December 28, 2025
Liquid courage, solid drama
John Malone and the Invention of Liquid-Based Engines
Was Malone’s ‘liquid engine’ just a Stirling in disguise? Internet argues
TLDR: John Malone built a coal-burning water engine claiming 27% efficiency; now a commenter says it’s basically a Stirling engine and the crowd debates whether he was a genius or a rebrand. People also fixate on his anti-university rants and wild life story, sparking jokes and skepticism.
The internet just rediscovered John Malone—the wounded-seventeen-times sea dog who tried running a heat engine with liquid water, not gas—and the vibe is pure shock-meets-snark. Malone claimed an eye-popping 27% efficiency in 1931, dwarfing many steam engines of the era. Then the plot twist: he hated universities, refused to share data, and took his secrets to the grave. Cue the crowd clutching pearls and popcorn. One commenter drops the mic: “It is apparently a form of Stirling engine” and links the Malone engine wiki. Instantly, the imagined debate kicks off: genius reinventor or clever rebrand? The strongest opinions circle two camps—those dazzled by the efficiency claim and those side-eyeing the lack of proof. The drama leans into Malone’s anti-academia rants, with users joking he fought more professors than wars and memeing his “enemies were universities” line as the ultimate edgelord energy. Skeptics emphasize that one number isn’t a dataset, while romantics dream of a timeline where liquid engines beat diesel. The humor’s spicy: "Liquid courage engine," “seventeen wounds, zero peer review,” and “Stirling but make it wet.” It’s history, heat, and hot takes—served with coal and a gallon of drama.
Key Points
- •John Malone developed liquid-based heat engines in the 1920s, measuring properties of multiple liquids for use as working fluids.
- •His 1925 coal-fired engine using high-pressure liquid water produced 50 horsepower; he believed it could reach 500 horsepower with perseverance.
- •A 1927 50-horsepower water engine underwent extensive tests; Malone claimed 27% indicated efficiency and about 20% overall efficiency.
- •Malone published little quantitative data and refused to share measurements, expressing distrust of universities; his son later declined to publish the information after Malone’s death.
- •Economic conditions and competing technologies (steam turbines, internal-combustion/diesel engines) led to the abandonment and later obscurity of Malone’s work, with recognition by John Wheatley decades later.