No, not hydrogen cars, water cars!

[Invain]

I've never heard of this, what an insane concept. No breaking down water into hydrogen, it's just turning the actual water into fuel.

Video

Video

Video

[Invain]

Wow I'm really baked right now but this still seems like it'd be amazing even if I was straight. Imagine if they used this to generate electricity and power cars. A guy actually made a car to run on this. He just put water in, that's it.

[BFGUITAR]

Neat!!

I am curious about this electrolysis process... the thing is of course you can run a car of this stuff but to break up the water in the first place which requires energy. The energy you get by combining them again will be less than the amount used to break it out (due to thermodynamics).

So if you had a battery in the car that had enough power to break up water and than put them together in another place of course it would work... but than you might as well use the power from the battery directly.

Unless I see how the electrolysis is done, this is pointless in terms of using it as an energy source, but very very cool in terms of chemistry and plasma.

[Invain]

To my understanding this uses a different technology than just normal electrolysis. Something about only creating the gas when needed using the plasma arch, instead of worrying about having a big tank of hydrogen. I swear I heard somewhere that they put in something like 40 watts and got out 50 amps of energy.

In one of the videos they had a car that went 100 miles on 4 ounces of water. I have no clue how much actual battery power they needed to create the gas from the water, would be interesting to find out though.

[BFGUITAR]

To my understanding this uses a different technology than just normal electrolysis. Something about only creating the gas when needed using the plasma arch, instead of worrying about having a big tank of hydrogen. I swear I heard somewhere that they put in something like 40 watts and got out 50 amps of energy.

In one of the videos they had a car that went 100 miles on 4 ounces of water. I have no clue how much actual battery power they needed to create the gas from the water, would be interesting to find out though.

Extremely interesting. But the fact is, the electrolysis of water is an absolute number. We know how much energy it takes. It there was some sort of catalyst along with some external energy... it might work if the numbers are in our favour. And yeh of course you could have a tank of water instead of hydrogen... but the apparatus to convert water to hydrogen and oxygen would be huge, heavy... especially the batteries.

[bjohnso]

Neat!!

I am curious about this electrolysis process... the thing is of course you can run a car of this stuff but to break up the water in the first place which requires energy. The energy you get by combining them again will be less than the amount used to break it out (due to thermodynamics).

So if you had a battery in the car that had enough power to break up water and than put them together in another place of course it would work... but than you might as well use the power from the battery directly.

Unless I see how the electrolysis is done, this is pointless in terms of using it as an energy source, but very very cool in terms of chemistry and plasma.

To my understanding this uses a different technology than just normal electrolysis. Something about only creating the gas when needed using the plasma arch, instead of worrying about having a big tank of hydrogen. I swear I heard somewhere that they put in something like 40 watts and got out 50 amps of energy.

In one of the videos they had a car that went 100 miles on 4 ounces of water. I have no clue how much actual battery power they needed to create the gas from the water, would be interesting to find out though.

You know...I once talked to this old man who had a pretty damn impressive resume (if he was telling the truth). He told me that the energy that it would take to break the bonds in a water molecule is less than the energy you get back when you burn hydrogen and water. I like, "lol wut?" I don't know if I just misunderstood him or if he was bull****ting me.

[BFGUITAR]

You know...I once talked to this old man who had a pretty damn impressive resume (if he was telling the truth). He told me that the energy that it would take to break the bonds in a water molecule is less than the energy you get back when you burn hydrogen and water. I like, "lol wut?" I don't know if I just misunderstood him or if he was bull****ting me.

Really the energy is the same theoretically but it isn't available to us due to unideal factors. So in the end, the energy we put in isn't what we get back. But he might be right... I have to look up entropy values for each reaction and determine that. Entropy is the natural direction things will go on the planet. It has to be calculated.

