The Water Car

Water (vapour) is the product of combusting hydrogen. Please re-read the article.

of cause using water electrolysis hydrogen to drive transport vihcal is a good idea and protect enviroment. but the issue is how to get hydrogen from water in easy way?

If we find a sustainable way of separating hydrogen and oxygen from water through electrolysis and product of burning hydrogen use as fuel is water vapor, is it going to lessen the amount of water on our planet Earth?

Not significantly, though if the hydrogen were to leak it would be different story.

Electrolysis_of_water to produce hydrogen and oxygen is straightforward, as anything that can make more than, say 3-6 volts can make it go.

Sustainability relates to increasing the dependency on the planet's energy income, instead of its energy capital.

The concept of using hydrogen instead of gasoline/petrol relates to the relative simplicity of substituting this combustible gas into conventional spark-ignition engines. The distribution and fuelling facilities either already exist or are readily adaptable, and the recharging time is relatively short, which is not necessarily the case with other energy carriers, like electricity.

Hydrogen_economy

We live in interesting times...

It is possible to run a car on hydrogen, and it is possible to extract hydrogen from water using an electrolyser powered off the battery and charging system of the vehicle. These are facts, HOWEVER it is so hopelessly inefficient to do so that it is and never will be worth doing so. The power necessary to electrically extract hydrogen from water is enormous compared to the pitiful amount of hydrogen you can get out (this is governed by the laws of electricity and chemistry). Another "It seemed like a good idea at the time" smoke and mirrors display of free energy tinkering that keeps rearing its ugly head (this free-energy scam is almost as old as the internal combustion engine itself). Beware any scammer who says not only is it possible but they have already done it but need some cash from you to build the production version.

For those of you who want to argue (or really want to believe Sooooooooo badly), there are plenty of designs on the free-energy websites for you to build. Just don't come crying to me for advice on how to boost the system efficiency (read- alter the physical laws of the universe).

And before anyone asks again, no you cannot generate hydrogen using fields of solar panels to power an electrolyser.

The "Water Car" put to the test

http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=4129768

Education is a continuing process.

Article from 2005 aye. 25-40% increase in efficiency aye, "15% to 30% more horsepower" (from their website) aye. Lets look at this practically. Where are they? Why are they not fitted to every car (ok, so the price tag of $299 US is quite high, perhaps that's why).

Anyway, this is very different to the system I was talking about. The AquaTune boosts power by injecting special distiled water "not distilled drinking water!" (from their site) from a reservoir in the car as an additive to the existing fuel air mixture, it does not power the car directly off water. Technically this will work if you get the ratios right (it is a fine stream they are using), but it is only an additive (and distilling water is expensive). No, you cannot put tap water thru a filter to get distilled water.

My comments still stand.

I think I'm learning.

How about "Brown's Gas Technology"? Any comments?

How about "Brown's Gas Technology"? Any comments?

Also known as F L A T U L E N C E !

If you search on "brown's gas" or "browns gas" in this forum, you will find many comments. Brown's gas is simply H2 and O2, mixed. (A rather dangerous mixture, BTW). If you electrolyze H2O, and don't segregate the gases, it's what you get. The energy to create it is greater than the energy you get back when you burn it (or use in it a fuel cell). This is true even if the burning process (and method for getting mechanical energy therefrom) or fuel cell process (and subsequent processes) are 100% efficient. They are not.

There are some very small welding machines that use H2/O2 mix, but its a tiny niche market.

The AquaTune boosts power by injecting special distiled water...

