docco monday night on water fuel

General discussions on all non technical car related topics

Moderator: The Mod Squad

Postby dragonx » Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:24 am

Razz wrote:The oil industry can only lose out if alternate fuels are made mainstream, why would they want to lose money? They are having the time of their life at the moment, charging a premium for oil and scaring the general public into believing that oil resources are running out quickly (which I also think is a total scam, and that oil is replenished naturally in the earths cycles).
They have a strangle hold and would not enjoy that being threatened.
:?


i agree there r lots of bright ideas out there, that perhaps oil companies dont want you to use, but 1 of them is not splitting H20 to run your engine.
maybe 1 day but not today and not any time soon.

ahh the question of oil running out, of course its going to run out, it has just run out of 50us per barrel oil, then 60 then 70 soon its going to run out of 120 oil, i just hope i have enough cash saved when in old (even older than now) to afford to put gas in my out dated turbo charged, poluting, oil wasting people killing speed machine.
In the Land of Dunedin
User avatar
dragonx
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 1:11 am
Location: Tropical Dunedin

Postby mtrntr » Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:57 am

To quote Alert Einstein... you know funny guy with the big poofy hair and mo... theory of relativity, atomic bomb.... so on and so on...


"If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it"


Personally I think hes a prankster.
If he is right though, hell be dead soon :)
User avatar
mtrntr
Cruise Mastah
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 11:18 am
Location: AKL

what i think

Postby old schooler » Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:47 pm

stupid as it is, water can burn, all you need to do is get is atomised in a way so it is realy small and have lots of surface area. (hell, hydrogen burns real good, and 0xygen helps too). what he must do to water is make it easyer to atomise.

the fact that he is seen as a liar is because everyone knows that water cant burn.
it can burn, but from the sound of his motor, it dosent sound in as crisp as a petrol burning engine. so me thinks that it will be down on power compared to petrol.

but who cares? find out how he get to atomise the water and you have a water engine, water bloody free last time i looked
old schooler
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:04 pm
Location: new plymouth

Re: what i think

Postby dragonx » Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:09 pm

old schooler wrote:stupid as it is, water can burn, all you need to do is get is atomised in a way so it is realy small and have lots of surface area. (hell, hydrogen burns real good, and 0xygen helps too). what he must do to water is make it easyer to atomise.


please explain how water burns, its such a legendary idea, im thinking ill convert my fireplace to burning tap water, and to think all this time ive been burning wood :roll:

Because from what I now understand that you are saying, is all I require is good atomization and im good to go.

My god, now that I think about it, ill get an aquamist system put it in my car, and then I won’t have to use any gas :)

Ohh am i being to sarcastic?
In the Land of Dunedin
User avatar
dragonx
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 1:11 am
Location: Tropical Dunedin

Postby Bling » Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:23 pm

i think what hes saying is that both hydrogen and oxygen burn...... so if u can get them separated..... waalah

didn't see the show, so only going by whats been said :P
User avatar
Bling
** Moderator **
 
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:02 pm
Location: Quake City

Postby Dragger_Dan » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:14 pm

Yeah but atomising has nothing to do with splitting the molecules apart, electrolosis is the way to go.
Dragger_Dan
 

well

Postby TRDmod » Sun Oct 23, 2005 3:30 pm

there is actually an article ages and ages ago, i read it when iw as over seas, in philippines. this engineer apparently made a realy efficient hydrogen fuel converter...in theory its extremely ingenius. filipino government thought he was a crack pot and decided not to fund him...published his findings, and lamborghini has hired him right now...so it is possible, car makers think so..

funny too...alot of the worlds leading hydrogen reserchers apparently retired for unknown reasons.....this is true, its in discovery channel:D they retire or disappear
:D
Have you got the hots? for what's in the box with the dots? ..... 0800 30 40 50
Domino's Pizza.....
User avatar
TRDmod
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2003 2:58 pm

Re: well

Postby Ae92typeX » Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:32 pm

TRDmod wrote:there is actually an article ages and ages ago, i read it when iw as over seas, in philippines. this engineer apparently made a realy efficient hydrogen fuel converter...in theory its extremely ingenius. filipino government thought he was a crack pot and decided not to fund him...published his findings, and lamborghini has hired him right now...so it is possible, car makers think so..

funny too...alot of the worlds leading hydrogen reserchers apparently retired for unknown reasons.....this is true, its in discovery channel:D they retire or disappear
:D


just standard hydrogen powered engines are not anything overally new. I remember seeing an artice ages ago about a bus company somewhere in nz which runs its fleet on hydrogen. Or are you talking about the converter which produces hydrogen onboard from fumes and adds them back to the combustion process to aid cleaner running?
Cant believe im still a member here.

http://toyspeed.blakjak.net/profiles/profile.php?id=113
User avatar
Ae92typeX
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 11:00 pm
Location: North Shore

Postby ChaosAD » Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:38 pm

Yes science does have its flaws. ie, aparently it is scientifiaclly impossable for a bumblebee to fly! But when something burns it is oxidised. and water is just burnt hydrogen. you cant burn it twice....can u?
User avatar
ChaosAD
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 2212
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:40 am
Location: Whangarei

