Running a Car on Hydrogen Made from Water

[racprops]

OK I dead serious about this.

Please check this out:

http://www.truth777.netfirms.com/Conspiracy/carwater.htm

So what is wrong with this? Is there anything wrong with this plan?

Can or will it work??

If it will not work, can it be fixed? Like what is wrong with it?

I guess the main questions are: (Assuming it really works!)

How much Hydrogen and Oxygen will such a system put out? In volume over time, in other words will it make enough (volume) fast enough (time) to fill the needs of a 350 Chevy motor?

How much would it take to drive a Chevy 350 motor? (Hope some of you know or can find out how much volume of fuel and air a 350 needs.)

Can you match the output to the needs of the 350? Like would it take one or two or more gas generators to feed the 350, and how much current will it take to run those gas generators?

And lastly how much water?? Like what will you think the water/gas mileage will be??

And to figure that out we need to know how much power the mix of Hydrogen and Oxygen this makes will produce in a combustion chamber??

This looks too damm simple and too damm fantastic, and IF it is one of those nutty ideas that everyone dismissed as being all the above, and really works, HOT DAMM what it would mean, a cheap way to power cars, Hydrogen on demand, no 30,0000 pound storage tanks, no refueling stations, and no explosive fuel on board, only water.

And a clean exhaust to boot, I believe it’s by product is air and water?

And yes I know it will make water as a by product and will rust the engine and exhaust system…but if it worked, then special systems like a oiler for the cylinder heads and combustion chambers and stainless steel values and tail pipes will solve most of those problems.

In my case I plan or running a little gasoline with the system and to shut it off and finish the last mile or so home (or to my stop) with pure gasoline to flush the engine.

Could the answer be this simple?

Rich

 

[phrontist]

This would work, except for one big problem. The energy required to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen is more than the energy you can get by burning the results. In other words, its a net energy loss.

 

[racprops]

If this can split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen with the output of a 2 watt transistor and a 555 timer, then it is not taking a lot of power.

My Van has a 110 watt Alternator on it and the Van does not use all of it, plus I have a spare, so I could hook it up and use 100% of a second alternator, 110 watts of power output…and running that Alternator at full load or output does NOT stop the motor, so the gas 350 is easily able to run the truck and clime a mountain with the alternator running…so with about 10 times what they call for (a 10 to 20 watt) I should be able to do this. And I think some Hydrogen and Oxygen fed into the motor would be as powerful as gas, and with the extra oxygen perhaps even more, so I think it will work.

I think the Hydrogen and Oxygen when fed into a motor will produce more power than running the twin Alternators will take and still drive the van as well.

I do not buy into the more energy in than out, other wise gasoline would not work nor a gun or Nitro…

Come on really check this out, do the math.

How much will a 350 need and how much will this make?

Rich

 

[russ_watters]

That link doesn't work. http://www.truth777.netfirms.com/Conspiracy/carwater.htm is it.

In any case, there is no good summary and I'm not going to go through the whole thing to figure it out. The fact that it comes from a conspiracy theory website makes it suspicious. This is the best summary

This is simply an efficient way to convert ordinary tap water into gaseous hydrogen and oxygen, and then burn these vapors in the engine, instead of gasoline.

Its not clear, but if the site is claiming that you can use a car's alternator to split hydrogen and oxygen from water, then burn the hydrogen and oxygen to power the car and provide the power to split hydrogen and oxygen from water, it is wrong.

We've already been over why: The reaction is symmetrical and conservation law applies. This is taught in junior high school chemistry.

I do not buy into the more energy in than out, other wise gasoline would not work...

Gasoline is fuel ready-to-burn. Water is not. In fact, water is the exhaust from burning hydrogen and oxygen. What you are describing is identical to putting a hose on your car's tailpipe, capturing the exhaust, and turning it back into gasoline.

Maybe this will help:

Assume all systems are 100% efficient. Put 1kWh of energy into some water and split some into hydrogen and oxygen. How much energy will you get back when you burn the hydrogen and oxygen you just produced?

(hint: all the info you need to do this problem is contained in the problem and no calculations are required to find the answer. Apply conservation law.)

