http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum13/HTML/015071.html

This was posted in the "post your ebooks thread" by Curry.

It is a .pdf file on a process to convert your car to run off of only tap water by separating the Oxygen and Hydrogen through electrolysis and then burning it in your cars combustion engine.

Check it out.

Something tells me that this would be impossible though, because doesnt the amount of energy used to produce the hydrogen equal the amount stored in the hydrogen bond that is broken when they are burned?

Somebody with a more extensive scientific background on totse probably knows the answer to this.



[This message has been edited by Vadagar (edited 02-25-2006).]

it will take more energy to separate the water then the hydrogen and oxygen will put out, so it wont work

Electrolysis can be achieved using less energy than the burning hydrogen releases, but only under 1.25 volts. So to run a car off it you'd need a bank of electrolysis tanks the size of a corn field...

low-current electrolysis of water

BIZNATCH!

google it...

oh, and somthing called myers cell....i think thats spelt right

I have done lots of research on this subject. First of all, it is in no way a closed loop system. You will need to swap batteries from time to time, and you possibly need to use a dedicated battery to run the entire electrolysis apparatus, to make things last longer.

The method will work, but it wont work for too lng since your combustion chamber will rust very quickly under power from this stuff. You will need the ceramic coating the paper talks about.

The electrolysis chamber wont be that much of a problem to make extremely efficient. I dont know why you would think so. If you have 12 volts accross eight plate in series, 1.5 volts is dropped accross the individual plate pairs. This is enough to be considered very efficient and still leave a margin for voltage discharge from the battery.

Your elecrolysis chamber is going to be the most important feature of your setup. One of the main limiting factors for efficiency is gas buildup on the plates. If you have ever conducted an electrolysis experiment with plates other than platinum or porous metal, you notice the gas bubbles like to build up on the plates. Gas bubbles are non conductive, so your resistance builds up very quickly. This transforms into a very lossy system since the reaction is more efficient with greater current. More resistance, less current, less efficiency.

I think I have solved this though without resorting to extremely expensive platinum or porous steel. Think for a second. Where have you seen somethin that keeps the water swirling with no mechanical device to move the water by force? Ultrasonic piezo ring a bell?

I propose that when I build one (I am really hoping this summer) I want to get some piezos so they will shake the bubbles off the plates. Problem solved.

Next is pulse wave modulation. For my setup, I will use a microcontroller to monitor the entire system for pressure, malfunctions, and monitor input from whatever I use to modulate the throttle. I dont like the idea of the PWM being tied to the throttle, however. I would like to keep the PWM isolated from the throttle at all times. How I want to set it up as, is that the throttle is unmonitored, but the microcontroller senses a drop in fuel pressure and then increases the PWM duty cycle until the pressure is restored. This will take lots of trial and error to get perfect though, since not only do I have to modulate how the controller drives the electrolyzer, but I also must adjust the fuel/air trim on the carb. Those two factors are dependant on each other so finding the right combination may take some time.

Im out of comments for the moment, if you have anymore questions, feel free to post them.

Argon I really like your idea. I've thought about a water-powered engine myself before, with water in a closed cycling system, but I have never had much of an interest in combustion engines, my chemistry is really weak, and I can't stay with ideas very well. but I had a thought on the spot as I was reading your post, and I'd like to throw a question out for you.

What will happen to the efficiency of electrolysis of water when it is heated, maybe even as a vapour? Figure, after the H and O are combusted and become water, the heat from combustion will leave them really warm, probably still a vapour, and would require cooling before it becomes a liquid again when it reaches the electrolisys tank. But could the water be broken down more easily at a greater temperature? Or even as a vapour, since you wouldn't get as many bubbles on the plates and you mentioned being a problem? Also, would it be any advantage to keep everything under high pressure, particularly in electrolysis?

I've wanted to do my own experiments with electrolysis, but my equipment includes soda bottles, tape, hot glue, ect. I'll try to remember to keep and eye out if you care to report on your attempt at your own engine this summer, Argon. Luck with that.

Yup, it's called the law of conservation of energy. It won't work. You could never electrolyze water fast enough to generate enough H2 and O2 to run it faster than about 2 km/h

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ski:
Argon I really like your idea. I've thought about a water-powered engine myself before, with water in a closed cycling system, but I have never had much of an interest in combustion engines, my chemistry is really weak, and I can't stay with ideas very well. but I had a thought on the spot as I was reading your post, and I'd like to throw a question out for you.

