FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
the combustion engine...and water as a fuel
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Nat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica

PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:25 am    Post subject: the combustion engine...and water as a fuel Reply with quote

water combustibility in an atomised high pressure state

in Practical tips from a Creative Genius, Dr. Yoshiro Nakamatsu, intimidating patent record holding genius, makes allusions to water engines, i don't know what he was specifically meaning by that, but for years and years i have been wondering about this (and have even designed a single moving part rotary vortex bike engine* - and a 'few moving parts' cylinder cell/rotary vortex engine* for high torque applications - both to run on mixtures of various fuels including water)...


water as a fuel ?

if water is atomised and injected into an internal combustion engine it actually behaves like its two components - being hydrogen and oxygen - that's my theory...hang on a mo', one is nothing ? unless it becomes two ?...again !...it's everywhere

water injection was used in the spitfire's merlin engine, supposedly it was used to suppress pre-ignition, but the real result was a huge increase in power

a company was claimed to have fitted water injection to a fiat uno turbo, and before the doors fell off and the engine blew up it was doing 0-60 in about four seconds

all really intriguing to me, but funny, it's not ever acknowledged, discussed seriously, or used


water being explosive ?

there was a documentary to do with decoy operations during the second world war, in which it was suggested that water (upon contacting large fires used to simulate burning cities) gave rise to large and impressive explosions - now they weren't making any energy miracles claims for this, it was just mentioned as if water caused explosions all the time..."put that cigarette out ! i'm drawing a bath here !"...you could liken it to a chip pan fire, only larger scale, i've had various explanations for this phenomenon, but all might be to do with the bad version of 'enlightening science' (or lies as i like to think of it)...who's to say it's not that the water spontaneously splits under such extreme shock ?


water splitting without electrolysis ?

something tells me that atomisation could circumvent the electrical energy in - to get something out - method of water splitting, and although water vapour is of course non-combustible, if both highly pressurised and atomized - a non natural state that cannot exist in most situations - it does, so this crazy theory goes, act as if split under electrolysis...although i think a catalyst such as ethanol may be required to assist the process of ignition, such a fuelling system would use pure ethanol or similar on startup, then sensors would respond to increasing combustion chamber temperatures by increasing the water to ethanol ratio, until the water constitutes a very large (if not total) percentage of the mixture


if i had a workshop (oh, how i wish i wish i had a workshop...drool !) i would be trying this for sure

so, pressurised and atomised water (an entirely unnatural coincidence of properties) might well be a viable fuel

thoughts ?

*note: they're only in my head and on paper stored with a trusted and untraceable safekeeper, so no point in 'burgling' me, big oil Wink

please widely disseminate 'water as fuel' before big oil 'accident' me Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ozregeneration



Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 485
Location: Big Island Down Under

PostPosted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Greetings Matt,

Last year I went to a couple of gatherings where alternative energies were discussed. Most particularly to do with cars. I can't remember all the details now but if you are interested I could hunt down some contacts/links showing the research that is going on in our neck of the woods.

This guy initially was looking into the 'Joe Cell' and in fact was able to interview him on tape where he demo'ed a car he was playing around with. This car was seen started, then after removing connections to the battery, etc, it was still running. Joe is one smart bunny, but has had to go underground after getting visits from some not so nice fellows.

Anyway, the guy I listened to mentioned how he believed that the spark created from a spark plug was not the ignition point, but that the frequency created from the spark plug caused the ignition. Another thing was to do with using DC instead of AC and comments that some of the early 1900 cars used DC and they had trouble stopping them, on little or no fuel. (Mmmm, I wonder why the cars have been 'fixed' to only work using petrol).

The above is very sparse on detail, I know, but a friend of mine is pretty clued up on what is being looked into locally so like I said if you would like any further info I would be glad to follow it up.

