Why H20 Power DOESN'T WORK

[microfarad]

Why can't I fuel a car on water? Well, KuraiOorora, and many other poor misguided souls believe you CAN!

I am sympathetic to the gullible consumers of "free energy" hoaxes. They have been mislead by seemingly professional looking organizations, which are often reported on by fake news programs, recorded to look real, and then set up on Youtube. Who knows? Maybe some news organizations HAVE been stupid enough to report on it. And why do these ideas never come out into production? Because the government assassinates the inventors, in a deal with the oil companies... OBVIOUSLY.

Well, here's why it doesn't work...

The inventors contend that water is poured into the machine, and is split apart in the process of electrolysis. Electrolysis involves an electric current running through water, which causes the water to split into hydrogen and oxygen. Technically, it is the potential between the anode and cathode that splits the water... But anyways... This is all fine and well. Electrolysis is a nice simple process you can do in your home with an empty jam jar, a bit of salt, some water, a 9v battery, and a couple of wires. It can be assumed, to this point, that the engine is producing enough electricity to power the electrolysis process, which is not in fact true, but we must assume this for the sake of assessing this "invention".

Then, the hydrogen is burned. This is where problems arise. The hydrogen burns with oxygen to form, you guessed it, water. This will actually be water vapor (steam) since it is so hot. Maybe this is, and most likely is, an internal combustion engine with one or more pistons. The fact that burning hydrogen can run an engine is also fine. But look at it this way. It takes x amount of energy to split the water in IDEAL circumstances (which don't exist). And you will generate exactly x amount of energy when you re-combine the water (burn the hydrogen). There is a potential chemical energy in a quantity of hydrogen/oxygen gas mixture, and it takes exactly that amount of energy to form the volume of gas from water using electrolysis. So, theoretically, our engine would run. But if we tried to make it do something, thus taking energy out of the system, it would eventually cease to run, since energy is going out of the system. And inefficiency kills it even before that. Electrolysis is terribly innefficiet, you would obtain a fraction of the chemical energy (hydrogen/oxygen gas) that you expended in the form of electrical energy during the electrolysis, and all engines suitable for burning hydrogen have a maximum theoretical efficiency below 100% to my knowledge. And then there's friction...

Basically, water has no potential chemical energy. Nothing in = nothing out

Thank you for reading. I am open for discussion on this topic, please don't be belligerent though.

[FoxtrotZero]

You're missing something.

Water does not form when you burn hydrogen and oxygen. I'm not fully sure how, but i'm fully sure thats not it. Correct me if you can prove that wrong.

Now. It takes an electrical current, not an electrical charge. That is to say, its figuratively no different than running the circut current through a wire. You of all people should know this.

So not only does it take no energy but only a current, you actually want to AVOID forming water in the engine - this is not the principle reaction.

You're getting energy when you burn the fuel (in this case, oxygenated hydrogen) in the form of pressure and heat as a result of a chemical reaction. What you have left are exhaust fumes, which are ejected (or in the case of a six-stroke engine, reused and ejected, but i'm not clear on how those work).


Allow me to clarify. It takes no energy to seperate oxygen from hydrogen, only an electrical current. You then burn the mixture to gain energy from the fuel from a chemical reaction (Burning is the chemical reaction). The byproducts are then flushed out of the system.

This does provide an issue. I don't know how covalent bonds work. I'm starting to think that they mix on contact, which means that all hydrogen internal-combustion engines would have to be HEMIs* and they would have to oxygenate and, just as soon, incinerate in the piston.


*People generally accept a HEMI as being a really big, heavy engine. It is not. Hemi is short for "Hemispherical". Its simply a much better machining of the cylinder head so that, instead of any number of strange configurations, it is basically like half of a ball with one or even two sparkplugs inside. The result is better mixture, better and cleaner fuel consumption, and therefore more power. However, because its not common practice, only really large, powerful engines typically recieve this modification to increase their power.

[microfarad]

Points are considered paragraphs...

In response to your first point:
www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem99/chem99448.htm

If you burn hydrogen (H2) in the presence of oxygen (O2), the reaction would
follow: 2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O

In response to point number 2:
I believe it is the potential between the anode and cathode which causes the splitting, but it is impossible to have this potential without passing a current through the water. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't affect my argument either way in any case.

