Well, as to what I read above on what's being used to get the eletricity to use this invention it could be a new souce of renewable energy because you can burn the water to power turbins to produce the electricity therefore powering itself plus producing power to provide homes. Just a big circle really with an outlet.
KCS, think of the potential for rock mold masters !!!Well, as to what I read above on what's being used to get the eletricity to use this invention it could be a new souce of renewable energy because you can burn the water to power turbins to produce the electricity therefore powering itself plus producing power to provide homes. Just a big circle really with an outlet. The only thing I can think of for coal left is for making coke mold's for producing steel items.
A few year's ago a pickup truck was made to run off of tap water.
some time back a carburetor was invented that got between 75-100 MPG on a V-8. A V-8!
I just wanted to add to a few things that have been discussed.
The dissassociation of elements in a water molecule requires vastly more energy than recombining them. So, even though the byproduct of this new method would be steam and gasses from the salt, the energy required makes it anything but the "death of the coal train."
Most vehicles running on 'tap water' are hydrogen burning. The problem is, they use electrolosis to split the molecule and extract the hydrogen. (See above, dissassociation of water) The electricity required to do this would likely come from a coal burning power plant, requiring 3 times more coal than the amount of gasoline you claim to be saving. Your vehicle might not be polluting now, but your coal power plant just trippled its emissions.
As a side note: tap water contains impurities. During electrolosis these impurities get 'plated' onto the electrodes in your machine. Over time this degrades the ability to do its job, thus requiring even more power to get the same amount of hydrogen.
Many people have claimed to have created such things.... but not a single one has provided it for testing scientifically.
Engines are innefficient because of heat loss, and the power required to keep themselves running. Fuel delivery systems may seem like the flaw in the system. They do, after all, handle the fuel. That's just not the case. All a fuel delivery system does is provide the engine with what it needs to continue running at the given load/speed/air intake combination. If you choke the fuel, the engine loses power. If you give it too much, the engine loses power. (or blows itself up by hydro-locking)
Also, if any engine requires, for example, 1 gallon of gas to move the vehicle 30 yards while running under normal conditions; changing the amount of fuel it is getting will have a detrimental impact. If you want it to move the vehicle the same distance with the same load, but limit it's available fuel to 1/2 gallon... you will get one of two things:
1. the engine overheats and destroys itself.
2. it doesn't have enough power to do the work, and you get.... you guessed it - 15 yards.
Gasoline requires a 14.7:1 ratio of air to fuel for optimum combustion, at sea level. If you alter this ratio you get no combustion, incomplete combustion, or unpredictable combustion. None of those are good for an engine, or the earth.
If you want to use a "100 MPG" carburetor, find a way to prevent heat loss in your engine. The heat being sapped from the combustion chamber by the engine block, and the heat escaping as hot gasses are where you lose 50-60% of the energy in gasoline.
Back to the main topic....
I don't see this process ever being productive for anything but research, or maybe the intended purpose of the inventor. It takes far too much energy for this to be used in any other way.
Just my thoughts. I know I am very blunt, but none of this was hostile.
I just wanted to add to a few things that have been discussed.
The dissassociation of elements in a water molecule requires vastly more energy than recombining them. So, even though the byproduct of this new method would be steam and gasses from the salt, the energy required makes it anything but the "death of the coal train."
Most vehicles running on 'tap water' are hydrogen burning. The problem is, they use electrolosis to split the molecule and extract the hydrogen. (See above, dissassociation of water) The electricity required to do this would likely come from a coal burning power plant, requiring 3 times more coal than the amount of gasoline you claim to be saving. Your vehicle might not be polluting now, but your coal power plant just trippled its emissions.
As a side note: tap water contains impurities. During electrolosis these impurities get 'plated' onto the electrodes in your machine. Over time this degrades the ability to do its job, thus requiring even more power to get the same amount of hydrogen.
Many people have claimed to have created such things.... but not a single one has provided it for testing scientifically.
Engines are innefficient because of heat loss, and the power required to keep themselves running. Fuel delivery systems may seem like the flaw in the system. They do, after all, handle the fuel. That's just not the case. All a fuel delivery system does is provide the engine with what it needs to continue running at the given load/speed/air intake combination. If you choke the fuel, the engine loses power. If you give it too much, the engine loses power. (or blows itself up by hydro-locking)
Also, if any engine requires, for example, 1 gallon of gas to move the vehicle 30 yards while running under normal conditions; changing the amount of fuel it is getting will have a detrimental impact. If you want it to move the vehicle the same distance with the same load, but limit it's available fuel to 1/2 gallon... you will get one of two things:
1. the engine overheats and destroys itself.
2. it doesn't have enough power to do the work, and you get.... you guessed it - 15 yards.
Gasoline requires a 14.7:1 ratio of air to fuel for optimum combustion, at sea level. If you alter this ratio you get no combustion, incomplete combustion, or unpredictable combustion. None of those are good for an engine, or the earth.
If you want to use a "100 MPG" carburetor, find a way to prevent heat loss in your engine. The heat being sapped from the combustion chamber by the engine block, and the heat escaping as hot gasses are where you lose 50-60% of the energy in gasoline.
Back to the main topic....
I don't see this process ever being productive for anything but research, or maybe the intended purpose of the inventor. It takes far too much energy for this to be used in any other way.
Just my thoughts. I know I am very blunt, but none of this was hostile.
The problem is, if we had to today stop every oil/ coal burning plant in the world right now there would be global cooling and we'd enter a new Ice-Age.
One thing I was thinking of is that when the Moon is closer to Earth we have "High Tide" and when further away "Low Tide", I've heard somewhere that each day the Moon moves a little further from Earth, so, maybe the melting of the ice caps won't be that bad since the moon is moving further thus keeping water levels down- just a thought!
Let's all perform an experiment! Take a cup of water and drop an ice cube in. Mark the water level. Come back an hour level and you'll notice that it hasn't changed. Now ask yourself, why am I worried about ice caps melting
Why haven't they made a Nuclear Locomotive yet?? Didn't they make a Nuclear Submarine?
The Polar Ice cap melting ...