[Cyberats]

Originally Posted by 5_speed

Pump water into a diesel engine, the high compression ought to run the engine if it's powerful enough to smash water into 2 gasses they will ignite and there you have it.

Diesel is a worthwhile exploration basis, but in itself it does not split saltwater.
The Hydrolitic chamber is needed to do that, pressure will at most create hot water and/or steam and does not have an explosive effect enough to push pistons. Saltwater in Diesel engine will not work as fuel. Liquid crystal lubrication
may or maynot be useful, but it can be applied to existing systems, you may want to look into marketing that.

[moontanker]

HHo is being currently developed utilizing liquid hydrogen By several jaanese outo mfg s.I have no statistics on horsepower but from all my research I do know it can and is being used much the same as gasoline or any other fuel.Engine prep is the factor that determines BHP and other results.HHo operates hotter than gas and now cooling is the higher priority.Brown was a man that ran a VW engine on water.you can see a video abot him on you tube.I think that engine was 40 horse.Now about high horse engines . I am only interested in control of the heat factor at this time.A bit of salt water some stainless steel plates a battery and some plumbing are the basics.Of course its not that simple but you get it if you are really interested.Water could solve the gas problem butI have worked on many secret programs over my lifetime and alot end up trashed for big money interests.Or in the case of HHo tech,people have been sadly bumped off.For example n anti gravity device being used by the Air Force today.Crazy to talk about but nontheless a fact,you just got to be there.We have current tech to do some amazing things,But truth is not allways in the formula.If you have a water system that runs and can be put on a high horsepower engine ,GO for it.I have some where figures on octane ratings but am advised to not publish these,(Fear is a good thing in some cases),Looking forward to your reply on the heat thing.Allwayys open to all input.Thank you for you logic.

[4 Jaw Chuck]

Moontanker did you work in the Skunkworks? Were you the dude in the shop always sneaking out back to puff a dubie?

Man...I thought I recognized you!

Hows it going! I was the armed guard who watched you everyday...man some good times there huh!

If they ever found out about us taking that UFO for a joyride around the continent....phew...we would have been fired.

Remember that guy in Alabama we gave a rectal probing too from the ship! Haha!

Man...good times!

Dude nice to see you again...got any papers?

[onebadmerc]

Oh, moontanker, please publish your papers, I want to hear more.....Don't worry, the people who killed Gerald Bull won't come after you....

[Cyberats]

Be prepared to kiss your gasoline engines goodbye.
The Dusk of the fossil fuel is upon you and you are squirming like fishes out of water. (saltwater that is :p)

Hotrodding will go on with or without you, but we'd sure appreciate your help !!!

[BarryK]

Originally Posted by Cyberats

Be prepared to kiss your gasoline engines goodbye.
The Dusk of the fossil fuel is upon you and you are squirming like fishes out of water. (saltwater that is :p)

Hotrodding will go on with or without you, but we'd sure appreciate your help !!!

Lets see, that would be the elimination of what, 40-60 million jobs, trains nor trucks could run to deliver unimportant things such as food and we would need to crush 100's of million cars.

We we could all have a good time living in our huts.

You need to go pork a tree and dream on, some more.

[curtis73]

Originally Posted by Cyberats

By the same numbers you are counting, my engine uses 2500 gal./min. of gas at 50% fuel-air mix ??? Wow I have a big gas tank.

How on earth did you come up with that? Are you seriously that uninformed? Your gas tank contains LIQUID GASOLINE which you evaporate and then mix in a 14:1 ratio of air to fuel by weight, not 50/50! One large drop of gasoline weighs about one gram. Do you know how much air it takes to have one gram of mass? Try about a gallon. For every drop of gasoline you ingest, the engine must ingest about a gallon. You suggest replacing BOTH with gasses you create in a 1L chamber driven by 12v electrolysis. Its just not possible.

