Build your own Water-Fuelled engine

Re: Build your own Water-Fuelled engine


This is impossible. Sorry, couldn't resist.

So, anakpawis, from where does the energy come to move the car? The engine is too busy wasting energy as heat, light, and sound to even support its own electrolysis, so there must be a sacrificial source of energy somewhere. Maybe a battery that's charged from a wall in an area supplied by coal-operated power plants? Heck, if that car were possible, you wouldn't even need to fill the tank. Just cool and recondense the exhaust and send it back to the tank for recycling.

Asking a car to electrolyze water just to combust it is the equivalent of asking a car to take exhaust vapors, convert them back to gasoline, then burn it again. You don't have the brain power to grasp the fact that it takes THE SAME ENERGY TO GO ONE WAY IN A REACTION AS YOU GET BACK GOING THE OTHER WAY. Water is the exhuast, not a fuel. Any time you put the exhaust in a tank, you must convert it to a higher level of energy to make it a fuel. Anytime you have a closed cycle of energy into which no external energy is added, you will run out of energy in the cycle. It will be lost to other forms of energy. Period.

These are people seeking their 5 minutes of fame. You'll believe anything that's posted on the internet, won't you?

Here is a great source for other truthful stuff... http://www.theonion.com/content/index

Nicely put, Curtis.

I've tried for months to explain this to anakpawis... and I'll try one more time

Imagine two hills of equal height with a valley in between. Let's say there is a rock on top of the left hill and you start it rolling down toward the valley. You need to push it to overcome inertia, then gravity does the rest. The rock will roll downhill transferring some of its energy as friction and heat on the dirt, some of it as friction to the air, and some as sound. When it reaches the bottom, it has given up a total of X amount of energy, part of which was transferred to the dirt and air, the rest of which is contained in the kinetic motion of the rock.

Now, it stands to reason that in order for the rock to reach the peak of the next hill, it will require X amount of energy. The problem is, you've lost a bunch coming down the hill, you'll lose more going up the hill, and it will never make it. What happens is the rock comes to rest at the bottom of the valley having expended all of its energy.

Gasoliine is like the rock at the top of the hill. It exists at a high level of potential energy. We use a spark as the "push" to get it started. Combustion is the rock rolling down the hill. Energy loss in an engine is like the friction of the rock on the dirt and air. A typical automotive engine is only about 27% efficient, meaning of the available energy locked in the gasoline's bonds, only 27% of it makes it to the crankshaft. Then of THAT energy, only about 75% makes it to the ground.

Water is like the rock at the bottom of the hill. It has ZERO energy potential. In order to use it, we have to put X energy INTO it to separate it (push the rock up the hill) just so we can combust it and roll the rock down the hill again. Each time (in a car engine) we go through this cycle we lose most of the energy.

What you are proposing is for the rock to not only perpetually go up and down the hill on its own with no outside energy input, you are asking it to supply SURPLUS energy for us to use. What you are proposing is not even perpetual motion, its perpetual motion WITH ENERGY TO SPARE. Not gonna happen.

Keep in mind that NONE of this takes into consideration the thermodynamic properties of the Hydrogen/Oxygen combustion process. The reaction is so fast and so violent that any attempt to burn it in a metal automotive engine would be instantly catastrophic. It has been tried with hydrogen fuel cells. Nothing has even come close to tolerating the extreme pressures that are seen inside the engine. You've seen engines with Nitrous Oxide I'm sure. Nitrous works by injecting N2O and additional fuel. Since ambient air is 21% oxygen and Nitrous is 33% oxygen, it provides significant gains in potential output. A simple small injection of Nitrous raises the typical intake charge to about 27% oxygen with intense results. Modifications to engine internals including pistons, rings, compression, ignition timing, and cooling systems are often required. Even then, you have the huge hydrocarbon molecule chains in gasoline that burn very slowly and at about 2200 degrees farenheit. Burning hydrogen in the presence of pure stoichiometric oxygen ratios can make flame fronts in excess of 7400 degrees at STP. Put that reaction in a 4-stroke engine and you're looking at 9-10 times that number. One revolution of the engine and you can kiss every metal part goodbye. Gasoline contains large atoms joined into large molecules. Hydrogen is the simplest of all elements and exists as a diatomic particle that is infinitesmally smaller than gasoline droplets. Its combustion is NOT something that can happen inside a cast iron or cast aluminum engine. Some manufacturers have been experimenting with ceramics that can handle the heat, but nothing has been able to contain the explosion so far. You're talking about replacing the ambient inlet air of 21% oxygen with 100% oxygen. Uh... no.