Point #3
Current passing through has a voltage (the driving force, the potential) and an amperage (the actual measurement of the current, or, in layman's terms "the amount of electricity flowing through"). The current and voltage thus form power, and power over time is energy. So yes, in electrolysis you DO expend energy

Point #4

You're getting energy when you burn the fuel (in this case, oxygenated hydrogen) in the form of pressure and heat as a result of a chemical reaction. What you have left are exhaust fumes, which are ejected (or in the case of a six-stroke engine, reused and ejected, but i'm not clear on how those work).

All of this is true, but the fumes are water vapor (steam).

Point #5
It most certainly DOES take energy to split the water. I have clearly explained this in my origional text, and a response in this post. If you still don't believe me try electrolysis with a battery and watch the voltage of your battery. You will expend the chemical energy in the battery while splitting your water.

Point #6
I don't think this is an argument... Please tell me if it is...

[FoxtrotZero]

Aug 12, 2010 4:00:52 GMT microfarad said:

Points are considered paragraphs...

In response to your first point:
www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem99/chem99448.htm

If you burn hydrogen (H2) in the presence of oxygen (O2), the reaction would
follow: 2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O

In response to point number 2:
I believe it is the potential between the anode and cathode which causes the splitting, but it is impossible to have this potential without passing a current through the water. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't affect my argument either way in any case.

Its possible I misread what you said, but it seems not irrelevant now.

But wait... 2(HO) is hydrogen peroxide...

You clearly have something confused.

If you have the hydrogen and the oxygen, they will automatically (because its easier) form into molecules of H2 and O2. They will no longer bond to each other. The water issue is solved. More about this as we continue.

Point #3
Current passing through has a voltage (the driving force, the potential) and an amperage (the actual measurement of the current, or, in layman's terms "the amount of electricity flowing through"). The current and voltage thus form power, and power over time is energy. So yes, in electrolysis you DO expend energy

This is true, and I understand this (though not in depth). Nonetheless, this point is inert.

[quoute]Point #4

You're getting energy when you burn the fuel (in this case, oxygenated hydrogen) in the form of pressure and heat as a result of a chemical reaction. What you have left are exhaust fumes, which are ejected (or in the case of a six-stroke engine, reused and ejected, but i'm not clear on how those work).

All of this is true, but the fumes are water vapor (steam).

First of all, I was saying if you burned it without mixing it. if it did mix, you would have nothing but cold water. Your oxygenated fuel would become water, and because theres no fuel to burn and input energy into the water for it to become steam, you just have water in your engine.

However, because of my above lapse in thought (and here I was thinking I retained my Science class), you are not pumping in H and O which would turn into water, but you are instead pumping in H2 and O2 (which is Hydrogen and Oxygen in their most common states, and as such the two will not bond with eachother).

So now you simply have oxygenated hydrogen with no danger of it becoming water and, thereby, water vapor. Combusting them will not change this - the oxygenated fuel will be consumed and act similar to oxygenated gasoline.

Point #5
It most certainly DOES take energy to split the water. I have clearly explained this in my origional text, and a response in this post. If you still don't believe me try electrolysis with a battery and watch the voltage of your battery. You will expend the chemical energy in the battery while splitting your water.

I believe you on this matter, but its hardly a hinderance to the operation of a hydrogen engine.

Point #6
I don't think this is an argument... Please tell me if it is...

It was merely an explanation.


The fact is simple; the technology for a hydrogen engine exists. But nobody has seriously attempted it, mainly because hydrogen fuels are being pinned down by the oil industry and, of course, the major infrastructure changes that would need to take place.

If hydrogen fuels were implemented, they would likely first show up in small towncars. Owners would have a unit that connects to their home's electricity and water supplies, and will connect to their vehicle and fill pressurized fuel tanks (with the proper mixture of hydrogen to oxygen - any excess can be safely vented from the machine if proper ventilation is present) and, as a matter of design convenience, charge the cars battery.

As these cars gain popularity, these fuels will likely become available at most refueling stations, and its downhill from there as they begin to phase out petroleum fuels.

[microfarad]

Fox my man... You are a very confused little lad...

But wait... 2(HO) is hydrogen peroxide...

It says 2H2O
Meaning 2H₂O
That is two molecules of water
That balances the chemical equation...

First of all, I was saying if you burned it without mixing it. if it did mix, you would have nothing but cold water. Your oxygenated fuel would become water, and because theres no fuel to burn and input energy into the water for it to become steam, you just have water in your engine.

However, because of my above lapse in thought (and here I was thinking I retained my Science class), you are not pumping in H and O which would turn into water, but you are instead pumping in H2 and O2 (which is Hydrogen and Oxygen in their most common states, and as such the two will not bond with eachother).