You all focus on a sidetrack issue I never seen anyone sustain, the perpetual motion machine, reclaiming the water from used gas, That Was Not the Point of the Experiment. You have an average tank of 16gal. of water which at 50mpgs can run you 800mi., no point in reclaiming water.

It doesn't matter if you recapture the water or not. The fact is that you start with water, and you end with the same water. It doesn't matter if you continue operating on new water or reclaiming the water you just made, the part that makes it perpetual motion is the fact that you start with water and you end with water.

Still cheaper even when buying a box of baking soda for catalyst.

Baking soda is NOT a catalyst, its an electrolyte. Pure water is an insulator. It doesn't conduct electricity. If you don't have something like baking soda dissolved in the water, it won't conduct electricity and therefore electrolysis can't happen. There IS NO KNOWN CATALYST FOR WATER DISSOCIATION.

NASA has been using hydrogen as rocket fuel for many years, don't care how they assassinated Stan Meyer, maybe they wanted the tech.

Yes, HYDROGEN, not water. Like I said before, water is the exhaust, hydrogen is the fuel. If you plug a hydrolytic chamber into the wall at your home, capture the hydrogen, put it in your car, THEN it will work... but you'll expend more energy from the wall than you'll get back burning it in the car.

How about designing a more efficient gas engine ? I never understood why the V design or the new VW W8, it always seemed the pistons struggle against each other. Do you find Inline or Flat designs to be more efficient ?

Since the rods turn the energy into rotational motion at the crank, the direction the pistons move is less important than when they move. For instance, in a V6, the pistons each take their turn compressing in evenly spaced intervals. Assuming its a 4-stroke, every 120 degrees there is a compression stroke. The same is true in an inline 6. The direction the pistons move is unimportant. The crankshaft, position of the rod, and layout of the engine means that every 120 degrees there is still a compression stroke.

In general, inline engines typically have more main bearings which means more friction. Unfortunately for designers, it also means greater reliability so they're caught in a conundrum.

[Cyberats]

Originally Posted by curtis73

How on earth did you come up with that? Are you seriously that uninformed? Your gas tank contains LIQUID GASOLINE which you evaporate and then mix in a 14:1 ratio of air to fuel by weight, not 50/50! One large drop of gasoline weighs about one gram. Do you know how much air it takes to have one gram of mass? Try about a gallon. For every drop of gasoline you ingest, the engine must ingest about a gallon. You suggest replacing BOTH with gasses you create in a 1L chamber driven by 12v electrolysis. Its just not possible.

At 14:1 = 2500/7 from my previous 50% calculation, which equals 357gal./min., your math is still wrong, give me the actual gas engine ratio then we can convert that to HHO.

It doesn't matter if you recapture the water or not. The fact is that you start with water, and you end with the same water. It doesn't matter if you continue operating on new water or reclaiming the water you just made, the part that makes it perpetual motion is the fact that you start with water and you end with water.

Get your head out of water, what is wrong here ? HHO is burned how the hell you end up with water ? I'm not saying build a water to water conversion. I don't want to RECAPTURE anything, in fact unburned Oxygen is released which is good for everyone.

Baking soda is NOT a catalyst, its an electrolyte. Pure water is an insulator. It doesn't conduct electricity. If you don't have something like baking soda dissolved in the water, it won't conduct electricity and therefore electrolysis can't happen. There IS NO KNOWN CATALYST FOR WATER DISSOCIATION.

Buwahahaha, are you kidding me ? Baking soda and Salt are the catalysts that also conduct electricity. Guess what sea water is FULL of salt and other organic particles that are not only catalyst but conduct electricity. This was taught to me in HIGHSCHOOL PHYSICS. Learn it, accept it, get over it, say yes you are right, it's not a shame on you.

Yes, HYDROGEN, not water. Like I said before, water is the exhaust, hydrogen is the fuel. If you plug a hydrolytic chamber into the wall at your home, capture the hydrogen, put it in your car, THEN it will work... but you'll expend more energy from the wall than you'll get back burning it in the car.

