CodeBlack wrote:Water is indeed scarce in many parts of the world so using it as a replacement for oil is not so good, except that there is many thousands of times more water than oil. Plus, presumably, the water is not being lost in this "engine", just turned into steam which will re-condense. Some of the water will be trapped when chemically mixed with the hydrocarbon but I'll bet that is a small percentage.
Water shortages are mainly local problems and are usually temporary. True, places like India have overpopulated the land they live on and that means they have long term problems, but the US does not have long term water problems yet. That could change.
That does not mean I believe this guy's invention works. I would need to see proof. What is the "reactor"? And why does it need to be aligned with the earth's incredibly small magnetic field?
I can believe that anybody coming up with a technology the average person can produce will cause energy corporations to throw a hissy. And we all know the energy crisis is manufactured.
Well CB we agree on something.
I too wonder about the reactor's use of the very weak magnetic feild strength of the Earth.
Then there is this statement
"For an installation on a generator, you can also use 90 degree elbows to keep the pipes within the cage. Mount the GEET Fuel Processor as far away as possible from the generator magnetic field so they do not interfere with each other. Also be very careful with credit cards in your pockets or video cameras, etc from getting too close to the engine while it's running so they won't be erased"
The magnertic feild of the generator will far outweigh that of the Earth within 10-20 feet of the engine. I have however worked on larger generators (5KW) and never experienced a problem with it erasing my credit cards.
I note that this is also not an engine that runs on water. It is one that bubbles the exhaust of the engine through water and sends it back to the engine. Some water will be evapoarated as the hot exhaust bubbles through it. and it will be taken into the intake manifold as vapor along with the hydrocarbon fuel..
I doubt the 80% water claim mostly because it seems that all they are doing is comparing the amount of gas and water used by the engine. There does not seem to be a comparison with an unaltered, strictly gas, engine. Does the altered engine produce the same amount of horsepower as a strictly gas engine? Can it do the same amount of work?
For example if one put in 1 gallon of gas in the lawnmower (unaltered) and mowed grass until it ran out of fuel, and then altered the engine and used 1/5 of a gallon of gas and 4/5 of a gallon of water would the mower be able to run under load (cutting grass) for the same length of time? Would it have the same horsepower, for instance would hitting taller grass cause a greater loss of RPM than if it was running on strictly gas?
None of the literature seems to address this.
One can envision that the expansion of the water as steam will cause some movement of the piston. This is using the waste heat of the explosion of the hydrocarbon fuel. There would be a cost however, especially in diesels, as a cooler engine can result in less complete burning of that hydrocarbon fuel. That leads to less power.
The role of the reactor is unexplained as was said above. While the water molecule can be oriented by a magnetic feild its a pretty weak effect and would be easily disrupted by the turbulent flow in the intake manifold. I also cannot see what orienting the water molecules would gain one aas far as causing the water to expand or the hydrocarbon fuel to explode.
Math, science, history unraveling the mystery, that all started with a Big Bang.....BANG!!