24
   

Whatever happened to the water-fueled engine?

 
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Mon 7 Jul, 2008 02:53 pm
thanks curtis, a small note of sanity!
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 02:28 pm
if you wanna buy everlasting anti gravity paint...you cliki here now you hear?
0 Replies
 
eaglenest
 
  1  
Mon 6 Oct, 2008 12:40 pm
@BillyFalcon,
Hi BillyFalcon,
You ask: Adrian, Please don't go. Let's see if we can teach/persuade.
Sorry, it would take a miracle to convince some folks, I think Adrian and you could use your time and knowledge more effectively teaching young people to think rationally, they need people like you!.
Thanks
Francisco
0 Replies
 
Grimm
 
  1  
Wed 29 Oct, 2008 03:13 pm
@Steve 41oo,
i just wanted to put in my own opinion, how about we just shutup and do something about the world for once, organize ourselves to the point we can actually get stuf done. the reason why i reply to steve 41oo is because he or she sounded just like the church during the middle ages saying the world is flat and speaking all high and mighty about the "truth" of god, or the other thousands of people that said the horseless carrage will never catch on. or good old GM and big oil reps saying that "the electric car is not a feisable option for an alternitive vehicle and is not ready for the public" - (they said that to my face at a British Columbia Iinstitue of Technology open house, febuary 2008....poor, poor, poor heartless bastereds.....they have turn into the north korean citizens of the automitive industry saying whatever there boss tells them to say...propaganda.....*sigh*) you know what? i say F&^! off to those afraid of change!(big oil, gm has grown balls recently, i don't know about stevey) and get use to it! stand up against them and might as well start your own car company! Abw! CGC! Boxem cars! what ever!, and sell what ever is good for the environment!.....anyways.....the hydrogen combustion engine + an electrylosis? inside the fuel take + alternator to power batterie (which in turn supports electrolosys?) = water powered car. Period.



ps: we need the cars yesterday, not tomorrow, not today but yesterday.... YES-TER-DAY!....ok? (if you don't build them i will, then i will become the next Mr.ford, with all the money and stuff)....yeah...air cars are cool too....i don't think i will be giving stevey and buds amunition for a comeback....aside from them putting words in my mouth like, "you said 'idon't know', well i have to agree with ya on that one f-tard!" or some spelling errors "ooh ohh! you spelled Electrolosiz wrong!!!! you know nothing!!!" come on, that sounds like something a nerd in 3rd grade would say or him ranting on about how flawed a perfectly working concept is.....btw, what makes anakpawis's idea flawed? the fact of thermodynaics aproving his and mostly everyone elses idea, or is it just you and your friends opinion and (BIG) misunderstandings Mr.Stevey? also remember, a regular cars battery lasts a Very long time with an alternator (5-10 years) think abou it....you got it?....no?.....now??.............still no?.........kenetic energy powering electirc....ah there you go, attaching the motor to the generator right before it hits the axle to provide the most revolutions for the generator or have it on a gear system like a bicycle where the the small gear is generator and big gear is engine and 1 turn on big = 3 turns on small?....good for you!


pps: i wish to apologize if i offended or broken the belif system as to which anyone fallows i iz zorry fo makn dis tang too long.....rallly zory!!!!!!

goodbye as i am just a guest makeing a one time apearance unless someone does not beleive the 'truth'! of ME!....hahahahahaha....happy halloween!!Very Happy
Steve 41oo
 
  0  
Sat 1 Nov, 2008 01:50 pm
@Grimm,
i will reply but right now have a bakewell pudding to eat.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  0  
Sat 1 Nov, 2008 04:37 pm
@Grimm,
Grimm wrote:

the reason why i reply to steve 41oo is because he or she sounded just like the church during the middle ages saying the world is flat and speaking all high and mighty about the "truth" of god, or the other thousands of people that said the horseless carrage will never catch on.
for you dear boy the world is flat.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Sat 1 Nov, 2008 04:49 pm
Grimm, you certainly know very little, because, its a fact thats been tested over and over that an on board electrolysis unit like you propose would use more energy than it would make available as fuel. Did you do the math or is your lack of knowledge as profound as your lack of language skills? HMMM?
anakpawis
 
  1  
Mon 24 Nov, 2008 04:58 pm
@farmerman,
It is obvious that Steve4100 is a close minded nitwit like farmerman . Water fueled engine exists. I'm a professional engineer, did the calculations, did the experiment and verified the claim.