 

[krab]

Come on really check this out, do the math.

You should do the math. And it is way simpler than you make out. Burn hydrogen and get mechanical energy. Why? Because the product (water) is in a lower energy state after burning than the hydrogen and oxygen is before burning. But how did it get that way? Because you took water and separated it into hydrogen and oxygen? How much energy is needed to do this? You guessed it. The same amount as you eventually get back. In fact because engines are like only 30% efficient, it is a losing proposition. Totally.

This is NOT comparable to burning gasoline. Gasoline is already a fuel. Burn it, and it's done. That's why it's called a NON-renewable resource; you only use it once and then the world has that much less of it.

How much will a 350 need and how much will this make?

So to answer your question in more detail: 100 watts from your alternator is the power equivalent to 0.13 hp. It would need to run for 1000 hours to make enough hydrogen to get 1 hour worth of driving your 350.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[racprops]

OK It may not make enought to run totaly on the output, so how much Hydrogen and Oxygen would this put out and would it burn with the gasoline?

I am told adding even a little Oxygen to gas will yeald more power, would this not spike the gas?

Also I forgot to add in the 300 AMP/HOUR Battery as power.

Rich

 

[krab]

The ratio of energy out due to hydrogen burning, to the energy in needed to create the hydrogen from water, is less than 1. Therefore, no matter how much or little hydrogen you try to create, it will be a waste of energy. It is a losing proposition.

Yes, you can add more oxygen to gas and make more power. To get more oxygen density requires compression (turbo or super), or a chemical means (nitrous).

Your battery has no part in this search for a free lunch, since it can only store energy. Whatever you take out has to be put back in.

 

[rcgldr]

I read that they could install miniature tritium breeder reactors in cars. That way we could stop at "emptying" stations to take the tritium, which would be used to help maintain our nuclear arsenal. However the oil companies have prevented this. Not only that, but they want to replace our nuclear weapons with petroleum based fuel-air bombs, and even went so far as to have a fuel-air bomb included in the movie Outbreak just to convice people of the power of these bombs.

 

[racprops]

Well I am just not convinced.

So far other than a few quotes of It will not work, more energy need on input that you will get etc just does not seem to work.

Ever seen a Carbine and water acetylene gererator??

A few rocks and a little water and bang you got gas with so much pressure it take a strong container to hold it.

Check out; http://www.energyoptions.com/tech/browns.html

And;

http://www.layo.com

I am reading so many pages on this subject now.

Do a search, “Running cars on water” and see what you find.

Check this Out:

http://www.dynamicfuel.com The seem to be building and selling one….

I fear we have another bumblebee problem here.

Rich

 

[rcgldr]

http://www.energyoptions.com/tech/browns.html

This one sounds like a scam. It's just using hydrogen and oxygen as a fuel source. The magical "implosion" that occurs, is the normal reaction when hydrogen and oxygen combine. Water, and steam are denser than hydrogen gas.

http://www.layo.com

In this case it's the aluminum that's the fuel source, and you'd have to find a way do dispose of the aluminum oxide that's produced. I don't know if this is cheaper than using conventional fuel.

http://www.dynamicfuel.com

This is using jet fuel to produce hydrogen to enhance the power of an engine that is still getting most of it's power from petroleum. This only helps if the power gained versus jet fuel consumed results in an overall lower fuel cost.

 

[racprops]

JetFuel is their specialy treated water... I suspect distilled with antifrieeze in it as they say it will not freeze until 45 degrees celsius, I don't think you can use real jet plane fuel to make hydrogen.

Also note again this gereator uses only 12/14 amps to run, equeal to the cars head lamps.

Bumblebee again.

Rich

PS Science said the Bumblebee could NOT fly, poor thing when ahead and did it anyway...

 

[rcgldr]

JetFuel is their specialy treated water... I suspect distilled with antifrieeze in it as they say it will not freeze until 45 degrees celsius, I don't think you can use real jet plane fuel to make hydrogen.

It's just standard jet fuel, and it's probably easier to get hydrogen from it than it is from water.

Science said the Bumblebee could NOT fly, poor thing when ahead and did it anyway...

