Water fuel.
- Thread starter DanTMWTMP
- Start date
What there to be filled in on? Obviously its a hoax. Water is so abundant because it is a very low energy substance, it is a byproduct of combustion, so it is pretty much the exact opposite of a "fuel". Any attempt to split water into its component hydrogen and oxygen atoms, and then recombine them HAS to result in a net loss of energy by the laws of thermodynamics. So, extracting hydrogen from water is an energy loser. As you are probably aware, alot is made of a so called "hydrogen economy" where hydrogen is the "fuel" used in transportation. However, hydrogen is simply an energy storage/conversion mechanism, not an actual source of energy. The energy still has to be provided by a nuclear plant, wind farm, etc... Unfortunately many people have heard hydrogen described as a replacement for gasoline, and therefore are of the notion that it is a source of energy. Clever con artists work of this misinformed idea by claiming to have found some novel solution to produce hydrogen from water that will somehow revolutionize the energy industry. They try to con people into buying their stock, and they get rich in the processes. Then when their "companies" go belly-up in a few years the investors lose all their money and the con artist is rich. Its the whole "if it sounds to good to be true it probably is". Also, it is very good advice to NEVER invest in a company if you do not understand what exactly it is they actually do to make money.
Theoretically, it could be done by transforming water into something, if energy is the result of the transformation.
As an example, you can transform gasoline and oxygen into CO2 and H2O. As the reaction is accompanied by a great quantity of heat, that heat (thermal energy) can be converted into work.
However, H2O is mostly stable. You could use other substances which, combined with water, generate energy (like pure sodium) - you would end up with heat and hydrogen (and some NaOH). This would be an engine with metallic sodium, now water.
What the water engine seems to be all about, is impossible by the first (and second) thermodynamic laws (assuming the byproduct of the engine would be water in other form).
However, water is very useful as a complement in some engines (as it will create a lot of gas, while keeping the temperature of the hot part under control). The B52 planes have water injection for their engines - used during takeoff. Water injection could be used in other engines too
As an example, you can transform gasoline and oxygen into CO2 and H2O. As the reaction is accompanied by a great quantity of heat, that heat (thermal energy) can be converted into work.
However, H2O is mostly stable. You could use other substances which, combined with water, generate energy (like pure sodium) - you would end up with heat and hydrogen (and some NaOH). This would be an engine with metallic sodium, now water.
What the water engine seems to be all about, is impossible by the first (and second) thermodynamic laws (assuming the byproduct of the engine would be water in other form).
However, water is very useful as a complement in some engines (as it will create a lot of gas, while keeping the temperature of the hot part under control). The B52 planes have water injection for their engines - used during takeoff. Water injection could be used in other engines too
What BrownTown said. The simplest way to look at it is that hydrogen can be treated as stored energy similar to a battery. Thermodynamics tells us that it takes more energy to make a battery than you can ever get out of it.
If we increased our nuclear power output dramatically, we could potentially move to hydrogen-driven vehicles rather than gasoline-driven vehicles, since the conversion of hydrogen and oxygen to water can be achieved at ~45% efficiency (assuming 50% efficiency in electrolysis and 90% efficiency in the fuel cell) with no greenhouse gas byproducts, whereas typical gasoline engines run around 13% efficiency. The result would be a large increase in efficiency and a decrease (really, a near-complete elimination) in potentially harmful gas emissions.
If we increased our nuclear power output dramatically, we could potentially move to hydrogen-driven vehicles rather than gasoline-driven vehicles, since the conversion of hydrogen and oxygen to water can be achieved at ~45% efficiency (assuming 50% efficiency in electrolysis and 90% efficiency in the fuel cell) with no greenhouse gas byproducts, whereas typical gasoline engines run around 13% efficiency. The result would be a large increase in efficiency and a decrease (really, a near-complete elimination) in potentially harmful gas emissions.
Gasoline X -> Cars gasoline Internal combustion engine with 25% efficiency = 75% of X amount of gasoline converted to pollution with no added value to mankind.
Coal X -> Coal power plant of 40% efficiency -> electricity -> Electrolysis of water at 40-60% efficiency -> hydrogen -> Cars hydrogen Internal combustion engine with 25% efficiency = The Salvation of earth an all it's inhabitants through hydrogen (aka COAL) powered cars according to the gospel of GW Bush!!!!
better supplement that previous statement with...
Nuclear/renewable power -> electricity -> electrolysis -> hydrogen fuel cell -> electric car = Teh wins!
if you are gonna use nuclear you would use process heat to separate out the hydrogen, using electrolysis is laughably inefficient.
