Ceramic Coating on Cylinders?

[rollbar]

Is there such a thing?

How bout Stainless steel valves?

Thanks,
RollBar

P.S. I'll explain later

[jeepsr4ever]

we have titanium coated 3 and 4 orientation spots on the cylinders only to find that the rings over wear and the advantage was minute. Stainless valves are very nice and a must when running alcohol or super fuel 105 octane and above

[bricklin]

Being in the biz I can tell you there is no coating I'm aware of to coat cylinders, Head combustion chambers, valve and pistons yes, but not for cylinders. The closest thing would be to find someone that has the eqiupment for nicosil. this is a nickle-silicon coating that is plasma coated to the cylider walls, it is used in high end 2 strokes.

[jeepsr4ever]

Yes I have seen that coating before. If their was a really good coating to use our guys in nascar are probly using it... I wonder who I can consult over there :-|

[rollbar]

Thanks.



Reason being a friend of mine @ Church was down in Jamacia & met a guy who ran his car on water (H20).

He got a FULL set of plans of which he gave me w/detailed info on how to convert your gas engine to h20. You would start out w/gas & switch to h20 in transit.

Part of the plan is to coat the cyl to prevent rust etc.

I'll have to do more research on it.

Thanks,
RollBar

[jeepsr4ever]

:-| do you mean water injection.

[rollbar]

Yes kind of.

It converts your engine to burn Hydrogen & Oxygen Vapor from Water.......on demand.

It's for carb or FI engines, & it doesn't loo to hard just need some mechanical background & some basic electrical skills to do it.

He said that they were crusing about 60 -70mph.

The guy put $1.75 worth of fuel in @ the gas pump & didn't refuel for two to three day's later. keep in mind the cost of gas over there id like 4 bucks a gal or more........HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

[jeepsr4ever]

The question is how much energy did it take to separate the oxygen and the hydrogen.... h20 doesnt burn

[rollbar]

On demand, U crank the gas pedal or throttle & U electrically create more vapor for immediate consumption, on demand; Lo-Hi Flow rate as needed from idle to max power. U use your house tap water.

To amnswer your question, simple:
Water is pumped as neededto replenish & maintain the luquid level in the chamber.

The electrodes are vibrated w/ 0.5-5A electrical pulse which breaks 2(H2o)----2H2+O2. When the pressure reaches say 30-60psi, you turn the key& go. U step on the pedal, U send more energy to the electrodes & thus more vapor to the cylinders; i.e. fuel vapor on demand.

electrical load = 10-20 amps, including the additional low current to run this vapor reaction.

Signed the mad Scientist,
RollBar

[jeepsr4ever]

I like your thinking Jim :t:

[rollbar]

Thanks MC, now I just have to fit it in w/my other projects :shock: or get some help 111!!! w/it.
I know a guy /a machine shop that might be able to help, HUMMMMMMMMM. :mrgreen: :?

[Mudrat]

The question is how much energy did it take to separate the oxygen and the hydrogen.... h20 doesnt burn
Interesting concept.
On submarines we use electrolisis to seperate the H from the O2 in the area of 3KVA zapped into distilled water that has a small percentage of potassium (K) for conductivity. We keep the O2 to bleed back into the boat to breath, the explosive H element overboard.

Don't know how your going to seperate the H and O from water, 'cause we all know water don't burn.

Pat

[rollbar]

The H & O will be converted to steam as a by-product.

RollBar

P.S. I'll be making one big snorkle, :? :mrgreen: (get it, submarine)

[Mudrat]

The H & O will be converted to steam as a by-product.

RollBar

P.S. I'll be making one big snorkle, :? :mrgreen: (get it, submarine)
Guess I don't understand what the source of heat will be to make the steam if you're not burning fuel??? In order to burn "water" it needs to be broken down into the 2 components and then (control) burn the H. O2 is just a catalist that promotes combustion, it doesn't burn by its self. Guess I'll wait for the movie - or pix :idea:

Mudrat

[rollbar]

The sequal is still to come, :?

[Al Johnson]

:(:

Well, I'm calling BS on the water for fuel concept. Oh, it sounds wonderful, who doesn't want free fuel?? But...

In order to burn the hydrogen, you need to separate it from the oxygen that it is bound up with to make water. In order to do that, you MUST put energy into the system. The exact same amount, in fact, that you will get from burning it.

