Water-Fueled Car
Earth2012 this month announced the launch of a major new project: they're going to build a water-fueled car. And they're soliciting donations to help them achieve this ambitious dream. Of course, a water-fueled car might raise a few skeptical eyebrows, but Earth2012 says the science behind their project is all very sound. The tank of their car will be filled up with water, but the water will then be converted onboard into hydrogen. So it's really a hydrogen-powered car, not a water-powered one. And hydrogen-powered cars, of course, already exist. What makes my hoax detector start ringing when I read about their project is their description of the onboard water-to-hydrogen conversion process. From what I understand, it takes quite a bit of energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. This has always been one of the major stumbling blocks on the road to a hydrogen economy (the cost of producing hydrogen). But Earth2012 says that it has developed a 'revolutionary way of creating hydrogen from water.' This involves vibrating the water at exactly the correct frequency, thereby causing the water to easily separate into oxygen and hydrogen.
Maybe Earth2012 really has developed this revolutionary new process, though the details they provide about it are awfully sketchy. But it all sounds an awful lot like a water-as-fuel hoax, of which there have been many in the past... one of the weirdest being Guido Franch's claims back in the 70s that he had developed a cheap green powder that, when added to water, transformed the water into gasoline. Franch gave a few demonstrations of his powder, though never under scientifically controlled conditions, and his credibility took a bit of a blow when he confessed that the secret of the powder had been given to him by a group of spacemen from the planet Neptune. The Straight Dope has an article about Franch if you're interested in reading more about him.
Update: Parazyte has provided a link to an article (in English) about Daniel Dingel, a Filipino man who claims that he invented a water-powered car back in 1969. The rest of the site is in German, but click here to see a video of Mr. Dingel driving around in his watercar.
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 3 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 >
for all you skeptical people out there, Please down load The Free Energy Secrets avi, presented by Dr Peter A. lindemann. and please also do some research on Nicola testla - This guy's innovations and patents are something you use every day " Schlemiel in The real world (And not that stupid MTV show) on Sun Jul 03, 2005 at 11:34 PM" if you do not have this information you will remain ignorant. You can find this video on eDonkey2000 or isohunt.com or a simple search on the internet. enjoy
Posted by RedOne in London on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 08:13 AM
No offense but all these inventors and scientists who claimed have invented free-energy or water-powered devices remind me of Dr. Frankenstein.
Trying to animate dead things with big scare contraptions and monstrosity of lightning energy.
Or those yester centuries imagineers who envisioned flying crafts as simply ocean ships lifted into the air.
My advice: leave quantum mechanic, particle physics to the professional ones. Frankly they are too fine for your frankenstein looking glass.
Posted by NonSkeptic on Wed May 02, 2007 at 02:10 PM
Trying to animate dead things with big scare contraptions and monstrosity of lightning energy.
Or those yester centuries imagineers who envisioned flying crafts as simply ocean ships lifted into the air.
My advice: leave quantum mechanic, particle physics to the professional ones. Frankly they are too fine for your frankenstein looking glass.
The biggest problem with this is that electricity is needed to split the water to hydrogen and oxygen. The car would work but the battery will soon run out . You would basically have an electric car.
The only way a hydrogen-powered car would have a lower cost of operation than a gasoline-powered car is if the hydrogen can be split apart at low cost. There are places where hydrogen can be mass-produced cheaply- they are near fast-flowing rivers or hydroelectric dams. The relative scarcity of such places is one reason hydrigen production is expensive.
In summary, unless you live next to a fast flowing river, you will not have a cheap source of hydrogen.
Posted by Michael Ejercito in Long Beach, California on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:08 PM
The only way a hydrogen-powered car would have a lower cost of operation than a gasoline-powered car is if the hydrogen can be split apart at low cost. There are places where hydrogen can be mass-produced cheaply- they are near fast-flowing rivers or hydroelectric dams. The relative scarcity of such places is one reason hydrigen production is expensive.
In summary, unless you live next to a fast flowing river, you will not have a cheap source of hydrogen.
Um, hydrogen can be stored and transported. If it could be mass-produced as efficiently as gasoline it could be distributed more or less the same.
I assume the reason for producing it onboard is the perceived danger large amounts of hydrogen pose. I'm not sure if it's really that much more dangerous than gasoline in storage and transportation, though I admit to not being familiar with the more tricky aspects of hydrogen.
Posted by Charybdis in Hell on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:21 AM
I assume the reason for producing it onboard is the perceived danger large amounts of hydrogen pose. I'm not sure if it's really that much more dangerous than gasoline in storage and transportation, though I admit to not being familiar with the more tricky aspects of hydrogen.