Cheers

Oz

_________________
Choices For Your Soul
http://www.choicesforyoursoul.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Nat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica

PostPosted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sounds really interesting, Oz, yeah, i'd love to know more, but, erm, if your filing system is anything like my 'filing' system, i wouldn't want to put you to any serious effort, if the stuff is not too buried please do post it up

Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
obeylittle



Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually Matt, you have brought up something that has been used for decades. But mostly by a few "in the know" niche groups such as Drag Racers.

I don't remember whom was credited for the water blast drag racing "trick", but it was a popular secret weapon before the use of Nitrous Oxide became practical and commercialized. Probably began in racing sometime during the 1950s, but possibly earlier.

The way water was used in drag racing motors was a bit crude, looking back now -- water was literally flooded into the carburetor airflow through tubes (sometimes plumbed secretly through the rear of the motor block, then injected into the intake manifold ports from the underside; thus totally hidden) -- but it was very effective if the mechanic was careful. Or lucky.

The driver of the dragster or race car would yank on the handle of a ball-valve as the car was winding out to top speed near the end of the 1/4 mile drag race, releasing the water blast into the screaming motor. When the water entered the motor it took off with added power, suddenly lurching the race car toward and across the finish line, winning many close races.

For the driver, timing the water injection trick was important, because many times the motor would hydro-lock and blow up as the connecting rods were forced to bend under the pressure of too much incompressible liquid in the cylinders. But it won a lot of races for teams who were otherwise going to lose to quicker cars, had they not water blasted the motor....

The old timer racers say that the reason the motors suddenly made a lot of extra power from water, was the increased compression pressures (hence increased combustion pressures) caused by the liquid taking up space in the combustion chamber. This increased compression ratio would normally cause the fuel to pre-ignite if attempted by other means... but water atomizing (vaporizing) cooled the intake air sufficiently to prevent detonation and pre-ignition.

Makes perfect sense to me, the result was sometimes a very spectacular explosion though.

In more practical applications, the metering of water, alcohol, or other liquids by injection are used to prevent pre-ignition in a variety of motors, even today. I've used alcohol/water injection mixtures myself in supercharged Chevys. It works to control wide open, high boost pressure risks of pre-ignition while allowing to maintain aggressive ignition timing. I think the practice actually began in the aircraft industry way back... but I'm not sure.

The principle is simple; when liquids turn to vapor they also cool. Thats why the various fast vaporizing alcohols (methanol, ethanol) are the favored injection liquid.

As for the other claims... oops, not biting. Its all disinfo crap from controlled stooges. If its possible to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen using less energy than is potentially available after the separation, no one has mentioned how to publicly, anywhere yet.

I like your thinking though... its fun and irresistible to explore. Keep it up and you may crack that puzzle yourself! Just remember, energy never leaves or is "used" up... not even by us silly humans. Energy is simply transfered or converted in the most economical way by nature; and then released to become available again in the ecosystem. Exploit that.

Its good to realize that nature even cleans up after itself and for all of us too... no matter what abusive messes we may make (Fuck you controlled corporate medias!), in the same economy of scale. So bears may shit in the woods but dammit, Al Gore can too!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks Obeylittle, great input...

but, Very Happy but...

i didn't know about the dragsters, cheers for the info, the explanation that the water causes greater compression - sounds fair enough, but i still wonder...based on the fact that i never really understood why fuel is subject to the 'energy from nowhere' debate (in this particular regard) - by which i mean that if a readily combustible fuel such as ethanol can be ignited, and that's something we all accept...then why water in this state of compression and vapourisation cannot give up its constituent components spontaneously, and also be ignited

it seems to me like it's analogous to any other conventional fuel requiring particular conditions to ignite efficiently, or at all...i don't even see water used in this way as at all defying the laws of physics, the release of the energy within is more than enough to power the cycling of the effect with 'gain' (same as any other engine) - though not from 'nowhere'

look at it this way, water will never in nature* be both vapour/atomised and under high pressure...take a high gravity planet for example, water will be under extreme pressure (gravity) but not a vapour...or our own sea, deep down, water is under immense pressure, but is never a vapour down there, so i still find the possibilities compelling

