> Yep, you can't beat hydrocarbons, unless you don't have them. There's no
well.. the real thing outside of complete combustion on one side and
charring on the other will be the sugar caramellizing around the spark
plug or elsewhere in the cylinder. Drawing up the equation to go from
sugar to CO2 and H2O is nice, getting yer mixture to listen to it is
Have you ever made caramel sweets as a kid? Sugar and cream and having
it slowly boil for hours? If that stuff doesn't kill any spark plug, i
don't know what will.
For no particular reason, it occurs to me that sugar melts. So melt it and
forget the water. It decomposes rather than vaporizes, so you would probably
want to squirt the liquid into a stream of hot oxygen to burn it. I expect
you could make an IC engine to burn this, probably a diesel combustion
cycle, but it would likely be much easier to make an external combustion
engine, since the sugar breakdown and combustion is slower than burning
gasoline. As I recall, you can also burn sugar in potasium perchlorate.
Might be a good two fuel engine.
Surely there is no argument for burning hot sticky sugar that
doesn't go all the more powerfully for running your engine on tar.
You don't even need to hike through the fields with your machete to
harvest the stuff: there's a pool of it in the bottom of every cat
cracker in the land. :-)
If you're going to go external, why not go coal? If you're
harvesting sugar, of course, you'd use bagasse, and sell the sugar.
All those potassium perchlorate stands out there sure need the business.
'Course the great thing about diesel is you can run it on anything.
With America now deciding to slim down, there's a gross surplus of
potato chips, potatoe chips in Republican areas, on the market. If
you crank the ignition temperature up high enough, couldn't we fire
up an engine on potato chip slurry? French fries and Coke, anyone?
Just think: Dr.Atkins dies, and Detroit switches from hydrocarbons
OK, thanks for all the corrections, and I guess I was wrong, and
over-reacted to a pissy reply to a geniune request for info.
I'll check it out in a chemistry book. My instinct (obviously wrong) is that
there can't be a difference between energy of combustion and energy of
formation (regardless of the interim chemicals and reactions), cos any
difference would let you round-trip and give you perpetual free energy or a
perpetual energy sink, neither of which I believe exists.
Sorry for being such a rude hill-orc, and thanks for the help.
Roland and Lisa Paterson-Jones
Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay [Only registered users see links. ]
mobile: +27 72 386 8045
e-mail: [Only registered users see links. ]
"Joćo Antonio" <[Only registered users see links. ].br> wrote in message
news:bgbpie$nd4$[Only registered users see links. ].ntu.edu.tw...
At least you reckon me as seeking the truth, instead of drifting in error.
I assume you too are seeking soem truth from your replies elsewhere
in this topic.
Why can't you use a chemistry book?
This book you are using may *work* but will not give you a
chemically meaningful explanation.
If you are playing this "zero-sum" game as you mentioned elsewhere, It may
but every single chemistry book I ever saw uses simple substances as
from enthalpies of formation it is possible to check if a compound is
stable. If you level things using H2O, CO2 and water, things get more
I know it is all arbitrary, but if each one decides to redefine scientific
terms to his own
taste or use, we go back to alchemical hermetic writings.
I am Brazilian, not Italian or Spanish - entendeu mané?
So, maybe I made a mistake translating to English "enthalpy of combustion".
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([Only registered users see links. ]).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 24/7/2003