What Chemical Reaction Results in Implosion?

Thank you for the explanation. But I am still looking for anything which can cause implosion.

Take for example TV picture tube or any lamp which have vacuum inside. All these implode when cracks develop. Similarly submarine implodes under heavy pressure of sea water - I suppose.

In Google I vaguely remember seeing water and ammonia mixture results in creation of vacuum !!! which can cause implosion or drop in pressure !! I am looking for such chemical action which results in drop in pressure / create low level of vacuum.

Ammonia dissolves readily in water. Taking ammonia from the vapour state to the dissolved state results in a reduction in the mass of vapour, though it isn't a chemical change. If the vessel is not rigid, it may deform inwards, though that couldn't be described as an implosion. If the vessel is rigid, it may survive the experience depending on its strength.

True implosions are caused by the sudden collapse of a rigid vessel due to the difference in pressure between the outside and the inside overcoming its strength. So, a vessel implosion could be caused by an external explosion, perhaps? Discuss!

From a purely technical point of view that could be true. I think from the popular concept, a vessel that collapses due to external pressure from an explosion is "collateral damage" and an implosion is caused by a pressure differential due to internal reactions/occurrences only. Storage tanks can "implode" if they are drained to quickly to allow for equalization of volume from outside air. Rapid condensation of internal gas to lower volume liquid will cause an implosion. Just my tuppence worth.

You're absolutely right. External explosives causing something to collapse is an implosion. This is the guiding principle of the implosion series of nuclear devices, which then quickly turn into a much bigger explosion.

It should be safe, non-polluting and the chemicals must be easily available.

Never happen.

I looked up Google but did not get any satisfactory answer.

Because what you are thinking, like all of your other ideas, is a pipe dream.

These kinds of comments are uncalled for. You should read quotable quotes on CR4 and you will NEVER respond like this again.

"Curiosity has its own reason for existence" -- Albert Einstein

"Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Let me tell you the secret that has led me to my goal: my strength lies solely in my tenacity." -- Louis Pasteur

If you ask a question, you may appear like a fool for a moment, but if you don't, you may remain a fool for ever.

"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge." -- Kahlil Gibran

Your attempt may fail, but never fail to make an attempt & CHOOSE not to accept the false boundaries & limitations created by the past.

I think I have listed some of them from my compilation - to trigger you to think harder and NEVER comment like this anywhere.

Here is an idea that might be sort of out-of-the-box original:

Engines derive mechanical energy from the controlled explosion of fuel on top of the pistons. The volume under the piston doesn't do much, though. So how about putting a strong implosion down there, potentially doubling the the power output of the engine?

Spiritless non-visionaries such as I can't figure out how to proceed with this....

Maybe a bunch of CR4 engineers could help, so why don't I go on a fishing expedition for bright ideas? The college-problem types might not get me much further along, but a far-sighted quester such as yourself might give valuable input. So you and Emerson please help me to blaze a new path, with the tenacity of a Pasteur. Like Gibran, I am perplexed, but that's only the beginning. I don't want to remain a fool forever, so I seek your enlightened advice to transcend my boundaries and limitations. Can you also give some suggestions on how I could build a prototype, so that together we march bravely forth to rescue the world from its energy woes? I'm counting on you for inspiration!

On the practical side, you seem to know about ammonia/water absorption. What ideas from that direction could assist in this vision? I'm eager to learn....

on a single cylinder you could use the backside of the piston as a compressor & double the volume of air introduced to the topside of the piston on the intake stroke

there would be an increase in power, wouldn't be double though...

on a single cylinder you could use the backside of the piston as a compressor & double the volume of air introduced to the topside of the piston on the intake stroke

Its been done its called a Two stroke Engine

http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=two+stroke+engine+animation&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&oe=&rlz=1I7DKUK_en-GB&redir_esc=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=C-gATLC5Jo6K4QalhfXLDg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CDoQsAQwAw

I would guess Garth knows that - perhaps look a bit deeper at the comment and you may find the engine he was alluding to.

the crankshaft along with the piston on a 2-stroke, acts like a lobe pump. in normal 2-stroke operation since there is a spark everytime the piston is at TDC, no pressure increase.