This isn't true. During a lecture, a professor stated that aerodynamics was more complicated than what most students had learned, pointing out that without taking turbulence and non-laminar air flow into account a bumblebee couldn't fly. Some press agent wanting a story started this rumour. However, even at the time, the experts could explain how insects that couldn't glide could still fly if they simply flapped what little wings they had fast enough.

The other issue is how insects, and some birds (like hummingbirds) can fly without consuming huge amounts of energy. In the case of some insects, the wings are attached to a flexible membrane that uses harmonics to reduce the energy required for flight. In the case of hummingbirds, they just have very efficient and elastic muscles.

 

[krab]

It seems to me you are thinking of the electricity generated by your alternator as free energy. It's just not so. The alternator loads your engine, so you use energy to make electricity to break water down into H2 and O2. Under normal running, you never worry about the alternator load. Why? Because even with everything on, headlights, heater, rear defogger, wipers, taillights, etc., it only amounts to a few hundred watts: way less than 1 horsepower. (Remember: 1hp=746watts) Your 350 can produce this amount of power at just above idle.

Do a search, “Running cars on water” and see what you find.

There's enough crap on the internet now that you can find tons of web pages to support any cockamamy theory. The trick is to learn what to believe and what not. Why don't you look up some stuff about conservation of energy? Look for web pages written by physicists. It may not be the news you want to hear, but remember, without the physics and engineering that gives you laws like conservation of energy, you wouldn't have the computer you're reading this on. In fact, you wouldn't even have a car.

An engine that both makes its own fuel out of water and then burns that fuel, converting it back into water, is basically making energy out of nothing. IOW, it is a perpetual motion machine and such machines are impossible. Think it through.

 

[russ_watters]

racprops, are you reading our arguments at all? This really is junior high school chemistry you're arguing against.

Also, the fact that that first site is a catch-all conspiracy theory website should have made your crackpot detector ping off the scale.

 

[Chronos]

This is all well and good. And I agree hydrogen from water is not free energy. But it is not at all a bad idea. You can use natural, solar powered energy to liberate hydrogen as a portable fuel source: wind mills, solar panels, hydro electric and geothermal, to name a few. These are all well within current technological capabilities. One I find particularly interesting is lightning. A few well placed lightning rods, a few gigawatts of raw energy per stroke, and the right converter design... Crude oil is merely concentrated sunlight. So is water. This is not to say I disagree with the objections of Russ and krab. I just look at it from a different perspective. We better get a lot smarter about managing our energy needs or it will be the death of us all. A hydrogen economy appears to be within our grasp and the brass ring doesn't go around forever.

 

[racprops]

OK One dumb question, how much enengy does it take to make Nitro?

How much does it take to make Gun Power?

Something from almost nothing?

Rich

 

[russ_watters]

It takes no energy input to make gunpowder, because it's already fuel. racprops, you're just not listening here. Read this next part very carefully:

Water is not fuel, it's ash. Its the waste product that you get from burning hydrogen. What you are talking about is the same as turning ash back into coal or wood.

 

[cepheid]

Sorry, I couldn't be bothered to check out the link or trudge through the thread. I thought that the main issue with using hydrogen as a fuel was where do we get the hydrogen from? For instance, the fuel cell created by the likes of Ballard power takes hydrogen and oxygen, and produces electricity (liberates electrons) in a chemical reaction whose only by product is water. It sounds ideal, as a fuel cell continues to operate so long as it is provided with fuel. However, hydrogen is typically obtained in unclean processes, (from methane etc) that would negate any environmental benefits of switching to fuel cells. One can produce hydrogen from water via electrolysis, but this is just the reverse of what the fuel cell does, so you need the electricity to create the electricity. If that issue is not what the topic was about, apologies.

Edit: nevermind. krab explains the problem in detail. Your fuel cell produces a bunch of electrical energy from chemical energy. That drives your motor, which converts it to mechanical energy, so some is definitely lost. What little is left goes to driving the car and, recharging the battery if you were using a standard battery. But since we're using a fuel cell, some tiny fraction of that already fractional energy output would have to be converted to electricity and then used to electrolyse the water byproduct to produce hydrogen. Obviously that hydrogen is going to be some tiny fraction of what you started with, so the idea of using the water to put fuel back in the fuel cell within the car is not very practical. In any case, would we really have the energy to spare to make it worth doing so at all? Or would we be better off making it a one way procedure, concentrate on using the energy to propel the vehicle and just replenish the fuel cell at a 'gas' station?

In the second scenario, Chronos points out some cool ideas for alternate clean generation of H₂ outside the car that would break us out of that viscious circle. I hear scientists in Iceland are looking into the geothermal option. They've apparently already capitalized on that benefit of their seismic instability (a natural resource!) to heat their homes, drastically reducing need for non-renewable fossil fuels. I agree that it would be cool if we found the solution that would jump start the hydrogen economy. Right now, no infrastructure for it exists. I also agree that most of that internet stuff is probably garbage

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

OK I haven't read the whole thread , but there's something all should be aware of. The Petro industry is pushing for a hydrogen based fuel car ...for 1 reason. You STILL have to goto the BP station to refill your tanks.So now petrol is replaced by Hydrogen and the same conglomerates stay in biz.

Want to see what their not pushing? You would not find it under "Water powered cars" on a google search but It does exist.

That thing is called a regenerative fuel cell. It takes electricity and water breaks them down and generates electricity and it recombines the O2 and H on the reverse cycle. The elements ( replaceable ) ware out after X-thousands of hours and You occasionally have to plug the car into charge the batteries, but this particular technology is available now , off the shelf, not woo-woo. The science is in it's infancy, You think Sunoco, BP, Exon want to cut themselves out of the loop??

Look it up there are desperate sites from Sandia labs, the DOE and other credible sources. I have seen a large suitcase size fuel cell running a mini ceramic turbine for a whole house worth of W/Hs.

Not woo-woo.

 

[racprops]

Ok for the late comers, what I am asking about and being told will not work is a system to break down water into it’s components of Hydrogen and Oxygen and then burn it as a motor fuel in a standard combustion engine like a Chevy 350.

This is done by a electronic drive system.

The first system is at:

http://www.truth777.netfirms.com/Co...cy/carwater.htm

And there seems to be a Canada Company selling these to truckers as a motor fuel booster at:

http://www.dynamicfuel.com

And no, their “JetFuel” is not airplane fuel but special water for their system.

I am proposing that this system could reduce the use of gasoline in the driving of a car, a booster fuel system.

They, the Inventers etc. are perhaps unrealistically suggesting the car can run totally on their Generator, and so far I have not seen any real proof it will not.

That is what all of this is about.

No one has taken a serious look and said that this generator will not break water into H & O, and no one has said that based on the drawing how much H&O would be made.

And no one has said that a 350 Chevy Motor will need X amount of gas from the output from this H&O Generator.

The water would be supplied from a water tank, not as someone (joking) said from the tail pipe.

One argument has been that the output of a 100 amp (sorry I used watt before) alternator would not run this generator and if done so it would stop the motor/car from the load, or words to that effect.

Again, why not?

Rich

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Your first link is inop, the second one looks like woo. Their "product " presentation is couched in marketspeak and not science.

The system as presented is an ADJUNCT to the regular fuel that the vehicle uses.

The energy return is the amount of increased HP or efficiency of the motor VS the energy it takes to catalyze the H2O to it's constituent gasses.

You can't have a system that returns an equal or greater energy then is available from the source, That's the second law of thermodynamics, you will have energy losses every time you convert any energy from one state to another.That's why someone mentioned ( incorrectly) that the motor would seize up.

My example of the regenerative fuelcell seems to be what link one is describing where electricity is created by the breakdown of H2O to O and H, the difference is that your example uses the output of the generator to add to the power of an internal combustion motor with efficiency of <%25 while the fuelcell is >%60.There are lots of other particulars , but the main points are covered here.

 

[russ_watters]

racprops, I don't understand why you would put any stock into a catch-all conspiracy theory website.

 

[racprops]

Truth can be found anywhere.

It is only one of a few I found, and one of a couple that provided a open and free copy of the blueprints.

