John Bonnett
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 12:00 PM |
|
|
Running on Water
I just wondered if anyone has considered modifying an engine to run on water. Plans are available I know. I thought I might buy an old engine and
experiment.
John
|
|
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 12:10 PM |
|
|
I think this summer a few people experimented with water-based engines....
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 12:19 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by John Bonnett
I just wondered if anyone has considered modifying an engine to run on water. Plans are available I know. I thought I might buy an old engine and
experiment.
John
care to explain the science behind that? If you put water in, what comes out? I cant think of any ways of extracting usuable power from water, its
already oxidised!
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 12:23 PM |
|
|
i just googled this gem 
quote:
We have developed devices that use a little electricity out of your car's battery, to separate water into a gas called HHO (2 Hydrogen + 1
Oxygen). HHO, also called Brown's Gas or Hydroxy, burns beautifully and provides TONS of energy - while the end product is just WATER! Mobile
Magazine says HHO provides the atomic power of Hydrogen, while maintaining the chemical stability of water.
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 12:29 PM |
|
|
It's amazing technology! You can make a fuel cell which uses the electricity in the car battery to electrolyse pure water into hydrogen and
oxygen, then burn the hydrogen and oxygen to power the car engine and the engine powers the alternator which produces more energy for
electrolysis....
And the amazing thing is that because all this works at greater than 100% efficiency, it's not just a rather complicated way of running a fuel
powered car from electricity... In fact, at some points in the process it creates energy out of nowhere!! Amazing 
|
|
|
mat.price
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 12:31 PM |
|
|
You extract the hydrogen from the water to run the engine on!
Yes ive been toying with the idea myself on my pinto engine but im having trouble with the wiring and stuff
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 12:34 PM |
|
|
no comment
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
oadamo
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 12:38 PM |
|
|
any one got any links for this.
adam
|
|
|
Paul TigerB6
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 12:42 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by oadamo
any one got any links for this.
adam
Are you considering it for your CBR1000 engine then Adam?? If so then i'm sure we can recommend you a site.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 12:48 PM |
|
|
jeez...
running a car on water is just a blag, propigated partly by people's desire to avoid high fuel costs, a bit by the 'the oil companies want
to stamp it out' and a bit by pipe dreams really.
The idea that you have a tank full of water, modify it and then burn it to get energy out of it is, simply, NONSENSE. Its not possible, and there are
an awful lot of websites peddling pseudoscience in the hope of getting traffic and hence advertising revenue.
The first site i read spoke of electrolytically turning water into HHO gas or browns gas. This is a simple mix of H and O, as you would expect if you
split water. Burning it will result in an engery out put slightly less than what you put in. Calling it Browns gas is simply a way of adding
credibility, since one of the first google links about it is valid - but in a different context.
Again, PURE NONSENSE!
|
|
|
sprouts-car
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 12:51 PM |
|
|
You cant get more energy back from water than was used to seperate it in the first place. More energy is used in electrolysis of water than in the
product (hydrogen and oxygen).
Meaning you might aswell run the car on the battery in the first place, rather than wasting energy converting the energy into another form.
|
|
|
Paul TigerB6
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 12:53 PM |
|
|
ah well - thats the end of the joke then i guess!! Cant see who would have seriously fallen for it now!!!
|
|
|
kipper
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 01:33 PM |
|
|
I had a transit that was partly running on water.......... but then I put a new head gasket on.
|
|
|
bonzoronnie
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 01:43 PM |
|
|
Head gasket
quote:
Originally posted by kipper
I had a transit that was partly running on water.......... but then I put a new head gasket on.
I had a Mk 3 escort that was the same.
Steam power. Thats what it was. 
Ronnie
|
|
|
theconrodkid
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 02:20 PM |
|
|
well our everso eco friendly mayor,red ken  has ordered some buses that run on water.
we will wait and see
who cares who wins
pass the pork pies
|
|
|
wilkingj
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 02:30 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by sprouts-car
You cant get more energy back from water than was used to seperate it in the first place. More energy is used in electrolysis of water than in the
product (hydrogen and oxygen).
Agreed... Its physically impossible to get more power out that you put in.
