Is there in the world an engine which use no coal, diesel, gass etc... and produces current???I have invented.
140148
Be careful to avoid public disclosure of any valid invention until you have protected it, especially by a patent application.  I believe that in the US a patent must be applied for within one year of public disclosure or it will be lost into the public domain.  Patent attorneys can advise you how to document your device and establish priority (first inventor) and have a patent search conducted to insure your invention is original and does not infringe other devices.\n\nThat said, it is a principle of physics that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (by normal means).  A patent application would have to identify the source of energy for your system and any energy conversions that take place to obtain a useful effect.  For example, a flashlight uses a battery (energy source) to obtain electrical energy (electricity) which is converted into heat energy in the lighbulb's glowing filament which in turn is converted to light energy.  The battery is used up.  A solar cell can also be used (but not at night).  All steps are clearly understood.  Good luck.
481581
If you are refeering to methane generators,Good luck, I was suprised to find that no one has yet developed a very efficient methane generation system. There are quite a few experiments in progress though.
905984
Not just any A/C motor will.\n\nCurrent is generated by ,,"Waving a MAGNET past a COIL"\n\nUsing a NON-Magnet produces nothing.\n\nMost A/C motors do not have permanent magnets.\n\nA/C Motor's "magnetism" is typically created by the Supply Current---Electromagnetism\n\nA/C motors can be converted to generate,,but it's not so simple as just spinning the shaft of a DC motor or any permanent magnet motor.\n\nThere's stuff all over the net which explains what type A/C motor is easiest/best to convert,,and what's required.\n\nhttp://users.aber.ac.uk/iri/WIND/TECH/MISC/MotorsAsGenerators.html\n\nhttp://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_wind_alternators.html
616877
All engines have a cost.  I suggest that the cost of this form of energy may be the slowing of the rotational period of the Earth.  What would we pay in time
413898
Yes go to! very good topics to discover about engines http://www.sapiensman.com/topics/topics_3.htm
3611
The easiest thing would be to switch all cars to hybrid.  Right now.  The technology is here.  Wind power now costs less than coal, but our government keeps giving money to the coal industry because of lobbyists.
340550
Power boat. With twin 12cyl engines tuned to perfection.\n\nYum.
1126712
Yes, we've known about electrolysis for a long time.  It's how submarines make breathable air while submerged -- they electrolyze seawater and just bubble the hydrogen overboard while releasing oxygen gas into the boat.  However, it takes a lot of energy to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen, which isn't a concern in a small space with a nuclear reactor to power everything, but it isn't a 100% efficient conversion of electrical energy into chemical potential energy.  There is a loss of energy due to heat, for instance (the electrodes heat up with current passing through them, and even the wiring that carries it there), and as with any energy system, you have to take entropy into account.  Depending on who you talk to, you can get anywhere from 50% up to 94% efficiency, but you'll always put more energy into it than you get out of burning the hydrogen later on down the line.  The reason we're still researching fuel cell and hydrogen cars comes from the mechanical efficiency of the different types of engines -- you currently still get more bang for your buck out of fuels than from an electric motor-driven car.  The energy is only reusable if burning the hydrogen generates the electricity to separate the water back into hydrogen again, in which case, you're talking about a perpetual motion system, and that's physically impossible.
808544
Man did u luck out running into me, go to www.sciplus.com "American science and surplus", all sorts of abandon science projects, factory over runs, cancelled government orders, motors, solar cells, weird stuff in the science dept, it's a mad doctors dream come true, CHEAP TOO ! check it out, you'll find lots of "COOL" stuff, that has many uses ! I did a hydro-electric demonstration of power application, that was so small, I could do it in a lab sink, E-mail me if you want an "A", it's an easy experiment, inexpensive, looks very sophisticated, yet simply displays the hydro-electric properties of producing low cost, hydro-electric power, using no battery's or electric for assistance, just water, so it's completely SAFE ! works on displaying milli-amps of D.C. power, yet you are still producing (at a very low voltage) power.
294062
In theory it could work but the process would create a large amount of heat and therefor the engine would be so heavy that it would not be practical. Maybe in a stationary application?
648031
It's not.\nIf you're thinking only of internal combustion engines, they can be built to run on a number of other fuels...\n\nKerosene/diesel, most of the alcohols, pretty much any volatile liquid or explosive gas -  hydrogen being a favourite...   (If I recall correctly, somebody once built an engine that ran on peanut oil...)\n\nIn practice, petrol/gasoline has been readily available for some time and, until recently, there was little incentive to develop efficient alternatives.  That may change.\n\nThen there's electrical propulsion, steam, direct-heat engines, and a bunch of other ideas waiting to be looked into
400871
A thermal power plant uses heat.  I don't know what a 'themal" power plant is.  If you can't operate a spell-checker, I doubt you have the gray matter to expend on thermo-dynamics.