So now you simply have oxygenated hydrogen with no danger of it becoming water and, thereby, water vapor. Combusting them will not change this - the oxygenated fuel will be consumed and act similar to oxygenated gasoline.

JESUS CHRIST!
Look... Two H₂ molecules and one O₂ molecule combine to form water. The reaction releases a lot of energy, primarily in heat. The water is very hot. Thus it is steam...
It does behave like gasoline. But instead of CO₂ and crap like that, you get H₂O

Point #5
It most certainly DOES take energy to split the water. I have clearly explained this in my origional text, and a response in this post. If you still don't believe me try electrolysis with a battery and watch the voltage of your battery. You will expend the chemical energy in the battery while splitting your water.

I believe you on this matter, but its hardly a hinderance to the operation of a hydrogen engine.

It is a hindrance, as now my argument that you would produce no more energy than it would take to run the engine, in an ideal world. And friction and other inefficiencies are not taken into account in an ideal world, as I explain in the original text.

If hydrogen fuels were implemented, they would likely first show up in small towncars. Owners would have a unit that connects to their home's electricity and water supplies, and will connect to their vehicle and fill pressurized fuel tanks (with the proper mixture of hydrogen to oxygen - any excess can be safely vented from the machine if proper ventilation is present) and, as a matter of design convenience, charge the cars battery.

As these cars gain popularity, these fuels will likely become available at most refueling stations, and its downhill from there as they begin to phase out petroleum fuels.

Now you're talking sense. You can't run a car on water, but it will run on hydrogen! I don't recommend storing the two together though, since I believe it would be subject to violent spontaneous combustion...

[FoxtrotZero]

Aug 12, 2010 4:29:13 GMT microfarad said:

Fox my man... You are a very confused little lad...

But wait... 2(HO) is hydrogen peroxide...

It says 2H2O
Meaning 2H₂O
That is two molecules of water
That balances the chemical equation...

In the example '2(HO)', all molecules inside the parenthesis are multiplied by two. The result of this is H2O2. Hydrogen Peroxide.

JESUS CHRIST!
Look... Two H₂ molecules and one O₂ molecule combine to form water. The reaction releases a lot of energy, primarily in heat. The water is very hot. Thus it is steam...
It does behave like gasoline. But instead of CO₂ and crap like that, you get H₂O

Are you fucking kidding me?

There is no such thing as an H2 molecule. H2 is two Hydrogen molecules bonded to each other. Hydrogen and Oxygen both do this, and are commonly found in this state.

H2O is Two hydrogen Molecules and One Oxygen molecule bonded together. Not H4O2. H2O.

I believe you on this matter, but its hardly a hinderance to the operation of a hydrogen engine.

It is a hindrance, as now my argument that you would produce no more energy than it would take to run the engine, in an ideal world. And friction and other inefficiencies are not taken into account in an ideal world, as I explain in the original text.

This is the part I think you had me confused about.
The problem you are having is thus:

THE ENERGY YOU RECIEVE FROM BURNING THE MOLECULES IS NOT THE SAME AS THE ENERGY REQUIRED TO BREAK THE BOND BETWEEN THE MOLECULES.

When you burn the molecules, they do NOT form a chemical compound! You are releasing energy via a CHEMICAL REACTION.

Furthermore, you're forgetting how the fuel is used. In the engine, it is the combustion of the compressed fuel that is converted into kinetic energy.

So your arguement doesn't matter. If you put in the fuel (water) which contains 'X' energy. You use 'Y' energy to break the water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. The fuel is burned to produce 'Z' energy in the engine.

'Z' energy is transfered both to the Generator (actually an alternator, which is an ass-backwards automobile generator) to produce 'Y' energy and the remaining 'R' energy is transfered to the drive system to propel the vehicle.

So. Z = Y+R.
IF THE ENERGY YOU RECIEVED FROM USING THE FUEL WAS EXACTLY EQUIVALENT TO THE POTENTIAL ENERGY OF THE FUEL, YOU WOULD HAVE A PERFECTLY EFFICENT ENGINE. Nothing would go to waste.

THINGS DO NOT WORK THIS WAY. I'm only using caps because i'm too lazy to bold. You are, in fact, not going to recieve the full potential of the fuel. But the goal was accomplished - the energy present in the fuel was applied to the movement of the vehicle.


I don't know where along this line you're getting confused, but the physics and the units all check out. Your point has been rendered invalid.