Water IS NOT a fuel in any way shape or form. If you want a HYDROGEN powered car, go for it. Use solar electricity or wind power to supply a tank of H2 and O2, then pump it into your car, but it will still require more wind or solar energy to electrolyze the gases than you will get back as power to the ground. You cannot get back more than you put in. Even if you attached a windmill to your car, it will take more energy to push the windmill than you get back from its operation. Even if you designed an engine with zero friction, made no noise and no heat, you would still lose energy to the tires, the driveline, the air, and a half million other things like turn signals, bearings, and natural resistance in wiring.

If you had any idea how far off you were, you would have ceased your arguments three months ago. Instead of listening to engineers, technicians, scientists, and experts, you have blindly told us we're idiots and instead have now started preaching the Gospel according to YouTube.

I triple dog-dare you to post your thoughts over at www.eng-tips.com. It is a forum of the worlds finest engineers. If you're so certain of your designs, ask about them over there and see what the reaction is.

Re: Build your own Water-Fuelled engine


Dude! When will yours be finished? Will you post a video on YouTube?

Re: Build your own Water-Fuelled engine

I want to see the video of him driving it over to Drewdad's and punching him in the nose for not believing.

OK, a video of just getting to the end of the block would be amazing but if it goes farther then that, Drewdad's should anakpawis first stop.

Which room exactly?

http://www.eng-tips.com/threadminder.cfm?pid=71

Engine and fuel engineering section of the automotive forums. I'll be watching.

Here's a friend driving a water fuelled car.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-813727532577660991&q=stanley+meyer+water+car&total=140&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Well, I don't know if you can call a dune buggy a car, but don't you think it's close enough? lol...

Your friend invented that car in the 1980s? Why isn't it being produced yet? The news story (from the 80s) says it would go into production in just a couple of years.

Why haven't you built one yet if this guy is your friend? Didn't he give you the top secret plans?

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=163254

Here is a thread where a guy ordered one of these kits. First of all, it doesn't REPLACE gasoline, its intended to supplement gasoline. It claims to be able to support combustion, but in actual testing it produced .01% of its advertised output. That means it failed by a factor of 10,000. I'd call that test pretty conclusive. If you want to keep believing YouTube and fail to acknowledge hard test data, be my guest, but I won't let you preach your fairy tales without at least informing people of the truth.

You keep posting links to videos. Do you think someone in the newsroom knows (or cares) if something is true? Ratings drive what goes on TV, not truth.

I'll bet the pentagon came and sent him to dune-buggy heaven. He was probably shot by a sniper using water-powered bullets.

Why are you guys so against videos? Videos are the best evidence out there. If only Clinton's sexcapades was on video, Monica can't deny that she swallowed too.

Video proves that elephants can become invisible.

Two words: Fox News. That should be enough to make anyone skeptical about things they see in video.

The only thing that video showed was a guy driving a dune buggy and putting some water in a tank. It didn't show ANYTHING to prove that his buggy ran on water. There was an 1/8 hp 1800-rpm standard industrial electric motor on it. There was a white tank, and then there was some other junk that didn't prove anything.

I'll bet you are a salesman's dream. You'd buy anything if they told you you needed it.

Did it ever occur to you that you will be a very terrible salesman? lol

Actually I did terribly as a salesman. I told the truth and buyers say thank you to that, but they don't buy when they see it in black and white.

People like you are like blood in the water to a salesman. The sharks see gullible and they swarm. Its people like me who told people like you the truth and they walked away.

Let's take for example the video of the guy in the garage with the two lamps. He never shows his face, he used a cheap video camera with horrible sound, showed you nothing of what was inside those two boxes he plugged into, and then called it free energy. You lend greater credibility to that video than you do to 1000s of years of research. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about a technical and energy renaissance. I make my own biodiesel for cripes sake, but in order for a new truth to become a new truth, it has to be TRUE. Why do you accept media lies as gospel?

I didn't know that bio-diesel is the new technical term for passing gas.
lol

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7403227932006764955&q=marcos+dancing+magnets&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Seriously, how do you make your own bio-diesel?

Its somewhat involved if you do it right. You take pretty much any oil; McDonald's fryer oil, virgin vegetable oil, even rendered animal fats will work but not as well. Typically you want non-hydrogenated oils to start with since their viscosity is much lower. Basically anything that is liquid at room temperature works best.

The easy way to do it (the way that gave biodiesel a bad reputation) is to simply titrate it to determine its free fatty acid level, then add a mixture of methanol and sodium hydroxide and mix. The reaction creates biodiesel and glycerol. The glycerol sinks, you drain it off and burn the bio. The problem with stopping at this point is that the fuel contains all kinds of crap; leftover methanol and lye, water, and other contaminants. The proper way to do it is to wash and dry it which is actually much like it sounds. You can do it one of two ways (or both). The first way is to dump some water in the fuel and use an aquarium stone to bubble it up through. The water circulates through the fuel picking up the contaminants and sinking back down. The other way is to use a mister to introduce water in the top. As it sinks down through it picks up the contaminants. I do both. I mist the top, then when a certain volume of water appears at the bottom I turn on the bubbles. Then you drain the water off, heat the fuel to boil off any water and what you're left with is (if you're careful) diesel fuel that meets ASTM standards. The other nice thing about washing the diesel is that you can recover and distill the methanol for re-use.

Its basically a series of three water heaters, one stirring tank, and a tank to mix the methoxide catalyst. The whole thing is called transesterification and its so often done so wrong; both in the diesel product that results and the fact that people mistake the byproducts as harmless. They are not and they require treatment and composting to be harmless. The process pulls a glycerol (raw glycerin) molecule off the fat which makes it less viscous.

The truth is, the ONLY reason for transesterifying oil into diesel is its viscosity. Straight veggie oil burns just as well in a diesel engine, its just that its too viscous. Imagine your tank being full of Crisco on a cold morning. Straight veggie cars are getting more common, but it requires two fuel systems; one running diesel or biodiesel to get started, then (using heat from the engine to warm the veggie oil) you can switch over to the veggie. Then you have to remember to switch back to diesel before shutdown so the lines get purged and you can start the next time.

One of the nice things about biodiesel is that its so non-volatile that its actually classified as a non-flammable liquid. BUT the nicest thing about biodiesel is that it has next to zero carbon footprint. The cost in electricity to produce a 40-gallon batch of biodiesel is about $1.30 and the oil itself is free. You can further reduce the carbon footprint by heating with wood or another bio-flame, but I'm still a ways from that. With biodiesel, ANYthing your tailpipe puts out was first cleaned out of the atmosphere by the plants that produced the oil. Fossil fuels pull carbon from miles below the surface and deposit it in the biosphere. Biofuels take carbon from the ATMOSPHERE and borrow it to make energy. Basically we're harnessing water, carbon, and sunlight in plants' photosynthesis and turning it into energy instead of dragging oil up from the ground.

We'll never be self-sufficient with biofuels. There isn't enough farm land to support our transportation needs by a hundredfold, but in the far future I expect we won't be the SUV-driving, non-carpooling, gluttons that we are today... at least I hope not.