A car running on water

[Scott]

I can imagine why he is dead, as im sure those massive oil companys would not have been keen on his new fuel killing their market. And im sure that the governments make far too much money on fuel tax to suddenly welcome this new source also.

 

Its really quite sad when you think about it

 

I haven't watched the vid but..... is it the australian guy? If so he was threatened numerous times. Allegedly he had cracked the whole thing for any car and then "died".

[n boost]

I can imagine why he is dead, as im sure those massive oil companys would not have been keen on his new fuel killing their market. And im sure that the governments make far too much money on fuel tax to suddenly welcome this new source also.

 

Its really quite sad when you think about it

 

Could not agree more with u mate, bunch of conning ar4eholes the lot of them.

[Guest sunnyG83]

Have a read of this .

 

http://pesn.com/2006/06/02/9500276_Water_fuel_experimenter_threatened/

 

Maybe im at risk posting this

[stevie_b]

I don't mean to be a grumpy old cynic , but I don't believe this. I haven't watched the YouTube videos but the first paragraph of the wikipedia article is thus:

 

[QUOUE]The water fuel cell is a device invented by American Stanley Meyer, which he claimed could convert water into its component elements, hydrogen and oxygen, using less energy than can be obtained by the subsequent combustion of those elements, a process that results the reconstitution of the water molecules. Thus, if the device operated as claimed, the combustion cycle would start and end in the same state while extracting usable energy, thereby violating both the first and second laws of thermodynamics, allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine. Meyer's claims about the Water Fuel Cell and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996.

 

You can't split water into its constituent parts, burn it (thus reconstituting it back into water) AND have energy left over.

 

H2O (water) molecules look like this:

 

O

/ \

H H

 

The only way in which "HHO gas" could be anything different is if it looked like this:

 

H

/ \

H O

 

To get the middle hydrogen to bond to both the other hydrogen and the oxygen would take an enormous amount of energy, which would flatten the battery faster than you can say "cold fusion".

 

When burning fuels, you can't get something for nothing. Sorry guys.

 

Here endeth the chemistry lesson

[AJI]

I don't mean to be a grumpy old cynic , but I don't believe this. I haven't watched the YouTube videos but the first paragraph of the wikipedia article is thus:

 

The water fuel cell is a device invented by American Stanley Meyer, which he claimed could convert water into its component elements, hydrogen and oxygen, using less energy than can be obtained by the subsequent combustion of those elements, a process that results the reconstitution of the water molecules. Thus, if the device operated as claimed, the combustion cycle would start and end in the same state while extracting usable energy, thereby violating both the first and second laws of thermodynamics, allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine. Meyer's claims about the Water Fuel Cell and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996.

 

You can't split water into its constituent parts, burn it (thus reconstituting it back into water) AND have energy left over.

 

H2O (water) molecules look like this:

 

O

/ \

H H

 

The only way in which "HHO gas" could be anything different is if it looked like this:

 

H

/ \

H O

 

To get the middle hydrogen to bond to both the other hydrogen and the oxygen would take an enormous amount of energy, which would flatten the battery faster than you can say "cold fusion".

 

When burning fuels, you can't get something for nothing. Sorry guys.

 

Here endeth the chemistry lesson

 

I was just about to post a similar reply.

Breaking the bonds of H2O requires an amount of energy..... burning this compound to reform H2O again is only going to give back the same energy..... therefore no energy left to run the vehicle.

[Havard]

I can't believe that nobody has asked if it runs on pi$$??

 

H.

[fri3ndly]

ohh thats easy by the way...

 

Road tax £1000 for a water car...they will get their money one way or another.

 

Considering the huge fuss they have made over 'non eco friendly' cars or 'gas guzzlers' and extortinate prices they have charged, I would imagine they would need to tax h20 car drivers in a much more conniving manner.

 

It would be really funny watching the government trying not to promote the car yet still protest about emissions.

 

It doesn't really matter, everything else will go up, I am estimating cigarettes costing around £10 for a pack of 20 in the next couple of years.

[Pabs]

It doesn't really matter, everything else will go up, I am estimating cigarettes costing around £10 for a pack of 20 in the next couple of years.

