Fuel breakthrough! MUST SEE!!!! --> 100 miles... Fuel: 4 oz water.

Imagine Using Water Instead of Gas in Your Car

On his daily commute to his Clearwater office one morning, the inventor came up with a new idea: Converting a traditional gas-burning car engine to one partially running on water. He put his theory to the test on a 100-mile drive in which the hybrid engine burned just 4 ounces of water.

Youtube video...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HF__Qlhtnws&search=water%20power



US Army researching a dual fuel Hummer. Water or gas.

On a bike.

and violates the laws of physics.

Water as fuel is a canard that has been around for decades. It is physically impossible to spend less energy separating water into hydrogen and oxygen than you get by burning the resulting gases. Furthermore, since the exhaust product is water again, if this actually worked, what you'd have is a perpetual motion machinie.

Hydrogen may be a viable fuel source, but not using this "method"

Pull H₂0 apart, put it back together (oxidize it). Net zero. Oh yes -- there's friction, so we have to add energy.

Fox really scooped this one.

:rofl:

when you take into account the energy consumed to generate the electricity that electrolyzes the water

it's pathetic, really, that a tv station would put this on the air

. . .to move 1200kg for 100 miles. Not unless, of course, we're talking about fusion. But, there is insufficient molecular energy present to do this.
The Professor

.

Should have known. Unbelievable. What turds.

for a very small house that used PVCs to power the house during the day with the excess power going to generate oxygen/hydrogen from water. The gases were then used at night to run fuel cells to power the house. It was a neat system and may eventually become a feasible one, especially out in the boonies beyond power and gas lines. The energy is provided by the sun, but instead of the problematic battery storage (limited life, disposas problems), the system relied on fuel cells in the the absence of light.

One might be able to apply that sort of thing to vehicles, too, but probably not in the quantity necessary to power a passenger car.

I wonder how many solar panels would be necessary to do this--and how that would compare to running a house entirely off of solar power/batteries

by a foundation planting of meaningless shrubbery. The electrolysis/fuel cell setup in back of the house was much larger.

It was a VERY small house, more like a little cabin you'd see up in the woods to be used by a single or a couple at most.

However, it does solve the problem that's kept me from considering a solar paneled flat roof on my house, the battery problem.

Maybe a decade down the line, I'll be able to do it.

Plus the efficiency of the storage method. Batteries seem to be pretty well known quantities now, and it is entirely possible to store enough energy to get you through the night.

Of course, if you haven't made your house far more efficient than most American homes are today, you're going to need a LOT of solar panels and batteries. That costs $$$'s. It's cheaper to become more efficient and buy fewer panels and batteries.

How the fuel cells would compare with batteries depends on how efficiently they can store and release energy, how much they wind up costing new, and how long they last. No one really knows the answers yet. It CAN be done, but can it be done more affordably than with batteries?

Sure, internal combustion engines can operate on hydrogen (+ oxygen). You can even put an electrolysis machine onboard & create the gasses from water. You can be sure it uses more energy than it produces. Their main product (web site) appears to be an electrolysis machine to make hydrogen with electricity :eyes:

On a Disbelief Suspension System (tm).

If it's capable of running only on water, according to the video, why is he running it as a hybrid?

Why has it taken 14 years to get any attention?

"Combining the atomic power of hydrogen with the chemical stability of water" sounds like a lot of bullshit to me.

Oh, yeah. It also sounds too good to be true.

I'm also seeing the lone comment to this video says

Note that this is note free energy. It just improves the fuel efficiency by increasing combustion.
Here is their webpage it took me forever to find.
http://hytechapps.com/index.html

Oh, yeah. FoxNews.

There's a very simple reason he runs it as a hybrid.

The engine that makes the wheels go round and round? That runs on this HHO gas.

The engine that makes the generator that powers the electrolysis machine go round and round? That runs on gasoline.

And if this guy's gotta add four ounces of water to go 100 miles...well, maybe he should stop by a Home Depot and get a roll of teflon tape to fix that leaky fitting.

:rofl:

I've seen them in use at dental labs. Hydrogen is electrolytically extracted from water, but the welder needed to be powered by electricity for the electrolytic end to function.



:hi:

and the reason it's used in welding is mainly because of the much lower temperature of the flame, anyway

This bullshit has been going on since the 1930s.

Enough, already. You can't run a car on fucking water! Got it?

Redstone

Just because the OP got taken in doesn't mean you have to be nasty about it.

does it take, really, to understand that you can't run a car on water?