Electrolysis isnt 100% efficient itself because we create A LOT of heat doing it. So a good portion of the energy we put in goes to heating everything up and splitting water (so you may input 100 watts but only 30 went to splitting water and the rest heated your apparatus and the water itself). When you combine the two you get an explosion and lots of heat and light. Most of the energy turns to heat which is useless to us. So really we can only be getting something like 10-20% of the energy from putting water back together leaving us with a hug deficit in the end. Hence the reason who I am so skeptical about this guy. But I am interested in learning more.

Outstanding claims requires outstanding proof.

This is why 100% efficiency machines (or perpetual motion machines) are impossible.

[bjohnso]

Really the energy is the same theoretically but it isn't available to us due to unideal factors. So in the end, the energy we put in isn't what we get back. But he might be right... I have to look up entropy values for each reaction and determine that. Entropy is the natural direction things will go on the planet. It has to be calculated.

Electrolysis isnt 100% efficient itself because we create A LOT of heat doing it. So a good portion of the energy we put in goes to heating everything up and splitting water (so you may input 100 watts but only 30 went to splitting water and the rest heated your apparatus and the water itself). When you combine the two you get an explosion and lots of heat and light. Most of the energy turns to heat which is useless to us. So really we can only be getting something like 10-20% of the energy from putting water back together leaving us with a hug deficit in the end. Hence the reason who I am so skeptical about this guy. But I am interested in learning more.

Outstanding claims requires outstanding proof.

This is why 100% efficiency machines (or perpetual motion machines) are impossible.

Heat ouput is very beneficial in internal combustion engines.

[BFGUITAR]

Heat ouput is very beneficial in internal combustion engines.

It isn't the heat itself that gives us the energy. It is the rapid increase in pressure. Heat can do this but this process is very very dirty. You don't get nearly all the energy that was released to move the car (less than a quarter). Batteriy powered vehicles are more efficient with their energy but there are many other problems associated with battery powered cars.

[bjohnso]

It isn't the heat itself that gives us the energy. It is the rapid increase in pressure. Heat can do this but this process is very very dirty. You don't get nearly all the energy that was released to move the car (less than a quarter). Batteriy powered vehicles are more efficient with their energy but there are many other problems associated with battery powered cars.

I guess quite a bit of the expansion in the cylinder comes from the liquid fuel turning into a gas - but the heat generated does increase the volume greatly, doesn't it? Isn't that why turbochargers and water injection can make engines so much more powerful?

[BFGUITAR]

This "so much more powerful" doesn't even compare to how much energy we would get if 100% of all combusted fuel went towards moving the car. I remember my teacher saying that out of an entire tank of gas, only 10-15% of that gas goes to moving your car, the rest is lost. The most efficient you can get a steel internal combustion engine is about 37%. But this is under extremely ideal conditions, not practical.

The conversion of liquid to gas of course creates and expansion, and so does the heat, you are correct. You have a small volume of high pressure gas. We can direct the volume increase to make mechanical work. But this process isn't efficient.

Water injection is a very clever idea. Water acts as a heat absorbent. Instead of having the heat dissipate into the engine and out into the planet (like most of the energy does) it gets absorbed by water and turned into a gas. This adds to the partial pressure of H20. More pressure means more power in the end.


Really, what is limiting us is what we make the engines out of. If the engines were made of a metal with a much higher melting point, or could withstand higher pressures and heat we can get more bang for our buck, literally.

[bjohnso]

This "so much more powerful" doesn't even compare to how much energy we would get if 100% of all combusted fuel went towards moving the car. I remember my teacher saying that out of an entire tank of gas, only 10-15% of that gas goes to moving your car, the rest is lost. The most efficient you can get a steel internal combustion engine is about 37%. But this is under extremely ideal conditions, not practical.

The conversion of liquid to gas of course creates and expansion, and so does the heat, you are correct. You have a small volume of high pressure gas. We can direct the volume increase to make mechanical work. But this process isn't efficient.

Water injection is a very clever idea. Water acts as a heat absorbent. Instead of having the heat dissipate into the engine and out into the planet (like most of the energy does) it gets absorbed by water and turned into a gas. This adds to the partial pressure of H20. More pressure means more power in the end.