 

Not being funny, but not everyone would be upset at the increase in price of cigarettes.... would do some of us a favour actually. (I know you were just using it as an example )

 

Anyway - something is going to have to give soon... they said that energy bills (gas/electric) are about to rise by almost 40% this year......food bills still going up. Yet wages not budging at all.

 

Start preparing for the worst guys!

 

My brother is still at uni doing his PHD -he's doing something with hydrogen powered cars at the moment... so I'm trying to keep in touch

[Thorin]

The Meyer thing, pseudo-science. This new thing I can't view the video at work, but I suspect it's the same.

[grahamc]

Why was the "water" they were pouring in blue? Isn't water normally clear?

 

Scientific water perhaps?

 

I was going to ask the same thing

 

Surely the hydrogen engine that exhausts only water would be more efficient??

 

Something like this:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4353853.stm

[carl0s]

80km on 1 litre. That'd be great on gas, nevermind water. I think hoax though

[carl0s]

wrong mate.

 

when a current is run through the water it produces HHO (a Gas) ,which is a highly flamable gas 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen (in high quantities and also has more power to it then petrol.)

 

Pound for Pound It is 3 times more potent then petrol.

 

 

they have found a way to change it on the fly quick enough to power the car. You make a small test easily yourself at home.

 

The video says that the fuel cell "releases electrons which power the car", so it sounds to me like an electric car, not a hydrogen combustion car.

Which begs the question, why can't I have one of these fuel cells at home to power parts of my house?

[stevie_b]

The video says that the fuel cell "releases electrons which power the car", so it sounds to me like an electric car, not a hydrogen combustion car.

 

Most if not all chemical reactions involve exchange of electrons between atoms, so it could still be a combustion-based car. But either way, it won't give more energy out than you put in if it represents a complete cycle (e.g. start with water, finish with water).

[Whitesupraboy2]

I believe it to be true, I just dont know how they got it to work on a big enough scale.

 

Ive found a guide to build your own system (small scale) to prove the production of the burnable gas. Im tempted to do it, looks easy and simple, just not sure if i have all the bits.

 

I always think of science like this. Everyone thought the earth was flat...then we found out it was round.

 

Due to our theory of the sun provides the earth with life, we presumed there was no life at the bottom of the deepest oceans, we went down there and found life thrived, with shrmip, fish, bacteria. According to us a bee shouldnt be able to fly because its wings are too small for its big body...but it does.

 

At the end of the day what we think we know and the laws of physics / science change on a daily basis. Maybe there is a bit of hope in there lol

[tbourner]

I haven't watched the vid or anything, but I can't imagine they're suggesting you fill it up with water and get a 110% efficient system that creates more energy than is required to run it!! I know that sort of 'scam' has been around before, but this is a new company with new ideas, and they're not exactly giving many of them away!!

 

More than likely, it's a reasonably efficient system as far as car engines go (40-50% would be a lot more than 4 stroke), and has a bi-product of HO or something, so you fill up with water and drive for a bit, nothing comes out but gas. Sounds reasonable if they can store the water well enough and the weight doesn't have too much of an effect.

Also, there'll come a time when people will say we're producing too much Oxygen and it's destroying the planet, so we'll go round in circles!

What we need is one engine that runs on CO2 and produces Oxygen, and a second that runs on Oxygen and produces CO2, then just make 50% of each!

Otherwise, we need to cut the worlds population by about 50%, that'd solve it as well.

[AJI]

Otherwise, we need to cut the worlds population by about 50%, that'd solve it as well.

 

You've hit the nail on the head there..... this is the root cause and always has been.

Yet at previous G8 summits each time questions about world population is raised, there is much dodging of the answers.

[Digsy]

What we need is one engine that runs on CO2 and produces Oxygen, and a second that runs on Oxygen and produces CO2, then just make 50% of each!

 

Working on it...

 

[Dazzi]

I can't believe that nobody has asked if it runs on pi$$??

 

H.

Theres no room in here for that kind of childish behaviour

 

[tbourner]

Working on it...

