obviously the weight of the system needs to be taken into consideration and would need to be minimised. a simple stirling can be made with little more than 2 tin cans and some wire wool.. really doesn't weigh much at all... perhaps an electrolyser could be formed using graphene coated plastic instead of the usual metal plates. it would also not weigh much. by having a small water tank, that could also be kept at a reasonable level.
if you just want to dismiss the idea because no one has done it yet, fair enough... that's up to you i guess...
Can it be minimized enough that the energy output contributes meaningful improvements to MPG, though?
That doesn't sound terribly efficient.
"Minimized", "simple" and "reasonable" sound good, but are not math demonstrating that the total weight of such a system does not consume more fuel to move than the fuel it saves.
There is nothing to dismiss yet. I encourage you to build such a device, test it and write an article about your results.
btw. here's a quick vid showing how to build the tincan stirling...if you're interested... it was designed by NASA so is probably quite good. don't know the numbers though...
Neat. So in your opinion, what is the most likely reason that auto makers who have built waste heat recapturing systems into their cars have used every method except stirling engine powered electrolysis?
i really wasn't aware that any cars were in production that did so. a quick google has showed me that they seem to mostly use a type of steam engine called a rankine engine. this is a new one on me . will have to look into it. another option is thermoelectric devices, presumably some kind of peltier module, something i have contemplated in the past.
as these are being used to directly charge the batteries in the case of hybrids, or add power directly to the driveshaft they are not things that would be practical for someone attempting a DIY improvement to an old car.
from wiki: Researchers at Loughborough University and the University of Sussex, both in the UK, also have concluded that using waste heat from light-duty vehicle engines in a steam power cycle could deliver fuel economy advantages of between 6.3% and 31.7%"
although this is done using a rankine engine it shows that there is validity to the concept of using waste heat to improve efficiency, even with the added weight of the system.
they probably use these approaches to avoid the inefficiency of electrolysis. they are making brand new machines and want to use the optimal solution.
for a DIY mechanic looking to improve the efficiency of his old car, electrolised hydrogen may be the only option. even if the limitations of the electrolyser reduce the impact to only 2 or 3% instead of the 30% offered by a shiny new rankine steam system, it's still better than nothing in my opinion.
There is absolutely merit to recapturing waste heat, that was never in dispute. What's being disputed is whether the method you've described can save more gas than it uses.
Only if it actually delivers any benefit. If it did, probably auto makers would be selling these kits themselves.
It may deliver no benefit at all, or a net loss.
there's obviously no point continuing this conversation. your mind is made up. anything HHO is bunk... not worth considering... ok. you should get on with the flatearthers really, the same unswervable confidence that you are entirely correct in your assumptions and refusal to listen to any contrary arguments... oh well.. peace.
Is that really why you feel that way? Are you sure it isn't because when I asked you why automakers utilize many methods of waste heat recapture, but not the one you describe, it made you realize that is probably because they tried yours and it does not deliver fuel savings?
Where'd I say that? It seems to me that you're attributing an unreasonable attitude to me as a pretense to bug out of the conversation, because what I said concerning existing methods of waste heat recapture utilized by major automakers made you realize that they probably tried the one you described, and do not use it because it does not deliver fuel savings.
I have listened to your arguments. I countered by observing that major auto manufacturers already utilize several methods for waste heat recapture, but none involving HHO.
Either they have tried it and it does not deliver enough fuel savings to be worth the weight and expense by comparison with the other methods, or no auto engineer in the world has thought of it, but you have. Is that likely?
What part of this reasoning is faulty? Am I really the one reacting in a stubborn and immature way to sound arguments?
perhaps i will one day, but i'm more of a dreamer than a do-er... just putting it out there as an option for anyone that's into DIY experiments... good luck in your flag war, all the best...