You would install a 4-stroke head on a 2-stroke lower end, to get a pressure increase

reed valve on the intake side of the crankcase.

you could use the crank case for the accumulator, but it will be hard on the crank seals & you would get leakage past the piston rings. best to go to an exterior chamber. A 2-stroke also gets the lubrication for the main bearings from the premix.

A bit of re engineering to go to pressurized lubrication for the mains. moving the seals inboard of the bearings, presents it's own set of difficulties.

on a normal multi cylinder 4-stroke w/all the pistons being in different position, the only real pressure differential is from blow-by

As to the OP's query good luck with that

my odds of finding that needle I misplaced in that huge pile of livestock fodder are much better.

No problem. Cooling steam takes time.

I also noticed the other previous comment. All I feel is the persons responding do not know the answer. But why not wait for some intelligent expert give an intelligent answer? Just wait for discussion to evolve or die down? This is my complaint against Americans - NO PATIENCE. People who have responded like this are not scientists, but generalists. I don't mind leaving CR4 web site - with a dejected feeling. Raise your selves to higher thinking Sir.

Most of you delve at length on simple college project kind of problems. What comes from Google site is not end of the road. I am not looking for knowledge - already well known. World will never make progress, if we don't look for new answers. I am looking for high quality discussions, not cheap remarks.

"Success is not me .assured by what you accomplish but by the opposition you have encountered, and the courage with which you have maintained the struggle against overwhelming odds." -- Orison Swett Marden

My first thought on this was a chemical reaction would cause some for of energy to be created thus increasing the volume! I'm not chemically orientated so I may be wrong! I wonder how old TV tubes were made?

TV tubes are made in much the same way as light bulbs. They implode because they are full of vacuum.

Where to begin?

You use the noun "implosion" accurately but I do not think that you grasp the physics of what this means.

For an implosion to happen, one must first have a structure in equilibrium as far as inward and outward forces. Then quickly the inward forces must uniformly exceed all outer forces. If this is not done uniformly then the object will likely just move instead of being crushed by an implosion. For most terrestrial concerns, the likely dominant outer force will be the structural integrity of some physical object. But in the life cycle of a star the outer force will be the radiation forces created by the fusion reaction. So for any chemical reaction to cause a terrestrial implosion, it must quickly either increase the inward forces or decrease the outward forces. To decrease the outward forces, the chemical reaction must degrade the structural integrity of the object. For this to succeed the inward forces must not just be normal forces repelling the now missing outward force. No chemical reaction I know of can do this from the inside. From the outside though, one has now the option of many different chemical reactions that quickly turn solid matter into hot rapidly expanding gasses. The difficulty comes from learning how to time these reactions so that a reasonably uniform force occurs at the same time. This now enters a realm of physics that is above my pay-grade and clearance level to be discussed on an open forum.

Now why do you want to know this? Tread carefully now, I may have to report you.

Interesting reading, thanks for that Fred If a closed vessel contained some form of gasious fuel that the reaction needs, would that fuel turn into another form of gas or be used up and replaced by a void? I would imagine it would change into another form of the gas with the fuel converted into a different element! Sorry Fred, I'm out of my depth completely on this, just the ramblings of an over active mind!! LOL!

At last, a very sensible statement. May be there is answer as yet.

Kindly recall we had a such a lengthy discussions on Internal combustion engine. World is looking for a solution. A fuel is injected, there is controlled explosion and piston generates power stroke. Unfortunately lot of carbon is being emitted and there is environmental pollution.

Hence I was quietly trying to force a discussion to look for a solution - which is reverse of fuel burning and exploding, but find an implosion, so that outside air rushes in and moves the piston. There are some references patents on implosion engine- which I suppose never made it to the market.