* apart from ?...here's an interesting or dull and stupid aside...can lightning strike in a vacuum or 'air'less environment ? i got thinking as i was typing up the first post, that perhaps, only perhaps, mind (as in don't know) lightning lights up the sky because in a very confined area it splits the oxygen and hydrogen in the air as it travels through it - of course, the whole world's air doesn't ignite because it's a very localised effect

take water in a 'low gravity' situation such as our own, one where it is often in a vapour state, confine and pressurise it without the gravity pulling it into a large mass with a small surface area (analogous to solid metal versus metal powder - and we all know how reactive metal powders are), produce an ultra fine spray of it, add spark...as i say, this is simply theory, but myself with that elusive lottery win, or someone else (perhaps already) will find a way to do this, i just feel it in my water :roll: , and no electrolysis and huge tow-behind trailers of water in sight

if it is indeed possible to force water to split spontaneously through the application of those two parameters, then it would be little different to finding petrol burning 'odd', high compression injector sprays water into cylinder, electrical system ignites the mixture and the energy is released, perhaps the ignition would need to provide a larger spark ? maybe a very small scale lightning bolt of sorts

it kind'a makes sense to me, but i might be using the wrong terminology here and there, so go easy on me...i'm reminded of the time our lecturer in university (never graduated, glad about it too to be honest - they were pushing the exact stuff Fuller was talking about out of my head, or trying anyway) pulled the cover off a Crookes Radiometer, all the bmw day release wankers scratched their heads and looked at their 300 sweaters for answers (i'm NOT trying to draw parallels, just mentioning is all), but i in all my glorious stupidity understood (or i think i did), and almost succeeded in explaning how it was that this thing was spinning round in a vacuum, i probably couldn't explain it again, sorta lost the words in a dream. or something, but although sometimes the ability to make sense of the make sense-able to others eludes me, it still makes sense to me !

"my stupid" Laughing


Last edited by Nat on Fri May 04, 2007 2:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
obeylittle



Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You have some great points Matt! You are forcing an old man (me) to think in ways never before attempted. This is fun...

It is often said that ANYTHING will burn if you can get it hot enough or reach its flash point... if so, then why not water... which is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, after all.

For combustion as we know it to occur, three conditions must be met and maintained throughout a controlled or spontaneous combustion process:
1) A base Fuel material. A fuel must be supplied that is ignitable AND reacts with oxygen (or contains its own supply of oxygen) in a practical manner (commonly has a low flash point property).
2) Oxygen. Oxygen may be considered a fuel as well... or the second half of the fuel requirement. This is a confusing subject sometimes because we forget that a material will not "burn" unless it can inter-react with oxygen, so oxygen is actually a component of the fuel in practice Question
3) Ignition. Ignition can be implemented in a variety of ways: a spark, a heat source, pressure etc., depending on the flash properties of the fuel (material + oxygen).

So basically, one only needs to find a fuel/oxygen source with an attainable ignition flash point for combustion to occur. At first glance water seems to be a perfect candidate for combustion because it not only contains a base fuel (hydrogen) with a large potential energy store, it also contains a small portion of the second requirement; oxygen. Since water and oxygen are already great friends why can't we just introduce more oxygen and fire it off? But water is different and seemingly ignores all these rules... or as you suggest, MAYBE it doesn't ignore all these rules, just responds differently or requires conditions we haven't explored yet!

Water is the only material known that has its own unique properties domain. Water does not resemble any other liquid (or gas) beyond its fluid or gaseous appearance. Water disobeys all the understood rules that other materials and compounds adhere to. Water is physically unique and so has its own rule set in physics. We know very little about water compared to other materials because water does not share many of its properties with them. Water is a one-trick-pony that just won't mind us.

Is there a way to burn water? Probably... just don't know how to yet without first expending a greater amount of energy to first separate the hydrogen/oxygen bond. Since we have only tried to separate water into its two simpler components first (electrolysis etc), we have failed miserably. Maybe we shouldn't keep trying this obviously uneconomical splitting approach while expecting different results...

