Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Implosion engine

  1. Aug 11, 2010 #1
    what is an implosion engine?
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 11, 2010 #2
    Something someone made up?

    From the (rather wooly) name of the engine. You'd have to say it's an engine that works on the principle of 'something' making a vacuum pulling a cylinder (or whatever, I use cylinder because it's easy to visualise) instead of positive pressure acting to push it. Quite how that would be achieved in the sense of an engine I don't know.

    But to be honest it's sounds like some ******** 'scientific' name made up to give something credibility, where none is deserved.

    Links to said engine?

    EDIT: The more I think about it, the more it screams of the free energy crowd. so... IBTL.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2010
  4. Aug 11, 2010 #3
    Don't you mean an explosion engine? I mean, a combustion engine?
  5. Aug 12, 2010 #4
    but what about the exhaust ?and is how is this implosion effect enough to drive the piston.
  6. Aug 12, 2010 #5
    eh... It's most likely made up nonsense anyway, so the exhuast is irrelevent.

    You are the one who asked about it, where did you hear about it? Can you post some links to I know what on earth you are on about.
  7. Aug 12, 2010 #6
    I truly believe you misunderstood the name of the engine. I mean, in an explosion engine, thne piston will be driven by the combustion of the fuel+air mixture...

    Sorry for my bad English, but I'm not a native speaker.

    Best regards,

  8. Aug 12, 2010 #7
    He's not misunderstood, he's read somewhere about a 'new' engine and is asking what it is (but is seemingly not willing to post where he's read about it). I'm saying it's a crock of ****.

    He's quite obviously knows what a normal engine is, he just wants to know what this 'implosion' engine is.
  9. Aug 12, 2010 #8


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Monty, please provide a reference - a link - so we can see what you are referring to.
  10. Aug 13, 2010 #9
    Russ, he's not going to do that, I think...
  11. Aug 13, 2010 #10
    ok .i was looking for various principles in engines apart from combustion so ..i stumbled onto this implosion engine.i found it on freepatentsonline .

    this thing has also got a patent then why is it nonsensical
  12. Aug 14, 2010 #11
    Becuase you can patent anything you want, it doesn't have to acutally work. The patent office don't check if it works or not.

    All sorts of crackpot **** is patented, it doesn't mean a thing.
  13. Aug 14, 2010 #12


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It may or may not be nonsensical, but unless you give us a link to the patent, we can't tell!

    Last chance, monty: give us a link or this thread has to be locked.
  14. Aug 14, 2010 #13


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

  15. Aug 14, 2010 #14
    Summary of the patent: A piston cylinder setup containing a liquid and a gas with a strong affinity to absorb into the liquid. The gas wants to absorb so much that it will reduce the pressure in the cylinder, causing the piston to contract reducing the volume and producing force on the piston.

    I'll have to ask a chemical engineer, but I can't imagine a situation where a gas so rapidly wants to dissolve in water that it is even possible to drop the pressure above the liquid. And if this did happen, it would probably very slow relative to an internal combustion engine.

    Think about this in terms of energy density as well. A conventional hydrocarbon fuel has a lot of chemical potential energy, and the second component in the combustion reaction (oxygen) doesn't need to be carried in a tank as it is pulled in from the atmosphere. This implosion engine would need to carry a very low density gas and a lot of water. And due to the slow contraction of the piston, many pistons would be required because I can't imagine getting more than 1 RPM out of this thing. The patent mentions that the gas could be stored as a liquid at high pressure between 2-20 bar, but the energy required to compress this gas will likely consume more energy than you could get back out of the system.

    My initial conclusion: Plausible concept, but totally inefficient and worthless!
  16. Aug 14, 2010 #15
    So you never did the simple science experiment of imploding a coke can? It happens with a bang, too fast to see, when the opening of the vapour-filled can is pressed against the liquid. In fact, if it were slow, it would just siphon in the liquid instead of mangling the aluminium can.

    I think you're too hasty, making asertions about efficiency based purely on your lack of imagination.
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2010
  17. Aug 14, 2010 #16
    haha fair enough, but I've been reading into energy density of transport fuel a lot lately and this seems to me at first glance like it wouldn't be efficient.

    I've never seen the coke can experiment, can you explain it in better detail?
  18. Aug 14, 2010 #17


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  19. Aug 14, 2010 #18
    1. Procure a can of coke, and pour down toilet. It'll do far more good for the porcelain than it would for your body.
    2. Pour a few mL or so of water into the bottom of the empty aluminium can.
    3. Heat the can, and get the water to a boil for about a minute. This is so water vapour displaces most of the air inside the can.
    4. Invert the can and quickly lower (opening first) into a tub of cold water.
    There is some potential to get hurt doing this, so think carefully beforehand. Tongs, safety glasses..
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2010
  20. Aug 15, 2010 #19
    Oh yes, I've done that experiment before. I won't argue against boiling and condensing water as a powerful way to extract energy because that is the most prolific thermodynamic cycle we use for power generation, meaning the Rankine Cycle.

    But this patent seems to be about dissolving gas (he states Ammonia) into water, not just phase changing the water.

    I should mention that one of the reasons I was so eager to pooh-pooh this idea is because it was filed in 1976 and none of us has ever heard of it!
  21. Aug 15, 2010 #20
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook