See video - Water Energy powers Cars

[77r 0]

Say goodbye to dependency on gasoline.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3299610356332390298

[Bolas 5]

The stoners were right?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[ryoder 1,393]

Quote

Say goodbye to dependency on gasoline.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3299610356332390298

It requires energy input to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. Then you burn the two gases and they release that energy as they recombine into water. So where do you get the energy initially? If you believe this video, I have some snake oil I can sell you that will cure cancer.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[77r 0]

Quote

Quote

Say goodbye to dependency on gasoline.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3299610356332390298

It requires energy input to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. Then you burn the two gases and they release that energy as they recombine into water. So where do you get the energy initially? If you believe this video, I have some snake oil I can sell you that will cure cancer.

Just because you don't understand the science behind it dosn't mean it's a hoax. People said the same thing about the atomic bomb. You're welcome to disprove it if you can. I think the news station that aired it and Congress will take this guy's discovery over your snake oil.

[strop45 0]

Quote

Just because you don't understand the science behind it dosn't mean it's a hoax.

And you do understand the science behind it? Please explain? Just because its in the media and some people are willing to look at doesn't make it true. People have been talking about water powered cars for over thirty years (suppressed by the oil industry you know...).

I have some prime real estate and the odd 20 million dollars I could give you if only you'll pay a small handling fee....

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein

[77r 0]

Quote

Quote

Just because you don't understand the science behind it dosn't mean it's a hoax.

And you do understand the science behind it? Please explain? Just because its in the media and some people are willing to look at doesn't make it true. People have been talking about water powered cars for over thirty years (suppressed by the oil industry you know...).

I have some prime real estate and the odd 20 million dollars I could give you if only you'll pay a small handling fee....

It's not for me to explain it to you. I simply posted what I thought was a very interesting news clip. My point was simply what I said "Just because you don't understand the science behind it dosn't mean it's a hoax." If it is legitimate we'll hopefully find out before the oil companies buy and bury the guy's patent.

[1969912 0]

I think this is their website: http://hytechapps.com/

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[quade 3]

Quote

Say goodbye to dependency on gasoline.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3299610356332390298

Bwahahahaha.

I watched. I decided.

That reporter should be FIRED.

What a freekin' chump. I'm not saying that you can't separate hydrogen and oxygen out of water to run an engine, but you'd certainly waste more energy than you'd ever get out of the system.

Don't these people take high-school physics and chemistry?

The ONLY way this makes any sense whatsoever is as a storage system for transient forms of electrical generation such as wind or solar. But as a source of power for a CAR?!? Bwahahaahahaha.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[willard 0]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/electrol.html

This web site explains it in a fairly easy to understand manner.
Yes, water can be seperated into H2 and O through electrolysis then the elements recombined in a fuel cell to create elecricity. However, a basic law of physics is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The energy used in elecrolysis is significantly more than the energy released and used from a fuel cell.
Technically, this guys gizmo is not a hoax, but it is not the cure-all the video claims it to be. As someone already pointed out, it's just another way to store solar/wind energy for later use.

[ryoder 1,393]

James Randi addressed this BS last June:http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-06/060906just.html#i3

And check out this video where at the 1:30 point they show that a water molecule contains one hydrogen atom, and two oxygen atoms:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=660759158947266385

So they really are rewriting the laws of chemistry!

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Gawain 0]

On the guy's web-site is a quote: "The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it." -Chinese Proverb

Now, I'm not saying this guy found the silver bullet, but certainly our understanding of the science behind it will evolve, and our technology will evolve with it.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[ryoder 1,393]

Quote

On the guy's web-site is a quote: "The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it." -Chinese Proverb

Now, I'm not saying this guy found the silver bullet, but certainly our understanding of the science behind it will evolve, and our technology will evolve with it.

The guys problem is that we do understand the science behind it, and that is why we know it is utter bullshit. But no doubt he will scam some money from clueless investors, because there is an old American proverb: "There's a sucker born every minute"

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[willard 0]

His entire presentation is BS.
Example: Soldering copper pipes with oxy-acetylene. His vid shows it takes about 30 seconds/joint. You can bet your ass that I can take the same oxy-acety torch and melt those same pipes into a blob in half that time. He didn't even have the flame adjusted correctly!
Fact remains that it takes more energy to separate water into its' basic elements than you get back when they are allowed to rejoin into water.
He also claims tungsten melts at 10,000 F. It actually melts at app. 6200 F.