Redstone

1914 Stanley STEAMER (ie.. runs on heated water to make steam to power the car)

(gasoline, kerosene, or coal) to provide the heat necessary to convert water into steam. There's a reason steam cars aren't made anymore; it's much more inefficient to burn the fuel to create steam which THEN powers the vehicle than it is to merely use a gasoline engine. (Diesel replaced steam in locomotives for similar reasons.)

The horsepower to fuel consumption for a diesel electromotive is far higher than for steam. For one thing, electricity doesn't leak. Steam, of course, does. There is no enthalpy to overcome and no losses due to condensation inefficiencies.

Steam based cars would also need to carry a substantial amount of water, which adds weight. That water is useless mass, and in diesel can be replaced by fuel, so the range is far better.
The Professor

.

Smart fellas....might yet see them back in style...

Doesn't really seem like it's *that* worth getting so worked up over. Particularly with all the other crap going on at the moment.

Grandpa, that wizened old alchemist, invented a pill that turned ordinary water into gasoline. I think in that same episode he created a potion that made Eddie grow a full beard in like ten minutes.

I wonder why they never followed up on either invention...

:eyes:

E=mc². But even with my limited understanding, I would certainly know this to be nonsense. I wonder how many are taken in, though? You'd sort of think the absence of any explanation or detail whatsoever, would be a clue...?

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

but these types of devices, motors that run on water as a fuel, seem to be possible. There's something called BingoFuel that is essentially an underwater plasma device utilizing a carbon rod (that gets used up), which has apparently made enough hydrogen (with carbon) to power farm vehicles.
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/bingofuel/index.htm
The question doesn't seem to be whether it can be done, and whether it works, but how much energy is used powering the reactor. That I haven't been able to determine.

http://jlnlabs.imars.com.nyud.net:8090/bingofuel/images/bfproject.jpg

That site has a lot of very interesting experiments that seem to suggest there is some effect at work in plasma fields that creates more heat than is predicted by the voltage/current put into it. If I was a kid in school again (heaven forbid), some of the stuff they have there would make interesting science experiments. Like this one:
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/bingofuel/html/aquagen.htm

That way, you could prove for yourself whether there is anything to it instead of listening to a bunch of people telling you their opinions that it can't be done. Then you'd know, instead.

My friend--the law of conservation of energy is not an "opinion"

That's like saying "evolution" is an "opinion"

:eyes:

explored on their cold fusion pages where they've apparently duplicated Mizuno's cold fusion "excess-heat anomaly."

The products of fusion are not present. The apparent excess heat is not explained though.

--IMM

If you were a kid in school, I'd hope you would be smart enough not to fall for this bullshit.

--IMM

So what is the battery for?

If you were working with a competent science teacher, as a kid in school, you would have this explained to you. It's called electrolysis of water.

BTW, I did this same experiment 50 years ago. First I used copper electrodes, but they contaminated the result, so my father suggested using some carbon rods from an arc light. I worked just fine. The carbon is not part of the reaction, but that's why you use it.

Water is not an energy source. Chemically it is all the way "down hill."

--IMM

When I look at your words saying "If you were a kid in school, I'd hope you would be smart enough not to fall for this bullshit."

Curiously, you fell for it when you were a kid, and apparently, learned something from it.

Yes, I cannot figure out what the battery or energy source is for other than spitting the water so it can be recombined in combustion. Whether there's any sense in doing so, I don't know. Perhaps it's one way to power an engine designed for gasoline by battery and thereby decrease petrol-related emissions. I think this may be what MIT's plasmatron device may do.

about physics does. There's this thing called the law of conservation of energy, which says that what goes in must come out. When one factors in inefficiencies inherent in every process (due to another "crazy" physics concept called entropy) there is *more* energy used in splitting water than there is gained in its products' combustion. Consequently, there is *zero* practical use for doing this in a car. There are a few other practical applications, like water-based welding, but no one there is trying to claim that this is a fuel consumption boon. There are other reasons, such as the reduced heat of a hydrogen flame, that make a water-welder worthwhile.

And seriously--where do you think the electricity that splits the water comes from? Magic? It comes from burning fossil fuels.

relating to vehicle engines.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&as_qdr=all&q=+MIT%27s+plasmatron&btnG=Search

Maybe they're wrong.

that device has nothing to do with what we're talking about. It's for cutting emissions in diesel engines by also burning hydrogen. It has nothing to do with turning water into a combustible fuel.

Anyway, I suggest you buy a physics textbook, and then we can pick this topic up. There's really no point in trying to talk about science if you don't know anything about it.

you wrote: "That's like saying "evolution" is an "opinion""

I'm was simply sharing interesting ideas, not arguing, but thanks anyway for your personal disclosure.