 

 

Cool.

Number 1 on my list of cars to buy when I can afford it is a Lotus Exige as well!

[carl0s]

I believe it to be true, I just dont know how they got it to work on a big enough scale.

 

Ive found a guide to build your own system (small scale) to prove the production of the burnable gas. Im tempted to do it, looks easy and simple, just not sure if i have all the bits.

 

Nobody is doubting that you can generate hydrogen from water via electrolysis, but the problem is the amount of energy in terms of electricity needed for the electrolysis process is greater than the amount of energy gained.

 

Have you got a link to this thing you've seen?

[carl0s]

One last question.. when I was a kid, my tutor showed me electrolysis (making iron oxide, or copper plating, I can't remember..) , and he explained that I'd done something back to front or wrong one time, and that I was actually generating Hydrogen and it was dangerous etc.

 

How are these Youtube people generating HHO (Oxyhydrogen), via what looks like exactly the same process (electrolysis), but with a mesh plate instead of just two wires.

Are they in fact just generating Hydrogen?

[Whitesupraboy2]

Nobody is doubting that you can generate hydrogen from water via electrolysis, but the problem is the amount of energy in terms of electricity needed for the electrolysis process is greater than the amount of energy gained.

 

Have you got a link to this thing you've seen?

 

No ive got some files but too big to put on here.

 

The device they have built is really small and its what americans are using to help their fuel economy on their older gas guzzling machines.

 

I dont believe that works too well, as they also use a small box to fake the map sensor reading. which if done properly fine, (after all you got hydrogen to burn as well as petrol in there) could be mapped maybe to work well and cut petrol used.

 

However just fudging the signal without knowing by how much sounds like scary stuff to me! Of course if the car doesnt have a MAP signal fair enough it may learn by itself but the 02 sensor will be having a field day!

 

however the little device will make for a good experiment to test whether gas is produced. It says it requires less then 3amps to do the electric bit.

 

Also previously to this i was watching a program now on this but i think just called the worlds energy and they were saying there is stupid amounts of energy in 1litre of water.

[carl0s]

One last question.. when I was a kid, my tutor showed me electrolysis (making iron oxide, or copper plating, I can't remember..) , and he explained that I'd done something back to front or wrong one time, and that I was actually generating Hydrogen and it was dangerous etc.

 

How are these Youtube people generating HHO (Oxyhydrogen), via what looks like exactly the same process (electrolysis), but with a mesh plate instead of just two wires.

Are they in fact just generating Hydrogen?

 

 

Ah, I get it now. Oxyhydrogen isn't a molecule. It's just the name given to a rough mixture (2:1 approx) of oxygen and hydrogen. So these guys are just making Hydrogen as normal, and utilising the Oxygen as well.

 

Surely calling it HHO is misleading? That'd be like me dropping a nail in a cup of water and saying it's Fe(H2O)4 (four times more water by volume than iron )!

 

You don't just put things next to each other and label it as a chemical structure, I don't think.

[Whitesupraboy2]

Ah, I get it now. Oxyhydrogen isn't a molecule. It's just the name given to a rough mixture (2:1 approx) of oxygen and hydrogen. So these guys are just making Hydrogen as normal, and utilising the Oxygen as well.

 

Surely calling it HHO is misleading? That'd be like me dropping a nail in a cup of water and saying it's Fe(H2O)4 (four times more water by volume than iron )!

 

You don't just put things next to each other and label it as a chemical structure, I don't think.

 

ahh got ya so your saying HHO isnt actually 'real' in chemical terms as such.

 

just read this.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HHO_Gas

 

Water torch anyone lol

[carl0s]

ahh got ya so your saying HHO isnt actually 'real' in chemical terms as such.

 

just read this.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HHO_Gas

 

Water torch anyone lol

 

Well, yeah. It's not a molecule anyway. Somebody earlier in the thread was also trying to get their head around how the H2O was 'split' and 'molecularly re-arranged into "HHO"' The answer is that it isn't, because HHO isn't a molecule. I didn't pay attention in chemistry to my terms might be bullcrap but I think I'm making sense.