Cars running on water..

This topic has 19 voices, contains 35 replies, and was last updated by walker935 729 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 36 total)

1 2 3 →

Author	Posts
Author	Posts
October 5, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Bart October 5, 2006 at 5:35 pm	A while ago we posted an article about a company selling a kit to make your car run on water… very very interesting idea… there has been many of them… especially in increaseing the performance of the typical engine… you know that it only runs at like 20% of efficiency??? how crazy is that… how crazy is it that the design is 50 years old and hasn’t been updated… I wish there weren’t as many greedy people in the world… link http://www.youtube.com/v/vKM4pb9Oxrg
chiron-rising October 5, 2006 at 5:47 pm	Hey !!!! great minds think alike !!!! check out my Hydro post.
Bart October 5, 2006 at 6:14 pm	lol
Bytesmiths October 6, 2006 at 11:46 pm	A while ago we posted an article about a company selling a kit to make your car run on water… As an engineer, I’m very skeptical that this has a positive energy balance. I don’t understand what “HHO” could possibly mean. Hydrogen has a valance of one — you can’t link hydrogen with both oxygen and another hydrogen. (Water might be called “HOH”, in that oxygen, with a valence of two, links with a hydrogen on either side.) If he’s electrolyzing water to split it into hydrogen and oxygen, he needs to be honest about how much electrical energy he’s using. In such a case, it’s deceptive to say he’s “running on water,” since the water is being transformed into fuel by electricity, and the electricity used must be no less than the energy released when hydrogen and oxygen is re-combined, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics. In other words, why not simply run the car from electricity directly, and save the considerable efficiency penalty that an internal combustion engine imposes? (Some 75% of spark engine energy is wasted as heat.)
Bart October 7, 2006 at 12:24 am	I’m not too sure Bytesmiths, you obviously know more about the science then me or any other avg Joe… but I would love to see the scientific community look at things like this and tell us if it’s crap or if there is any potential… when you have the combustion engine running at 20 something percent for the last 30 years and there hasn’t been any increase in performance you start thinking what else big oil companies and car manufactures are hiding.
Bytesmiths October 7, 2006 at 2:45 am	I would love to see the scientific community look at things like this and tell us if it’s crap or if there is any potential… So far as I can tell, it’s crap, but I haven’t seen the details. I have done tons of research into energy issues, though, and I know of no chemical mechanism that can do what he claims. But what the heck, it just might be a case of one guy figuring out something no one else has been able to, but the odds are against that! when you have the combustion engine running at 20 something percent for the last 30 years and there hasn’t been any increase in performance you start thinking what else big oil companies and car manufactures are hiding. I don’t buy the “car makers are hiding things” arguments. It’s a competitive world. Even if you believe the Big Three US automakers are conspiring to hide something that would be beneficial to the consumer, don’t you think someone in Tokyo, Seoul, Stuttgard, or Stockholm would have tried to grab market share by scooping their rivals? As for the “stuck at 20% for 30 years” part, I think it’s actually closer to 25%, and there are some very basic problems in getting more than that. Another way of looking at is is that there already is a superior technology that gets 40% efficiency already on the market, and less than 3% of Americans take advantage of it — although a majority of Europeans use it. It’s called “diesel”! The fact that diesel is such a superior technology, but is spurned by Americans, speaks volumes. In Canada, you can get relatively inexpensive, tiny, three-cylinder “Smart Cars” that get 60mpg+ on diesel! But nothing like that is sold in America, where gasoline costs 30% less than in Canada and less than half of what it costs in Europe. So we got a problem. Gas is too darnn cheap for Americans to demand more efficient vehicles. That’s the problem! No one is hiding anything — the cars are out there. In Europe, you can buy 90mpg diesel hybrids! Why not in the US? Because up until very recently, the American consumer has been more interested in horsepower than economy, as a direct result of gas being so darned cheap. BTW: link that I suck out of restaurants’ trash bins for free. Why doesn’t everyone do this? Because it’s a pain in the butt and inconvenient, and Americans won’t put up with inconvenience. Thank goodness — I wouldn’t want everyone to start sucking up my fuel supply!