What will happen to the efficiency of electrolysis of water when it is heated, maybe even as a vapour? Figure, after the H and O are combusted and become water, the heat from combustion will leave them really warm, probably still a vapour, and would require cooling before it becomes a liquid again when it reaches the electrolisys tank. But could the water be broken down more easily at a greater temperature? Or even as a vapour, since you wouldn't get as many bubbles on the plates and you mentioned being a problem? Also, would it be any advantage to keep everything under high pressure, particularly in electrolysis?

I've wanted to do my own experiments with electrolysis, but my equipment includes soda bottles, tape, hot glue, ect. I'll try to remember to keep and eye out if you care to report on your attempt at your own engine this summer, Argon. Luck with that.

---

You raise an interesting question. I think that it deserves some looking into, but at first glance, you can say that most likely the reaction is more efficient when it is cold. The water is slightly (the coefficient of expansion is small) more dense, and the resistance is much lower, therefore you get more gas because of the higher current and higher density.'

When you combust something, you want it to be as cold as possible. I am thinking water injection, but I would have to get a heavy engine for that. Anyway, for best Carnot efficiency, you want the temp to be as low as possible:

100% * (T_cold - T_hot)/T_hot

This equatin gives you the greatest efficiency of any heat exchange engine.

The water cannot be broken under normal voltages if it is in a vapor. It doesnt have any conducting electrolytes, so it makes a damn nice dielectric.

I would think that the reacton at high pressure, would force more gas into the water than is necessary. That displaces electrolytes and makes the water less dense. Thus it probably increases resistance by some marginal amount.




Something I want to point out. Potassium hydroxide is the cheapest best electrolyte available. There are a couple that are better, but this is cheap and is in the top ten best. At %25 molarity, it reaches its greatest conductivity. It also is very stable accross time, but will need to be replaced ever so often.

Another thing to keep in mind: after a while, electrolytes and plates are likely to plate themselves to your plates, so you will need to change polarity at regular intervals. After some time of driving, they need to be switched. That wont be hard at all, consdering I can multiplex inputs to the drivers very easilly through the controller.

(Excuse the redundancy in the first sentence, I cant think of any better way to put it lol)

[This message has been edited by ArgonPlasma2000 (edited 02-27-2006).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sentinel:
Yup, it's called the law of conservation of energy. It won't work. You could never electrolyze water fast enough to generate enough H2 and O2 to run it faster than about 2 km/h

---

Praytell, how does the law of conservation of energy pertain in any way, shape, or form to the electrolysis reaction of water?

Google: Torsion energy or torsion car
I read some dude in australia made a car that runs on water where it doesnt waste any of that water, just its energy. Then he can recharge the water some way.

it will work by converting water into hydrogen you get a 700% energy increase from the energy it cost you to use it. And i wouldnt think you would convert it while driving. What if you just had like the process store it in tanks at home then just come home and change tanks.Heck have the whole thing solar powered if you want.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relativity:
it will work by converting water into hydrogen you get a 700% energy increase from the energy it cost you to use it. And i wouldnt think you would convert it while driving. What if you just had like the process store it in tanks at home then just come home and change tanks.Heck have the whole thing solar powered if you want.

---

Hydrogen doesnt store for any significant length of time.

*Correction, not just any water, it will have to be salt water.

I remember reading about at least one other design for a car engine running on water like this. The inventor mixed the water with some sort of acid to make it more conductive to electricity. There was also something about swapping the standard alternator for something with more power. It's been a while since then, so I don't remember the specifics, but I have a vague gut feeling that it works. Same with this design.

Naturally, it will require at least some tweaking, even if just to adapt to the qualities of the specific engine. Just throwing the idea out the window from the word Go seems awfully arrogant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:
Hydrogen doesnt store for any significant length of time.

---

what do you mean? you store it in preasurized tanks

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relativity:
what do you mean? you store it in preasurized tanks

---

Nothing is smaller than the hydrogen atom (chemically speaking), correct? Hydrogen has a nasty tendancy to leak from whatever is containing it because the molecules are so tiny they simply pass between the molecules of whatever is containing them.