Postby dragonx » Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:47 am

ChaosAD wrote: and water is just burnt hydrogen. you cant burn it twice....can u?


theres a difference between, converting liquid water to gaseous water, and actually burning water, by splitting water.

so its not being burnt twice.

i watched on discovery channel once, that the apollo moon trips were all done on a sound stage, well since it was on discovery it must be true 8O

i cant believe how many followers there r for the grassy knoll believers :roll: i thought you would be more worried about aliens ?mayeb you better go directly to the kitchen, get the tin foil and cover your head in case they fry your mind :!:
In the Land of Dunedin
User avatar
dragonx
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 1:11 am
Location: Tropical Dunedin

Postby neon_spork » Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:44 pm

The thing about the first and second laws of thermo dynamics is that it has been shown and proven time and again that they cannot be broken. Thus we call them the laws. Being an inventor is about innovation and comming up with new and fantastic ideas but even the craziest inventions have to work with in certain boundries (the laws or thermodynamics, physics etc) and that where the hard part is.

Most of these 'too good to be true' engines fall down when you applie the second law of thermodynamics, which talk about the quality of energy and irreversibilities. It states that no heat engine can be 100% efficent, so the amout of energy that you use to spilt your water in to hydrogen and oxygen will be more than the amount you get back when you burn that hydrogen and oxygen.
User avatar
neon_spork
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:30 am

Postby DriftMonkey » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:07 pm

Well hydrogen is combustible, and oxygen is an accelerant (a pretty damn good one at that) so if this guy managed to build some form of electrolisis machine to split water, and feed it into the engine in the correct ratio of each, then I'll believe him. The last guy to get this to work got chewed up in a hay baler *bit of a coincidence* so if this guy disappears, then I'd say his method worked well. If this worked, you could have submarines and boats running off the water they travel, with submarines even producing their own oxygen for breathing. Only downside is the water disappears (seeing as it is chemically reacted, no physically) and our world turns to shit in however many years it takes to use up all the water (good thing global warming is providing us with more liquid water then aye? :D ).
Image
User avatar
DriftMonkey
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Chch

Postby ChaosAD » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:21 pm

But as everyone else has said. You need enregy to split the water. Where does this energy come from?
Its like electric vehicles. Sure theyre environmentally friendly but where does the energy come from to charge the betteries?
User avatar
ChaosAD
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 2212
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:40 am
Location: Whangarei

Postby malc » Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:05 pm

Where does this energy come from?


probably from the same place where you get energy to extract petrol from crude oil :wink:
Image
User avatar
malc
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:21 am
Location: Auckland

Postby neon_spork » Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:39 pm

Razz wrote:
Where does this energy come from?


probably from the same place where you get energy to extract petrol from crude oil :wink:


Extracting petrol form crude oil is a bit different thought. Petrol (and oil) has a high useful energy content or calorific value, thus some energy is used to make the petrol but the petrol it self has useful chemical potential energy in it too.
energy out = energy in + potential chemical energy.

Water has very little (read none) useful enery content, so at the end of the day you get back less energy burning it than you did making it into hydrogen and oxygen.
Also it wont combust to produce any work output as water.
energy out = energy in (if it was 100% efficent, which it cannot be)

Hence we use petrol to run our cars and not water...
User avatar
neon_spork
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:30 am

Postby malc » Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:35 pm

my car runs on hope :?
Image
User avatar
malc
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:21 am
Location: Auckland

Postby Santa'sBoostinSleigh » Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:09 am

DriftMonkey wrote:Well hydrogen is combustible, and oxygen is an accelerant (a pretty damn good one at that) so if this guy managed to build some form of electrolisis machine to split water, and feed it into the engine in the correct ratio of each, then I'll believe him. The last guy to get this to work got chewed up in a hay baler *bit of a coincidence* so if this guy disappears, then I'd say his method worked well. If this worked, you could have submarines and boats running off the water they travel, with submarines even producing their own oxygen for breathing. Only downside is the water disappears (seeing as it is chemically reacted, no physically) and our world turns to sh*t in however many years it takes to use up all the water (good thing global warming is providing us with more liquid water then aye? :D ).

by 'combusting water' you cannot use it up. the stoic ratio for burning hydrogen and oxygen is H2 + O = H2O
Santa's Mega Sale
Santa's TardMe Listings
GTFX: viewtopic.php?t=67655
Discussion: viewtopic.php?t=67658

Some cocksmack stole one of my 5ANTA plates, if you see it please let me/the police know, ta
User avatar
Santa'sBoostinSleigh
** Moderator **
 
