Chemist and Engineers: Real or Snake Oil? Water Powered Car
 

Are there any chemists and engineers who can confirm that what is seen in this news report is real and not hogwash?

Obviously, hydrogen and oxygen is a very potent chemical reaction but how realistic is it to realize an H2O powered car like this?

Obviously, separating the H from the O in the first place is going to take some fair amount of energy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG9MJM-l6wU&search=water%20powered%20car

Recombining H2 and O2 generates an awful lot of power. The SSMEs (Space Shuttle Main Engines) use this reaction - not the two boosters (those are solid fuel), the three on the back of the orbiter itself. They're extremely clean too - byproduct is heat energy and steam.

You hit it on the head though - the big problem is how to produce and distribute the H2 and O2 in pure enough forms to be usable. For the most common element in the universe, it's actually pretty expensive to get good clean hydrogen here on earth.

I have no doubt hydrogen really is the fuel of the future, but sadly I think we're talking generations here in the U.S. to see meaningful implementation - probably on the order of 20-30 years in other countries.

I saw this awhile back and my first thought was how much energy is being used (via electrolysis, I assume) to create the hydrogen and oxygen in the first place? Nature is cruel and I would have to imagine that the power required to separate the H and O in water would exceed the energy created when it is recombined.

His car supposedly does this on the fly. Hmmm...

This guy is either a serious con-artist or is fixing to be the richest guy on Earth. I'm thinking it's probably the former.

Mike

The only way in my mind to make H2 is via electrolysis which doesn't make sense unless your using nuclear. Using oil or natural gas to drive a steam turbine to turn a generator to make electricity to separate the Hs and Os make no sense from an energy recovery standpoint.

At least cold fusion was a myth most people couldn't easily debunk. This is just another "perpetual motion" machine.

entropy means never having to pick up your dirty clothes...

there is no free lunch.

H2O to HHO...mmm, OK. Does that mean an alcohol with a free proton? I guess with enough -e's you could do it but that means energy and maybe that is why he has a hybrid. The gasolene is pwoering a generator that produces enough -e's to keep the OH busy whilst the H+ can burn?

You have to generate the -e's somehow. He ain't doin it with just water and it doesn't present like a continuous rxn.

nostatic - what you think?

Have not seen it but my sense of skepticism immediately springs to action. Then there is the law of the conservation of energy. If he is breaking down the water and recombining it with heat as a by-product then where is the necessary incoming heat to start with? He mentions electrolysis and that requires energy. I must be missing something.

This guy is violating all laws of thermo. He should be laughed out of the patent office, but probably won't.

His patent uses electricity off the alternator to break down water to 'HHO' gas. He claims injection of a small amount of 'HHO' into the engine greatly increases efficiency and horsepower. I have some real doubts. Everyone knows a magnet on the fuel line will do this a lot better.

I noticed he said he can go 100 miles on 4oz of water...but doesn't say how many gallons of gas are used in the same distance.

For welding/cutting it might make sense, but for motive power...not so sure.

Ok I will show my engineering ignorance here. How are we supposed to make a hydrogen car viable? I would assume you would need a reservoir for the hydrogen and what happens when the car crashes and there is a spark or something? The last large hydrogen vessel that was exposed to a spark was the Hindenberg I think...

With our current version of physics, it takes more energy to break the water molecule than it can produce in combustion.
Probably a good thing too, can you imagine the chain reaction if lightning set the pacific ocean on fire?

There are 4 basic problems with Hydrogen:

1. You have to make it and TANSTAAFL. It will take more energy to make the Hydrogen than you get back out.
2. Hydrogen is not easy to store. The Molecule being that small, it likes to leak out anywhere.
3. Hydrogen, on a per mol basis, doesn't have that much energy. However, on a per weight basis it's fine. But the fuel tank will be large.
4. Hydrogen really really likes to combine with Oxygen in either a fire or an explosion. As little as 5% Hydrogen to Air is flammable. And a mixture as large as 95% Hydrogen 5% air is flammable. Hydrocarbons reach thier upper explosive limit around 25% HC and 75% air. It also has a reverse Joule-Thompson effect (It heats as it expands!). So if the gas is a high enough pressure, and it leaks, it auto ignites...

