Water-powered cars

[Graham Ross]

Point well taken, sure, but it's so ....boring to deal with the detractors! Still, cudos to Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, and his kind, for their tireless efforts in debunking the YEC's ideas about evolution, for example.

If we want more non-scientists to be skeptics we need more people like Massimo.

 

[Olowkow]

If we want more non-scientists to be skeptics we need more people like Massimo.

He is really something special. If anyone does not know about him, check out his appearances on "The Infidel Guy" podcast. He debates Kent Hovind on one of the programs. Priceless stuff.

 

[bruto]

So they were heating the water, for a steam engine I guess. Seems to me that part of the problem running an engine on acetylene (or hydrogen) as a fuel, (unpressurized) would be getting the acetylene under high enough pressure. This takes a compressor, which takes power, which needs "fuel". One could just run the engine from the "fuel" instead.

Hydrogen fuel cell is another matter, provided you have a cheap source of hydrogen.

The fuel cells being researched where I work use formic acid as the fuel of choice. The stuff that ants make. Ethanol has problems with generation of CO at low temperatures, which tends to snuff out the cell. Hence all the research on catalysts. It is quite remarkable, to me, how much power they can get from small cells.

I think the idea was simply to burn the acetylene as fuel in the engine. An acetylene generator can put out as much pressure as is safe anyway, which in the case of acetylene is about 15 psi., above which it has a nasty habit of exploding. ( I think that's why all the numbers above 15 are in red on my welding regulator! ). That's plenty of pressure to run an engine using a carburetor similar to what would be used with LPG or natural gas. I think the problem with acetylene is that it is so carbon rich it's hard to run cleanly in a conventional internal combustion engine without fouling it. My dim recollection is that it worked, but the engine didn't last. That doesn't matter, of course, if you're running a scam.

You can do a non-pressurized or low pressure gas rig easily enough with producer gas (from incomplete combustion of wood or coal). "Easily" being relative, of course, but it's suitable for an internal combustion engine, and was once used relatively commonly on stationary engines, and has also been done by enterprising tinkerers in times of scarcity, or just as an exercise. It's not necessarily a good energy bargain, since you have to burn the fuel to make the gas, but the concept is not terribly complicated, and it will make an engine go without petroleum.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Well you can run an internal combustion engine without petroleum pretty easily. It'll run on methanol, ethanol, butane, ether, methane, propane, acetone, hydrogen and other stuff. I mean as far as a gasoline engine goes. If you use a diesel engine... well there's even more crap it'll run on.

Of course, it depends on the engine and fuel system. You may run into problems with lubrication if you run it for a long enough time, because gasoline can help provide some lubrication of the valves and such. But in any case, you can pull it off with minor modification.

 

[Olowkow]

I think the idea was simply to burn the acetylene as fuel in the engine. An acetylene generator can put out as much pressure as is safe anyway, which in the case of acetylene is about 15 psi

I was sleepy when I posted! I was picturing having to store the acetylene for later use. Nasty stuff in any case.
Always been partial to Stirling engines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bf6mhfeUH0

 

[ktesibios]

There's a very nice, succinct explanation of why the Meyerites' claims about "resonance" permitting water to be electrolyzed with less energy input than can be recovered by burning the hydrogen here:

Chemical Free Lunch