Well, that covers a fair range of opinion.
Yes, I have , just like the rest of you, read all the 'no, it can't be done' stuff. But To me it all comes down to the conservation of energy problem. i.e if it takes ten horse power to produce x amount of hydroxy, then burning that x amount will only produce ten horse power; less losses due to friction etc. I know many disagree with this, but that is what physics says. NOW, before I become persona non grata, let me say that maybe there are ways around some of this problem, and that is where the hope is.
Getting a small amount of hydroxy into the cylinders is in fact augmenting the 20% of oxygen that is already in the air. So we are not actually asking the hydroxy to do all the work. Maybe this is what is going on. We'll see.
I don't go for the big amps route. I feel sure that most designs don't get best use from the cell. Randy's idea seems to be an exception. Maybe that is the way to go.
The tube cell idea put forward by Fisher etc seemed full of promise, but we still don't have a bottle fill test.
Amps * volts and the resistance in the cell produce heat. Are these big amp cells going to boil ?
What I find frustrating is that some promising reports fall short in critical areas. I take it that you all have read the report that shows a small four stroke engine being run of hydroxy alone. It ran this way for 6 second whilst being supplied from a balloon full of gas. Why didn't the builder have a cell supplying on board gas connected at the same time ? just to further prove his point. Mind you, his real point was that it needed more gas than it could produce.
But even if the whole thing eventually comes down to simply increasing the mpg through supllementing with hydroxy, that is a good thing.
Do I think it is worth the effort ? I'm off to cut some bigger plates, figure it out for yourself
Manta