I think you are being too generous to the AquaTune folks. The main valid use of water injection in IC engines is to increase detonation resistance (effectively increasing octane rating). It has been used for this reason for many many years. The following link gives a pretty good explanation. In essence, water injection makes sense when the engine has been modified (turbocharged, high compression pistons, etc.), making detonation a likely threat to longevity of the engine. In an ordinary engine, on an ordinary day, it accomplishes little, other than increasing corrosion rates and cylinder wear rates from steam cleaning. See http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/WaterInjection.html

WI is used in some aircraft engines to restore takeoff power on hot or high density altitude days. Rolls Royce Dart engines use it. I've flown a Fokker F27 a little, which used it. In the Fokker, fuel was manually trimmed, according to a little circular slide rule installed in one of the cockpit panels. (Sounds pretty crude, doesn't it?) You'd set the slide rule, and then trim fuel flow with toggle switches. At high ambient temperatures, fuel would have to be cut back to protect the engine's hot section, and by adding water injection (and its cooling effect, and thus densifying effect) power could be restored. (The situation is very similar to the typical ICE use described above, where you are using the water to allow the engine to perform as intended without self destructing.) Post 18 in the following link describes the RR system used in the Fokker/Farichild F-27. http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=208833

The explanation given by AquaTune is utter BS. The first paragraph is entirely bogus:

This is a finely tuned water injection system unlike any other, giving atomization of water and air before going into the engine where it is further atomized, here in turn it collides with the fuel molecules making a highly explosive mixture and expanding the fuel. As this mixture goes into the combustion chamber a marvelous thing happens - a chain reaction. All carbon starts immediately being removed inside the engine to the same state it was in when it was new. This happens because hot carbon and water don't mix, somewhat like nitro colliding with glycerine and small carbon deposits going by valve seats and helping to break off other deposits...giving a clean sweet machine with a much higher compression ratio and a more complete burning of fuels, making in essence a half steam engine, half gas engine. This makes for a sweet tune, efficient combustion and 15% to 30% more horsepower.

• Highly explosive mixture: this is nonsense. The last thing you want is a highly explosive mixture; you want a smoothly traveling flame front, to avoid detonation.
• Further, colliding water and fuel molecules do not form a highly explosive mixture. The statement "like nitro colliding with glycerine" is fraudulent chemical jibberish. Nitroglycerine is an explosive compound. There is no "nitro" colliding with "glycerin." In fact the explosion occurs when the compound comes apart, not when is goes together in a reaction of nitric acid and glygerin.
• Cleaning happens because "hot carbon and water don't mix." Ordinarily, cleaning by water or steam occurs because the water does mix with the "dirt". Soap and detergents are used to promote mixing, not the reverse.
• "giving a clean sweat machine and higher compression." This too, is utter garbage. As carbon deposits build up, the compression ratio actually increases, not decreases. Removing carbon reduces the effective compression ratio of the engine. Obviously, if the carbon deposits were so thick that they took up the entire combustion chamber at the top of the stroke, the compression ratio would be infinite.

Subsequent paragraphs go on to describe how the ultrasonics break apart the water molecules, implying a "free" hydrolysis. Actual energy consumed in hydrolysis exceeds the energy released in burning H2 to form H2O. Ultrasonics will not break apart water molecules, but even it it could, it would do so at a net loss -- efficiency would go down, not up.

Secondly, AquaTune is like no other water injection system in that it is, in actuality a fuel cell hydrogen processor. Give me a break! It's a water sprayer. It has nothing whatsoever, in any way shape or form, to do with a fuel cell. They put this in in hopes that an ill-informed public will say: "I don't understand that, but I've heard about fuel cells and hydrogen, and this thing is expensive, so it must be a fuel cell. This must be the hydrogen economy George Bush has been talking about."

Their "explanation" must have 50 blatant misstatements of fact. They are frauds, pure and simple.

The TV report represents incredibly flawed (pseudo)science. My Honda accord, rated at about 28 mpg (which it routinely gets, on average) will also get 40 MPG on many "stretches of highway". The report says, "On one stretch of highway we got better than 40 miles to the gallon." Of course! My Honda gets 15 mpg up a steep hill, and 100 mpg downhill. (In fact, it has trailing throttle fuel cutoff, so on some downhill stretches it can get infinite mpg.) Given that the car was equipped with a "box" hooked up to the car's computer, then you can conclude that the car did not have a trip computer with fuel flow capability. People with these trip computers routinely see 75 mph and higher readings at certain times, so a 40mpg reading would have meant nothing unusual to them. A couple of TV news people hardly makes for a valid study. At least you can assume that Popular Mechanics has a clue -- and they found that the device reduced performance, which you'd expect if the you believe AquaTune's claim that combustion temperatures are lowered. Heat is, after all, what expands the air that moves the piston down. Reduce temperature differential, reduce power.