[PWScottIV 0]

Quote

James Randi addressed this BS last June:http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-06/060906just.html#i3

And check out this video where at the 1:30 point they show that a water molecule contains one hydrogen atom, and two oxygen atoms:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=660759158947266385

So they really are rewriting the laws of chemistry!

Maybe they'll start inventing new elements next!?

Gravity Waits for No One.

[ryoder 1,393]

Another point to make:

- The product of burning hydrogen and oxygen is water. Since there is no nuclear fission or fusion happening here, the mass of the water must equal the mass of the hydrogen and oxygen which formed it.

- There is no reason the exhaust (water vapor) of a hydrogen/oxygen burning engine could not be captured, and directed through an air-cooled coil which would return it to water.

- So we dump this water back into the tank of the water-powered car, and we get to burn it again!

Presto! We've just invented the perpetual-motion machine! Why didn't anyone ever think of this before! Dammit! If I hadn't been brainwashed by all that chemistry and thermodynamics in engineering school, I could have been the one to invent this.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Unstable 8]

Okay, the principle behind an entirely water-burning car is obviously not going to make it - but he made an interesting statement when he said his own car was currently set up as a Water/gasoline hybrid. Could this idea be feasible?

=========Shaun ==========

[PWScottIV 0]

Quote

Another point to make:

- The product of burning hydrogen and oxygen is water. Since there is no nuclear fission or fusion happening here, the mass of the water must equal the mass of the hydrogen and oxygen which formed it.

- There is no reason the exhaust (water vapor) of a hydrogen/oxygen burning engine could not be captured, and directed through an air-cooled coil which would return it to water.

- So we dump this water back into the tank of the water-powered car, and we get to burn it again!

Presto! We've just invented the perpetual-motion machine! Why didn't anyone ever think of this before! Dammit! If I hadn't been brainwashed by all that chemistry and thermodynamics in engineering school, I could have been the one to invent this.

Yeah, and to start your HHO PMM motor we could use the "magnet motor" that I invented when I was 13. Let's patent it!

Gravity Waits for No One.

[ryoder 1,393]

Quote

Okay, the principle behind an entirely water-burning car is obviously not going to make it - but he made an interesting statement when he said his own car was currently set up as a Water/gasoline hybrid. Could this idea be feasible?

The problem is it takes energy input to break the bonds in the water molecule, then the process of combustion releases that same energy. IF both processes were 100% efficient (impossible), there would be just enough energy to keep the cycle going, but there would be no excess energy available to do useful work like, uh, move the car. So the net result is loss of energy accomplishing nothing.

What is feasible is to have stationary hydrogen production plants using coal/petroleum/solar/nuclear/wind/whatever power to generate electricity to extract hydrogen from water via electrolysis, then use the hydrogen to fuel vehicles. Hydrogen has an advantage in having high energy/mass making it especially attractive where weight is critical, e.g. aircraft.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[77r 0]

Quote

The problem is it takes energy input to break the bonds in the water molecule, then the process of combustion releases that same energy. IF both processes were 100% efficient (impossible), there would be just enough energy to keep the cycle going, but there would be no excess energy available to do useful work like, uh, move the car. So the net result is loss of energy accomplishing nothing.


Well obviously he must know something you don't. That's why he came up with a way to do it and you didn't


In all fairness, You could be right, but I'm sure there's a lot more to it if he got it to work.

[dorbie 0]

You are WRONG, Royder does understand the science and you don't. Just because you don't understand BASIC science, do not criticise people because they point out you are falling for a con.

Once again....

1) electrolysis to separate water into Hydrogen and Oxygen is well understood, it takes energy.

2) Hydrogen and oxygen combust to produce water and energy.

3) In a perfect system stage 1 takes as much energy as 2 outputs.

4) Neither process can be 100% efficient and so 2 outputs less energy than you put into 1. e.g. the water after combustion is hot water gas, the "fuel" is liquid, just where do you think the energy to heat the water into a gas comes from? Never mind the energy to melt metal.

5) If you want to believe this guy you have to accept that you could feed his vehicle's exhaust into its gas tank and run it forever. Not just a perpetual motion machine, but a perpetual motion machine that does work.

Dude, just THINK about it, you start with water you end up with water (the guy points his torch at a condensing sheet to show water droplets), what net gain chemically has occurred? HHO is not some magical gas that burns cold. H2O is water. It makes H2 and O2 under electrolysis, you can mix the gas to produce an H2 and O2 mix. Inventing a new chemical notation to show a gas mix is marketing, not chemistry.

