Well boiling water does take some energy, but my point was I imagine it's a helluva lot less energy than is consumed manufacturing gas.

Um, exhaust valve... I challenge you to stop an engine after combustion has been initiated but before the exhaust valve on that cyliner opens...

You can stop fuel from exploding by not firing a spark plug. Much harder to get water to not vaporize in the same environment.

So don't fire the water injector... Ok, that's an option, but does that mean the engine has to run 5 more strokes without injection to make sure? Don't know. Maybe you are right, that's not an issue.

Who's BANSUMS?

Ok, maybe, but...

Probably the only viable alternative to our petroleum based economy is solar - electric.

Put solar cells on every south facing roof/building surface, and you might have a chance of moving away from Hydrocarbon based fuels.

Even a magic 50% reduction in fuel consumption is still consumption, and still "Less Billions" or was it "fewer billions" in oil company pockets. Less Billions is still better than no billions.

Hi I'm Dean. Because a technology only helps, instead of completely removing our dependance on oil, I think it sucks and we shouldn't bother at all.

:roll:

C'mon man, everything you're pointing our are hurdles, not deal breakers. Hell, put the filtration system on the car itself... sure it'll reduce mileage, but the car will still get a better mpg than a non-water cycle motor and now you can fill the water tank in the driveway w/ your hose.

And so what if the tank is 50/50 gas/water... it's not like we're adding 1500 lbs to the car. Hell, you have a Dodge Stealth... the last thing you should be doing is complaining that this theoretical car is going to weigh too much because there's a 2.4 lb difference in weight between a gallon of water and a gallon of gas. At least the weight of the water is going towards helping the mileage and environment... What's the benefit to that extra 500lbs your Stealth carries around?

Or even better, there's no reason why the water cycle can't just be its own cylinder where exhaust heat is taken from the gas cylinders, and water is injected to convert to steam creating a power stroke, then recycled back to the water tank to be reused. IIRC, that's how BMW's water system works. With the exception of piston blow by, it's a closed system.

Is it really that hard to see that leveraging the heat from the fuel combustion as mechanical energy instead of radiating and exhausting it off the car is a good idea?

So, Im wondering about how much pressure you get from the steam expansion relative to the heat loss in the cylinder, which affects combustion on the other power stroke. Also, the extra cooling effect directly int eh cylinder would allow combustion that would otherwise be unsafe- AFRs and ignition timing would be able to run in parameters that would normally lead quickly to hot spots and detonation.

I think direct cylinder cooling would be a fantastic benefit to turbocharged cars, allowing for 3 and 4 bar of boost on a street car. However, I'm not sure what effect the cold exhaust would have on the turbo's spooling. You would have to redesign the turbo quite extensively, or just switch to supercharging.

I'm kinda with Dean here. I've seen SO MANY "alternative fuels" and other such variations on the internal combustion engine, like this one, all of which have sounded great at first, and turned out to be nothing more than a big FLOP. In my head, the entire idea here is absolutely un-useable. I may know much more about automotive theory than I do Physics, but it just doesn't click that this thing would be 1. reliable 2. economical 3. more efficient than what we have already.

I recall an engine oil cap I showed Dean and Scott on Saturday, that had milky oil on it from the condensation known to exsist in Nissan motors, and it scared the crap out of all of us. I imagine cylinders FULL of water vapor blowing past rings producing effects 100 times what we saw on Saturday. Scary.

Frankly, I think if there were more pessimists in the world, we could avoid SO many mistakes! :D "Dude, a blimp full of highly explosive gas is not a good idea..." See: Hindenburg

Actually, that might be an outstanding idea. Significantly lower EGTs have no negative effect on a blower, and allow for more boost and/or no/less intercooling.

Additonally, more or less water/steam injection could be used to control the EGTs with FI motors, more than for the power stroke part. Sort of super-WI for making more power and more steam power for light-load cruise. Similar to the "on demand" Chrysler V8s and old Cadillac engines with 4 deactivating cylinders.

The Hindenburg burned because of the coating on the canvas, not because Hydrogen is flamable.

And if everyone were pessimists there'd be no innovation. This particular motor may not be the solution (I think pure electric or hydrogen electric will be the ultimate solution to get awa from oil) but it's certainly a step in the right direction.

For example, multi stage disposeable rockets are not the efficient way to get people into orbit... a RAM/SCRAM jet space plane would be much better... but since we can't build that yet, we built the space shuttle... a compromise. That's what these new hybrid motors are, the compromise interrum solution that we use to learn more about what it'll take to get to the better solution... which in turn becomes a compromise once an even better solution is thought up.

Just because an idea isn't perfect, doesn't make it a bad idea. This motor has promise, and I believe the technology can be made to work as advertized. Does that mean it'll ultimately be economical? Of course not. But that doesn't mean the idea is worthless or that it shouldn't be persued.

Diesels and rotaries were new ideas once too. Hell, when the IC combustion was first introduced, I'm sure a lot of folks thought it copuldn't replace... the steam engine. :p While I personally don't expect the 6 stroke motor to work, I hope it gets a fair shot and fails due to physics rather than economics or naysaying.

