Hydrogen Burning Engine, no gas storage... - Page 2 - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > General Discussion> Hotrodders' Lounge
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 11-16-2008, 11:11 AM
boatbob2
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: north florida
Age: 76
Posts: 1,374
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 6
Thanked 24 Times in 21 Posts
propane.......

HI,i have a standby generator that runs only on propane, at my house in north florida,it is now 9 years old. it runs only 20 minutes a week (to charge battery) unless needed when the power goes out,not very often. i changed the oil at least 6 years ago,i checked it today,and the oil looked perfectly clean.can go probably another 6 years. propane is the way to go. BUT,now propane is about $2.95 a gallon.

    Advertisement
Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 11-16-2008, 06:12 PM
Cyberats's Avatar
Hydrogen Burning Engine, YES !
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California, USA
Age: 46
Posts: 48
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
To All who Negate an All Hydrogen Engine

I'd like to know which Petroleum company you all work for.

To clarify the mechanics of it, I do not want to convert water into hydrogen to store, I do not want hydrogen storage to feed. I want it converted to feed the engine "on the fly" so only water is stored into the tank. Thus the need for Engineering so as to have the burning engine run efficiently, make enough power and even HOTROD. If I had all the answers you think I'd be here asking YOU ??? Hydrolitic converters may not be fast enough for the airforce right NOW but with the help of the right minded people, it might be in the future.

"We live on two ocean coasts surrounded by water, rivers and lakes all over the country - Help I Am Dying of Thirst !!!"
YOU PEOPLE SOUND RIDICULOUS !!! If you buy the water shortage from the energy consortium, I have a bridge to sell YOU (hint, it's in Brooklyn NY) !!!

Guess what, a water delivery system cannot be MONOPOLIZED and MANIPULATED by anyone, thus the only "green" solution. I am not a nature freak, but I am tired of being raped by billionares.
Ethanol and CNG are natural proven systems, but they fall into the above category and today are as expensive if not more than pump gas.

Perpetual Motion devices ? Well it's possible to have something come 99% close to it and waste very little energy, enough to describe it as perpetual motion, as far as applications of it, we'll have to see.
Quick reply to this message
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 11-16-2008, 09:25 PM
Greg T's Avatar
www.krusinklassics.net
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Escanaba, MI.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,149
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 20
Thanked 41 Times in 32 Posts
Research Stan Meyer. He has the answers, or, HAD the answers.
Quick reply to this message
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 11-16-2008, 10:48 PM
4 Jaw Chuck's Avatar
Hotrodders.com Moderator
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Age: 46
Posts: 4,953
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 2
Thanked 88 Times in 71 Posts
Cyberats, for a guy with absolutely no answers and nothing but a militant ignorant atitude, you still manage to be extremely annoying!

I think that is really the point...next troll please.

BTW what you are asking for has already been built...by a guy here in my very own province back in the 30's. He also invented the modern stoplight.

Charles Nelson Pogue

Of course if you had done your homework you would know that a typical automobile engine has trouble buring hydrogen for many reasons that you would have discovered already if you had done a search on this forum before you posted this thread.

The main reason why it doesn't work in a typical automobile engine

When you get out into the garage and develop the completely ceramic engine capable of burning the hydrogen without falling apart then we can move ahead with generating it and using the resource.

Ok I am done, have a nice day.
Quick reply to this message
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 11-16-2008, 11:39 PM
Cyberats's Avatar
Hydrogen Burning Engine, YES !
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California, USA
Age: 46
Posts: 48
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
ok

Greg T - thanks man, I will do.

4 Jaw Chuck - Militiant - you bet, why shouldn't I be ???
Ignorant - we all are ignorant until we learn more, why attack first and offer information later ? I think you are the troll.

I'll tell you what I think after I read more about it, but I don't see the problem right now, it's not rocket science.

Alloys We Have, Guts We Do Not !!!

I realize you think it's a beat up issue, but how long do we bow our heads only to have it cut ? How many need to die before we stand up and fight for our freedom again ?

