that matters.

This is completely incorrect. Seriously- prove this- and I will dis prove just as fast- come on now.


Semantics is your game? You are not playing fair, because you refuse to describe what you mean by efficiency. Until then, I wont post any more- debate is based upon equal and known sets of values- you know this

Seriously, commit to what you believe- post it here for all to see, then we'll speak some more.

 

I told you what it is.. and you studying ME should know exactly what it is. It is a simple division of energy input with energy out put. Plain and simple.

An energy balance in a system is all energy... since we know it can only be converted... then 100% of the energy input will be converted to SOME sort of energy to equal 100% energy out of the system. But that is not efficiency... efficiency of a an engine is how well does it does it's job. An engine's job is to convert chemical energy into mechanical energy... period. So how well does it do it's job..... you simply divide mechanical energy out by chemical energy in... and I stand by everything I said.

Efficiencies are across what ever you want to measure. 98% of the BTU input of natural gas is converted to thermal energy... a furnace's sole job. My boilers at work are 85% efficient at turning the coal into heat out as steam. The rest goes out the stack. The turbine is 95% efficient at turning the thermal input of steam into mechanical energy at the shaft measured by the heat loss between the temp and pressure of the steam entering the system and the temp and press of the steam exiting the system. The generator depends based on vars and power factor but it can be 90% efficient at converting the mechanical energy of the shaft into electricity out the door. However.... we have forgot all about the condenser that condenses the steam back to water which is a HUGE loss.... that is responsible for making my plant only 35% efficient at converting the BTU content of the coal to Megawatts out the door.

Energy in equals energy out minus all the losses....simple efficiencies. I can promise you there is no internal combustion engine that is 92% efficient at converting the fuel in to mechanical energy out... it's sole purpose.