Really, what is limiting us is what we make the engines out of. If the engines were made of a metal with a much higher melting point, or could withstand higher pressures and heat we can get more bang for our buck, literally.

I thought cars were about 30% efficient on average - that's a figure I got from a high school science teacher years ago. Is there any reason why cars don't have water injection? I'm not a gearhead, and I want to know. The only reason I can think of is corrosion.

[zen]

You know...I once talked to this old man who had a pretty damn impressive resume (if he was telling the truth). He told me that the energy that it would take to break the bonds in a water molecule is less than the energy you get back when you burn hydrogen and water. I like, "lol wut?" I don't know if I just misunderstood him or if he was bull****ting me.

That's the trick, isn't it.
From what I have been reading by the skeptics, they say that it's not feasible for it to happen that way. Basic laws of physics say that you can't make or destroy energy, you only convert it's state. So, in other words, it should take atleast as much energy to put into it as you would get out, if not more, because no system has perfect storage and transport of energy without some degree of loss of energy to the environment (just like there aren't any cheap super conductors, neither are there any cheap super insulators).
So, how is it that it requires less energy input to separate the bonds in water than the energy you capture?

[bjohnso]

That's the trick, isn't it.
From what I have been reading by the skeptics, they say that it's not feasible for it to happen that way. Basic laws of physics say that you can't make or destroy energy, you only convert it's state. So, in other words, it should take atleast as much energy to put into it as you would get out, if not more, because no system has perfect storage and transport of energy without some degree of loss of energy to the environment (just like there aren't any cheap super conductors, neither are there any cheap super insulators).
So, how is it that it requires less energy input to separate the bonds in water than the energy you capture?

That's what I was thinking when I was talking to him. I was kind of wowed by his resume, so I didn't call him a ****ing liar, lol. He was pretty nice guy too.

[Invain]

You can convert matter into energy. Look at nuclear bombs and nuclear power plants. I have a feeling you get wayyyy more energy out of a nuclear bomb than it takes to split the atom. I don't believe getting more energy out of water than you put into it is defying any laws of physics.

[bjohnso]

You can convert matter into energy. Look at nuclear bombs and nuclear power plants. I have a feeling you get wayyyy more energy out of a nuclear bomb than it takes to split the atom. I don't believe getting more energy out of water than you put into it is defying any laws of physics.

I'm not seeing the analogy. According to the gentleman I spoke to, you are doing work to break the bonds, and getting more work out reforming them. In the atom bomb you are not reforming anything.

But, alas, I am not a physicist. Or a chemist.

[Invain]

In an atomic bomb nuclear fission splits nuclei and releases huge amounts of energy. An atom bomb releases way more energy than it takes to get the chian reaction started.

[zen]

In an atomic bomb nuclear fission splits nuclei and releases huge amounts of energy. An atom bomb releases way more energy than it takes to get the chian reaction started.

That energy is actually stored in the radioactive material (uranium or plutonium). You catalize the start of the chain reaction using the detonation of explosives (also more energy). The energy subsequently released from the chain reaction is the natural energy stored at the atomic level. But technically speaking, matter is not destroyed in a nuclear explosion (as far as I know), it is simply being re-arranged at it's most basic level.

[BFGUITAR]

Entropy is the reason why the bonds broken might not equal the energy when the bonds are formed. Entropy is the natural direction the universe goes towards, it can only be calculated.

[d'Anconia]

That energy is actually stored in the radioactive material (uranium or plutonium). You catalize the start of the chain reaction using the detonation of explosives (also more energy). The energy subsequently released from the chain reaction is the natural energy stored at the atomic level. But technically speaking, matter is not destroyed in a nuclear explosion (as far as I know), it is simply being re-arranged at it's most basic level.

Exactly. There's a big difference between splitting the molecular bonds and splitting the bonds within the nuclei and a single atom. What interesting though is that if there were a way to contain a nuclear explosion (as well as its radiation) then we'd be able to power cars no problem. But obviously we can't.