We the few. Rather than just saying "It's a new scam" we will actually take the time out of our busy days to ACTUALLY RESEARCH the site and the technology before passing judgement. Hopefully others will listen, or at the very least look for themselves before passing judgement saying "Pseudoscience is true cos I saw this website".

I like the magnet devices placed around the fuel line to align the fuel to increase efficiency, or how about the magnet around the PVC water pipe to descale the water. The science is so hopelessly flawed where do you even begin!

How about one of those magnetic pads you put around oil filters? They say, it can reduce the amount of particles (i.e. wear metals-and yes ferrous) in any lubrication system. For those that didn't know, most standards puts particle counts per sample of lubricant as a limit for use.

Back to the magnetic pads, I've tried an experiment on an isolated tank, well I can say there's no separation of particles nor the rates of particles settling is faster.

What do you think?? (Hmm.. maybe this needs a thread of its own )

Years ago I had a few vehicles with magnetic inserts in the oil drain plug. They typically would have a noticeable accumulation of particles at oil change time. I haven't seen such plugs for a long time. Partial flow filtering used to be fairly common, in which case the magnets would seem to be a good idea. I suppose with full flow filtering (used on every car now, AFAIK) these particles are probably trapped in the filter.

Ken thank you. I was searching (well not really..not searching hard that is.. ) those who have actually uses it and hear what are their comments on it. I have literature from a few manufacturers who sells filters for heavy machineries, plant lubrication, etc. and one line of their products specializes with magnetic pads (see the pictures), magnetic rods, etc. They claim to lower the amount of ferrous wear metals in lubricant flow.

I was thinking of using it for a design project I was working on. I could give you the literature if you like. If Jack or anyone else have any thoughts, experience please share it with us or you can drop me a line.

CLoud

Oppss... forgot the pictures sorry. Here they are

Just in case, I'll put in a disclaimer.

Disclaimer, All products shown and the the pictures themselves are owned by their respective manufacturers. I am, in no way responsible for any of the products, or related to the manufacturers except as a prospective customer.

I disagree with you my friend. The simplist form of electrolosis, without the use of electricity, is iron mixing with water, yields ferrous oxide + hydrogen, rust. The oxygen combines with the iron, to form rust, and the hydrogen dissipates. Now add heat, a natural catylist, and a little bit of elctricity to capture the hydrogen, and you produce an abunadance of hydrogen. Chemistry in simplicity !!!

School lab experiments are nice for demonstrating principles but are just not practical in the real world. I have never heard of the "rust powered car" before (really, its a new one on me). I have tried experiments to actually make iron(III) oxide, but I used electricity to significantly boost the reaction speed, and even then the amount of H given off was totally insignificant (from a usefulness point of view). I doubt that the average driver will have time to wait for his/her car to rust naturally.

In any case I must patent the "rust powered car" IMMEDIATELY to prevent free-energy tinkerers and scammers from jumping on it as another excuse for poor lab work and not going and furthering their education.

rust powered car

What about the Mk1 Cortina or the Austin 1300?

And before anyone asks again, no you cannot generate hydrogen using fields of solar panels to power an electrolyser.

Oh really? Why not? What law of physics would this violate?

Common sense (but primarily the laws of diminishing returns). Perhaps I should have phrased it

And before anyone asks again, no it is not a good idea to try and generate hydrogen using fields of solar panels to power an electrolyser. You will use more power extracting the materials and manufacturing the solar panels alone than you will ever get out of them, and this is even before you take into account all the additional equipment and system conversion inefficiencies (even ignoring the large electrolyser inefficiencies). You will always use far more power than you will save. It would be a total disaster that would waste far more gasoline and resources than just sticking with running your car on gasoline, and this is not taking into account.

Yes, that is a bit clearer.

