# Re: OT wild schemes - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Re: OT wild schemes - Ubuntu ; caver1 wrote: > Never said it was perfect just said it does work. And no it doesn't go > against the laws of thermodynamics. If it did we wouldn't need to add > more fuel to keep things running. Or ...

# Thread: Re: OT wild schemes

1. ## Re: OT wild schemes

caver1 wrote:
> Never said it was perfect just said it does work. And no it doesn't go
> against the laws of thermodynamics. If it did we wouldn't need to add
> more fuel to keep things running. Or at where we are now at trying to
> figure out how to produce enough fuel to make this worth while.

AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

Look, let's pretend you are the genius who can make ALL conversions
99% efficient.

Pretend a gas-powered reciprocating engine in the hypothetical car
gets 99 mpg.

Since it is 99% efficient, that means 0.01 gallon was lost as heat or
wear on the engine or something, and 0.99 gallons is worth 99 miles.

OK, now let's change the process.

Burn 1.00 gallons of gasoline to get .99 gallons worth of electricity.

Use 0.99 gas-gallons worth of electricity to get 0.9801 gas-gallons
worth of hydrogen.

Burn 0.9801 gas-gallons worth of hydrogen to get 0.970299 gas-gallons
worth of movement.

So, if you could somehow manage to lose ONLY ONE PERCENT at each step,
the one step process goes 99 miles on one gallon.

The three-step process goes a hair over 97 miles for every gallon of gas.

So, 99% efficiency: 99 miles vs. 97 miles

90% efficiency: 90 miles vs. 73 miles

80% efficiency: 80 miles vs. 51 miles

50% efficiency: 50 miles vs. 12.5 miles

Bottom line is, this technique will INCREASE your
gasoline consumption at any efficiency level other
than 100%. If you achieve 100% efficiency, you
will use the SAME, not less gasoline. But 100% efficiency
means _NO_ energy becomes heat and _NO_ energy becomes
wear on any parts.

So, since the only way it could _reduce_ gasoline consumption
would be a miracle, the random sig-picker picked a good one....

--
Wes Groleau

"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a
firm and unalterable experience has established these laws,
the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact,
is as entire as could possibly be imagined."
-- David Hume, age 37

"There's no such thing of that, 'cause I never heard of it."
-- Becky Groleau, age 4

2. ## Re: OT wild schemes

Wes Groleau wrote:
> caver1 wrote:
>> Never said it was perfect just said it does work. And no it doesn't go
>> against the laws of thermodynamics. If it did we wouldn't need to add
>> more fuel to keep things running. Or at where we are now at trying to
>> figure out how to produce enough fuel to make this worth while.

>
> AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
>
> Look, let's pretend you are the genius who can make ALL conversions
> 99% efficient.
>
> Pretend a gas-powered reciprocating engine in the hypothetical car
> gets 99 mpg.
>
> Since it is 99% efficient, that means 0.01 gallon was lost as heat or
> wear on the engine or something, and 0.99 gallons is worth 99 miles.
>
> OK, now let's change the process.
>
> Burn 1.00 gallons of gasoline to get .99 gallons worth of electricity.
>
> Use 0.99 gas-gallons worth of electricity to get 0.9801 gas-gallons
> worth of hydrogen.
>
> Burn 0.9801 gas-gallons worth of hydrogen to get 0.970299 gas-gallons
> worth of movement.
>
> So, if you could somehow manage to lose ONLY ONE PERCENT at each step,
> the one step process goes 99 miles on one gallon.
>
> The three-step process goes a hair over 97 miles for every gallon of gas.
>
> So, 99% efficiency: 99 miles vs. 97 miles
>
> 90% efficiency: 90 miles vs. 73 miles
>
> 80% efficiency: 80 miles vs. 51 miles
>
> 50% efficiency: 50 miles vs. 12.5 miles
>
> Bottom line is, this technique will INCREASE your
> gasoline consumption at any efficiency level other
> than 100%. If you achieve 100% efficiency, you
> will use the SAME, not less gasoline. But 100% efficiency
> means _NO_ energy becomes heat and _NO_ energy becomes
> wear on any parts.
>
> So, since the only way it could _reduce_ gasoline consumption
> would be a miracle, the random sig-picker picked a good one....
>

