Water as fuel
Cargo Master
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,899
Likes: 2
From: Lynnwood, WA
Originally Posted by johnnydmetal
Heres an intelegent reply:
but actualy has figured out a wa to amplify the inputted energy
hes freeing up the hydrogen more efficiently than previous methods.
I think the only way you might achieve an efficient h20 only car would be to use exotic materials like superconductors and other yet undeveloped products.
However, it may be used for water injection, or as an agent to release hydrogen from other compounds (i.e. LiH), but then it's not an H2O only car in either case.
Now, hydrogen can, and will probably be used as an automotive fuel sometime in the future, but that's H2, and not H2O.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,600
Likes: 4
From: Iowa
What you can do with electrolysis, and I dont know the efficiencies here, but you can in effect transform a non-transportation fuel such as coal (which I hear the USA has in abundance) into a usable transportation fuel, like hydrogen. Follow me here:
Coal + power plant = electricity and emissions (no free lunch here!)
Electricity + water = hydrogen fuel and oxygen
Now, that's probably not too efficient since you're doing two energy conversions. Probably the better way is to directly burn the coal (or other non-transportation fuel) at an ethanol plant...
Coal + power plant = electricity and emissions (no free lunch here!)
Electricity + water = hydrogen fuel and oxygen
Now, that's probably not too efficient since you're doing two energy conversions. Probably the better way is to directly burn the coal (or other non-transportation fuel) at an ethanol plant...
Cargo Master
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,899
Likes: 2
From: Lynnwood, WA
I still remember coal fired locomotives from some other countries -- of course fitting a steam engine into a car would be a little (?!) difficult.... 
Anyhow, whenever you do a conversion there are some inevitable losses, but electrolysis happens to be fairly efficient. As a matter of fact, converting electricity into something else is usually very efficient in conparison to many other conversions. On the other hand, the internal combustion engine is a lot less efficient, and there is a well defined limit on its efficiency (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_...ot.27s_theorem)
Anyhow, whenever you do a conversion there are some inevitable losses, but electrolysis happens to be fairly efficient. As a matter of fact, converting electricity into something else is usually very efficient in conparison to many other conversions. On the other hand, the internal combustion engine is a lot less efficient, and there is a well defined limit on its efficiency (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_...ot.27s_theorem)
Senior User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 123
Likes: 1
From: Mine Hill NJ
Aurgathor,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Thanks for your forgiveness on the spelling though I would check yourself as well. Make is spelled with an “m”. Also by perpetuum do you mean perpetual or perpetually because perpetuum is not a word in English yet. You will note the time I input the entry was 5am. I work in a data center at night 8:00pm to 7am and I didn’t take the time to plug in the spellchecker.
Quote:
but actually has figured out a way to amplify the inputted energy
Nonsense. One can amplify a signal, but not energy. That would be a perpetuum mobile. "<o:p></o:p>
Taken out of context. What I meant was the amount of initially inputted energy he was using, not that he was creating more energy then he had on hand. Truly one cannot escape attrition, which would eventually drain the batteries, which I suggest might be the source of the additional energy.
Quote:he’s freeing up the hydrogen more efficiently than previous methods.
<o:p></o:p>
Impossible.There are several ways to make hydrogen with some of them cheaper than the others, but the efficiency of the oft used electrolysis is very well known and there is no way to nake it "more efficiently". (using less energy)<o:p></o:p>
As I said I work nights in a Data center and I read a lot of information from sources like Popular science to web blogs. First and foremost you say “impossible” and slam the door that someday somebody might actually prove you wrong. By use of filtered and distilled water you can speed up the electrolysis process. Also by changing the water to an electrolyte you increase the waters resistance to electricity. Adding bicarbonate of soda simply put “baking soda” can do this cleanly and more efficiently then using regular tap or ground water.
That’s why progress in science is so slow because most people have that same attitude to close your eyes to experimentation, which is after all true science.
Stephen Hawkings once said, "Nothing is impossible, just improbable". We don’t know everything and never will. I didn’t say he was using traditional electrolysis to crack the water. It seemed to me that the device is a bit oversized for the amount of water he put in the machine.
Quote:
I think the only way you might achieve an efficient h20 only car would be to use exotic materials like superconductors and other yet undeveloped products.<o:p></o:p>
Water (H2O) is never going to be a fuel since it takes more energy to break it up into H2 and 02 than
what one can get back. Period.
Again your statement is very closed-minded. Yes while its true you can’t slam a revolving door. You can prove this. But you have no ground to stand on when you suggest we know every way to crack a molecule or that you know that in the future people wont use water as fuel. Just like I can’t say they will I just say it might be possible someday. I’m not sure this guys for real but I’m willing to take a more detailed look at his work before dismissing him as a chiseler and a crackpot (pun intended).
