Cars That Run On Water - You Bet!
When I came upon the first discussion of this subject, I began to encounter snarky posts from arm chair physicists, and faux savants who condescended to explain to lesser minds that a hydrogen fueled internal combustion vehicle that ran on water was not possible.
Well, tonight I'm here to tell you that it is possible, it really isn't very complicated, that the technology already exists, and is well within reach.
Before posting the link, I would like to remind all who came to the Pickens Plan to to scoff, that contempt prior to investigation is the hallmark of fools.
http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html
If we can dream it. We can do it.
Well, tonight I'm here to tell you that it is possible, it really isn't very complicated, that the technology already exists, and is well within reach.
Before posting the link, I would like to remind all who came to the Pickens Plan to to scoff, that contempt prior to investigation is the hallmark of fools.
http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html
If we can dream it. We can do it.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by David French on -
I've read the article, and I feel the title of the thread is a bit misleading. The process requires an aluminum alloy, and the water sacrifices the hydrogen in reaction with the aluminum (and gallium). if I were saying it, I'd say the car runs on water AND metal.
This is a totally different idea than the "crackpot" ideas I am seeing floating around. Something like this does stay within the laws of thermodynamics. The idea that just water can be fed as a fuel source, while using the energy from the vehicle to "crack" the hydrogen, now, that idea doesn't work. Well, it can work, but the net benefit is zero, as the energy needed to crack is at least equal to the energy provided by the hydrogen.
This idea may well have merit. It certainly sounds interesting.
None of this is intended to be from an armchaim physict, or from a faux savant. Just an engineer that had to take thermodynamics (and other related courses).
-
Permalink Reply by KENN DRESCHER on -
yeah, and unfortuneately, I'm afraid your the latest victim of 1. $60.oo? For the Unit, or the plans? For that price, you may have actually purchased a hand-gernade with a rusty pin!
Post a Pic before you hook it up!
More info on HHO Generators, and the Mason Jar Scam at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reform-autos/message/194
David Moore said:I have been reachering this and am about to conduct my own teat of a unit I bought on Ebay for $60. From what I gather it is possible and the unit will last as long as A. you dont draw too many amps from your altinator or you will burn it up. B. the qualoty of stainless steel used (316L) seems to be the best. C. you have to adjust or fool the computer in your car ( fule injected) so it doesent increase the amount of gas because it is confused by the hydrogen/oxygen mixture. There are plenty of variables within the basics. It can work a guy down the street built one and says he was getting 20 and now gets 30 miless per gal. Rember there alot of scams out there. Thanks
-
Permalink Reply by KENN DRESCHER on
-
Lotz ignorance on this Subject -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reform-autos/message/194
Longhorns Fan said:Yes, I agree that ocean water would be the best choice. I have no idea if desalination would be necessary to supply "fuel grade" water, but suspect that it would.
Please bear with me as I reply to another poster as well. I don't want to waste too much space on him. When he first posted, he shot from the hip without having read the article, dismissing the idea completely. Having read the article, he now knows it IS absolutely possible. With that knowledge, he dismisses the idea as impractical.
Had the Wright brothers listened to nay sayers like this old crank, the history of the discovery that made it possible for humans to fly may have been written very differently.
I rather suspect that one could pair clean alternative energy sources with the recovery of aluminum. We have an enormous reserve of free hydrogen power that could facilitate the process of aluminum recovery at relatively low cost. The source has been active for billions of years, and will be available for billions of years.
Once one gets past the conventional wisdom that what has just been discovered isn't possible, the challenge of aluminum recovery which we know IS possible becomes far less daunting in terms of its potential viability.
I can't believe the level of negative thinking and lack of vision among so many posters. At the end of the day, these folks will get a free ride on the back of folks who ultimately roll up their sleeves and make things happen.
James (Nick) Kiser said:If a car is to run off water, the only logical idea would be to use ocean water. The deplete our fresh water further would be a terrible idea. Just look at the Colorado River. But ocean water is an unused resource. We just have to figure out a way to make an engine out of something other than metal.
-
Permalink Reply by RWC1972 on -
David French said:I've read the article, and I feel the title of the thread is a bit misleading. The process requires an aluminum alloy, and the water sacrifices the hydrogen in reaction with the aluminum (and gallium). if I were saying it, I'd say the car runs on water AND metal.
This is a totally different idea than the "crackpot" ideas I am seeing floating around. Something like this does stay within the laws of thermodynamics. The idea that just water can be fed as a fuel source, while using the energy from the vehicle to "crack" the hydrogen, now, that idea doesn't work. Well, it can work, but the net benefit is zero, as the energy needed to crack is at least equal to the energy provided by the hydrogen.
This idea may well have merit. It certainly sounds interesting.
None of this is intended to be from an armchaim physict, or from a faux savant. Just an engineer that had to take thermodynamics (and other related courses).
This fellow engineer agrees. The "cracking" of the hydrogen violates the first and second laws of thermo. if I remember correctly and would put that into the perpetual motion machine category.
-
Permalink Reply by Lock Piatt on -
You are correct water has been powering industry, ships, trains and cars for hundreds of years. However it is called "STEAM".
-
Permalink Reply by Scott Franklin on -
Longhorns Fan - three things:
1) aluminum currently costs $2 pound, so gasoline would have to be $6/gallon or higher to make this economical. As the cost for electricity rises in China, so goes the price of aluminum. Some analysts are predicting $3/lb aluminum shortly, which would equal $9/gallon gasoline. It would be fair to assume that the price of aluminum will probably keep pace with energy, making this alternative pointless.
2) gallium, the critical element in your process, is currently over $400/kilogram for high grade - $250/kilo for low grade. The total annual usage of gallium in the US is approx 27k kilos, or about 65k lbs/year. It's a relatively rare element that is a by-product of aluminum production.