Hey, why couldn't someone use an ignition coil out of a car to generate the high voltage, and a microcontroller to pulse the device on/off at 15khz? just an idea.
Posted by CJ in USA on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 10:51 AM
4.5 volts d.c. + 300 milliamps @ 960Hz + basic stainless electrodes = Oh my God!-Hydoxy! and lots of it.....
Posted by Killerhuaale in Far FAR Away........ on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 07:02 AM
yo.... yo.. yo.... wouldn't you be able to run a car on water if you used electricity to separate the hydrogen from water?? because i have done it and it will burn. But ya couldn't you channel that hydrogen through an engine if you rebuilt the pistons and cylinders to cooperate with making the hydrogen combust and put off energy?? Im really interested in this so if you actually want to have an intelegent conversation with me and not just give me your opinion e-mail me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Posted by stephemmm in the good spot on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 09:57 PM
The water powerd engine is rediculous. The problem is to spot the trick. I believe that Dingle takes gas like clean propane in hidden tanks to power the engine. All the "experts" look about the huddle of tubes and pipes, puzzling about the "secrets" of the mysterious machine.
No "smell of combustion", only waterdrops leaves the exhaust. That's what yields.
Posted by xicht in Germany on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 05:53 AM
No "smell of combustion", only waterdrops leaves the exhaust. That's what yields.
it is possible to use water as fuel. the proper elecritricity (volts, amps, pulse) and the right stainless steal plates produces enouph gas to power and internal combustion engine. i know there are alot of scams out there but i also know that some inventors did invent an effficent way to split H2O. im building one myslef. about half way done. i have a few ebooks on how to build your own. lt and defanatly worth it considering the gas prices no-a-days its not difficult if anybody wants the books i could email then to you. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Posted by val in denver on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:56 PM
I really think this can work. I think its been suppressed by the government to keep screwing us with taxes. Anyway, does anyone have a high voltage device for sale? thanks .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Posted by CJ in USA on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:08 AM
its not about the high voltage (extra voltage= extra heat) in some cases 1.24 volts is enouph but the more current that flows though the electrodes the more gas will be produced. its a few factors.
Posted by val on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:46 PM
Hydrogen, and or, OxyHydrogen, pound for pound...is 10 times more powerful than gasoline and if you mangage your fluid dynamics and ignition timing correctly (remove any restrictions like carbs or throttle body, advance the timing to TDC...) PRESTO ! you can make any ICE run on H. I think the only real roadblock now is producing a positive pressure controllable flow from on-demand production. People are improving fuel efficiency by 200% and some backyard dudes are running thier engines on Joe cells alone (which technically requires no energy to operate)
Posted by Joe in FLorida on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:35 PM
How about its all wrong. The law of thermodynamics was NOT written at a time when radio and SOUND were even properly understood. People rant and rave about losses here and losses there and electrolysis wont work here.... GET A FUCKING BRAIN PEOPLE... water is a conductor.. you can use RESONANCE to make a MIST.. look at a fucking piezo NEBULIZER... now do you think it would be easier to stick electrodes in a large liquid "conductor" or to hit water vapor with an IONIZING potential of 5000 volts or more..its a change in surface area... the same reason a grain bin blows up... voltage is RADIATION... AMPERAGE IS HEAT... if you stick electrodes into a big liquid conductor you will LOSE too much HEAT/amps... and then on top of that regular electrolysis DOES still create steam AND vapor.. so even that could be further ionized... a water/hydrogen on demand process works.... electrolysis will not... you need to use either mechanical motion to create a mist or heat... even boiling a pot of water on a stove is electrolysis... just HIGH AMPERAGE low voltage....think about that. Im a security gaurd for an energy company... you guys think you pay for electricity or pay for meetings where 60 year old guys sit around eating donuts and talking about their money? Sure linemen are out doing the legwork and plant operators are doing their part but they dont even know who Nikola Tesla was... that says a lot when you REALLY think about it. But wait a minute I must be just too crazy for everyone... I mean we did land on the moon because yes there is gravity on it and none of it was a hoax... everyone go about your daily business... just like after 9/11 when bush just told us all to go back to watching tv and shopping... OH and I am an Iraq Veteran. C 1/39 FA (MLRS)... was there for the invasion. Oh and if you think that the gas would "explode" because you have an ionizing potential inside a closed environment you are wrong... what is the charge of H and O.. - and + right.. so if you use a negative potential you will forcibly push the oxygen away.. the same feeling (but more powerful) as when you get closer and closer to the screen on a television and it pushes your shirt,hair, etc......
