Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.
sorry i do apologise for not keeping u all 100% up to date I am planning on now converting a 4 Stroke however the problem comes with the fact im looking for an engine sub 50cc as i'm now considering the pros and cons of entering a vehicle with the described engine into the shell mileage marathon as I have access to the moulds of the carbon shell cars I showed in My F35 topic.
I seriously doubt that such a design would be even close to competitive in such an endeavour. If you intend to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen, then burn the hydrogen, all in the same vehicle, you will suffer terrible inefficiencies. First off, you need a power source to convert the water to hydrogen. That alone isn't 100% efficient, in fact, I believe it's very inefficient. Then you need some system to handle the hydrogen. Unless you figure out some passive system, that too will consume energy. Then you burn the hydrogen, and that process isn't 100 % efficient. And the total energy realized from the input would be of a very, very low order itself.
And what will you use to separate the water molecules? Most likely electricity. And since in the Shell contest you have to burn gas, it could take some form of internal combustion engine turning a generator. And if your power source is electricity, it would be advisable to use just an electric motor to provide propulsive power, instead of all these steps.
So if you use an internal combustion engine to turn a generator to provide power to break down water to hydrogen, then burn that to provide propulsive power, you have five separate processes. I'll just pick some numbers out of the air to illustrate how wasteful that is. Even if each process was 90% efficient (and trust me, they are way less), then with an input of 100% energy, you realize at the final step an efficiency of around 59%. And if it was 40%, then you would have a theoretical efficiency of 1.024%. And that's not taking into consideration other losses... wheel drag, bearing friction, and many more.
