Water to Fuel Cars

[Chris_Elston]

This is really awesome guys! I can't wait. It will probably be 5-10 years before we see it put to use.

When you click the link below, a video will start Windows Media, I hope...you can right click and do a save as. 2.5 MB
http://www.mrplc.com/WaterFuel.wmv


-

[sciencenerd]

Wow, if that works like advertised should be cool. However, throughout most of the clip the reporters make it sound like water is the only energy source, but as they say a little ways into it, what they are really doing is forming a combustible (I assume) gas, HHO, from water using electrolysis. Which means you need electricity for this to work. I'm not sure how this process is any more efficient than simply using the raw electricity and running the car off an electric motor, but if they have gotten it this far, there must be something to this that I'm missing.

[Adam Shapiro]

This is really an amazing concept. Using the technology as a power source for cars is a really wonderful idea, but even its intended purpose – as a fuel for cutting torches – is great. It would mean a huge step for safety in the machine shop. I'm not entirely clear on the reason it works for cutting, though I think it may be combining with the metal to produce metal-oxide and H2, which would then be flammable. It reminds me of an article on Slashdot a while back about an engine that was able to somehow combine water and metal to do the same (in this case the H2 gas would then be used to produce electricity in a fuel cell, such that it could be recycled back into water). The full article, posted on IsraCast.com, is rather interesting. There are many skeptics on Slashdot, however, if you take a look at the comments. I certainly hope this new technology is real, and judging by this video it seems like it is a definite possibility.

[KenWittlief]

the guy claims to have invented electrolysis?!

the amount of electical energy required to turn water into hyrdogen and oxygen has been well known for over a hundred years

at best you always get out less than you put in - laws of physics remain in effect.

The fact that he's making all these claims that "his" gas burns differently in a welding torch indicates he really doesnt know what he's talking about.

[sciencenerd]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

the guy claims to have invented electrolysis?!

the amount of electical energy required to turn water into hyrdogen and oxygen has been well known for over a hundred years

at best you always get out less than you put in - laws of physics remain in effect.

The fact that he's making all these claims that "his" gas burns differently in a welding torch indicates he really doesnt know what he's talking about.

Well, it does say that the gas formed is HHO (the difference between this and normal water is that the two hydrogens are bound to each other instead of both to the oxygen, like this: H-H-O as opposed to normal water, which looks more like this: H-O-H, which would make it less stable, and more prone to react), instead of the normal products of electrolysis, H2 and O2. However, I agree, as I said before I don't understand how this would help, you still get out the energy that you put in, right? I guess I trust the government and whatever car company he is in negotiation with right now to know what they're doing enough to realize whether this technology has potential or not, and since they're funding it, it seems they think it does. I wish the news reel had a little more detail on the technology, that would be useful.

[artdutra04]

In order for this whole thing to work you need to use the following equations: you must have the chemical formula H₂0 + energy → HHO to create the HHO gas from water. When the gas is burned, you have the formula HHO → H₂0 + energy. This appears to not need any extra oxygen (as a combustion reaction would), since all this seems to do is rearrange the shape of H₂0 to HHO, while storing energy in this new configuration.

This isn't electrolysis, as the H₂0 is never split into hydrogen + oxygen. It's just rearranged into a less stable form with a lot of pent-up chemical energy. (At least that is what I understand from the information provided.)

When they refer to powering cars off HHO, I don't think they mean like the way hydrogen is used in fuel cells. Rather, I think all they do is take the HHO gas and feed that directly into the internal combusison engine in a regular car. The only modifications they need to your car is a new carburetor / fuel-injector to one which can handle the HHO gas instead of (or in addition to) liquid gasoline.

[KenWittlief]

sounds great, except one thing, there is no such thing as HHO gas - H20 when separated through electrolysis produces Hydrogen gas and oxygen gas - and you get twice as much hydrogen.

Sounds like this guy is using AC for electrolysis, which will result in the two gasses being mixed together (instead of being produced at separate electrodes like they would with DC.

Problem with this, when you have hydrogen and oxygen gas mixed together, esp under pressure, it is unstable and can spontaneously combust (explode!).