This is one way of looking for alternative solution. But we must discuss / brain storm as high level scientists. I definitely have a goal in mind - may the solution is not simple- which I am fully aware. But this may be worth pursuing, if there is an Implosive chemical reaction !!!

Sigh, you don't get it.

The closest to what you wish has already been done using steam. In the animation the exhausting steam gets quickly released causing enough of a temperature drop that condensation occurs. The cloud of water droplets that forms with each choo creates a partial vacuum because the droplets occupy less space than the water vapor they previously were. The oscillating steam engine maybe easier to see what is happening. Now the exhaust piping was also jacketed with water that had yet to boil to maximize efficiency with more vacuum being formed.

The basic problem with this design is that a good steam engine is very heavy (all of that water) and thus for a mobile engine steam looses to the lighter internal combustion engine. But this use of the expansion of water is still used, in a more refined form, with stationary engine configurations like electric power production. The secondary problem is that the fuel consumption rate is almost uniform in time with a steam engine. To throttle down a steam engine the steam goes to waste.

But you asked for a safe design, well no engine is absolutely safe. Large amounts of mechanical energy must be carefully controlled and monitored to prevent life and limb from getting in the way of the mechanical parts.

Thank you so much for this lead. But as scientists we should not make the same mistake attributed to Indians.

We all know Wright brothers are supposed to have invented the modern day Aeroplane. But Indian mythology has a reference to a demon king from today's Sri Lanka who kidnapped Lord Rama's wife (Goddess of wealth) and carried her across the sea from Indian peninsula to Sri Lanka by Plane. Poor Lord Rama is supposed to have crossed the sea on foot over a stone bridge (now confirmed by pictures taken from NASA's satellite). Today people have found boulders that float on water - may be that was used !!! What kind of weapons you name today- have all references to our Indian mythology. We have references to medical developments of today- already referred in these mythology. But we can't be complacent- and need to work in today's world.

Thanks for that reference to steam engine. Lessons learnt :1) Concept is fine and workable, 2) Steam engine is bulky and not acceptable 3) Now find a solution which compete with Fuel which has many other characteristics like convenience, compact, etc- BUT polluting. So we need to find a non-polluting chemical-(not steam).

If we don't know of anything like it- let the idea go into cold storage, idea will not die. At least it has got registered in some minds.

Mr. Parson's ingenious steam turbine is more efficient and has a smoother torque response than the reciprocating piston. This is why it has become the standard for stationary power plant energy production. It is though not as easy to grasp the mechanics as a reciprocating piston.

Hi Point,

It's not necessary to explain again and again when someone doesn't listen. We have people who talk lots, you have another who must listen, and another who don't listen to no one but try to prove that the verity is coming out of his mouth.

In this blog, we have the perfect mixture of science, mythology, innovative thinking, dreams, and many more ... to fill pages and pages.

It's funny that logic is no value in a conversation, Gil.

Hi M S,

Knowledge is not the privilege of "scientists". You tell us that a few percent of human population is smart and the rest are morons? Don't mix your mythology with verifiable realities. Stay at today, simple, and think from past to the future to solve any problem, including yours. Being realistic is half of the solution, Gil.

"But Indian mythology has a reference"

Havent you ever wondered WHAT MYTHOLOGY means.???????????????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology

http://www.pantheon.org/

http://www.greekmythology.com/

http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/indian-mythology.php

The original Newcomb steam engine used steam to return the piston to the top of it's stroke, but not produce power.

The cylinder was then sprayed with water to condense the steam.

The resultant vacuum pulled the piston down giving the power stroke.

In the context of our present discussion, this could be called an implosion.

That may have been the case with the Newcomen engine, but the low ΔP and ΔT would have made the Carnot efficiency quite low as well. Because of this, it was a big engine for a small output.

There is a very old, well known demonstration of the solubility of ammonia gas (or hydrogen chloride gas too IIRC) in water.