You are asking some great questions along these lines... surely the economical steps (as nature would allow it) toward making water combustible can be learned? If we first learn about water? If we quit trying to whip the stubborn pony into compliance?

And why does water have to be burned to release its energy... is there a more economical method to access the potential energy store than through combustion?

Keep asking these questions, I'm all ears now. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
obeylittle



Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lets bounce around a few things we know about water, maybe I will learn something new...

We know that water will boil (vaporize) at a low temperature, even room temperature and below, if we lower the pressure on it enough. Higher pressures = higher boiling point, lower pressures = lower boiling point.

Water vaporizes at 212 degrees F at sea level atmospheric pressure.

Accordingly, water vapor will become a liquid as it is exposed to pressures approaching atmospheric pressure and sufficiently low temperatures. This is on a linear scale I think.

We know that water releases energy (cools) as it vaporizes and releases energy (heat) as it liquefies. Study steam for these puzzling anomalies.

We know that water is at its peak density around 39 degrees Fahrenheit, becoming less dense both above and below that temperature point.

Water becomes a solid in appearance at 32 degrees F, 0 degrees Celsius, and continues to lose density as it gets colder.

In its liquid state the density of water can not be changed (like most other liquids its incompressible) without first altering its temperature. In vapor state water density can be altered by pressure AND temperature changes.

We know that the hydrogen in water burns readily releasing energy once it isn't part of water anymore, but in its vapor state water will still not burn. Or will it?

What have I left out and what don't we know about water yet that is important...?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
obeylittle



Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BTW... Lightening does appear to travel in space, or in near space at least. Study images of lightening from atop the originating (?) source and we see what is described as Sprites extending into and beyond our outer atmosphere. Seemingly these sprites continue into space as they still contain a great deal of electrical energy, but the "flame" front isn't visible to us once outside our atmosphere.

This brings up questions I can't find natural answers for.

No oxygen in space to burn, thereby producing visible light trails... or can this be explained in another way?

Is lightening solely an atmospheric phenomena? If so, what is the "path of least resistance" electrical attraction to space?

How far does lightening "travel" into space before all forms of energy (electrical, magnetic, kinetic etc.) is dissipated? Then what?

Can lightening "originate" in space and thus enter our atmosphere?

What in sam hell is really happening?

Miffed but its all good for me...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oh damn, i'm only just replying to the first Laughing

and i see mentions of vacuum-lightning Shocked

anyway, here's #1 (already out of date)...

obeylittle wrote:
You have some great points Matt! You are forcing an old man (me) to think in ways never before attempted. This is fun...

you don't read 'old', Obey Smile

Quote:
It is often said that ANYTHING will burn if you can get it hot enough or reach its flash point... if so, then why not water... which is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, after all.

that was something i should have made clearer, i think it possible that a water engine might need to run very hot (?) so you've got heat/pressure/high surface area + a 'lightning bolt', possibly or maybe just a decent spark

Quote:
For combustion as we know it to occur, three conditions must be met and maintained throughout a controlled or spontaneous combustion process:
1) A base Fuel material. A fuel must be supplied that is ignitable AND reacts with oxygen (or contains its own supply of oxygen) in a practical manner (commonly has a low flash point property).
2) Oxygen. Oxygen may be considered a fuel as well... or the second half of the fuel requirement. This is a confusing subject sometimes because we forget that a material will not "burn" unless it can inter-react with oxygen, so oxygen is actually a component of the fuel in practice Question
3) Ignition. Ignition can be implemented in a variety of ways: a spark, a heat source, pressure etc., depending on the flash properties of the fuel (material + oxygen).

