RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Israeli Develops Piston Engine That Runs On Water, Alcohol - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Israeli Develops Piston Engine That Runs On Water, Alcohol – No Gas Rate Topic: -----

#21 User is online   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 22,116
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 23 October 2019 - 01:28 PM

 Noclevermoniker, on 23 October 2019 - 10:43 AM, said:

Probably snake oil. Nothing "runs on water".

It's a nice donut shop conspiracy theory discussion that there's some magical [engine/carburetor/injection/fuel system] that magically [combusts/mixes/tampers with] water to make a functioning heat engine, and that if the [oil companies/car companies/illuminati/CIA/tri-lateral commission] hadn't [bought out the patent/killed or sequestered the inventor] we'd all travel coast to coast at near light speed for pennies "as long as there's no power steering or that smog stuff".

Look, if such a "technology" existed, the Air Force would have it and they'd carry water and more bombs instead of JP-4 and fewer bombs. So far, the USAF is still running on kerosene.


30% alcohol to 70% water is 60 "Proof" in liquor terms. Theoretically, it takes 100 proof or 50% alcohol to burn, hence the term which dates back to moonshining era. But the "proof" test is really only true at "standard" conditions - Essentially, room temperature in open air at sea level. Put in an engine where they have the heat of compression working in your favor and, yeah, doesn't really surprise me that they could get it down to 60 proof.

But.... and this is the Big Bertha sized But .... getting an engine to RUN at 70 proof, and actually having any useful POWER to it, are two entirely different things. Still, though, because there's less power you could theoretically use ultralight materials rather than cast aluminum or iron and the lighter weight would at least partially make up for the lack of power. But pound-for-power you still won't have anywhere NEAR the same amount of power as with other fuels.

SCIENCE PROJECT: (Kids, DO try this at home.:)) Take some low-proof distilled alcohol like, say, 70 proof cheap brandy (70 proof = 35% alc.). Pour some into a brandy snifter. Hold the snifter at an angle over a candle or other flame. Swirl it around for a few seconds until it's good and warm. Now put a flame just above the glass. Foom! YES, Alcohol WILL burn at less than 100 "proof". (But, be careful: What you're doing is using the candle to vaporize the alcohol then burning the vapor. You don't want to create TOO much vapor.)

Same thing in an engine, using the heat of compression to ignite a fuel? Sure. Just as Rudolph Diesel all about it.

EtA: I've though about this all afternoon. Is it POSSIBLE that they've found a way to use the water to 'hydrolyze' the ethanol into either Ethane or DiMethane? That is to say, borrow the H2 from the water and either add it to the ethanol or at least use it as a catalyst? Simultaneously 'crack' both the water molecules and ethanol molecules so as to strip out the oxygen then recombine. Strip the oxygen from the ethanol and you've got ethane: C2H6O although really C2H5OH -> C2H6 + O. Simultaneously crack the water molecule H2O-> H2 + O, then recombine into either DiMethane (C2H6 + O) + (H2 + O) -> C2H8 + O2 or maybe just (2)CH4 Methane which is basically Natural Gas. Have they found a way to turn water + ethanol into natural gas??? Maybe at a precise temperature and pressure???

BEARING IN MIND, that I'm "Applied Physics" rather than Chemist or ChemE, but I'm not (yet) going to use the word impossible. From a physics standpoint I'd want to calculate it down to eV level at each interchange, and my gut feeling is that stripping out oxygen just to add it back during combustion makes no sense; at best a wash in terms of energy gained or perhaps even a net loss. But I just can't rule out that factoring in the heat of compression changes those whole equation in ways I don't understand.

Any Chemists or ChemEs here?

This post has been edited by Dean Adam Smithee: 23 October 2019 - 08:00 PM

0

#22 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,933
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 24 October 2019 - 03:52 AM

View Posterp, on 23 October 2019 - 11:19 AM, said:

Hm, my two favorite liquids. So why not? It’s what I run on. ;)


1984-1985 foor me (frosh and sophomore years at uni) :P
0

#23 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 29,949
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 25 October 2019 - 10:46 PM

View PostNoclevermoniker, on 23 October 2019 - 10:43 AM, said:

Probably snake oil. Nothing "runs on water".

It's a nice donut shop conspiracy theory discussion that there's some magical [engine/carburetor/injection/fuel system] that magically [combusts/mixes/tampers with] water to make a functioning heat engine, and that if the [oil companies/car companies/illuminati/CIA/tri-lateral commission] hadn't [bought out the patent/killed or sequestered the inventor] we'd all travel coast to coast at near light speed for pennies "as long as there's no power steering or that smog stuff".

