Whatever happened to the water-fueled engine?

Water powered engine



http://netmar.com/~maat/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm

see for yourself

Keep in mind, the author of this article seems to respect George W. Bush and even quotes him on matters pertaining to science. In other words, consider the source.

...meaning?

FIF1217

Allow me to be more bold. George W Bush is an idiot and hasn't a clue about science. I would much prefer a consensus opinion of respected scientists. And what does FIF1217 mean?

As to George Bush being an idiot, about the only thing I disagree with is the war in Iraq.

As to getting a scientific source, you don't even need one, provided you've remembered your high school chemistry.

What do you mean by what does FIF1217 mean?

FIF1217

Hi,

Haven't read through much of this thread, however relating to Water Engines... have a look at this article / Video

Excerpt:
"He has already attracted the attention of an unnamed American automaker, and Klein has been invited to the Washington to demonstrate his technology, with word that he is now working on a water-gasoline hybrid Hummer for US military."

http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/354/C8115/

a quote from that link...



First of all, this entire story was a Fox news (or should I say Faux news) flub... they apologized for their lies later.

Secondly, this statement says it all... "technically, the car isn't running on water..."

Thirdly, there is NO SUCH THING as HHO gas. There is H2 or O2, but no such thing as HHO.

Fourth, unless Fission or Fusion is happening, there will never be "atomic power of hydrogen" involved by combustion of hydrogen gas.

Fifth, the electrolysis of the water that he uses takes place OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE from an alternate source, and only supplements the gasoline already being burned in the engine. The supplemental energy provided by the hydrogen fuel is sourced from a separate energy source. He used probably ten times the energy to crack water than he got back in his car.

I just feel sorry for people who read and believe this crap. Anyone who studied (and understood) Chem 101 knows that this story is full of s#!t

There's one born every minute, as the saying goes. Snake Oil always has a ready market.

Of note is the claim the inventor is working with the Dept. of Defense on a water-fueled Hummer - DOD contracts are public record, and there is no record of Klein, his "Hytech Applications Inc." or my affilliated firm being under contract. Then consider "Perpetual Motion/Free Energy"; if the exhaust product is water, that could be re-converted to fuel in an endless cycle - First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and all that; you just can't beat the Carnot Cycle. Besides, the energy required to separate the water molecule into oxygen and hydrogen exceeds the engery available through burning the byproduct. What Klein has if he has anything is a twist on Rhodes' Gas, which is the antecedent of "Brown's Gas", hyped with much fanfare a few years ago by noted Antipodean Kook and Fraudster Yull Brown who claimed to have "invented" it more than a decade after the publication of Rhodes' claims. Ol' Yull also claimed to have invented an anti-gravity device. Whatchya got here is pure bunk, plain and simple.


Of further interest is that Wikipedia has deleted all reference to Browns Gas, and now notes on the page which used to have a lengthy discussion of Klein, his claims, and links to all sortsa related stuff, only that Klein's Claims are "Subject to Question".

hydrogen
The question is not 'can hydrogen fuel a motor'. That has been proven for at least 50 years. Hydrogen can indeed be used in motors. Please see any major automobile company that is making them.

The more specific question to be addressed is can hydrogen be created "on demand"?

Please focus on this detail when addressing this subject. It makes discussing it much more clear and to the point.

Any 6th grade kid can tell you from his science class that a 9 volt battery will produce 'some' hydrogen when channeled into water. The major obstacle is conservation of energy.

Water is a very unusual substance. We think of in usually in a traditional model that it can be in the form of a liquid like the ocean, gas like in the clouds, or ice like in an iceburg. Water however is much more complex. It is the only known liquid to defy thermodynamic properties of freezing- Hot water tends to freeze faster than cold- however it cannot overcome the sheer thermodynamics. For just one example.

www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html for further reading oh phases of water.

This next jump is a faith based one, because I haven't invented it yet. I would bet all I have that their are many methods of producing hydrogen from water in which the output potential of the hydrogen produced is much greater than it's input to produce.

This is the greatest hurdle to overcome in this whole process. The rest is a matter of containment, guages, regulators and the like.

http://www.i4u.com/article5953.html
A $40 toy car that runs on hydrogen.

For certain, I would never drive a vehicle with a large tank filled with Hydrogen strapped to it, as safe as they try to make it. On demand must be the way to go.

Global energy usage has been closely monitored for, well a long time. An unlimited renewable power source would dramatically change geopolitics overnight.

my .02

followup
As a followup for all you preaching your 3rd grade newtonian physicist out there.

Consider this.