Last edited by Cyberats; 11-17-2008 at 12:22 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 11-17-2008, 12:52 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: calgary, alberta, canada
Posts: 7
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
well why don't we first start buy solving the pesky problem of cold fusion or fission. Then lets solve my grad problem on the miller-urey experiment. I cannot believe people still think some crack pot is gonna solve problems like these. I have been in school now for too many years to count. The complex problems you are talking about involve billions of dollars in R&D. Go take High School Chemistry, Biology, Physics, and Calculus them come back and ask stupid questions.
Quick reply to this message
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 11-17-2008, 02:38 AM
curtis73's Avatar
Hates: Liver. Loves: Diesel
 
Last wiki edit: How to find cheap parts
Last journal entry: 1999-2001: Getting it on the road
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Age: 40
Posts: 5,128
Wiki Edits: 16

Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyberats
To clarify the mechanics of it, I do not want to convert water into hydrogen to store, I do not want hydrogen storage to feed. I want it converted to feed the engine "on the fly" so only water is stored into the tank. Thus the need for Engineering so as to have the burning engine run efficiently, make enough power and even HOTROD.
You must have glossed over the factual post I made; complete with a diagram. Or, if you did read it, you have no concept of basic physics and chemistry. I WAS talking about converting on the fly. God, you people are dense. I will put this in all caps and in bold so that maybe you'll get it this time (even though I know you won't) THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY IT TAKES TO SPLIT WATER INTO H2 AND O2 IS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY YOU GET BACK WHEN YOU COMBUST IT. I took the time to make a drawing - a physical depiction of how the first law of physics applies to internal combustion engines. You must have missed it. Let me put it in text form in case you're a reading learner instead of a visual learner.

Water exists at an energy level of zero. Let's say it takes 100 units of energy to split it into H and O. Now, lets say you combust it in an engine and release that 100 units you just put into it. Of that 100 units you release, 80 units disappear as heat, light, and sound energy. That leaves 20 units to propel the car. But, to perpetuate the electrolysis of the water, you need 100 units.

THE IDEA YOU PROPOSE IS NOT ONLY PERPETUAL MOTION, IT GOES ABOVE AND BEYOND PERPETUAL MOTION BY SUGGESTING THAT THERE WILL BE A MAGICAL SURPLUS OF ENERGY FROM THE REACTION.


Quote:
If I had all the answers you think I'd be here asking YOU ??? Hydrolitic converters may not be fast enough for the airforce right NOW but with the help of the right minded people, it might be in the future.
Not unless the "right minded" people are capable of altering the entire balance of all the energy in the universe.

Quote:
Guess what, a water delivery system cannot be MONOPOLIZED and MANIPULATED by anyone, thus the only "green" solution. I am not a nature freak, but I am tired of being raped by billionares.
Then move out of the country that you helped establish with your misplaced vote. The problem of the US energy crisis has nothing to do with the subversion of alternative energy, its that idiots like you have created a conspiracy based on implausible physics. I'm all about alternative energy, but I also don't waste my time on ideas that don't work... and having been an engineer for Saab, GM, Volvo, Ford, Nissan, and Honda, I can safely say that its not about government conspiracy. As an automotive engineer, our biggest problem is not engineering, its the 95% of the buying public who keep asking stupid questions and who have no clue how to interpret the answer when its presented to them. To me, you are like the Star Trek fan who asks Leonard Nimoy about the Vulcan contradiction in episode 113 when he hugs Captain Kirk. Its a television show. Just because you can't separate the scientific reality from the existential delusion, doesn't mean that free energy suddenly exists.

Quote:
Perpetual Motion devices ? Well it's possible to have something come 99% close to it and waste very little energy, enough to describe it as perpetual motion, as far as applications of it, we'll have to see.
Perpetual motion is a complete myth. It is the biggest joke of the scientific community. The fact that you think it might exist someday is a testament to your idiocy. What you don't realize is that you aren't purporting a 99% or 100% efficiency, you are suggesting that the possibility exists for 400% efficiency. You are suggesting that you can take water [a liquid at nearly zero potential energy], add 100 units of energy to split it, then put it through an internal combustion engine where it effectively extracts a mere 20 units of that energy and still have 100 units to spare to continue the hydrolysis. Let me reduce this to the simplest of reductions. You start by adding 100 units of energy to convert water to fuel. You burn it and get back 20 units of energy as work produced by the engine. You use that 20 units to propel the car and lose the other 80 units to heat. Now you need 100 units to electrolyze the next batch of water. Where do you get that 100 units?