There was a guy who pulled a scam like this for years - 20 years or more- he called the stuff "Browns Gas" (named it after himself of course). He spent years selling little machines (just like the one in the news report) to people, and getting people to invest in his company. This guy is doing the same thing.

here's the catch: if you find a low cost way to turn water into a combustible gas you dont need government funds, you dont need companies to give you money, you dont need to call the local TV station to demo your product on the 6 oclock news. If you have the real deal you file your patent, and as soon as word gets out you will have people handing you money faster than you could spend it.

[KenWittlief]

http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:...plications_Inc

http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

sounds great, except one thing, there is no such thing as HHO gas - H20 when separated through electrolysis produces Hydrogen gas and oxygen gas - and you get twice as much hydrogen.

I was kind of perplexed about that last night, as I couldn't figure out how hydrogen can bond in a H-H-O alignment, since each hydrogen atom can only bond with one other atom. So the middle -H- would be impossible. At least I now know that this is indeed a fake gas and not some weird chemical anomaly (like Xenon hexafluoroplatinate). Thanks for clarifing that.

[TubaMorg]

Ken is correct (as usual). HHO does not exist. He is merely using electrolysis to make H2 and O2, the H2 being used as fuel for his torch. This process has been around for a long time, but is a inviable process for producing fuel cells since the energy required to split water is much higher than what you can get back.

But check this out, H2 fuel cell technology is still possible. After all what can be cooler than pollutionless transportation? Check out the web site for National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). They have a few different alternative processes for making H2, the most attractive so far is their bio-hydrogen research. Well since I'm getting my phd. in biology this seems the coolest to me! There exists in this world particular types of algae that will produce hydrogen under certain growth conditions. The idea is to modify these algae and identify the particular growth conditions that maximize H2 output. They are already able to do it on a small scale, but the challenge remains to scale it up to large scale industrial production.

Really water is a poor source for H2, because the chemical bonds are so strong. NREL is looking at other sources like methane and such. But I think the bio producers are the way to go!

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by TubaMorg

But check this out, H2 fuel cell technology is still possible. After all what can be cooler than pollutionless transportation? Check out the web site for National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). They have a few different alternative processes for making H2, the most attractive so far is their bio-hydrogen research. Well since I'm getting my phd. in biology this seems the coolest to me! There exists in this world particular types of algae that will produce hydrogen under certain growth conditions. The idea is to modify these algae and identify the particular growth conditions that maximize H2 output. They are already able to do it on a small scale, but the challenge remains to scale it up to large scale industrial production.

TANSTAAFL. The algae eat something, and producing that something uses energy and space. What are the environmental implications of growing this algae? Do the waste products create a biohazard? Do they pollute the water? What other gases are released? Are some of these gases greenhouse gases? How many acres of land would have to be given over to growing algae to meet the world's energy needs? Do we need hydroponic greenhouses 120 miles long? Where are we going to get all the ponds and lakes we need to grow this algae? Are we willing to dam estuaries to build algae ponds to produce hydrogen? Who is then going to pay for the distribution infrastructure for the hydrogen? There are something on the order of 200 million vehicles in the US alone -- none of which burn hyrdogen. Are we willing to dump a capital investment of (wild guess) $2,000,000,000,000?

Melis Energy, the company created by researchers at UC Berkeley to develop commercial applications for algae-grown hydrogen, no longer has a Website, and I couldn't find out what happened to them. I'm guessing they couldn't solve the low yield problem. Maybe someone else can...

[KenWittlief]

I think there are two viable options to improve transportation:

1. Hybrid-electric cars with the ratio turned around. Presently we are seeing cars with 60HP gas engines and 10-20 HP electric motors, with small batteries. The gas engine produces most of the drive energy, and the electric motor produces a boost to make the car feel more sporty. You could easily eliminate the electric motors in these cars, and they would drive like the original VW rabbits (70HP) or VW beetles (55HP).

You only need about 5HP to hold an aerodynamic car at 65 mph on a level road - so they need to turn the ratios around: build a car with a 7 or 10HP gas engine that drives a generator, and have a 70 or 80HP electric motor for the drive train.