So basically, one only needs to find a fuel/oxygen source with an attainable ignition flash point for combustion to occur. At first glance water seems to be a perfect candidate for combustion because it not only contains a base fuel (hydrogen) with a large potential energy store, it also contains a small portion of the second requirement; oxygen. Since water and oxygen are already great friends why can't we just introduce more oxygen and fire it off? But water is different and seemingly ignores all these rules... or as you suggest, MAYBE it doesn't ignore all these rules, just responds differently or requires conditions we haven't explored yet!

LOL - i'm from the poke it with a stick school of discovery Laughing if only i had the facilities i'd build a corrosion proof engine, just a simple three cylinder or something, one which i could crank the compression up and down, with at least two direct injectors per cylinder - one ethanol, one water vapour, each trio of injectors with its own high pressure electric pump, and something like a tuneable piezo-igniter in each cylinder...fire the engine up on ethanol, then blend in water and try variations on the mixture to see what happens (or explodes Shocked )

Quote:
Water is the only material known that has its own unique properties domain. Water does not resemble any other liquid (or gas) beyond its fluid or gaseous appearance. Water disobeys all the understood rules that other materials and compounds adhere to. Water is physically unique and so has its own rule set in physics. We know very little about water compared to other materials because water does not share many of its properties with them. Water is a one-trick-pony that just won't mind us.

might be paydirt and gold in that stream i think Wink ...somewhere in those unique properties might lie the answer, i think looking into the lightning/lightning in a vacuum might be a start - possibly

Quote:
Is there a way to burn water? Probably... just don't know how to yet without first expending a greater amount of energy to first separate the hydrogen/oxygen bond. Since we have only tried to separate water into its two simpler components first (electrolysis etc), we have failed miserably. Maybe we shouldn't keep trying this obviously uneconomical splitting approach while expecting different results...

might be that an engine which warms up on ethanol, then as chamber temperatures rise higher gradually switches to water vapour could yield those elusive results...how hot could an engine function ? 300 or 400 degrees celcius ? (570 to 750f)...would that cause the vapour to in some way become inigniteable steam ?...perhaps such an engine might run optimally on water at very low temps ?...i'm really not sure about that to be honest

Quote:
You are asking some great questions along these lines... surely the economical steps (as nature would allow it) toward making water combustible can be learned? If we first learn about water? If we quit trying to whip the stubborn pony into compliance?

i have much to learn about this water stuff, i have to say, but you've already doubled my knowledge in this thread

Quote:
And why does water have to be burned to release its energy... is there a more economical method to access the potential energy store than through combustion?

aah, why burn it ?...'cos i must've got Fangio's right hoof in a limb transplant Wink there're few things i like more than red lining an engine (my bad)...i used to work in a place where all the drivers who were insane thought i was insane Shocked really, it was they who were the mad ones, doesn't everyone hit 8,500 revs in first ?...actually, apparently not, i blew chunks out of the gearbox on that car giving it the berries...by the way, anyone wanting to give away about 2,600, i'll take it, there's a beautiful Suzuki GSX R600 on ebay right now - go on, please !


Last edited by Nat on Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:11 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

but in all seriousness, something other than fire breathing, screaming internal combustion might well be the way (as long as we can fit fake exhaust pipes which play recordings of 13,000rpm v10s in sync to the speed) Laughing

obeylittle wrote:
Lets bounce around a few things we know about water, maybe I will learn something new...

We know that water will boil (vaporize) at a low temperature, even room temperature and below, if we lower the pressure on it enough. Higher pressures = higher boiling point, lower pressures = lower boiling point.

Water vaporizes at 212 degrees F at sea level atmospheric pressure.

Accordingly, water vapor will become a liquid as it is exposed to pressures approaching atmospheric pressure and sufficiently low temperatures. This is on a linear scale I think.

We know that water releases energy (cools) as it vaporizes and releases energy (heat) as it liquefies. Study steam for these puzzling anomalies.

We know that water is at its peak density around 39 degrees Fahrenheit, becoming less dense both above and below that temperature point.

Water becomes a solid in appearance at 32 degrees F, 0 degrees Celsius, and continues to lose density as it gets colder.