Statistically, you can store it, but after some amount of time the hydrogen content will either be of equal pressure, or equal hydrogen density inside as outside.

Clever. I must say.

Some patents to look over. I havent gotten a chance to read them, but I think this might lead to some good designs:
http://tinyurl.com/oxypu http://tinyurl.com/gukom

I am thinking that the images are cropped so the you cant rip them directly from the site. They are only $3 each so I think I will just go ahead and buy them.

[This message has been edited by ArgonPlasma2000 (edited 03-03-2006).]

This simply will not work, you have to use more energy than you will recieve. Period.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AxisMundi:
This simply will not work, you have to use more energy than you will recieve. Period.

---

Your right, but your reasoning isnt sound. Combustion engines are only 30% effecient or something.

The reason it will never work is because it takes the same energy to split p water as to create it (combustion of H2 and O2 is creating water), so your energy isnt coming from the burning of water. The energy is coming from your battery, so you might aswell just hook up an electric motor. And you cant recharge your battery with an altinator as you drive because to recharge your battery at the same rate your draining it, your not going to have any left to move your car.

I didn't get a look at the plans--but as it is usually proposed to be done--it won't work, because separating water through simple electrolysis isn't efficient enough. If you had a particular catalyst that could boost the separation rate it might be possible, but not with just plain metal electrodes.
......
By the by--a guy in St Louis (near me) just got busted in court for scamming investors for a company to make cars that ran off water: http://www .stltoday. com/stltod ay/busines s/stories. nsf/story/ 7299E42E41 DCF6D28625 71270011515F?OpenDocument&highlight=2%2C%22alexander%22 http://tinyurl.com/me3ds
(-though I think these little stories get archived in just 3 days, so I dunno how long the page will be on the Post-DIspatch site-)

quote:

---

Man must repay investors who backed his water-powered car
By Michael D. Sorkin
ST. LOUIS POST DISPATCH
03/03/2006

William P. Alexander did not produce a car that runs on water, or build an automotive plant in St. Louis.

He did collect $100,000 from 12 investors. And now he has to give it all back -- with interest.

That may be difficult, because Alexander admitted to Missouri securities regulators that his company has no money.

Alexander admitted to making false statements and to selling unregistered investments in his Creve Coeur company, Emerging Technologies Investment Group, Secretary of State Robin Carnahan said Friday.
Advertisement


The company claimed in July 2004 that it would create several thousand jobs in St. Louis to produce a water-powered car that probably would make the need for gasoline obsolete in 100 days.

However, the company has produced no water-powered car and no jobs, and no funds remain in Emerging Technologies Development Co., according to Carnahan's office.

Alexander must repay the investors with 8 percent interest, plus contribute another $10,000 to state investor education. He could not be reached for comment.