BTW, the plasmatron creates hydrogen from a plasma discharge, I think the parallel should be obvious to anyone who wishes to see the similar pattern of thier device versus the BingoFuel reactor's discharge. MIT themselves seemed to have more information about their device online about 6 years ago, but now, if it's still there, it seems harder to find. IIRC, it uses something similar to a spark plug electrode at the bottom of a cone, and the spark is pulsed with some type of current/voltage that creates the hydrogen fuel.

Fuel cells now considered superior.

H2 storage now at 65mg/g. Became viable (from an engineering perspective) at 60 mg/g.

No mechanisms for moving the Hydrogen at this time.

Also, above poster criticism stands, it take more energy, no matter which device, to split the Hydrogen from water than you get back. It takes a lot of energy to get current flow and to get plasma.

Efficiency improved. Lim efficiency -|> 1 is delta E(in) = deltaE(out)

Which means E(out) - E(in) = zero

Therefore W(available) = zero

Sorry.

Many posters on this thread were clearly stating that running a vehicle on hydrogen, like the alleged invention of the OP's post, which I haven't even viewed (I intensely dislike computer-served video) was impossible. I simply disagreed with thier (defined as many posters in this thread) opinions of "impossibility."

So, I'm confused by your "sorry" statement. "Precisely what statement of mine" are you writing "sorry" to?

From what I can see, this Plasmatron bus carries a tank of diesel and a cylinder of probably compressed natural gas.

There's a hydrogen reformer on the bus. Feed natural gas and air into one end, get carbon dioxide and hydrogen out the other--which leads to another problem, namely that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (OTOH, if you could figure out how to do this reaction with no air input that would be the best thing, for then the reaction products would be carbon black--for which there is a market--and hydrogen.)

Hydrogen injected into a regular engine In Addition To Its Regular Fuel works pretty well.

CHEMICAL
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/28890pp2.pdf

ELECTRICAL
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Joe_Cells
warning: there is a lot of disinformation about the Joe Cell. Get the facts from Joe himself:
http://www.archive.org/details/Joe_Cell_-_Two_Enthusiasts_1993-1996_VideoCameraRecordings

http://www.icubenetwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=98
(Meyer's Cell)

ALLOYS
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/06/12/690021_AEC_HydrogenfromWater/index.html

NANOTECH
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/rtsu-ncp032805.php

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

They are real.

There is this load of BS. It is not.

Thankyou for your time.

It's all about methods for improving the efficiency of electrolysis. That's the critical hang-up with fuel cell tech and it's a big one.

...then MAYBE I'd start paying attention.

But this "for now we're running it as a hybrid" is crap. Only burnt 4 ounces of water driving 100 miles in your gas/water "hybrid?" Well, ok then. How much GASOLINE did you burn at the same time?

(sound of crickets indicating their willingness to answer that question.)

Water injection isn't new. Several WW2 aircraft used water injection to cool the intake air and get a denser fuel/air charge. They weren't getting extra energy by "burning" water. They were cooling their fuel by evaporating water. Different thing. Without the gasoline, all that water was pure dead weight.

Now there WAS a competetition for water powered cars a while back. But they were using the power of FALLING water, passing it through water wheels and such. They didn't get very far, but it was a fun challenge.

But this burning water BS? If it works, prove it.

Unfortunately they need lots of energy to do that. It's not efficient so much as it is a clean fuel - big deal right - lol

I use water injection in my car BTW - it's just like you said to cool the air charge since the supercharger superheats the air and that can lead to detonation (knocking) which can destroy the engine.

http://randi.org/jr/2006-05/052606action.html#i3

I hope this guy winds up in jail. He's trying to sell it to Congress.

--IMM

I'm too tired to debunk tonight.

Sleep tight.:hi:

--IMM

Natural gas engines have been around for a while and they are just combustion engines like the one in your car. Your car's engine would need some modification before it can run on something like hydrogen or propane. Adjustments like corrosion resistance, timing and delivery would be required.

"Brown's Gas" (aka HHO gas) in this case is powerful stuff and perfect as an alternative fuel. As you've seen, it is strong enough to cut through steel and tungsten. Do you know how strong tungsten is? I'll give you an idea.

Melting Point: 6192°F

Its capability as an alternative fuel source is not an issue.

Storage of mixed oxygen & hydrogen is highly explosive. Fortunately, the gas arrives directly from water via an electrolysis cell so this shouldn't be much of a problem. This is much better than carrying large heavy pressurized containers.

Labeling the inventor as a fraud doesn't help. The most relevant question we should ask is whether his electrolysis process is efficient.

