The schematics look impressive. But it doesn't do anything but switch 12V on and off to get a 12V square wave which then does electrolysis on water to break water down into gaseous hydrogen and oxygen components. All the AC does is shake the bubbles off the electrodes a little faster than if you ran straight DC off the battery.
So the idea is pumping the H and O gas into your combustion chamber which is then ignited in lieu of gasoline/air. Water and heat are byproducts.
Well folks, anyone who's taken a junior high school physics class knows you won't get any more energy out of that reaction than what you put into it. There's no such thing as free energy. One will never even come close to pumping enough energy from this specific circuit to run an automobile engine... I bet this came out of some science project lab assignment.
If you like to do a cool experiment at home, setup a battery and some water in a bucket and run electrolysis. Get an old AC wall wart transformer that's lying around. The higher the voltage output, the faster you'll be able to collect some gas. You don't need to build that that fancy circuit nonsense they posted. Collect all the gas and fill into a small milk carton. Seal it up with masking tape so it doesn't all leak out. Stick in an ignitor like a sparkplug and spark it with something. KaBoooom! You've just made yourself a miniature Hindenburg. The normal disclaimers apply--I'm not liable for any damage you do to yourself :-)
i wish I could remember the polarities - but if you have a positive and negative electrode oxygen is released at one, and hydrogen at the other. Using a D/C voltage you can collect either one, but beware! Oxygen in contact with any kind of grease or oil spells instant KABOOM!
The rate the gasses are given off is the limiting factor. I've done experiments like that before, and there really isn't much gas given off compared to the amount of electrical power required. It might be feasible if it was done using a solar electric array and a storage tank(s), but it would never produce enough gasses 'on demand' to run a vehicle with it.
"I always keep some spirits handy, in case I see a snake (which I also keep handy)"
That article is so full of it, I dont know where to start. Suffice to say that the myth of "water powered" cars has been around since the 1940's along with the idea that the big oil companies have conspired to keep it "secret".
Have any of you heard of A55 fuel? It takes water and naptha, using a binder, attaches the molecules together. Supposedly, the emmissions are plain old breathable air and water vapor. The testing is being done in California at several metropolitan motor pools. This "no" emmissions fuel has had one downfall so far. It will not stay bound together for any extended period and the naptha and water will separate. Considering no one knows for sure, it most likely is the same as the fuel made by the Nazis at the end of WWII using the same two ingredients. The fuel was made at their Ploeste plant but unfortunately, there was nothing left after Allied bombings. I highly doubt it has any future outside of a large motor pool.
I heard years ago there was some truth in injecting water into the combustion chamber. Supposedly, some old fighter prop planes used the technology also. The liquid during combustion is quickly heated up into steam which we all know expands and hence aiding normal combustion.
Similarly, an old trick people used to do on carburated engines was pouring a trickle of water down the carb to decarbonize the pistons and cylinder heads. Apparently, the explosive effect of water vaporizing into steam was enough to blast off any crud that was in there.
I'd question claims of zero emissions and other testimonials. Chemistry is chemistry and physics is physics. Those don't change...it's just the way stuff will always work.
Water injection IS legitmate, but it does not actually burn, it both lowers peak temperatures to prevent detonation and increases power by expanding steam. It was not just used for WWII fighters but also 1950's airliners like the DC-6B. Water-alcohol injection was also used to prevent detonation in the early 1960's Oldsmobile turbocharged V-8 and turbocharged Corvair. Again, this has nothing to do with disassociating the hydrogen from water molecules and using it as fuel.
That sounds like Chevron Proformix Fuel, which is 20 percent water mixed with ordinary diesel using a Lubrizol additive that keeps the water droplets in suspension for a few weeks. It is for NOx and particulate emissions reduction at the cost of decreased power and range. http://www.chevron.com/products/prod...els/proformix/
Not exactly. Liquid water contains less energy than steam, even at the same temperature. What happens is that some of the heat energy from oxidation of the hydrocarbon fuel is transferred to the water, causing phase change from a liquid to gas and resulting in expansion an downward pressure on the piston. If some of this heat would be "wasted" by higher exhaust gas temperatures, then the overall efficiency of the engine is slightly improved.
The main advantage of water injection is allowing higher compression without higher octane fuel, which increases power and efficiency. This works because some of the water vaporizes before the power stroke, cooling the mixture during compression, preventing preignition and detonation. Lower temperatures can also reduce NOx emissions.
Last edited by jimandmandy; 08-12-2005 at 06:32 PM.
I know that, Water when converted to gas "Steam" when in a confined area produces power, Hence the Steam engine.
When we add tiny amounts of water to the fuel We are in fact making a mini steam engine. So it does contain energy. We get the benefits of cleaner NOx, pistons, heads and the main one A denser air/fuel mixture.
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.