Rich

 

[nightcleaner]

Hi. I am interested in hydrogen as a power source, and I realize it must be generated, even from water, by an input of energy. The energy obtained from the hydrogen will always and forever be less than the input energy. However, if we can find natural energy sources, as Chroot mentioned, like lightning, that can be harnessed to produce hydrogen, we can make a profit (in usable energy) from it, much as we use hydropower courtesy of the evaporation and transportation of water from the ocean surface to the tops of mountains, which is powered by the sun. We generate electricity from the water lifted from the ocean and deposited on the land, and we get less energy out than the sun put in, so no conservation of energy issues. These are the kinds of processes we need to look for.

Ocean water at depth is under high pressure and is much colder than at the surface. It should be possible to produce hydrogen at depth, collect it under high pressure, and return the pressurized bottles to the surface for use on shore. The temperature gradient would increase the efficiency. The energy to drive the system could be solar electric cells on floating man-made islands. The islands could be made from the huge amount of plastic waste materials we are now burying in landfills. The islands could also mount wind generators to harvest wind energy, and use the tidal forces by means of tethers to the sea bottom. All of these working together would create a sustainable power resource, powered by the sun. The sea is larger than the land, and it has the advantage of being currently uninhabited. Vast areas of ocean are available for such colonies to be built. Why not?

Meanwhile, I advise anyone looking for free energy to buy a diesel and run it on used french fry oil. I met one man who is running his Mercedes on it. You just have to filter it and maybe add a little ethanol to thin it out, or use a heated fuel tank. Most restaurants now are throwing out ten to forty gallons of vegetable oil a week. If you want to be useful as well as thrifty, learn to do a boil-out on a commercial deep fryer, and resteraunters will smile when they see you coming. My current owner even feeds me, and pays me double the minimum wage for my time.

We can get through the coming energy crisis if we use our heads. Now is the time to make sensible investments that will have long term returns. We need to build the infrastructure for renewable (solar) sources before we run into the crunch time. I admit I am stupid and don't understand you humans and your 350 Chevies at all. What do you need them for? Wouldn't you rather give your children and grandchildren a chance to live in a clean world than gun yourself down the freeway at better than a hundred miles an hour?

Wake up. Grow up. Study the science and do the math. You are not going to get something for nothing, so quit being taken in by con men who are only interested in taking your money away from you. There are things that can be done, and the situation is getting desperate. You will not be able to live well in a despoiled world, no matter what the credit card company tells you.

Sorry if I am getting heated. Why should I care? I have no children and won't live to see the end of the twenty years of easy living our current war has bought us. Blood for oil.

Be well, my children. Enjoy it while you have it. It ain't going to last.

Your nightcleaner

 

[Chi Meson]

Truth can be found anywhere.

Rich

As can lies, deciet, and/or willful ignorence of the laws of physics.

Save your cash, and your breath on this one.

 

[racprops]

One last try.

I think it will put out enought Hydrogen and Oxygen to HELP the gas burn better in a car motor, and do so cheaply. After all the car is all ready running...

And I also believe we can creat the future like Star Tek showed, and not the one shown in Blade Runner, IF we really try.

It has been the free flowing US system that has created all the great things we now have, and all the rest of the world wants, and if we work carefully I think it will keep on creating a great future.

And as all this crap about the green house gasses etc. did not a Volcano go off a year or two ago and put out about 1000 times more gasses than the whole human race has in it total life time on Earth?

We really have so little effect in all of the world!

 

[kilowatthour]

Wow racprops, no! its dumb logic that I hope you understand that this system would only decrease effeciency. Yes cars can run off hydrogen and it could be a very effective system in the future ... BUT! the sun is the source of the energy, not the energy created by using the energy (which has great loss due to the energy spent in moving the car and Inefficiencies in the electrolosis system. Using solar panel arrays or solar furnaces we can potentially generate masses of energy and store it in any form probably hydrogen. Basically all sources of energy on this planet are due to the sun or previous sun related causes.

I don't think you have read anything that anybody has posted because you seem to say the same thing over and over. Read some of the previous posts carefully and it may make more sense.

 

[Chi Meson]

One last try.

I think it will put out enought Hydrogen and Oxygen to HELP the gas burn better in a car motor, and do so cheaply. After all the car is all ready running...

