Alright, I'm sure these plan are bogus. Can anyone explain in plain language why?

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/...rplans_doc.htm

 

Simple physics and simple chemistry. :-)

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.

Bzzzzzt! LOL!

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 :-)

 

Thanks........

 

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.

~Wolf

 

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".

Jim

 

Have any of you heard of *** 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 ***** 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.

Jim

 

We used Water Injection in the 1970's on a Chevy 350 to control heat and give a consistant Air/Fuel Flow for timing reasons it stayed pretty close for the times being we had no Dyno to run real test.

The one side benefit was as we found out was clean intake, piston heads and valves.

Given we were still using Carbs it was as easy as adding Two spray nozzles in the air cleaner. A simple misting system with a 2 gallon water tank and windshield washer pump on a switch.

It did give a 10% boost in milage and maybe 5% in HP.

10% is not much but add this to a NASCAR engine and it means 3 more laps a tank. A big avantage over other drivers.

 

Flash,

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/

Jim

 

I find it strange it would say "No Energy Value" Water is a energy when converted to steam! Not the least to say it is denser allowing more power to be produced.

When water is mixed with fuel in the combustion chamber it releases it's energy.

 

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.

Jim

 

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.

 

It's not actually creating energy, as it takes more heat from the combustion of the fuel than it returns as work.

Like burning massive amounts of wood or coal to power the steam locomotive, you're turning heat into work, but consuming far more heat energy than you're getting in locomotive power.

Yes, there's a benefit, but no energy is created that wasn't already there.
-Smoky

 

It is the obverse of energy creation, it requires more to do it than it provides.

QED: It cancels itself.

I liked it as a thought experiment however.