why exhaust pure O instead of injecting it in to add to the burn power? will it not stay seperated from the H under compression long enough?
both the h and the o would be burned but o would be the only biproduct from the combustion, well that and some water vapor from the leftover h
Yes, if you'll look at your conservation of energy equation, you'll have an entropy term on both sides that will result is a negative net energy. You'll lose some energy converting from water to H2 and O2 gas (nothing is 100% efficient), then you'll lose some more energy converting from H2 and O2 gases back to water. Then there's the thermo reaction efficiency, because the metal is going to absorb some energy instead of the air in the cylinder. Then there's the mechanical concersion efficiency, because as the piston moves down in the cylinder it loses pressre and does less work on the crank. So, your net energy loss is actually quite high. On the other hand, if you convert from H2O to 2H+ and O-2, there is an entropy (measure of randomness, basically your efficiency) loss, but now you have potential chemical energy similar to a battery. You can use the H+ molecules to power an electrical motor via a fuel cell. The electric motor is very efficient since it doesn't convert reciprocating motion (translational) into rotational motion. An electic motor also has constant torque, so it doesn't have the problem of a variable BMEP (Brake Mean Effective Pressure) that a reciprocating engine does. It's much more efficient. You still have a net energy loss because of entropy, but it's not nearly as high because of there is no mechanical or thermo losses. Hydrogen gas is a viable fuel if you need to produce thrust such as in a rocket or jet engine, or if the internal combustion engine is your only means of producing mechanical power. If that is the case, then I would try to use free energy to convert water to H2 and O2 gases, such as solar, wind, geo, hydro etc. Another problem with hydrogen is that it explodes rather than burns. This will give you a very high cylinder pressure rise rate similar to detonation. That is one of the reasons why it tends to work better in rotary conversions rather than reciprocating conversions. As long as I'm pontificating (which I tend to do from time to time) ethanol is similar in that it has a very high net energy loss. It's renewable, but the energy needed to change corn to alcohol isn't renewable. You also can't use ethanol to produce ethanol, because nothing is 100% efficient. If you started out with say 100 gallons of ethanol to cook the corn and distill it, you would eventually run out of fuel to make the ethanol even using all the ethanol you produced to power the cooker and still. So, we use natural gas and electricity (coal) to make ethanol. We're just converting fuel that is not popular to use in vehicles to make a fuel that is more popular. Sugar cane is more efficient, because it will ferment at a much lower temperature and produce more alcohol because of the higher sugar content, but you still have to distill it some how. You could use solar energy, and benzene has a catalyst, to make the distillation more efficient, but it would take a loooooooooooooooong time.
im not even gonna lie a large portion of that went over my head lol. all i know is im pinchin pennies and still spendin 50 bucks for a week of gas and its still goin up.
:evilsmilebenzene, not even going to discuss the handling storage and safety implications that raises. im just going to ask, what does that come from
a Car that runs on magnesium would be bad, i was playing with that one day, needless to say that the kid next to me about blew the hell out of us all. i know of a way you could get a large amount of the stuff. Go to a Junk Yard, find an old VW car, yank the engine and strip it. Then you have a chunk of Magnesium big enough to have a 1,000 foot sparkler. The old VW blocks were made out of some metal that when it gets old enough it turns into Magnesium. Pretty cool huh.
that depends on which year and which block the engine is. they made the earlier small cc with magnesium and aluminum alloy but later lowered and removed the magnesium from the split block because of fires. those blocks are rare to near impossible to find now because they are the 40-55 blocks. you can still find european made rims a lot easier from beamers that have magnesium up to the mid 70s. saw a european salvage yard burn once, from far away. that made some really pretty sparks in the night when the firemen unkowingly poured water on it.
You can put a magnesium fire out if you drowned it with water. i know a guy who went to Wanoka, OK. in the 70's and when it was to dark to ride they would throw an old VW block into the fire, he said you would endup with a 1,000 foot sparkler that lit up the dunes for miles. He also told me that you could put the mag fire out with water cause he has done in on a old bus that ignited so they put it out with buckets of water.
you can put it out with a ton of water, but id rather use something intended for burining metals. water causes a reactional explosion of bright blue/green flames, similar to water on a grease fire only bigger.
De-ionized water is the only type of water that will up out a metal fire. Or, if you can put enough on fast enough to get the temp down. Your normal tap water has lots of O-2 ions in it that just feed the mag fire. I doubt buckets would get the job done. Sounds like a tall tale to me. Unless it's de-ionized water, mag will still burn under water too. We've melted down a couple machines over the years and had a couple engines let go (turbo-props). The only thing that really puts them out is tons and tons of powder or just fill the room with carbon dioxide. Everyone runs like hell when the cardox system goes off!!! Nothing magically "turns into" another metal either. Remember the whole lead to gold thing? You have to alter it at an atomic level to get it to change. However, Aluminum oxide will burn if you get it hot enough. So, that's probably what they're talking about.
