Water: Alternative Fuel of the Future?
Can simple water really be burned to solve our energy problems?
Filed under Consumer Ripoffs, Environment
| Skeptoid #87 February 12, 2008 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
Today we're going to pour a few drops of water into our car's fuel tank, and triple our mileage; we're going to electrolyze hydrogen from our municipal water supply and run our house; and with a cup of seawater — the most plentiful substance on earth — we're going to extract energy and solve the world's energy crisis. For today's topic is the use of simple water as an alternative fuel source.
If you've listened to the news at all over the past couple of years, you've probably heard several trumpeted headlines about energy being extracted from water. If you have an email account you've probably heard that the government and oil companies have been suppressing the fact that energy stored in water can power your automobile. Open any web browser and do a Google search, and you'll find claim after claim for energy from water. It's clean, it's free, it has no carbon emissions, and science just hasn't caught onto it yet because of some establishment conspiracy of silence.
The most recent one I heard of was a device to electrolyze water using the power from your car battery. The resulting gas is then inserted into your cylinder along with the fuel, dramatically increasing your engine's power, and thus reducing the need to burn gasoline. Since car engines create 12V electricity, there is an endless supply of juice to power the electrolysis. Fox News even broadcast a story about two guys using this same technology to power a Hummer for the US military, burning nothing but water. Sounds exciting, doesn't it?
Not too long ago on the news there was another claim. A retired engineer doing some sort of home-brewed cancer research found that seawater, when electrolyzed by radio waves, could be made to burn. The television reporters made all sorts of excited noise about this: Seawater is available everywhere for free, burning it produces almost no harmful emissions, and the heat from the reaction can be used to generate electricity or do just about anything else.
Can water really be used as a fuel? Has the solution to all our problems always been right under our very nose? Let me ask a different question: Is the idea that something so obvious could have gone unnoticed for so long absurd enough to warrant a healthy dose of skepticism?
Well, the short answer is yes, they do warrant skepticism; and no, they do not represent any new solution to any problem that nobody's ever thought of before. All of these miracle systems consume more energy than they create, and are reported by the television networks with no critical analysis of the bogus claims being made.
Let's start with the seawater guy. John Kanzius was tinkering with an idea he had to target cancer cells with metallic particles, and then blast them with radio frequencies to kill the cancer. During the course of his research, someone noticed condensation inside the test tube and they decided to try desalinating water. It worked; the intense radio waves caused water to electrolyze, releasing hydrogen. When ignited, this reaction could produce a continuous flame; and, of course, a flame can be used to do things like generate electricity. Different solutions and salinities produced different colors. Rustum Roy, a Penn State University chemist, called this electrolysis by radio waves "the most remarkable [discovery] in water science in 100 years." The electrical power required to generate the radio waves far exceeded the heat output of the flame, but that was never the point. Somehow a warped description of this reached the media, who take no interest in a subject beyond a newsworthy angle. They irresponsibly reported that seawater was being made to burn and produce energy, completely neglecting all the important questions surrounding energy production. The media even took Roy's statement out of context and made it sound like he was proclaiming that this was the most remarkable energy generation discovery in 100 years, which is not what he said at all. In short, all Kanzius developed was an extraordinarily inefficient way to produce a small flame using tremendous amounts of electrical power from the grid. The water is not a fuel at all; it is merely a catalyst in one unusual method of converting radio waves to heat. Some people hear the explanation and say "Well, yeah, but it's brand new, they could work on it and make it more efficient, and then who knows the potential?" Would that that were so. Thermodynamics rules that even if the process could be made 100% efficient (which by itself is an absurd proposition), the heat output of the flame could never exceed the amount of energy coming from the electricity used to create the radio waves. By the way, John Kanzius' cancer research is still proceeding.