Look, if such a "technology" existed, the Air Force would have it and they'd carry water and more bombs instead of JP-4 and fewer bombs. So far, the USAF is still running on kerosene.

Yup, if they’ve got the invention, there’ll be a patent, and with it the chemical reaction. If they didn’t file a patent, they wouldn’t pitch it to media. It says BS in capital letters.
0

#24 User is offline   Tikk 

  • Oh Rrrrrreeeaaaally?
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 9,190
  • Joined: 16-December 03

Posted 25 October 2019 - 11:20 PM

Any engineer can get any engine to run on any form of combustion.

It's just hard to beat gasoline and diesel for that whole energy/weight ratio. All engines used for transportation have to carry the fuel as well as the weight of the vehicle and its cargo.
0

#25 User is online   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 22,116
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 27 October 2019 - 10:38 PM

View PostTikk, on 25 October 2019 - 11:20 PM, said:

Any engineer can get any engine to run on any form of combustion.

It's just hard to beat gasoline and diesel for that whole energy/weight ratio. All engines used for transportation have to carry the fuel as well as the weight of the vehicle and its cargo.


:yeahthat:

#2 oil (Diesel) though Bunker 'C' if you must, Kerosene, Gasoline, Propane, natural gas (Methane, CH4). In That order.

YES, It's theoretically possible to capture the energy from 10,000 butterfly sneezes. But is it "worth it"? Is there a thermodynamic "net gain?" Heck, I like the Moody Blues just as much as the next person, but I'm just not quite convinced they've got the 'Science' down.


0

#26 User is offline   Noclevermoniker 

  • Wire Dachsies Matter
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,653
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 28 October 2019 - 08:44 AM

View PostTikk, on 25 October 2019 - 11:20 PM, said:

Any engineer can get any engine to run on any form of combustion.

It's just hard to beat gasoline and diesel for that whole energy/weight ratio. All engines used for transportation have to carry the fuel as well as the weight of the vehicle and its cargo.

My thermodynamics professor, while encouraging us to read up on all the theorems and proofs, left us with this:

"If you don't remember anything else; the First Law, simply stated, is that you don't get something for nothing. The Second Law, simply stated, is you don't even get close."
0

#27 User is online   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 22,116
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 28 October 2019 - 10:44 AM

View PostNoclevermoniker, on 28 October 2019 - 08:44 AM, said:

My thermodynamics professor, while encouraging us to read up on all the theorems and proofs, left us with this:

"If you don't remember anything else; the First Law, simply stated, is that you don't get something for nothing. The Second Law, simply stated, is you don't even get close."


I can't remember which class, but Dr Jim Gates at U of Maryland likened "Conservation of energy" to dealing with the mafia or a bank. YES, energy is "conserved". Not only don't you get "something for nothing" but you don't even get "something for something" either. The end result of ANY transformation is always "something minus" (Excess heat/light/whatever), however miniscule.

In any transaction, the House ALWAYS gets a cut.

What Dr. Gates said stuck with me as an Engineer. I don't design to a spec. I overdesign (within bounds) to a spec. Liken it to bridge-building. You want a bridge that can hold 100 cars? Fine. My Bridge will be designed for 150 cars.

What sucks is when you design a system for 100 cars that can actually accommodate 150, and then you wind up with 600. (But let's not talk about Atlanta area traffic, that's a different discussion)
0

#28 User is offline   NumeroInsight 

  • Newbie
  • Group: Registered Guest
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 14-November 19

Posted 16 November 2019 - 05:36 PM

 MTP Reggie, on 23 October 2019 - 12:55 PM, said:

At least these guys aren't claiming to violate the First and Second laws of Thermodynamics like Stanley Meyer did. I'll wait and see what they come up with before I dismiss it (as long as they promise not to ignore those two important laws)...


They may be in violation, insofar as the Carnot efficiency is a closely related to the 2nd law, and the claimed "50% increase in fuel efficiency" very likely takes this magical machine over the theoretical limit for an Otto cycle engine operating at temperatures consistent with modern materials, which is around 35-40%. Modern engines get 20% or a bit over, so doubling efficiency implies a level of performance that is unlikely to be achieved in a real engine bound by thermodynamic laws. It's not a slam-dunk, but then again: what is?

Claims that sound too good to be true are usually false.

My bet is this one is too.
0

#29 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,217
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 16 November 2019 - 07:52 PM

The way our professor taught us the 3 laws of Thermodynamics

1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even.
3. You can't get out of the game.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users