Kamikza
|
| posted on 30/9/05 at 08:22 AM |
|
|
Runing your car on H20 ?
I found thus fiel on sheraza perr to perr software i think it could work cod somebody confrm it
|
|
|
|
|
GeoffT
|
| posted on 30/9/05 at 09:24 AM |
|
|
Afraid you'll need more electrical power to split the water into it's two constituent gasses than you'll get in energy from them.
Find a more energy efficient way of splitting water, you've saved the world, and become a hero.
|
|
|
paulf
|
| posted on 30/9/05 at 10:24 AM |
|
|
If it did produce enough gas to run the engine im not sure i would fancy feeding a mix of Hydrogen and Oxygen into the intake manifold of my car it
burns rather more violently than petrol vapour.
Paul.
|
|
|
Mix
|
| posted on 30/9/05 at 11:38 AM |
|
|
Let's see......
1 litre engine running at 2500 RPM = 2500 litres / minute
That's some rate of electrolysis.
I expect the throttle lag would be in the region of minutes, (if not weeks), which would make driving a challenge.
Oh! and as this system takes water, converts it to it's constituent parts, recombines them into water once again AND produces a surplus of
energy you have in effect disproved Einstein.
Well done, Nobel prize on it's way no doubt.
Or is it just complete bollocks
You decide
Mick
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 30/9/05 at 11:57 AM |
|
|
I had heard of the idea before - zapping the water with a square wave is supposed to separate the hydrogen and oxygen very easily. Something to do
with the rapid rate of change in the leading and trailing edges of the waveform. Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me...
However, let's stretch the imagination and say that it does produce a large amount of hydrogen and oxygen. According to the instructions
it's in a plastic chamber. It has a safety valve... but where's it going to vent to? If it vents, and ignites, it will go straight back
through the safety valve and ignite the main chamber (no mention of a non-return valve).
My, that will be a BIG bang! Just behind your head, too... 
David
|
|
|
Matthew_1
|
| posted on 30/9/05 at 02:10 PM |
|
|
Powering your car with H2O is easy, been done for years, the problem is the trailer you need to tow everywhere with all the coal in it ...
|
|
|
Tim 45
|
| posted on 30/9/05 at 05:01 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
My, that will be a BIG bang! Just behind your head, too...
David
As a chemistry teacher once said, more like a loud squeaky pop 
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 30/9/05 at 05:13 PM |
|
|
Complete nutsack of course. as are all the "over unity" energy sources suggested by the various quacks, loonies and snake oil pedlers.
The efficiency of a 4 stroke spark igntnion engine is of the order of 25%, so you would need to get around 4 times more energy back from burning the
hydrogen then you spent "cracking" the water just to keep the system running. To extract useful power the ratio would need to be even
higher.
|
|
|
BKLOCO
|
| posted on 30/9/05 at 05:17 PM |
|
|
Didn't realise it was April 1st already
Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want!!! 
|
|
|
I love speed :-P
|
| posted on 30/9/05 at 06:53 PM |
|
|
it has been done, i am sure bmw and some1 else worked 2 gether a while a go, and u put water in and get water out, and ran on the hydrogen
Don't Steal
The Government doesn’t like the competition
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 30/9/05 at 06:57 PM |
|
|
shame on you snoopy, believing that trash!
Its all absolute bollocks, as our astute pre-posters have already noted. If for no other reason, it violates the conservation of energy law, the
validity of said law is beyond doubt.
Are they trying to use power from the alternator to split the water? If it was 100% efficient you would break even, ie you would use x watts (edit,
make that joules) to split one kilo of water, and get precisely x watts (again, joules) back from burning it. However, all the heat and noise,
including the thermal energy in the exhaust steam, is waste, and you would actually have a very low efficiency.
So to summaries, at best you have nothing, at worst its a total waste of energy, made even worse by the fact that you would be a confirmed sucker for
ever trying it!
In fact, more shame on the fool who believed it so much that he created a webshite to promote the idea! And the expert he talks about....
must've been pissed.
[Edited on 30/9/05 by JoelP]
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 30/9/05 at 07:10 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mix
Let's see......
1 litre engine running at 2500 RPM = 2500 litres / minute
That's some rate of electrolysis.
2500 litres of H2/O2 mix per minute would contain more energy than a 1lire engine could hold withoout exploding. remember that a petrol engine
breathes this much air but only 19% of it is oyegen and only a tiny spray of fuel is added to that. Your electrolysed water would be added to the
2500 litres of air and like a real car, your fuel (sorry water) consumption would be 10 litres per hour or so.
|
|
|
BKLOCO
|
| posted on 30/9/05 at 07:31 PM |
|
|
I'm with you JoelP. It's absolute nutsack with a capital B. If only it were this simple.
Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want!!!
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 30/9/05 at 08:44 PM |
|
|
It has indeed been done by one of the large car manufacturers. There have also been several articles on Water to Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel cells in New
Scientist magazine. You cannot get enough energy from running the engine alone, obviously (as has already been stated) and batteries have been use to
carry out the electrolysis, with some help from the alternator. So not a green as you would think as you still have to charge the damned batteries.
Its a very simple idea, but at the moment we dont have the battery technology to make it worth really utilising yet. There are a lot of people working
on the idea around the world though.
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 30/9/05 at 08:51 PM |
|
|
i think everyone has the wrong end of the stick. As far as i knew, the hydrolysis happens at home when its plugged into the mains, and then it moves
by catalytically converting H and O into H20, but making electricity rather than heat and rotation. The leccy can then be used to move the car. This
process is often called 'fuel cell technology'. The idea of splitting water on the move is just rubbish. As someone said, just send the
power straight to a leccy motor.
|
|
|
BKLOCO
|
| posted on 30/9/05 at 08:51 PM |
|
|
Fuel cell technology is a whole different ball game to the bovine excrement being talked in the original article.
This is indeed being worked on by a great many research companies one of which my nephew works for.
The name of which escapes me for the moment.
When I remember it I'll post the link.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 30/9/05 at 08:59 PM |
|
|
very true bkloco, fuel cells are actually a great idea, as it has displaced emissions (ie the waste emissions are produced at the power stationm where
you can justify having a million pound air filter/cat etc).
My personal approach would be 100% nuclear and renewable energy supplies (as much renewable as possible, the rest made up with nuclear). All road
vehicles would use fuel cells. Every house would have rooftop solar cells and wind turbines, and be part of a mini grid powering small communities.
Just my vision of the future
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 30/9/05 at 09:40 PM |
|
|
for the gullable
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=18940
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