It can be split from oxygen atoms in water. It takes energy to split the water atoms. It takes as much energy to produce the hydrogen as it yeilds. Hydrogen is just the middle man.

Some processes use hydrogen from natural gas. In this case, the gas is already a fuel. It would also be possible to get hydrogen from gasoline. But you need some energy source to procure the hydrogen.

Nobody is denying that hydrogen is a fuel source. What is being stated here in so many ways is that you can't run a car on water, no matter how you scheme it.

--IMM

Technically, his car was running on the hydrogen gas created from H2O in an electrolysis cell. Electrolysis is just one method of splitting water and can be practical only if the inventor has found a way to lower electrical requirements. I prefer to reserve judgement until I look under the hood.

If efficiency is good enough, the energy source to split the water can be from a car's electrical system. High efficiency is not an impossible feat. There have been many improvements in hydrogen conversion processes which are better than the old carbon rod method. Please check out the Joe Cell and Meyer's cell for example:

http://www.archive.org/details/Joe_Cell_-_Two_Enthusiasts_1993-1996_VideoCameraRecordings

http://www.icubenetwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=98


Edit: More examples - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1317627&mesg_id=1318879

It can't come from the burning of the hydrogen that is produced by the electrolysis, because that would be a perpetual motion machine. If that is so, then all we know about physics is wrong.

If by "high efficiency" you mean greater than 100%, then you are talking about something that is impossible under the laws of thermodynamics as we know them. (Note that impossible is a relative term here. There are things that are theoretically "possible" that will never happen, like an egg unscrambling itself.)

There are thousands of claims of perpetual motion. They are invariably debunked. I would sooner believe that you are the Overlord of the Universe than waste my time with this nonsense. Believe me, I have been this way many times before.

--IMM

Theories are fun, but I prefer actual lab tests.

"GAS = 137cc
CURRENT TRUE RMS = 0.1875 Amps
TIME=21 Min
VOLTS ACROSS CELL TRUE RMS=1.5Volts+2.4 Volts Cell Potential
=3.9 Volts
POWER WATTS =0.73

Compared with Faraday calcs we have 3 times more GAS. "



Video: http://www.icubenetwork.com/files/watercar/non-commercial/dave/videos/

http://www.icubenetwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=98

I think you don't understand theory. Gravity is a theory. Atoms are a theory. Evolution is a theory. So too, the Laws of Thermodynamics.

What do these movies prove? Have you ever heard of con men? These movies prove that people will go way out of their way to fool you. Do you believe there's a sucker born every minute?

Have you built or tested one of these machines? I thought not.

--IMM

There are reports of many successful replications and I intend to test one out.

How many psychics are there?

Any of these grifters is eligible to win the million dollar JREF prize for merely demonstrating their machine to a knowledgeable observer. None of them even try. They can't all be independently wealthy. Not a single one of them want a million dollars!?

Let me know when you get one to work. I'll be here.:popcorn:

--IMM

Thanks for lumping hydrogen generators with psychics, perpetual machines and a magician's publicity stunt. :eyes:

The JREF prize is real though. If these machines are real, why don't the "inventors" claim the prize and expose the stunt? The answer is they really have to work, and they don't. If they did, major bucks would go into producing them.

--IMM

Your main argument is based on the assumption that it will always take inefficiently large amounts of electricity to make X amount of hydrogen. That theory doesn't take into account new discoveries or advances in technology.

You can run an engine on hydrogen (extracted from water) without violating any laws of physics. Electrolysis is merely a process of extraction and not the main fuel source. It is comparable to refining gasoline from oil. In this example, the fuel source (hydrogen) is extracted from water using electricity. Note: Electricity is not the main fuel source. Hydrogen is not created from the electrodes in the electrolysis cell. If the engine runs out of water it will stop functioning. That is a big difference which separates it from being a perpetual machine.

As you mentioned, if the processing uses more energy than output it will drain the batteries. We have no disagreement on that since conservation of energy applies here.

It is a matter of making the extraction process efficient enough to be economical. The device to make it economical may already exist but how would we know without real tests? It would be foolish to rely on people like Randi the great and Myth Busters.



Randi makes the same flawed assumption that it will inefficiently require large amounts of electricity to make X amount of hydrogen. He doesn’t even bother to mention known established methods involving chemical energy or special alloys.


Myth Busters also claims to have debunked a hydrogen cell and used an unproven blueprint off the Internet. Their results are not surprising. They should have used the Joe Cell or Meyer cell for a serious example. I love their show but this obvious mistake makes me doubt the reliability of their protocols.

