# New Nissan Motor...



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

How about modifying the pistons and making them oval.


----------



## asleepz (Feb 24, 2004)

510Mods said:


> How about modifying the pistons and making them oval.




........ why?


----------



## LethalAudio (Feb 12, 2003)

"Powered by KoolAid"


----------



## asleepz (Feb 24, 2004)

Please tell me your reasoning about making the pistons oval....


I gotta hear this shit.


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

With round pistons, there is no extra force for the air to be sucked/forced into the motor, besides turbo/supercharging. With an oval piston, the force of the crank will use a larger surface area to seal the chamber. The pistons are more efficient to draw the air/fuel mix into the motor, like a straw. Thats all a motor is right, an air compressor with an internal power source??? The motor would be longer but skinny, so it could fit a datsun 300z with ease. What till you hear about my crankless motor and turbine injection. By the way, oval pistons were actually used in racing motorcycle engines.


----------



## Dustin (Dec 14, 2003)

510Mods said:


> With round pistons, there is no extra force for the air to be sucked/forced into the motor, besides turbo/supercharging. With an oval piston, the force of the crank will use a larger surface area to seal the chamber. The pistons are more efficient to draw the air/fuel mix into the motor, like a straw. Thats all a motor is right, an air compressor with an internal power source??? The motor would be longer but skinny, so it could fit a datsun 300z with ease. What till you hear about my crankless motor and turbine injection. By the way, oval pistons were actually used in racing motorcycle engines.


you need to get together with himile, im sure you could both make some interesting ideas.


----------



## Ride116 (Oct 21, 2004)

510Mods said:


> With round pistons, there is no extra force for the air to be sucked/forced into the motor, besides turbo/supercharging. With an oval piston, the force of the crank will use a larger surface area to seal the chamber. The pistons are more efficient to draw the air/fuel mix into the motor, like a straw. Thats all a motor is right, an air compressor with an internal power source??? The motor would be longer but skinny, so it could fit a datsun 300z with ease. What till you hear about my crankless motor and turbine injection. By the way, oval pistons were actually used in racing motorcycle engines.


Isn't there a theorem stating that circles (not ovals) have the most surface area when given a certain amount of material, or most efficient use. Besides, circular pistons distrubute power evenly, it would be hard to balance oval pistons IMO. I think they were only used in motorcycle applications because there was only 1 (maybe 2?) pistons. I haven't heard of that though (I've been involved in motorcross racing) and I'm sure if they were extremly beneficial they would have been used in other cars, or at least high budgeted race teams were performance usually out-weighs functionialty (that a word?) and reliability. But very interesting idea and I would like to hear more about this crankless motor and turbine injection...I like this engineering shizznit, hopefully go to school for it and be designing your Nissans in 10 years.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 17, 2002)

I am definitely NOT an expert in this area but wouldn't the oval design compromise some of the stability compared to a perfectly round shape?


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

I have this book "Building The Tesla Turbine", and combine theories for: crankless engine: "The engine is unusual. A piston slides in a casing between two combustion chambers. It vents in the center, and the exhaust gas is combined with water to produce steam, which adds to the thrust. This modified engine uses these fuels: acetylene, butane, nitromethane, propane, two-stroke oil (for lubrication), and filtered water (for doubling the thrust). " Really trippy stuff.


----------



## Dwntyme (Dec 18, 2002)

Your more or less explaining how a jet engine works with water injection to cool/and add moisture the mixture for proper burning of the fuel....... If your going to have power to ANY kind of axle that provides power to wheels you'll need a crankshaft of some sort.... Um Kay Forrest.......


----------



## 94econobox (Dec 1, 2004)

Ride116 said:


> Isn't there a theorem stating that circles (not ovals) have the most surface area when given a certain amount of material, or most efficient use.


Yes, circles have the greatest surface area for a given circumference. Thus in order to get the most surface area on the lightest piston, you need a circle.


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

Not all true, but close. They classify it as Turbine cause its a reaction of fluid. The free piston engine developes 200hp and the whole thing weighs 42lbs. Here's a few specs.

A turbine blade or impeller does not necessarily have to be metallic. It could be steel, wood, or plastic. In the case of this free-piston engine,the spinning impeller is gaseous, when the powerful gas exhaust reaches the special nozzle, it creates a vortex causing its gases to spin at high speed, which is similar to a modern turbine impeller. Its high-powered thrust is achieved because of the vortex phenomenon of spinning gases.



