[teamwindsor]

I was just browsing around and came across this...

http://www.water-4-fuel.com/

i know its not quite April fools but, is it for real?I'm not that technologically minded but know hydrolysis of water would produce hydrogen, but surely the current you would need would be huge...not a car battery?

[Quasi_Mojo]

Yes, hydrogen powered cars are real.
No, I wouldn't recommend paying any amount to purchase information over the Internet.

I saw a film about a guy in the Philippines who has been running his car on Hydrogen since 1969.

[teamwindsor]

yeah, i have seen hydrogen powered cars but converting water to hydrogen from a car battery looks a little far fetched.

I wouldn't even dream of shelling out for something lije this...looks a bit like a scam to me, just wondering what people thought and i wasn't missing out.

[DaveAK]

teamwindsor, on Mar 31 2008, 07:33 AM, said:

yeah, i have seen hydrogen powered cars but converting water to hydrogen from a car battery looks a little far fetched.

I wouldn't even dream of shelling out for something lije this...looks a bit like a scam to me, just wondering what people thought and i wasn't missing out.

Here's a site, http://www.fuelfromh2o.com, that shows some results. I'm going to mess around with my own some day. Basically the idea is to use the hydrogen and oxygen to supplement the gasoline, not replace it, giving an increase in power for less fuel. Seems quite plausible to me.

[teamwindsor]

DaveAK, on Mar 31 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

Here's a site, http://www.fuelfromh2o.com, that shows some results. I'm going to mess around with my own some day. Basically the idea is to use the hydrogen and oxygen to supplement the gasoline, not replace it, giving an increase in power for less fuel. Seems quite plausible to me.

but surely from that small amount of water there would not be that much hyrogen produced.

complete combustion of hydrogen produces 286KJ, and one mole of hydrogen is being derived from one mole of water (molecular mass-18...i think). then if you look at the container he says it holds a quart, which is about a litre i think so 1000g, meaning there are 1000/18=55.6 mols of h20. This would if all is converted to hydrogen and burnt only produce 15,901.6 KJ. Which equates to 3798.9kWh.

Then there are in theory 37 kWh's in 1 gallon of gasoline. therefore the litre of water equates to 102.7 gallons of gasoline.............I stand corrected, in theroy i guess there is quite a lot of energy in the water, assuming my maths and chemistry is correct?

[DaveAK]

teamwindsor, on Mar 31 2008, 10:53 AM, said:

but surely from that small amount of water there would not be that much hyrogen produced.

complete combustion of hydrogen produces 286KJ, and one mole of hydrogen is being derived from one mole of water (molecular mass-18...i think). then if you look at the container he says it holds a quart, which is about a litre i think so 1000g, meaning there are 1000/18=55.6 mols of h20. This would if all is converted to hydrogen and burnt only produce 15,901.6 KJ. Which equates to 3798.9kWh.

Then there are in theory 37 kWh's in 1 gallon of gasoline. therefore the litre of water equates to 102.7 gallons of gasoline.............I stand corrected, in theroy i guess there is quite a lot of energy in the water, assuming my maths and chemistry is correct?

I really don't understand the numbers behind it all, but I believe, in technical terms, that there's a sh*t load of hydrogen in water. The rate of production through electrolysis isn't huge, but it's sufficient to be a useful supplement. This is why I want to play with it myself, make my own little generator and see what happens.

[Quasi_Mojo]

Here's a video of Daniel Dingel, the guy from the Philippines that I mentioned earlier. It's in English and it's interesting to watch.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UVhXrvCCILw

This post has been edited by Quasi_Mojo: 01 April 2008 - 12:41 AM

[OKflyboy]

This guy claimed that his VW powered Sand Rail ran on water but never let anyone get close enough to really inspect it.

[teamwindsor]

OKflyboy, on Apr 1 2008, 03:12 AM, said:

This guy claimed that his VW powered Sand Rail ran on water but never let anyone get close enough to really inspect it.

you kind of wonder why...then it says it failed a scientific test as part of a court case over making false claims. you kind of wonder about the truth behind stories such as this as if they were real, the inventor could patent it and would make a fortune, despite this there they still are trying to suck people in on the internet.

[phutton]

I do renewable energy research as a living and all of this is bogus in my scientific opinion. Water is the end product of burning hydrogen. If you start from water and then end up with water, where did all the energy come from to power your car.

Water does contain hydrogen, but it takes energy to strip the hydrogen from the water. In a perfect world, you would get that energy back when you combust the hydrogen back to water. To be able to somehow extract additional energy and end up with the same product you started out with would essentially be a perpetual motion machine. All of our energy problems would cease to exist. It might even lead to the demise of the universe if it keeps growing and outputting more energy each time the water recycles.

By the way, gasoline and diesel contain more hydrogen than water. about half the energy from those fuels comes from hydrogen. The other half comes from carbon. So, when you really think about it, we are already living the "hydrogen economy".

[phutton]

Actually, every fuel we use except nuclear power is really solar power several layers removed. The energy in coal, oil, and hydropower all originate from the sun.

[Hirudin]

I've got the garden hose going into my car now! I'll tell y'all how much faster it is (after an extensive test drive) in a couple hours...

[DaveAK]

phutton, on Apr 1 2008, 08:08 AM, said:

I do renewable energy research as a living and all of this is bogus in my scientific opinion. Water is the end product of burning hydrogen. If you start from water and then end up with water, where did all the energy come from to power your car.

Water does contain hydrogen, but it takes energy to strip the hydrogen from the water. In a perfect world, you would get that energy back when you combust the hydrogen back to water. To be able to somehow extract additional energy and end up with the same product you started out with would essentially be a perpetual motion machine. All of our energy problems would cease to exist. It might even lead to the demise of the universe if it keeps growing and outputting more energy each time the water recycles.

By the way, gasoline and diesel contain more hydrogen than water. about half the energy from those fuels comes from hydrogen. The other half comes from carbon. So, when you really think about it, we are already living the "hydrogen economy".

In a nutshell it's all about efficiency isn't it? What you're describing is 100% efficiency, whereas I would suggest that splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then using those to supplement the existing fuel would increase the efficiency from not very to a little bit better. And a little bit better is, well a little bit better.

[teamwindsor]

the current problem being is it is not possible to get energy from nothing, according to the law of physics "energy cannot be created or destroyed only changed in state". more energy would be required to perform hydrolysis than would be the yield of such an process.

so even for this so called supplement energy from the battery is talked about, but this energy comes directly form the combustion of hydrocarbons so really you would be using more fuel. its the same as running the car with all the lights, heaters etc. on, the car simply does not go as far on the same amout of fuel as some of it is being used for conversion to operating electrical processes. so using fuel to produce electricity to perform hydrolysis in a system that is not 100% efficient is not going to make your car any more efficient.

A catalyst could help but only if it aids in the breakdown of water to hydrogen so less energy is needed than is produced in combustion and this is not only not available but against the law of physics. if this problem can be overcome the inventor is going to be a very rich man ( or woman i guess) indeed!

[DaveAK]

teamwindsor, on Apr 1 2008, 12:29 PM, said:

the current problem being is it is not possible to get energy from nothing, according to the law of physics "energy cannot be created or destroyed only changed in state". more energy would be required to perform hydrolysis than would be the yield of such an process.

so even for this so called supplement energy from the battery is talked about, but this energy comes directly form the combustion of hydrocarbons so really you would be using more fuel. its the same as running the car with all the lights, heaters etc. on, the car simply does not go as far on the same amout of fuel as some of it is being used for conversion to operating electrical processes. so using fuel to produce electricity to perform hydrolysis in a system that is not 100% efficient is not going to make your car any more efficient.

A catalyst could help but only if it aids in the breakdown of water to hydrogen so less energy is needed than is produced in combustion and this is not only not available but against the law of physics. if this problem can be overcome the inventor is going to be a very rich man ( or woman i guess) indeed!

The system I've looked at does indeed use a catalyst to improve the production rate of the hydrogen.

I don't claim to understand the total efficiency, or lack thereof, of the internal combustion engine, nor of the amount of energy required for hydrolysis of water, but I do know that you can split water into hydrogen and oxygen, you can feed these into an internal combustion engine, and you can measure the before and after effects. I'm not a blind believer in anything, but I'm willing to give this one a shot to see what happens, if anything.

[DaveAK]

teamwindsor, on Mar 31 2008, 06:19 AM, said:

I was just browsing around and came across this...

http://www.water-4-fuel.com/

i know its not quite April fools but, is it for real?I'm not that technologically minded but know hydrolysis of water would produce hydrogen, but surely the current you would need would be huge...not a car battery?

I've split ordinary tap water with nothing other than a 9V battery as a kid, (25 to 30 years ago I guess). I'm sure a car battery would give much better results. Not sure what production rate you could realistically achieve, or what rate you would need though.

[dreiseratops]

Just a side note:
when an alternator or generator is producing power its resistance (to spin) increases the more amps it makes. thus requiring more energy and more fuel.
Running your electrical systems on hi makes your fuel economy decrease.

and some other info:
The more I researched this topic the more I supported hybrid vehicles.
Big auto manufacturers are still holding back big time. If someone went with a diesel hybrid and started with a more powerful IC engine platform we could get mileage in the low hundreds easy.
Id like to see a mod for Hi torque electric motors going into existing autos...
check out EVs electric vehicles. they require no gas and you take the engine out of the car replacing it with electronics and one big damn electric motor.
The drawbacks are Price and range potential. It costs a ton to do and they dont go real far.
Id like to see also, modern fuel systems go into small engines powering generators powering the electronics.
Note that electric is far less efficient at highway speeds.

Fun stuff to think about!
I suggest you research it all for yourself.
If I see the potential here and I am considered by my peers as a numbskull why are we still paying so much for energy...
WIND for the WIN! (in the home) Deisel Electric Locomotion for the WIN! (in the auto)

Check out permanent magnets in generators and the "Bedini circuit".



P.S. Stan Meyer was murdered, whether for his resonance frequency water splitting tech or some other "business" unknown.

[DaveAK]

I sense a challenge for the summer.

[arizonavideo]

My brother has been working on a hydrogen power system for some time. He does have a good website started that is worth taking a look at.

http://hydrogenboostnow.com/


The guys system you linked to in the first post does not really make any gas so it is useless.


The idea is just standard electrolysis and the gas is burned in the engine. This does not break any rules, it just makes the gasoline burn better. You have to adjust the O2 sensor to make the mixture leaner.

There is a high efficiency system that looks promising but I need to see proof before I say anything.

The parts for a large booster are pricey with only a few kinds of stainless steel being OK to use and the high power solid state relays are hard to find.

I have a 2008 chevy truck that may get a booster for testing soon. If it does well I will post the millage numbers.

This post has been edited by arizonavideo: 21 October 2008 - 07:58 AM

[DaveAK]

arizonavideo, on Apr 1 2008, 09:22 PM, said:

My brother has been working on a hydrogen power system for some time. He does have a good website started that is worth taking a look at.

http://hydrogenboostnow.com/


The guys system you linked to in the first post does not really make any gas so it is useless. He is a scamer.

I'm still waiting for the finished protoype from my brother to do long term testing.

The idea is just standard electrolysis and the gas is burned in the engine. This does not break any rules, it just makes the gasoline burn better. You have to adjust the O2 sensor to make the mixture leaner.

There is a high efficiency system that looks promising but I need to see proof before I say anything.

The parts for a large booster are pricey with only a few kinds of stainless steel being OK to use and the high power solid state relays are hard to find.

I have a 2008 chevy truck that may get a booster for testing soon. If it does well I will post the millage numbers.

Thanks for the link! This is exactly the kind of thing I've been looking at doing this summer.

[will1384]

I have 2 words "Hydrogen embrittlement"

There was a guy a few years back working on a setup and his motor started to fall apart

I have also seen some say that its a non issue - I would like to see tests

Why not just inject pure oxygen to make the burn more efficient and get more out of your gasoline

[SupraGuy]

@will1384: Inject pure O2. Well, the problem there is that you've got to STORE the O2 then, and it's pretty volatile stuff. The inherent danger of having pure O2 in a regular car is staggering. Also, if you put that O2 in contact with the metal of your engine, it would immediately react. On top of that, the higher the concentration of O2 in the air/fuel mixture, the lower the flash point of thae gasoline. It doesn't take much extra O2 before that flash point drops below the minimum operating temperature of the engine, at which point, fuel ignition becomes impossible.

Although, people actually DO something similar to this. It's called Nitrous Oxide. N2O is about 35% O2 when it's broken down, which is greater than the general atmospheric concentration of about 20%. N2O is also reasonably stable, so it doesn't dissociate until the fuel starts to burn, keeping it relatively safe. (N2O works as an anaesthetic in the same way, hyperoxygenating the bloodstream) The other thing here to remember is that the extra O2 doesn't make the fuel burn more efficiently, it burns more fuel -- that's how it makes more power.

As stated before, you can't get something for nothing. It takes as much power to dissociate the H2 and O2 from water as you can possibly get out of it, in which case, you might as well just use an electric motor.

"phutton said:

Actually, every fuel we use except nuclear power is really solar power several layers removed. The energy in coal, oil, and hydropower all originate from the sun.

Exactly. Small correction though. Geothermal power is not solar in nature, it's left over from the gravitational collapse of the matter that makes up the planet.

[phutton]

Lol. Yeah, didn't think of geothermal power.

Let's go one step further. Since the sun's energy comes from nuclear reactions (fusion or fission?) every fuel we use (except geothermal?) comes from nuclear energy.

I heard a theory once that the earth's center is not made of iron (diffusing over time to the center due to gravitation) but of uranium to its higher density, thus purifying it and causing nuclear reactions in there.

Don't know if it's true or not. Kinda makes sense to me, though.

[Durachko]

Oh come on phutton! Didn't you ever watch The Core? We've already been to the center of the earth for crying out loud. Errr . . . that WAS a true story, wasn't it?

"Uranium? Iron? Shit . . . it looks like Lime Jell-O!!!"

 the_core.jpg (61.79K)
Number of downloads: 4

[DaveAK]

Durachko, on Apr 2 2008, 09:36 AM, said:

Oh come on phutton! Didn't you ever watch The Core? We've already been to the center of the earth for crying out loud. Errr . . . that WAS a true story, wasn't it?

"Uranium? Iron? Shit . . . it looks like Lime Jell-O!!!"

the_core.jpg

Not only that, but have you watched the documentary "Sunshine" where they went to the sun to restart it with some huge bomb thing? At least I think it was a documentary.