Plans for a water powered car.

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

When you make HHO, you're turning more energy into heat, not less.

Converting the water to HHO is not 100% efficient. How efficient is it?

Electrolysis_of_water-Efficiency

The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely with the numbers cited below on the optimistic side. Some report 50–80%.[12][13][14] These values refer only to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included. For instance, when considering a power plant that converts the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via electrolysis, the total efficiency may be closer to 30–45%,[15] although the inefficiencies of powerplants in turning heat into electrical energy is not usually included in efficiency, so the former measure of 50-80% efficient is probably a more realistic efficiency.
So let's say you lose 15% of the energy of the gasoline in the alternator, the fanbelt which turns the alternator, and similar losses in generating the electricity. Then you lose another 35% of the energy in the electrolysis process itself.

The energy in the HHO may only be half the energy that was in the gas used to make it.

Then when you burn the hydrogen, you have the same issue of the burning hydrogen creating heat losses in the engine. Hydrogen still heats up the engine when you burn it, right? So you have all those same losses you have with gas, PLUS an extra up to 50% loss from the inefficiencies of electrolysis and the generation of electricity to power the electrolysis.




posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


Gosh this again...

Cars that run on water is not practical.

Water is as valuable as fuel if not more so with fresh water set to exceed demand over supply it just doesn't make sense to. Have millions of gallons of water.

Your probably thinking sea water right? Do you live near the ocean? Salt water is unforgiving and the engine or whatever energy source to drive the car probably won't last a week.

Desalinating water? It will bankrupt nations.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Screwed
reply to post by alfa1
 


I'll try once more to explain the chain.

An independant, dedicated, deep cell battery initiates the electrolysis process.
Hydrogen and O2 ARE produced.
Pressure builds.
HHO is fed to the engine which is now ready to be started.
The engine starts.
The alternator takes over the job of the battery thus producing the electrlysis process.
Hydrogen is produced "On Demand". thus keeping the engine running.
It is a system in which, once started, would keep going as long as you had enough water to feed it.
edit on 30-9-2011 by Screwed because: (no reason given)


Hi.
The alternator hooked to the engine only charges the auto battery because of the isolator.
I think that a second alternator could be used to keep the isolated deep cycle battery charging.

If I understand correctly?
55 amps is alot.
edit on (10/1/1111 by loveguy because:




posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Sure but since it is being burned anyway even when the car is at a stand still then getting back a small amount of that would show up in the milage. If it is also helping burn cleaner then that would also add a little more.

It could even be recovering something everytime you start from 0 or at higher rpms that is otherwise lost under normal conditions.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


If you want to take those articles as fact go ahead.If you ever really study all of this and put it to use you will see the truth.gasoline mixed with hydrogen it is more efficient than gas alone.that is some of your gain.In truth no one in this thread has explained half of what is going on when hho and gas are mixed.There is much more than i can explain if you study further.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Already know how to run a car on outside air, and how to make it use orgone/od energy to get it running.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
Already know how to run a car on outside air, and how to make it use orgone/od energy to get it running.

You can run a car with an air compressor.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


If you want to take those articles as fact go ahead.If you ever really study all of this and put it to use you will see the truth.gasoline mixed with hydrogen it is more efficient than gas alone.that is some of your gain.In truth no one in this thread has explained half of what is going on when hho and gas are mixed.There is much more than i can explain if you study further.
I have researched it thoroughly and all I find is a lot of unsubstantiated claims with no scientific dynamometer testing to prove anything that's claimed.

In other words, the claims all seem to be made by amateurs who apparently don't have any idea how to perform an accurate test or measurement. The popular Mechanics author I cited does know cars, has personally experimented with numerous devices, and has a clue how to make measurements.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   
The ability to do this and the information has been available for some time now. There is a small company in florida who does it. Of course the government keeps the information from us because they need us to rely on what they provide us with. Wouldnt cars explode pretty bad in accidents? Or is that just hollywood doing wOrk on me?



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by youareblind
The ability to do this and the information has been available for some time now. There is a small company in florida who does it. Of course the government keeps the information from us because they need us to rely on what they provide us with. Wouldnt cars explode pretty bad in accidents? Or is that just hollywood doing wOrk on me?
In the Bob Lazar video I posted earlier in this thread, he stores enough hydrogen to travel 400 miles, but he doesn't store it as H2 gas so he claims you can fire incendiary bullets at his tanks and they won't explode, they might just smolder.

The other HHO systems don't typically have huge hydrogen storage tanks since you're making it on demand. And if you compare a tank of gasoline to a tank of hydrogen, a tank full of gasoline can make a huge fire if ruptured too, right?