I don't care what kind of combustion you use... Even if you got 100% of the energy back out of the reaction that you put into it splitting the water, the very second you lose one tiny bit of energy to heat, friction, sound, light, exhaust, whatever, it is a dead entity. Perpetual motion requires a system that is free from friction, heat loss, sound, light... any form of energy loss. To then assume you can borrow energy from this magical closed system to propel a vehicle is so ridiculous that I can't even begin to laugh at your ignorance for fear that I won't stop.

Anyone who has completed even the most remedial physics or chemistry course knows that any time you convert energy from one state to another, you lose energy to other forms. It is physical and chemical fact.

I just can't believe the insanity of this. I have provided chemical fact, physical proof, graphic demonstration, and textual description. I feel like an atheist in a cathedral.

If you wish to believe that Christ is your copilot and he is providing the magical free energy for your reaction, feel free to post photos and proof of your magic creation. The reason why it hasn't become mainstream is not because of government and oil, its because it is not physically possible without violating the primary laws of physics.

The other funny thing about this is that there are literally billions of cited works where this idea is NOT possible from science classes, universities, and institutes of higher learning all over the globe, yet all it takes is one idealist who failed physics to decide that faith is enough to make a water engine work.

If you wish to continue making yourself look like a complete novice idiot, please (by all means) continue your argument. If you wish to solidify your placement in the all-time hall of fame novice category, start posting bogus links to YouTube videos of a Fox News broadcast involving some guy burning water in his car, followed by an urban myth about a guy with a dune buggy that burns water who was killed by the government. You'll show me how someone can use an HHO torch to turn a brass ball "as hot as the surface of the sun in seconds," even though the surface of the sun is about 5,000,000 degrees Celcius. If you threw that brass ball toward the sun, it would vaporize at about 15,000 kilometers before contacting the sun... so I highly doubt the validity of that Fox News report.

So... you were saying....? Please, by all means - continue.

Last edited by curtis73; 11-17-2008 at 02:57 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 11-17-2008, 06:44 PM
Cyberats's Avatar
Hydrogen Burning Engine, YES !
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California, USA
Age: 46
Posts: 48
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Curtis73

It is clear that you are twisting knowledge to support your BELIEFS and your PINK CASTLE IN THE SKY. You still didn't tell me which petroleum company you work for.... well ?

Hydrogen boosters are on the market and working with only one converter. Each converter uses 1/2 amp. Our current loss of "units" with the gas engine is 60%. You're telling me in the last century we are too dumb to improve on it ??? I'm not saying Hydrolitics put out 100% nor is my intention to compare systems, but they are more economical than gas AND you are using WATER. I'm not here to WOW you with my superior, better than you, you better listen to me before you speak knowledge, I am just saying do NOT mud the Truth cause you're not the one who can do it. In the case of a full Hydrogen engine, we can use two converters, two batteries and two alternators IF needed. Nothing is missing, unless you're one of them faith people that keep quoting "missing link", then I give up on you. I am an atheist surrounded by believers in the ALL MIGHTY STATUS QUO, BIG MONEY, so who's paying you ? Ceramic/steel/titanium alloys we do have, so what excuse are you going to work up now ???

In the light of better alloys, are you going to tell me why don't we use ceramic alloy steel to improve gas engine efficiency to 60%-80% ?????

A voting system defunct since the ROMAN era, a Senate corrupt and a system that complicated itself to the level of excusing any crime, error, wrong doing or delay, is up for replacement (REVOLUTION). Get your head out and smell the oxygen, it helps you think.

Do you fear or believe Hotrodding will stop with the change to new resources such as hydrogen and electric ? I know it will not, cause there's many idea people out there who will tweak with something that improves power or handling. I myself are not so keen to Change, especially change for change's sake, but this is far and beyond change. This will revolutionize the motorized industry globally and you want to spit on it, drop it in the mud and kick it in the corner. You're either part of the problem or part of the solution, stop sitting on the fence, it helps nobody.
Quick reply to this message
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 11-17-2008, 06:59 PM
Cyberats's Avatar
Hydrogen Burning Engine, YES !
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California, USA
Age: 46
Posts: 48
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
crazy canuck

Research & Development - exactly what I am trying to get started. I do understand the need for those and Engineering. But you have to understand how 80% of it is already done. All burning engines can be converted to feed and burn hydrogen by splitting water. All the other vehicle components are already Proven and Tested and need no further investment. The ballpark is wrong, it probably takes a lot less money and time.
However, the problem lies in the fact that the car manufacturers and those with vested interests in the current system will not only oppose it, but do anything in their power to destroy any such efforts.
In light of that let's say no one company will undertake such project, so what is the solution ? We as Hotrodders can modify our own vehicles and/or others' who wish it. It has to start somewhere.
Quick reply to this message
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 11-17-2008, 07:32 PM
How fast is fast enough?
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 29
Posts: 8,990
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 17
Thanked 315 Times in 295 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyberats
It is clear that you are twisting knowledge to support your BELIEFS and your PINK CASTLE IN THE SKY. You still didn't tell me which petroleum company you work for.... well ?