So how about the car engine thing? Use power from the battery — which is constantly being recharged by the engine — to electrolyze water, thus producing a volatile gas that can be added to the fuel mixture to substantially boost performance. The water tank needs to be refilled just like the gas tank does, and so in this case, the water is actually being used as fuel. Right? Not right. Welders who have heard about these devices generally fall onto the ground laughing when they hear it. These claims state that the water is converted into oxyhydrogen, the same gas used in water torches, and also known as Brown's gas. A water torch is a type of welding flame that uses oxyhydrogen as fuel. Oxyhydrogen is a gas that consists of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas in a 2:1 ratio, the same as water, but chemically separate from one another. Think of the space shuttle's main engines, which also use hydrogen mixed with an oxidizing agent. Recall the size of the explosion when the Challenger's main tank blew. Oxyhydrogen does have huge explosive potential, which is why it's such a great fuel for water torches. Water torches have been around for a long time, so there is nothing remotely new or inventive about this concept. It has never been of interest to automotive engineers because making the oxyhydrogen fuel consumes more energy than can be produced by burning it. Welding is not the art of energy efficiency, so this is not a problem for the welding industry. It would be a huge problem for the automotive industry, which cannot afford to spend more energy creating oxyhydrogen than could be produced burning it. The same goes for your car's engine. If your battery starts with a full charge, your car may indeed run more efficiently with one of these devices for a short time, until the battery is drained enough that the engine must take on the additional load of recharging it. And then there's that pesky law of thermodynamics again. It will never be possible to gain more energy burning the oxyhydrogen than it takes to create the oxyhydrogen. You can borrow energy from the burning gasoline to keep the reaction going, but now you are running less efficiently than you could under gasoline alone.
And so, alas for all such bogus claims of water as a fuel. Study them critically, and you'll find that they all represent net losses of energy. Be assured that engineers know more about physics than television reporters.
Now, it's important to note that some of these stories do have merit. Bruce Crower, a lifelong tinkerer of racing engines in southern California, has invented what he calls the steam-o-lene engine. It's a conventional four-stroke internal combustion engine, with an additional two strokes tacked onto the end. Crower knows that the biggest waste byproduct of internal combustion engines is heat, and he decided to recover some of that by putting it to work in an additional power stroke. At the end of the engine's normal fourth stroke, which ejects the fuel exhaust, Crower injects a tiny amount of water. That water instantly flashes to steam inside the hot cylinder, creating a tremendously powerful fifth stroke. The sixth stroke ejects the steam, which goes to a passive condenser where it returns to water. Unlike the other examples we've discussed, Crower's system actually works. Crower understands that the water is not the fuel. The heat is the fuel. Water is simply a catalyst for converting that heat into kinetic energy. What's more, enough of the heat is recovered that you can eliminate the heavy radiator and cooling systems, and when running the engine is cool enough to touch with your bare hand.
So please, the next time you read about a new water fuel in the newspaper or hear about it on the news — which you probably won't have to wait long for — apply some skepticism. Find the data the reporters didn't want to dilute the impact of their headline. Demand a reasonable standard of evidence. Be skeptical.
You should follow me on twitter here.
© 2008 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information
References & Further Reading
Allen, M. "The Truth About Water-Powered Cars: Mechanic's Diary." Mechanic's Diary. Popular Mechanics, 3 Jul. 2008. Web. 21 Jan. 2010. <http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4271579.html>
Carney, D. "Six Strokes of Genius." Popular Science. 1 Jun. 2007, Volume 270, Number 6: 66.
Kondepudi, D. Introduction to Modern Thermodynamics. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, 2008.
Liptak, B. Post-Oil Energy Technology: The World's First Solar-Hydrogen Demonstration Power Plant. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2008. 112.
Wilson, E. "Water on Fire Makes Scientists Burn." Chemical and Engineering News. 24 Mar. 2008, Volume 86, Number 12: 49.
Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian.
"Water: Alternative Fuel of the Future?" Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
12 Feb 2008. Web.
10 Sep 2010. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4087>
Discuss!
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
Why is it that journalists -- who pride themselves on being cynical, skeptical, and hard to fool -- turn into wide-eyed suckers whenever they're presented with a bit of crackpot science?
Cambias, Amherst, MA
February 12, 2008 9:41am
Because priding yourself on being something and being something are two very different things. No one has a quicker rush to judgment with little no know research of their own than the mainstream media these days.