How much energy does it take to enrich uranium 234 to the point of it being uranium 238 VS the energy drawn back out of the substance as it degrades in our reactors?

According to these newtonians, it MUST be exactly the same.

Think about it.

Data, I suggest you learn something about enriching uranium before you post junk like your last. They do not "enrich uranium 234 to the point of being uranium 238". Whatever you may think that means, it's gibberish.

Naturally occurring uranium ore is almost entirely U238, with a very small percentage (about 0.71%) of U235, the fissionable isotope, and virtually microscopic amounts of several other isotopes (your U234 is about 1/200th of 1%. It's not part of the enrichment process at all). "Enriching" takes several forms, the most common one being a mechanical process (centrifuges) of separating out the U235, very slowly and very arduously, based on the different molecular weight of the two isotopes, and increasing its concentration in the final mix. No isotope is converted or "enriched" to another isotope. Only the relative proportion of presence of each isotope is changed. If you're going to denigrate the well-proven standard physics, it would help if you knew what you were talking about.

Enrichment requires, usually, mechanical energy. The breakdown of U235 is a completley separate process, radioactive decay. It produces more energy because you're using the mechanical energy to concentrate the U235 to the point where it is high enough to sustain a chain reaction, which normally is damped out by the diffusion of the U235 in the mass of U238. Fission of U235 produces the same amount of energy in either case. But if you have the U235 more concentrated you get a chain reaction, either in the form of energy generation or a bomb, depending on how you construct it.

A bit of advice - stay outta casinos, kid - and you prolly oughtta avoid carnival midways, too. Another - if you're really interested in science, it'd be good were you to learn some.


You left out the key phrase - your sentence should have begun: "An economically viable unlimited power source ... "



Oh ... and welcome to A2K.

Hmmm... let's see. Combustion of hydrogen is the process by which hydrogen combines with oxygen and makes water.

The opposite of that is separating the oxygen from the hydrogen.

Equal and opposite. There is no possible way around it. Taking it apart requires the same amount of energy as you get back putting them back together. Period.

Looking for what Denny Klein is up to with HHO.
http://hytechapps.com/

Here are links to sites that have plans for free on how to run a car with water:

http://www.hasslberger.com/tecno/hydrogen.html
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/waterfuel.htm

I am going to try this out and see for myself if it works or not. It'll be an experiment. I'll only know if this is true or not once i do it. Here there are too many people who are only into theories about how things "Cannot" work. To each his own.

Best regards to all open minded people.

Wow. I took chemistry in 11th grade. We learned about the conservation of energy. Apparently you guys skipped that class.

I'm gonna get slightly technical here... try to follow...

Water is made of Hydrogen (H) and Oxygen (O).
The formula is H2O. Meaning there are TWO hydrogen for each oxygen.

A hydrogen bond (as in this case) takes a very precisely measured amount of energy to break. Each water molecule has two such bonds.

Suppose (and these numbers are arbitrary here) it takes 5watts to break the hydrogen bonds in a molecule of water.

So, you would need to pump in 5watts of power (from any source you choose) to break each molecule of water.

And then, your engine would recombine the hydrogen and oxygen to power itself. However, it would still only get 5 watts of power from each molecule when they are reassembled.

So you haven't actually *produced* any power yet, only conserved it.


Now here's the rub. The power required to break the bonds comes from somewhere. So you need to put some other fuel in the car. You are no better off than runnin on gas. You've only added useless steps.

A engine that "runs on water" is possible. HOWEVER, it does not run ONLY on water and therefore is less efficient than its petrol counterparts.

Re: energy



Absolutely not. This forrest is not a closed system, like a combustion engine is. In your forrest, you technically would have put in the match and all the trees. And so you're not getting any more energy than you put it. You just misunderstood what you put in.

I haven't read every page of this thread. But since water is needed for agriculture and human needs, why not use the energy to compress air as in the air car? www.theaircar.com

I successfully duplicated the "joe cell" I saw on google video. Obviously, it is very easy to split water into gas using very little energy.

In the process of doing my own research, I found out about the conspiracy of suppressing technology. Look into Nikola Tesla, Edwin Gray, Bruce DePalma, Mark Steven, Stanley Meyer, Joe Cell, Methernitha .

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3017194771837860523&q=nazi+ufo&hl=en CUT & paste


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7365305906535911834&q=THE+RACE+TO+ZERO+POINT+ENERGY&hl=en


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374&q=ELECTROMAGNETIC+SUN&hl=en

Regardless of what you *think* you saw or what you *think* you've duplicated, an engine cannot be made to work on water. It is not a conspiracy. It is just simple chemistry/physics.