Posts: 4154
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:54 pm
Location: 'Naki Massif

maybe

Postby old schooler » Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:51 am

how is this one tho?
hjydrogen will burn in air as little at 6% by volume. and all the way up to 75%. fule has such a range of combustablity. sure, 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen will give a perfect equation, but nothing in theory works as well as pratice.
here is another good one too, i spoke of this a while back and got majorly bagged for it. so do try.
and experiment was conducted using a turbo engine and water injection. for start, the engine was dynoed using a machine which mesured internal combustion pressure, and averaged it to give a mean effective pressure (find this, multipy by stroke and you have work,(force x distance = work) eg Hp)
they started winding up the boost to the onset of knock. to cure this, more gasoline was added.
just to add here, standard (before boost increase) Brake Mean Effective Pressure (BMEP) was 120 psi. at 168psi enrichment began, and fuel being burned to make Hp increased. at 237psi, no more enrichment cured knock, infact further enrichment, made it knock more.
this was when water was injeted in with the fuel.
also, MAX pressure inside the cylinder was measured at 1025psi (know wonder pistons break!) with the introduction of water, the fuel being used could leand off, and more water injected in. also, the MAX cylinder pressure falls off.
the Dyno only went to 290psi, and could have gone much higher.
so water injection is good, even in ya stocker gasoline engine.
it works by the water cooling the charge of air entering the cylinder so that when it is compressed it is not in such a volitlie state.

on another note, water is very wierd. at 200 atmospheres (thats about 2900psi) and 300C, it will eat anything. plastic, glass, even nuclear waste and make it harmless. why no one has made this is because no one can containe it at this because it eats the thing containing it.

with that, water is wierd. who knows, oxidied water is Hydrogen Peroxide, H2O2. and this stuff is a rocket fuel.
till you, personaly, have seen it, tried it, or know how it works, it becomes so simple as to how it works. the guy who did it said he hasnt ever opend a cemstry book, so he did what he found was right and what worked and what didnt.
I congratulate him, as it most possibly will keep the internal combustion engine alive and kicking ass against the quiet, eletrics and unpreformance hybrids (hanvent seen any at the drags or skids lately)
well done to him
old schooler
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:04 pm
Location: new plymouth

Postby MrOizo » Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:38 am

mtrntr wrote:To quote Alert Einstein... you know funny guy with the big poofy hair and mo... theory of relativity, atomic bomb.... so on and so on...


"If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it"


like in my sig ;)
User avatar
MrOizo
Toyspeed Legend
 
Posts: 6658
Joined: Thu May 16, 2002 9:26 pm
Location: Onehunga, Auckland

Re: maybe

Postby fivebob » Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:51 pm

old schooler wrote: here is another good one too, i spoke of this a while back and got majorly bagged for it. so do try.
and experiment was conducted using a turbo engine and water injection. for start, the engine was dynoed using a machine which mesured internal combustion pressure, and averaged it to give a mean effective pressure (find this, multipy by stroke and you have work,(force x distance = work) eg Hp)
so water injection is good, even in ya stocker gasoline engine.
it works by the water cooling the charge of air entering the cylinder so that when it is compressed it is not in such a volitlie state.
....

Please don't plagiarise someone else's work and not quote the source. :evil:

The experiment you quoted is detailed "The High-Speed Internal Combustion Engine" by Sir Harry R. Ricardo and J.G.G Hempson ISBN: 0216890268, originally published in 1941, and updated with the water injection info quoted in the 1953 edition.

The water injection research was carried out during WWII and is proof that water does not combust, in fact it retards combustion allowing a greater BMEP to develop though max cylinder pressure is lower. Here's the diagram that shows the effect.

Image

on another note, water is very wierd. at 200 atmospheres (thats about 2900psi) and 300C, it will eat anything. plastic, glass, even nuclear waste and make it harmless. why no one has made this is because no one can containe it at this because it eats the thing containing it.

Got any proof of this outrageous claim? I can think of of few examples where water at these pressures and temperatures is quite easily contained, and in certainly doesn’t consume all around it, and most certainly does not decontaminate nuclear waste.

with that, water is wierd. who knows, oxidied water is Hydrogen Peroxide, H2O2. and this stuff is a rocket fuel.

Indeed it is, but that's because it has too much oxygen to form a stable bond, (that's what the "Per" part is about) so that when passed over a silver catalyst it breaks down into H20 + O2 and releases a lot of heat so the water turns to steam, thus acting as a monopropellant, however it's much more efficient as an oxidiser and there were quite a few rocket engines that used it + a secondary fuel like Kerosene or Alcohol. In fact it was used as fuel for one of my favourite aircraft, the Messerschmitt Me163 Komet, had tremendous speed (960km/h) and rate of climb (5000m/min) but very limited range (<100kms).

However Hydrogen Peroxide is not water, so how does this relate to the topic at hand. Unless you're stating that the engine shown was actually using it as a fuel, and thus was a fraud. Fascinating substance though it is, I fail to see how it relates to the topic at hand :roll:
till you, personaly, have seen it, tried it, or know how it works, it becomes so simple as to how it works. the guy who did it said he hasnt ever opend a cemstry book, so he did what he found was right and what worked and what didnt.

If it's so simple, then please explain how it works to the great unwashed masses of Toyspeed. Myself I must be too dumb to understand as I can't see any way it could possibly work.
User avatar
fivebob
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 3879
Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 5:12 pm
Location: Tauranga

PreviousNext

Return to General Car Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests