Water-powered cars

[ArmillarySphere]

A friend of mine who is otherwise a good mechanic seems to have drunk a little too much of the Kool-Aid from this site:
http://www.waterpoweredcar.com/

He's currently planning on converting a car to running on water, and while I didn't want to say anything, I fear he's a little overly optimistic. I hadn't heard of the concept before, but found a few hints that it's been discussed before.

There might be something to adding a tiny bit of extra hydrogen and/or water to a combustion process, but their claims to running cars entirely on water are... well, let's just say that it doesn't mesh terribly well with what I know of physics (but hey, I didn't even get that MSc...)

The site is pretty entertaining otherwise - lots of woo things there, like 9/11 fantasies, the death of the electic car, some conspiracy theory about how the inventor Stan Meyer was poisoned. But that's a topic for a different subforum - here, I'd like to know what the opinions are on the core concept of running an engine on water.

[bruto]

I was under the impression that electrolysis requires some expenditure of energy. Rather a lot actually - like more than you get out of it. I haven't bothered to wade through that whole site, but wonder where the energy for the electrolysis is coming from.

[Terry]

Quote:

That is the whole idea of "On Board Electrolysis Fuel Cells". Only make enough gas as you need. After you build a hydro-booster it gets you to thinking, hey if this works why not make one that produces enough gas to run my car totally on water! That is the part the DOE, the Oil Corp.s do not want you to do. It will cut them off someday.So a gradual moving away from fossil fuels is on it's way. A hydrogen booster is the first step. 100% Water as a Fuel is the goal. Also remember "perfect love casts out all fear" the Bible says that. So Go for it Dude!

link

That's the bit that's definitely wrong. You can't get enough energy from burning the electrolysed water to split the same volume of water again, and still have energy left over to accellerate the vehicle.

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by ArmillarySphere

A friend of mine who is otherwise a good mechanic....currently planning on converting a car to running on water, and while I didn't want to say anything, I fear he's a little overly optimistic.

...lots of woo things there, like 9/11 fantasies, the death of the electic car, some conspiracy theory about how the inventor Stan Meyer was poisoned.

I recommend that your friend find out for himself, no other way. The latter fantasies should be a tipoff. Suggest he look up "electrolysis", energy in vs. energy out, then read about Stan Meyer. Lots of stuff out there.

If he is an "otherwise good mechanic" he will make the right decision based on fact whether to proceed with this fantasy.

[Ratatoskr]

It's the good old "you can't get more energy out of a system than you put in".

Simple as that.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by Terry

link

That's the bit that's definitely wrong. You can't get enough energy from burning the electrolysed water to split the same volume of water again, and still have energy left over to accellerate the vehicle.

more to the point, you can't get enough energy from burning the electrolyzed water to split the same volume of water again. <--- that's a period.

[Terry]

At least you do liberate enough energy to split the same volume again. Granted the second law of thermodynamics makes it... challenging, shall we say? to capture it all. But you definitely can't get more.

[ArmillarySphere]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

I recommend that your friend find out for himself, no other way. The latter fantasies should be a tipoff. Suggest he look up "electrolysis", energy in vs. energy out, then read about Stan Meyer. Lots of stuff out there.

Well, it might be a little difficult to poison that well. I already know that he's bought the Stan Meyer conspiracy theory wholesale, so that wouldn't affect his opinion. I'll ask a few innocuous but probing questions about the concept, to start his mental wheels spinning a few extra turns.

Do you have any links about Stan Meyer?

[DRBUZZ0]

This is one of the oldest claims in the book. It's been done to death. No you cannot power your car on water. Yes you can on hydrogen, but you need to make the hydrogen ahead of time because you cannot do it with the energy generated by burning it. Won't work... ever.

I heard some claims that generating hydrogen and injecting it into the engine would improve miliage. I have found this to be universally debunked and untrue. Although, I suppose in theory, you could possibly improve the effeciency of your engine by adding something to the fuel (such as hydrogen... maybe) I've only heard that the hydrogen supplimental systems cannot ever improve it enough ti make it worth the energy consumed.

But that's besides the point. You could only do it marginally anyways.

[ArmillarySphere]

I did notice one poster saying something about how adding water to a fuel injection system actually helps, since you get better cooling and you then can run your engine hotter than otherwise. That would help with the power - the example given was WWII fighter engines - but I don't know what it would do for fuel economy.

[shadron]

Originally Posted by NorwegianSquirrel

It's the good old "you can't get more energy out of a system than you put in".