The experiment involves injecting a small amount of water into a vessel full of dry ammonia gas. The water dissolves the gas, as it has very high solubility and it creates a low pressure as a result.

Google ammonia fountain experiment.

If you did the same experiment in a large plastic container, it would implode it, I imagine.

I know exactly what what your thinking, But it would be impossible to create an implosion as all substances when burnt generate gasses thus explosion.

You would need somthing to consume the air in the cylinder without creating and gas.

steam when injected into cylinder and cooled creats a vacume and thats how early steam engins worked.

you can get implosion by crushing somthing with high out side presure like at bottom of sea.

but to do it at sea level you would need an explosion inside a close cylinder and the gases to press on the out side of anothe cylinder inside the first cylinder.

but that would defeat the object cos you have to burn some thing for it to work.

Why dont you turn your mind to somthing usefull like getting water in the desert ?

gentlemen, have we not forgotten the lessons of the Manhattan project? All that is required are specially designed shaped explosive charges and some rather sophisticated triggering devices to ensure they all are set off within picoseconds of each other.

Sounds easy, but in reality it was a very difficult feat to pull off.

This is real brain teaser.

As many have tried to suggest - pump in some gas etc at high pressure and other side is compressed - NOT allowed. Take the case of Manhattan building and many architectural building demolition- they have all used explosives.- NOT allowed here.

What I am trying to push is an idea where low pressure is created, and atmospheric air gushes in pushing the piston. So not creating high pressure, but going to lower pressure and using atmospheric air- thus avoiding air pollution or carbon emission etc. I am pretty sure -there is no simple straight forward - look up google or wilkipedia kind of solution.

"Try and fail, but don't fail to try." — Stephen Kaggwa

"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." -- Walt Disney

"When EVERYTHING is uncertain, ANYTHING is possible."

That gives only 15 psid to work with, compared to conventional engines and turbines with several hundred psid. Therefore, it will need to be a really BIG device, and hence economically unfeasible. No amount of ingenuity or vision can ever overcome this. Nor flattery nor taunting.

That is fine- you have put a figure of 15 psi. If it is a decent level vacuum also - will it be 15 psi? So instead of 750 or 760 mm Hg and vacuum being say even 2 to 20 mm Hg, difference will be nearly 740 to 750 mm Hg - is that what you are suggesting? On the other hand when we can go to higher pressures, it could even be 3000 mm Hg !!! You have the right logic !!

"On the other hand when we can go to higher pressures, it could even be 3000 mm Hg !!!"

Absolutely not! Good grief.

(On another planet where the atmospheric pressure is higher you could get >15 psid (or 760 mmHg; but NOT HERE.)

Did you misunderstand? Using compressed air or air+ fuel mixture - you can get higher than 3000 or more mm Hg. That is what you also have said- that explosion can give higher pressure than implosion !!

My point was about atmospheric pressure here on earth, compared to complete vacuum. The difference is approximately 14.69 psi, AND NO MORE. I already mentioned other planets, where this difference could be higher.

In the other mechanisms such as deep submersion or external explosions, the energy involved is not from the "implosion" as such, but rather from the outside compression or explosion(s).

If you wish to share in deep misconceptions, that is your privilege; but then prepare for criticism.

Jeez

reality

I'm still trying to figure out

how to hook up the vacuum from out side the the atmosphere to my car

Yes, but what about Gas Giant and use the vacuum of space?; easy 3000 mm Hg.

So - in principal - what the OP needs is a pipe going up to space, so the vacuum coming down, can suck the air out of each bore - causing air to rush in - pushing the piston.

Ummm - I wonder why someone hasn't done this?

Maybe the problem is all the atmosphere ends up in space.

An implosion is caused by the difference in pressure across the container that implodes. The minimum pressure that can be produced inside is only 0 bar absolute. On the other hand one can produce very high pressures outside the chamber.

