Ceramic Coating on Cylinders?

[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]

[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.