If they stopped to research a story, they wouldn't break the story. If they can't break a story, they may as well not bother. By the time the decently researched article comes out, if ever, it's on page 50, and everyone has moved on to the next bit of crackpottery or celeb gossip.
vita10gy, Eau Claire, WI
February 12, 2008 3:28pm
Brian, I just saw a news item on the BBC that hight lighted an compressed air powered car, what's your take? see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2281011.stm
Peter, United Kingdom
February 12, 2008 3:54pm
I wonder how much water/mile this might use? If you would have to tow around a big steam loco scale water tender?
Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia.
February 12, 2008 11:01pm
well, I've read some of this stuff, and most of them make some vague claims about energising the water, or using some specific 'frequency' to get hydrogen. Of course, using anything but DC will just get you warm water, and nothing else.
Some of the best "free water energy" quacks are those who actually claim to have a working Joe Cell (yes, it's actually called a Joe Cell) For your personal entertainment:
http://www.thejoecell.com/
Simply attach to your car engine and it runs for free. And here's the best thing:
"If the cell is left in the car for a long period, the engine become charged. From this point, the cell is not required for the motor to run."
of course, should you actually build one that works, you mysteriously disappear. Mr Dunning's paymaster will come and take you away, should you twart their evil scheme.
@ Marius, some quick guestimating says that 25 liters of gas equals about 18 cc of liquid. There's room for that without hauling a water cart with you ;)
Alcari, the Netherlands
February 14, 2008 5:14pm
Steam-o-lene engine is nothin new. In big sea-diesel motors water-diesel mixture is used to improve efficiency for a long time. But don't use it in your cars motor, even it works in home, I have heard that it rusts your motor, so if you want your motor to last long, it is no good to use water.
Erkki Aikamies, Espoo, Finland
February 16, 2008 1:08am
Peter: I don't mean to get your hopes up too much about the air car but it's nothing too new either. A technology show called "Beyond Tomorrow" wrote an article about these air compressed cars. You can even see the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4.
This video was made in 2005 predicting that in 1 year or 2006 that these cars would be released in Europe. Yet nothing came of. Although it's a great idea there has to be something stopping the makers from producing this car. It almost seems like the idea is vaporware.
I hope for the best but I prepare for the reality that even this technology may not be out for a while.
Ilan, Winnipeg, Canada
February 18, 2008 10:04pm
Dear Peter,
Thank you for the article, it is good reading. I am very interested in reading a good review of the thermodynamic efficiency of the oxyhydrogen jet system vehicles in comparison with standard petrol and diesel vehicles. Can you point me in the right direction ?
Otherwise the subject is still intriguing - oxyhydrogen, if generated on-point, would be a considerably safer fuel than straight hydrogen (such as used by the BMW Hydrogen 7 and Hydrogen Mini), as the oxygen content of the gas could certainly act as a damper to explosions, localising such destruction.
Also two Kiwis have been running a car and a motorcycle on Brown's Gas for 3 years without mishap, or petrol bills. I do not know how many batteries they burn out, but its cheaper than petrol on the long run most probably !
Kind regards,
Martin La Grange,
Auckland, New Zealand
Martin La Grange, Auckland
February 20, 2008 1:35pm
I remember a very long time ago seeing a segment on the now defunct technology show C|Net in which they interviewed a scientist in Reno, NV named Gunnerman who had invented an emulsifier called A-55 allowing him to mix 50% water with gas. The A-55 fuel could be run in normal engines without modification. Reno had several city busses running off of it and it was the only water/gas mixture approved by the EPA currently. The fuel exhibited several odd properties including the fact it would only combust under pressure, applying a flame to a pool of it would not ignite it what so ever. Also the gas used did not have to be refined past the first stage of refinement. The fuel burned significantly cleaner than unleaded or deisel.
This story was not followed by main stream media despite the fact it seemed extremely legitmate. Have you come across this when researching this story?
dogcow, tampa
February 26, 2008 6:05pm
hi i think all the work you have been doing is great i think if we can use water then we need to do so.
here in missouri we are using a wind alternative to oil it has been realy successful
zack, united states of america
March 06, 2008 8:35am
"The fuel exhibited several odd properties including the fact it would only combust under pressure, applying a flame to a pool of it would not ignite it what so ever."
