If we could control hydrogen and oxygen mixtures so that they could
economically be used for fuel as opposed to gasoline, well, that would be
great. I think the best engine for the use of burning pure (as pure as we
can get anyway- I've done many labs and never could get 'pure' hydrogen)
hydrogen and oxygen would be a turbine engine. A small one could be used
with a large heatsink to dissipate heat, and the materials used in
conventional jet/turbine engines should suffice. Turbine engines are a lot
more efficent than gas engines (at full power, not at idle) and have a more
dependable horsepower curve (actually it's power to fuel input ratio is more
of a straight line) than a gas engine.
You can't beat the emissions either. Steam is about as harmless to the
environment as anything. . . unless you think about the greenhouse effect. .
..
Ideally, combustion in a standard gasoline engine produces carbon dioxide
and water vapor. Unfortunately since the air is 78 per cent nitrogen pure
combustion can't take place, and that's probably a good thing because 1 shot
of pure oxygen in the engine and you either blow the piston out of the block
(and probably the hood off the car) or it's temperature shoot so high that
you begin a meltdown . . . which is probably a bad thing especially if you
have neighbors <g>. . .
I don't believe that standard emission devices on cars are worth the strain
put on the engine to pack them around. We have the terchnology available to
make our cars of today run better, cleaner, and more efficient than the cars
of yesteryear. I think the big issue is costs. If we port and polish
intake manifolds and heads of our cars we get a noticeable increase in
horsepower and fuel economy. The kicker is time. It takes time to do the
machining right. Time is money. It's just a lot easier to throw an air
pump in and run a line to the exhaust.
Is it possible to change the properties of water so that electrolysis can be
done easier? After all, water boils at room temperature when the pressure
is dropped. . .
And can we then harness the energy created? I don't think it's perpetual
motion. We would be consuming water (unless we tried to cool the steam back
into water- then we're running a closed loop system). I think we can, and I
think you do too. I think we can answer the question,"is there anything we
can do about today's energy crisis?" But I don't know if the question hasn't
already been answered. I don't know what patents are out there. I have a
lot to research.
My two cents. . .
Chris