Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 9:26 am
by Bennoz
Its got to be better than petrol... internal combustion engines are at best 30% efficient - ie only 30% of the total energy provided by petrol is utilised to make us move, the rest is lost in heat, noise & other by-prodcuts.
just thought id dig this up again
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:08 am
by gpat
a couple of nights ago on a current affair or something they showed two guys...lawn mower mechanics that had done this conversion on an old falcon.It seemed to be working,they did a short test over 100 klm and the car used 5.** litres .they had a similar falconand it used 20.** litres, which seems to much.
did any one else see it?
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:34 am
by nicholas
gpat, that sounds like utter bullshit.
Oh, wait... it was on Today Tonight? What a surprise.
It's as simple as this: the energy you get back from burning hydrogen WILL NEVER be more than the energy it takes to separate the hydrogen and oxygen from water.
The article supplanter posted has a good analogy - when you break open a piggy bank, there will NEVER be more money in it than what you put into it; it's just not physically possible.
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:15 pm
by I8A4RE
nicholas wrote:gpat, that sounds like utter bullshit.
Oh, wait... it was on Today Tonight? What a surprise.
It's as simple as this: the energy you get back from burning hydrogen WILL NEVER be more than the energy it takes to separate the hydrogen and oxygen from water.
The article supplanter posted has a good analogy - when you break open a piggy bank, there will NEVER be more money in it than what you put into it; it's just not physically possible.
*shakes head*......... and the earth is flat too?