Page 1 on 2
published: 28/10/05, 00:34
by Icing
Why not use high efficiency electrolysis?
That is to say to send a frequency in the electrodes to the frequency of resonance of water which produces much more gas than with an electrolysis with direct current with the same amount of energy.
published: 28/10/05, 08:39
by professeur_tournesol
For me, as a thermodynamicist, the answer is very clear: perpetual motion does not exist!
water is not a fuel but only plays the role of energy transfer. To decompose the water molecule, you need energy, which it will give back by recomposing. but the yield is never equal to one.
So the strictly water engine is not theoretically possible.
Professor_tournesol
published: 28/10/05, 09:53
by Cuicui
It can work if we find a way to extract energy somewhere.
published: 28/10/05, 11:04
by Icing
For me, as a thermodynamicist, the answer is very clear: perpetual motion does not exist!
water is not a fuel but only plays the role of energy transfer. To decompose the water molecule, you need energy, which it will give back by recomposing. but the yield is never equal to one.
So the strictly water engine is not theoretically possible.
Professor_tournesol
I agree with you, but an engine whose efficiency is 35-40% can surely be improved.
published: 28/10/05, 11:28
by professeur31
prof_tournesol wrote:For me, as a thermodynamicist, the answer is very clear: perpetual motion does not exist!
water is not a fuel but only plays the role of energy transfer. To decompose the water molecule, you need energy, which it will give back by recomposing. but the yield is never equal to one.
So the strictly water engine is not theoretically possible.
Professor_tournesol
Totally agree with you prof.
Indeed the 100% water engine will never exist!
published: 28/10/05, 15:22
by Christophe
Professor31 wrote:Totally agree with you prof.
Indeed the 100% water engine will never exist!
And the flying saucers, huh? Isn't that a "proof" of the possible excess?
published: 28/10/05, 18:12
by Icing
Why can't we make an engine with an efficiency of 99,99999999%? It's not 100% so it must be possible ...
published: 28/10/05, 18:44
by zac
Hello
past 20pm the day after RMI there are flying saucers and other flying objects in the bistros, but I'm not sure if this is the surunity !!!!
(ptétre the rum, it will be necessary to dig into the subject);)
@+
zac
published: 11/11/05, 00:18
by quick
In summary, the power required if we run an additional alternator to produce hydrogen by electrolysis cannot be recovered by the explosion of this hydrogen in the engine which turns this alternator?
true or false?
published: 11/11/05, 15:25
by Other
Hello
reply to quick
Currently the yield to decompose water is mediocre, the pulsed system improves the yield, but it is very, very far from a 100%. This system is exploited for the rapid recharging of certain batteries.
Qand the heat engine when we reach a yield of more than 30% c, is already beautiful,
So even with 95% efficiency in the decomposition of water and 80% efficiency in the engine, it could not work.
In other words it would mean a perpetual movement, because the water recovering from combustion could reserve once condensed,
we have the right to dream, we can at most boost an engine with decomposed gas and slightly improve the overall performance of the engine
I think it is more profitable to work on the combustion of the engine, to try to increase this mediocre efficiency by 30%
Andre