Run your car on water...

-|ScottFree|-

-|ScottFree|-

-|ScottFree|-

Associate
Joined
23 Jun 2005
Posts
2,495
Location
On the Edge*
Clicky!!

If technology of this kind is already available and Red Ken and Scotch Brown wanted to "really" do something about the environment rather than use it as a weapon of taxation. Why are we as a nation not leading the way in these and other alternative fuels, Hydrogen Fuel Cells for instance?
 
Gaah, so typical of the US goverment, new technology which could potentially help against pollution and other useful application goes straight to military use first. Those ****ers really need to die
 
Our government would do the same, not least because if it went to joe public, they would lose that 75p/£ of fuel tax from their budget.
 
Its not new technoligy, its been around for many years but the guy that first thought of it lived in a middle eastern country that exports oil and as you can imagine, his goverment wasn't impressed and buried the research.
 
If you believe that you can practically run a car on water, then I have a bridge to sell you.
 
Last edited:
I have an open mind on what fuels we may use in the future, and why not come from water - it sounds unlikely but it contains two volatile chemicles so who knows.

I don't believe however that some guy in his shed has invented it, splashed it all over the internet, and no company or government has taken it on.

There may be vested interests to preserve the oil economy but if it had a shred of truth to it other people would be doing it by now, it's out there, it's not a secret - so why?
 
Telescopi said:
it sounds unlikely but it contains two volatile chemicles so who knows.

I don't believe however that some guy in his shed has invented it, splashed it all over the internet, and no company or government has taken it on.
Click to expand...


Cold fusion? I was lead to believe that the energy needed to split them into the 2 elements (Hydrogen and Oxygen) is greater than the energy it will produce hence it wasn't economical.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Cold fusion? I was lead to believe that the energy needed to split them into the 2 elements (Hydrogen and Oxygen) is greater than the energy it will produce hence it wasn't economical.
Click to expand...

I think cold fusion is some how persuading two hydrogen atoms to become a helium atom isn't it - something that happens at very high temperatures but some quacks have tried to say they've done at room temperatre (hence old fusion).

The trick is to get more power out than it took to get it to that temperature.

With water you want to split them up - thats not as easy as it sounds as they're a pretty good match and very stable, again you can do it but only by putting energy in. Perhaps one day some new science will be discovered to do this at low energies but I don't believe the OP is it.

Most likely water will end up being changed into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity from big nuclear stations or renewables (or even coal, why not, avoid that next ice age we got coming) and the hydrogen used simply as a battery to move the energy somewhere more convenient.
 
What people fail to realise about hydrogen/water technologies is that they are ultimately not a source of fuel.

In the provided video although I'm not sure about the chemistry, he uses electrolysis to convert water to HHO, the amount of energy input in to the system to convert the water to HHO will always be less than the energy released by the flame... Otherwise you have created energy out of nowhere.

Where does the electricity to drive the electrolysis come from??? Power stations which run on gas, coal, oil etc.
 
pre1twa said:
What people fail to realise about hydrogen/water technologies is that they are ultimately not a source of fuel.

In the provided video although I'm not sure about the chemistry, he uses electrolysis to convert water to HHO, the amount of energy input in to the system to convert the water to HHO will always be less than the energy released by the flame... Otherwise you have created energy out of nowhere.

Where does the electricity to drive the electrolysis come from??? Power stations which run on gas, coal, oil etc.
Click to expand...


^^ It's not energy from nowhere, otherwise we wouldn't refine oil and gas. Yes it's true you can't create energy, but energy is stored in substances, and with some, mildly altering it's chemical formula can increase it's efficiency.


Hydrogen is relatively easy to disassociate, atomise and compress to make a fuel. Combustion always produces CO2 and H2O, but without any carbon in the products (just H and O) only water would be produced.

It is a viable fuel source, and yes it needs energy to produce, but that doesn't mean it has to come from fossil fuels ;)
 
Last edited:
HeadlessChicken said:
^^ It's not energy from nowhere, otherwise we wouldn't refine oil and gas. Yes it's true you can't create energy, but energy is stored in substances, and with some, mildly altering it's chemical formula can increase it's efficiency.


Hydrogen is relatively easy to disassociate, atomise and compress to make a fuel. Combustion always produces CO2 and H2O, but without any carbon in the products (just H and O) only water would be produced.

It is a viable fuel source, and yes it needs energy to produce, but that doesn't mean it has to come from fossil fuels ;)
Click to expand...

To convert 1 mole of Water in to 1 mole of hydrogen and half a mole of oxygen requires an energy input. The subsequent combustion of the hydrogen and oxygen to form water will release the same amount of energy as was put in.

I will say again, Hydrogen is not a source of energy... it may prove an effective way to store energy however e.g. solar panels charging a hydrogen fuel cell.
 
manoz said:
Gaah, so typical of the US goverment, new technology which could potentially help against pollution and other useful application goes straight to military use first. Those ****ers really need to die
Click to expand...
If it wasn't for the military, we'd be a lot worse off now. The amount of funding that goes into research that gets passed on to the public sector is invaluable.

Anyway, the government should be funding this kind of thing, so that it becomes financially viable and quickly.
 
pre1twa said:
To convert 1 mole of Water in to 1 mole of hydrogen and half a mole of oxygen requires an energy input. The subsequent combustion of the hydrogen and oxygen to form water will release the same amount of energy as was put in.

I will say again, Hydrogen is not a source of energy... it may prove an effective way to store energy however e.g. solar panels charging a hydrogen fuel cell.
Click to expand...

Yes source was the wrong wording, made Hydrogen sound like a fossil fuel. And yes Hess's law does indeed state that the enthalpy route of a reaction will be the same both ways around. There is no reason the hydrogen cannot be "charged" via a renewable resources, it just needs to be investigated whether the initial energy needed to create the stations would outweigh the level of energy produced for the cells.
 
Teki187 said:
That is exactly why we will never get any new energy source. Whether its in this country or others.
Click to expand...

They will just TAX water that you put in your car, you'll have to have "Blue Water" or summink, anybody caught using tap water will be heavily fined!

Our Government has no real intention of getting people "out of their cars", they just to be able to TAX you more while you're in them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom