water powered car!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by macEfan, Jun 21, 2006.

  1. macEfan macrumors 65816


    Apr 7, 2005
    Forbidden, you do not have access to that server
  2. macOSX-tastic macrumors 6502a


    Jan 9, 2005
    At the Airport. UK
    whats with the proud to be stuff at the end? and the lift music??:confused:

    other than that, pretty cool idea.

  3. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Nov 1, 2001
    Nothing new - just his way of turning water into hydrogen and oxygen. I'd love to see this hit the main stream, though....

  4. cslewis macrumors 6502a


    Jul 23, 2004
    40º27.8''N, 75º42.8''W
    Using electrolysis to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen consumes more energy than the energy than can be recovered by using the hydrogen. It's not practical, folks...
  5. Chaszmyr macrumors 601


    Aug 9, 2002
  6. sushi Moderator emeritus


    Jul 19, 2002
    Pretty darn cool.

    Would love to see us move away from oil based products for propulsion.
  7. sushi Moderator emeritus


    Jul 19, 2002
    Like you I am skeptical. He may have a different process.

    I've always seen electrolysis written something like this:

    2H2O(aq) ? 2H2(g) + O2(g)

    So you have 2H2 and O2.

    He writes it HHO.

    So my thinking is that he has come up with a more efficient way to do it.
  8. Timepass macrumors 65816

    Jan 4, 2005

    It is not possible to separte the Hydrogen and oxgen in H20 and have more engery than it took to do it.

    It voliates the 2nd law of thermodimics. And voliotes the first the first law as well.

    People say it great but dont releize it not possible to do it. Chemiclly it is not possibe as well. People who believe other wise dont understand that it not possible to get more engery out of H20 forming that it take to separted it out.

    Not matter how efficient he can do it. it is impossible to get more engery out of h20 forming than you get from breaking appart H20. HHO is an improper way of righting the chemical make of of the water. It is not any more than that.

    Right now there are only 2 ways we can get H2 gas. One is off water which as I said above is not possible to do and very very ineffencet. You also have to rememeber that Power plants are about 30% or so effenice. Right now car engines run at abotu 30%. There theroicical max is 60% and we will never get close to that number. To get 60% there woudl have to 0 friction amoung other things. Power plants are about the same way. And we really can not push the max much past 60% due to the heat limits of the matterical.

    The other place we can get hydrogen from is off fossil fuels. Only problem is you get so little power out of it that it not worth it. The engery in there is just wasted. And would use more fossil fuels than we are now to replace it.

    Biggest problem the world right now is we really dont have anything to replace fossile fuels with. They have so much raw engery in them that we can not find anything to match it. For cars it insane.

    They been working on a small combustion engine to power something like a laptop. They where stating if they could get it to 10% effecinty it would run longer on one fill up than a batter powered one and not increase the weight at all. that should give you an idea how much engery heat engines produce (you car is an exmple of heat enginees) That should cover everyone lesson in thermodymincs for the next year.
  9. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a


    Apr 22, 2004
    San Diego, CA
    What if you just make a whole bunch of wind generators on uninhabited land that are constantly performing electrolysis? The wind energy is clean and renewable, and electrolysis just makes that energy practical since it can be moved and stored, unlike wind.
  10. Timepass macrumors 65816

    Jan 4, 2005

    wouldnt work. I forgot how much space that would take up. but I rememeber it was a lot. I wish I had a that artical showing the 10 myths about hydrogen power cars. They listed the power requirments and all that and showed why it was not a physible solutions.

    Beside those wind power plants would be better used charging batteries in electric cars than doing electro hydrolis. A much better use of the same engery. Plus you dont waste nearly as much trasporting it.

    It all a question of effecicy and engery loss. It is a very very poor way of doing it. Yeah it a lot of engery you get out of H20 forming but it takes a lot more engery to break it apart. So it is not a feesible replacement for fossile fuels.
  11. OutThere macrumors 603


    Dec 19, 2002
    Unfortunately, much like ethanol at this point, this isn't a good fuel source right now.

    Simplified, from above...