John
Thanks for your forgiveness on the spelling though I would check yourself as well. Make is spelled with an “m”. Also by perpetuum do you mean perpetual or perpetually because perpetuum is not a word in English yet. You will note the time I input the entry was 5am. I work in a data center at night 8:00pm to 7am and I didn’t take the time to plug in the spellchecker.
Quote:
but actually has figured out a way to amplify the inputted energy
Nonsense. One can amplify a signal, but not energy. That would be a perpetuum mobile. "<o:p></o:p>
Taken out of context. What I meant was the amount of initially inputted energy he was using, not that he was creating more energy then he had on hand. Truly one cannot escape attrition, which would eventually drain the batteries, which I suggest might be the source of the additional energy.
Quote:he’s freeing up the hydrogen more efficiently than previous methods.
<o:p></o:p>
Impossible.There are several ways to make hydrogen with some of them cheaper than the others, but the efficiency of the oft used electrolysis is very well known and there is no way to nake it "more efficiently". (using less energy)<o:p></o:p>
As I said I work nights in a Data center and I read a lot of information from sources like Popular science to web blogs. First and foremost you say “impossible” and slam the door that someday somebody might actually prove you wrong. By use of filtered and distilled water you can speed up the electrolysis process. Also by changing the water to an electrolyte you increase the waters resistance to electricity. Adding bicarbonate of soda simply put “baking soda” can do this cleanly and more efficiently then using regular tap or ground water.
That’s why progress in science is so slow because most people have that same attitude to close your eyes to experimentation, which is after all true science.
Stephen Hawkings once said, "Nothing is impossible, just improbable". We don’t know everything and never will. I didn’t say he was using traditional electrolysis to crack the water. It seemed to me that the device is a bit oversized for the amount of water he put in the machine.
Quote:
I think the only way you might achieve an efficient h20 only car would be to use exotic materials like superconductors and other yet undeveloped products.<o:p></o:p>
Water (H2O) is never going to be a fuel since it takes more energy to break it up into H2 and 02 than
what one can get back. Period.
Again your statement is very closed-minded. Yes while its true you can’t slam a revolving door. You can prove this. But you have no ground to stand on when you suggest we know every way to crack a molecule or that you know that in the future people wont use water as fuel. Just like I can’t say they will I just say it might be possible someday. I’m not sure this guys for real but I’m willing to take a more detailed look at his work before dismissing him as a chiseler and a crackpot (pun intended).
John
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,600
Likes: 4
From: Iowa
Hey Eric, take a look at my post above. I agree that water itself is not a fuel, but it could be used to transform energy from other sources into a usable fuel, namely hydrogen gas. Now I'm not saying the entire process would be energy efficient, feasible, or worthwhile, but it is doable.
Posting Legend
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,255
Likes: 37
Water is just NOT a fuel. You can extract hydrogen from a variety of sources which is a "different ballgame" as noted above. The only way water is a fuel nowadays is if you extract heavy hydrogen for fusion, but then you could extract heavy hydrogen from oil, leaves, corn, people, or bird doo also...
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
Cargo Master
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,899
Likes: 2
From: Lynnwood, WA
Originally Posted by johnnydmetal
Thanks for your forgiveness on the spelling though I would check yourself as well. Make is spelled with an “m”.
At least that's not two dozens or so, and not in a claim about "intelegent reply".
Also by perpetuum do you mean perpetual or perpetually because perpetuum is not a word in English yet.
Quote:he’s freeing up the hydrogen more efficiently than previous methods.
<o></o>
Impossible.There are several ways to make hydrogen with some of them cheaper than the others, but the efficiency of the oft used electrolysis is very well known and there is no way to nake it "more efficiently". (using less energy)<o></o>
As I said I work nights in a Data center and I read a lot of information from sources like Popular science to web blogs.
<o></o>
Impossible.There are several ways to make hydrogen with some of them cheaper than the others, but the efficiency of the oft used electrolysis is very well known and there is no way to nake it "more efficiently". (using less energy)<o></o>
As I said I work nights in a Data center and I read a lot of information from sources like Popular science to web blogs.
They are not particularly good sources of reliable information. Especially the web blogs, and this forum is a prime example of all that misinformation that can occasionally pop up.
First and foremost you say “impossible” and slam the door that someday somebody might actually prove you wrong. By use of filtered and distilled water you can speed up the electrolysis process.
Also by changing the water to an electrolyte you increase the waters resistance to electricity.
Not 100% sure if this is a yardstick of your science know-how, but I consider this an elementary knowledge.
Adding bicarbonate of soda simply put “baking soda” can do this cleanly and more efficiently then using regular tap or ground water.
That’s why progress in science is so slow because most people have that same attitude to close your eyes to experimentation, which is after all true science.
A pseudo scientific buzz phrase: "true science", and I'm not sure you could adequately explain what it means.
In any case, there is such a thing as "scientific method" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method that says quite a bit about experiments and research.