With so much disinformation, it doesn’t surprise me that some people aren’t aware of simple facts about hydrogen. It is the most abundant fuel source we have and the only obstacle towards mass use is the efficiency of its extraction. Once we pass that hurdle, there will be cars that can run directly on hydrogen.

Actually, there would be one last problem to solve,

How will the government collect taxes on water?

Edit: for formatting

The issue you haven't addressed is that it takes a certain amount of energy to break the molecular bond between hydrogen and oxygen in water. In an ideal system, this is exactly the amount you get back when you recombine them by burning.

What you are proposing is like saying that you can make a car that always runs downhill, and you never have to push it up the hill.

You are just not understanding the conservation of energy principle. That hydrogen is so abundant is not the issue. You are totally ignoring the concept of entropy. Extracting hydrogen from water is not the equivalent of refining gasoline from oil. Both the gasoline and the oil have stored molecular energy from the solar source that powered the photosynthesis that created the organic matter that was the ingredient in the oil.

When you rip apart a water molecule it requires the input of energy that is equivalent to the energy you get back when you burn that hydrogen in oxygen. That's why the electrolysis requires the input of electricity. The amount of electricity required by the electrolysis, ignoring inefficiencies, is the same amount as you would get back from a fuel cell. Again, that's if your process has an efficiency of 100%!

These engine types have been proposed regularly for over a century now. That they never actually appear is usually credited to conspiracies by government or oil companies by credophiles (people who like to believe things.) Surely, I have heard of them many times in my life since I was old enough to read. I'm an early boomer. They never come to fruition. This one won't either. The people who propose them will make some money from the gullible. I have been to seminars for free energy systems. When I or others who are knowledgeable start asking questions, they can't wait to hustle us out. There is never a working model. Any number of investors, including the oil and auto companies would be glad to bring these machines to market if they existed. They could sell them and make money. The oil companies in particular, as their product is being depleted.

You are making a big mistake about Randi. He is a recipient of the MacArthur "genius" grant. He is sincere and he has debunked many hoaxes. His aim is to educate people so they won't get scammed. I know him.

I don't know if you're serious about the tax issue. That's sometimes part of the conspiracies of suppression. If they want to they can tax anything. If everybody had solar panels, they could tax that. In many localities water is taxed right now. I assume you were making a joke.

If you get some appropriate instruction in the study of physics, you will understand this. Good luck.

--IMM

..ok. just in case....here it is, "j/k"

can't be done.

to convert the water into a combustible. takes quite a bit of electricity actually.

his claim centers around the efficiency of the method of conversion. This idea of water as fuel is absurd. Sure he can run a car totally on water and the electrical system, but as soon as the batteries die so to does the car.

So many people on DU need basic science education. Or
medication. Or both. :-(

Tesha

Oceana will be defeated!

Never mind.

Driven by the easter bunny! It will deliver the Rove Indictment to the sincerest Pitt-worshipper in the pumpkin patch!

They built the thing from the web site, set it up, ran it, car failed to run.

Maybe the HHO faeries were afraid of all the Skepticism in the air and refused to work?

I love Mythbusters!

Did the system look like this?


Video: http://www.icubenetwork.com/files/watercar/non-commercial/dave/videos/Wfcrep.WMV
http://www.icubenetwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=98

Or this?


http://energy21.freeservers.com/as01.htm

Edit: added video

I saw the video, I went to the web site, I looked at it. I was at a loss as to how that thing could generate enough Hydrogen without tieing it to a generator on a trailer.
As I recall from high school chem class, "cracking" Dihydrogen Monoxide isn't all that energy-efficient.

"it would seem to me that if adam and jamie was going to test hydrogen on a car they would have atleast looked into the propertys of hydrogen. they would have made a gen that has been tested and and would have known that a small piece of stainless steel would net be enuff to run a 350 olds motor."

http://community.discovery.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/9401967776/m/7961988728/p/2

Yeah, that surely busted all the other hydrogen generators out there. :sarcasm:

It's astounding. Hope you've got your checkbook handy!

WATER IS A WASTE PRODUCT OF BURNING HYDROGEN, NOT A FUEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that pollute the top of thread... It reminds me of the postman that litters my mailbox with junkmail, or landscapers that litter my driveway with handbills.


Hydrogen Gas Generator
The Lawn And Garden Authority. Find Gas Generators Now!

Hydrogen Generators
All the Hydrogen Generators Options All the Hydrogen Generator Savings

As Good As It Gets
Sports Car Performance With Economy Car Mileage. Huge Profits Included.

Great Fuel Economy
Light weight, low profile Check your tow rating.

Ads by Goooooogle

You'd think someone had just invented sliced bread!