Every system has losses and not one is 100% efficient. Because of this, you will NOT get free anything from this idea. It may chug along for a while, a short while, until the losses overcome the system, then it slows down and stops.

THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH!!

Perpetual motion machines (of which this is an example) simply will not, can not work. Period, end of story.

By the way, the oxygen in combustion reactions is not a catalyst. A catalyst is defined as a substance which accelerates or enables a reaction, without being changed by that reaction. The oxygen is an active participant, and becomes bound up chemically with the fuel during the combustion process.

Thanks for listening.

:?

[rollbar]

Well AL, before you call BS on this post/subject I have some reasearch/REFERENCES for you, just a start.

1. Stephen Chambers "Apparatus for Producing Orthohydrogen &/or Parahydrogen" US Patent 6126794.

2. Stanley Meyer "Method for the Production of a Fuel Gas" US Patent 4936961

3. Creative Science & Research, "Fuel from Water".

4. Stephen Chambers "prototype Vapor FUEL Systems"

5. There's more but I don't have time to list them.

I could go on w/others but there is no point, I have documentation & acutal plans to convert this to a usable fuel, plus as stated before it has been see in action.

You will have a Reaction chamber; Control circuit; Throttle control; Control range; CHT or EGT monitor; H20 tank; Vapor-pressure fittings; Copper mesh junctions etc. etc. etc.

Don't let the unknown or out of the norm ideas stear you in the wrong way, just because you think it won't work, it could & does.


RollBar

P.S. Oil Companies won't tell you it works. The history channel had a documentary on the subject four nights ago.

[Al Johnson]

Okay, that's fine. You're convinced, I'm not. We can live with that. I'm not trying to be nasty, I just have some basic physics I lean on. I'll look into the links, by the way.

Al

[jeepsr4ever]

The exact same amount, in fact, that you will get from burning it.


This is the fundamental of physics and hasnever been broken...however the amount of energy it take to seperate the h from the o maybe 100% and the energy taken out maybe 100% but the advantage might be in the price of the catalyst. Fuel is a tricky business and it always boils down to cost over efficiency. Energy transferral and friction come into play as well. I am curious to the nature of the fuel consumption of such an engine :-|

[pyagid]

BMW has been making a motor for a few years now, that is a Hydrogen car, and the by product that comes out of the car is water. They have been calling this a car that runs on water to try and get a market for it. People are afraid of Hydrogen, which icould be a very dangerous gas. But in liquid form it is very stable.

Here is a link to the BMW information
http://www.bmw.com/generic/com/en/fascination/technology/technologyguide/contentpages/pdf/bmw_hydrogen_engines_2_en.pdf

-Paul

[Dusty]

I dabbled with this on an old flat fender. I didnt need have any problem with was rust.........its a non issue, the issue though is hydrogen burned much cooler and thus my running temps were lower.

The Electrolosis (spelling) required a DC voltage. the more surface area you can create of either copper plates or frayed copper bushes within the plastic/ glass tubes for the electrolosis to take place. by increasing that you can increase the rate which the water can be seperated. My uissue came with how i was metering it from the tubes into the Carburator, it tended to over fuel and i had the lack of knowledge to effectively create something to restict and contain excess gasses created.


:-| I'll have to look back i was 16 when i played with that setup.

[rollbar]

I would fax MC the papers if & when he wanted to try it out we became partners etc. U ask why, he's the man w/the shop to make some of the stuff/things happen, I'm real busy right now. Plus he might have a better understanding of the project. I can do the electrical side of it where he might be able to do something w/the cylinders/injection etc.

U can use either a carb or FI.

It's there for EVERYONE but it will need a couple of people to put it together, but like Dusty said/did it's doable & now there is more technology to make it work. Old examples new era. the key is the control circuits & switches.

I'm gonna meet w/some people & look it over closer.

RollBar

P.S. Al, I'm not trying to argue, I invite others opinions & others who want to maybe see this thing happen/learn. I don't take anything personal so please do take anything personal either.

P.S.S. Jeep Family.

[Al Johnson]

Okay, I read up on a bunch of stuff that Google led me to, using the info from Rollbar's post a couple above.

Needless to say, I have not changed my opinion.

I'll just say that I don't believe in perpetual motion machines.

No offense man, but I think this is a real dead end.

If you build one, and it works, and I see it, then I'll be forced to change my tune.

Good luck!