The neat part about this is you could design the electric motors right into the wheels - make each wheel a separate electric motor - No transmission, no drive shafts, no universal or CV joints, no differential... and you have full time 4 wheel drive, and quad redundancy on your drivetrain (if one motor fails its no big deal). Using the motors to brake the car you also eliminate the need for the entire brake system! The drive train would normally be taking slightly less power than the gas motor/generator produces, the extra charges the battery bank. When you need to climb a hill, or pull out into traffic you take some energy from the batteries.

2. Put a wire over the road - again, you only need an average 5HP per car at highway speeds. With a wire available you would never need to fire up the gas engine in a hybrid car. You would only need wires over the main roads and highways, the battery in the car would get you down the side streets.

There you go! Two solutions: A true hybrid electric/gas car that could get 90 -120 mpg, or a fully electric car with power distribution through wires over the main roads.

We dont need no stinking fuel! We could build either of these systems today.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

I think there are two viable options to improve transportation:

1. Hybrid-electric cars with the ratio turned around. Presently we are seeing cars with 60HP gas engines and 10-20 HP electric motors, with small batteries. The gas engine produces most of the drive energy, and the electric motor produces a boost to make the car feel more sporty. You could easily eliminate the electric motors in these cars, and they would drive like the original VW rabbits (70HP) or VW beetles (55HP).

You only need about 5HP to hold an aerodynamic car at 65 mph on a level road - so they need to turn the ratios around: build a car with a 7 or 10HP gas engine that drives a generator, and have a 70 or 80HP electric motor for the drive train.

The neat part about this is you could design the electric motors right into the wheels - make each wheel a separate electric motor - No transmission, no drive shafts, no universal or CV joints, no differential... and you have full time 4 wheel drive, and quad redundancy on your drivetrain (if one motor fails its no big deal). Using the motors to brake the car you also eliminate the need for the entire brake system! The drive train would normally be taking slightly less power than the gas motor/generator produces, the extra charges the battery bank. When you need to climb a hill, or pull out into traffic you take some energy from the batteries.

2. Put a wire over the road - again, you only need an average 5HP per car at highway speeds. With a wire available you would never need to fire up the gas engine in a hybrid car. You would only need wires over the main roads and highways, the battery in the car would get you down the side streets.

There you go! Two solutions: A true hybrid electric/gas car that could get 90 -120 mpg, or a fully electric car with power distribution through wires over the main roads.

We dont need no stinking fuel! We could build either of these systems today.

Those are both really good ideas. But as for the second idea, why not just build more "green" transportation solutions? Our nation has thousands of miles of abandoned rail lines near and within our cities. We could easily pave them into recreation / commuter bike trails, or even rebuild the rail lines and have light rail or subway lines again. Cars are just a nightmare to urban planners, especially since up to 40% of downtown areas in major cities are now devoted to cars and the infastructure needed to support them.

Many of our nations highways are already past the designed capacity, and widening (or building new) highways in many urban areas is no longer an option because land acquisition would be too costly for the perceived benefits. This is where building light rail, subway, or even monorail transit lines can help us. (A lot of people may laugh at the monorail idea, but Japan has been using transit monorails for years.) Plus, by having more fixed guideway transit, we could plan our our cities a lot better, instead of the sporadic (and often wasteful) growth that rises from an automobile-based society.

I think cities in the future would look a lot better with light rail and monorails than they would if they continued building highways. Here are two existing cities (Kuala Lumpur and I think Memphis) that have nice looking transit systems:

[KenWittlief]

If you are talking about community planning there is a simple answer - live where you work, with everything you need (markets, schools, medical centers, libraries...) in the area (neighborhood)

so you dont need a vehicle at all for 95% of your normal activities.

[Andrew Blair]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

If you are talking about community planning there is a simple answer - live where you work, with everything you need (markets, schools, medical centers, libraries...) in the area (neighborhood)

so you dont need a vehicle at all for 95% of your normal activities.

Indeed. If anything, the invention of the internal combustion engine has fueled it's own fuel problems. As more people obtained the ability to transport themselves cheaply, they moved away from their places of occupation, stores, entertainment. Suburbs... If you could find a way to make a 21st century rebuild/design of urban communities, with what Ken said in mind, at least 30-40 percent of our fuel needs would evaporate.