What you can try is to suspend the chamber that you want to implode inside a larger high pressure vessel and explode a suitable chemical mix (can even be just a hydrogen oxygen mixture) in the space in between.. The resultant high pressure outside will collapse the inner container.

Bioramani

Several people have mentioned using steam, the simplest demonstration is to hold a thin metal screw top container over the spout of a boiling kettle until you are sure it is full of steam. Quickly screw the top back on & wait until the container collapses. If you are impatient, place the can in cold water.

Clear to any knowledgeable person, but it is difficult to be clear to stubbornly naive persons.

Personally I felt your analysis is right. There is no chemical reaction known so far which will do the job - I had in mind. Most of the responses are of the track. Another response said - at the most we could expect 15 psi, even if we managed to get decent vacuum -by what ever means. So this approach is not a practical approach. I am happy - that I took a concept / stand - but learnt a lesson.

"Try and fail, but don't fail to try." — Stephen Kaggwa

And so ended mankind's trek toward the Zero Point Module - the infinite over unity endothermic singularity, flashed into existence by the power of Amanda Tapping.

There is a concept called low quality heat energy, which is very difficult to extract energy from. This is the neighborhood that stirling cycle engines operate in. They just BARELY work. The problem with virtually all heat energy extraction methods is that you need a decent energy differential between the intake and the exhaust in order to do work. Stirling cycle engines are the record holders for the lowest differential required, but it is so low they almost DON'T work, and the work they perform is very very small and they don't scale well either due to the geometric fact that the volume of a cylinder grows faster than it's surface area and the surface area is the key to dumping the waste heat.

Hi M S,

It was interesting to read the question, all arguments, and the responses. However, I deplore your sentence: "Most of the responses are of the track." You miss the question and all your "winning" arguments. You never have any question about your correctness? Start today and you will see the world and all humans differently, Gil.

Don't overlook the possibility of adding very strong electromagnets to the cylinder walls of a reciprocating engine. With strong magnets a blend of anti-matter fuel could be used. The combustion of anti-matter fuel would produce a vacuum rather than high pressure. The engine would seem to still work the same way, but the higher atmospheric pressure would press down on the piston rather than the exploding fuel pushing up on the piston.

Basically, you'd need a substance that undergoes a phase change that greatly reduces the substance's volume; that pretty much means a gas turning into a liquid.

Have a low-pressure gas enter a condenser that transforms it all to liquid. The vacuum created can serve to pull a turbine.

This is the principle for turbine-based thermal power generation. Steam or some other gas passes through the turbine, causing it to spin; a condenser at the outlet of the turbine creates a vacuum as the gas collapses into liquid form, and the pressure difference between the in let and the outlet of the turbine drive the turbine itself.

If you're looking for a piston-style as opposed to a turbine-based approach, have the gas change phase (condense) inside the piston. You'll have to expel the resulting from the piston once condensation is complete.

Cheers! DZ

um... 'round here... I would say that controversial moderating has caused several cranial implosions, or even vapourizations! and don't even get me started on post-create absentee guest-hosts, student homework, etc.

as I understand it, Cavitation is basically the implosion of gas bubbles that have been created by mechanical means.

In my thoughts, what you are really dealing with is "Difference Of Potential", with a radial central focus. Defining it thus, you free yourself from purely chemical or pressure based searches.

Perhaps you can have an electron implosion, or magnetic... I don't know your intent...so can't take this further.

Chris

OK, after all the thinking "outside the box", and the simple conclusion that no currently known "matter" will provide for the "vacuum" engine conceived, there is a very simple fact that is being overlooked in all of this. Every option discussed, including internal combustion/piston-driven engines, requires additional energy input to place the fuel (or implosive gases) into the desired chamber. For a piston-driven device, an equal and opposite reaction would be required to replace the piston to its original position for the next "stroke". This means placing your "fuel" on both sides of the piston and either 1) continually replacing spent fuel or 2) having a fuel that self regenerates to its original state before the "reaction" that caused the original vacuum condition. The added energy required to make any such device work would, undoubtedly, create a pollution problem of its own. Hence, this non-polluting perpetual motion machine is not feasible within the realm of earthly known physics and science.