Posted by Matt Gill on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:25 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLKExuHlQMQ
GM has a water fueled car, and they have had it for over ten years.
Posted by Mike in minnesota on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:28 PM
GM has a water fueled car, and they have had it for over ten years.
yes it does take elecricty to seperate water into hydrogen and oxygen. cars currently run on gasoline and oxygen. so hydrogen and oxygen would make a good fuel. Now if there was only a way to get a car to generate electricity!?!???!???
OH that's right a magneto, or an alternator, and some batteries....you guys are idiots for thinking this is far fetched.
as for freezing....some sort of chemical like what is put in a radiator---ANTI_FREEZE
OR
the other part of electrolisis is SALT and yes that lowers waters freezing point!!!
and somebody mentioned that the water would put out a fire if there was a car wreck---the fire would have to come from the other car, cause one carrying water and converting it only as needed, to drive electric motors would not catch fire.
but it was a good point that if you hit a gasoline car then it would help extinguish the other guys car.
pray for rain honey, i need to fill the car up!!!
Posted by john lee in nashville on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 05:59 AM
OH that's right a magneto, or an alternator, and some batteries....you guys are idiots for thinking this is far fetched.
as for freezing....some sort of chemical like what is put in a radiator---ANTI_FREEZE
OR
the other part of electrolisis is SALT and yes that lowers waters freezing point!!!
and somebody mentioned that the water would put out a fire if there was a car wreck---the fire would have to come from the other car, cause one carrying water and converting it only as needed, to drive electric motors would not catch fire.
but it was a good point that if you hit a gasoline car then it would help extinguish the other guys car.
pray for rain honey, i need to fill the car up!!!
I have no problem with the concept of using hydrogen/oxygen to make a car more efficient, however using water as a fuel (when refering to seperating its component parts as part of the overall efficiency calculation) is utter rubbish, and it breaks one of the most fundamental law of physhics we have - entropy, it aint possible.
Fact : Water is at a far less energetic state than free hydrogen gas and Oxygen gas are (after all, it is just hydrogen and oxygen that has already 'reacted' to bond together into water in the first place!) and has also bonded with H-H bonds which additionally makes it even harder to seperate again...
Fact: it takes significant energy to break [hydrogen bonds], and the H-O bonds in water.
Fact: The amount of energy required to break the bonds is the same - it doesnt matter if you use electricity or ultrasonic or any other 'magic method', you still have to break the bonds, still takes the same energy.
Fact: The amount of energy liberated when Hydrogen is burnt in air, will always be less than that required to seperate the bonds in water in the first place.
i.e it cannot ever be used to produce a net gain in energy, perpetual motion is impossible! The sooner the human race realises that the better.
Otherwise The universe would be getting hotter not colder - Simple entropy my friends!
Fiction: The claims that people are driving cars powered ONLY by water - They just haven't told you about the power stored in the batteries, or the extra energy input into the system, (your mobile phone is pretty efficient if you don't count the charger!)
.. People still beleive in UFO's Fairies and Ghosts, doesn't make it true you know!!
Posted by Dr mack in UK on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:10 AM
Fact : Water is at a far less energetic state than free hydrogen gas and Oxygen gas are (after all, it is just hydrogen and oxygen that has already 'reacted' to bond together into water in the first place!) and has also bonded with H-H bonds which additionally makes it even harder to seperate again...
Fact: it takes significant energy to break [hydrogen bonds], and the H-O bonds in water.
Fact: The amount of energy required to break the bonds is the same - it doesnt matter if you use electricity or ultrasonic or any other 'magic method', you still have to break the bonds, still takes the same energy.
Fact: The amount of energy liberated when Hydrogen is burnt in air, will always be less than that required to seperate the bonds in water in the first place.
i.e it cannot ever be used to produce a net gain in energy, perpetual motion is impossible! The sooner the human race realises that the better.
Otherwise The universe would be getting hotter not colder - Simple entropy my friends!
Fiction: The claims that people are driving cars powered ONLY by water - They just haven't told you about the power stored in the batteries, or the extra energy input into the system, (your mobile phone is pretty efficient if you don't count the charger!)
.. People still beleive in UFO's Fairies and Ghosts, doesn't make it true you know!!
everything in the internet tells something about mr. daniel dingel. but please send us any info. or contacts where he is.
tnx
Posted by Robert in caloocan philippines on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:33 PM
tnx
I'd like to agree with Dr Mack and attempt to strengthen the argument by breaking it down... if I can get some contributions to strengthen it further that would be great... ideally I'd like to keep all but the most basic science out of the argument.
1: The energy needed to get hydrogen out of water is more than the energy you can get from the hydrogen created.
