320Views24Replies

Author Options:

H and O burning car Answered

The other day a friend and i were disscusing the possibility of riging an old vw beetle engine to run on hydrogen and oxyen separated by electrolosis immediatly befor combustion. heres what weve come up with so far. 1: run a second alternator off of the engine and directly to the gas tank which would be full of water (this would also contain some sugar or some form of electorlite to aid in the conductivity) as you would be burning the H and using the O as you oxidizer it would not be nessesary to worry about which gas is which u would only need one line this line would run to a valve of some sort limiting the flow of the two gasses the carb would then be removed as u are putting O into ur engine so there is no longer any need for it. the line would then be run to the fuel intake where said amount of gas is released (determined by the valve) no here is where we run into what we think might be a problem would the pressure of compression return the gasses to their original state; water? if not then the engine should then run at this point with increased horse power as of the explosive properties of these gasses. (note this is in a nutshell nothing is ever this easy if it was everybody would be doing this) of course as any responsible scientist would do i will tes this on my dads lawnmower first. not really but i do have a test engine my next project is to see if i can get an old snow blower engine to run on black powder if anybody has any ideas on that as well let me know as it is tricky because an engine requires oil but black powder igites dry that is why im going with a 2 cycle so i can try ro run it dry for like 3 seconds and if it works try to figure out how to adapt it to one with oil an maybe eventually my car how cool would that be. it would be like driving a machine gun. not to mention the increased horse power and torque.

Discussions

has this engine ever been perfected or was it just forgoten?

solid fuel injection has been forgotten, too much trouble with compressing air to blow fuel into the cylinder under compression.

when the engine exploded was it because of structual failure or did the coal dust actually explode in turn destroing the engine

i don't know, but where it was only puting out 13 hp i suspect a timing issue, where the powdered coal detonated outside of the cylinder.

i love when people get on the subject of stars I'm a total cosmos nerd i actually plan on becoming an astronaut at an older age first planning on going to rensallear pti and getting a masters in something to that effect and plan on spending several years working as an aerospace engineer (need to work on my math though) and then becoming an astronaut from there that is if all goes according to plan (which any scientist would know it never does) if anybody here shares my intrest heres two cool forums on that general subject 1) search rocketry 2) search space shuttle

it takes work to produce electricity.

find a wind-up flashlight. try winding it while it's off. now turn it on and wind it. you should be able to feel that it's harder to turn while the light is on.

i'm sorry if i missled you on the generator/motor, it was ment as a joke.

there are lots of websites that describe various hydroxy systems. most claim to be looking for 'free energy,' some are out to steal your money, and some are just seeing how things work. look at more than one for ideas-and look for results that more than one person (or small group) has achieved.

the early idea for the diesel engine was to use coal dust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Diesel

Probably the closest example of an almost perpetual engine is a star (or the Sun, if you like). It's producing fusion energy which results in heat and separation of mater at it's core which produces more fusion energy. This result in the heat that allows us to live on this planet. The problem is, that it is also not a perpetual engine! In a few million years, the Sun will run out of mater to supply it's power and explode into a Red Giant (absorbing us in the process) and then after a million or so years of cooling will fall into itself into a White Dwarf and eventually burn out altogether. What got it started? Well, that source of energy that got everything else started, the Big Bang... What started that? Physics tell us it had to be yet another form of energy. What? I have no idea. But I'm sure after a few millennia of reincarnation and progression into higher forms of life, I may find that out...

yes a transformer thank you but what about if u hook a motor up to a genorator and give it a spin like jtobako said would that not work and if so isnt that a perpetual engine?

If you hook a motor to a generator, powering the motor from the generator, the generator will supply enough power to the motor to keep it running for a slight bit longer than if it weren't connected. This may seem like perpetual motion if you don't take into consideration that physical energy applied when giving the motor its initial spin. That spin is the energy being used to keep it running as long as it does.

is there some way of making this work by lets say running the electricity through (i know what its called i just cant think of it right now) something that increases the volts/amps like in a tazer? or maybe running multiple paddles? ( i apologize for my terrible spelling)

You're thinking of a Transformer. You can pass 12V through a 1:4 transformer (for instance) and get 48V. This is correct, but the current available would be reduced by a factor of 4.

Another example, you could supply 12V at 2A through a 10:1 transformer feeding 120V into the primary. This would pull 200mA from the 120V source though. The Power (Watts) remains the same (12V*2A=24W, 120V*0.2A=24W).