Other than that, it's a great fuel.

Hydrogen is not a fuel source. At least not for chemical reactions. For fusion it can be used as a fuel source. Hydrogen is a energy storage device. It has some advantages. It burns clean, and reduces pollution at the point of use. There is still pollution involved, but it happens when you burn the coal to produce the electricity to break down the H20, so you can control where it takes place. Hydrogen has a lot of disadvantages. First is storage. Hydrogen is energy dense by mass, but not by volume. It takes a great deal of the stuff to power a car any usable distance. To overcome this it has to be stored onboard at very high pressures, 3000-4500psi is common. Second problem is getting the energy out. Fuel cells are nice, but expensive and not as effecient as everybody claims. IC engines will run on hydrogen, but have their own problems. Hydrogen sounds nice, but is not an answer to any energy needs. When used as a fuel for a fuel cell, engine, torch or turbine, it simply takes more energy to produce than it gives back.

Redbeard, you got me scratching my head.
TANSTAAFL?

T here
A in't
N o
S uch
T hing
A s
A
F ree
L unch

Don't know about HHO gas (also called Brown or Klein's gas). Can't seem to find much "real" literature about it. In typical electrolysis, you run a current through water and get H2 and O2 gas. Fuel cells are essentially the reverse reaction: you shoot H2 into the cell with a platinum catalyst, the hydrogen is split into protons and electrons giving you a current to run an electric motor, then you feed in oxygen to scavenge the protons giving water. That reaction is "downhill". The electrolysis is "uphill."

But these guys are claiming that HHO is a "different" aggregation/structure that doesn't obey valence rules. Could be, but I have yet to see the laws of thermodynamics violated, and if you start with water then hydrolyze, it doesn't matter what kind of gas you get, you cannot make more energy that it cost to do the electrolysis in the first place.

Can you say "cold fusion?" I knew ya could...

I'm sure you guys all know that a fuel cell uses the rexn of H2 + O2 to produce electricity. NASA's been using it for a long time. But electrolysis to run a car? I'm thinking no.

HHO?

Doesn't HHO = H2O?

So, wouldn't HHO gas be steam?

Unless it's really H2+O2 or really 2xH2+O2 as an uncombusted gas.

If it were truely HHO, or 3 separate ions, it would be extremely unstable...

EXTREMELY!!!!

Yeh, we do need SOLUTIONS. This is NOT a SOLUTION, it is a con job. How do you say CON JOB in a nice way??? Well its a con job.

There are NO alternative fuels.

Alternative fuels are the ultimate con job as there are NONE.

I can hear all the eco crap now. Your part of the problem, you don't beleive in alternative fuels, Your mind is closed. Well Yes it is Closed. Why?? Because there IS NO ALTENATIVE FUEL!!!

They claim that HHO is a gas that violates valence rules in its structure. You *can* get some odd things at very high (or very low) temp and pressure, but these are not those conditions. The electrolysis of water produces H2 gas and O2 gas. Period. No other bull***** "hypervalent" species. H2 and O2 are perfectly stable, as is H2O. They do NOT readily interconvert unless you provide energy (spark) and/or a catalyst (like Pt). You cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics. dG is dG. The conversion of 2H2 and O2 to 2H2O is exothermic...hence the reason that fuel cells work. And the reason to run it backwards (electrolysis) you have to provide energy (current). For any reaction you have to provide *some* energy even if it is exothermic as dG+ (supposed to be a double dagger, activation energy) isn't zero...you have to get over the hump. Catalysts like Pt only lower the activation barrier...they do not change dG (free energy of the system).

Didn't the last guy that developed water power suddenly disapear.

And BIG OIL stayed BIG?

Like 30 years or more ago?


KT

I think this car produces the HHO based on zero point energy theory, which seems to be popping up alot lately. Anyone educated in the newtonian physics will tell you the same thing, takes energy to make energy. This concept breaks that rule, so like many others who were educated by physics, it makes no sense to me.

