Tuesday, July 18, 2006



Blogger Jack T Briggs said...

The only problem I see with this is that cars will have to start having water tanks as well as fuel tanks. It's a cool idea, though.

19/7/06 04:28  
Blogger Garble said...

Yeah, that was one of the issues I saw as well. There might be some way to reuse the water, but that's going to be more complexity. I'd like to see what the energy balance on this thing looks like, what's the efficiency etc. etc.

19/7/06 05:57  
Blogger Jim Brannick said...

Lugging around tanks of distilled water seems totally impractical- especially in temperate areas which get below freezing much of the year. Also, he's managed to try and supplement one non-renewable resource (oil) with another (freshwater).
Still, it's a really neat idea- and simply being able to build it in his shop is impressive. I would have to say that this six-stroke engine is right up there with Simon's perpetual motion (magnet-powered) machine when it comes to really intelligent inventions.

19/7/06 09:46  
Blogger Garble said...

I'm going to have to disagree with you there Jim. This isn't another source of fuel, this is just a way to convert the excess heat of an IC engine into useable power. While there are many (MANY) things that need to be addressed there is a working prototype. Simon never managed to build one of those. That's because the 6 cycle engine doesn't violate any of the laws of physics. Perpetual motion does.

While I don't think this will be useful in transportation it might have some application in stationary power generation.

19/7/06 11:24  
Blogger Jim Brannick said...

Fuel noun: Something consumed to produce energy

Garble, how is the water used in his six-stroke engine NOT a "fuel"???

Also, you must've missed the sarcasm when I mentioned the famous (or rather infamous) perpetual motion machine.

19/7/06 11:41  
Blogger Garble said...

(Sorry, I did indeed miss the sarcasm.)

>>Fuel noun: Something consumed to >>produce energy

>>Garble, how is the water used in >>his six-stroke engine NOT >>a "fuel"???

Answer: Because it’s neither consumed nor a source of energy.

If you heat 1 KG of water from 70 deg C to 300deg C it will remain 1KG of water. It will change state from liquid to gas but the amount of water won’t change.

The water doesn’t produce any energy. The energy is already there in the form of heat left over from the combustion of gasoline. The change in state from liquid to gas actually consumes energy.

Think of the water as a catalyst. It turns the thermal energy left over from combustion into mechanical energy. In theory the water could be collected, allowed to condense back to liquid and reused. In practice it’s going to exit the process very dirty and no longer be pure water.

19/7/06 12:32  
Blogger Jim Brannick said...

Okay, now were arguing over semantics. I don't think that the water involved in this engine is (technically) a catalyst for the reaction. Catalysts increase the rate of reactions without being consumed or modified in the process, water in this case is (at the very least) modified, if not "consumed". In fact, it says that the second exhaust cycle would expell the steam from the chamber. It doesn't mention anything about reclamation of that water or the possibility of reusing it. That's just a theory that you came up with in your last comment.

So... I was assuming the water was "consumed" since it was expelled and therefore not useful anymore. Hence, I classify it as a fuel in this case. But enough arguing over semantics.

As for your theory of reusing the water(steam): I doubt I need to lecture you on how much energy you would need to remove all the impurities of that exhaust water.

Interesting? yes.
Practical? Hardly.

19/7/06 13:11  
Blogger Cohort Mandibles said...

Water = dumb. Keep polluting alive with IC.

19/7/06 13:20  
Blogger Cohort Mandibles said...

Actually, we should switch over to two-stroke. You know how awesome a two-stroke V8 would be?? Holy shit, and there would be so much harmful blue smoke. Awesome.

19/7/06 13:23  
Blogger Cohort Mandibles said...

Oh yeah, the water will be skanky. For an added bonus you could run the spent water through a pressurized hose that squirts it away from the car so you could hit pedestrians. Maybe you could even get lucky and spray it into a baby's mouth while it's going for a drink from it's stupid milk bottle.

19/7/06 13:27  
Blogger Garble said...

The main reason that I don’t think of water as a fuel is that it’s not adding any energy to the system. The energy is already there. What the water is doing is using energy that is currently being wasted. I’m not trying to split hairs over words. I think it’s a cool to have a way to utilize more of the energy in gasoline. You’re right it’s a long way from being practical.

Cohort needs to read the article, this is an IC engine.

19/7/06 13:32  
Blogger Cohort Mandibles said...

I know it's an IC ass clown.

20/7/06 05:05  
Blogger Garble said...

Cohort Mandibles said...
Water = dumb. Keep polluting alive with IC.

For some reason that made me think you were confused about the type of engine being discussed.

20/7/06 05:29  
Blogger Cohort Mandibles said...

I was in a hurry to type that because my boss was hovering nearby. I should have added "normal" or "regular" before IC.

20/7/06 05:36  
Blogger Garble said...

Thanks for admitting you fucked up. I'll take that as an apology.

20/7/06 05:58  
Blogger Cohort Mandibles said...

I'm not apologizing for anything, or admitting that I fucked up, I was rushed and couldn't put extra words in.

20/7/06 06:31  
Blogger Cohort Mandibles said...

I have to cut corners somewhere, just like you guys do at GM.

20/7/06 06:31  
Blogger Garble said...

I figure that you didn't realize it was an IC engine until I pointed it out. Now you're trying to cover for your glaring ignorance.

20/7/06 06:46  
Blogger Cohort Mandibles said...

You're a moron Garble. Anyway, I'm not going to get in a stupid argument with you.

20/7/06 07:14  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home