    It required more energy to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water than you can get out of the products.

    Even though it seems like he is getting a ton of energy out of that blowtorch, he's putting more energy (in the form of electricity) into running his electrolysis machine.
  12. cslewis macrumors 6502a


    Jul 23, 2004
    40º27.8''N, 75º42.8''W
    An interesting scheme has been used for years in the Czech Republic. During the day, when power demand is relatively low, power plants devote a fraction of their energy to pumping water into reservoirs in the mountains. Then at night when demand is at its highest, the water in the reservoirs flows through turbines to produce electricity. Add to this the extra power that's available from the power stations (who aren't pumping any water), and you've got a way to really maximize your electricity production.

    Perhaps something similar could be used with wind turbines: when it's windy extra power could pump water into storage for times when it isn't windy.
  13. jsw Moderator emeritus


    Mar 16, 2004
    Andover, MA
    Very punny.

    Although interesting if true, I still don't think, as others have mentioned, that this'll provide the necessary energy density.

    My bet's on flywheels. Give the technology a few more years to mature, and flywheels will be a phenomenally efficient way to store energy.
  14. sushi Moderator emeritus


    Jul 19, 2002
    Who knows whether his system will work or not. Since none of us knows the inner workings of his system we can only speculate based on theory and what not.

    This reminds me of past invention stories where folks would say that it will never work but there was a breakthrough of some sort that changed the whole landscape in that particular area.

    Anyhow, we may be in store for a neat paradigm change.
  15. dmw007 macrumors G4


    May 26, 2005
    Working for MI-6
    That it is. :)

    Same here.
  16. Timepass macrumors 65816

    Jan 4, 2005
    dude I dont need to know the inner working of system to know that it is not possible to do.

    it breaks several laws of thermodymics and that alone makes it impossible. None of break though or things in the past ever broke the laws of thermodymic or physics.

    This one breaks the 1st and 2nd law of thermodymics. Water forums naturelly. and more easily than it comes apart chemsistry proves this. It does not naturally occer so the only way to do it force it. it takes more engery to backwards than it does to go forward.

    Also you can not get more engery out of system than you put in. Basicly what he saying is he is getting engery/power out of of forming water than it is taking him to break it apart. that is not possible. You can neither create nor destroy engery. You can only change the forum it is in. Now that engery does go to a unussible form but it still there. You can not create not destory it. And he is creating it. That is impossible.
  17. bartelby macrumors Core


    Jun 16, 2004

    I thought all hydro-electric power stations, that use reservoirs, do this. That's what I was taught when I was at school anyway.
  18. CanadaRAM macrumors G5


    Oct 11, 2004
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    Nope, virtually all reservoirs are filled by rain and input rivers/streams.

    This pumping scheme only works if you have thermal powerplants that are 'wasting' capacity because you cannot turn them off or down when demand is low.
    Obviously, if your only source of electricity was hydro, you wouldn't use that pump water uphill, you'd just restrict the amount going downhill throught the turbines in the first place - because there's so much loss in the pumping process - I bet they're getting only about 2 watts net for every 10 they spend pumping.

    What Mr. Run Car on Water dude is doing is simply snake oil marketing. It comes around every 10 years or so. Yeah, lets call it dihydrogen oxide instead of water. Lets invent new and non existent forms of matter to explain why this isnt the same as ever other scam, perpetual motion machine, and 'you get out more than you put in' scheme.

    The whole question is about storage and distribution, not about generation.

    You have a source of energy - it doesn't matter much what it is -- solar energy collected through photovoltaics, wind turbine, wave turbine, hydro electric, organic thermal or ethanol crops -- or millenia-old solar collected through coal and oil, or fission energy from uranium, or geothermal, or gravitaitonal through tidal turbines.

    The whole challenge is how do you package that and transport it to the consumer, safely and with minimum loss and expense? For vehicles, the density of the fuel and its storage/motor system are key - how many kWH of power will you get from each kilo of fuel and powerplant.

    At the one extreme, nuclear is completely non-viable small scale. It will only work in large, central generation.

