• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

Water fuel car unveiled in Japan  RSS feed

 
Charles Kelm
Posts: 171
Location: Western Washington (Zone 7B - temperate maritime)
1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I hope this is the right spot to post this, but this is pretty cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5fT5hZ8pcg
 
gary gregory
Posts: 395
Location: northern california, 50 miles inland from Mendocino, zone 7
1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Wow!
 
T. Joy
Posts: 438
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I've watched a bunch of these but the (original) video is pretty old and nothing has been heard about it since. All I can find is info on how not-possible it is, how it would take large amounts of energy to split the water in the first place etc.
The compressed air car looks very good but wouldn't work in a cold climate so is out for Canada unfortunately.
Horse and carriage anyone? The "exhaust" is pretty good stuff too  .
 
                          
Posts: 61
1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
There's a sucker born every minute.

H2O + CO2 + energy <=> CH2O + O2 

You can run that equation either way.  But water and CO2 are combustion products, not fuels.

CH2O is sugar, although most sugars are multiples of that, such as C6H12O6.  Buried for a few hundred million years, the Oxygen sometimes gets away, leaving multiples of CH2, or hydrocarbons, petroleum.

Hey, I've got a room heater that burns ashes and produces wood!  Anybody want to buy one?

Dan
 
                    
Posts: 0
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
http://cheeju.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/660/

That's a link to the original from 2008. I've never seen anything new on it since and actually never expected to.
 
Charles Kelm
Posts: 171
Location: Western Washington (Zone 7B - temperate maritime)
1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Sorry guys, I guess this will never materialize.  From Wikipedia:

Genepax Water Energy System

In June 2008, Japanese company Genepax unveiled a car which it claims runs on only water and air,[24] and many news outlets dubbed the vehicle a "water-fuel car".[25] The company says it "cannot [reveal] the core part of this invention,” yet,[26] but it has disclosed that the system uses an onboard energy generator (a "membrane electrode assembly" to extract the hydrogen using a "mechanism which is similar to the method in which hydrogen is produced by a reaction of metal hydride and water".[27] The hydrogen is then used to generate energy to run the car. This has led to speculation that the metal hydride is consumed in the process and is the ultimate source of the car's energy, making the car a hydride-fuelled "hydrogen on demand" vehicle, rather than water-fuelled as claimed.[28][29][30] On the company's website the energy source is explained only with the words "Chemical reaction".[31] The science and technology magazine Popular Mechanics has described Genepax's claims as "Rubbish."[32] The vehicle that Genepax demonstrated to the press in 2008 was a REVAi electric car, manufactured in India and sold in the UK as the G-Wiz.

In early 2009, Genepax announced they were closing their website, citing large development costs[33].
 
                                  
Posts: 21
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I've heard of water fueled vehicles before.  The were called stem engines!!
 
Jonathan 'yukkuri' Kame
Posts: 488
Location: Foothills north of L.A., zone 9ish mediterranean
3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
from the website:
GENEPAXのホームページに来ていただき、ありがとうございます。
弊社では、温室効果ガスの排出による地球の温暖化に代表されるような自然環境の破壊を食い止めたいとの思いから、これまで環境に負荷をかけないエネルギーシステムの開発に取り組んでまいりました。弊社が提案するシステムについては、多くの方から暖かいご声援をいただきながらも、一方では様々な障害を乗り越えるには至らず、弊社の力不足を痛感しております。また、開発に要するコストも膨れ上がっており、そのような状況の中で、弊社のリソースにも限界があるため、弊社としましてはここでいったん弊社のリソースを再整理して商品開発の計画を再考させていただくこととし、本ホームページを閉鎖させていただきます。
これまで弊社に対して暖かいご声援をくださった皆様には深く感謝申し上げます。弊社も地球環境の保護のために更に努力を積み重ねてまいりますので、皆様におかれましては今後とも地球環境にやさしいエネルギーの開発をご支援くださるよう、お願いいたします。

2009年2月10日
株式会社ジェネパックス
代表取締役 高橋 廉幸


Thank you for visiting our website.
We at GENEPAX have strived to develop new technologies to enable environment friendly energy systems, to mitigate environmental risks such as those posed by global warming. The systems that we have proposed have received warm words of support from many people. However, we have yet to overcome the many obstacles we face in the current world, to bring our systems to market. Moreover, the costs of development have become very large. As our resources are very limited, we need to retrench and reassess our resources and our development plans at this time, and we are accordingly closing our website.
We express our deep gratitude for the supportive messages we have received. We hope that you will continue to be supportive of efforts to develop cleaner and more environment friendly energies, and we will continue to strive to develop systems to preserve our environment.