Dwntyme said:


> Your more or less explaining how a jet engine works with water injection to cool/and add moisture the mixture for proper burning of the fuel....... If your going to have power to ANY kind of axle that provides power to wheels you'll need a crankshaft of some sort.... Um Kay Forrest.......


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

Also the water is not really needed. But when added to the "exhaust" it increases thrust efficiency, not combustion.


----------



## Tavel (Aug 21, 2004)

oval eh? i like that, it would equalize the distance the gasses have to travel to get to the outer edge of the piston which would idealy make better power, very cool...but you'd probably need two tie rods to keep it balanced, and the machining costs would quadruple, circles are a lot easier to bore than ovals. i mean, unless you've got an oval cutting drill in mind too lol. 

i'd like to see cars using heat engines, like submarines. that way, cars could be nuclear powered(or some other massive heat emmiting source) and they wouldn't pollute at all.


----------



## 94econobox (Dec 1, 2004)

The nuke car can't work due to size limitations on the core.


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

you could use a post-reactive core amplifier. then we would have to manage a force field to hold the stray neutrino ions.


----------



## Tavel (Aug 21, 2004)

i think we'll just go back to horse and buggy in the future, much more fuel efficient.


----------



## 94econobox (Dec 1, 2004)

Tavel said:


> i think we'll just go back to horse and buggy in the future, much more fuel efficient.


Yeah, but the emissions are awful!


----------



## Tavel (Aug 21, 2004)

but they're all natural :cheers:


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

Devolope an "engine" that runs off CO2 and CO waste, while creating water itself.


----------



## lshadoff (Nov 26, 2002)

Honda produced V4 oval piston engines for the NR750 and the NR500 (at the bottom of the page).

See also this page.

Lew


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

Thats what I was looking for, thanks.


----------



## Ride116 (Oct 21, 2004)

510Mods said:


> you could use a post-reactive core amplifier. then we would have to manage a force field to hold the stray neutrino ions.


Oh yeah? Once I coasted down a hill on my bike.


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

ever try spitting in the air and catching it?


----------



## myoung (Apr 15, 2002)

510Mods said:


> I have this book "Building The Tesla Turbine", and combine theories for: crankless engine: "The engine is unusual. A piston slides in a casing between two combustion chambers. It vents in the center, and the exhaust gas is combined with water to produce steam, which adds to the thrust. This modified engine uses these fuels: acetylene, butane, nitromethane, propane, two-stroke oil (for lubrication), and filtered water (for doubling the thrust). " Really trippy stuff.


Nissan is a company, they have stock holders, it's a business that can only survive by producing dependable vehicles.

There really isn't much long term data proving this is viable for mass production vehicles... Honda gave up on it pretty quickly and If I'm correct it was never tried in a passenger vehicle, just a couple motorcycles


----------



## Dwntyme (Dec 18, 2002)

But you'll need to get to 88 mph before it would work and have 1 jigggaa watt.... hahahaha


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

Which theory are you referring to, cause they all are true. Tesla Turbine, free-piston engine, and cam-less motors. Just like everything we do, it can be done if the materials are better and technology could catch up to them. But something with these piston motors is going to change pretty soon, and I'm not talking about electric motors. You'll see soon, I will post my experiments up and soon to have patents.



myoung said:


> Nissan is a company, they have stock holders, it's a business that can only survive by producing dependable vehicles.
> 
> There really isn't much long term data proving this is viable for mass production vehicles... Honda gave up on it pretty quickly and If I'm correct it was never tried in a passenger vehicle, just a couple motorcycles


----------



## lshadoff (Nov 26, 2002)

510Mods said:


> You'll see soon, I will post my experiments up and soon to have patents.


Have you applied for a patent yet? If not, by disclosing anything about your invention, you start the clock running on the lifetime of your patent.

It cost me about $1000 for the last patent search I had my attorney do for me, which indicated I might have a patentable idea (and started the clock running). I decided not to have her write a patent application, which would have cost another $2000-3000, because I could not see how I could recoup my patent application costs.

Lew


----------



## Dwntyme (Dec 18, 2002)

Here's an Opposed free-piston engine









and it's parts


----------



## Tavel (Aug 21, 2004)

Dwntyme said:


> Here's an Opposed free-piston engine
> 
> 
> 
> ...


my brain hurts.