Al

[jeepsr4ever]

:mrgreen:

[bricklin]

DOn't ya think if it was feasable or even possible one of teh big 3 would build it, theyare under extreme pressure to build less polluting more energy effcient vehicles. I think they have just a little bit more computing and engineering power than anyone on this forum. Oh I forgot the big 3 are tied to the oil companies, right. Not tring to flame you, but just use some common sense, The fisrt guy to biuld one of these that actually works and it actually costs less to run would have more money than bill gates.

[jeepsr4ever]

I wouldnt be so fast to discount this idea guys. It is energy transferral and just like gasoline under basic physic rules its the cheap cost of the catalyst that sets the rate of advantage (combustion). 2 of the big three have engineers on this forum. :-|


Energy transfer is only cut and dry in theory. Electricity traveling in a cord has resistance and the amount at the end of the cord is less than coming out of the source. So how do we create an advantage here? If we had nuclear power to charge the water and create hydrogen then we would have what would seem like boundless power. Although on paper it still wouldnt be 100% efficient. If Rollbar want to learn a basic physics law let him do it. If he is able to obtain his goals by using a cheap energy source then great. Their are alot of things the big 3 do not R&D on and I am not saying that hydrogen from water is possible I am saying its probable with the possibility of an advantage.

[Al Johnson]

I wouldnt be so fast to discount this idea guys. It is energy transferral and just like gasoline under basic physic rules its the cheap cost of the catalyst that sets the rate of advantage (combustion).

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there, but it's early in the AM to be thinking already.

Like I said, I read up on the websites that Google sent me to. The system described there is simple: Electricity breaks water into a flammable mix of hydrogen and oxygen. Okay, that works, I've done it myself. Then you send the flammable gas mix into a regular spark ignition engine to use as fuel. That sounds entirely reasonable, no barrier to it running fine once tuned for the mix.

Here's where it gets dicey. Their idea is that once you have the system set up and running, all you have to add is water. The output from the vehicle alternator is supposed to provide the electricity to generate more fuel gas. Ummm, sorry, you have just set up a perpetual motion machine, and it won't work. There are losses at every step of the process, plus the idea is to drive a vehicle with what must be "excess" energy taken from the loop system. If there was energy in the water that did not come from the electicity used to break it into hydrogen and oxygen, there might be some merit to the idea, but there is not. It takes AT LEAST as much, if not more, energy to break the water down than you get from burning it. The claim given is that somehow they are getting more out of this by using a "resonant frequency" of some kind, which sounds just like BS to me.

So, in order to reduce the losses, maybe we should just simplify the system. So let's do this: We'll have a generator hooked directly to a motor. Maybe even wind the armatures on the same shaft. Then the electricity from the generator will run the motor, and we can use the moving shaft to run our car. Now if that sounds ridiculous, you have the idea. If that sounds reasonable, there may be no hope....

Again, I'm not trying to flame anybody here, and this idea is very seductive because it promises free fuel. BUT... There is no free lunch. Don't fall for "too good to be true" stories. Use your common sense and high school physics and chemistry, that's all you need.

Al

[thejeepingoat]

You keep throwing perpetual motion out there...
perpetual motion
n.

The hypothetical continuous operation of an isolated mechanical device or other closed system without a sustaining energy source.


without a sustaining energy source. Thats where you get hung up. I believe what they are trying to say is that the h20 is the energy source. It isnt the FREE lunch youve been talking about its a CHEAP lunch.

Im not smart enough to give an opinion either way, but if the man thinks it can work, who am i to say that he shouldnt at least try.

[Al Johnson]

You keep throwing perpetual motion out there...
perpetual motion
n.

The hypothetical continuous operation of an isolated mechanical device or other closed system without a sustaining energy source.


without a sustaining energy source. Thats where you get hung up. I believe what they are trying to say is that the h20 is the energy source. It isnt the FREE lunch youve been talking about its a CHEAP lunch.

Im not smart enough to give an opinion either way, but if the man thinks it can work, who am i to say that he shouldnt at least try.

You make my point for me. H2O can't be the sustaining energy source for this system, since it takes more energy to make it burnable than you get by burning it.

And, as I've said, I have nothing against anyone trying something new. My prediction is that it won't work, that's all.

Al

[jeepsr4ever]

There are losses at every step of the process, plus the idea is to drive a vehicle with what must be "excess" energy taken from the loop system
'

Al...exactly my point...however the advantage might be in the catalyst....the water might be the fuel and its cheap. It wouldnt be a perpetual motion machine if you had to add water. I wonder about the possible advntages...the math would be tremendous.