Hydrogen boosters are on the market and working with only one converter. Each converter uses 1/2 amp. Our current loss of "units" with the gas engine is 60%. You're telling me in the last century we are too dumb to improve on it ??? I'm not saying Hydrolitics put out 100% nor is my intention to compare systems, but they are more economical than gas AND you are using WATER. I'm not here to WOW you with my superior, better than you, you better listen to me before you speak knowledge, I am just saying do NOT mud the Truth cause you're not the one who can do it. In the case of a full Hydrogen engine, we can use two converters, two batteries and two alternators IF needed. Nothing is missing, unless you're one of them faith people that keep quoting "missing link", then I give up on you. I am an atheist surrounded by believers in the ALL MIGHTY STATUS QUO, BIG MONEY, so who's paying you ? Ceramic/steel/titanium alloys we do have, so what excuse are you going to work up now ???

In the light of better alloys, are you going to tell me why don't we use ceramic alloy steel to improve gas engine efficiency to 60%-80% ?????

A voting system defunct since the ROMAN era, a Senate corrupt and a system that complicated itself to the level of excusing any crime, error, wrong doing or delay, is up for replacement (REVOLUTION). Get your head out and smell the oxygen, it helps you think.

Do you fear or believe Hotrodding will stop with the change to new resources such as hydrogen and electric ? I know it will not, cause there's many idea people out there who will tweak with something that improves power or handling. I myself are not so keen to Change, especially change for change's sake, but this is far and beyond change. This will revolutionize the motorized industry globally and you want to spit on it, drop it in the mud and kick it in the corner. You're either part of the problem or part of the solution, stop sitting on the fence, it helps nobody.
Since mechanical and electrical engineers have already told you to get your head out of your ***, allow a civil to do the same.

Gas 4-stroke engines are NOT 40% efficent, not even close. 25% is damn good and only a few can claim that. You CANNOT SPLIT WATER AND THE REJON IT TO CREAT MORE ENERGY THAN YOU START WITH! It is not possible, not a chance of it ever being possible. You'd be better to try flying by flapping your arms.

And the reason a voting system doesn't work is because people like you are allowed to vote. There should have been an anti-******* clause in the bill of rights. And yes I'm bitter Obama won, not because he's a dem, but because uneducated people like yourself voted a man with no credentials into the "most powerful office on earth."

Politics aside though, you cannot start with one, subtract one, and then end up with one. Its how chemistry works.
Quick reply to this message
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 11-17-2008, 10:00 PM
4 Jaw Chuck's Avatar
Hotrodders.com Moderator
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Age: 46
Posts: 4,953
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 2
Thanked 88 Times in 71 Posts
Cyberats, all these "converters" you speak of have one ingrediant they don't mention in the literature because its a "secret".

Potassium Hydroxide.


This magic ingrediant can be utilized in any electric/water mix and create hydrogen on demand , this is how Charles Pogue did it way back in the 30's.

So how about coming up with a way to supply the entire world with a safe nontoxic way of handling this extreme base chemical that does not cost more energy to mine and purify than it gives back in energy.

Let me know when you find that mother lode of pure potassium hydroxide in the earth beneath your farm and let me know how you intend to remove and process it safely to fuel the entire earth for less than it costs to pump it out of the ground under the middle east and elsewhere.

Do your homework, sheesh.

If you want your revolution try somewhere that believes in your conspiracy theories, the web is a big place and is full of ignorant fools who don't know the first thing about how to produce power no matter what form it takes.
This is Hotrodders.com, this is where horsepower lives...if we knew of a way of making more of it for cheaper we would be all over it like a dirty shirt.

EDUCATE YOURSELF!