157019
Typical Steamboat Engine\n\n\n    Have you ever seen a steamboat, either in the movies or real life? Did you notice the large puffs of white steam shooting into the air from pipes near the back of the boat. Those graceful white puffs are the exhaust steam from each stroke of the engines. Those clouds of white are really condensed steam.\n\n    Both early steamboat designs and steam railroad locomotives, are examples of "non-condensing" steam engines. A technical term meaning they do not re-use the steam. Once it has done it's work, the spent steam was vented directly into the atmosphere. A tremendous waste of both water and fuel for more water had to be pumped into the boilers and heated. Water which came from a rather muddy and cold river to boot.\n\n    So what is the difference between a non-condensing and condensing engine? A "condensing" steam engine does not exhaust its spent steam. Instead the spent steam is piped into a devise which, like a car radiator, cools the steam turning it back in to liquid water (cooling and condensing the steam). That still very hot water is pumped back into the boilers where it is reheated and reused. Since the returning water is still very hot it requires less heat to bring it back up to boiling temperature. A big savings in fuel and boiler maintenance, for this reused water is free of mud and dirt like normal river water.\n\n    The term "fixed cut-off" refers to the method of opening and closing the steam valves. In a fixed cut-off engine the rate at which the steam valves open and close is "fixed." Not adjustable, just open or closed at a given rate. Later designs included an additional device which allowed the valves to be controlled. That in turn allowed the engineers more control over the rate steam was used by the engines.\n\n    Like the vessels they propelled, river boat steam engines came in a variety of sizes. The side-wheeler PAUL JONES had engines with 21 inch diameter pistons and a stroke of 7 feet. The engines of the CITY OF NATCHEZ had pistons 26 inches in diameter with a stroke of 10 feet. Many were smaller, much smaller, however, a few may have been even larger.\n\n    If we take a minute to do the math, we can determine just how much steam those massive engines used. For those who don't know, or who have forgotten, the formula for determining the volume of a cylinder is (Volume = 3.1416 x (R x R) x H). For the CITY OF NATCHEZ engine's the answer is, 63,711 cubic inches.\n\n    Sixty-three thousand seven hundred and eleven cubic inches of steam were used with each ten foot stroke of the engine. Doing a little more math we can figure out the amount of water it took to make that much steam.\n\n    Water as we know, boils at 212 degrees (F). In a pot on the stove that is. When we confine the same water in a boiler under 200 pounds of pressure, it boils at 387 degrees (F). When water is converted to steam it expands 1,700 times its normal volume. Basically that means that one cubic inch of water when converted to steam will occupy 1,700 cubic inches of space. If we divide the amount of steam used in the engine by 1,700 we get 37.5 cubic inches of water. Or put another way, slightly more than 2 1/2 cups of water.\n\n    Two and a half cups of water isn't very much to be sure. But that was just for one stroke of the engine. One full revolution of the paddle-wheel requires two strokes of the piston or 75 cubic inches (five cups) of water per revolution. And of course there were two engines on each steamboat so we really used 150 cubic inches or roughly 10.3 cups (2 1/2 quarts) of fresh water for each complete revolution of the paddle-wheel.\n\n    Still not a tremendous amount of water is it? Okay, so now we multiply 2 1/2 quarts by the number of revolutions a paddle-wheel makes in one minute. Generally in fair weather and deep water most steamboats went as fast as they could. Getting the passengers and cargo to their destin
996285
hi friend! it seems we share the same interest. i do not know which part of the world you r from. i am from India. i can surely provide you with the blue print of a rocket engie, jet engine and rciprocating engine. however i would need your e-mail address for that. mine is\nmangeshome1982@yahoo.co.in\nhope to hear from u soon. i have even designed a new model of piston engine which is a combination of both 2-stroke and 4-stroke engine. just informed you. might be that you could be interested to develop it with me.
244521
there is an engine i saw that has no moving parts. just magnets that attract water in one end and out the other, but it only works in salt water.
302569
No were I know of, but more importantly why would you want to put a ford engines in a MG.  Ford motors are so crappy.
362726
my dear, hope u r big enough to under stand my answer.\nok i appreciate ur idea to conserve all the mechanical energy produced in a car, but the problem is c if the battery can run a car which requires 100w power that means the power delivered by the battery is 100w now that power is exactly sufficient to run the car but if u want to recharge the battery again u need 100w of more power which will increase the load on the same battery which is to be recharged. which is absurd. so my dear it is practically IMPOSSIBLE to manufacture a car of ur kind. hope u got my answer if u dint understand u go through it once again then also if u face problems do not hesitate to write to me ok bye.