What Happens to Water in a Vacuum?

No, it may turn to water vapour.

I really appreciate you responding. He has made a device that is supposed to turn water to hydrogen and oxygen for fuel, and he wants me to sell them. I had doubts about how they work, and now I know for sure. He has a working model that brings in electricity, and actually works, but I guess he is just lazy.

Just to explain a bit more...In a vacuum the water will effectively boil away.

Boiling water produces steam not hydrogen and oxygen.

The only way I know to separate the molecule bond is through electrolysis.

Basically run a positive and negative charge in the water, One contact will release the hydrogen the other contact will release the Oxygen.

and on your post that looks like what he was doing.

"He has a working model that brings in electricity, and actually works, but I guess he is just lazy."

bruceclem1: What you describe in total is an electrolysis cell which uses dc current at a relatively low voltage to separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen. It is also under vacuum which will cause the water to evaporate, cooling itself in the process and eventually freezing solid. At that point the electrolysis cell ceases to operate.

Your acquaintence is either ignorant, a condition that can be corrected by proper instruction, or a misguided experimenter intent on solving the energy crisis with a lack of educational background to reach the goal (i.e. ignorant). Third possiblility he is a flim flam artist wanting you to take the rap for perpetrating a scam.

Stirling Stan: I vote for # 3 on your list. If I remember correctly, you use more energy for the electrolysis that you get back from "burning" the resulting hydrogen and oxygen.

Especially when you consider the costs and losses to generate the electricity!

bruceclem1, RUN, do not walk away from this guy. He either wants your $$ or wants to use you to defraud others. Guys like this sell scam devices and usually charge you some money for, say 25 of the devices, you are supposed to sell the 25 devices and earn $$. In truth you are the client, the devices do not work, and any you do sell will produce an angry friend/customer who only knows you have cheated him...

That is what he is doing, and the ones that work do have power, but he is trying to get me to sell some that are just containers of water that hook to a vacuum line with no electrical connections. I was extremely skeptical of that, and I refuse to sell anything that I don't believe in. He is going to hear what I think of him later. He is trying to get rich on a faulty product, and that just isn't right.

It's far more than just a faulty product, it's fraud...and he's trying to place you as the bad guy people will come looking for when things go south.

yes take one step farther, report it....

Indeed!

Those items you are talking about are supposed to suck water vapour into the intake manifold which improves the burning of the mixture to some degree.

Have noticed this on dank foggy mornings in th UK, engine seems to have a little more power. Give it a try yourself and let us know if it did any good??

The only way water injection is any benefit is to slow burn rate & stop detonation- & there is also a cooling effect- but there are no mpg improvements- as to steam assistance with power on the power stroke- you are fooling yourselves. This is not a guess- I have experimented extensively. Bruce Crower's 6 stroke engine reads good- but where the results of the article 18 months ago?. -Now?.

I somehow personally feel that a comparison of a 4 stroke using water and a 6 stroke using water is like comparing chalk and cheese.

The way the water is used in a 4 stroke is more than just subtly different to its use in the 6 stroke, that many may not have noticed.

You described the usual uses of water in 4 strokes well already.

The 6 stroke actually uses the water injection to remove the heat of combustion and turn it into steam, which then actually pushes the piston down for a further revolution that is not there in a 4 stroke cycle.

Therefore Power has been produced from the average 70% wasted energy in the form of heat that comes from a normal petrol engine....This also allows the engine to run much cooler and it actually needs no cooling at all....saving a lot of weight over a conventional motor. Needing extra weight of water is true.....what the overall saving is I personally have no idea....

I have personally no idea what the efficiency of the Crower motor will be if and when it comes to market, but it has to be better than usual 30% for petrol engines. Let us guess and say ONLY 10% better for example, then it will be as effective as a well designed Turbo Diesel motor!!

Whether or not a Diesel motor will work using the Crower principle I cannot say, but if it does and a 10% extra efficiency could be made there too that I feel should be possible with the petrol engine, then it would be approximately 50%, the most efficient IC engine ever.......

As the engine only gets slightly warm in use, theoretically my 10% may be underating this new engine.......it might be even better.

I would also like to know why Mr Crower is not apparently doing more to get his designs used worldwide.......