Implosion w48

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48

Let me try to inject a slightly new extension to this thread.

• Someone has already mentioned that we can at the most get 15 psi which is the atmospheric pressure. But I am trying to overcome this limitation by suggesting some kind of a multiplier effect.
• We are yet to find a chemical reaction to create decent level of vacuum – hope some solution will come up later.
• All discussions related to nuclear implosion cannot be considered as my focus application is clear – to try and develop an engine for the common man.
• Another person has said that we will not be able to restore the piston position to its original by this technique. We will definitely address this issue (also could be solved by something like oscillating steam engine) later. Even in 4 strokes IC engine part of the energy from the power stroke, gets used during fuel suction and compression stage. So this is not a serious issue now.

The multiplier effect as I see it is similar to hydraulic jack used in lifting automobiles for cleaning etc.

• Say there are two pistons or opposite sides of a piston have different chambers.
• Piston position is balanced by Pa Va = Pi Vi. Assume Temperature is constant. Here Pa = Atmospheric pressure and Va = Volume of this chamber which is exposed to atmospheric air gushing in. Pi = Pressure due to implosion., Vi= Volume of chamber where implosion takes place.
• Hence Pa/Pi = Vi/Va. Thus Pa/Pi can be many times more by keeping Vi/Va????!

OR Have I made a mistake in stating Pa Va = Pi Vi., trying to find a parallel between hydraulic jack and two chambers separated by a piston head?

multiply zero?

Clearly you do not understand the Physics of a vacuum. I suggest you review a mercury barometer basics to see why multiplying or dividing effectively zero will not increase the difference between atmospheric pressure and a vacuum.

Even if there was a chemical reaction that would consume the air in the locality all you would get is a vacume.

when somthing explodes it increases in mass by the reaction and rapidly expands out wards the more rapid the expansion the more damage the explosion will cause, The limiting facture is the amount of material to start with.

Now what you propose is not possible, because if the material occupied say and area of one cubic foot the maximum implosion would only fill the one cubic foot.

no matter how much material you use the limit is the size of the cube.

The only way you could improve on that Would be some sort of removal of the area occupied by the cube ie removal of the space it occupied, Now at our current level of knowledge this is not possible.

So instead of coming up with impossible ideas why not turn your over active mind to somthing usefull.

Obtaining water in a desert

a cheap way to desalinate sea water.

a cheap non polluting fuel.

i fact anything but impossible ideas.

From some of your responses to comments others have made, I think you should look at gravity (or whatever is is that really causes a black hole to exist)for your answer. You might also like to look at high energy physics relating to plasma produced in lightning. Chemistry as I understand it ends up not being able to provide any more energy than can be made by a vacuum. I don't think you believe most of the answers you've been given concerning the total amount of energy available for this type of reaction. Since there is considerable data available from proven theories in this area, you will need to look elsewhere to find the amount of energy you seem to be looking for. I can't offer anything else, except you're going to have problems getting answers as both of the areas I suggest are poorly understood or not understood at all.

Good luck.

Now let me explain what I had in mind. While Mr Redfred is right about vacuum pressure and atmospheric pressure etc etc, what keeps a piston head in a particular position (in my conceptual engine) is the force exerted by gushing atmospheric air (of a chamber of smaller volume and smaller area of piston head) vs force experienced by the piston head on the other side under vacuum (a chamber of larger size with larger area of piston head). So concept remaining the same – we have tried to get some kind of a multiplication factor by having larger piston head on one side and smaller piston area on other side. Vacuum pressure on one side may be say 2 or 3 mm of Hg and other side will be atmospheric pressure.

If this explanation is acceptable- let us NOW proceed to brain storm on the chemical reaction which will give us this vacuum level to make it a workable proposition. IF there is no such chemical reactions – known today- we could pickup the thread at an appropriate stage later.

