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

[1967 R50/2]

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

[Porsche-O-Phile]

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.

[IROC]

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

[Hugh R]

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.

[legion]

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

[nostatic]

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

there is no free lunch.

[M.D. Holloway]

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?

[M.D. Holloway]

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.

[stevepaa]

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

[914GT]

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.

[1967 R50/2]

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.

[Nathans_Dad]

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...

[sammyg2]

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?

[red-beard]

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.

[Anton]

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.

[sammyg2]

Redbeard, you got me scratching my head.
TANSTAAFL?

[red-beard]

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

[nostatic]

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...

[Flatbutt1]

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.

[legion]

HHO?

Doesn't HHO = H2O?

So, wouldn't HHO gas be steam?