Quote:
|
Originally Posted by J-Ri
Assuming you split the hydrocarbon in half, you would be short two hydrogen atoms, not have extra ( H=(Cx2)+2 decane=C10H22 octane=C8H18 pentane=C5H12). Altough the chemical energy is the same, not all of the fuel is burned inside the engine. Longer HC chains take longer to burn than shorter ones do (so we burn them in the cat - efficient as a heater, not so efficient at turning chemical energy into mechanical energy), so lets say you change one decane molecule into two pentane molecules. The pentane has a higher percent of it's burn time while still on the power stroke.
Why doesn't ExxonMobil do that? Why would they? They have absolutely no reason whatsoever to be more efficient. If it costs more and we need more of it, they charge us more and they make more money.
Throughout history people have said "If they're not doing it, it can't be done". At one time it was impossible to travel faster than the speed of sound (infact, at one time if you went over 25 MPH you would die because all the air would get sucked out of your lungs). At one time it was impossible to get a package from NY to CA overnight. Facts change.
|
The laws of thermodynamics have not yet been broken. Despite people claiming to have done so for hundreds of years.
Each person who claimed to have done so was either mistaken or fraudulent.
This IMO is the latter.
A modern EFI engine runs at stoich or lean at cruise, there is no significant amount of fuel being burn in the cat converter and no noticable gains to be made there.
Cracking fuel into smaller molecules makes for a less dense product, go too far and you've turned your liquid fuel into gas. Do vehicles running on propane have better efficiency than vehicles running on petrol?
No they dont, which exposes the whole "cracking" theory as "crackpot".
It's all BS, just like the HHO muppets all over youtube.