[Al Johnson]

There are losses at every step of the process, plus the idea is to drive a vehicle with what must be "excess" energy taken from the loop system
'

Al...exactly my point...however the advantage might be in the catalyst....the water might be the fuel and its cheap. It wouldnt be a perpetual motion machine if you had to add water. I wonder about the possible advntages...the math would be tremendous.

A catalyst doesn't add energy to a chemical reaction. Simply doesn't work that way. A catalyst enables or speeds up a reaction without being changed itself as a result of the reaction. In order to burn water, it has to separate into hydrogen and oxygen. It takes energy to make that happen. This system says that that energy comes from the alternator that is driven by the combustion of the water that was separated by the electricity generated by the combustion.... It's a cycle with no energy input. Water is not an energy source for combustion. Water is the ash of the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen. You can't burn ashes.

[jeepsr4ever]

your right Al. We are adding oxygen and water though. I would have to think that if their was an advantage to this it might have already been found or found to be not effective. ...hmmm still though it is very intreuging. Remember the atom the extreme power source. I still think its funny how we use nuclear power just to heat water..... 111!!!


I do believe their is advantages becasue oxygen is the catalyst.....and is being added by the carb or plenum on top the engine. hmmm


I understand your point Al and I do know some physics and laws but I would wonder about this and would it be better if the exhaust was hydrogenperoxide instead of H20?

[Al Johnson]

I give up on trying to use the quote function, it just isn't working for me.

Hydrogen peroxide has a higher chemical energy level than water (which has none,) due to the extra oxygen atom in the molecule. You can pass it over a catalyst, and it will break down into water and free oxygen, releasing a lot of heat as it does. The water is in the form of steam as a result of the heat, and you can make a rocket out of this reaction. In fact, the free oxygen in the rocket exhaust can by utilized by adding normal fuel to the exhaust which will then burn due to the heat and oxygen available. So, having peroxide as an exhaust product isn't going to be a good idea, since you'd have to put all kinds of energy into the system to create the peroxide. You could use peroxide as a fuel source, though, which would be fine, just expensive. And dangerous, since it's such a stong oxidizer in high concentration. (Drugstore peroxide is 3% solution in plain water.)

They use nuclear reactions to heat water in order to use the water to drive steam turbines that turn generators to make electricity. It's just a way to use the heat generated by the nuclear reaction to get something useful, I.E. electricity. Just plain old heat isn't nearly as useful as electricity.

Al

[rollbar]

MC, the copies I have of making this work are printed on both sides, if I get them copied to one side only can I fax it to you to look @.

I can build it & follow the electrical palns w/no problem, I'm just not a Physics Major, the only thing I ask is you keep it to your self for now & maybe later things might develop.

Pre check it because some of the things might be missing which I doubt, but from what I hear, it works.

Thanks,
RollBar

P.S. The Big 3 don't want it cause they would loose $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. IMO

[Mudrat]

P.S. The Big 3 don't want it cause they would loose $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. IMO

Probably the same reason one of the big oil companies bought the patent to an efficient carb - using it would lower the demand for the high cost fuel we have to buy ...

Popular Mechanics had an article about it a few years ago. They could only get generic since the patented design is not available.

Mudrat.

[Dusty]

The Fish or was it Phish or Fisher carb. The Fish family members still are allowed to make and sell the Carb but not advertise nor solicit sales. So i've heard, saw one about 5 years ago, really simple like 5 moving parts maybe three, was on a 258, guy claimed to have bought it from one of the fish kids directly, claimed great mileage. Urban myth i dont know, i didnt drive it so i cant voutch but i will say that the little fish carb does exist.

[Goose]

Well, I am no rocket scientist, but I do have to bring up the fact that hydrogen fuel s=cell technology has been existant in the space program for over 20 years..I'm not sure of the specifics but as I understand it you use an electrical charge to break the water down and and since hydrogen burns and oxygen is an oxydizer (duhh) I'm not sure where the problem is..Im not saying it will or won't work as described in an engine but I am sure that when used in the fuel cells they make more energy than they consume breaking the water down. since this has been in operation on the shuttle since it's inception and I am aware of one of the japanese car makers developing a hydrogen fuel cell for a car I would say that while using an existing engine might be rather inefficient a purpose built electrical drive could be done..again I have no specifics just relating what I am aware of.

