Compression Boiling Engine
  • Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,073

    Default Compression Boiling Engine

    This is a reproduction of David Leadbetter's letter to CAR MECHANICS hoping to receive learned oppinions. The story is a little weared but i'm no expert but i know that diesel burnes. As a teenager a converted a 50cc moped (2 stroke) to run on diesel (after warming up the engine with petrol) It smoked like a factory, and moderate performance - not a good look in todays enviromental concerns - but it was more than 40 years ago.
    www.carmechanicsmag.co.uk
    It is high time that the diesel engine be re-classified from a compression igition engine to a compression boiling engine.
    After much thought and some experimentation over the past twelve years. I now conclude that the diesel engine does not burn its fuel, but rather boils it under high pressure, converting the atomised liquid into a rapidly expanding gas.
    Only when the Physicists and Engineers accept this fact can the world move on to using water as a replacement for fuel oil, whether the latter be diesel oil or a by-product of waste cooking oil and rapeseed oil.
    An interesting experiment proved without doubt the point I am making, that the exhoust gasses from a diesel engine, when passed through a tank of cold water, will condense back to oil and float to the surface of the water once calm. If the fue soil was burned, it could not condense as oil.
    The next point in question is the widely variable air/fuel mixture of the diesel engine. This ranges from 22;1 AT MAXIMUM LOAD TO 85:1 AT NO LOAD TICKOVER, WHICH DETERMINES THAT THE MIXTURE AT ANY LEVE IS FAR TOO WEAK TO BURN, by COMPARING THE PETROL ENGINE THAT DOES BURN ITS FUEL, IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT IN FACT THE DIESEL CAN ONLY BOIL ITS FUEL.
    The petrol engine, by comparison, will only run efficiently if the air/fuel ratio is faily exact and constant, irrespective of the load and/or rpm requirement. Also , in calorific terms, the diesel engine is far more fuel-efficieant than a petrol engine of the same cubic capacity. This in itself begs the question why. The following points will expalin....
    The diesel principle generates heat by the rapid compression of a full cylinder of air. At 19 Deg. BTDC on the compression stroke, the fuel oil is injected at high pressure, in atomised form, into this very hot compressing air. This raises the temperature of the fuel oil droplets under ascending pressure to levels greatly in excess of their atmospheric boiling point. The greater the pressure, the greater the boiling point.
    At TDC the temperatur of the compressed air and atomised fuel are equal and stable at that point. As the piston commences the power stroke momentaryly de-compression occures, causing the very hot atomised fuel oil to destabilise and boil;. Every droplet simultaneously explodes, Converting to a rapidly expanding gas. This gas attempts to maintain the cylinder pressure close to that at the point of explosion,
    The duration of that maintained pressure is controlled variably by the amount of fuel injected. The greater the volume, the longer maximum pressure is maintained during the power stroke.
    Having determined that the diesel boils its fuel, we now look at water as a non-polluting infinite source of energy for the future,. Like diesel fuel oil, water contains hydrogen,it also contains oxygen, and both elements have the potential to explode when heared under pressure to levels greater than their atmospheric boiling point. Take that pressure to around 500psi and the energy released is double that a steam locomotive. The only difference between a diesel-type engine running on water and a steam locomotive is their heat input element
    Hope to see this 'baged' or otherwise and hopefully with a reply to CAR MECHANICS
    JoBo

    Advertisement

  2. #2
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,160

    Default

    [QUOTE=JoBo]An interesting experiment proved without doubt the point I am making, that the exhoust gasses from a diesel engine, when passed through a tank of cold water, will condense back to oil and float to the surface of the water once calm.[QUOTE=JoBo]

    Input = Diesel, Output = Oil... even he pretty much says a chemical reaction is performed, only if Input = Output, would it be "boiling" the fuel...