BTW this thread is getting moved to off topic because it has nothing to do with engines per se, let us know when you develop the ceramic engine that will be needed to run the hydrogen and you can start a thread in the engine forum on your miraculous discovery.
Quick reply to this message
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 11-17-2008, 10:20 PM
curtis73's Avatar
Hates: Liver. Loves: Diesel
 
Last wiki edit: How to find cheap parts
Last journal entry: 1999-2001: Getting it on the road
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Age: 40
Posts: 5,128
Wiki Edits: 16

Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyberats
Hydrogen boosters are on the market and working with only one converter. Each converter uses 1/2 amp. Our current loss of "units" with the gas engine is 60%. You're telling me in the last century we are too dumb to improve on it ???
Pretty much, yeah. But it doesn't matter in this discussion. Even if you had a 100% efficient engine, the notion won't work.

Quote:
In the case of a full Hydrogen engine, we can use two converters, two batteries and two alternators IF needed. Nothing is missing, unless you're one of them faith people that keep quoting "missing link", then I give up on you. I am an atheist surrounded by believers in the ALL MIGHTY STATUS QUO, BIG MONEY, so who's paying you ? Ceramic/steel/titanium alloys we do have, so what excuse are you going to work up now ???
I don't need excuses. I have scientific fact on my side. So where will you get the power to run these extra alternators and converters? It has to come from the crankshaft, right? So you start by combusting a fuel, releasing 100 units of energy and you are able to capture 30 units. In order to support further combustion, you MUST GENERATE 100 SURPLUS UNITS. There is no way of getting around that. If you think you can supply an engine with hundreds of liters of H2 and O2 every minute by using 1/2amp of current, you are really messed in the head. A half amp of current won't even make it bubble any more than a pepsi in a glass. The best we can do so far is make a hydrogen supplementation system that uses more like 70 amps before it makes any appreciable difference.

You just don't get it. I'm telling you this simple fact: 100 units in the fuel minus 70 units lost to wasted energy = 30 units left to do the work. You're telling me that 100 - 70 = 400. You believe that you can magically find all this extra energy that doesn't exist in the system. You are putting EXHAUST in the tank, converting it to fuel, then burning it. You can't do that.

I'll explain it using children's toys for you. Take two magnets that are stuck together. If you expend 5 units of energy pulling them apart, how many will you get back when you let them fall back together? I want to hear your answer. If you answer "5" then you understand the concept, you just refuse to apply it to your magical conspiracy water engine. In order for your idea to work, your answer MUST be more than 5. You have to believe that in order for you to believe your perpetual motion machine to work.

The other huge flaw in your idea is that even if you designed a perfectly efficient engine and discovered perpetual motion, you will be able to successfully support combustion. Its not possible, but let's pretend for a moment. All you will be doing is taking the 100 units of energy in the fuel, burning it, recapturing all 100 units which will be enough to support further electrolysis. If you try to move the car and you borrow even one unit of energy from this perfect, theoretical system, it will die because now you have stolen energy from the one side of the reaction. It will always be at a deficit.

How can you be so obtuse? Is it because you can't possibly admit that someone else is right in the anonymity of the forum psychology?

Quote:
In the light of better alloys, are you going to tell me why don't we use ceramic alloy steel to improve gas engine efficiency to 60%-80% ?????
I don't CARE. In the perview of this conversation, it wouldn't matter if you made it 100% efficient, it can't make perpetual motion reality.

Quote:
Do you fear or believe Hotrodding will stop with the change to new resources such as hydrogen and electric ?
Are you kidding? I'm the guy who puts diesels in everything he owns and then runs them on veggie oil or biodiesel.

Quote:
This will revolutionize the motorized industry globally and you want to spit on it, drop it in the mud and kick it in the corner. You're either part of the problem or part of the solution, stop sitting on the fence, it helps nobody.
I promise you it won't revolutionize the industry because its a myth. It is a chemically and physically implausible notion that the rest of us learned in 3rd grade.

Let's say you want to propel a car with a rubber band. So you stretch it out and use the energy in the rubber band to move the car. So what energy do you use to re-stretch the rubber band? The rubber band will contract, give up its potential energy, then be done. What you are suggesting is that rubber band will give up enough energy to not only power the car, but save a surplus equal to its potential energy so that it can re-stretch itself when its done.

