At 06:38 PM 7/13/2008, miguel pacheco wrote:
>Uhm, read on, the O2 thing is no longer an issue..............
>Possible or not, it looks like a fun project.

I've got one question, in two* parts.

A: How much energy does it take to electrolyze the water to H and O?
B: How much energy do you get back by burning the stuff?  Is it as
much as you spent to make it?  Hint: No, it isn't.
C: What's the efficiency of the gasoline --> mechanical -->
electrical cycle that generates the current to electrolyze the
water?  Guessing 30% in the engine times 80% in the alternator... :-(
D: Where does the energy come from to do this?  Hint:  The Gasoline.

*Our THREE main weapons are surprise, fear, ruthless efficiency and
fanatical devotion to the Pope!

TANSTAAFL.  The three laws of thermodynamics say you can't win, you
can't break even, and you can't get out of the game.  There's no
question that you suffer a net loss of energy by hydrolyzing water
and then burning the products, made worse by the various
inefficiencies attendant on generating the electricity.  So *IF* this
method works at all, it has to be by somehow increasing the
efficiency of the Otto engine cycle by a considerable amount, i.e.
getting considerably more mechanical output from somewhat less
thermal input.  AFAIK the only remaining area for large improvements
in recovery of mechanical effort from the thermal cycle involve
raising the operating temperature of the engine which is currently
constrained by materials (Smokey Yunick once hoped, maybe still does,
to build a ceramic engine that would run continuously red-hot for
just this reason).

So what am I missing?  Help me out here...

--
David Beierl - Providence RI USA -- http://pws.prserv.net/synergy/Vanagon/
'84 Westy "Dutiful Passage," '85 GL "Poor Relation"