I personally think this "power cars with water" thing is complete bull**** and wish there were more skeptics to kill of these myths. If it were possible someone would have taken advantage of it already, all big-corporation conspiracies aside.

I'd love to see cars use radioactive material to power themselves but who am I kidding that will probably never happen during our lifetimes. Too dangerous for many reasons.

Screw it, I'm still happy with petroleum... if only the environmentalists would stop mucking things up and just let us drill wherever we'd like. I say if you own the land you should be able to drill it. You spill oil then you pay the damages just like in any other situation.

Plasma conversion is the only other answer I've come across and you guys should seriously take a look into it. Looks like it could hold A LOT of promise both for taking care of energy needs as well as waste disposal. Google it some time and you'll be impressed (and it's not junk science either...)

[TTT]

I'd love to see cars use radioactive material to power themselves but who am I kidding that will probably never happen during our lifetimes. Too dangerous for many reasons.

I think they're actually developing small nuclear 'cells' for use as energy carriers already. Soon, you could be running your laptop on nuclear energy
However, I agree with you re: fusion being the next thing we need to develop, rather than fission.

BTW, I didn't see any claims in those videos that the process is inherently more energy efficient than burning fossil fuels. All they said was that it used very little water, and that it wasn't as toxic/explosive. For all we know, they could be running that thing on a 3-phase power supply.


Interesting discussion here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56705

[zen]

LOL

[BFGUITAR]

That energy is actually stored in the radioactive material (uranium or plutonium). You catalize the start of the chain reaction using the detonation of explosives (also more energy). The energy subsequently released from the chain reaction is the natural energy stored at the atomic level. But technically speaking, matter is not destroyed in a nuclear explosion (as far as I know), it is simply being re-arranged at it's most basic level.

This is utterly wrong, sorry. Matter IS lost in nuclear reactions. This is called the "mass defect".

The argument isn't that this is more efficient than fossil fuel... it's just cheaper, safer, and better for the environment. Assuming what they are doing is ground breaking.

[BFGUITAR]

Exactly. There's a big difference between splitting the molecular bonds and splitting the bonds within the nuclei and a single atom. What interesting though is that if there were a way to contain a nuclear explosion (as well as its radiation) then we'd be able to power cars no problem. But obviously we can't.

I personally think this "power cars with water" thing is complete bull**** and wish there were more skeptics to kill of these myths. If it were possible someone would have taken advantage of it already, all big-corporation conspiracies aside.

I'd love to see cars use radioactive material to power themselves but who am I kidding that will probably never happen during our lifetimes. Too dangerous for many reasons.

Screw it, I'm still happy with petroleum... if only the environmentalists would stop mucking things up and just let us drill wherever we'd like. I say if you own the land you should be able to drill it. You spill oil then you pay the damages just like in any other situation.

Plasma conversion is the only other answer I've come across and you guys should seriously take a look into it. Looks like it could hold A LOT of promise both for taking care of energy needs as well as waste disposal. Google it some time and you'll be impressed (and it's not junk science either...)

There is a lot wrong with what your asking... uranium powered cars? Do you have any idea how big reactors have to be? Not to mention expensive. There would be no way to safely shield the driver from radiation... it's just not practical at all. I'm skeptical if it's even possible to do this safely.

What is possible is to use a chunk of Plutonium and use it's residual radiation for space probes. The radiation can heat a plate which can create a gradient. With certain techniques this can be utilized for thrust.

[zen]

There is a lot wrong with what your asking... uranium powered cars? Do you have any idea how big reactors have to be? Not to mention expensive. There would be no way to safely shield the driver from radiation... it's just not practical at all. I'm skeptical if it's even possible to do this safely.

What is possible is to use a chunk of Plutonium and use it's residual radiation for space probes. The radiation can heat a plate which can create a gradient. With certain techniques this can be utilized for thrust.

I have heard that we have subs with many small reactors on them.