You will use more power extracting the materials and manufacturing the solar panels alone than you will ever get out of them

You refer to the issue of the pay-back period (the amount of time required for electricity bill savings to offset the initial system cost). With the older photovoltaic cells (polycrystalline silicon type), this took 20-30 years, which often exceeded the operating lifetime of the cells, hence making the overall venture a money-loser. But technology marches on. Amorphous silicon PV cells brought the cost down some, but not enough. More recently, organic, nano-crystal, and quantum dot based approaches look so promising that they may soon (within 10 years) make solar-generated electricity competitive with electricity derived from oil (especially as the cost of oil continues to rise). Not there yet, but getting close. So everyone should keep their minds open, and not lay down inflexible pronouncements based on older technologies.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060603/bob8.asp

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051023122429.htm

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=175802865

http://www.lbl.gov/tt/techs/lbnl2116.html

Did you read my post #32 ? I do not go by the pay-back period calculations as they are not an accurate indication of overall resource and power usage. Beware the hidden government subsidies and such that make these systems look far more appealing than they actually are, and pay-back calculations that completely ignore or downplay expensive and critical accessories such as the inverter and batteries.

I was looking at the overall picture for serious industrial and commercial use as this is where my experience comes from, not the average user who wants to put a solar system into his home in California.

Solar technology is still maturing, and while the existing technology isn't viable for wide-spread use current developments in the area of solar power are looking promising.

Why can't you use solar panels for the electricity need to split the hydrogen out of water. Is the electricity different from a solar panel than from say a battery or the grid. I have used both to split hydrogen from water. If it is different I didn't know this and if it isn't the question still is why

What many people fail to realise is that it costs a lot of resources, both in energy and materials, to extract silicon from the ground and refine it into a solar panel. Existing solar panels will never produce as much energy over their entire life as what was required to extract the materials and make them in the first place. That is the big picture.

Here is a simplified math example which uses standard coal-fired power stations to illustrate the point.

If you currently need 1 coal-fired power station to meet the required load (for example, electrolysing water into hydrogen), but it requires 3 power stations to manufacture solar panels and all the extra required components (such as inverters, etc) to produce the same power that 1 coal-fired power station would produce, then switching to solar would require an additional 2 coal-fired power stations. If you import all the components from, say China, then you require no local coal-fired power stations (-1 existing coal-fired power station. yah, saving the environment ), but china requires 3 extra coal-fired power stations ((-1+3=2 new coal-fired power stations............oh ).

You substitute 1 local coal-fired power station for 3 coal-fired power stations elsewhere.

There is no free-lunch when all factors are considered. The break even point for solar panels would have to be something in the order of a doubling in efficiency and a great reduction in manufacturing cost. They are working on it with different solar technologies, but current silicon panel technology, by its very nature and efficiency limits, will never be viable as an efficient replacement to existing power producing technologies.

wow,

i did not know that. i was curious what you meant by this free-energy scam is almost as old as the internal combustion engine itself?

thanks

The short answer is that there are many examples of scam devices introduced shortly after new technology is proposed or released. This was the case with such new developments as the electric generator (closely followed by the perpetual motion free energy generator-powered-motor-powered-generator).

Sort of a supply and demand situation (but with new opportunities to try and scam consumers who don't fully understand the new technology and cannot tell the difference between real science and pseudoscience).

Have a look at the Wikipedia article on the long history of perpetual motion and over-unity machines.

And before anyone asks again, no you cannot generate hydrogen using fields of solar panels to power an electrolyser.

You can't? Why not? Maybe you just meant that it would be uneconomical (using existing technology). Please elaborate.

By "cannot" I mean "can never come even close to efficient energy conversion due to compounding process and energy conversion inefficiencies, let alone the cost in materials".

By "cannot" I mean "can never come even close to efficient energy conversion due to compounding process and energy conversion inefficiencies, let alone the cost in materials".

Thank you for explaining. I didn't think that you meant to say that it is physically impossible, but I just wanted you to clarify for the sake of the audience.