The Hydrolitic converter can be redesigned for better output and equipped with its own battery. We are wasting electricity at the Alternator, not all is stored into the battery and only a small portion used in running the car. Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill on this "using more" issue. It's easily resolved, bigger alternator or two of them, extra battery, no big deal.

Since the rods turn the energy into rotational motion at the crank, the direction the pistons move is less important than when they move. For instance, in a V6, the pistons each take their turn compressing in evenly spaced intervals. Assuming its a 4-stroke, every 120 degrees there is a compression stroke. The same is true in an inline 6. The direction the pistons move is unimportant. The crankshaft, position of the rod, and layout of the engine means that every 120 degrees there is still a compression stroke.

In general, inline engines typically have more main bearings which means more friction. Unfortunately for designers, it also means greater reliability so they're caught in a conundrum.

Well, since Diesel is obviously a more reliable design than gas, use the diesel design as prototype thus saving on your "spark energy" to be used by other processes, I'm sold on that. HHO is explosive in itself and does not necessarily need a spark.
We need to stop arguing about the specifics and design and build one engine. You can argue No until you're blue in the face, we both know it's doable, we both know hho kits ARE working, we both know the next step is a full HHO engine (no gas storage). The only difference is who will be the future billionare with the first patent.

Well, I admit I am neither an engineer nor a shop owner, anyone stepping up ?

[4 Jaw Chuck]

There is so much misinformation in this thread that arguing is pointless.

Using hydrogen as a fuel is inefficient, electricity is far more better and with the advances in batttery technology easily outweighs any potencial benefits of using another liquid as fuel.

The only real reason to use another liquid is so that the current liquid fuel distributors will still have a job after hydrocarbons fall out of favor.

With electricity being pumped to my house on demand why do I need a gas station? Might need a bigger cable, thats all.

Think about it.

[Studebaker]

Wow, I now know why this country is in such trouble. Some people actually believe in Fairy tales, believing it is reality to them. Evidently, 4 jaw chuck and I live in the real world where physics still apply. Ironic, All this discussion and time spent on these posts is just a waste of energy that we won't get back. In the real world, nuclear power works, hydroelectric power works. For transportation we need real solutions that can be accomplished now. Yes, I agree most people commute less than 40 miles per day and most vehicles are only operated by one or two people. Mass transit, great in major urban areas, but what do the rest of us do to get to point A to B. The electric vehicle is a reality, but not a save all until the battery problem is conquered. The Toyota Prius is a start but is it right for everyone, no. Here is an Idea, Why aren't we making Atv's street legal. Small, safe, easy to drive (even for people that are motorcycle challenged). Can carry 2 or three people. Fuel efficient, Great for most urban (under 40 mph zones) and they have a "Fun" factor that would promote sales. Even in 4x4 and able to plow snow. Can even pull a small trailer and haul small loads. How about small turbo diesel atv for fuel savings. These are all real world solutions that are availible as we speak, no magic fairy dust involved. Yea, I know it's not a solve all solution, but it is a start to a problem that we could implement Today while we continue to find a long term solution. Just my 23 cents worth (adjusted for inflation).

[curtis73]

Originally Posted by Studebaker

Wow, I now know why this country is in such trouble. Some people actually believe in Fairy tales, believing it is reality to them. Evidently, 4 jaw chuck and I live in the real world where physics still apply.

Can I come live with you guys? Physics still apply here, too. You could move to Austin, or I could rent an apartment near you guys. Will I have trouble travelling to where you live since I might encounter places where physics don't apply?

Ironic, All this discussion and time spent on these posts is just a waste of energy that we won't get back.

Ironic indeed. We're talking about conservation of energy; energy that we won't get back from the reaction.... and this topic inspires the same exact thing. We who believe in physics dump tons of energy trying to prove a tiny fact, and we never get it back from those who lack the abstract thinking to see how it is impossible.

[curtis73]

Originally Posted by Cyberats

Well, I admit I am neither an engineer nor a shop owner, anyone stepping up ?