For kicks, throw a burning match in a pool of gasoline or diesel. Watch in amazement as nothing happens.
"Also the gas used did not have to be refined past the first stage of refinement. The fuel burned significantly cleaner than unleaded or deisel."
Explain please. Refinement of gasoline only has a single stage, unless you count the refinment of the cruse oil, in which case the first step would yield something akin to liquid asphalt.
The way this mixture actually works is rather similar to the Steam-o-line engine, except that it is less efficient, and very very punishing for the engine. The water flash-evaporates just a little before the petrol is ignited, thus providing a longer combustion. This process will wreck your cilinders though, unless you use an extra big and heavy engine.
Alcari, the Netherlands
March 08, 2008 5:01pm
I doubt the Kanzius radio frequency device was electrolyzing water, the "flame" was vivid yellow and H2 burns nearly invisibly blue. H2 does not spontaneously ignite or flash on and off the way this "flame" did. Better explanation: The test tube acted as a crude dipole antenna, strongly absorbing RF energy, the salt water boiled making a conductive salty spray, and an electrical arc then formed by the intense radio waves, the yellow color was from sodium. Note that when Kanzius stuck his hand in the beam, not much happened as his hand was the wrong size and shape to absorb much RF energy.
CM, Modesto CA
May 04, 2008 11:54pm
Re you Hho car theory that it would require more energy to produce than could be extracted is flawed in that a car alternator can replenish the car battery to make the HHo gas. It is not any more draining to a battery than running a blower fan and headlights on a car which consume far more electricy than a little alluminim coil in water. Think about it. Most cars have a 35amp alternator, even four cylinders. That is more power than necessary.
m.kennedy, Hartington
May 24, 2008 8:31am
So there is a net loss of energy when converting water to Brown's Gas. What aspect of car performance would be affected by this? Can it still produce additional miles per gallon? I would trade some of my horsepower for fuel economy. Yes, there is a net loss, but the show did not answer this part of my question. Brian? Anyone? Are the answers available?
The HowStuffWorks.com article covers as much and retains a copy of the FOX news report of the team working on the military Hummer, but stopped short of listing any field research demonstrating the actual efficiency.
I just want to know...
Wesley Van Voorhies, Dallas, TX
May 29, 2008 5:19pm
Just seen too much misinformation out there and have to comment. Can't take it anymore!
1) you get a net loss of energy, dictated by the laws of thermodynamics, when you electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen and then recombine the oxygen and hydrogen into water. You can only lose energy as heat.
2) the power provided by the car's alternator is not free; it is a drag on the gasoline engine. If you use electrical power from the alternator to electrolyze water, you are burning more gasoline. OK, you recover a fraction of this energy when you feed the hydrogen and oxygen into the engine, but you've introduced several new pathways by which you lose power.
This is a hoax, people. Possibly harmless, but you might be screwing up your engine by feeding it the wrong mix of fuels, and running the risk that your "HHO gas" (nothing more than a mix of hydrogen and oxygen) will explode under your hood.
Keep looking for alternative energy sources, though. Elsewhere. Thanks for the skepticism.
science dude, Washington DC
June 05, 2008 9:25am
Ok so I have been doing trial and error of the harnessing of Hydrocarbons and additives for ten years now, and I know of most if not all variables that can be accounted for and those that cannot. I have thoroughly tested the HHO intake vacum injector and got 20% better fuel economy. All your conjectures are wrong about the alternator and displaced energy in the form of hydrocarbons emmissions. I wonder where you are reading for your information of fact and folley? Where are your references? Any takers? PLease understand before assuming and asserting such erroneous conclusions.
Alan Munk, Las Cruces
June 06, 2008 12:04am
Here's one reference for you, Alan: Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics. If you're claiming you've beaten it, then the onus of proof is on you.
Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
June 06, 2008 7:50am
I should think science would havew moved beyond Newton as well as Darwin by now. We have much more technology than these men had access to. Time to move on.
Chuck, Brunswick
June 17, 2008 5:08am
Can we run our car with water and gas?
Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?
johnandrews, California
June 18, 2008 3:26am
John, did you listen to the episode? That was discussed specifically.
Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
June 18, 2008 6:21am
hi there, I use water to fuel a car as a supplement to gasoline. In fact, very little water is needed, only one quart of water provides over 1800 gallons of HHO gas which can literally last for months and significantly increase your car fuel efficiently, improve emissions quality, and save money. I found the way through this site http://www.runcarsonwater.us i really recommend it to everybody, it's a nice ebook where you can find the instructions on how to do it! take a look.
Ronald Collins, Las vegas
June 18, 2008 10:52pm
Brilliant, Ronald.
However, I'd suggest taking your sales efforts to some magazines for the lower intelligences.
People interested in the information on this website are usually not stupid enough to fall for this, especially on the very page your sales pitch was discussed and (obviously) found to be highly worthless.
But, wow, I'm impressed by Crowers idea of the six stroke engine. Very impressed.
Klaus, Germany
June 26, 2008 1:03am
Today we are going to show off our illiteracy and cheer death by petroleum.
# Charles H. Garrett
Electrolytic carburetor
# William A. Rhodes
APPARATUS FOR THE ELECTROLYTIC PRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN FOR THE SAFE CONSUMPTION THEREOF
MULTICELL OXYHYDROGEN GENERATOR
# Yull Brown
Welding
# Daniel Dingle
# Ethos free energy
# Stanley Allan Meyer
Hydrogen gas injector system for internal combustion engine
Hydrogen gas burner
Start-up/shut-down for a hydrogen gas burner
Gas electrical hydrogen generator
Electrical pulse generator
Gas generator voltage control circuit
Controlled process for the production of thermal energy from gases and apparatus useful therefore
Method for the production of a fuel gas
Process and apparatus for the production of fuel gas and the enhanced release of thermal energy from such gas
# Xogen Technologies
# Dennis Klein - Aquygen
Hydrogen generator for uses in a vehicle fuel system
# Bios Fuel by Steve Ryan
# GEET engine by Paul Pantone
# Thushara Priyamal Edirisinghe
# Ratnasiri Wickramanayaka
# Genepax - Water Energy System
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2
Or are you not skeptical about the oil crisis?
gaby de wilde, Enkhuizen
August 03, 2008 6:20am
Anyone who's passed general chemistry can tell you that the combustion of HHO gives off the same amount of energy (in the form of heat) as the electrolysis of water requires (in the form of electrical energy). But you lose TONS of energy in the electrical circuit to resistance and in heat loss occuring during the combustion, so you don't even get close to breaking even. The laws of thermodynamics win again (they always do).
Anyone who says otherwise is mislead or selling something.
Aaron, Not Dumbassville
August 06, 2008 11:33pm
science dude says that by causing drag on the gasoline engine engine to create HHO that this will cause a greater fuel consumption than the HHO will return. If this is correct, then a super charger would draw more energy from the engine than the compressed air could return. But clearly this is not the case.
Dan Cowen, Melbourne Australia
August 19, 2008 3:40am
So I get the part about it taking more energy to create the Oxyhydrogen than you get burning it off, but can I get a practical explanation about what happens? For example, I hop in my car with its little Oxyhydrogen generator and take off. What happens? Eventually I kill the battery because the alternator cannot produce enough power to charge the battery and also power the generator?
The drain on the alternator reduces the efficiency of the engine?
I mean, the alternator runs the whole time the engine runs, not based on consumption, so how does this have a negative impact?
Thanks
Rich, Washington DC
August 19, 2008 11:46am
Lets be sceptical about the oil reserves for a moment. I read above the Dogma guarantees it is not worth to even look at anything that doesn't fit yesterdays believe systems. Here something quite irrational happens with the logic promoted. By this logic all possible answers to our energy crisis should be rejected right-out without a first look.
But still it is evident we are in need of a miracle here. Of course one can save time by not looking at something. People who spend time encouraging others not to look into claimed answers are actually the main cause of death. Who else could do a morbid thing like making the answers disappear? This scientific ignorance has created a slipstream of thousands of inventions all deemed irrelevant to look at.
