The Russel Bourke Engine and Oxy-hydrogen fuel

Your point is well taken, however someone once had an idea that it just "might" be possible to split a molecule, and ultimately someone got an idea that it "might be possible to build a long tube and somehow fire a part of an atom that is only part of a molecule in to some matter and create an explosion, I wonder just who might have thought that was possible way back in, lets just say 1942, that is the year I was born.

The purpose of the thread is to provoke thought and discussion about another method using the fuels that are available now and to do so with out having to completely reinvent the wheel.Oxy-hydrogen seems to be a word that provokes argument un-necessarily, but it seems to bring out the best in some and worst in others. Why not consider the other gaseous fuels that are available.

TMF

Hi, have you seen any vehicles running on monatomic hydrogen ????

I have; and I have also seen a small GEO run on a mixture of hydrogen and all kinds of

different waste oils (waste hydrocarbons).

I have an instuctional DVD video from Roy McAllister where he teaches how to convert your engine to run on all kinds of mixtures of hydrogen and waste oils

(and alcohol if you like).

He recommends to start with a small briggs/stratton.

(before you convert your car engine) to get experience and get a feel for the process.)

NOT very difficult to do.

Timing is moved to appx. 2-10 deg ATDC depending on the mixture and those converted engines run very well with very very good efficiency (dollarwise)

If you google Roy, you simply can't miss him, the DVD wiil cost about 50 bucks.

(if I remember correctly, I'm past 65, so you'll HAVE to forgive me).

regards

Jens

BTW, He's been running on hydrogen since the middle sixties.

As I recall, the Bourke engine uses a scotch yoke instead of connecting rods, and the crank pin, which moves up and down in the yoke, has a complicated multilayer bearing, as it gets really pounded. The assertion was made that the fuel detonated and therefore delivered more power. I was not convinced, when I saw it many, many years ago, that it was an improvement over conventional engines, but it was an interesting concept.

Toomuch,

I have repeatedly said that I think some of your postings have merit but that you dilute that merit with ad hominem attacks. You have a free rein to shoot down any of my ideas but as soon as you "take shots" at me, then I'm gonna respond.

"Fact: ICE's designed for specific use of one of these fuels might ultimately have more/less cylinders may have shorter stroke, and larger/smaller bore as may be best suited for the particular fuel to be used."

& then there's the FUEL CELL!

@ present hydrogen is too precious to just burn.

this is a great topic how to get more bang for the buck so lets take a look at what is avalible.What kind of fuel is avalible?Hydrogen,Methane,Gasoline,Diesel.What is the average burn time of each?How does that burn time change when you blend two or more of these fuels?At what compression ratio do you get max power without pre detonation with each blend?Only after we get these numbers can we design a new engine to work with our new fuel.This engine design is flawed in many ways,to many moving parts to rob power,longer TDC time means you need longer burn time to complete the down stroke so this engine would not benifit from a more volitle fuel like Hydrogen.The crank bearing set up is not going to last long and is not going to achive high RPM's.I am not surprised that this didn't make it out of the lab.I would like to see someone run a rotary engine on hydrogen or Methane now that would be fun to test since the burn time in a rotary is very very fast they dump most of thier fuel out the exaust