----------



## myoung (Apr 15, 2002)

Dwntyme said:


> But you'll need to get to 88 mph before it would work and have 1 jigggaa watt.... hahahaha


hahaha okay I have to admit that was a good one :thumbup: 

great Scott!


----------



## myoung (Apr 15, 2002)

510Mods said:


> Which theory are you referring to, cause they all are true. Tesla Turbine, free-piston engine, and cam-less motors. Just like everything we do, it can be done if the materials are better and technology could catch up to them. But something with these piston motors is going to change pretty soon, and I'm not talking about electric motors. You'll see soon, I will post my experiments up and soon to have patents.


You're the one that said "combined theory" don't remember anyone else saying that in this thread.



510Mods said:


> I have this book "Building The Tesla Turbine", and combine theories for: crankless engine: "The engine is unusual........_edit_.....



Your original post was "New Nissan Motor..."

I'm simply saying Nissan the company is only going to make motors that have been proven for mass production..

Now if you as an individule want to give it a shot then that would be extremly interesting... In fact do it...test it on a Nissan and I will promise you a series of articles in NPM.


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

LOL, very true. Its all about staying in the "norm", thats why they waited this long for hybrids. They had the technology for nearly 50 years, same with the tubine powered Chrysler car. It was there, but they never improved it much for mass production. There are soo many factors, government has everything. Makes me upset sometimes. Well nobody would look at it if I said "New Dodge Motor", hehe.


----------



## myoung (Apr 15, 2002)

510Mods said:


> LOL, very true. Its all about staying in the "norm", thats why they waited this long for hybrids. They had the technology for nearly 50 years, same with the tubine powered Chrysler car. It was there, but they never improved it much for mass production. There are soo many factors, government has everything. Makes me upset sometimes. Well nobody would look at it if I said "New Dodge Motor", hehe.


oval piston HEMI..yeaaaa baby.....hahaha


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

Thats truly not a "free piston engine" The pistons should not be connected by any-means to anything. And there is no drive shaft. A free piston motor is like 4 two stroke motors cradling 2 pistons. 1 chamber on each side of piston. Then in the very middle is and exhaust port with a special manifold chamber. But a true free-piston engine has only 2 moving parts. And also has 2 ignition sources, glow plugs for running and spark plugs to initial start. Which the starting is done by feeding it air pressure. 



Dwntyme said:


> Here's an Opposed free-piston engine
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## lshadoff (Nov 26, 2002)

I had some fun on Google.

The free-piston engine in Popular Mechanics.

The Taylor Linear Engine.

1956 Time Magazine article on the free-piston engine.

These guys will build a free-piston engine for you [maybe].

Honeywell is developing a free-piston engine for the military.

The marine free-piston gas turbine engine.

In 1867 Nickolaus Otto produced a "free-piston" engine engine powered by igniting a charge of gas and air under a piston in a vertical cylinder which forced the piston up. The down stroke was provided by gravity and atmospheric pressure.

The list seems endless.

Lew


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

Yes, the original free piston engine is considered a "turbine" because of the great thrust produced by the vortex exhaust. You can pick up the plans for it for $60 and make it yourself. Its very simple and has end-less possibilities. The original did power a go-cart and pushed it to 150mph in a less than 10 seconds. The motor weighed 42lbs.


----------



## lshadoff (Nov 26, 2002)

510Mods said:


> Yes, the original free piston engine is considered a "turbine" because of the great thrust produced by the vortex exhaust. You can pick up the plans for it for $60 and make it yourself. Its very simple and has end-less possibilities. The original did power a go-cart and pushed it to 150mph in a less than 10 seconds. The motor weighed 42lbs.


A turbine engine uses gas flow to turn a shaft. It is sort of the opposite of a fan. Instead of turning a shaft to rotate fan blades which move air, the air pushes on the fan blades which turns the shaft. In a free-piston gas turbine engine, the free piston part is the source of pressurized gas to drive the turbine.

Lew


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

The turbine engine that we are used to seeing does have compressor blades. I have made my own jet engine before and still use it, you have the intake compressor, combustion chamber, and exhaust blades. 

The "true" free-piston (exactly what its name says) does not have a shaft, nor any rotating blades. Just the two sealed chamber pistons. I thought I posted up a picture of it? The water injection increases the velocity of the exhaust force, which in itself is like a "BOOST".