And I also believe we can creat the future like Star Tek showed, and not the one shown in Blade Runner, IF we really try.

Not one single scientific advance has been the result of anyone simply wishing it were true. Have you got a CD or DVD player? If you do then you are holding proof that physicists were right about what they knew. That is ONE example. What are your examples? Science FICTION! Our future will be neither like Bladerunner NOR Star Trek, and the futur of you hydrogen hopes is just as fictional. The people on this forum have been more than polite to you. IF you don't want to believe what physicists know to be true, then take you hopes and wishes to another forum.

If you really want to do something right now (other than dreaming), invest in solar energy, use less electricity all the time, change every lightbulb in your house to compact flourescent bulbs, ride a bike when possible and use the most efficient car otherwise (currently a "hybrid"). Action works better than good intentions.

 

[Adrian Baker]

Meanwhile, I advise anyone looking for free energy to buy a diesel and run it on used french fry oil. I met one man who is running his Mercedes on it. You just have to filter it and maybe add a little ethanol to thin it out, or use a heated fuel tank. Most restaurants now are throwing out ten to forty gallons of vegetable oil a week. If you want to be useful as well as thrifty, learn to do a boil-out on a commercial deep fryer, and resteraunters will smile when they see you coming. My current owner even feeds me, and pays me double the minimum wage for my time.

Yes this works, but unfortunately, the french fry oil has very little lubricative properties. Your friend with the Mercedes will find that his engine wear is very high. He can use it mixed with Diesel though, as long as he only uses a small percentage of french fry Oil.

Also, the Tax people can prosecute him for evading duty on fuel oil. This has happened in Wales where Taxi drivers started using old cooking oil in their taxis!

 

[Jenga]

racprops, I think I know what the problem with your conception of this device is. You say your alternator is 110 watts or something. Assume that 20 watts is needed to deal with spark plugs and other car-running needs. Then, by your logic, there are 90 watts just sitting there in a sense. But this is not the case. The alternator will only produce as much power as is needed by the devices it is powering. If you don't connect something to use up the remaining 90 watts, it is not producing them, and thus the engine is not putting that 90 watts into cranking around the alternator to produce it. If you DO connect this device to produce hydrogen with the 90 watts, the engine requires more fuel because it has to do more work to turn the crank, and because the alternator, combustion, and hydrogen production are far far far from 100% efficiency, you will inevitably lose the vast majority of that energy even if you put the hydrogen into the combustion chamber. The best you could hope to do is just have no change, and that would only happen with a mythical 100% efficient alternator, 100% efficient gas combustion (not going to happen - think about things like friction in the engine parts and how the exhaust is hot when it exits the car), and 100% efficient electrolysis.

Saying you end up with more energy than you take in the process of making the hydrogen is like saying you can plug a power strip into itself and get power that way.

 

[pack_rat2]

I checked that website...yikes!...they're promoting a good 'ol "perpetual motion machine." Yes, you can run an IC engine on hydrogen. And the hydrogen can be made by electrolyzing water. But the amount of energy you get from the hydrogen you produce will be less than the amount it took to make it. Saying that the car's alternator--which is run by the engine which is running on the hydrogen--can produce enough hydrogen, is like the idea of hooking the shaft of an electric motor to a generator, and using the generator to power the motor...doesn't work.

 

[pack_rat2]

Perhaps I should point out that it was the first URL I was referring to, not the one with the mods for trucks.

 

[racprops]

Ever heard of a Plasma arc?

Once up and running it will use gas made from water to power itself by converting water, and give off tons of extra gas as well. One possibility.

Never mind, I will just have to try it and see.

Guess if it does work I should not bother telling you guys, you will never believe it any way

Rich

 

[krab]

So the plasma is self-sustaining? With all that light and heat coming out? You put no energy in? No electricity? I work with plasma arcs all the time. Requires a lot of electricity. The only self-sustaining plasma I know of is the sun. Millions of $ have been poured into fusion research trying to achieve what the sun does.

Guess if it does work I should not bother telling you guys

No, tell these guys: http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/ITER3.html

 

[cepheid]

^^^ eh hehe

A suggestion...we should stop wasting our breath...racprops is not listening.