It is frequently claimed non of the inventions work because all of the other inventions before and after do not work either. The truth is of course that the scientific community didn't look into those either. Claiming something is not worth looking at can never have any basis. It's about as un-empirical as things get and it is the bigger waste of time.
It is irrelevant if cars can run on water. We wouldn't want to know about it either way. The answer doesn't exist because the theory doesn't allow for an answer to exist. And it doesn't allow for an answer to exist because the answer doesn't exist.
This while we could have so much fun with free power! Lets not give up just jet in stead?
Think: "hydrogen implosion"
gaby de wilde, Enkhuizen
September 05, 2008 4:52pm
No one has figured out what makes an HHO assisted engine system go here. Here's the answer.
It's the combustion of input air (nitrgen, oxygen, etc.) and H + O and atomized gas. Initially, the H burns first (~1000x quicker than gas). The gas burns better because of the increase in O in the mixture(what makes nitric oxide so potent!). The heat-front from the burnt H acts as a "quick-burn" apparatus. Much, much more of the gas is burned as this process has atomized the gas even futher. This results in a longer power stroke and cooler exhaust manifold temperatures. Any residual H + O recombine into H20 (much less pollution). In essence. it's the system that's the solution and not the violation of any thermodynamic laws that gives increased gas mileage. Pragmatism wins again!!!
Lakeotes, C., Las Vegas, NV
September 12, 2008 4:19am
Has anyone tried other kit?
hi,there
i hope this site may be help many people.....Has anyone tried another water for gas kit?
i think many people don't have to try something to understand that it works.
I've seen facts on the news and all over the Internet, that running a car on water IS possible. Even that I haven't
tried doing it, it doesn't mean that it's impossible.
this is not spam but i want many people to see other choice.Has anyone tried the kit? like water4gas,runyourcaronwater etc.
Is it really a scam? if you don't satisfy you can asked for refund..no more pain
You can truly get better mileage....http://carwaterguide.blogspot.com
thank you very much for visit my site
carwaterguide, bangkok
September 19, 2008 1:00am
Here in New Zealand, a company set up in Hamilton marketing and installing these devices.
Very few journalists did anything other than take their dodgey claims at face value.
Then, a couple of weeks ago, the company went to one of the local newspapers, and admitted that ... HHO devices are essentially fraud.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10535007
:-)
Brenton, New Zealand
October 13, 2008 2:49pm
Well well! What a mixture of comments!
It is important to read and be open to everyones comments. This is the only way we learn. You learn even if what you read is wrong, simply because you have learned it is wrong.
The thermodynamics law still stands. BUT! You have to take all the cause and effect into consideration.
Laceotes's comments 2 notes above this post are completely, unarguably, CORRECT! The sum of all the actions of the HHO results in greater mpg, end of discussion ;)
Les Harber, England
October 27, 2008 2:24pm
You can say "End of discussion" all you want, but it doesn't make your physical violations valid. Oxyhydrogen does indeed give the engine better performance, but making the oxyhydrogen creates a large net LOSS.
Robert Houghton, San Diego, CA
October 27, 2008 2:27pm
I don't know how many of you attended chemistry, and understood the concepts of enthalpy...
Every chemical has got a certain amount of energy, be it positive or negative compared to the energy the chemical would have if it were comprised of it's constituents. For example:
Oxygen and Hydrogen have a certain amount of energy, when these gases are combusted (exothermic), they release energy to become water. The water has got less energy than the constituents, which is why the reaction releases that extra energy as heat. Theoretically if you could change the water into a chemical with intrinsically less energy, that reaction would release energy. I don't know of such a chemical however, not to mention creating it could single-handedly screw up the entire water cycle.
BUT
The waste gases from the engine can potentially reduce THEIR intrinsic energy. One potential way to do this, is by electrolyzing water and adding the hydrogen into the combustion phase, which will produce fewer dangerous emissions and more energy. This invention is already being used on trucks and buses and costs about $14,000 to install. I'm not sure if the losses made in electrolyzing the water are gained back by producing a different composition of gases during combustion. However, if it reduces emissions for a minimal loss, then that's fine.