But you explanation begs the question: how efficient does a conversion process need to be in order for us to consider it "efficient enough" to deploy? I suggest that this should be specified in terms of pay-back period (the time required for operational savings to pay off the initial investment). I could accept arguments that *existing* (commercially available) solar conversion technology has a very long pay-back period, but several new research directions in photo-voltaics could very soon change this assessment.

Another point: does it sound reasonable to categorically state that solar energy conversion will *never* be efficient enough to be economically practical? Engineers and scientists should know better than to make such absolute statements about future technology.

And how long is the pay-back period on a fission nuclear plant? Or wind energy? Or geothermal? Fossil fuels are still cheap in comparison to the alternatives, but obviously fossil fuels (being essentially non-renewable) will become more expensive over time, eventually becoming more expensive than the alternatives.

If anyone wants to argue that fossil fuels can be regenerated via plant growth, consider that plants only convert a few percent of absorbed sunlight into useful chemical energy -- what a pathetic energy efficiency! If the material cost of growing plants wasn't so low, we would have to reject biological photosynthesis as a practical energy source. Do you see my point? We can't accurately rate the usefulness of an energy conversion technology simply by considering its energy efficiency in isolation. We must also take into account the material cost and (and environmental effects). Photo-voltaics based on crystalline silicon are still very expensive, but cheaper approaches are in the works. So maybe you should keep a more open mind, lest you give the impression of having an irrational bias against solar energy.

Have a look at the numerous threads and posts on this and similar subjects such as alternative energy generation and storage that I have discussed with others since this thread. These also cover energy conversion efficiency, raw material usage, fuel usage to create device vs fuel saved by using device (over the lifetime of device), etc.

Short answer is existing solar technologies are not the answer (but new technologies under development look promising).

I totally agree! I wasn't trying to nit-pick, just pointing out that when discussing the possibilities of future technologies (at least those in harmony with the known laws of physics), we should never say "never".

I fully expect photovoltaic cells to become economically competitive within 10 years. Maybe I'm a bit optimistic, but I would bet that this will happen long before we finally get hot fusion plants online. And why shouldn't we successfully tap solar energy? With an enormous natural fusion reactor nearby -- one that showers Earth with much more energy than we will ever need -- there has to be a way.

By the way, regarding the original topic of this thread, I agree that the "water-powered" car idea is doomed because it ignores the laws of thermodynamics. Electrolytically splitting water (by using current from the car's alternator) to produce H₂, then using the H₂ as energy source results in a net loss of energy. Not only does well-tested theory rule it out, but there is (AFAIK) no reproducible experimental evidence either. However, H₂ might still serve as a useful energy storage medium. But this doesn't address the issue of where we will get the energy to produce H₂.

Short answer is existing solar technologies are not the answer (but new technologies under development look promising).

Case in point: using polymers to replace expensive crystalline silicon will significantly reduce the price.

http://www.celsias.com/article/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheap/

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21574/?nlid=1435&a=f

Yes, I have been following these and other developments such as bacteria-based photosynthesis-type cells. The resources necessary to manufacture them are much, much less than silicon panels and the efficiency is steadily rising.

These are still very new technologies and will take time to mature. In the meantime development has stalled at the edge of what is possible in the other key areas such as inverters (which require a lot of resources to manufacture). Development in the switch mode chip sets controlling inverter and switch mode power supplies has been progressing very well thou (which means inverters with more software code on board chip sets and less hardware needed = less resources to manufacture).

The stuff about removing hydrogen is baloney. Water injection, on the other hand, basically captures some waste heat that would normally be thrown away through the radiator, making you IC engine part steam engine. Here is a link to someone who is working on it.

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060227/FREE/302270007/1023/THISWEEKSISSUE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baloney

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_stroke_engine

My dad did this in the 30's to his Plymouth when he was working for Grovner's Ford and even though they got more power it eroded the valves away to such an extent within 10 000 miles as to ruin the engine.

Many years later my father in law ran his Harley Davidson the same and had the same problem

This is also the major problem in jet turbines, water at that temperature is extremely corrosive

It would be interesting to know whether today's aircraft jet engine develops more thrust while it is passing through a rain storm.