    [QUOTE=JoBo] If the fue soil was burned, it could not condense as oil.[QUOTE=JoBo]
    Could be converting a long chain hydrocarbon to a shorter one, but both are withing the range to be oils? (i.e. specific number of c's in the molecules)

    [QUOTE=JoBo]The diesel principle generates heat by the rapid compression of a full cylinder of air.[QUOTE=JoBo]
    Though that when compressing with air etc, its actually "decomposing" the diesel, which is exothermic, i.e. bin of oily rags produces heat & can spontaneously combust.


    Every droplet simultaneously explodes, Converting to a rapidly expanding gas.
    [QUOTE=JoBo]Explosion = detonation by shockwave, this is more rapid burning (i.e. gunpowder)[QUOTE=JoBo]


    [QUOTE=JoBo]We now look at water as a non-polluting infinite source of energy for the future,. Like diesel fuel oil, water contains hydrogen,it also contains oxygen, and both elements have the potential to explode when heared under pressure to levels greater than their atmospheric boiling point. Take that pressure to around 500psi and the energy released is double that a steam locomotive. [QUOTE=JoBo]

    2nd Law of thermodynamics... you cant break water down into its components, burn it & combine it again & have more energy output than what it took to do it all....

  3. #3
    1000+ Posts U Turn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,761

    Default

    That David Leadbetter guy is funny, he should do stand-up.
    Take the long way home....

    - 306 gti6

  4. #4
    Fellow Frogger! winnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    123

    Default

    I think that was tongue in check.......
    If all you have is a hammer, treat the world like a nail.

  5. #5
    1000+ Posts Rod Hagen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,630

    Default

    mmm. Interesting thinking! Now, if everyone simply put a recycling pipe on the end of their exhaust pipe and leads it back to the tank through a condenser of some kind they would be never need to visit a fuel station again, given that according to the author the diesel isn't actually burnt.

    Hey, not only has the problem of perpetual motion been solved, but so have the world's vehicle related pollution problems, and the fuel bills for all of those interstate truckies too! I'm sure they'll be happy as Larry when I call into the off highway station at Yass and let them know. Reckon they will buy me a beer?

    Mind you, the suppression of this knowledge by the fuel companies obviously involves a massive conspiracy. In fact I reckon this is the real reason we invaded Iraq. Saddam wasn't even thinking about WMD's. He was simply going to register a patent on the world's first perpetual motion diesel machine. No wonder GWB and his all his oil baron mates in the administration got their knickers in a knot! I reckon whatever country David Leadbetter lives in had better watch out! They will be gunning for them too!

    Cheers

    Rod
    Rod's Home Page

    Rod's car page

    Peugeot 407 SV HDi estate 2008, Peugeot 407 SV Hdi Sedan 2006, Peugeot 406 ST (deadish), Peugeot 307 XSE, - Previously 403s, 404, 504, 505 sLI Wagons, 306 XSi, Renault 12, Citroen DSpecial

  6. #6
    Fellow Frogger! 505 to the max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    380

    Default Gone fission'

    10 points Nate for bringing the basics into the equation. Having consulted my resident physicist we've determined that a simple mechanical process is not a suitable catalyst for the separation of the atomic components of water. What this really amounts to is utilising nuclear fission (we think?). Please excuse me whilst I adjust the particle accelorator tucked away in the glovebox....

  7. #7
    WLB
    WLB is offline
    1000+ Posts WLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Warragul, Vic.
    Posts
    1,103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JoBo
    This in itself begs the question why.
    If nothing else, he at least (unlike most) understands the correct meaning of "begging the question".

    - assume the truth of a proposition needing proof, without proving it.

    I was beginning to despair. It's been months since we've had a good "energy for nothing" thread.

  8. #8
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 505 to the max
    10 points Nate for bringing the basics into the equation. Having consulted my resident physicist we've determined that a simple mechanical process is not a suitable catalyst for the separation of the atomic components of water. What this really amounts to is utilising nuclear fission (we think?). Please excuse me whilst I adjust the particle accelorator tucked away in the glovebox....
    So it was you i saw popping bananna peels into "Mr Fusion"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •