I've been thinking a lot over the years about WHY we STILL
don't have vehicles that either burn water by breaking it
into hydrogen and oxygen, then burning the hydrogen OR why
we don't have electric cars everywhere we turn.
It strikes me that with water, its a matter of the volume of
hydrogen production so that enough was produced to be able
to sustain the engine operation AND that the hydrogen would
not damage the engine via embrittlement OR rusting when the
hydrogen mixes with oxygen to recombine as water in the
cylinder.
Not sure about how to accelerate the hydrogen production
although both embrittlement AND risk of rust could be
negated by either ceramic or aluminum or alloy engines, both
which would be too expensive to retrofit the many existing
vehicles.
In the case of electric cars, its a matter of expense to
convert existing vehicles to electric as well as sufficient
battery banks to give a useful driving distance between
recharges....possibly a faster way to recharge...
In either case, if it involves REPLACING the engine, it
would be expensive to do the retrofit and most likely show
up in only new vehicles which would eventually replace the
internal combustion engines that are everywhere.
Now, there is something really elegant about this idea of
using compressed air to drive the pistons up and down.
Such a retrofit would require a compressor, a storage tank,
a variable throttle (like the gas pedal) and a distributor
to transfer high pressure air into each cylinder at the
right time.
It sounds like a simply retrofit that would not be complex
or expensive. The only problem is what runs the compressor
to charge the tank? Perhaps solar cells so that it runs all
the time to keep the tank charged. The compressor would
thus be recharging the tank all the time and be able to
'catch up' anytime the car was not running or otherwise in
motion.
This way, ANY internal combustion engine could be
retrofitted and even new cars coming out could use the same
engine but with the compressor and all built in.
There would be times when the compressor might need to be
driven from another source of power, whether it be
electrical or even a small gas engine (back to the
problem). An extension cord or inductive coil over which
the car parks to induce sufficient current flow (by
transformer action) to drive the compressor.
Even a few batteries could be added so that they provide the
power for the compressor, are recharged by the solar cells,
the inductive tap or extension cord.
I understand the tank only requires about 500-600 psi to
keep an engine running just like with gasoline explosions
but with NO pollution from emissions.
The beauty of it is that ANY internal combustion engine
could be modified very easily and very economically to do
this. A more advanced retrofit could add compressors to the
drive train so that when the vehicle was braking or coasting
down a hill or otherwise not requiring air pressure, the
tank would be recharged from that recovered energy. This is
more expensive but some inventors claim there is sufficient
energy to allow this to further extend the tank charge
between refills.
With the compressor onboard and trickle charging the tank
all the time, it could provide sufficient thrust to drive
the vehicle for short distances...all dependent on how fast
it takes to recharge...maybe a turbo charge to fill the tank
up fast and the trickle mode when you know you'll have time
for it to trickle charge...just a thought...
-- KeelyNet - From an Art to a Science Jerry W. Decker - http://www.keelynet.com/discussion archives http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet/KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite, TX 75187 - 214.324.8741------------------------------------------------------------- To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com> with the body text: leave Interact list archives and on line subscription forms are at http://keelynet.com/interact/ -------------------------------------------------------------