In its liquid state the density of water can not be changed (like most other liquids its incompressible) without first altering its temperature. In vapor state water density can be altered by pressure AND temperature changes.

We know that the hydrogen in water burns readily releasing energy once it isn't part of water anymore, but in its vapor state water will still not burn. Or will it?

What have I left out and what don't we know about water yet that is important...?

sounds comprehensive to me, Obey...key is, i think, that pressure business, vapour + pressure, i feel that's at the heart of any potential..at least for the noisy sort of energy release

it might be that the water needs to be seriously perverted from its 'i wanna do this' in order to make it burn good, or the answer might lie in something it'd willingly do if only the environment was right

we need to find some sort of pictoral/graph style representation of the attributes of water, therein might lie some pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey starting point from which the pinata will issue forth its bounty Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

obeylittle wrote:
BTW... Lightening does appear to travel in space, or in near space at least. Study images of lightening from atop the originating (?) source and we see what is described as Sprites extending into and beyond our outer atmosphere. Seemingly these sprites continue into space as they still contain a great deal of electrical energy, but the "flame" front isn't visible to us once outside our atmosphere.

This brings up questions I can't find natural answers for.

No oxygen in space to burn, thereby producing visible light trails... or can this be explained in another way?

Is lightening solely an atmospheric phenomena? If so, what is the "path of least resistance" electrical attraction to space?

How far does lightening "travel" into space before all forms of energy (electrical, magnetic, kinetic etc.) is dissipated? Then what?

Can lightening "originate" in space and thus enter our atmosphere?

What in sam hell is really happening?

Miffed but its all good for me...

okay, this is right into my uncertain zone of knowledge, but i think lightning is the conversion of solar radiation into electrical charge as it reaches the earth (???)

could it be that it will ignite just about any gas it encounters ? even in rarified amounts ?

put it this way, a far as i know, the brightest lightning is down here amongst the oxygen and water vapour

even if the lightning thing is a total electric-eel-red-herring, the 'combustibility' of water might still be something that could be realised and exploited
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
obeylittle



Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
...key is, i think, that pressure business, vapour + pressure, i feel that's at the heart of any potential..at least for the noisy sort of energy release

it might be that the water needs to be seriously perverted from its 'i wanna do this' in order to make it burn good, or the answer might lie in something it'd willingly do if only the environment was right


Yeah, I wonder if anyone has really experimented with combustion possibilities of water vapor under extreme temps and pressures. Or under low temps and low pressures for that matter.

I know that some Steam Engines are designed to run at incredible temperatures and we know that steam is "dry", not wet, while it is a gas, before expansion takes place in the steam engine. After the heat energy is released from the expanding steam in the engine it becomes "wet" again... just warm water, so it won't burn then obviously. But you ask a great question; since water vapor is "dry" not wet, why in sam hell won't it burn if it is nothing more than a "dry" hydrogen/oxygen gas, after all?

Maybe we should try it like you said... light the gas off and see what happens. Maybe the answer is simple but no one is looking for it? Because water looks too "wet" and can't burn... :roll:

It might be that water needs to be seriously perverted too, as you suggest. Or just subjected to an environment where water does something unpredictable...

Quote:
we need to find some sort of pictoral/graph style representation of the attributes of water, therein might lie some pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey starting point from which the pinata will issue forth its bounty


Yeah, I like that idea. Noise and RPMs are way fun too, unless its MY pistons and rods exploding out the bottom of the motor in a methanol fireball! Happened to our last Late Model dirt motor and we still bumming over the $15,000 split block salvage heap of junk. Evil or Very Mad

Quote:
could it be that it will ignite just about any gas it encounters ? even in rarified amounts ?

put it this way, a far as i know, the brightest lightning is down here amongst the oxygen and water vapour


Yes, you may be right. The smell lingering after lightening strikes is incredible... not just ionized air in my opinion, but burnt gases and particles that are in the air. Maybe water is an important clue... how can we test? Extreme pressure and temp in a ceramic cylinder?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.