For more details kindly refer to link below.

http://www.physics247.com/physics-tutorial/pascal-principle.shtml

Pascal's Principle – Pressure applied to a completely enclosed fluid is transmitted undiminished to all

parts of the fluid and the enclosing walls.

(F₂/A₂) = (F₁/A₁)

Explanation - The figure displays two joined cylindrical chambers. They both have different diameters and including the connecting tube, are filled with liquid. Since the second piston is larger, it produces a larger force than the force applied to the smaller piston:

F2 = F1(A2/A1)

Applications

These ideas benefit us every day.

The hydraulic car lift relates to Pascal's Principle. It's used in garages to lift a car off the ground for

repairing. A small force by a small-area piston can be converted to a large force at a large area piston. It works relatively close to a lever, where a small force passes through a great distance to transport a heavy object a short distance. The work is the same when lifting the heavy object or when applying a small force. In the case of a lever a bar and a fulcrum convert the work, in the hydraulic lift the fluid performs the work.

Question – A hydraulic car lift has a pump piston with radius r₁ = 0.0120 m. The resultant

piston has a radius of r₂ = 0.150 m. The total weight of the car and plunger is F₂ = 2500 m. If

the bottom ends of the piston and plunger are at the same height, what input force is

required to stabilize the car and output plunger?

Answer – We need to use the area for circular objects, A=3.14r² for both the piston and

plunger. Apply Pascal's Principle:

F₁= F₂(A₁/A₂) = F₂(3.14r²/3.14r²) = (20 500N)[(0.0120²)/(0.150²)] = 131 N

Please add to your list of favorite quotations:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.

--Alexander Pope, "An Essay on Criticism", 1709

Pl read these too

"To follow, without halt, one aim: there's the secret of success" -- Anna Pavlova

"Success is not measured by what you accomplish but by the opposition you have encountered, and the courage with which you have maintained the struggle against overwhelming odds." -- Orison Swett Marden

"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." -- Mark Twain

"There is one thing which gives radiance to everything. It is the idea of something around the corner." -- G.K. Chesterton

"ABILITY is what you are capable of doing. MOTIVATION determines what you do. ATTITUDE determines how well you do it." -- Lou Holtz

"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future." -- John F. Kennedy

You're never too old to learn.

In school you get lessons and then take the test... In life, you take the test and then get lessons.

The period of greatest gain in knowledge & experience is the most difficult period in one's life.

"Let your imagination drive your vision." -- Susan Clampitt

"Persistence prevails, like a stream that is temporarily blocked by boulders and then collects force enough to overflow onward." -- Vernon Howard

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." -- Mark Twain

There are few engineering or scientific principles to be seen in those quotations. Thomas Alva Edison said that genius is 2% inspiration and 98% perspiration. This is your main problem; you are focusing on the 2% group, and trying to goad other contributors into furnishing the 98% effort. As a result, you have noticed a dubious reception here. Please figure this out correctly; your spiritual enlightenment may just depend on doing so.

Dear MS DIVEKAR, I can't believe you wrote all that and have not realized that Pascal is saying the pressure is uniform across the system.

To quote "pressure exerted anywhere in a confined fluid is transmitted equally in all directions throughout the fluid".

This means (in steady state) same Pa on each piston.

This also means; same Pa in the oil, same Pa above pistons if atmosphere and same Pa if vacuum above (though the oil may have issues)

NOTE: Pressure is defined as force per unit area.

E.g. Pounds per square inch or Newton per square meter = Pascal (Pa).

I think what you may have missed is the force exerted by the different piston areas is directly related to the distance moved. Just as in your lever, distance ratio is identical to force ratio: F₁ x D₁ = F₂ x D₂

My fervent hope is, IF you are an engineer, you are not working in dynamics, or near anything structural, or involving fluids.