----------



## lshadoff (Nov 26, 2002)

510Mods said:


> The "true" free-piston (exactly what its name says) does not have a shaft, nor any rotating blades. Just the two sealed chamber pistons. I thought I posted up a picture of it? The water injection increases the velocity of the exhaust force, which in itself is like a "BOOST".


I don't understand what makes your definition of a "true" piston-free engine so desirable as opposed to a design that uses the piston-free engine as part of an engine system. Please enlighten me.

Lew


----------



## Dwntyme (Dec 18, 2002)

510Mods said:


> Thats truly not a "free piston engine" The pistons should not be connected by any-means to anything. And there is no drive shaft. A free piston motor is like 4 two stroke motors cradling 2 pistons. 1 chamber on each side of piston. Then in the very middle is and exhaust port with a special manifold chamber. But a true free-piston engine has only 2 moving parts. And also has 2 ignition sources, glow plugs for running and spark plugs to initial start. Which the starting is done by feeding it air pressure.


So if there's no drive shaft(you said no crankshaft) then it's of no use to us propel a vehicle????


----------



## Dwntyme (Dec 18, 2002)

the one I posted above drive the propeller of a boat...


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

That one you posted is a great idea also with the shaft. Reminds me of Wankel engine alittle bit and a 2 stroke. But I did post up a short explaination on what the free-piston (not piston free) engine is, and how it uses thrust to propel. This is a small definition of what the difference between a normal turbine and this engine. Here's the only reason why they call it a "turbine" motor.

"A turbine blade or impeller does not necessarily have to be metallic. It could be steel, wood, or plastic. In the case of this free-piston engine,the spinning impeller is gaseous, when the powerful gas exhaust reaches the special nozzle, it creates a vortex causing its gases to spin at high speed, which is similar to a modern turbine impeller. Its high-powered thrust is achieved because of the vortex phenomenon of spinning gases."


----------



## Dwntyme (Dec 18, 2002)

I understand the concept... but the ones i've seen looks like it just sits there and hahaha sucks and blows air with absolutely no purpose unless it puts out enough force to propel and object that it is attached to.. I.E.(jet propulsion)


----------



## Dwntyme (Dec 18, 2002)

Like this:


----------



## Dwntyme (Dec 18, 2002)

lso look here:
http://www.ecn.nl/sf/products/stirling/freepistinstirling.html


BTW You can get a free-piston generator by going to a hardware store a get on of thoughs flashlights that you shake back and forth, it stores the charge produced by the motion....


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

I love the idea of Stirling engines. Thats where the original concepts for steam generators came from. The tried and trued "free-piston motor" is self-sufficient and requires little maintenance. Also for having a gross weight of 42lbs and making 200hp is great. Yes, there is no direct drive to a shaft or motion transfer. Its all thrust produced by tuning sound and pressure waves. It has been installed on a vehicle before, and the thrust it produces can power whatever. check out the pic of it I tried to post up in an earlier post. If anyone can make it a picture instead of an attachment, please do it for me.


----------



## krylonkoopaa (Sep 13, 2002)




----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

They call it "LoudMouth".


----------



## bahearn (Jul 15, 2002)

♣AsleepZ♣ said:


> [regarding oval pistons]........ why?


Valve area. The Honda engines had eight valves per cylinder for valve area and to reduce reciprocating valve mass. Honda abandoned the idea after two Gran Prix racing seasons as more-than-expected development was required to get competitive power.

The gain in low-lift valve area is more than offset by the much large parts count.


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

If it was developed more, I can see some advantages that would outweight the dis-. I think what they should be developing and I have been thinking about more. Is independant pistons using their own crankshaft and then they feed into a special transmission to gather the power for the drivetrain. When you see harley twins making 180hp it gets you thinking. If you could assemble an 8 cylinder motor using 4 twin piston engines, that would have a potential of 800 hp. Also there is this Suzuki GS1200 4 cylinder. Custom EFI with twin turbo, all stock bottom end with forged rods, no nitrous. He is getting 760hp from it. He took it to a shop that was having a contest on the best dyno for crotch rockets, and blew them all away. They almost had to kick him off cause they thought he was going to break the machine.


----------



## bahearn (Jul 15, 2002)

510Mods said:


> I think what they should be developing and I have been thinking about more. Is independant pistons using their own crankshaft and then they feed into a special transmission to gather the power for the drivetrain.


Ariel Square-4 did this. Used two vertical twins and geared the two cranks to one output shaft.


> When you see harley twins making 180hp it gets you thinking.


Harley Shmarley. Tractor engines. No Harley will make that power without nitrous. Besides, you need the 1.3-liter engines to get there. The 883 is hopeless.


> Also there is this Suzuki GS1200 4 cylinder. Custom EFI with twin turbo, all stock bottom end with forged rods, no nitrous. He is getting 760hp from it. He took it to a shop that was having a contest on the best dyno for crotch rockets, and blew them all away. They almost had to kick him off cause they thought he was going to break the machine.


This year's Daytona Bike Week? MTI holds a horsepower shootout every year. I don;t think my Suzuki Bandit 1200 would tolerate that much oomph without some serious lower-end work.


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

I didn't mean a factory v-twin 88. It was an S&S v-twin motor. And the motorcycle did have a stock bottom end. He did recommend that you go all forged if you were to push it past that, cause of oiling issues. I'll find the article and post it. I was suspicious at first, but I call things as I see them. My bs is usually true, but just nobody heard of it b4 or believes me.


----------



## bahearn (Jul 15, 2002)

510Mods said:


> I didn't mean a factory v-twin 88. It was an S&S v-twin motor.


Different kettle of fish but doesn't smell any better. They're something like 1.5 or 1.8 liter engines. Still an agricultural implement. I have never been able to fathom the fascination with the 45º lumps. The engine in the V-Rod is the first really modern engine from Harley...and it's still a 45º paint shaker.

As for forged, it's a weight/rpm issue, not oiling. Spin one of those to 7,000 and you'll be leaving an ugly trail of shiny, oily parts.


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

I meant the oiling issues for the Suzuki GSXR1100 to be exact, I found one of the old posts from GS Resources. This bike was bare stock, except for the turbo.

"GSXR's are tough--Keep the RPM below 11,000, use water injection above 10 psi. Don't put any trick ignitions on them. Run 35 degrees full advance drop you spark gap to.019", use NGK Race plugs, and you can get 272-350 hp. About 18 psi and 272 hp @ 10,000 rpm is enough to do anything. No one believes us but we do not recommend boring the motors, big blocks or Carillo rods. If you over-rev them past the stock redline you will sooner or later crack the crankshaft. Stay with Suzuki's internal balance factors, they did a better job than you will. These are violent, sudden toys that get your attention fast...and will get you if you don't pay attention."

The one that I originally was talking about I remember was a stock xr1200, retro fit twin turbo, shaved pistons, water-air intercooled, EFI, water injection, and it had an MSD ignition. I love turbo's, free power.


----------



## bahearn (Jul 15, 2002)

510Mods said:


> I meant the oiling issues for the Suzuki GSXR1100


Oh. The Bandit 1200 is based on the GSXR1100. Everybody who races them adds a top-end oiling kit. I'm not sure about the big-block but the 600s have a problem with prolonged wheelies causing #3 bearing to fail...



> The one that I originally was talking about I remember was a stock xr1200...


Bleah, turbo or not, a marginal engine at best.


----------



## IanH (Feb 11, 2003)

Ride116 said:


> I think they were only used in motorcycle applications because there was only 1 (maybe 2?) pistons.


Yes Honda did this for Racing Motorcycle engines. 
I believe they abandoned the idea when they did not get any advantages. From what i remember they postulated that the friction on the thrust side could be lowered and thus produce more power. Don't remember which way they put the oval, long direction in line with the connecting rod circle I believe. Yes as previously pointed out they also claimed more valve area.
BTW the "free-piston engine" type twin acting piston design is in your old A6 GM A/C compressor. Took more than one of those apart........


----------



## bahearn (Jul 15, 2002)

Check here

and

here.

Google to the rescue, once again.


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

400 hp from a small stock motor like that in a bike is pretty amazing to me. How bout ball pistons?


----------



## lshadoff (Nov 26, 2002)

It's an interesting engine design with potential:

http://www.ballpistonengine.com/report.html

Lew


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

I had a ball piston engine come into a dream I had. First time I heard of someone experimenting with it, other than me. Wow, the only thing I have left to invent is a CO(2) + atm air to H2O engine.


----------



## lshadoff (Nov 26, 2002)

510Mods said:


> I had a ball piston engine come into a dream I had. First time I heard of someone experimenting with it, other than me. Wow, the only thing I have left to invent is a CO(2) + atm air to H2O engine.


That would be quite interesting since Neither CO2 nor air has the hydrogen necessary to create H2O.