Jon Colyer, Auckland, NZ
October 28, 2008 11:35pm
I have been thinking about the car Brown's gas kit for a few months now. The only way it would work is if the car's alternator produced more electricity than the battery needed to charge (and the car to run all its electrical devices). This has to be true because people add amp/subwoofer kits which use up more alternator energy. I think the trick will be adjusting the electrolysis kit to use a correct amount of energy...hello multimeter
Steve Fishbain, College Park, MD
December 09, 2008 11:00am
"I have been thinking about the car Brown's gas kit for a few months now. The only way it would work is if the car's alternator produced more electricity than the battery needed to charge (and the car to run all its electrical devices). This has to be true because people add amp/subwoofer kits which use up more alternator energy."
Although your conclusion seems logical, it is wrong. If alternators in cars used permanent magnets, then you would be correct. The problem is that alternators use electromagnets. By altering the current going into the electromagnet (and therefore altering the electric field produced by the magnet) the electrical output of the alternator can be instantly customized to match the needs of your car.
If you add anything to the car that increases electrical draw, you make the alternator work harder. When the alternator works harder, your fuel efficiency goes down. Any increase in efficiency created by the HHO would be offset by the increased demand on the alternator.
Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
December 09, 2008 12:13pm
To Dan Cowen,
Sorry for the late reply!
Turbo and Super chargers do NOT somehow circumvent the second law of thermo dynamics.
The Super-charge DOES draw more energy than it returns. It increases the power output of the engine, but ONLY by increasing the energy usage of the engine by increasing it's fuel usage.
So the engine produces more power, ut uses more fuael to do so.
No free rides in Physics!!
Ross Whittle, Dubai
December 09, 2008 12:41pm
"I mean, the alternator runs the whole time the engine runs, not based on consumption, so how does this have a negative impact?"
Rich, the alternator, while seemingly effortless to turn when disconnected and in your hand, actually requires a great deal of effort to spin when operating at engine rpm speeds and under a load. It can be several horsepower depending upon the size of the load. This is easily seen in action if you have ever used a running car to jump start a car with a nearly dead battery. Listen as you attach the jumper cables and you will hear the engine of the running vehicle slow as the drag on the alternator increases.
Illya Leonov, Huntsville, Alabama
January 28, 2009 12:44pm
Yes, it is understood that the alternator would have to work harder to help produce the HHO gases, but couldn't you make up the difference by using a bigger pulley on the alternator, thereby making it easier in the first place for the engine to run the alternator. Does it take THAT much energy to make HHO gases, couldn't a customized pulley make the difference negligible?
Brandon Joiner, East Liverpool, Ohio
April 26, 2009 10:42pm
Hi Brandon, im not very smart but i think nomatter how big the pulley is it still takes the same amount of engery to make the power needed
domi, Finland
May 23, 2009 12:25pm
can u pls sayhow to convert the water to hydrogen?
i need an experimental circuit...regarding that....!
pls anyone help...
my mail id is vigneshbe89@gmail.com
s.vignesh, india
July 18, 2009 9:59am
interisting article.
anomous, unkown
July 22, 2009 6:50pm
can you please explain the procedure for extracting hydrogen and how hydrogen can be used to run a car or any automobile? As we know hydrogen burns vigrously within moments so how could it be brought in use?
please mail it to me at shashi.kant19@gmail.com
Shashi kant, India
August 12, 2009 10:03pm
oil companys and govenments have known about this for year thay wont let the public have the technolgy think about how much money thay will lose out on i think ford made a water car in the 80s or early 90 that got swept under the rug fairly quickly... super dodgey big wigs got hate em
the truth, australia
October 09, 2009 8:30am
In 1980's Stan Meyers developed
a hydogen engine and then was
Murdered for the information
by the us gov?
Joe, Denver
October 20, 2009 9:43am
nice idea water should be used for fuel in every car you my good man are a genius!!
rachel, cincinnti
October 24, 2009 1:19pm
If government will head on water fule then were all be benifeted about most problem.
boy, ph
December 09, 2009 8:09pm
Stanley Meyers - His estate just went public last week on YouTube and showcased all of his working technology proving through a filmed demonstration that he was legit with his water fuel cell.
