sci.energy

On Oct 6, 3:06 pm, Rich Grise wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 05:35:03 +0000, jimp wrote:
> > In JosephKK wrote:
> >> j...@ j...@ posted to
> >> > In JosephKK wrote:
> >> >> j...@ j...@ posted to
> ...
> >> >> > Do you understand the difference between combustion and a
> >> >> > chemical reaction?
>
> >> >> How about you lookup hypergolic reactions? TWIT! You were given
> >> >> sufficient to learn better for yourself, but no you just attack.
>
> >> > Please list any land vehicles whose internal combustion engines run
> >> > on hypergolic reactions.
>
> >> I do not know of any. But there are plenty of space vehicles that use
> >> this combination, precisely because it is a hypergolic pair. The one
> >> step upline issue was can liquids burn? These do.
>
> > Actually, the issue was liquids burning in an internal combustion
> > engine.
>
> Well, you know, it's not that much of a stretch to call a rocket
> motor internal combustion - or should that be internal hypergolic? ;-)

Word games are clearly all important in this semitic anti-think-tank
of a usenet from their typical naysay hell on Earth.

If each ICE cycle were given the 1000 bar shot of h2o2 plus given
another injector shot of fossil or biofuel whatever at the top of each
2-cycle piston stroke, as such it is going to work very nicely.

Of course all is easily computer controlled so that there's just the
right amount of each applied at the exact correct timing and duration
of injection into this mostly ceramic component engine, even if it's
limited to the crude 2-cycle piston technology.
- Brad Guth -