---

~~~~~

There's always gotta be a more efficient way...


We just haven't discovered it yet.

its not a question of effeciency. If you get more energy burning H2 and O2 than it takes to seperate water into H2 and O2, then your breaking the laws of chemistry.

Well, wouldn't you be breaking it into H2 and just O?

I was never any good with chemistry... God damn it next semester is going to suck.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garrett:
its not a question of effeciency. If you get more energy burning H2 and O2 than it takes to seperate water into H2 and O2, then your breaking the laws of chemistry.

---

You could possibly have a catalyst that might be able to break up H2O without any energy input, strictly speaking. ....But I'd bet a lot of smart people have tried to make such a thing, and nobody seems to have done it yet.

I dunno what the scammer guy in that news story was claiming. Never heard anything about it until that story appeared a couple days ago.
~

Check the patents I posted. Besides, I have read that nascent hydrogen (that is, hydrogen in atomic form) gives off much more energy than chemistry allows. I dont have my book on it anymore, though.

Anyway, I can make an electrolysis cell to be more efficient than what you give credit. Sure its not going to be %100 efficient, nor do I taut it as such. I have stated that the setup will need its own batteries which will need to be recharged ever so often. If you can get away with running the car long enough for a 12 volt car battery to recharge by solar, you can keep up the unity, so to speak.

PS: This patent by Meyers looks very interesting...

[This message has been edited by ArgonPlasma2000 (edited 03-06-2006).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garrett:
its not a question of effeciency. If you get more energy burning H2 and O2 than it takes to seperate water into H2 and O2, then your breaking the laws of chemistry.

---

Atomic hydrogen already breaks the laws of chemistry as we know them. Look it up in chemistry books circa 1900 if you dont believe me.

Anyway, here is the abstract of the first patent I posted:

quote:

---

Conventional electrolysis cells are capable of producing hydrogen and oxygen from water. These conventional cells generally include two electrodes arranged within the cell which apply energy to the water to thereby produce hydrogen and oxygen. The two electrodes are conventionally made of two different materials.

However, the hydrogen and oxygen generated in the conventional cells are generally produced in an inefficient manner. That is, a large amount of electrical power is required to be applied to the electrodes in order to produce the hydrogen and oxygen. Moreover, a chemical catalyst such as sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide must be added to the water to separate hydrogen or oxygen bubbles from the electrodes. Also, the produced gas must often be transported to a pressurized container for storage, because conventional cells produce the gases slowly. Also, conventional cells tend to heat up, creating a variety of problems, including boiling of the water. Also, conventional cells tend to form gas bubbles on the electrodes which act as electrical insulators and reduce the function of the cell.

Accordingly, it is extremely desirable to produce a large amount of hydrogen and oxygen with only a modest amount of input power. Furthermore, it is desirable to produce the hydrogen and oxygen with "regular" tap water and without any additional chemical catalyst, and to operate the cell without the need for an additional pump to pressurize it. It would also be desirable to construct the electrodes using the same material. Also, it is desirable to produce the gases quickly, and without heat, and without bubbles on the electrodes.

Orthohydrogen and parahydrogen are two different isomers of hydrogen. Orthohydrogen is that state of hydrogen molecules in which the spins of the two nuclei are parallel. Parahydrogen is that state of hydrogen molecules in which the spins of the two nuclei are antiparallel. The different characteristics of orthohydrogen and parahydrogen lead to different physical properties. For example, orthohydrogen is highly combustible whereas parahydrogen is a slower burning form of hydrogen. Thus, orthohydrogen and parahydrogen can be used for different applications. Conventional electrolytic cells make only orthohydrogen and parahydrogen. Parahydrogen, conventionally, is difficult and expensive to make.

Accordingly, it is desirable to produce cheaply orthohydrogen and/or parahydrogen using a cell and to be able to control the amount of either produced by the cell. It is also desirable to direct the produced orthohydrogen or parahydrogen to a coupled machine in order to provide a source of energy for the same.

---

The second patent really interests me because of the nature of the reaction. I will need some time to go over the document, though.

1: already posted
2: I am personally building this
3: its chemistry

Triple post Argon :O

I'm sure you've seen this Argon, but here it is for the rest of the folks here.

link

MM

Very interesting link, got to do some reading!

quote:

---

Originally posted by muffin_man:
I'm sure you've seen this Argon, but here it is for the rest of the folks here.

link

MM

---

I have seen it. Unfortunately they dont tell you how they solved the embrittlement problem. I cant tell if they coat the combustion chamber with ceramic (which is a known solution) or what.

Shouldn't you be able to allow for natural road vibration to agitate the water in the chamber?
Just bolt it directly to the engine, that should create a steady enough motion so long as the engine is running. As for the embritlement problem, what about nickel alloys instead of ceramic coatings. Nickel wears harder though which might put more strain on the moving parts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LordShadow:
Shouldn't you be able to allow for natural road vibration to agitate the water in the chamber?