And besides I remember reading somewhere that many of the worlds experts said air was not dense enough to support a heavier than air craft and some very prominant Astronomers and planetary geologists have as recently as 6 months ago stated publically that "No free water could exist on Mars" .

It may not be "Likely" but what the heck it aint gonna cost a life time to try it out and ya might learn something interesting in the process

[bricklin]

[quote=rollbar]P.S. The Big 3 don't want it cause they would loose $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. IMO

I don' t know about that, If some one offered me a car I could run on water or water and gas I'd gladly pay 2 to 3X the normal price. I paid $3000+ to get the shop truck converetd to run on cng (compressed ntural gas).

As for fuel cells they don't use water, they use hydrogen, to make a fuel cell capable of running an electric car costs in the neighborhood of 2 million dollars, and you still have to supply it with hydrogen and redo membranes occasionally.

did you send awy for the plans for free electricity too? you know the ones where you fill the 45 gallon drum with used oil and stick in a couple of strips of metal. yup you just made a big battery and unless you steal the anode and cathodes the juice you get out of it is worth less than the cost.
I do have a freind that sent for these plans about 5 years ago, was gonna make millions on them, still works 9-5 in the mahine shop.

[Mudrat]

The Fish or was it Phish or Fisher carb. The Fish family members still are allowed to make and sell the Carb but not advertise nor solicit sales. So i've heard, saw one about 5 years ago, really simple like 5 moving parts maybe three, was on a 258, guy claimed to have bought it from one of the fish kids directly, claimed great mileage. Urban myth i dont know, i didnt drive it so i cant voutch but i will say that the little fish carb does exist.
Not sure the MFR since I read it so long ago ... But 50 MPG on a 4-banger was discussed

Mudrat

[rollbar]

Nope I did'nt send for any plans. A friend from Church went to a different country & obtained knowledge/where to ask question & retrieve such info.

I have diagrams; switches; circuits etc. showing the set up.

[Dusty]

The Fish or was it Phish or Fisher carb. The Fish family members still are allowed to make and sell the Carb but not advertise nor solicit sales. So i've heard, saw one about 5 years ago, really simple like 5 moving parts maybe three, was on a 258, guy claimed to have bought it from one of the fish kids directly, claimed great mileage. Urban myth i dont know, i didnt drive it so i cant voutch but i will say that the little fish carb does exist.
Not sure the MFR since I read it so long ago ... But 50 MPG on a 4-banger was discussed

Mudrat


A few articles/pictures out there
http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/fish3.htm
http://www.boni.com/fish/

[rollbar]

Nope I did'nt send for any plans. A friend from Church went to a different country & obtained knowledge/where to ask question & retrieve such info.

I have diagrams; switches; circuits etc. showing the set up.

We will see, but I might need some help.

RollBar

[Mudrat]

Jim, 2 things -
First resend your snail mail by PM, some how I deleted it
Second - we're here to help and if it works, WoooHooo! there will be more folks in line to follow your lead!!

Mudrat


Nope I did'nt send for any plans. A friend from Church went to a different country & obtained knowledge/where to ask question & retrieve such info.

I have diagrams; switches; circuits etc. showing the set up.

We will see, but I might need some help.

RollBar

[rollbar]

I don't take it personally.

Sending PM.

Jim

[Mudrat]

I don't take it personally.

Sending PM.

Jim
Thanks Jim, did the dummy thing again and instead of 'delete slected posts', I hit the 'delete all'.
... Does that mean I qualify for AADD? That's twice in a month I've done that.

"Done What? Who's talking???"
"Shuddup 'n listen to me ..."
Sometimes I hate the voices in my head ...

Pat

[rollbar]

No problem.

Rollbar

P.S. I did it ONCE also. :?

[dhawker]

I hope I am not changing topics here, but has anyone looked into this system

http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/hboost.htm

I am no engineer but it was interesting reading and I am all for something that will give you incredible gas mileage. Is this bogus or what?

[281 quadcam]

i didnt read all 4 pages, dont know if it was mentioned....

but the 2zz motor in the 2000+ toyota celica and lotus elise uses a ceramic impregnated aluminum matrix block. Basically the cylinder bore itself looks completely ceramic - and it can not be honed. reason is obvious if you think about it, the ceramic would only survive if it was perfectly smooth, if it had cross hatching, it would only be destroyed by the piston ring.

[jeepsr4ever]

I think this might work for a small vehicle (Hydrogen) but you would run out of electricity fast.