February 10th, 2009
Yasuyuki Takahashi
Representative Director
GENEPAX

 
Ru Deana
Posts: 6
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Go to MileageShop.com if you want information on a similar product. Any vehicle can be turned into a water - gas or water - diesel hybrid. I plan to put a unit into my diesel Jetta next month. The basic idea is that via electrolysis, hydrogen & oxygen are separated, and the hydrogen is introduced into the fuel injector. A few years back, I bought the parts for a home made machine, and found a mechanic who assembled them, and tested them on an old truck. It worked well, and did improve the MPG- but we moved before I got the final number. I've looked into it for years, and have been unable to find any negative feedback on hydrogen generators for increasing fuel efficiency. I'll post how it goes once I get it installed in my car.
 
            
Posts: 77
Location: Northport, Wash.
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The only problem I see with water fueled engines is that our water system is a closed one so, if someone splits the hydrogen away from the original water molecule, then burns it up, you have that much less water in the system.
I wonder how much time it would take before we have no water left?
Given how stupid people are in regards to using "cheap" resources like oil used to be, I would imagine all sorts of "cheap" hydrogen using units would become readily available in short order, making the problem that much larger.
Or am I all wet?
 
Burra Maluca
Mother Tree
Posts: 10004
Location: Portugal
923
bee bike books duck forest garden greening the desert solar trees wofati
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) that when you burn hydrogen, it joins with oxygen and forms water again.  It takes energy to split hydrogen (H) from water (H20) in the first place, then when you burn it it releases energy again as it joins back with the oxygen (O2) to reform the water.

It's not free energy, or even 'water powered' - you have to supply the energy in the first place to get the hydrogen out of the water.  The hydrogen just acts as a way to store the energy.
 
                          
Posts: 61
1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
(*snicker*)

The basic idea is that it takes more energy to do the hydrolysis (after unavoidable thermodynamic losses) than you'll get back from burning the hydrogen. 

Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn?  I'll give it too you cheap...

Dan
 
                          
Posts: 61
1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I see Paul just moved some threads to the Meaningless Drivel section.  This thread is also a candidate.

Dan
 
Burra Maluca
Mother Tree
Posts: 10004
Location: Portugal
923
bee bike books duck forest garden greening the desert solar trees wofati
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I don't know - people who are interested in alternative energy are more likely to find it here.  Debunking stuff is important.  Paul's call though. 
 
            
Posts: 77
Location: Northport, Wash.
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I suppose if we were all rocket scientists then we wouldn't ever have to question anything would we.
 
Bull norris
Posts: 50
Location: Chanute Kansas
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
3 of the smartist people i know are working on this ,hell i even have a unit to play with.
Edison make how many bulbs before one worked,
Or hershe went bankrupte 7 times before he said the hell with it and went home to make some candy for his kids.
Who will have the last laugh?
 
                          
Posts: 61
1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
(*pulling hair*)

I suppose if we all had a basic grasp on high school physics we wouldn't daily get taken by con men. 

FYI I am not a rocket scientist.  I do, however, have B.S. degrees in Agricultural Engineering Technology and Environmental Science, as well as in the past having held an EMT license, Pilot certificate (single engine, land), Master Gardener certification, and experience in a forestry lab and home gardening and mycology propagation.  I am a Building Performance Institute certified Building Analyst and Energy Auditor.  I feel that just maybe, I have something to offer here, and I hope to learn from others experience too.  But it pisses me off when someone is resentful because not everyone is as ignorant as they are.

The guy who said there are no stupid questions was wrong.  There are many good questions that need answering.  One thing I like about permaculture is that it asks so many interesting questions.  Let's find truthful answers to them.

Dan
 
paul wheaton
master steward
Posts: 22492
Location: missoula, montana (zone 4)
bee chicken hugelkultur trees wofati woodworking
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I think it is fair to say that it was probably some sort of con.  I know that I have been excited in the past about the whole water-as-fuel thing - only to learn later that it didn't really do that. 

I think it is possible that it works. 

Keep in mind that our knowledge of chemistry, physics and all forms of science are being morphed all the time by new discoveries.  And many things that have been "proven" do not account for anecdotal evidence to the contrary.  At one point in time it was indisputable fact that the world was flat.