It's not so simple as to pump the heat in and get hydrogen out. The processes involved are insanely complex, expensive, and not necessarily more efficient than electrolysis. Admittedly, it's been a while since I reviewed available processes for this kind of thing, but electrolysis isn't that bad of an option, especially since it can be carried out by the fuel cell itself without the need for additional equipment.
there really isn't an efficiency problem though because the energy used is the waste heat from he reactor. Electrolysis uses the energy that could otherwise be used for electricity. Also, from what I had seen it didn't seem to complex, with the right catalyst, and 900 degrees C.
if you could split the H20 and bring them back together to create a combustion strong enough in cycles, you will have something running in result.
the question is, how much will you have to refill 'till your next empty tank... every mile?
the question is, how much will you have to refill 'till your next empty tank... every mile?
I liked the sound of those supercapacitors for storing energy, like 10 times the storage/weight of batteries.
Electric cars here we come wooooo
Electric cars here we come wooooo
mmm, I'm going to cut him some slack and read his post differently.
I believe he was speaking in the context of splitting H20 by leveraging the wasted heat energy of reactors as mentioned in the posts before his.
I might be acting to generously though
Actually... sorry to burst your bubble, but they have 1/10 the storage/weight of batteries - not nearly as dense. They can be charged more quickly, though, provided you can supply the current.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor
Yes that is correct.
I'm just saying that 25% of that pollution gives an "added value" to mankind by propelling him down the street to McDonalds
The rest of the pollution is wasted.The key is of course to cut the pollution off at the source (as others have mentioned). Fusion power plants, or fission ones if you put the waste somewhere safe (hey, at least its not a gas floating off into the atmosphere. I'm sure we could find somewhere to put those radioactice chemicals.)
- Jun 10, 2004
- 14,604
- 6,091
- 136
We don't have fusion yet. If we did, energy would become a lot cheaper...
Tokamaks like the ITER might eventually be net-energy producers, but I'm thinking either a radical re-design or a much larger project will be needed to have sustained nuclear fusion. Even ITER is only supposed to output 300-400MW for 500 seconds... at a cost of $10 billion.
I've not heard of a process that allows hydrogen separation using catalysis at 900°C, but I'd love to see info on it if you have it. Electrolysis uses electricity that we could be pumping to peoples' houses to create what amounts to a hydrogen battery with some net loss in efficiency. Essentially, it allows us to make electricity portable, with the caveat that existing fuel cells that recombine oxygen and hydrogen are very sensitive to common atmospheric gases and have a very limited current density that they can achieve. It's been about 3 years since I did anything with them, but Nafion (which was used pretty much exclusively for hydrogen fuel cells at the time) is easily poisoned by CO. I know several potential replacement catalysts were in the works, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of them are now available.
Googer
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 12,576
- 7
- 81
Here is the company in question.
http://hytechapps.com/
And a video is posted on his site. He does sell working units to construction workers and his office is about a half an hour from me, prehaps I can take a visit with a video camera to prove it to all of you?
http://hytechapps.com/aquygen/generator
http://hytechapps.com/aquygen/hhos <--- For the car (verified by Fox news- separate video)
http://hytechapps.com/aquygen/propane
From their website:
http://hytechapps.com/
And a video is posted on his site. He does sell working units to construction workers and his office is about a half an hour from me, prehaps I can take a visit with a video camera to prove it to all of you?
http://hytechapps.com/aquygen/generator
http://hytechapps.com/aquygen/hhos <--- For the car (verified by Fox news- separate video)
http://hytechapps.com/aquygen/propane
From their website:
Googer
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 12,576
- 7
- 81
Googer
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 12,576
- 7
- 81
Mail or Telephone
Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc.
4707 140th Avenue North, Suite 116
Clearwater, Florida 33762
Phone:
1-727-531-5979
Fax:
1-727-531-3670
Denny Klein
President
Peter Dominici
Vice President of Finance & Information
http://hytechapps.com/company/contact
You can apply for a lease on an Aquygen machine.
http://hytechapps.com/get_aquygen
Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc.
4707 140th Avenue North, Suite 116
Clearwater, Florida 33762
Phone:
1-727-531-5979
Fax:
1-727-531-3670
Denny Klein
President
Peter Dominici
Vice President of Finance & Information
http://hytechapps.com/company/contact
You can apply for a lease on an Aquygen machine.
http://hytechapps.com/get_aquygen
I don't think that there's any doubt that the technology exists. There's nothing clever about building an electrolyser to produce H2 & O2. There is a lot of cleverness in doing it efficiently, cheaply and in a compact form.