Just bolt it directly to the engine, that should create a steady enough motion so long as the engine is running. As for the embritlement problem, what about nickel alloys instead of ceramic coatings. Nickel wears harder though which might put more strain on the moving parts.

---

Nickel is something I should look in to. I dont think it will be too much of a problem since only the cylinder walls, piston head, and valves will need coatings.

united nuclear solved their embrittlement problem

The only thing remotly close to your claim that H2 atoms give off "more energy than chemistry allows" is cold fusion experiments. These generally involve electrolyzing heavy water with extremely rare electrodes and perfect conditions. The very best-designed cold fusion experiment has only been able to produce excess energy in about 50% of the trials run, and that is in perfect conditions

by all means, try to make this. Just know that a car powered by the same ammount of electricity you use to electrolyze the water would go farther.

The laws of thermodynamics;

1. You can't win.

2. You can't break even.

3. You can't get out of the game.

This idea is just a new spin on perpetual motion and CAN NOT work. There is no hidden discovery that will make it work it is simply not possible, sorry, but that's just the way the universe is.

Anyway, have fun trying and when it doesn't work please post here with news of your failure.

Oh, and by the way, Stanley Meyers was found guilty of fraud. For what? Misleading investors about his "Water Powered Car".

bandersnatch is correct. That guy was a fraud, in case you didnt' know. Now, nobody is saying this engine won't work. We're just saying it won't work more efficiently than an electric one on the same power.

I am not saying this is anything like overunity. Please dont misunderstand.

Meyer's reputation doesnt matter. You always need a working model to get a patent. He has a patent, therefore his patented electrolysis method works (but to what extent, I cant comment).

half the people in this thread are pissing me off their to ignorant to read.

THIS IS NOT BURNING HYDROGEN

look. see this?

2H2O + 2e --> H2 + 2OH + 0.83 V

Thats the reaction which is taking place. This model is using VERY low currents to break water into, essecially, steam. The 'steam', or vapours is then used to drive the engine pistons after it reaches 30 - 60 psi. The vapour get re-released into the environtment, where it will eventually recondence into water.

This is NOT a hydrogen model, its using low amounts of battery power (which you could charge with solar panels) to convert water into a pressurized gaseous form to drive the pistons of an engine.

fucking ignorant jackasses

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obbe:
half the people in this thread are pissing me off their to ignorant to read.

THIS IS NOT BURNING HYDROGEN

look. see this?

2H2O + 2e --> H2 + 2OH + 0.83 V

Thats the reaction which is taking place. This model is using VERY low currents to break water into, essecially, steam. The 'steam', or vapours is then used to drive the engine pistons after it reaches 30 - 60 psi. The vapour get re-released into the environtment, where it will eventually recondence into water.

This is NOT a hydrogen model, its using low amounts of battery power (which you could charge with solar panels) to convert water into a pressurized gaseous form to drive the pistons of an engine.

fucking ignorant jackasses

---

Funny, you provide us with the exact formula for electrolysis but insist that the pistons are driven by steam.

BTW, the real reaction is:
2H2O --1.23V--> H2 + 2O

Your misconceptions of engineering drawings, schematics, and chemistry are excusible since your spelling seems to indicate you are yet in grade school.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:
Funny, you provide us with the exact formula for electrolysis but insist that the pistons are driven by steam.

BTW, the real reaction is:
2H2O --1.23V--> H2 + 2O

Your misconceptions of engineering drawings, schematics, and chemistry are excusible since your spelling seems to indicate you are yet in grade school.

---

actually i had just got home from oral sugery

and actually im on your side of all this

but you know what, i dont WANT to fight some stranger on the interent. i dont care if meyers cell is more efficiant then gas or not.

I like this because its FREE, dosnt hurt the environment, and if the world were to end in say oh.....6 years, your not going to have a gas station to pull up to.

but go on, you are the all-knowing master of the universe.

Well even if it is impossible, surely you could make a simple electrolysis cell and direct the gas into the air intake on any petrol or diesel engine to increase the mileage by partly running the vehicle on water?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:
I have seen it. Unfortunately they dont tell you how they solved the embrittlement problem. I cant tell if they coat the combustion chamber with ceramic (which is a known solution) or what.

---

They are boasting it as a sort of bolt on to your existing engine so I'm assuming that there is no need for any sort of treatment to the engine componants/block.

MM

Why the hell are so many people shooting this down if they have never done more then read about on a message board?
If the peizo vibrator doesnt get the bubbles off the plates you could rig up your water intake to flow across the plates and remove the bubbles.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Optionryder420:
There's always gotta be a more efficient way...


We just haven't discovered it yet.

---

leg power.

quote:

---

Originally posted by muffin_man:
They are boasting it as a sort of bolt on to your existing engine so I'm assuming that there is no need for any sort of treatment to the engine componants/block.

MM

---

I'm not following this thread like I probably should, it's a good subject.
but rust?