I would like to ask people to re-read their posts in this thread and edit them to make sure there isn't even the tiniest suggestion that anyone on permies is anything less than perfect. 

 
Bull norris
Posts: 50
Location: Chanute Kansas
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Im just a retarded redneck , but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
and everything has a sweet spot where it looks like it works well.
Some things are just cool to try. i see fire, burn finger but damn i want to feal it myself.
Its hope , i hope i find that sweet spot. Dreamers need there hope.
ever try to run a lawn mower off aluminum ,water and acid. you start it on gas and it rans all day on water , damn its cool "its hope"
 
Len Ovens
pollinator
Posts: 1452
Location: Vancouver Island
29
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Well, it's not water as fuel, but injecting water along with the fuel can do some neat things. It can make better use of the heat produced by burning the fuel. seeming to give better mileage. Most of the stuff I saw on it was in carb days.... and the use of injection may have surpassed that. The fuel burns and becomes gas and expands like crazy... the water vapour that was injected with the fuel boils off at the same time absorbing heat that would normally go out the tailpipe. It means more pressure as it expands making more power for the same amount of fuel.... there is not more power created (energy in is energy out) but more of the energy from the burn is put to useful work..... The exhaust should be cooler and the cooling system should not have to get rid of as much heat.
 
Bill Bianchi
Posts: 227
2
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Basic physics says that using the alternator to power the electrolyzer will force the engine to work harder, which consumes more fuel, which will eliminate any gains seen from adding HHO to the fuel intake.
It won't work. End of story, right? Basic physics says HHO is unworkable due to how Lenz's Law applies to electric generation from the alternator. Period.

Ah, but be careful with the huge assumption; the glaring, massive leap of logic that was unfounded in that explanation.
That explanation addressed production of HHO from ONLY the alternator, not HHO production from a different source that would not stress the engine. And that is where the faulty conclusion that HHO can not increase mpg came from. Those who relied too much on book learning and failed to draw on their own creativity utterly failed themselves when they drew the conclusion that HHO is not viable, IMHO.

So, let's give basic physics it's due and agree for a moment that the alternator can't supply the power to run the electrolyzer without canceling out any gains in energy from the added HHO. But, let's act like thinking human beings, rather that parrots parrotting basic physics from books, and see if we can identify an alternative way to power the electrolyzer that will not cause the engine to work any harder.

Regenerative braking comes to mind as one possible way to generate electricity to run the electrolyzer without making the engine work harder. So do regenerative shock absorbers and thermoelectric generators. (TEG's on the hot engine exhaust and perhaps cooled with liquid circulated to an air-cooled container). I'll bet that if we drop the can't-do attitude, use our creativity, and try, we can come up with other ways to power that electrolyzer without making the engine work any harder or consuming more fuel than normal.

Now, is everyone still so absolutely positive HHO can not possibly increase mpg in a gas or diesel vehicle?

To those with an education in physics, we need you to help us find solutions to earth's energy needs. You, as a thinking, creative human being. Parroting physics from books you studied will not cut it. If we're going to get the job done, we need you all to start using your minds, not just your memory of standard physics.

I don't feel this post is any harsher than the comments against HHO I've seen plastered all over the net by folks with an education in physics. If you're annoyed with me, ask yourself if there's any truth in what I just posted. Is it possible you're capable of even more than you think you are if you just shift your attitude a bit? What if you apply this type of thinking to solar, wind, and hydro energy production? What if we took for granted that we don't know everything just yet, that learning the physics in books is not enough, and there are viable solutions to our problems? What if we sought those solutions instead of declaring every idea is impossible and incorrectly using information in books to prove all the things that are not possible?

Think about it.
 
nustada adatsun
Posts: 39
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
@Bill Bianchi

It is irrelevant where the power came from, you cannot get positive useful energy in any closed system. And inputting energy is not actually anything new. Not to discount hydrogen gas as a fuel, but as with any fuel, it is just an energy storage mechanism, with different efficiency curves.

If truly "free" energy is to be found, I think we need to look at what happened at the big bang.
 
Bill Bianchi
Posts: 227
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
First off, I said nothing about free energy. Hydrogen production on the fly using the vehicle's power will not produce enough hydrogen to run the vehicle all by itself. Nor did I suggest a vehicle can power itself with hydrogen made on the fly and no other fuel.

I was talking about increased MPG, not free energy. There are solid physics behind the argument against using the alternator to produce hydrogen, which should result in lower MPG, not higher. I'll leave out the old argument about the hydrogen addition leading to a more efficient burn of the gasoline.

I get what you're saying about not caring where the energy comes from. You're saying hydrogen is not a fuel, just an energy storage medium, no matter where the power to split the hydrogen from the oxygen in water comes from. It's a technicallity I'll agree with, though disregarding where the energy comes from in relation to the operation of a machine does not seem to be good science, IMHO.

Your engine, however, will use hydrogen as a fuel, regardless of how physics label it. If the engine works no harder to produce that hydrogen, yet is fed hydrogen along with the gasoline, it's going to burn less gasoline per mile, which should result in higher MPG of gasoline.

Powering the electrolyzer with electricity generated from regenerative braking, regenerative shock absorbers, or TEG's on the exhaust system should not force the engine to work any harder than normal, meaning the engine should consume no more gasoline than usual to operate while the hydrogen is generated.

So, producing hydrogen without using the alternator and feeding it into the engine as a suppliment to the gasoline would result in less gasoline burned, which should increase the MPG of gasoline. Hydrogen production using these other energy sources would be viable for increased MPG in terms of physics.

Other than labels, do you disagree with this premise? Or, do you feel that using some of the wasted energy in the operation of a vehicle, like movement of the shock absorbers, braking, and heat from the exhaust, to produce hydrogen and feed it into the engine as a partial suppliment to the gasoline consumed will not reduce the amount of gasoline burned for each mile driven? In other words, would the addition of hydrogen somehow reduce or have no effect on MPG?

Your post was exactly what I was talking about in the last part of the above post. Your counterpoint about labeling hydrogen as a fuel when it is considered an energy storage medium, referring to the big bang as the only free energy, pointing out that this methid is not free energy in terms of physics' definition of energy out of nothing, along with the comment that you don't care where the energy comes from, make it sound as if adding hydrogen would not increase MPG and that hydrogen production is not a valid approach to gaining higher miles per gallon. You refer to the subject of free energy to refute a wholly different subject. The subject I posted about was gaining efficiency by harvesting waste (exhaust heat), or unused sources of energy found in the normal operation of a vehicle, like the movement of the shocks or braking.

Now, if I've properly labeled everything, do you agree or disagree with my premise that adding hydrogen to the fuel intake in this fashion should increase the miles a vehicle can travel per gallon of gasoline? Qnswer just that question, because it's the only question I asked, and we should make a little progress.

I'll agree in advance that using these methods to charge batteries or feeding directly to the motor in an electric vehicle would be more efficient still, but most of us drive gasoline or diesel vehicles, so that point, while true, is moot.

At this point, I stand by what I said in the last part of my post. Hopefully, others can see what just happened and judge for themselves if I was being too harsh about those with backgrounds in physics using what they were taught to explain what is not, and never will be, possible instead of trying to explore new possibilities that may change things for the better.
 
nustada adatsun
Posts: 39
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Bill Bianchi wrote:

Other than labels, do you disagree with this premise? Or, do you feel that using some of the wasted energy in the operation of a vehicle, like movement of the shock absorbers, braking, and heat from the exhaust, to produce hydrogen and feed it into the engine as a partial suppliment to the gasoline consumed will not reduce the amount of gasoline burned for each mile driven? In other words, would the addition of hydrogen somehow reduce or have no effect on MPG?


I don't disagree, I guess I assumed you were trying to state that the flaw of over unity water engines is where the hydrogen was produced.

However hydrogen gas burns very hot and very fast. I don't now enough about engines to know if that is a good thing or not. I would assume hat the slowest burn, that burns completely before the exhaust phase would be most efficient. But then again, I know next to nothing about gas engines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIwEDoRhTf4

http://www.40fires.org/Wiki.jsp?page=Hydrogen%20Safety%20-%205.%20Gasoline%20Vs.%20Hydrogen
 
Bill Bianchi
Posts: 227
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Honestly, I don't think there is any such thing as pure overunity, in terms of the physics definition of something from nothing or a machine that outputs more than it takes in to operate.

Even if someone gets a magnet motor to turn on magnetic attraction or repulsion only, we're going to wind up identifying the input energy source as something we didn't previously recognize as an energy source. In other words, while I believe it may be possible to create a device that at first looks to be pure overunity, I believe any such device will be found to be drawing on some novel energy source previously unidentified.

There are a lot of known potential energy sources out there we're not yet using, like waves in the ocean, tidal energy, currents, low force winds at roof level, vibrations, ect... We don't need an overunity machine to solve our energy challenges, we just need to identify and figure out how to take advantage of what's already available. As fuel prices continue to rise, other sources will become more economically viable.

Keep an open mind, be creative, and keep exploring. We can solve our problems.
 
jones smith
Posts: 12
Location: the sovereign nation of hawai'i
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
oy. this is the kind of thing that challenges my ability to "be nice"; but this is not the general public who, like paul, I have to spend too much time telling people how utterly misinformed they are.
I am absolutely committed to teaching any who want to learn rather than committing to willful ignorance and intellectual laziness.

so; please forgive me if I seem to be ranting at any particular poster here...I am answering what is here...but I've heard all of this before.

this ain't rocket surgery folks; it is not even high school physics, I made an electrolyzer in 4th grade. yes, they work. and yes...if you build one at home and expect to pay for your fuel of choice to provide the electricity, it will give you useable H and O.
if you like, you could even build a unit and install it anywhere on your vehicle EXCEPT hooked up to the alternator....again expecting to pay for the extra fuel to run and extra alternator or generator.
the H & O output is a direct function of how much electricity input. the engine's alternator does indeed have to work more to provide that extra power, and that comes from the gasoline.
anyone who claims that they got better mileage from this is lying or inaccurately measuring and mistaken
no matter how much money one has, nobody gets to break the laws of physics. disrespecting or ignoring does not make them go away or allow any new and improved amendments. not even if you believe in it strongly enough to pursue with opm.
that is why this scam is effective...it's based on real science, but sold as if it's free energy. not only can you NEVER get more energy out of ANYTHING than you put in; you can't even break even.
"efficiency" in engineering terms, is the percentage that one does get back out of what went in. you can check how much lower than 100% any contraption is. steam engines, which I specialize in, are very inefficient. but I use homegrown renewable fuel so i'm not as concerned with high efficiency. gasoline isn't going to get any cheaper, but the engines are much more efficient so it's still the best bang for the buck.
there are indeed many ways to increase efficiency by plugging energy leaks... but still it is impossible to get 100% and you'd be jumping for joy if you got anything close.
"fuel" is energy storage, not fuel OR energy storage.

done for now; "ask me anything" about what I left out or need to clarify.

there are so many free energy believers out there in the general public, few will listen to why it's impossible and simply argue because they trust the internet scammers more than physics professors with nothing to sell.

oh...I stand by the guarantee that it doesn't give better mileage, but i'll sell you one. I can make one in 10 minutes just grabbing rubbish or as elaborately impressive as you like to pay.
this is inspired from the concept of free advice to all who want to learn and charging those who want to argue for my less enjoyable time.




 
Nick Kitchener
Posts: 478
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
10
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
You are assuming that the only way to crack water is via electrolysis. There are other ways you know, and electrolysis is probably the most inefficient (although simplest) way to do it.

Here is an example that is a complete replication of Stan Meyer's work. Worth keeping tabs on:
http://www.newenergyfunding.com/campaign/detail/985

 
jones smith
Posts: 12
Location: the sovereign nation of hawai'i
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
oy.
dan....I feel your pained scalp.
you couldn't be more pissed than me on the most pissed day with a steampowered pissifier!
it's not so much that average intelligence is so intellectually lazy by definition; it's that they will defend wishful thinking as proven fact while obviously never able to provide a shred of evidence or even credible data.
people can't help the level of genetic intelligence or brain injuries or the like....but why oh why is it so difficult to convince people of reality and so easy to convince them of bullshit??!!
oh, that's right...follow the money. as any con artist will tell you about such fraud....."you can't cheat an honest man."
they mean that people who want something for nothing will always, always, always believe someone who promises it, no matter how it is NEVER delivered.
that's why the "deal with the devil" folktales always end in finding out the true cost after making a deal thought to be something for nothing.
if I weren't a well trained and fit mma participant, i'd be getting my ass kicked all the time for the rude way I talk to people here in real life who defend such outright fraud by calling me a "knowitall"!
I think it's more rude to let our fellow humanity continue to keep taking candy from babies. they bloody well ought to be shamed at every opportunity, because they are so bloody shameless.
moreover I think it's wrong to not teach people that fraud is being done to them. even at the cost of the injury my anger does to myself.
i'm also a ff/emt, (all about savin' lives!) pilot, follower of the laws of physics and their dominion over fire and water....now steampower engineer, expanding to hydropower.
 
r john
Posts: 134
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Just remember before Mr Diesel was successful with his peanut oil engine he was just as successful with his coal slurry engine which is a 50/50 mix of coal and water. If you replace the coal with charcoal you have a renewable liquid fuel of the future which can be used in any diesel engine given a suitable pump and injector. The added advantage being it is far less polluting than standard diesel fuel.
 