    Hydrogen has huge transportation issues. Cracking water at home makes no sense, because it's better just to use the electricity directly. As a vehicular fuel, safety and storage (pressure cylinders, etc) are the issue. Question is whether, if the storage can be solved, will a hydrogen combustion or hydrogen fuel cell prove to have greater energy density than advanced batteries?

    Petroleum fuels and ethanol are relatively safe to transport, and infrastructure is in place. The fuels are relatively dense. The main problem is the efficiency of energy conversion/generation at each consumer's location - emissions, efficiency, cost of equipment.

    Electricity has initial capital cost for infrastructure, but cheap to transport after. Benefits from higher efficiency of large scale generation. Problem with portability, though, once you get to the end of the driveway... addressible with better battery technologies, ultimately. Local generation (photovoltaic, wind) has low efficiency and long capital payback periods.
  19. North macrumors newbie

    Jun 23, 2006
    lala. searching the web and came past this thread.

    so i thought i might add, dude :rolleyes: , its not about breaking the laws of thermal dynamics, its about making a closed system more efficient.

    a few examples. a diesal engine is more efficient then a gas engine in terms of the amount of raw fuel used. not much is different between the two.
    a car with a added turbo charger or super charger are more efficient in using the same amount of fuel input. same with adding better cooling and air intake. in some cases this will burn more fuel, but in most it wont. also keep in mind that some cars are built underpowered for various reasons. say, engine size. to make up for this, people end up using more gas to move the 4 cyl. engine as opposed to a 6 cyl. engine.

    point being, its easy to see that this system is making the car burn the gas more efficiently. hes not breaking any laws. thats the whole idea behind even the hybrids. they simply take the gas, and use it more efficiently. in the end though, they still get all their power from a gas engine. a small at that.

    and you earlier said "we really dont have anything to replace fossile fuels with." we do though. even using nuclear power plants based off of wwII nuclear submarine reacotors is more safe, on a global scale, then using fossil fuels. for decades nuclear development was haulted because of environmentalist lobbying congress. because of that, no companies continued research. well, because of that we are decades behind in terms of nuclear research. with today's technology, we could even take the old designs, and make them far safer.

    but. we dont have to.

    we can just use more current designs. like pebble bed nuclear reactors. they are nearly 100% fail safe and far smaller. there are plenty of energy sources, by todays fuel costs, better then fossil fuels.
  20. sushi Moderator emeritus


    Jul 19, 2002
    Very interesting concept.
  21. etoiles macrumors 6502a


    Jun 12, 2002
    Where the air is crisp
    They do this in Switzerland as well, but the other way around. During the day, when demand is high and electricity more expensive (most of the work in industry, transportation, offices etc. is done during the day), the dams produce enough electricity for the domestic market and they sell the surplus to France and Italy...
    Then, at night, they buy cheaper electricity back from those countries (produced in power plants) to pump some of the water back into the dams.
  22. Peterkro macrumors 68020


    Aug 17, 2004
    Communard de Londres
    They also do the pumping water uphill trick in the UK,a big one in Wales there may be others I don't know.
  23. Nuc macrumors 6502a


    Jan 20, 2003
    I like your thinking as well :D. The pebble bed is a very interesting reactor but hasn't caught on here in the states because of proliferation concerns.. Lots of balls to keep up with :D

    Appears the AP1000 and possibly the ASBWR will be the first fleet of new reactors in the US.

  24. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    May 19, 2002
    Which is why the electric car is close to coming back, especially since the new ones will likely go 180-250 miles between charges.

    still waiting on the new VW TDI which may bring back the 40-50 mileage again, while gaining 50 state certification, though it was delayed again this month and pushed from April 08 to end of the summer 08. Should be an interesting Superbowl promo for a car you cannot buy anytime soon.
  25. Xfujinon macrumors 6502

    Jul 27, 2007
    Iowa City, Iowa
    Cars that run on compressed air

    I just wrote a report about this.

    Very interesting idea, but needs development to be competitive to gasoline.

    Check the site out, very cool stuff:


Share This Page