3) The cost in energy to reclaim the oxidized aluminum to return it to it's non-oxidized state for reuse makes this process an overall big energy loser. It would probably be a better alternative just to use the electricity in battery-powered cars rather than this process.
-
Permalink Reply by KENN DRESCHER on
-
Running a Vehicle, I.C. Engine on: WATER is a misnomer..
WATER; H20 is a non-combustible molecule comprised of 2 combustible elements = H, and O.
*NOTE: By installing a RoofTop Solar Panel, You may offset the ammount of electricity needed to run the HOH Booster, and than some. Curtailing the need for the Alternator to generate electricity using torque from the engine!
What a beautiful way to transport 2 combustable gasses, and create them at the point of use!!!
The HHO Generator, is an electrolsis unit which with the input of a small amount of 12 volt DC splits the H, from the O2.
The combined gasses of HOH, are vented into the Intake manifold of the vehicle.
They burn, with the fuel, assist in combustion, acheiving nearly a "complete burn".
Therefore, they acheive better performance, and milage. With much lower emissions
Yes, the Scammers are selling faulty plans, and even Units. Not just the Mason Jar Units, sold on E-Bay, but some made out of PVC pipe that is not intended to tolerate the Heat generated. That is based upon the ammount of electrolite...
*NOTE: Ya gotta have some mechanical knowledge, and a bit of a scientific background before installing 1 of these Units!
The latest, greatest design is presently the: SMACK's Booster!
FREE PLANS may be found at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reform-autos/links
PS: Yes, a professionally built Smack's Booster does work!
-
Permalink Reply by Longhorns Fan on -
Excellent point! Steam can be easily created by heating water with any number of sources derived from clean energy sources. Yours is the first post I have read here (there may be others) that proposes steam as a source for propulsion. I also think more discussion should be devoted to geothermal.
When it comes to creating energy independence - every suggestion is important - and many have a great deal of merit.
In response to your query about aluminum salts, I believe the salts would be far safer to transport and recycle than transporting compressed hydrogen gas to distribution centers. I think any safe and practical system, whether it involves internal combustion, or fuel cell technology would have to use a "hydrogen on demand" principle to be truly practical.
Lock Piatt said:You are correct water has been powering industry, ships, trains and cars for hundreds of years. However it is called "STEAM".
-
Permalink Reply by KENN DRESCHER on
-
What could be SAFER than:
WATER; H20, to transport until it is required for electrolsis + combustion at the Point of Use;
the Intake manifold...???
Longhorns Fan said:Excellent point! Steam can be easily created by heating water with any number of sources derived from clean energy sources. Yours is the first post I have read here (there may be others) that proposes steam as a source for propulsion. I also think more discussion should be devoted to geothermal.
When it comes to creating energy independence - every suggestion is important - and many have a great deal of merit.
In response to your query about aluminum salts, I believe the salts would be far safer to transport and recycle than transporting compressed hydrogen gas to distribution centers. I think any safe and practical system, whether it involves internal combustion, or fuel cell technology would have to use a "hydrogen on demand" principle to be truly practical.
Lock Piatt said:You are correct water has been powering industry, ships, trains and cars for hundreds of years. However it is called "STEAM".
-
Permalink Reply by Lock Piatt on
-
The aluminum/gallium process is questionable as to the huge amount of gallium required this is not a common element and is expensive, it also take huge amounts of fuel energy to mine the minerals get them to smelters melt and purify the metals and on and on. The net amount of energy gained in this system is questionable. I believe there are better more cost/energy effective ways to produce hydrogen. That being said hydrogen is a very real possibility to replace gasoline in internal combustion engines, BMW is doing it as we speak.
Longhorns Fan said:Excellent point! Steam can be easily created by heating water with any number of sources derived from clean energy sources. Yours is the first post I have read here (there may be others) that proposes steam as a source for propulsion. I also think more discussion should be devoted to geothermal.
When it comes to creating energy independence - every suggestion is important - and many have a great deal of merit.
In response to your query about aluminum salts, I believe the salts would be far safer to transport and recycle than transporting compressed hydrogen gas to distribution centers. I think any safe and practical system, whether it involves internal combustion, or fuel cell technology would have to use a "hydrogen on demand" principle to be truly practical.
Lock Piatt said:You are correct water has been powering industry, ships, trains and cars for hundreds of years. However it is called "STEAM".
-
Permalink Reply by scott perkins on -
Amen
-
Permalink Reply by KENN DRESCHER on
-
STEAM? For transportation use? Like the ole Steam Locomotives?
Naw, real dangerous; live steam... of course it's used to power electric turbines...
Do some homework!!!
It's all On-Line:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reform-autos/links
KENN DRESCHER said:What could be SAFER than:
WATER; H20, to transport until it is required for electrolsis + combustion at the Point of Use;
the Intake manifold...???
Longhorns Fan said:Excellent point! Steam can be easily created by heating water with any number of sources derived from clean energy sources. Yours is the first post I have read here (there may be others) that proposes steam as a source for propulsion. I also think more discussion should be devoted to geothermal.
When it comes to creating energy independence - every suggestion is important - and many have a great deal of merit.
In response to your query about aluminum salts, I believe the salts would be far safer to transport and recycle than transporting compressed hydrogen gas to distribution centers. I think any safe and practical system, whether it involves internal combustion, or fuel cell technology would have to use a "hydrogen on demand" principle to be truly practical.
Lock Piatt said:You are correct water has been powering industry, ships, trains and cars for hundreds of years. However it is called "STEAM".
Featured Discussion
Twitter Feed
© 2009 Created by PickensPlan
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Privacy | Terms of Service