2: If you agree with statement 1 then it follows that a car cannot run on only water because the energy needed to get hydrogen from water has to come from somewhere other than the hydrogen created by the process.
3: A car’s alternator generates some current that is wasted in a typical set up.
4: The process of storing and retrieving energy from a battery is more efficient than the process of getting hydrogen out of water.
5: If you agree with statements 1,3 and 4 it follows that it is more efficient to excess energy from the alternator into a battery rather than using it to extract hydrogen from water
6: Cars can use hydrogen as a fuel source or to improve the efficiency of existing fuel.
7: If it is not plausible to put the excess energy into a battery because your car can’t run off the battery you might as well use electrolysis to generate as much hydrogen as you can and use it to improve your cars performance.
Now how to shoot down my argument…
1. Second law of thermodynamics, not interested in arguing this
2. Find a gap in my logic in statement 2 – maybe environmental factors like heat are adding external energy to the process, or there is some really efficient chemical process adding energy
3. Disprove statement 3
4. Disprove statement 4
5. Find a gap in my logic in statement 5
6. Disprove statement 6
7. Find a gap in my logic in statement 7 – maybe the process used to create the hydrogen is so inefficient that more fuel will be used in creating the hydrogen than is saved by using the hydrogen
Now how to strengthen my argument…
1. Second law of thermodynamics, no strengthening needed
2. Prove there are no gaps in my logic in statement 2, or break this into smaller logical steps
3. Provide a proof for statement 3 (a concise proof would be best)
4. Provide a proof for statement 4 (a concise proof would be best)
5. Prove there are no gaps in my logic in statement 5, or break this into smaller logical steps
6. Provide a proof for statement 6 (a concise proof would be best)
7. Prove there are no gaps in my logic in statement 7, or break this into smaller logical steps
Posted by Dan in WAGGA WAGGA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:30 PM
1: The energy needed to get hydrogen out of water is more than the energy you can get from the hydrogen created.
2: If you agree with statement 1 then it follows that a car cannot run on only water because the energy needed to get hydrogen from water has to come from somewhere other than the hydrogen created by the process.
3: A car’s alternator generates some current that is wasted in a typical set up.
4: The process of storing and retrieving energy from a battery is more efficient than the process of getting hydrogen out of water.
5: If you agree with statements 1,3 and 4 it follows that it is more efficient to excess energy from the alternator into a battery rather than using it to extract hydrogen from water
6: Cars can use hydrogen as a fuel source or to improve the efficiency of existing fuel.
7: If it is not plausible to put the excess energy into a battery because your car can’t run off the battery you might as well use electrolysis to generate as much hydrogen as you can and use it to improve your cars performance.
Now how to shoot down my argument…
1. Second law of thermodynamics, not interested in arguing this
2. Find a gap in my logic in statement 2 – maybe environmental factors like heat are adding external energy to the process, or there is some really efficient chemical process adding energy
3. Disprove statement 3
4. Disprove statement 4
5. Find a gap in my logic in statement 5
6. Disprove statement 6
7. Find a gap in my logic in statement 7 – maybe the process used to create the hydrogen is so inefficient that more fuel will be used in creating the hydrogen than is saved by using the hydrogen
Now how to strengthen my argument…
1. Second law of thermodynamics, no strengthening needed
2. Prove there are no gaps in my logic in statement 2, or break this into smaller logical steps
3. Provide a proof for statement 3 (a concise proof would be best)
4. Provide a proof for statement 4 (a concise proof would be best)
5. Prove there are no gaps in my logic in statement 5, or break this into smaller logical steps
6. Provide a proof for statement 6 (a concise proof would be best)
7. Prove there are no gaps in my logic in statement 7, or break this into smaller logical steps
Hi,
Though that all you guys would like to look at this video from Channel 9 - Today Tonight Australia 9 June 2008? Also reported is a diffent system on Channel 10 Late News - Australia 12 June 2008
Aussie Brothers Run Car on Water:
http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/video#
Raises some interesting questions?
Regards,
KH
Posted by KEith Harris in Australia on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Though that all you guys would like to look at this video from Channel 9 - Today Tonight Australia 9 June 2008? Also reported is a diffent system on Channel 10 Late News - Australia 12 June 2008
Aussie Brothers Run Car on Water:
http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/video#
Raises some interesting questions?
Regards,
KH
Well, just a bit of a question to you quarelling guys? What if water as fuel really is true? What do you think are its implications? Would life be better? Or would life be worse due to the change? I'm new to this thread so I hope you guys would be nice and considerate to me... Tnx!
Posted by Noypi29 in Philippines on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:00 PM
Page 3 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 >