Jimmy Klein - His Water Car is in the Works.
GENEPAX Car - This Japanese Company mysteriously got bought out last year and is no longer in production but Reuters reported it being legit with a YouTube video of it working. You can check it out yourself...
There are many others who have created vehicles which use Water as Fuel and mysteriously die, disappear or get bought out. The problem is nowadays, there are people, mostly hired skeptics through Obama's new Czar program(COINTELPRO style Tactics) which are out there to throw everybody off from further venturing into a free energy society and using the patents that are available in doing so. You could end world hunger at the same time with a free energy society, but no government would have power over the people in this system, but the people would have power over their government. This is the reason why we need a free energy society!
Todd Dirksen Jr., Chicago, Illinois
January 24, 2010 5:47pm
"In 1980's Stan Meyers developed
a hydogen engine and then was
Murdered for the information
by the us gov?"
Was that a parody post?
Safe-Keeper, Bergen, Norway
January 29, 2010 2:19pm
It warms my heart to see so many enthusiastic people building water powered cars, selling devices to others, and making big companies pay for their lies (and murders, apparently). It is such a pity that you can’t actually have more energy at the end of your reaction that you did when you started. It’s also a pity that so many people accept as fact ideas that sound good, such as electrolysing water to produce unlimited fuel.
When it comes down to it, you CAN electrolyse water to produce fuel, but why have an open system and waste all that water? Why does it need to be exhausted, so you have to keep fuelling your car up with water? Why can’t you just direct your water exhaust back into your electrolysis cell, make more "Brown’s gas" and keep driving forever and ever and ever, on the same tablespoon of water? In fact, since you are just moving water around, why are you wasting time building an internal combustion engine at all? If your alternator produces electricity from your running motor, why not just use an electric motor instead of an internal combustion engine, so the alternator charges the battery, the motor runs the alternator and the power from the battery runs the motor that drives the car? You can save your tablespoon of water too. If you don't like buying fuel for your car, buy a horse. That runs on water (and hay).
Michael Hides, Sydney, Australia
May 10, 2010 5:27am
You miss the obvious point.
Hydrogen is a perfectly good storage medium for energy. That it takes more power to produce isn't always the deciding factor.
If you have a solar/wind system pumping out 10kw and your only using two you can use the rest to make hydrogen instead of storage in a battery.
And you can run your car on it too. All from water.
This guy is...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hydrogen-house
John, Dallas
June 03, 2010 5:54pm
Please see the latest news about the same topic.
http://www.dailynews.lk/2010/06/18/news03.asp
Vishwa, Melbourne, Australia
June 19, 2010 9:18pm
i want all the details about this
madhi, velloor
August 20, 2010 3:53am
About twenty years ago my GCSE physics teacher was a former engineer at a large German car company. He had built a water powered engine in his garage,but the electrosis needed to seperate hydrogen from oxygen was too impractical at the time. He claimed that you would need a pick up truck full of batteries to get it to work. Or to plug it into the mains.
At which point you have to ask if an electric car might be simpler. The technology is viable in theory, but the energy needed to split water is too high at the moment.
However Focus magazine did feature a steam powered mercedes a few years back that was incredibly energy efficient. Not water as fuel, but geeky cool none the less.
Tom H, Kent, UK
August 26, 2010 4:25am
i want all the details about this
nik verma, durg
August 26, 2010 11:05am
Www.bbcfocusmagazine/issue/new-age-of-steam
The link doesnt always work, so you mayhave to search for New Age of Steam on the focus homepage.
Tom H, Kent, UK
August 26, 2010 12:09pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
I've always wondered why no one has bothered to try to do something with the heat the engine produces. Does this mean your car would get better gas mileage in the summer? Or haven't we been smart enough to have been recapping the heat to use for heating in the winter either?
I wonder if we would be better served using something other than water for this heat reuse process, since water has a higher than average specific heat.
vita10gy, Eau Claire, WI
February 12, 2008 8:44am