If hydrogen fuels were implemented, they would likely first show up in small towncars. Owners would have a unit that connects to their home's electricity and water supplies, and will connect to their vehicle and fill pressurized fuel tanks (with the proper mixture of hydrogen to oxygen - any excess can be safely vented from the machine if proper ventilation is present) and, as a matter of design convenience, charge the cars battery.

As these cars gain popularity, these fuels will likely become available at most refueling stations, and its downhill from there as they begin to phase out petroleum fuels.[/quote]
Now you're talking sense. You can't run a car on water, but it will run on hydrogen! I don't recommend storing the two together though, since I believe it would be subject to violent spontaneous combustion...

[microfarad]

In the example '2(HO)', all molecules inside the parenthesis are multiplied by two. The result of this is H2O2. Hydrogen Peroxide.

That is not at all what I posted
I posted this

If you burn hydrogen (H2) in the presence of oxygen (O2), the reaction would
follow: 2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O

There is no such thing as an H2 molecule. H2 is two Hydrogen molecules bonded to each other. Hydrogen and Oxygen both do this, and are commonly found in this state.

H2O is Two hydrogen Molecules and One Oxygen molecule bonded together. Not H4O2. H2O.

Yes... H₂ Is two hydrogens bonded together... That is a molecule... There is such a thing and you were talking about it...
Yes... Hydrogen and oxygen both love doing this...
No... I was not talking about H₄O₂ I was talking about TWO SEPARATE H₂O molecules... Please read my responses more carefully.

THE ENERGY YOU RECIEVE FROM BURNING THE MOLECULES IS NOT THE SAME AS THE ENERGY REQUIRED TO BREAK THE BOND BETWEEN THE MOLECULES.

Actually it is. It's like pulling two magnets apart. You can get as much energy as you expended pulling them apart (in an ideal world).

When you burn the molecules, they do NOT form a chemical compound! You are releasing energy via a CHEMICAL REACTION.

Reactions involve creating new compounds. In this case we burn H2 and O2 together to make water
2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O
Two hydrogen molecules in (hydrogen molecule = 2 hydrogens stuck together) and one oxygen molecule in (oxygen molecule = 2 oxygens stuck together) = two water molecules come out of the reaction...

Furthermore, you're forgetting how the fuel is used. In the engine, it is the combustion of the compressed fuel that is converted into kinetic energy.

I never contradicted this principle.

So your arguement doesn't matter. If you put in the fuel (water) which contains 'X' energy. You use 'Y' energy to break the water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. The fuel is burned to produce 'Z' energy in the engine.

'Z' energy is transfered both to the Generator (actually an alternator, which is an ass-backwards automobile generator) to produce 'Y' energy and the remaining 'R' energy is transfered to the drive system to propel the vehicle.

So. Z = Y+R.
IF THE ENERGY YOU RECIEVED FROM USING THE FUEL WAS EXACTLY EQUIVALENT TO THE POTENTIAL ENERGY OF THE FUEL, YOU WOULD HAVE A PERFECTLY EFFICENT ENGINE. Nothing would go to waste.

THINGS DO NOT WORK THIS WAY. I'm only using caps because i'm too lazy to bold. You are, in fact, not going to recieve the full potential of the fuel. But the goal was accomplished - the energy present in the fuel was applied to the movement of the vehicle.

But, as I state, Y = Z
You use as much energy in electrolysis as you obtain from combustion (in an ideal world).
Z = Y + R
Z = Z + R
0 = R
R = 0
And it doesn't matter what X is!
But really, X is 0 since water has no chemical potential. Hydrogen and oxygen gas mixed together do though... But that is not water...

If hydrogen fuels were implemented, they would likely first show up in small towncars. Owners would have a unit that connects to their home's electricity and water supplies, and will connect to their vehicle and fill pressurized fuel tanks (with the proper mixture of hydrogen to oxygen - any excess can be safely vented from the machine if proper ventilation is present) and, as a matter of design convenience, charge the cars battery.

As these cars gain popularity, these fuels will likely become available at most refueling stations, and its downhill from there as they begin to phase out petroleum fuels.

This is separate, and the physics on this do check out.
You are using energy from the power grid to indirectly power your car. The electricity splits the water, gases are compressed, compressed gases go into your car, your car burns compressed gases. Your car moves. All fine and well. You can't just dump water in a car and make it run though. These are two separate ideas... One works, the other doesn't.

[FoxtrotZero]

You've worn me out.

I'm not going to debate scientific principles there. You cannot get water from burning hydrogen and oxygen.

