MikeRJ
|
| posted on 24/5/08 at 04:58 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by D Beddows
That's all right then  although I think I made a bit of a mistake in saying one kit is £108 when in fact having read it again I believe
they're only £68
A veritable bargain then!
|
|
|
|
|
rf900rush
|
| posted on 24/5/08 at 09:47 AM |
|
|
Better idea the locost way
Get some silicone tube from your local Model shop.
Connect one end to your Carb and other end to your butt.
Just fart for instant power.
|
|
|
Mole
|
| posted on 24/5/08 at 09:48 AM |
|
|
I wouldn't fancy hydrogen and oxygen been produced under the bonnet of my car, although I imagine it doesn't produce a lot.
|
|
|
Tim 45
|
| posted on 24/5/08 at 11:22 AM |
|
|
actually it does produce a fair bit...about 1.2 cubic metres of hydrogen gas and about 0.6 cubic metres of oxygen (at 50 degress C and atmospheric
pressure).
I've seen this done as an experiment and there are lots of problems..firstly its slow - and i mean painfully slow, so much so that an
electrolyte must be used in order to speed it up. Secondly the more electrolysis that occurs, the more ions are produced at each side, OH- at the
cathode and H+ at the anode. Due to the charge on these, they will repel the flow of electrons from the electricity and cause it to slow down even
further until the ions can diffuse - which takes a while..
In theory its a good idea, in practice its far from it
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 24/5/08 at 03:41 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tim 45
In theory its a good idea, in practice its far from it
its a shocking idea! Why dont people see that whatever energy you use to split the water, you get less back from burning the hydrogen and oxygen? No
process is 100% efficient.
Does anyone really believe that a perpetual motion machine is possible?
[Edited on 24/5/08 by JoelP]
|
|
|
Tim 45
|
| posted on 24/5/08 at 05:37 PM |
|
|
well it was done on mythbusters using propane and a wheel and light energy (albeit studio lighting because the sun wasnt out)...it was just they had
to use time lapse photography to actually show it moving...
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 24/5/08 at 05:54 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tim 45
well it was done on mythbusters using propane and a wheel and light energy (albeit studio lighting because the sun wasnt out)...it was just they had
to use time lapse photography to actually show it moving...
but thats not what the ebay advert is for! If you have a light then you have input energy, hence its not perpetual motion.
The ebay ad is trying to debunk the first law of thermodynamics.
[Edited on 24/5/08 by JoelP]
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 24/5/08 at 09:18 PM |
|
|
heres a sample of mythbuster experiments:
quote:
Free Energy
Adam and Jamie tested various free energy myths, which is their "biggest file" they have for mythbusting. There is no end to different
ideas for free energy, but they settled on a couple that they were able to downloaded specs for off the net.
G-strain amplifier (actually a ring oscillator) that sucks power from the curvature of space. They ran two motors simulatenously, one with the device,
one without: the free energy motor went first.
Temperature wheel: wheel of tanks joined together by spokes set in a pool of water. Half of the tanks filled with propane, which settles to the water
side of the wheel. The sun heats water, which heats propane and causes it to shift to other side of wheel, which induces rotation. The wheel worked,
though the best designs only manage one rotation per minute. The device is a basic solar energy harvester.
Radio wave power harnesser: a 100' antenna that captures radio waves to induce current. The device generated a whopping half a volt.
Perpetual motion machine: blah
|
|
|
Tim 45
|
| posted on 25/5/08 at 10:37 AM |
|
|
yes thanks joel *embarrassed face* i apologise it was free energy rather than perpetual motion, and yes, with current knowledge the perpetual motion
machine is impossible.
However this device is not about perpetual motion but rather an enhancement to the efficiency of the engine - not that it does that anyway.
A quick thought though - what if instead of being connected to the alternator it was connected to an additional fan on the front of the car - could
the hydrogen produced offset the additional drag a fan would provide, or is that total bollox?
|
|
|