I'm going to try ONE MORE analogy to see if I can maybe show you the hypocrisy of your notion. If this doesn't do it, then there is no hope for you. Look at the picture below.

The red circle is a rock on top of a hill. It has potential energy because a force (gravity), a mass (the rock) and a mechanism (the slope). The red rock represents a fuel; gasoline, diesel, CNG, ethanol, wood in a stove, sugar in a mitochondrion of a cell, whatever. The blue rock represents the exhaust. It is the low state of energy that exists after combustion has taken place. The rolling rock imparts work and is giving off that potential energy as kinetic energy. Once the fuel gives up its energy as work, it is exhausted.

In the case of a gasoline engine, the fuel gave up its 100 units of energy. Some of it we used. We can extract the work from the explosion, but we can't capture the sound energy and use it for work. The friction, heat, and light that are given off are no good to us. Of the 100 units that rock (fuel) gave up while it rolled down the hill, we (with current technology) only captured about 30% of it.

Using that same diagram to describe water as a fuel goes like this. Water is the exhaust. It is represented by the blue rock. In order to turn it into fuel, you have to add at least 100 units of energy to roll that rock up to the top of the hill. Now, let the rock go (ignition) and recapture its energy as it falls to the bottom. Great... you've recaptured 30 units. Just to give you the benefit of the doubt, let's say you used miraculous new alloys and you captured 60 units. Now you have a rock at the bottom of the hill, and you have 60 units of energy that you can spend to get it back to the top. Only problem is, you need 100.

That is the entire point of what we are trying to tell you. Using water as a fuel requires more energy than you get from combustion. That drawing is exactly the same way. If you spent all day rolling that rock up the hill and letting it fall back, you would expend WAY more energy that you could ever get back from rolling it down the hill.

What you are suggesting with your 1/2 amp converters is the equivalent of saying it takes 1 unit of energy to roll the rock up the hill, and then you get back 400 when it rolls downhill.

It violates the first law of physics. Can't be done, dude. What you're suggesting is that a pendulum can swing forever without any outside help. The fact is, energy loss will always happen, and as soon as any energy is lost from the system (friction, heat, sound, light) its a dying system and can't support itself.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	fuel energy pic.JPG
Views:	55
Size:	12.9 KB
ID:	34260  

Last edited by curtis73; 11-17-2008 at 10:28 PM.
Quick reply to this message
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 11-18-2008, 04:05 AM
sbs sbs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Age: 45
Posts: 0
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Noob here. Not sure how i ended up in this thread as I was googling about camshafts, but I just had to join to say "Holy crap! What an idiot!"

Check out his posts in other threads. Conservation of energy isn't the only subject he slept through in grade school...

My hat's off to those who have repeatedly tried to educate him. I'd have given up after his second post.

(This message brought to you by another member of the vast engineering conspiracy...)
Quick reply to this message
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 11-18-2008, 07:12 AM
Buick Hybrid Guy.
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana
Age: 42
Posts: 255
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think there is a lot of good that comes from people trying new things. Some of the failures become ideas for things that do end up working.
There is not a doubt in my mind that the cars they are producing are getting 1/3 the mpg they should. I don't see how they justify a 140hp 4cyl getting high 20mpg. That's horrible. It should be double that.
They are limited I'm sure by emissions and oil company's saying how much they can get.
I've don't have a research team.. design team ... Any kind of funding other than my own hard work and I know I can do better than them on MPG and Power.
A few examples..
86 Camaro with Buick Turbo V6... runs 10.32@133mph 1/4mi on 93oct. get's 19.8mpg. That't not even trying for lean afr's while at cruze speeds!
89 Nissan Maxima 245,000mi on stock engine. I turbo'd it 45,000mi ago. It go's 13.40@107mph and get's 24mpg in town 31mpg on high way. Better than Stock!
98 GMC Jimmy. I turbo'd that with stock Typhoon manifolds,Marine intake with external injectors and tuned with HPTuners. We got 21mpg with the A/C on this summer on a trip. I'll bet it runs mid 13's in the 1/4.

I don't understand how if I can make more power on stuff that these guy's have designed with better MPG to boot. Why can't they do that with all their "Smart" guys?