USAF F105 (Thud) fighter aircraft used water injection at the after-burner. I'm not sure exactly how it worked though.

Good point. It doesn't pay to increase your gas mileage if you have to replace your engine.

Hello all: I don't think PWSLACK, likes to use his brain, or at least in a costructive manner. The rust analogy was en example of how easy it is to seperate hydrogen from water, not to use it directly on a car. He probably just sits around waiting for things to happen for him, and never accomplishes anything for himself.

" Those that can do, do; Those that can't do, teach; Those that can't teach, complain and criticize."

If it were for people like PWSLACK, the airplane would never have left the ground.

It is so interesting that is always the "Anonymous" guest who is the one to criticize contributing members. PWSlack has been around a long time and is not ashmed to identify himself. Register please so we do not have to guess which GUEST we are responding to. GET A NAME and bio.

Well he certainly has the time to make jokes, a cup of tea, write a novel, etc while he waits for the hydrogen to bubble off of an electrolyser or thru the natural (read SSSSLLLLOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWW) process of metal rusting. Seriously, I am expected to perform incredible feats at work but not even I could find a use for hydrogen extraction by way of metal decomposition, or produce an efficient electrical water electrolyser (damn you physical laws of electricity and energy conservation).

Please try doing some actual research into hydrogen extraction yourself. You will find it is a lot harder than you seem to believe (those two pesky H's just don't seem to want to let go of each other).

Those that can do, do (well yes), Those that can't do, teach (I try and do both)

Those that can't teach, complain and criticize (obviously. Given your comments, which category do you think you fit into?)

It took me a bit to find it but in the CR4 discussion The Hydrogen Hoax Posted February 08, 2007 7:05 PM it refrences an article.

The article gives the impression that hydrogen power is inefficient and not feasible for use in vehicles.

I believe this is the article referred to in the discussion.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/zubrin.htm

Could someone please clear this up for me??

http://www.globaltech.ca/

Hydrogen injection.

After Extensive R & D, the HFI System has commenced commercialization. It is a patented process that results in a more complete combustion of gases, reducing harmful emissions, improving fuel efficiency, and engine power. Here are some important details about the HFI system:

* Hydrogen Fuel Injection System (HFI), is an onboard generator of hydrogen and oxygen gases for internal combustion engine.
* The HFI introduces gases to the air intake manifold of the truck, weighs 98lbs. Dimensions 21.75"Hx9"Wx14"D.
* The gases generated , once introduced to the intake manifold, are mixed with the incoming air. The gases are produced only while the engine is running.

* Hydrogen is not stored under significant pressure at anytime eliminating any safety concerns. The introduction of these gases results in a more efficient and complete burn of existing fuel.

I like this system because it doesn't store much hydrogen. You can consider it as continuous nitrous. Its better because hydrogen replace fuel and the system produce hydrogen on the go.

They're my customer at work.

Tell them Fred from Machining Design point you to them.

Pineapple

Just read the hype on "http://www.globaltech.ca/"

You use the engine and/or battery to operate the HFI system which separates water into hydrogen and oxygen which is introduced into the engine intake to enhance the operation of the engine.

Small problem: It takes more energy to operate the HFI system than it is ever possible to get back from the engine output.

Just another scam perpetrated on the motoring public.

Just had to say that although the marketing department is indeed scamming (uh..is that a word) the public, it is unfair to include the scientists/engineers that generally are trying to develop the technology for the betterment of mankind. Even though, the technology is yet-to-be successful.

Nothing against the opinions of any in this forum, just had to say it.

CLoud

It has been done! I couldn't find the picture and article, but an engine that runs on water has been developed. I had even proposed this attempt 25 years ago as a high school science project. interestingly my teacher used to word "practical" and another scientist commenting on the actual version used the same term. It really is not practical, but it is not only possible, it is real. One big problem is the size of the engine. you would need a diesel just to carry it. If I can find it again, I will post it.

sorry, I'm not logged in

DavidARheault