I'm not sure I understand how a flame that he claims burns around 280 degrees can heat something up to over 9000 degrees...

"Won't someone please think about the childr... er... Physics"

Remember folks, just about everything we use on a daily basis without thought, was also *impossible* about 100 years ago.

We're moving fast...


KT

You are wrong. Nothing that was impossible 100 years ago has been done today. Its still impossible. Almost everything we have today was thought possible 100 or even 300 years ago. Not probable, but possible. Most all advances are HOW to make something work, nothing to do with what is or is not possible.

Nano technology will change the way a lot of things work, but all fo the laws of Physics still apply. Nano tech will allow things to be done that have not been thought of before, but violating the laws of Physics will not be one of them. The most basic concepts, like conservation of energy have been known for a very long time. No basic law of physics has ever been proven wrong.

Con men love people who are uninformed. They still get by selling perpetual motion machines to the ignorant, gullible people who are moving to fast to slow down and learn something.

Maybe i wasn't clear.

Most of the things that we have and enjoy today, if you we're able to tell someone about it 100 years ago, would have *thought* it was impossible.

Flight, modern cars, electricity, communication, space travel, laser surgery , NASCAR :p.

Seriously, we've seen some amazing tech.


KT

No intelligent person would have thought anything we have today was IMPOSSIBLE 100 years ago. Maybe the person on the street, but not any educated person.

There is a big difference between discussing the IMPOSSIBLE and what may or may not happen. Many educated men may have thought that man could not learn to fly, but no educated man thought it impossible. What you are talking about, in terms of energy IS IMPOSSIBLE and any educated person will stand behind that statement. We do know a lot more than we did 100 years ago. We have added a large number of things to the IMPOSSIBLE list and only a few to the possible. And none of the new possible violates any of the old Impossible ones.

We have a fuel, oil, that is so plentiful that all you have to do is to poke a hole in the ground and you get a lot of it, for almost nothing. Water is almost as expensive. There is currently over 500 years of oil based fuel available. Yes we do have to be concerned, but a crisis??? NO way.

100 years ago, the head of the US Patent office stated that "Everything has been invented, there is nothing new to develop". There are many scientists and engineers back then and even today that refuse to believe certain breakthroughs have been made even after they have been proven wrong.

Still, this guy is full of shyt.

Totally bogus argument.

Some idiot clerk in the patent office makes an off the wall statement and you base your analysis on this???

Tell me that Newton, Maxwell, Einstein or someone of some importance made such a statement.

The guy was actually the commissioner of the United States Patent Office, Charles Duell, back in 1899. Here are a few more gems...


"That’s an amazing invention, but who would ever want to use one of them?" ... President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, after Alexander Graham Bell demonstrated the telephone to him at the White House.


"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom," ... Robert Milken, Nobel Prize winner in physics, 1923


"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible," ... Lord Kelvin, President Royal Society, 1895


"Who the hell wants to watch movies with sound?" president of Warner Brothers Studios, Harry Warner, sometime around 1918.


Ya, I guess these guys are bogus as well?

Schooled...

Thank you...

KT

BS

Only one is quoted as impossible and he as a minor figure in science.

Snow, just face it, you got schooled. Be a dude and just suck it up and stop being such a puss!

You are killing me...

People years ago *just thought* these things were impossible.

"I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!" -Mugatu


KT

I have to agree with Snowman. Trekkor's original statement that most of what we use today was "impossible" 100 years ago is just plain wrong. There is a big difference between "impossible" and not having the technology to do what we know is possible.

Maybe I see your point - are you trying to say that the average citizen is essentially ignorant of science and technology? I'd agree with that.

You see that every day right here on PPOT.

Mike

THis cant be totally bogus...there is a guy up in canada who is makeing a unit that electrolisizes (sp) water in to Hydogen and oxygen, and injects it in to a motor . the fuel burns more efficiently and produces a cooler exhaust and less emissions.

It is being tested in Fleet vehicles. there are no storage tanks as the unit makes hydrogen on the fly. and only small amounts. but 20% fuel savings. uses the alternator for its small electric draw.