"The 6 stroke actually uses the water injection to remove the heat of combustion and turn it into steam, which then actually pushes the piston down for a further revolution that is not there in a 4 stroke cycle. "

Andy, I can undersand how this works be utilizing the phase changes, but is this your opinion?

No its not an opinion, its the way the 6 stroke engine is designed to work.

It is not a 4 stroke with a new name....like all the other water injection motors are...the water injection is not made with the fuel, but seperately on another stroke!

Or your question was not clear enough for me to fully grasp!

It made sense to me, but I am the one that does no have a full grasp on the differences. When it unitlizing he phase changes, and when the change takes place it would have a cooling effect as well as the energy created by turning it into steam.

Thanks.

(I have o go over my key board, my "t" 's isn't working.)

From my understanding of the article referenced, the engine does have an additional steam power stroke. Seems like a perfectly obvious way to utilize the waste heat. Makes for cold mornings in the cab though. Maybe a heat exchanger on the combustion exhaust for passenger comfort...

Seems like a perfectly obvious way to utilize the waste heat.

Making more efficent use of energy.

I like. I'm surprised nobody thought of it before. Seems like a good application for rotary valve technology, too.

its not the water vapour those cold damp mornings the air si cooler and therefore more dense - and you have a higher concentration of oxygen per volume. - tyhats why the racers use inter-coolers on the air intakes, same principle. the devices that inject water vapour into engines try to work on the principle that water expands fast when heated and they are trying to augment the explosion as the fuels ignite. sort of a steam engine combustion engine hybrid i dont know how well they work. as far as water under vacuum you can boil water at about 15 degrees C under 1/3 normal atmospheric preasure.

Water vaporizes in a vacuum. It does not dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen. He is trying to pull a fast one on you.

I agree with your accurate comment completely.

By the way, there are theories that that is how the earth gathered its water, by collecting it from space over millions of years.....

I really should. He has an actual working product, and I just can't figure out why he wouldn't just want to sell those....unless someone else has already patented it and he just stole the idea.

Because the actual working product consumes more energy than it generates. The electrical energy required to break down the hydrogen and oxygen bonds is greater than the energy released by burning the resulting hydrogen. That's why the water powered car doesn't work. Or why we don't "mine" the ocean for hydrogen. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics makes it a bad deal.

Just Google phase diagram for water. It's vapor all the way. There's a standard demo you can do where you put a couple drops of water on a mirror (for visibility) and throw a roughing pump on. The water mostly evaporates and the latent heat of vaporization freezes the rest of the water into ice crystals.

Don't let this guy near your wallet, your wife, or your liquor cabinet.

It seems to me that in a car, with the alternator constantly charging the battery, it would be a good source of extra power that could save money at the pump. Is there anything that would make this seem unreasonable? I am not an engineer, although I do love the science and wish I was, and I am sure I am missing something with the whole hydrogen power idea.

Yes, this is unreasonable. An automobile is a very inefficient generator station. Free energy is a scam, a fraud, bogus, unworkable, impossible, improbable, a flim-flam, and/or snake oil. It does not work. It cannot work. It will never work. You can quote me (with credit, of course).

no it does'nt constantly charge a battery, and if it did, it still requires power to alternator, and this you would have power loss compared to power input

Do not take it hard, but as you yourself already said, you are not an engineer, or you would not have posted in the first place. read on:-

Q.Do you know where the electricity comes from (originally) in your car?

A. from the petrol you put in the tank.....

Q. Who paid for the petrol in the tank?

A. You.

The conversion costs and the fact that a petrol engine wastes about 70% of the energy in the tank as heat. So you are already 70% down when you use the electricity to do something else......not a good conversion rate to start with....

By the way, a good diesel engine only wastes about 60%.....which is why they are more economical for similar BHP generally speaking!

I am not an engineer, although I do love the science and wish I was, and I am sure I am missing something with the whole hydrogen power idea.

You are probably missing less than you think. As you suspected, hooking a vacuum line to a canister of water does not create hydrogen and oxygen. Knowing to ask the question means you think like an engineer or scientist.

Hydrogen can be created from water by electrolysis, as you probably also know. It takes more energy to create the hydrogen then you get back by burning it. So if you are asking yourself: "Then why do it?" you are not alone.

The attraction of hydrogen is, as I think you also probably know, that when it burns you get mainly water (although a little nitrogen can combine with oxygen in the process, creating some NOx.) It seems very clean. Of course today, if you produced hydrogen electrically, you be doing so with mainly by burning coal in power plants.