Water injection is another matter, ie to keep the inlet / gas temperatures down, ie colder=denser, so you can pack more air and fuel in to the same
volume.
1. The point of a journey is not to arrive.
2. Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.
Best Regards
Geoff
http://www.v8viento.co.uk
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 02:54 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by theconrodkid
well our everso eco friendly mayor,red ken has ordered some buses that run on water.
we will wait and see
I've seen one of them - don't ask me what the technology is - but it was sitting at a bus-stop, whining quietly, with water vapour coming
out of a vent at the back. Very odd.
I believe that this 'run on water' technology relies on electrolysis, but using square-wave pulse input. It's supposed to give more
hydrogen and oxygen output than you'd get with straight DC, with far less energy input.
I have no idea whether it's true or false, so don't flame me!
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 03:02 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
I believe that this 'run on water' technology relies on electrolysis, but using square-wave pulse input. It's supposed to give more
hydrogen and oxygen output than you'd get with straight DC, with far less energy input.
I have no idea whether it's true or false, so don't flame me!
its entirely likely that they are fuel cell buses with gas tanks on board, with the water being seperated at the local powerstation. There is some
sense to this provided the efficiencies are quite high - afterall, i believe IC engines are only 14% efficient anyway. It means the 'displaced
emissions' can be sent through a massive industrial cleaner/filter/catalyst at the powerstation, which may well be better than a car's
normal catalytic converter.
|
|
|
Surrey Dave
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 04:32 PM |
|
|
Sprouts?
Eat plenty of sprouts and run on methane!!!
|
|
|
RazMan
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 04:44 PM |
|
|
I was reading about this a while back - you fill a plastic container with water, add a small amount of electrolyte (something peroxide I think) and
apply a current across a pair of submerged contacts. You vary the current to control the Hydrogen / Oxygen generation.
There are a few manufacturers producing kits in the US - retro fitting them to cars. Amazing claims (as usual) but no conclusive results.
Personally I can't see how useful volumes of gas can be generated without installing industrial sized alternators & tanks of water.
Cheers,
Raz
When thinking outside the box doesn't work any more, it's time to build a new box
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 04:47 PM |
|
|
I've seen a welding torch driven by an electrolysis plant that provided hydrogen & oxygen. Supposedly safe, although I have seen warnings
about making your own plant - the correct 2:1 ratio of hydrogen to oxygen is pretty explosive!
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 05:30 PM |
|
|
Actually... theatres used to have spotlights powered by "lime light" which was produced when a chunk of lime is heated by a oxygen +
hydrogen blowlamp.
Most early theatres had electrolysis chambers in them....
... and most of them burnt down.....
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 07:12 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
I've seen a welding torch driven by an electrolysis plant that provided hydrogen & oxygen. Supposedly safe, although I have seen warnings
about making your own plant - the correct 2:1 ratio of hydrogen to oxygen is pretty explosive!
again, prefectly valid idea. Use hydrogen instead of acetylene. The plan being that you could have flame welding without gas tanks.
There was some debate as to whether the flame was slightly hotter than it should be, but this was very little and attributed to inaccuracies in the
measurements of flame temp.  So no break in the first law.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 23/12/07 at 07:14 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RazMan
I was reading about this a while back - you fill a plastic container with water, add a small amount of electrolyte (something peroxide I think) and
apply a current across a pair of submerged contacts. You vary the current to control the Hydrogen / Oxygen generation.
There are a few manufacturers producing kits in the US - retro fitting them to cars. Amazing claims (as usual) but no conclusive results.
Personally I can't see how useful volumes of gas can be generated without installing industrial sized alternators & tanks of water.
The different 'methods' just muddy the water, you cannot make energy. Catalysts just stabilise the transition state, hence making the
reaction faster. They do not affect start or finish energy levels and they do not affect the balance of the reaction equation.
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 24/12/07 at 01:05 AM |
|
|
Accodring to the BBC Focus magazine, steam is about to make big comeback!
BR may be about to have it's first steam train and there will be a race in the states in August on (iirc) Bonneville for steam powered cars.
See
http://www.focusmag.co.uk/currentIssue.asp
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