You lazy bums should get off your computer and try them yourself. If you can not contribute positively in this topic, just shut the fck up.

Google, "joe cell, sid young". Remember, to split hydrogen and oxygen is a form of mining energy. We don't burn more gasoline than we can mine for oil.
Steve 41oo
 
  -1  
Tue 25 Nov, 2008 03:56 pm
@anakpawis,
dont you ever tell me to **** off anakpawis

tell anyone else to **** off I dont care but dont you dare ever to tell me to **** off ever again you got it?

0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  0  
Tue 25 Nov, 2008 04:00 pm
@anakpawis,
you are a very silly person. you dont understand basic physics or the laws of thermodynamics. I have no wish to spend any more of my time arguing with such an idiot.
farmerman
 
  0  
Tue 25 Nov, 2008 04:22 pm
@Steve 41oo,
What he said.
Quote:
Despite its abundance in the universe, hydrogen does not occur freely on earth, as it reacts very readily with other elements. For this reason, the vast majority of hydrogen is bound into molecular com-pounds. To obtain hydrogen means to remove it from these other molecules. With respect to the energy required, it is easy to remove hydrogen from compounds that are at a higher en-ergy state, such as fossil fuels. This process releases energy, reducing the amount of process energy required. It takes more energy to extract hydrogen from compounds that are at a lower energy state, such as water, as energy has to be added to the process.

The process of extracting hydrogen from water is called electrolysis. In principal, electrolysis can be entirely non-polluting and renewable, but it requires the input of large amounts of electrical energy. Consequently, the total envi-ronmental impact of acquiring hydrogen through electrolysis is largely dependent on the impacts of the source power.

In electrolysis, electricity is used to decompose water into its elemental components: hydrogen and oxygen. Electrolysis is often touted as the preferred method of hydrogen production as it is the only process that need not rely on fossil fuels. It also has high product purity, and is feasible on small and large scales. Electrolysis can operate over a wide range of electrical energy capacities, for example, taking advantages of more abundant electricity at night.

At the heart of electrolysis is an electrolyzer. An electrolyzer is a series of cells each with a positive and negative elec-trode. The electrodes are immersed in water that has been made electrically conductive, achieved by adding hydrogen or hydroxyl ions, usually in the form of alkaline potassium hydroxide (KOH).

The overall reaction that occurs is very simple:



2H2O + Energy -> 2H2 + O2



The rate of hydrogen generation is related to the current density (the amount of current divided by the electrode area measured in amps per area). In general, the higher the cur-rent density, the higher the source voltage required, and the higher the power cost per unit of hydrogen. However, higher voltages decrease the overall size of the electrolyzer and therefore result in a lower capital cost. State-of-the-art elec-trolyzers are reliable, have energy efficiencies of 65 to 80% and operate at current densities of about 186 A/ft2 (2000 A/m2).

A fuel cell reverses the process of electrolysis. Electrolysis adds electrical energy to low-energy water to release two high-energy gases. A fuel cell allows the gases to react and combine to form water, releasing electrical power. Both proc-esses release heat, which represents an energy loss.

When viewed together with fuel cells, hydrogen produced through electrolysis can be seen as a way of storing electrical energy as a gas until it is needed. Hydrogen produced by electrolysis is therefore the energy carrier, not the energy source. The energy source derives from an external power generating plant. In this sense, the process of electrolysis is not very different from charging a battery, which also stores electrical energy. Viewed as an electricity storage medium, hydrogen is competitive with batteries in terms of weight and cost.



To obtain 1 m3 of hydrogen from electrolisys we need about 5 kWh of electrical energy.



To be truly clean, the electrical power stored during electrolysis must derive from non-polluting, renewable sources. If the power is derived from natural gas or coal, the pollution has not been eliminated, only pushed upstream. In addition, every energy transformation has an associate energy loss. Consequently, fossil fuels may be used with greater effi-ciency by means other than by driving the electrolysis of hydrogen. Furthermore, the cost of burning fossil fuels to generate electricity for electrolysis is three to five times that of reforming the hydrogen directly from the fossil fuel
0 Replies
 
Chuck Stone
 
  1  
Fri 23 Jan, 2009 05:28 pm
There is a water fueled engine under development and scheduled for public display in 2009. There is a water fueled engine that was developed for NASA by Rockwell International to run on the Moon in the 1990s. Both of these engines are serious technicle efforts based upon established science demonstrated by Nobel Prize winners.