Stephen Hawkings once said, "Nothing is impossible, just improbable". We don’t know everything and never will.
Non sequitur. We're talking about some very basic things like energy conservation during simple chemical reactions, and his research is way beyond these mundane issues. Many of us (maybe not you) know enough physics and chemistry to understand what is happening when hydrogen is burned, or when hydrogen is produced from water during electrolysis.
I didn’t say he was using traditional electrolysis to crack the water.
Water (H2O) is never going to be a fuel since it takes more energy to break it up into H2 and 02 than
what one can get back. Period.
Again your statement is very closed-minded.
what one can get back. Period.
Again your statement is very closed-minded.
Nope. With enough chemistry and physics, it's easy to know right off the bat if something is obviously BS.
But you have no ground to stand on when you suggest we know every way to crack a molecule or that you know that in the future people wont use water as fuel.
1) attempting to deceive others purposely
2) don't know enough science to know it better
OK, let's state it point by point:
a) hydrogen can be used as a fuel
b) one can get heat and water if H2 is burned in air
c) but to get the hydrogen back from water, one would need to put in at least as much energy as we got out in the form of heat when the hydrogen was burned before. There is no way to get around that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#Conservation_of_energy
Just like I can’t say they will I just say it might be possible someday. I’m not sure this guys for real but I’m willing to take a more detailed look at his work before dismissing him as a chiseler and a crackpot (pun intended).
Last edited by aurgathor; May 30, 2006 at 11:24 PM.
Senior User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 123
Likes: 1
From: Mine Hill NJ
Quote:<O
</O
<TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0in; mso-padding-alt: 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3 0.75pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 3pt; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3 0.75pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 3pt; BACKGROUND: #e7e7e7; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3pt; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3 0.75pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3 0.75pt inset">Also by changing the water to an electrolyte you increase the waters resistance to electricity. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Yes your right it was wrong what I meant to type "decreases" resistance to electricity. When restoring a piece of metal with electrolysis process you will usepowe more r to clean the metal then if you alter the water to make it an electrolyte.
As for enough science revealing BS ok I can agree with that but your whole argument is based solely on one news report which is for ratings and is less then a minute of info. I never said it would be the perfect solution or even efficient I just said it might be possible someday. Simply my opinion has just as much value here as anyone else’s …nothing.
I’m not trying to sell anyone anything and I have nothing to gain arguing about this.<O</O
I didn't through the gauntlet down here and frankly I’m willing to just toss it to the side.
Thanks
John
</O<TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0in; mso-padding-alt: 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3 0.75pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 3pt; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3 0.75pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 3pt; BACKGROUND: #e7e7e7; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3pt; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3 0.75pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3 0.75pt inset">Also by changing the water to an electrolyte you increase the waters resistance to electricity. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Yes your right it was wrong what I meant to type "decreases" resistance to electricity. When restoring a piece of metal with electrolysis process you will usepowe more r to clean the metal then if you alter the water to make it an electrolyte.
As for enough science revealing BS ok I can agree with that but your whole argument is based solely on one news report which is for ratings and is less then a minute of info. I never said it would be the perfect solution or even efficient I just said it might be possible someday. Simply my opinion has just as much value here as anyone else’s …nothing.
I’m not trying to sell anyone anything and I have nothing to gain arguing about this.<O
</OI didn't through the gauntlet down here and frankly I’m willing to just toss it to the side.
Thanks
John
Cargo Master
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,899
Likes: 2
From: Lynnwood, WA
I apologize if I was a little rough on you , but I thought that ludicrous "water as fuel " idea was behind us when you tried to further discuss and defend certain points.
In any case, at one time in my life I was majoring in chemistry and physics.
If you want to know some 'real science', taking the first year of chemistry and physics in college would give you a pretty good foundation, and the ability to see beyond common scams and pseudo science.
, but I thought that ludicrous "water as fuel " idea was behind us when you tried to further discuss and defend certain points. In any case, at one time in my life I was majoring in chemistry and physics.
If you want to know some 'real science', taking the first year of chemistry and physics in college would give you a pretty good foundation, and the ability to see beyond common scams and pseudo science.
Fleet Owner
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 28,609
Likes: 18
From: Lake Tahoe, Nevada
Free fuel
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="padding-bottom: 5px;" nowrap="nowrap" width="80"><nobr>
</nobr></td><td style="padding-bottom: 5px;">WaterFuel.wmv (3.07 MB)</td></tr></tbody></table>
</nobr></td><td style="padding-bottom: 5px;">WaterFuel.wmv (3.07 MB)</td></tr></tbody></table>
Elder User
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
the other day i noticed on HGTV that they have "art" now that you can place in your kitchen or living room or whatever..what it is is a small fire that runs off of hydrogen. you pour water in and it automatically seperates the hydrogen and oxygen. it lets off the oxygen into the room and it burns the hydrogen in real time.
chris
chris