I agree that with the current technology putting water in your gas tank and being able to drive is not possible.
I also think that guys that tinker and try new things .. invent... and keep pushing the limits will come up with products that will help all of us better the environment and use less fossil fuels.
~Scott
Quick reply to this message
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 11-18-2008, 12:23 PM
curtis73's Avatar
Hates: Liver. Loves: Diesel
 
Last wiki edit: How to find cheap parts
Last journal entry: 1999-2001: Getting it on the road
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Age: 40
Posts: 5,128
Wiki Edits: 16

Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by UR50SLO
I think there is a lot of good that comes from people trying new things. Some of the failures become ideas for things that do end up working.

I don't understand how if I can make more power on stuff that these guy's have designed with better MPG to boot. Why can't they do that with all their "Smart" guys?

I agree that with the current technology putting water in your gas tank and being able to drive is not possible.
I also think that guys that tinker and try new things .. invent... and keep pushing the limits will come up with products that will help all of us better the environment and use less fossil fuels.
~Scott
I totally agree. While developing something completely different, an accidental spill on the stove was responsible for discovering vulcanized rubber. What frustrates me is when people don't follow the scientific process:
Observation
Question
Hypothesis
Prediction
Research
Testing
Results

Using the scientific process cannot involve faith, nor can it escape the rules and laws of physics. One who believes in the water car has set fact aside, tried to start the scientific process by jumping in at "prediction" and then fails to do any research or testing. This means they have assumed "results" but haven't done any of the work which would have shown them that their conclusion was erroneous. That (to an engineer or scientist) is the definition of faith.

I'll give you a little insight into the automotive engineering world. We engineers come up with something brilliant, like the variable compression engine. We get X amount of dollars to R&D the next wonderful thing that will revolutionize the auto world. Bean counters (who have no idea how to engineer a paperclip) decide everything; how the money should be spent, what ideas will and will not be pleasing to the public, etc. The net result is that they neutered our budget and castrated the engine. We had a wonderful piece and it ended up being a bust. The net result is that nearly 4 million dollars were spent on R&D to make a crap engine, when we could have spent 6 million and made something truly great.

This shows up everywhere. Its why the aftermarket is so full of great options. Think of the diesel aftermarket. Right now you can buy a $300 box that you plug in to an existing connector and it has a 4-way switch that adds 60, 90, or 150 hp along with triple digit torque additions. All the while, it increases MPG. The compromises that have to be made for emissions, reliability, and market perception are pretty controlling. Its why I got out of it; cookie cutter engineering that never lets you grow, and the chances are pretty good that it will be on the cutting room floor in a few days anyway. Now I'm saving up to start my own hotrod shop where I can engineer things the way I want and be proud of the results; win or fail.

I remember reading a decade ago about a group of HS shop students who built a big block 502 with 12.5:1 compression, a 16:1 A/F ratio, it made 630 lb-ft of torque, and had lower BSFC than any diesel on the market. High School students can do it, but automakers can't.

It also makes no difference to me how much more fossil fuels we have left. That shouldn't stop us from being prepared with alternatives. People would rather pay for fuel than set up a logical infrastructure, and that doesn't make sense to me. I read somewhere that if we took all the money we spent on drilling just in the US alone, we could have supplied 27% of the country with wind-generated electricity. Seeing as how the US oil supply is only about 10% of our current energy use, I don't see the logic in killing polar bears and seals just to get to oil anyway. Factor in the political power of oil and it doesn't sit right with me.

I'm buying a house right now, and with the government incentives and grants, I can basically go off-grid for free using wind and solar along with a homebrew water turbine generator. My only utilities cost will be maintenance of the items. I'm actually going to stay on-grid and the law requires the electric utility to pay me when I generate more than I use. If my meter spins backwards, they pay me. The energy comes from the atmosphere and I return it to the atmosphere. I'm not dragging it up from the bowels of the earth, dumping 3/4 of it raw into the atmosphere and using a tiny percentage to heat my house or run my electricity.

Decadence. Americans can't live without it.
Quick reply to this message
Closed Thread

Recent Hotrodders' Lounge posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Octane Booster Info SLR_65 Engine 46 09-30-2007 09:01 AM
Engine dies after letting off gas oldschoolrods Engine 6 08-09-2005 07:08 AM
why not radial engines? inspiron Hotrodders' Lounge 34 06-11-2005 10:56 AM
Carb Getting Gas But Engine not Starting zeeman19 Engine 1 07-07-2002 04:20 PM
Engine storage ? tjk2000us2000 Engine 2 06-18-2002 11:03 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.