Simple as that.

As they say, "You can't win; you can't break even; and you can't get out of the game." It takes exactly as much energy to electrolyze the water as it gives in burning that resulting fuel, provided there is no waste (as noise or heat). But that is plainly impossible; there will always be some waste heat. However, what you can do is bring in a cheaper source of energy (say, your local power grid) than whatever you are using to break down the water in the first place (like gasoline), and that may pay - economically if not physically.

It's like building local solar or wind power - as long as you have to store it - and you do have to store it - if you use batteries it may not be economical to think about it. But if you can store it on the power grid - that is, send your surplus to someone who does need it (and get it back later from someone else that has a surplus when you need it), then it may suddenly become quite profitable. Roscoe, Texas, is cashing in on that right now. Economics doesn't necessarily follow the three laws.

[Redtail]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

I recommend that your friend find out for himself, no other way. The latter fantasies should be a tipoff. Suggest he look up "electrolysis", energy in vs. energy out, then read about Stan Meyer. Lots of stuff out there.

If he is an "otherwise good mechanic" he will make the right decision based on fact whether to proceed with this fantasy.

Agreed. I had a buddy in the army that was convinced he could build a generator that he could run his house on and it would also power itself. No idea how much money he sunk into it but AFAIK he's still trying.

Also I remember seeing video of a cutting torch that the inventor claimed was fueled by water, and I do mean torch not high pressure water. Anyone else heard about this?

[Graham Ross]

I've heard this claim three or four different times from different people. Often when the subject of alternative fuels comes up in conversation someone says something along the lines of "There was this a guy who made a car fueled by water, but the oil companies/government assassinated him."


The Wikipedia article on water fuel cells has a good overview of the cliam and why it is false:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Fuel_Cells

Basically it's a paranormal claim on top of a scam on top of a conspiracy theory.

[Olowkow]

I'm not going to get into posting Stan Meyer stuff. It's all out there. Most of it is by him or his cohorts, or believers, unfortunately. From what ArmSph says, it would have no effect anyway. I know what you are saying.

The point is, if you read it carefully, you will know that it is meaningless (harmonics, duty cycles, etc.). People who know the real science just don't bother debunking this because it frankly is not worth the energy to do so. It is just too painfully obvious. Sort of like arguing with any other zealot.

You might point out that there has never been a documented test of his engine (as far as I can tell) that proves he is using electrolyzed water as a source of hydrogen to power a car. A "YouTube" video of a guy driving a dune buggy is proof of nothing. The news media are just dupes. Why were there no scientists there examining this thing? My goodness, it is the breakthrough of the century!

This is very akin to the Steorn nonsense. I have followed this crock for quite a while now. The bottom line is: no free energy....nor lunch! Bit of a pity, actually. Steorn was so, uhm, convincing...and he had all these supporters....and looked honest....and...

On the other hand, those with no background in fundamental physics won't understand technical explanations. So, perhaps one just has to step back, let the guy try his "free energy" ideas, and hope for the best. At least it will keep him out of the bars.

Not worth losing a friend over at this point. IMHO

And, oh yes, Stanley was not murdered...unless we have another conspiracy...good grief!

[Schneibster]

Zig brought this to the last discussion of improved internal combustion engines. I don't know that I'd call it water powered, precisely.

[Graham Ross]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

The point is, if you read it carefully, you will know that it is meaningless (harmonics, duty cycles, etc.). People who know the real science just don't bother debunking this because it frankly is not worth the energy to do so. It is just too painfully obvious. Sort of like arguing with any other zealot.

I have managed to convince a couple of my friends who thought it was true that it was in fact bogus.

It's good to have the debunking resources out there so people who are scientifically illiterate (like me) can know the reasons why these claims are wrong.

[e-sabbath]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen
Brown's Gas is that cutting torch. It's okay, but I understand mostly empty containers can literally explode.
http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by Graham Ross

I have managed to convince a couple of my friends who thought it was true that it was in fact bogus.

It's good to have the debunking resources out there so people who are scientifically illiterate (like me) can know the reasons why these claims are wrong.

Point well taken, sure, but it's so ....boring to deal with the detractors! Still, cudos to Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, and his kind, for their tireless efforts in debunking the YEC's ideas about evolution, for example.