Lew


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

Thats probably one reason why its not invented yet


----------



## 94econobox (Dec 1, 2004)

lshadoff said:


> That would be quite interesting since Neither CO2 nor air has the hydrogen necessary to create H2O.
> 
> Lew


A little alchemy anyone?


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

Air is mainly composed basically of nitrogen, oxygen, and water vapor.


----------



## bahearn (Jul 15, 2002)

2H2O + 4e- = 2H2 + O2.
Now, the $64 question is -- what's a CHEAP to build, CHEAP to operate source of electrons to disassociate that water that will fit under your hood or in your garage and can make sufficient hydrogen in a reasonable time to power your vehicle for a reasonalbe distance?

When's Mr. Fusion getting here???


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

Could use a Ruby Laser in a sealed chamber. Then when the atoms hit a substrate they are drawn into another combustion chamber. Almost like if you were to use a plasma cutter to heat a material, collect the products air and fumes, then use them for another process.


----------



## bahearn (Jul 15, 2002)

510Mods said:


> Could use a Ruby Laser in a sealed chamber.


How big is this laser and how do you power it?


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

They are fun: http://www.llnl.gov/nif/library/aboutlasers/how.html


----------



## lshadoff (Nov 26, 2002)

510Mods said:


> They are fun: http://www.llnl.gov/nif/library/aboutlasers/how.html


A ruby laser does not have the energy to break chemical bonds. You need a UV laser like an excimer.

Lew


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

Covalent bonds are easier to break than chemical bonds. All we need to develope is the "flux capacitor".


----------



## lshadoff (Nov 26, 2002)

510Mods said:


> Covalent bonds are easier to break than chemical bonds. All we need to develope is the "flux capacitor".


The chemical bonds between atoms in organic compounds are covalent bonds. The chemical bonds between hydrogen and oxygen in water are covalent bonds. The chemical bonds between carbon and oxygen in CO2 are covalent bonds.

The other type of chemical bonds are ionic bonds in salts.

You have entered an area I know a great deal about. I have a Ph.D. in Chemistry.

Lew


----------



## 94econobox (Dec 1, 2004)

510Mods said:


> Could use a Ruby Laser in a sealed chamber. Then when the atoms hit a substrate they are drawn into another combustion chamber. Almost like if you were to use a plasma cutter to heat a material, collect the products air and fumes, then use them for another process.


Umm, so how exactly is this engine going to make more power than the whatever-you-use-to-dissociate-water device consumes? Considering you're talking about breaking the bonds and then reforming them, I don't see where the energy release will be.


----------



## bahearn (Jul 15, 2002)

lshadoff said:


> You have entered an area I know a great deal about. I have a Ph.D. in Chemistry.


Go get him, Dr. Lew. Shoot, I'm only an expert on the Internet. Okay, so I've got some 20 years working in chemical plants...


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

Well you can invent the wheel first, but it doesn't make it automatically a car. It has to be developed. Its like you guys are being paid to shit on ideas. Relax alittle, stand up off the stick


----------



## bahearn (Jul 15, 2002)

510Mods said:


> Its like you guys are being paid to shit on ideas.


Nope, we're just your reality check. If a statement is in error, somebody will catch it. Make a supposition, someone will find information to support or refute it. With so much outright crap on the Internet, it is imperative that errata be corrected posthaste.
Then again, you run into situations like Beta vs VHS.


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

Thats right. There would be no yin without the yang, no marco without the polo. Balance in a system. I try to keep my ideas I post up to what I know, but sometimes things can be miss-informed. I have learned alot from these posts. I want to make my own pop-rocks.


----------



## bahearn (Jul 15, 2002)

510Mods said:


> I want to make my own pop-rocks.


Pour one tablespoon of Rice Crispies into mouth. Immediately chase with one swig of your favorite carbonated beverage.


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

yumm, will krispies and coke work?


----------



## 510Mods (Feb 21, 2005)

This is in reply to all those who doubted my words earlier in this post. I finally found my link to the 1999 Suzuki 1300GSXR Hayabusa that literally tore up the Dynojet and nearly kicked the motorcycle off the tester in fear that it will break it. It isn't a full street bike, and makes 700hp from the little 1.3L. That was one article, I had another one that was more streetable and made about the same hp. http://www.amaprostar.com/press_releases/valdosta 2005/djhorsepower.asp


----------