I am an engineer AND a shop owner, so let's take this one by one (since I have some time)

At 14:1 = 2500/7 from my previous 50% calculation, which equals 357gal./min., your math is still wrong, give me the actual gas engine ratio then we can convert that to HHO.

I didn't do any math. I simply stated a fact. The stoichiometric ratio for gasoline is 14.7:1 by mass. For every 1 mass unit of gasoline your engine ingests, it takes 14.7 units of air to have sufficient oxygen to match up with the fuel. You can't compare that with H2 and O2 (notice I didn't say HHO because there is no such thing) The stoichiometric ratio for hyrdrogen and pure oxygen would be about 2:1. If you're involving outside air, its a whole new ballgame.

Get your head out of water, what is wrong here ? HHO is burned how the hell you end up with water ?

Did you seriously just ask that question? What do you think "burning" is? Its simply combining a fuel with oxygen in an exothermic reaction. If you burn H2 and O2, the only thing you CAN get is water. It is not possible to get anything else (except maybe a few molecules of hydrogen peroxide)

I don't want to RECAPTURE anything, in fact unburned Oxygen is released which is good for everyone.

Seeing as how that oxygen already existed, you're not releasing anything. The oxygen was there before you used it, and it will remain after you've used it.

Buwahahaha, are you kidding me ? Baking soda and Salt are the catalysts that also conduct electricity. Guess what sea water is FULL of salt and other organic particles that are not only catalyst but conduct electricity. This was taught to me in HIGHSCHOOL PHYSICS. Learn it, accept it, get over it, say yes you are right, it's not a shame on you.

I will say this again, THERE ARE NO KNOWN CATALYSTS FOR WATER. Solutes in water ARE NOT catalysts. You have failed to grasp the concept of what a catalyst is. Saying that salt is a catalyst for hydrolysis is like saying that the microwave was the catalyst for cooking your meal. You openly pound the ground with incorrect information, then lash out when someone with a PhD corrects you. You are wrong. Laughing at correct information just makes you look stupid.

The Hydrolitic converter can be redesigned for better output and equipped with its own battery. We are wasting electricity at the Alternator, not all is stored into the battery and only a small portion used in running the car. Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill on this "using more" issue. It's easily resolved, bigger alternator or two of them, extra battery, no big deal.

If you are still arguing this point, then its clear that you have not been able to grasp how energy transfer takes place, nor do you even want to learn the truth. I have used pictures, analogies, words, internet references, physical citations, chemical fact, and logic to try to explain to you the most basic law of physics and thermodynamics. Your inability to grasp such a simple concept is proof that you are blinded by some misplaced faith in something that cannot, will not, and just ain't gonna work. It has nothing to do with efficency, it has to do with PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL FACT. Sorry, but you are just wrong.

Well, since Diesel is obviously a more reliable design than gas, use the diesel design as prototype thus saving on your "spark energy" to be used by other processes, I'm sold on that. HHO is explosive in itself and does not necessarily need a spark.

Again, incorrect. All fuels are fuels because they combust, but the Ea (energy of activation) for hydrogen is much higher than it is for most of the hydrocarbon fuels. You can have a compression ratio as high as you want, but it won't ignite hydrogen. All fuels require activation energy. Hydrogen's Ea is higher than that of gasoline or diesel.

We need to stop arguing about the specifics and design and build one engine. You can argue No until you're blue in the face, we both know it's doable, we both know hho kits ARE working, we both know the next step is a full HHO engine (no gas storage). The only difference is who will be the future billionare with the first patent.

I can build you a fleet of "HHO" engines. The point is not whether or not they'll work, its whether or not they're sustainable. You would need insane battery capacity just to go a few miles, but you'll be consuming hundreds more times of they energy you get from combustion than are required for the electrolysis of the water.