Hydrogen and Oxygen burn at the same temperature for him as anyone else. Mixing them before combustion is crazy, you store them separately or invite an explosion. No flame magically melts metal but doesn't burn anything else. That flame is burning away from the nozzle and so does not heat it because of the velocity of the gas being emitted and the fact that they only mix for combustion after leaving the nozzle, this is a commonly used principal in all sorts of torches.

IF you came up with some moderate/low temperature catalytic separation of water (the guy says he uses electrolysis so he hasn't) but if you did it would take a lot of energy now you'd have to heat the cat to stop it getting extremely cold and being ineffective, but the guy doesn't even make such a claim, which at least would be more feasible if ridiculously outlandish.

The likes of you should not be making this decision and neither should congressmen without scientific advisers, because they are not scientifically equipped to see through a very obvious and childish fraud. As it is we'll blow money on a modified hummer and hopefully the testing will reveal that it is less efficient or someone will be smart enough to spot the real engine mods they've made.

If this guy DID have something it would be worth a fortune in all sorts of areas including industrial processes etc, he has nothing but a con game he runs on investors and now unfortunately the taxpayer.

You should listen to people who can see very clearly what is going on here instead of dismissing what they say. A few posters here understand science and see why this is a fraud.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Okay, the principle behind an entirely water-burning car is obviously not going to make it - but he made an interesting statement when he said his own car was currently set up as a Water/gasoline hybrid. Could this idea be feasible?

Potentially but it requires explanation. It is not a water powered car or even a partly water powered car.

The end product of H2 and O2 combustion is H2O, you cannot start with H2O and get energy out of it. Further you combust H2O into a gas that is more energetic than the H2O you started with.

Now the word hybrid covers all sorts of things. But let's say for example that the guy understands he really does need to power his electrolysis and recognises that fact. Some hybrids take electricity generated under breaking and convert it to battery energy (this is electrolysis inside a rechargeable battery). This chemical energy is later used as electrical power from the battery to drive an electric motor. Now let's say you had a gasoline powered vehicle and you used electricity generated under breaking to power electrolysis to separate water into H2 and O2 and store it. You could then feed that to the engine cylinders for combustion and eliminate the electric motor and the batteries. You need a water tank, probably compressors, storage for the gasses and a feed to the engine.

Basically you're replacing a battery with gas storage and it might be a net gain, you have an electrolysis system on the front end of the storage instead of an electric motor on the back end of the storage.

The problem here is the history of bogus water powered car claims he's made for years and persists in, and saying he gets a net energy gain from water which he cannot. You'll remember the beginning of the story where the claim was made that he could power a car entirely from water.

[riddler 0]

Quote

We've just invented the perpetual-motion machine!

No - it's better than that. A perpetual motion machine that has enough excess energy to power the family car

Things I love about the article:

"it's not H2O - it's HHO"

"claims he has run the car entirely on water, but currently runs on a misture of gasoline and water" (I guess even a water-power car needs a boost )

"a special form of electrolysis" (I guess for people that can't balance energy equations)

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[dorbie 0]

Quote

"a special form of electrolysis" (I guess for people that can't balance energy equations)

If he said catalytic electrolysis and had ice forming on his machine I might be more impressed. Of course you need some way of heating the solution or you'd end up with a tub of ice and no electrolosys, but at least you could make the case that the energy is from the surrounding air (if you could make a heat exchanger sufficient to the task), and it'd only work well in hot weather.

I should stop, I don't want to give this conman too many ideas for his next scam.

Anyone genuinely interested in this as a legitimate concept should investigate fuel cell technology.

[billvon 2,416]

We have all this stuff now. It's not really news; there have been hydrogen ("water") cars for years, and you can make hydrogen yourself (if you don't mind paying the power bill to run the electrolyzer.)


Hydrogen cars:

http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_fcv/index.html

http://www.gmhummer.com/hummerspecs/h2h/main.htm

Home electrolysis system:

http://digg.com/environment/Home_owner_has_1st_solar_hydrogen_house_His_energy_bill_is_0_00

[willard 0]

Quote

We have all this stuff now. It's not really news; there have been hydrogen ("water") cars for years, and you can make hydrogen yourself (if you don't mind paying the power bill to run the electrolyzer.)


Hydrogen cars:

http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_fcv/index.html

http://www.gmhummer.com/hummerspecs/h2h/main.htm

Home electrolysis system:

http://digg.com/environment/Home_owner_has_1st_solar_hydrogen_house_His_energy_bill_is_0_00

One more...the ultimate hydrogen powered car.
www.buckeyebullet.com
This vehicle is VERY real.