Subaru Enthusiasts Car Club of the Sierras - View Single Post - The six stroke engine ... it's two strokes better!

sperry · 2006-03-16, 01:58 PM

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.

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?

2006-03-16, 01:58 PM	#30
sperry The Doink Real Name: Scott Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 20,335 Car: '09 OBXT, '02 WRX, '96 Miata Class: PDX/TT-6 The way out is through	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. 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? __________________ Is you is, or is you ain't, my con-stit-u-ints?