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Not trying to get off the topic, but since the water-powered ideas don't seem to be exactly workin' out much, why not consider a different source? Like Methane.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
Can't get much more environmentally responsible than that. Substance is fairly cheap depending on it's source/how much you spent on dinner. Pretty darn plentiful too - can probably find a lot of it just lookin' through this site alone!
edit on 1-10-2011 by gottaknow because: wrong link
edit on 1-10-2011 by gottaknow because: punctuation



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


If you want to take those articles as fact go ahead.If you ever really study all of this and put it to use you will see the truth.gasoline mixed with hydrogen it is more efficient than gas alone.that is some of your gain.In truth no one in this thread has explained half of what is going on when hho and gas are mixed.There is much more than i can explain if you study further.
I have researched it thoroughly and all I find is a lot of unsubstantiated claims with no scientific dynamometer testing to prove anything that's claimed.

In other words, the claims all seem to be made by amateurs who apparently don't have any idea how to perform an accurate test or measurement. The popular Mechanics author I cited does know cars, has personally experimented with numerous devices, and has a clue how to make measurements.

since you have "researched it thoroughly" and you know how to make proper measurements and all... show us what measurements you have came up with in your "dynamometer testing" to back up your claims! i.e. show us your own experiments and measurements... please



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by EmilNomel
since you have "researched it thoroughly" and you know how to make proper measurements and all... show us what measurements you have came up with
Popular mechanics has a budget and a market to publish test results of wacky ideas that don't work. I don't, so why would I waste my time testing something when I already know the answer?

Why Water Won't Improve Your MPG: A PM and Dateline NBC Investigation


When these devices first hit the Net, I had an immediate opinion: Rubbish. I discussed the theoretical science a while ago. It's bad science. This malarkey boiled down to perpetual motion: something for nothing. Essentially, it takes more energy—in the form of the chemical energy in the gasoline you're burning in the engine, to spin the alternator to make the electricity and generate the HHO—than you get back. In fact, it's not even close: Multiply all the inefficiencies in that system and you only get a few percent back, certainly not in excess of 100 percent.

Two things happened after I said that. One, I got overwhelmed with mail from true believers who volunteered to have me test their car. And a lot more from people who accused me of being in the employ of the auto and petroleum companies, suppressing this breakthrough technology and keeping the American public enslaved. Sigh.
Sound familiar? Like a lot of accusations in this thread?



Were this true, I'd be living in a much nicer house. The second thing I noticed in the last 6 months was a change in the claims made by HHO proponents. The extra fuel economy was supposed to come not from the additional energy contained in the hydrogen, but from the hydrogen's ability to facilitate the combustion process, producing more power from the engine with the same amount of gasoline. Which is also malarkey. Before you start e-mailing me copies of those same scientific papers (I've seen them a dozen times) that supposedly prove that this works, let me tell you, these documents don't apply to your car. Without getting very detailed, these papers all deal with ultralean experimental engines with fuel-delivery systems enhanced with a stream of pure hydrogen, achieving a small improvement. They have nothing to do with retrofitting a conventional engine (with computer-controlled engine management that keeps the mixture near a perfect 14.2:1) with a device that adds a hydrogen-oxygen mix.
Yes it's pretty well known by automotive engineers that combustion rates of gasoline are 99% or better so you're not going to get more than a 1% improvement from burning more gas. You're not even going to get that.

Anyway on to the dynamometer testing:


I've been working with NBC's Dateline to debunk the whole hydrogen-on-demand industry. The show's producer bought a car, an ordinary five-year old Honda Accord, to perform our tests. I checked the car over to make sure it was up to spec. Then we did some over-the-road and steady-state dynamometer testing to establish base-line fuel economy numbers. NBC followed my testing up with additional testing at an EPA-certified emissions lab, which wasn't cheap. The lab used its climate-controlled emissions dyno to establish fuel economy numbers in our Accord with the same protocols the EPA uses to generate the numbers on the window sticker of new cars. They're accurate and reproducible to well under 1 percent.

Then we took the car to a specialist who installed, for nearly $1900(!), a hydrogen generator and a system of other enhancements. There was a fuel heater, fuel-line magnets (which I debunked here), and several inscrutable boxes full of electronics designed to fool the car's computer into using less fuel. There was even a bottle of acetone to add to the fuel. (This is something that I've mentioned doesn't work here and here). The specialist guaranteed major improvements in fuel consumption. One week and nearly two grand later, the producer from NBC (who still hadn't identified himself as anyone except a guy who was tired of spending $50 to fill up his tank) picked up the car. He got a gas receipt proving the installer had seen 96 mpg, nearly triple the original economy.