While many well qualified scientists who are paid by vested interests deny the possibility of using water as a fuel in place of gasoline, other scientists and engineers who are privately funded have found ways to run engines on water.

Innovation is sometimes a simple matter of commitment to finding a way instead of blindly saying it has not been done, and therefore can not work.
The Wright Brothers found a way not because they were graduates of a top aerospace engineering school, but because they would not give up their desire to accomplish their vision of controlled flight. Before that flight at "Kittyhawk", most of the world did not expect man would ever fly. Many joked that if GOD wanted man to fly HE would have given man feathers like the birds. Today we all fly without even thinking about it because the Wright Brothers never gave up.

New approaches have reduced the energy input requirements to "crack" the water into hydrogen and oxygen gases. New approaches have been developed to seperate the hydrogen from the oxygen gases once they are "cracked" free from the water molecule. New approaches have been developed to use of these two gases in seperate combustion processes within the same engine to cause greater energy efficiencies than directly recombining. The new engines that are about to become public will be different than engines you are accustomed to.

These engines will run on tap water with no external energy input. Can you figure this out before you see it on TV? Some of you can if you think out of the box.

curtis73
 
  1  
Sat 24 Jan, 2009 06:03 am
@Chuck Stone,
Quote:
Innovation is sometimes a simple matter of commitment to finding a way instead of blindly saying it has not been done, and therefore can not work.
The Wright Brothers found a way not because they were graduates of a top aerospace engineering school, but because they would not give up their desire to accomplish their vision of controlled flight.


This has nothing to do with commitment or innovation, it has to do with thermodynamic law. The wright brothers put known science to work and succeeded. The water fueled car being discussed here VIOLATES CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL LAWS that have been proven over and over. Its not about finding that loophole, its that idiots who failed chemistry think that there is some mystical magic that can violate the first law of conservation of energy.

The Wright Brothers used proven and tested scientific properties to build something that worked. The water fueled car CANNOT work because it has no basis in scientific theory. The whole idea is a bunch of physics flunkies who think that the government kills inventors.
Thomas
 
  1  
Sat 24 Jan, 2009 07:14 am
@curtis73,
Chuck Stone wrote:
The Wright Brothers used proven and tested scientific properties to build something that worked.

I don't think aerodynamics was a proven and tested scientific concept when the Wright Brothers started flying. So I wouldn't be surprised if contemporary scientists had been very, very skeptical of the idea of something heavier than air flying. Sometimes science owes more to engineers than engineering owes to science.

I don't think the water-powered car falls into that category, though.
Thomas
 
  1  
Sat 24 Jan, 2009 07:20 am
@Thomas,
Sorry, Curtis, for misattributing your quote to Chuck Stone.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 24 Jan, 2009 07:21 am
@curtis73,
maybe hes talking about the old NASA "ion propulsion engines which used a Gallium /Aluminum and water reactant to generate ions which were used to slowly accelerate a space ship for deep space travel.
Otherwise, this is a joke for the George Nori listeners.

The WRight brothers already had the concept of "the wing structure" and the gas engine and propellor were already known quantities.
Thomas
 
  1  
Sat 24 Jan, 2009 08:40 am
@farmerman,
Farmerman wrote:
The WRight brothers already had the concept of "the wing structure" and the gas engine and propellor were already known quantities.

You are right. And on reflection, I revise my point. Aerodynamics may not have been a well worked-out science around 1900. But people new that some animals can fly although they are heavier than air. Birds do it, bees do it, even educated flees do it ....
curtis73
 
  1  
Sun 25 Jan, 2009 04:38 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
Birds do it, bees do it, even educated flees do it ....


Excellent use of the old standard Smile Anyone who quotes Harold Arlen is cool in my book.
0 Replies
 
Bethelboy15
 
  1  
Thu 30 Apr, 2009 04:47 pm
@NickFun,
well you could use an electric heater to help steam it up. the fact is to let it boil and create steam. so not every thing needs to use coals or oil. the electric heater could be energized by a solar panel on the top of the vehicle.
0 Replies
 
kennethbell
 
  1  
Sat 17 Apr, 2010 11:27 pm
@Craven de Kere,
my dad back in the day he is about know 43 years old hes says he was the mechanic for the parts by not sure if this is the right one. they
won 3 awards for the engine. then gm bought the engine. after that the was no word on the engine.
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 03:08:46