In a traditional IC engine, your energy comes from chemical energy stored in the bonds of a combustible fuel. In a water car, you have to put in 100 units of energy to turn it into a fuel just to get 100 units out, then of that 100 units you get out, only a tiny fraction are available to do all the work. Its not about efficiency, its about perpetual motion.

You go work on that billionaire idea. We'll stay here and keep telling you the facts. Normally I would just let guys like you learn on your own, but you keep coming back and jabbing a knife in this discussion with statements that are so off the mark that I feel a moral obligation to state the facts. Misguided and misinformed faith and dreams on such a large scale like this HHO craze take time and effort away from REAL engineering that can have an actual impact on the problems we have. I'm all for the spirit of ingenuity, especially when it comes to environmental impact and the economy of foreign oil, I just happen to have more knowledge on the subject and I'm trying to tell you why it won't work. You'll have a better chance of being a billionaire if you focus on viable ideas.

You yourself have said several times that you aren't an engineer, have no experience on it, and do not have a physics or chemistry degree, yet you come back and spout off childish statements telling us we're wrong.

I strongly suggest you post your ideas over at www.eng-tips.com. That forum is full of the most brilliant engineering minds on the 'net. There are more PhDs at that forum than there are at MIT and NASA combined. I guarantee your post will be locked, your username banned, and you'll be otherwise ridiculed for the absurdity of what you propose. If you want the straight dope on it, that forum will definitely give it to you... if you're prepared to hear it.

[Cyberats]

I guess what I am asking from you as a person with a PhD is Mathematical Proof, all you're doing is throwing fake numbers at me, maybe the ratio is correct but the consumption of air-fuel mix you posted was wrong. I asked for the per min. consumption of a 305cu.in. or 5.0L at 2500rpm in gal. or liters of fuel mix.
Give me numbers, show me the math to support it. Once we can determine the size of the hydrolitic converter, we can find how many amps/voltage will be required extra and add to it for "kickdown" conditions. Then determine if we need one or two converters, one or two alternators or an extra battery or two.
I want a run through not a bash it down. It puts out water, fine, no problem, ceramic coated chambers are in existence TODAY, but I believe we can achieve a better rustproof & stronger engine through available alloys.

So you're saying Diesel does not ignite from compression ? Ah, oh, I see you're twisting it around nicely, common, I don't want a long dragged nice twisted story. That does not convince me, seems you spend most of the space putting me down and less putting up proof. I did not come in with those intentions.
If you keep stomping on me I might as well ask you show me the PhD & the shop. Not that I care to see it.

[Cyberats]

Get a life dude.
I'm not into saving trees moron, I'm into saving greens in my pocket.
Usage of or replacement of current engines will require investment however large or LITTLE in case of multi-million dollar corporations. Things may snag up here and there, minor stuff, but eventually corporation money will smooth it all out.
Don't you worry your pretty little head, no jobs will be lost due to this, those still working in refineries here (are there any ? cause last I researched refinery jobs are in Saudi Arabia now) can reprofile into building the converters and new engine types for replacement. It will start as a boom, but will continue on for a decade or more.
Don't you want to breathe pollution free air ?
I was Not born in CA, but ever since I moved here I have a stuffed throat and a cough I cannot get rid of. Seemingly dissipates as I go on trips outside the state, when more than 2 weeks. I have no allergies nor have I ever had any.

If you're not the solution, you are the problem.

[Cyberats]

No doubt they are here and a wonderful reality if all commuters bought them, I agree, I'd have one myself except main Problem 3.

Problem 1 - Bad reputation and the majority of people hate them because it does not allow them to drive like jerks.

Problem 2 - Hotrodders and most people that drive long range, cannot and will not use them, despite convenient recharging. Wow, listen to the whiny noise of electric motors. :p

Problem 3 - Monopoly of the Energy consortium would drive electricity prices to 5x what they are today and they are high already for no good reason. Delivery points would instantly jump on the extra cash idea.

While you can see why pouring a water-salt mix in your tank at home will keep everyone furious and mad at your lack of Consumer Spending. Although you are paying for both the salt and water.