Marcos Buenijo
pollinator
Posts: 583
Location: Southwest U.S.
12
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
r john wrote:Just remember before Mr Diesel was successful with his peanut oil engine he was just as successful with his coal slurry engine which is a 50/50 mix of coal and water. If you replace the coal with charcoal you have a renewable liquid fuel of the future which can be used in any diesel engine given a suitable pump and injector. The added advantage being it is far less polluting than standard diesel fuel.


I've heard of this, but I have never seen any modern applications. If you are aware of this being applied today, then let us know as I'm real interested.

I know you mentioned this a while back, and as I recall I suggested an alternative in dual-fueling a Diesel engine with a gasifier... or, even dual-fueling a spark-ignition engine with a gasifier. I see advantages and disadvantages to all these configurations. The main problem with using charcoal is the energy lost in the charcoaling process. Also, there would be a lot of processing required to prepare a charcoal/water slurry properly as compared to using charcoal or wood chunks directly. With enough money behind it, then it seems reasonable that a practical system can be devised. However, a vehicle can be fueled efficiently today with a wood or charcoal gasifier, and I personally believe that a "dual-fuel" system (retaining liquid fuels for additional performance when required) can be preferable. In any case, anyone interested should check out all these different possibilities.

The best examples of fueling automobiles today with biomass can be seen at driveonwood.com.
 
r john
Posts: 134
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Marcos Buenijo wrote:
r john wrote:Just remember before Mr Diesel was successful with his peanut oil engine he was just as successful with his coal slurry engine which is a 50/50 mix of coal and water. If you replace the coal with charcoal you have a renewable liquid fuel of the future which can be used in any diesel engine given a suitable pump and injector. The added advantage being it is far less polluting than standard diesel fuel.


I've heard of this, but I have never seen any modern applications. If you are aware of this being applied today, then let us know as I'm real interested.

I know you mentioned this a while back, and as I recall I suggested an alternative in dual-fueling a Diesel engine with a gasifier... or, even dual-fueling a spark-ignition engine with a gasifier. I see advantages and disadvantages to all these configurations. The main problem with using charcoal is the energy lost in the charcoaling process. Also, there would be a lot of processing required to prepare a charcoal/water slurry properly as compared to using charcoal or wood chunks directly. With enough money behind it, then it seems reasonable that a practical system can be devised. However, a vehicle can be fueled efficiently today with a wood or charcoal gasifier, and I personally believe that a "dual-fuel" system (retaining liquid fuels for additional performance when required) can be preferable. In any case, anyone interested should check out all these different possibilities.

The best examples of fueling automobiles today with biomass can be seen at driveonwood.com.


I dont know of any diesel engine manufacturer mass producing the ceramic injectors needed for the technology.

As for energy lost in producing charcoal that depends on your process. Take a look at torrefication of wood which produces charcoal in an oxygen free retort the by products given off being used to keep the process going and generate electric.
The torrefication process makes the wood friable so is easily ground by the same technology used for producing coal water slurry which powers hundreds of power stations around the world. Alternatively you could just use a food blender its not rocket science.
 
r john
Posts: 134
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The rocket science of producing charcoal slurry

http://www.comb.ritsumei.ac.jp/combust/Paper_Plastic/Paper068.pdf

The grinding is the same but in this instance there mixing with heavy fuel oil rather than water. Obviously mixing with fuel oil you dont have the same abrasion problems that you do with water therefore you dont require special injectors.
 
Are you okay? You look a little big. Maybe this tiny ad will help:
Mike Oehler's Low-Cost Underground House Workshop & Survival Shelter Seminar - 3 DVD+2 Books Deal
https://permies.com/wiki/48625/digital-market/digital-market/Mike-Oehler-Cost-Underground-House
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!