Haven't read all the answers: so I apologies if this has already been suggested:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPbMvchZb6A

Of course if you start with a jar full of oxygen and allow the candle to float the effect is greater.

All reactions of the class of biodiesel and biodiesel combustion will implode. Pressure applied on such fluids or chemicals will result in an implosion accompanied with combustion reactions. Certain mixtures of water and ethanol are also known to belong to this class of combustion reactions.

No, they will EXplode, Not IMplode. EXplode means the shock wave moves outward, IMplode means the shock wave moves inward.

Then, think about this: When dead planets collapse upon themselves due to the gravitational force, ultimately imploding; the shock-waves still travel outwards. The mode of detonation is what is described as either explosion or implosion and not the ultimate direction of propagation of the energy or shock-wave.

My regrets, I meant to write "dead stars" and not "dead planets". Thanks

You need to back up what you are saying for it to make sense, as your statements do not, at first glance. All heat engines use 'expansion' to develop motion and power.

(Everyday Examples: "Examples of everyday heat engines include the steam engine, the diesel engine, and the gasoline (petrol) engine in an automobile. A common toy that is also a heat engine is a drinking bird. Also the stirling engine is a heat engine. All of these familiar heat engines are powered by the expansion of heated gases. The general surroundings are the heat sink, providing relatively cool gases which, when heated, expand rapidly to drive the mechanical motion of the engine.")

Chris

The definition of a heat engine has nothing to do with the mode of detonation of the fuel. A heat engine simply transfers heat from a higher temperature to a lower temperature while in the process doing work. An exothermic reaction based on implosion would still produce high temperature reactions products which is all the heat engine needs to operate.

Diesel and biodiesel engines operate on the principles of application of high pressure until detonation. The application of the high pressure essentially compresses the fuel molecules until they detonate. The key word here is compression as happens to dead stars which also implode from the high compressive force on the remnant hydrogen gas.

By the way, in the previous response, I meant to state dead stars and not dead planets, my regrets.

Implosion

Of sorts, Chris.

Watt Atmospheric Engine

You may note in the link that the load retracts (raises) the piston, not steam pressure, or "heat energy" - "condensation" then causes the atmosphere to do the work.

I apologize for what was essentially "assumed known" in a previous post, but it seems not many have been told how this actually worked - including Wiki

As said, it is about as close as the OP is going to get.

I believe you are correct that this may be as close as the OP can get to his concept. A little difficult to fit into a movable vehicle. However, OP also specified (correctly or incorrectly) a "chemical reaction" to effect his engine. Per Wikipedia:

A chemical reaction is a process that leads to the transformation of one set of chemical substances to another.^[1] Chemical reactions can be either spontaneous, requiring no input of energy, or non-spontaneous, often coming about only after the input of some type of energy, viz. heat, light or electricity. Classically, chemical reactions encompass changes that strictly involve the motion of electrons in the forming and breaking of chemical bonds, although the general concept of a chemical reaction, in particular the notion of a chemical equation, is applicable to transformations of elementary particles, as well as nuclear reactions.

The Watt Atmospheric Engine does not involve the transformation of one substance to another as the water molecules do not change, only their chemical "state" changes between gas and liquid, creating a pressure/vacuum differential. Hence there is no "chemical reaction" involved. Perhaps only semantics, but technically precise.

Quite right in terms of direct reading of the OP's stated goal - but "technically precise"?

In fact the engine is driven by the chemical energy of combustion - though it be 'external combustion' - producing an expanded product that then 'implodes'.

I hope this clarifies the Watt engine does not just sit there running - other stuff is happening in the "full process".

Or even if you did find a way to say convert the oxygen and nitrogen into say liquid ammonia so producing a vacuum, the energy to make the 'catalyst' or 'reagent', may be 'external' but is still part of the "full process" energy equation.

So not "semantics" - perhaps process tunnel vision?

I was also thinking it does not have to be endothermic. It just needs for the vapors to convert to liquids of solid below the temperatures of the reaction products.