We took the car straight back to that same EPA lab for another round of testing. It was followed shortly by a week's worth of road testing, dyno testing and general poking about to see what we could discover.

You can guess, right? The total improvement in fuel economy after $1800 plus of expenditure? Bupkis. Too small to measure. Nada. In fact, if you look at the EPA tests with the system switched on and then off, there's a tiny increase in fuel consumption when the system is turned on. I attribute this to the 15 amps or so of current the electrolysis cell consumes to produce hydrogen.
It's WORSE with the HHO kit installed, not better.

Yes, that's what I predicted, and the dynamometer test confirms it.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by EmilNomel
 



since you have "researched it thoroughly" and you know how to make proper measurements and all... show us what measurements you have came up with in your "dynamometer testing" to back up your claims! i.e. show us your own experiments and measurements... please

First of all Arbitrageur is not the one claiming that this crap works as advertised. He is challenging the HHO guys to prove their fantastic claims.

And even then, he is providing links to reports where people actually tested that kits and you are still bitching around?

Here is another one for you:
www.consumeraffairs.com...
www.wyff4.com...

But let me guess. Your reply will be that all this reports are a giant conspiracy by the "Big Oil" and the Feds to suppress it. You guys are so easy to trick. Maybe I should open my own shop selling HHO kits. ROFL!!!



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by autowrench
 


For the millionth time already: You will spent more energy splitting the hydrogen than you will get back as fuel. If you believe otherwise, by all means present your findings to the scientific community for scrutiny and collect your Nobel prize before joining the mortal ranks among the likes of Newton and Einstein. Talk is cheap. Present your results and methodology to the scientific community for scrutiny and independent verification or join the ranks of all the other Internet tinkerers who talk loud about breaking the laws of physics yet never deliver.
edit on 30-9-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)


Dude, your posts are soooooo boring!

According to Puharic:



electrolysis

HO -------- +249.68 Btu h2 + (1/2)O2 per mole of water (1)

triangle G (1 mole = 18 gms. )

This means that 302.375 Btu of energy (heat or electricity) will be released when the gases, hydrogen and oxygen, combine. The end product (the exhaust ) from this reaction is water.

Note that more energy (under ideal conditions ) is released. from combining the gases than is used to free them from water.


www.angelfire.com...
www.angelfire.com...

I understood this stuff better a few years ago when I joined ATS. One of the members back then had already got his lawn mower running on water at the time using a similar system and incorporating harmonic frequencies to improve the efficiency. I haven't seen him on ATS for several years though.

According to Puharic, about 20% more energy is available from combining H and O than it takes to seperate them, IN A 100% EFFICIENT PROCESS.

So, if this man is correct, the issue is how to create sufficient efficiency, not the tired old "you can't get something for nothing" argument.

In the two links, I believe he makes a good case for a device that can do what the op is looking for.
edit on 1/10/11 by RogerT because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Are people having a hard time understanding that autowrench is using the HHO (hydrogen and oxygen developed electolytically from H2O...water) as a fuel additive, not as the primary fuel source?
That is what I read from his posts.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
In the two links, I believe he makes a good case for a device that can do what the op is looking for.
I didn't see that, where did you see the OP's scheme in those two links?

What I found was figure 7, which shows what I already posted with the Bob Lazar video as a workable method of using solar power to do the electrolysis:

See #1, using solar power as a source of energy to power the electrolysis? Yes that's possible. It does not show the cars alternator and getting over unity in figure 7.

What Bob Lazar claims is possible. You can use solar power to split water into hydrogen and run your car off hydrogen. That's what I found in the link. If the OP scheme is in there, please be specific as to the exact link and the exact location and I'll take a closer look.
edit on 1-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification
edit on 1-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
Are people having a hard time understanding that autowrench is using the HHO (hydrogen and oxygen developed electolytically from H2O...water) as a fuel additive, not as the primary fuel source?
That is what I read from his posts.
That's exactly what the dateline and popular mechanics investigation I just posted did. They added an HHO kit to a gasoline powered car. The installer made a claim like autowrench, that there was a huge improvement.

When they tested the installer's claim, they found no improvement, in fact it was slightly worse with the HHO generator turned on. They found nothing like the claim made.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


My apologies, I only skimmed the OP and the thread.
I had assumed it was the standard "electrolysis water car" type thread.
I hadn't made a specific connection to the OP, just a general one.
Sorry.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


And that's precisely how nature is teaching us things are supposed to work.

In perfect circles, and not by burning stuff until it's all gone.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join