That does suck! But I'm not so sure that the extra cycle with water vapor is going to be that destructive. Cylinder pressure will be no more than they already are, with no more than twice as much water in teh chamber. Worse, yes, but not phenominally so.

:lol: :manatee:

Yes, but you have to remember, people said the same thing about the internal combustion engine when it was developed ages ago. Ideas often build off of other ideas for the most part. I just wish more people would build these things so we can laugh at them on the internet as they try to perfect their plans.


Also, Why is it that ever thread Mike K starts turns into a 100 post marathon within a day?...damn.

edit(okay, we all just said the same thing.)

Nothing against inovation, I'm just not sure this one is such a hot idea. If he had a 50HP 50Ft/LB prototype, I might have a different tune. The HS kids car really exists, and appears to have real performance numbers, so I am hopefully optimistic on that one.

Like I said earlier, I hope this is the best thing since sliced bread, but I am going to take a wait and see attitude on this one.

If you are convinced otherwise, I strongly encourage you to invest in distilled water futures, and short sell Radiators-R-US.

with a new 6 stroke engine it better park itslef also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8oBB2WjKOA

AH! I never said EVERYONE should be pessimists, just that there should be more of us pissing in the Cheerios of those out there who are "blindly optimistic". I do firmly believe in innovation and new takes on old ideas, but, like I said, I've just seen FAR too many "innovations" such as this one... which went nowhere really, really fast. Again, I have been around the block in Auto theory, but am a tad behind in the physics department, compared to some people here! A good idea is a good idea, and if this turns out to be the next big thing, I'll eat these words and happily congratulate the inventor, but in my humble opinion, I don't think it will. Doesn't mean that he should give up the project, just the opinion of one dude!

Matt's got a good point tho, as long as they keep ending up on the internet so we can laugh at them, keep 'em coming!

http://www.jasongriffey.net/images/cowbell.gif

This thread needs more cowbell.

LOL bro , where does Revined 93 octane fuel come from ? fairy dust ?

i'll place you a $20 bet that it takes more energy to produce 1 gallon of 93 octane fuel, then it does to produce 1 gallon of distilled water. (yes i'm a gambling man)

where will i find out the answer ? i have no clue but i dought yer gonna take the bet ;)

Edit: not trying to flame but I sincerly belive it costs more to pump out oil, refine it and make the winter/sumer formulas, the it costs to distall water. crude oil is like $60 a barrel and you don't get 100% gas out of that. its 42 gallons per barrel (or so says google) so that's already around around $1.42 per gallon assuming you refine it for free with 0% loss.

distilled water sells for less then that, so unles the distilled water companies are operating at a loss. you are beyond wrong about the costs.


does this mean you won't take my bet ?

ummm, quotes so we know who you're trying to take money from? :p

You are probably right, but do you know how much it would cost to put in the infrastructure to deliver 100 Billion gallons of distilled water a year? And it is likely that it would be taxed at the same rate fuel is, or we would run out of money for highways, etc...

And it may add $500 to the cost of each car, etc...

I'm just saying it ain't as cheap as you think it is.

Dean, I'm pretty sure the maybe 50,000 cars/year that might end up with this motor probably won't need 100 billion gallons of water distributed across the nation at every single gas station. If you think we can swap every motor in every car in America to use 50% water before we can build the infrastructure to handle the delivery of water you're out of your mind. Even if this motor was a phenominal success, it'd still take decades before it was in the majority of vehicles on the road.

In addition, what make you think that all the infrastructure currently in use for gasoline won't work for water? Instead of 87, 89, 91 at the pump how about 87, 91, H2O at the pump? Holy shit, I must be some sort of genius.

OMG! Yes Scott, you are a F'ing genius. :P

Damnit Cody, you were supposed to keep him occupied in the Social Security thread.

Scott, you win, I was just down on 4th street and paid $100 for stock in "Stroke Me Six Times, Inc." I think I got 20 shares... The sales girl wasn't very good looking, and she insisted on cash, but I'm in on the ground floor baby...
___________________________________

Did I say you have to build it all at once, nooooo, I just asked if he knew how much it cost to deploy that kind of infrastructure, I stated no time period for that deployment. Yes, it would be gradual, OK?

Could existing infrastructure be leveraged, yes, but only with quite a bit of modification. you can't pump H2O out of he same nozzle as 87, and 91, so something has to change there.

Not sure it's a real good idea to even transport them in the same truck, but OK, maybe you can.

Know how many thousands of miles of gasoline pipeline there is in the US? Neither do I , but I bet it is a boat load. Probably can't switch back and forth easily, if at all, so start digging or finding a work around, or come up with localized "manufacturering" plants which cost more typically than large centralized ones.

Can it be done, yes, but it is only going to happen if somebody can make a profit on it no matter how f'ing cool it is. Share holders won't have it any other way.

He gave up. :D