Adding multiple paddles would require multiple increased in water and flow.

oh and yeah isnt an alternator a more efficient genortator using a copper coil spinning surrounded by magnets and the mechanical power required for that motion comes from a belt on the front of the engine

An alternator is a synonym for generator. As is a Dynamo. (AC and DC output is a factor also.) The power generated is directly related to the amount of power applied to turning the generator. Energy for a little less energy, but in another form.

so if i understand u corectly a perpetual motion has NEVER been made or are u just trying to say that a practical one has never been made.

i know myth buster did a black powder engine but i just wanted to try it myself i mean why not i can get decent condidtion engines for free and i make my own black powder. so basicaly i would need to have a presurized tank of O and a presurized tank of H that i would need to fill up not to mention that would be like driving the hindenburg. thanx though guys who knows maybe theres some way it could be done (not on my budget)

There is ;) And millions (if not billions) of dollars/year is invested furthering the technology ;)


For gaseous fuels I would recommend that you do some research on propane engine and propane conversions/hybrids so you see how an engine runs off a gaseous fuel ;)

dont u think that the power of an entire alternator going to the tank would be enough voltage to split it fast enough?

Voltage is not the issue... Current (amps) is ;)

How does an alternator work (that is - where does an alternator get power from)?


I could tell you explicitly, but its better when you figure these things out yourself - you'll have a better understanding that way ;)

oh yeah about the genorator powering the alternator im planing on making a perpetual indoor waterfall. the falling water turns a paddle which turns a genarator and that powers a pump which returns the water to the top (a fun "usefull" application for that concept)

Again, Since you're expending more energy to pump the water than you would gain from the paddle wheel, this would fail. What you're proposing is a "Perpetual Engine." This is a device that supplies its own energy to run itself. It doesn't have to do anything else but run forever on it's own power. The problem with this concept is that there is no perfect efficient engine. There is always some waste through friction, gravity, heat, drag or any of many other sources. There have been awards waiting for more than two centuries for the first successful Perpetual Engine, that has yet to be collected. They're not likely to ever be collected since Perpetual Engines by their very nature are not possible. Trust me though, the many attempts are a great source of interesting looking devices!

a "responsible scientist " would use his own lawnmower ; ) -a dad generating H2 O2 fast enough is the problem. you need something like 60 amps at 3 volts to generate about 1000 cc of gas-with a 50 cc engine that's 200 rpm but working speed is much higher, closer to 2000 or 3000 rpm. a small gas generator might put out 20 amps, (at 3600 rpm 13 hp but almost 400cc) reduced to 3 volt gives 800 amps (give or take) and could produce enough gas for about 30-40 rpm. that's 10% efficency, about right for ICE. if you think that adding another generator will help, then riddle me this: take an electric motor, hook it up to a generator mechanicaly and electricaly, then give it a spin. the generator should create electricity, the electricity powers the motor, the motor turns the generator...

Vegas explained it... but here's something additional to think about.

Every time you change energy type (say from electrical to mechanical) you have efficiency losses. So, let use analyze the system.

1. Fuel generator puts a load on alternator
2. Alternator becomes more difficult to spin -- generates current (Mechanical --> Electrical)
3. Fuel is made (electrical --> chemical)
4. Fuel is added to the combustion system (chemical --> mechanical)


Now, the normal operation (minus your fuel generator)
1. Engine Requests/burns petrol (chemical --> mechanical)


So, ignoring transmission losses etc. We change hands (energy wise) an additional 2 times while we're generating H2 and O2 fuel on the fly. Now, according to the second law of thermo - we can never reach 100% efficiency. And even if we could, we would not be at any gain.

Rule of thumb:
1. You can have 100% efficiency at 0K
2. You can not reach 0K (and if you could - you can't keep it longer than an instant)
3. You can not win - entropy always wins


Here is the problem.... As of today, we're pretty damn close to the theoretical max efficiency on our engines (read: ICE). Why? Temperature. Want a more efficient engine? Increase the operating temps. Make the hot side (exhaust temp) of the engine hotter and the cold side of the engine colder (intake temp). Downsides: Unless the it was taken into consideration - the additional heat will cause faster wear. This is why todays turbine engines are more efficient than our otto engines :(


Want a more efficient engine? Supercharge (VIA a blower or turbo).



Search for the mythbusters black powder engine ;) They took a running gasoline engine (small go-kart horz. shaft type) and converted for black powder. They did get one ignition - but it took a lot of tinkering and it didn't stay running (past that one ignite). Black powder gums up too -- causes fast wear and contaminates oil... It's just too volatile to be a viable (that is, it may be possible - just not practical/useful).

Not trying to destroy your ideas or anything -- I was there once and I didn't believe it until I did my homework and started understanding a little bit of thermo :(

There is one rule of physics that you just cant avoid. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. The amount of energy to separate enough Hydrogen and Oxygen to power an engine to turn a generator would far exceed what that generator supplies. There is no such thing as a perpetual engine. There never will be. Good brain food though. That's how real ideas start.