Bart October 7, 2006 at 4:39 am	I known the gas is cheaper in north America but it has to be… think about Europe the distances between Europe and north America are SO out of wack… the size of our province (ontario) is bigger then my home country of poland and yet all of canada’s population is close to polands… what I mean is you have to drive ALOT further in north america then you do in europe… that’s why I think the gas is more expensive in europe… as far as why hasn’t our technology advanced faster… think how many people are involved in the oil industry…. think of the government officials… take this scenario The us spends what is it 1 billion dollars a day in iraq… people’s lives are at stake… Now really think about how much 1,000,000,000 dollars is… that’s a lot of money if they would increase the budget on alternative energy and more efficient public transportation within two years I guarantee you you would have technology that would make everything else obsolete…. that’s if they took that money and put it into good use… we are wasting sooo much money… just 10 years ago you didn’t hear the term billion as much as you do these days… a billion here a billion there… people don’t realize how much money they’re putting into war… sorry a bit of a rant there more then anything else…
shadowbot October 7, 2006 at 7:17 pm	The impression i get from this and reading the website, is that HH2 is derived from H20 using an electrolysis process. However that process requires energy from somewhere else, which would be electricity. So his welder is using the HH2 gas, but only after some electricity is used to seperate the gas from the h20 molecules. In the video they make it seem like if you pour water into your car and start the engine, it will be able to work just as if you had put gasoline in. Thats not the case. BUT maybe HH2 could still be a great, clean-burning fuel even if it does take some outside energy in order to obtain it. Any progress towards that direction is good progress.
aalaia May 13, 2007 at 12:59 am	As an engineer, I’m very skeptical that this has a positive energy balance. I don’t understand what “HHO” could possibly mean. Hydrogen has a valance of one — you can’t link hydrogen with both oxygen and another hydrogen. (Water might be called “HOH”, in that oxygen, with a valence of two, links with a hydrogen on either side.) If he’s electrolyzing water to split it into hydrogen and oxygen, he needs to be honest about how much electrical energy he’s using. In such a case, it’s deceptive to say he’s “running on water,” since the water is being transformed into fuel by electricity, and the electricity used must be no less than the energy released when hydrogen and oxygen is re-combined, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics. In other words, why not simply run the car from electricity directly, and save the considerable efficiency penalty that an internal combustion engine imposes? (Some 75% of spark engine energy is wasted as heat.) That is exactly why I dropped chemistry after gr. 12. Well, interesting run down. It seems like we still can’t come up with an environmental friendly way to run a car…hmmmmm
dreads July 15, 2007 at 3:22 am	dropping chemistry isnt a great idea anyhow I think the whole US government is junk. I live in US, but life seems to be better in Uk where I use to live. The US government is full of corruption. Everyday I hear junk , recently i heard some guy in us government had sex with a girl , but he was married to another girl. Even doing this sin , he still was in office? Then there is this recent article Found Here link I mean come on? now i know that possible our next president MIGHT be just as bad. H Clinton better not pull what her husband did or anything wrong. Well i am done ranting lol
redofthelost July 16, 2007 at 9:03 pm	dropping chemistry isnt a great idea anyhow I think the whole US government is junk. I live in US, but life seems to be better in Uk where I use to live. The US government is full of corruption. Everyday I hear junk , recently i heard some guy in us government had sex with a girl , but he was married to another girl. Even doing this sin , he still was in office? Then there is this recent article Found Here link I mean come on? now i know that possible our next president MIGHT be just as bad. H Clinton better not pull what her husband did or anything wrong. Well i am done ranting lol And this is related to cars running on water O_o Are there any known dangers with this type of fuel? For example oil is flamable…
solarhomes September 21, 2007 at 4:15 pm	This company is selling an electrolyzer system that uses hydrogen from water to give a regular ICE engine a boost in gas mileage and cleaner emissions. link
newport December 16, 2007 at 4:47 pm	The whole idea seems plausible. I found the idea at link. I don’t see anything wrong with it.
horselover December 17, 2007 at 12:12 am	I keep seeing that ad for it, and I’ve thoroughly read through the advertisement, and I like it, but don’t really like the cost of it. Maybe it’s worth it in the long run, but right now, I don’t have the means to deal with it.