And Y does not equal Z. The energy you can get from burning a molecule is not the same as energy required to pull them away from each other. Where you got this is beyond me.

Anyone else who wants to argue with you can be my guest. But I am closing this tab and I will not visit this thread again.

The science is there, but you clearly know nothing of it.

[Vertigo]

As far as I'm concerned, burning hydrogen and oxygen together yields 2H2O, which is dihydrate, ergo, water.

[disabled]

And I too have to agree with microfarad. Sorry fox, but youre damn wrong about everything you wrote.

• H2 and O2 compusts to water. (At least at a very high percentage.)
  
• You get the same amount of energy in combusting H2 with O2 as you invested in splitting them.
  
• You get very inefficient thermal energy and wasted the best energy form electricity. So you will loose a lot of energy in form of heat you can't use.
  
• Water (H20) based engines don't work!
  
• If you think otherwise, please visit a chemistry teacher of your choice.
  

[Vertigo]

Fox, MF is speaking of an electrolytic cell, which is renedered useless for cars since the energy outputted by the hydrogen's oxidation is equal to the energy used to split the water.

On a different note, there are cars that use water as a power source, but those cars also need some other form of energy, such as solar power. Water split, hydrogen burns +energy from other power source = car moving>energy used for electrolysis, but < then the total energy used.

..Gees, that was messy.

[disabled]

Water cannot be used as a power source. If you use solar energy to split the water, you have an energy source called hydrogen, but you cannot get more energy from the hydrogen then you put into the separation of the water.
There is no car running on water. There are cars running on hydrogen, that is a very different thing. You can use solar energy like from the desert, split water there and transport the hydrogen to your car and use it like normal fuel, different engine and storage requirements, but basically the same. Thats a whole different thing then using water as an energy source, because it isn't and it won't work in any way... unless basic physics magically changes.

[microfarad]

Thanks guys. This really is quite a sad set of circumstances. Somehow, Fox has been mislead to believe that already combined molecules are perfectly inert, unless you split them, and that hydrogen will burn with oxygen without combining with it. He also believes that you can obtain more energy from burning hydrogen than you expend in electrolysis. Our public school systems routinely create misconceptions like these in their pitiful attempts to teach physics, biology, and chemistry. And, on top of it all, I drove Fox to a ragequit. We'll get Veers clear this up once and for all.

[ganondorfchampin]

It's a similar deal with ethanol. It takes more energy to make ethanol then it would take to run an electric car. However you don't need a battery to provide energy for ethanol to work. For both water cars and ethanol cars the deal is trying to find new ways to make explosions to work engines.

[microfarad]

Call them hydrogen cars. Water cars don't work. Water isn't a fuel, and it can't be. Hydrogen is a fuel, and is commonly used in rockets! Anyways, I like the idea of local/regional ethanol production, especially is rural areas. I bet we make enough organic waste (blackberries we cut out, fallen trees, removed plants, trimming/pruning) to power our car... The island I live on could have a small ethanol factory. You could trade in your yard waste for ethanol. A truck could come by, much like a dump truck. They would weigh your waste and then take it to the ethanol plant. In return, you could either redeem this as ethanol or money. People could also buy ethanol from the plant, instead of trading waste for fuel. I bet it would work pretty darn well... We just need to find/develop micro organisms that will do exactly what we want under the correct conditions.

[~Memzak~]

Call them hydrogen cars. Water cars don't work.

I agree with this. I just want it implemented soon... petrol is costing too much... >:C

The next step could be compressed air cars. (which have been made and has the output of cool air) This would be useful and green if with every car you got 4 tanks (2 for car, 2 for refilling/backup) and a solor + wind + hand (with a bicycle attached) powered air compressor. But alas, this probably won't catch on any time soon...

[microfarad]

I believe we need to reconsider our transportation system. We could use primarily public transport for urban and dense suburban regions. People could use small personal vehicles, with a relatively low maximum speed for short trips and areas not covered by public transport. If small personal vehicles were capped off at 35mph we could lower the driving age by a couple years. This system would be efficient for mass transport, and personal transport. Personally, I like the air car idea just because it is neat, but I don't think it's very practical...

[Cray]

Well maby it is gravity they need using the same blade us the water comintg down to turn the turbine and the other side to push it back up or make it part of a regular plant and all the sean from the cooland (water) could make an extra turbine spin.

[Qwerty]

Of course water cars work! Ever connected a wind-up car to a water-wheel?

...Okay, fine.