[bruto]

Actually I think there was once a working (or temporarily working) scam sometime back in the early 20th century, involving a water powered car, in which it turned out the engine had been rigged to run on acetylene (which can be easily generated on the spot by dropping calcium carbide into water). Occasional forays into this area have been made since, but I don't think anyone has gotten a car engine to run well or reliably on acetylene recently.

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by bruto

Actually I think there was once a working (or temporarily working) scam sometime back in the early 20th century, involving a water powered car, in which it turned out the engine had been rigged to run on acetylene (which can be easily generated on the spot by dropping calcium carbide into water). Occasional forays into this area have been made since, but I don't think anyone has gotten a car engine to run well or reliably on acetylene recently.

So they were heating the water, for a steam engine I guess. Seems to me that part of the problem running an engine on acetylene (or hydrogen) as a fuel, (unpressurized) would be getting the acetylene under high enough pressure. This takes a compressor, which takes power, which needs "fuel". One could just run the engine from the "fuel" instead.

Hydrogen fuel cell is another matter, provided you have a cheap source of hydrogen.

The fuel cells being researched where I work use formic acid as the fuel of choice. The stuff that ants make. Ethanol has problems with generation of CO at low temperatures, which tends to snuff out the cell. Hence all the research on catalysts. It is quite remarkable, to me, how much power they can get from small cells.

[Graham Ross]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Point well taken, sure, but it's so ....boring to deal with the detractors! Still, cudos to Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, and his kind, for their tireless efforts in debunking the YEC's ideas about evolution, for example.

If we want more non-scientists to be skeptics we need more people like Massimo.

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by Graham Ross

If we want more non-scientists to be skeptics we need more people like Massimo.

He is really something special. If anyone does not know about him, check out his appearances on "The Infidel Guy" podcast. He debates Kent Hovind on one of the programs. Priceless stuff.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

So they were heating the water, for a steam engine I guess. Seems to me that part of the problem running an engine on acetylene (or hydrogen) as a fuel, (unpressurized) would be getting the acetylene under high enough pressure. This takes a compressor, which takes power, which needs "fuel". One could just run the engine from the "fuel" instead.

Hydrogen fuel cell is another matter, provided you have a cheap source of hydrogen.

The fuel cells being researched where I work use formic acid as the fuel of choice. The stuff that ants make. Ethanol has problems with generation of CO at low temperatures, which tends to snuff out the cell. Hence all the research on catalysts. It is quite remarkable, to me, how much power they can get from small cells.

I think the idea was simply to burn the acetylene as fuel in the engine. An acetylene generator can put out as much pressure as is safe anyway, which in the case of acetylene is about 15 psi., above which it has a nasty habit of exploding. ( I think that's why all the numbers above 15 are in red on my welding regulator! ). That's plenty of pressure to run an engine using a carburetor similar to what would be used with LPG or natural gas. I think the problem with acetylene is that it is so carbon rich it's hard to run cleanly in a conventional internal combustion engine without fouling it. My dim recollection is that it worked, but the engine didn't last. That doesn't matter, of course, if you're running a scam.

You can do a non-pressurized or low pressure gas rig easily enough with producer gas (from incomplete combustion of wood or coal). "Easily" being relative, of course, but it's suitable for an internal combustion engine, and was once used relatively commonly on stationary engines, and has also been done by enterprising tinkerers in times of scarcity, or just as an exercise. It's not necessarily a good energy bargain, since you have to burn the fuel to make the gas, but the concept is not terribly complicated, and it will make an engine go without petroleum.

[DRBUZZ0]

Well you can run an internal combustion engine without petroleum pretty easily. It'll run on methanol, ethanol, butane, ether, methane, propane, acetone, hydrogen and other stuff. I mean as far as a gasoline engine goes. If you use a diesel engine... well there's even more crap it'll run on.

Of course, it depends on the engine and fuel system. You may run into problems with lubrication if you run it for a long enough time, because gasoline can help provide some lubrication of the valves and such. But in any case, you can pull it off with minor modification.

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by bruto

I think the idea was simply to burn the acetylene as fuel in the engine. An acetylene generator can put out as much pressure as is safe anyway, which in the case of acetylene is about 15 psi

I was sleepy when I posted! I was picturing having to store the acetylene for later use. Nasty stuff in any case.
Always been partial to Stirling engines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bf6mhfeUH0

[ktesibios]

There's a very nice, succinct explanation of why the Meyerites' claims about "resonance" permitting water to be electrolyzed with less energy input than can be recovered by burning the hydrogen here:

Chemical Free Lunch