Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Demonstration of water powered engines, now!

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by pro-pilot, Dec 2, 2007.

  1. #1 pro-pilot, Dec 2, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2015
    Interesting that these things don't get greater covereage.
    But hey. Someone gotta may $1.50 a litre on fuel!


  2. Very cool, and very interesting.

    And like you said, quite a lack of coverage.
  3. It's interesting now, because once the auto makers would have steered clear of this and let the oil companies buy up the patents and keep it secret and the oilers would possibly pay tens of millions for this to avoid the car makers moving away from them and their fossil fuels.

    With fuel prices today, many people are using cars less, and turning to bikes and walking, so even car makers are feeling the pinch of less car use and fewer people buying new, so instead of letting the oilers have this, the manufacturers may well want it so they can sell you what will possibly be the cheapest and most convenient vehicle to run. It would sell by the truckload once the technology is proven reliable and as long as it doesnt cost what you will save on fuel for 20 years to buy it.

    The arabs will be hurting once the alternative fuels movement gets in full swing. I can hardly wait, those sand dwelling farkers and OPEC have been holding us to ransom for years....payback is a biatch!
  4. Sorry to Poo Poo on it BUT you can't get more energy out of "water" broken down to H and O by electrolysis than the breakdown needs :( .
    It takes more energy (electrical input coming from ?????) to break down the water than you can get out of burning the H and O.
    It might save greenhouse gas and pollution IF you use nuclear FISSION to generate the electrons used to generate H(x 2) and O from H2O
  5. I’m assuming you are crudely discussing the laws of thermodynamics.

    I have only seen what you have seen and did not get the impression that they were suggesting that the reaction presented an over unity situation (in layman terms more energy out than in).

    It is just that this particular compound reacts cleanly and very efficiently. The input energy needed to render this compound was not discussed. But the dude got some great use in his car it would appear.

    However, all fuels require more energy to create than they deliver. It just depends on the utility and efficiency of its delivery. Eg. To create and contain anti-matter would cost millions per milligram. However the use of this fuel (if possible by future engineering) would be the only way (energy to weight ration) to accelerate close to the speed of light.

    What-ever fits the bill mate.
  6. Water restrictions, people!

    What about the water restrictions?!?
  7. ahh but a 330ml of bottle water is already $1.50 so whats the point
  8. Pure water may be H2O, but tap water is H2O plus all sorts of crap.
    Wouldn't that gunk up the machine? would you need special purified fuel water?

    Would it be better to get a solar or wind powered station to create hydrogen fuel cells and then we focus on hydrogen powered electric cars instead?

    Just putting some questions out there.
  9. bwaaaahhahahahahahahahhahahahah.

    The article must have been done on April 1st.

    Unless the cracking is done at home when plugged into a power point, what he is saying is just impossible.
  10. Agreed.

    Can't watch youtube at work, but if this is like another claim of combustible water that I saw a while back, it sounds suspiciously as if the claimant is using the (old and recognised) process of electrolytically producing hydrogen and oxygen from water and using the technological illiteracy of the majority of the population to pass it off as something revolutionary. You can buy oxy-hydrogen welding machines that do this when plugged into a power point, but most folk don't know about 'em.

    And on a related subject, I find it hilarious that so many working prototype Joe Cells and similar are mysteriously "stolen" by "Big Oil" just before they can be independently tested.

    Funny that.
  11. I seem to remember hearing about Joe cells from a mate few years back. His friend at uni was researching them and I got a whole heap of documents given to me to read-of which I can recall not much. As to there viabilty???? There are sooo many web pages on them its hard to sort the wheat from the charf :?
  12. Nothing amazing here. It is not a water powered car, it is a hydrogen powered car :roll: . Talk about media BS.

    Simple fact. Making hydrogen from water requires energy, lots. His wonder-car is simply using energy (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, solar, wind, whatever) produced remotely at a power station. It is not "powered" by water. It is no different to an electric car. They are not pollution-free, they simply emit their pollution at a power station.

    Engineering logic suggests to me that a car that uses electricity to drive an electric motor would be considerably more efficient than a car that uses electricity to generate hydrogen to drive an internal combustion engine. The extra steps will always reduce efficiency. Sorry kids, but physics tells us that this most definitely isn't the future.

    My $0.02.
  13. I don't think this is total bunkum.

    I think he uses DC electricity from a battery bank to electrolyse water and either mix the H2 in with the fossil fuel combustion mixture to extend it's energy or alternatively literally run the car on the collected H2 alone.

    It's gotta be better than burning fossil fuel alone??

    If the batteries were kept charged by some means (solar cell trickle charger, regenerative braking, a high output alternator plus regular plug into the wall), then I can't see why this wouldn't extend how far a tank of fuel would take you.

    A battery bank driving electric motors to turn wheels must use MORE power than a steady state current electrolysing water and recovering the H2 gas to fuel a car or extend fossil fuel into a car.

    Whether on balance there's a sum energy saving or deficit is really the question.
  14. shame the inventor died though
  15. Died or was mysteriously murdered? 8-[
  16. And I can answer that question. Hydrogen electrolysis throws away about 30% of the energy put into it, just through the nature of the chemical reaction. Compressing the Hydrogen throws away more, and the refrigeration and power conversion process of a fuel cell throws away about 40% of what energy's left. Fuel cells are hideously inefficient. Batteries, on the other hand, are excellent:


    The only trouble with batteries is that they take a while to charge, instead of being able to fill them up quickly with a liquid like you can do with hydrogen.

    I did an article on the comparison recently:
  17. Loz, you are a font!

    But I think the dude was using the hydrogen directly as fuel, not as part of a hydrogen fuel cell... so maybe the efficiency is better than your excellent diagram would suggest??
  18. 1) where does the electricity coming out of your wall come from? Power station. I think a mate of mine did a bit of research on the coal powerstations out in gippsland (where most of melb power comes from), and he worked out that between 1-3% of the potential energy stored inside the coal comes out at the other end of your power point. The coal goes through numerous energy transformations, each with quite a bit less that 100% efficiency, and then through power lines, transformers, etc which all respectively have low efficiency. THEN that energy has to get stored in a battery, which is 95% efficient at best, THEN that energy has to be drawn from the battery at say, 95% efficiency at best, then that tiny bit of remaining energy is used to break down the hydrogen-oxygen bond, and store the hydrogen in an accessible manner, THEN that hydrogen is combusted, and must drive a crankshaft to turn the wheels that are on the road that push the car foward with, you guessed it, pretty ordinary efficiency. So- amount of energy used? craploads. Amount of useful drive energy? very little in comparison.

    This is just one example, solar/wind/other will have better specs when used in this blokes situation, but I think we have much better ways of storing and then releasing energy on demand than what hydrogen can offer.

    And then remembering he is using pure water. now THAT is very hard to come by. desalinization would use even MORE energy.

    so, ending my rant, there is a sum energy deficit. there always is. but hydrogen is worse than most.
  19. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the ONLY byproduct of electrolysis of water, then combustion of hydrogen gas is water itself. If the "exhaust" was properly collected, I couldnt imagine it hard to re-use the pure water, admittedly it wouldnt be 100% efficient (nothing ever is), but its not like you would have to "fill the tank" every 500km.
  20. ^ electrolysis is only 50-70% energy efficient. It has a theoretical maximum of 80-94% efficiency. That is, for every unit of electrical energy you supply, you will obtain between 0.5 and .7 units of potential chemical energy. Then considering that said energy for the electrolysis is supplied by (usually) quite inefficient power stations as mentioned above, you have a very large energy deficit. Sure, with renewables, like wind and solar, you will reduce this energy deficit, by why use that energy you have captured, on something so inefficient, when there are other equally environmentally friendly alternatives out there?-with much greater efficiency.

    In regards to frickendevil. When you burn petrol, you can't capture the exhaust fumes and burn them again, to get the same amount of output energy. Same goes for hydrogen.