It possible to create H2 using solar power, of course. Then you could burn this environmentally kind stuff in your slightly modified car, and we'd have a cleaner world. Unfortunately. .04% of the energy used is produced by solar cells. (For the time being we can ignore the staggering problems of compressing, refrigerating, liquefying, transporting, storing, and dispensing H2.)

But if we did have solar power production capability in place... and we all hope we will have a lot more of it soon... then wouldn't it make more sense to use the electricity directly (in electric cars, for instance) than to incur all the additional losses on the way to feeding a vehicle with it?

The Tesla electric car hints at what is possible. We could buy one (I'll let you pay) and charge it with solar PV cells tomorrow (we'd need a large set of panels at pretty high cost ($10,000). Remarkably simple as compared to H2.

Even now, with today's expensive solar cells, if you live on Long Island NY, the payback on solar power for your home is less than ten years! In many places, it's 20 years, but the panels last at least that long... so right now, today, we have what we need. Much simpler and cleaner that "the H2 economy"

Most commercial H2 today comes from fossil fuel feedstocks. Perhaps the interest in the H2 economy is to preserve the status quo?

That would be an excellent quote: "Free energy is a scam, a fraud, bogus, unworkable, impossible, improbable, a flim-flam, and/or snake oil. It does not work. It cannot work. It will never work. Sam I am" as quoted by TVP45. I am seeing history books here.

Hi Bruce,

Liquid water boils in a vacuum with the result that about half of it boils away as water vapor. The remainder freezes. Ice sublimes in a vacuum and so it, too, will eventually evaporate. I've done these experiments myself.

Liquid nitrogen also boils in like manner, with the remainder freezing.

Water molecules do not disassociate (turn back into hydrogen and oxygen) simply because they're in a vacuum. Water vapor has been observed in deep space and has a characteristic microwave signature. Water vapor can also be seen as absorption lines (dark bands) in the spectra of starlight. To disassociate water molecules, you need to supply enough energy to break the molecular bonds. In space this energy usually takes the form of UV light from the Sun or from nearby stars. But a vacuum condition alone does not disassociate water molecules.

I have read all the posts......seems odd no one mentioned..BROWN'S GAS... a commercial sold system splitting H from O supplying a unique welding torch...ran from a single hose.......

Many limitations in application and not very efficient as to power in....gas out ( high BTU ?)but did achieve high temps on a small hand torch.

Higher temps than oxy-accet torch.

I personal met Dr Brown before his demise.His machines were built in China ......he died there as I recall.

Google "Brown's Gas"...some one else is following his concept.

Mr. Guy

In a vacuum, typically you already have a lot of hydrogen..it is the element that it is more difficult to pump out. I suppose that if you simply have an electron emiter (filament) inside, vapor molecules may dissociate? but it is difficult to remove water from the materials. You have to heat them up. Of course, it depends on which materials, but in general water sticks to everywhere, and the surface water layer is very very difficult to remove.

Not quite the topic but a nice sideline and still in the area. YouTube - Water Fuel A side note ... water vapor injected into a running gas motor will give the illusion of "burning water" when in fact the heat from the combustion creates steam pressure ... it is not however increasing gas mileage as the power generated by the steam does not equal the power that could have been created by the gas it displaced. Causing you to lose horsepower and actually have to use more gas to achieve the same effect over a longer period. Anyone disagree .??

I disagree, look up the 6 stroke engine. It runs on petrol & water and needs no water cooling!!!

Look at:-

6 Stroke Petrol Engine

It's codswallop. Check out a proprietary set of steam tables. As pressure falls it gets to a point where the water vapourises at the system temperature. Once it has all boiled to vapour, pressure falls further until, well, there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum.

There's going to be a small amount of solid residue left in the system, depending on the purity of the water. From there, sublimation is never ridiculous.

Water in a vacuum is known as water vapor. It does not dissassociate into it's component elements.

You can create oxyhydrogen using electrolysis, but the energy involved in production is, of course, more than the energy derived by burning the "Brown's gas."

In other words, there is no free lunch. This idea is just bunkum. Other posters have said the same, but I just had to say it again.

The six cycle engine is interesting though....

I am with you 100% on all comments.

I hope that the motor goes into full production soon....

#bullshine