Chip

I must correct myself. It's been 26 years since I heard of the two who were claiming to get better than 100 miles per gallon as I stated above. Actually, it was a relatively low proof alcohol (80) rather than just water and they had to heat the solution first with a 180 proof fueled heater (once started excess engine heat facilitated the reaction and the 180 proof heater was extinguished). I remembered thinking they must be performing a thermochemical catylist aided release of hydrogen. I further recall thinking that a series of experiments using various possible catalysts (copper?), heated solutions of alcohol and maybe even a component of electrical stimulation could also be added to seek the most efficient form of thermoelectrochemical catylist aided release of hydrogen. Maybe ultrasound could also be involved in such experimentation. Should be possible to conduct such with small samples in a bench top apparatus. Both of the original inventors were claiming they were getting their better than 100 miles per gallon on 80 proof alcohol using stock V-8 engines. Who knows? The original claims could have been bogus and my theorizing totally without merit. I doubt if any oil company would fund such research. I should have some more information in my files as I still have my Carburetor Research Center newsletters. I'll see what I can find.

Regards, Chip

strike

check out

<a href="http://www.theaircar.com" target="_blank">www.theaircar.com</a>

Kosh

Hey, that's pretty cool. And if you're a construction worker, you get a built in air compressor in your truck!

Mageth

just all the patents and information are owned by the oil companies and auto manufacturers who'll finally implement them once they realize our oil supply is dwindling to nothing.

I've heard this "the oil/auto/etc. companies bought all the patents" stuff before. If it's true that these devices are patented, then the protection provided by the patents expires after 17-20 years from issue, which would allow anyone with the money and desire to manufacture and market the devices described in the (expired) patents.

You would be able to look on the USPTO website, search for, and locate the patents, if they exist.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

The Admiral

Aircar

There is nothing new about compressed air engines. You can go to the hobby shop and buy a compressed air model airplane engine though it actually uses co2. It takes a lot of power to compress air to the density that would propel a compact car 10 miles. I predict that after a sufficient number of investers have been bilked the aircar will disappear like all other perpetual motion machines of the past.


The Admiral

pz

Where is the microbe supposed to get the energy to drive this reaction? We do have organisms that routinely split water to get usable chemical energy: they're called plants. They use sunlight as the energy source, and they immediately bind the hydrogen to carbon to form energy storage compounds (sugar). This is a case where you'd be asking the organism to carry out an extremely complex set of energetic reactions that have no benefit for it. How are you going to maintain this system? It's also going to be unavoidably inefficient.
Sure. Where does the energy for the electricity come from?

Boro Nut

I think the first place this was tried successfully was Sweden or Finland, I'm not sure which. Both countries have a history of engineering excellence, but it's really not as difficult as it sounds. The overall weight of the car and its maximum axle loading are important obviously. As is a natural abundance of frozen lakes.

Boro Nut

Boro Nut

Actually the only trully cost free solution is a compressed-air 4x4 car. You simply replace your existing petrol tank with a certified air receiver, piped up to a bogus spare tyre mounted on the tailgate. Then simply drive in to any garage and top up for free.

Boro Nut

Remember where you heard it first.

Jamie_L

I bet Jesus could run his car on water.

Oh, wait... You mean fuel it on water.

Sorry.

Jamie

stryder2112

You're right. However, Vibr8gKiwi is correct that there is a fair amount of research being conducted in the biological generation of hyrdogen gas using algae and extremophilic bacteria.

The algae Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, for example, can produce H2 through a photosynthetic pathway in a nitrogen atmosphere. It's terribly inefficient, but there is ongoing research to boost this efficiency through genetics. The US DOE is pouring a tidy sum of money into this both through competitive grants and at the Oak Ridge Nat'l labs and the Nat'l Renewable Energy Labs.

Another line of similar research focuses on the bacterium Pyrococcus furiosus. This extremophilic bacteria can produce H2 from reducing NADPH produced from glucose through the oxidative pentose phosphate cycle. Jonathan Woodward et al. from Oakridge published a paper in Nature vol. 405 where they reported 97% stoichiometric yield of H2 from glucose using the above system.

pz, just plug "biological hydrogen production" into your favorite sci. literature search and you'll find dozens and dozens of recent articles on the topic.

It's an interesting topic, but I really doubt it will be able to be practically implemented.

Stryder

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: stryder2112 ]</p>