water fuel

Fill up your Prius with water and let us know how it worked. B)

 

Somewhere on this board is this video. With all technology there are drawbacks. He is working on patents but I image that the energy required to create that power from the 4 oz of water is much more than it provides. It may be a good technology for those with solar panels. I am waiting for him to start selling it with a gas engine conversion kit.

 

The laws of thermodynamics are very clear about things like this. There's no free lunch. Sure, you can put energy into water to convert it to hydrogen and oxygen and then get energy out by burning it to convert it back to water. But converting the water to H2 and O is not 100% efficient so you wind up getting less energy out than you put in. If this guy claims otherwise then he's a Charlatan and/or a crackpot.

Though useless for generating energy, this process can be useful for storing and distributing it. The electricity used for the electrolysis can come from various sources, such as solar or nuclear, which you can then use to power your car without having huge solar panels or a nuclear reactor on board. Dealing with hydrogen still has it's problems, however, as evidenced by the recent tribulations with fuel cell technology and past disasters like the Hindenburg.

 

joy, no offense, but did you ditch high school science class? Didn't you learn that water doesn't burn? If you forgot, go try it at home, take a glass of water, use a match, and try to light the water on fire. Don't try the same with gasoline, you will be severely burned.

The video is a scam. The other clue that it's a scam is that it's on Fox News.

I understand that you want to believe that a water powered car will save us from the coming oil crunch, but it's not going to happen, because water doesn't burn.

Nate

 

A crock from beginning to end. He's making Hydrogen folks. He takes a wee bit of water and applies a huge amount of energy to it, and gets H2 gas. Surprise. It burns pretty hot (though surely not "hotter than the sun" as the guy states).

His car? Says it will run on water (what, something like 3,000 miles per gallon of water???) and also gasoline. Tell me why ANYBODY would make his car run on gasoline if it could also run on plain water? The car doesn't run on water of course. It runs on the H2 that is stripped off the water after a huge input of energy.

Good lord.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(naterprius @ Jun 18 2006, 01:24 PM) [snapback]273096[/snapback]</div>

you sure like splitting hairs don't you? The semantics aren't precise, certainly, however, you can heat water so that it changes states. Don't be so obtuse. Sure, the story is a hoax but you don't have to be mean about it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(joy @ Jun 18 2006, 09:17 PM) [snapback]273302[/snapback]</div>

Nate isn't being harsh. He's just being Nate. I probably came across as harsh as well. Please don't take it personally.

Many of us ARE very interested in advances in fuel technology. This just isn't one of them.
He does NOT use water to make fire. Nor does he use water as a "fuel."

 

It is just another perpetual motion machine hoax.

Wikipedia - Water fuel cell

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(joy @ Jun 18 2006, 09:17 PM) [snapback]273302[/snapback]</div>

Awww, don't let their attitude spoil your day joy it's all Bush's fault. If he wasn't President they could actually be tolerable. <_< But don't hold your breath. :lol:

Wildkow

 

Water has been used to power cars before. It's called...steam.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(joy @ Jun 19 2006, 12:17 AM) [snapback]273302[/snapback]</div>

Joy, please continue to hang out with us. Many of us including me are almost fanatical about alternative clean energy. And with time, you too will easily distinguish the interesting and possible from the hype. Wildkow is a bit defensive about his favored political party still joyous over fool cells and in the hip pocket of the oil companies; yet he too, is a Prius owner.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jun 19 2006, 12:42 AM) [snapback]273310[/snapback]</div>

This clearly states whats going on...


it means that instead of burning gasoline that comes from oil. we'll burn hydrogen that comes coal.

no good trade off...

but i have heard things like modify bacteria to produce hydrogen and maybe even mining it from space... however there is also "supposely" 1 atom of hydrogen, every centimeter in space, so i have a hard time beliving that we could "mine" it.

however, if you use elctricity to make your "HHO" and then use it to fuel your car...

...your spending less than gas? maybe?

 

I'm not trying to be harsh, I'm trying to encourage people to think.

Jack, your turn: It doesn't matter how hot you heat water to change it's state into steam, it still won't ignite. Water is not a fuel. It's whatever you are using to heat the water that is the power source.

I don't blame joy for wanting to believe a bold-faced lie. I blame Fox News for perpetrating it.

I suspect joy deep down knew the truth. It didn't seem right that a car can run on water; it went against everything that she inherently knew as an intelligent, discerning individual human being. I simply reminded her of what she already knew: that water isn't flammable, and therefore can't be used as a fuel, therefore the "water powered car" is a scam.

By the way, joy, if you were unwelcome, you would be ignored.

Welcome to the club. I hope you enjoy your new car. This is the single best resource for all things Prius. Stick around a while, and try not to slip on the Squid.

Nate

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 19 2006, 12:15 AM) [snapback]273328[/snapback]</div>

Godiva, you're next: "Steam Powered" is a misnomer. If it's steam powered, it was really coal powered or wood powered or maybe even natural gas powered. Some sort of fuel needed to burn to make the steam.

Nate

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(naterprius @ Jun 19 2006, 10:53 AM) [snapback]273500[/snapback]</div>

Same way that fuel cells will never be "hydrogen powered." Just for educational purposes (I know that most folks here already realze this, and even Bush seems to be slowly grasping this... but it bears repeating):
Hydrogen is NOT a source of energy. It is merely an energy carrier. Much like batteries... or steam. You need to add energy to shove the energy into the carrier. We don't ever just find Hydrogen sitting around like we've found oil for so many years. We have to create it. We create it by adding way more energy than we'll ever get back out.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jun 19 2006, 01:02 PM) [snapback]273508[/snapback]</div>

You could say that fossil fuel isn't a fuel source. It too is an energy carrier that's carried via C-H bonds created via photosynthesis billions and billions of years ago.

Wind isn't a fuel source either. It's a energy carrier holding solar energy through the sun heating the ocean.

Geothermal energy isn't a fuel source. It's a energy carrier that is transiently carrying cosmic/entropic energy after the sun exploded into what is now the solar system.

Hydroelectric energy isn't a fuel source. It's a energy carrier that's created from solar energy that evaporates and transports water from lower altitudes to higher altitudes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 19 2006, 04:32 PM) [snapback]273672[/snapback]</div>

Right. But I wasn't arguing semantics. I was arguing practicality.

If you can pull a product out of the ground, or out of moving water or air, or by shining sunlight on it... that is called a "windfall" energy source. We can do something with it, without first adding more energy to it than we'll get out of it. We must consider oil, sunlight, wind and moving water as fuel sources as we can use them to power something without a negative energy balance. We don't "create" any of these like we create hydrogen.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jun 19 2006, 06:45 PM) [snapback]273679[/snapback]</div>

I know, I was just messing with you.

I haven't participated in a mental exercise of "the conservation of thermodynamics" since college 15 years ago.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(naterprius @ Jun 19 2006, 12:53 PM) [snapback]273500[/snapback]</div>

Duh. I knew that. It was my intent to communicate that a steam powered car ran on water to the same extent as this guy's brilliant invention.