So how efficient is gasoline? not very. I never said that it would
replace gasoline. I never said how efficient it was. all I said that it
was possible. I do and have had gasoline engines running on pure
hydrogen. Usable yet. I will say again no. Sometime in the future I
believe so. It is all of you that claim I promised miracles.
So as you say if the efficiency would increase by any margin that is
better than nothing. I never said there was no loss, no heat.
That is in your minds. You want perfection you're lost because nothing
man does is perfect and never will be. But more things are possible than
you think.

caver1

3. ## Re: OT wild schemes

caver1 wrote:
snip
>>

>
>
> So how efficient is gasoline? not very. I never said that it would replace
> gasoline. I never said how efficient it was. all I said that it was possible.
> I do and have had gasoline engines running on pure hydrogen. Usable yet. I
> will say again no. Sometime in the future I believe so. It is all of you that
> claim I promised miracles. So as you say if the efficiency would increase by
> any margin that is better than nothing. I never said there was no loss, no
> heat. That is in your minds. You want perfection you're lost because nothing
> man does is perfect and never will be. But more things are possible than you
> think.
>
> caver1

caver1, are you aware of any aspect of a water desalination project that may be
better utilized producing hydrogen/oxygen as by-products - or vice versa?

Bob

4. ## Re: OT wild schemes

"caver1" wrote in message
> Wes Groleau wrote:
>> caver1 wrote:
>>> Never said it was perfect just said it does work. And no it doesn't go
>>> against the laws of thermodynamics. If it did we wouldn't need to add
>>> more fuel to keep things running. Or at where we are now at trying to
>>> figure out how to produce enough fuel to make this worth while.

>>
>> AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
>>
>> Look, let's pretend you are the genius who can make ALL conversions
>> 99% efficient.
>>
>> Pretend a gas-powered reciprocating engine in the hypothetical car
>> gets 99 mpg.
>>
>> Since it is 99% efficient, that means 0.01 gallon was lost as heat or
>> wear on the engine or something, and 0.99 gallons is worth 99 miles.
>>
>> OK, now let's change the process.
>>
>> Burn 1.00 gallons of gasoline to get .99 gallons worth of electricity.
>>
>> Use 0.99 gas-gallons worth of electricity to get 0.9801 gas-gallons worth
>> of hydrogen.
>>
>> Burn 0.9801 gas-gallons worth of hydrogen to get 0.970299 gas-gallons
>> worth of movement.
>>
>> So, if you could somehow manage to lose ONLY ONE PERCENT at each step,
>> the one step process goes 99 miles on one gallon.
>>
>> The three-step process goes a hair over 97 miles for every gallon of gas.
>>
>> So, 99% efficiency: 99 miles vs. 97 miles
>>
>> 90% efficiency: 90 miles vs. 73 miles
>>
>> 80% efficiency: 80 miles vs. 51 miles
>>
>> 50% efficiency: 50 miles vs. 12.5 miles
>>
>> Bottom line is, this technique will INCREASE your
>> gasoline consumption at any efficiency level other
>> than 100%. If you achieve 100% efficiency, you
>> will use the SAME, not less gasoline. But 100% efficiency
>> means _NO_ energy becomes heat and _NO_ energy becomes
>> wear on any parts.
>>
>> So, since the only way it could _reduce_ gasoline consumption
>> would be a miracle, the random sig-picker picked a good one....
>>

>
>
> So how efficient is gasoline? not very. I never said that it would replace
> gasoline. I never said how efficient it was. all I said that it was
> possible. I do and have had gasoline engines running on pure hydrogen.
> Usable yet. I will say again no. Sometime in the future I believe so.

I have seen usable hydrogen powered cars, you must be doing something wrong.

> It is all of you that claim I promised miracles.

You claim a miracle, not promise one.

> So as you say if the efficiency would increase by any margin that is
> better than nothing. I never said there was no loss, no heat.

So where are you replacing the loss from, not water as it doesn't have any
replacement energy.

Take the exhaust and put it through a fan cooled condenser and you can use
the same water as you started with, real perpetual motion.

> That is in your minds. You want perfection you're lost because nothing man
> does is perfect and never will be. But more things are possible than you
> think.

You want perpetual motion, yes you are a crank of the same order.

>
> caver1

5. ## Re: OT wild schemes

"Bob" wrote in message
news:g3co28\$75g\$1@registered.motzarella.org...

> caver1, are you aware of any aspect of a water desalination project that
> may be
> better utilized producing hydrogen/oxygen as by-products - or vice versa?
>

True, he has saved the world from water shortages too..
all he has to do is electrolyze sea water, condense the exhaust gases and
instant drinking water with zero power needed.
I wonder why nobody has done it before?

> Bob