The Aquygen generator appears simply to be a H2/O2 mixture generator - again nothing special. This type of equipment has been used for decades for firing oxy-hydrogen torches. We had one of these torches back at high-school 15 years ago for doing fine metalwork/silverwork. The only difference was that the torch I used at school, enriched the H2/O2 mixture with methyl-ethyl ketone.
Oxy-hydrogen torches are old technology - as old, if not older than oxy-acetylene. So why are they so uncommon that noone knows about them. The answer is that they are crap. The combustion of hydrogen produces water vapour - and the water vapour withdraws considerable enthalpy from the flame in its latent heat of vaporization. Additionally, the flame is of very low density. So even though the flame temperature is very high (higher than OxyAc) the cutting/welding performance is terrible because the steam carries all the heat off.
People desperately trying to sell OH torches, show remarkable videos of how the flame is 'cold' but suddenly becomes 'hot' on contact with a material. It's an interesting property, but doesn't make the torch particularly useful. The higher density and low water content of an OA flame makes it far more effective for welding and cutting. Additionally, the high hydrogen content of an OH flame causes serious problems with welds - hydrogen is incorporated into the molten metal and causes serious embrittlement.
Most practical OH torches enrich the gas with MEK (as above) or ethanol/methanol - this adds carbon to the flame which drastically improves the flame density and reduces the heat loss through water vapour. It also reduces the point flame temperature which can be uncontrollably high in pure OH.
--
What about the car?
It's long been recognised that hydrogen is an excellent fuel for ICEs. It burns quickly and cleanly and has a ridiculously high octane rating as well as a very wide range of mixtures at which it will burn. (Unlike gasoline, where a relatively precise mixture is required for decent performance).
However, building a hydrogen ICE is one thing - but hydrogen also benefits gas ICEs. Adding a trace of hydrogen to the air/gas mixture has a number of benefits.
1) The hydrogen increases the speed at which the flame propagates leading to faster and more even ignition of the mixture
2) Hydrogen is a very potent octane booster, allowing more aggressive timings for better performance and fuel economy and/or an engine design with higher compression ratio.
This is a well known property of hydrogen in ICEs. It is under active research by many university groups and all the major car manufacturers.
For one reason or other, most of the researchers are working on deriving the hydrogen from gasoline, rather than water. While I'm not entirely familar with the reasons why - some I've come across include:
1) An electrolysis system needs large quantities of high purity distilled water, as it will be contaminated by tap water
2) Electrolysis systems have traditionally been inefficient, bulky and needed large quantities of precious metals for the electrodes.
3) Direct reformation of gasoline for hydrogen is very efficient - considerably more so, than burning fuel to produce electricity to electrolyse water.
The Aquygen generator appears simply to be a H2/O2 mixture generator - again nothing special. This type of equipment has been used for decades for firing oxy-hydrogen torches. We had one of these torches back at high-school 15 years ago for doing fine metalwork/silverwork. The only difference was that the torch I used at school, enriched the H2/O2 mixture with methyl-ethyl ketone.
Oxy-hydrogen torches are old technology - as old, if not older than oxy-acetylene. So why are they so uncommon that noone knows about them. The answer is that they are crap. The combustion of hydrogen produces water vapour - and the water vapour withdraws considerable enthalpy from the flame in its latent heat of vaporization. Additionally, the flame is of very low density. So even though the flame temperature is very high (higher than OxyAc) the cutting/welding performance is terrible because the steam carries all the heat off.
People desperately trying to sell OH torches, show remarkable videos of how the flame is 'cold' but suddenly becomes 'hot' on contact with a material. It's an interesting property, but doesn't make the torch particularly useful. The higher density and low water content of an OA flame makes it far more effective for welding and cutting. Additionally, the high hydrogen content of an OH flame causes serious problems with welds - hydrogen is incorporated into the molten metal and causes serious embrittlement.
Most practical OH torches enrich the gas with MEK (as above) or ethanol/methanol - this adds carbon to the flame which drastically improves the flame density and reduces the heat loss through water vapour. It also reduces the point flame temperature which can be uncontrollably high in pure OH.
--
What about the car?
It's long been recognised that hydrogen is an excellent fuel for ICEs. It burns quickly and cleanly and has a ridiculously high octane rating as well as a very wide range of mixtures at which it will burn. (Unlike gasoline, where a relatively precise mixture is required for decent performance).
However, building a hydrogen ICE is one thing - but hydrogen also benefits gas ICEs. Adding a trace of hydrogen to the air/gas mixture has a number of benefits.
1) The hydrogen increases the speed at which the flame propagates leading to faster and more even ignition of the mixture
2) Hydrogen is a very potent octane booster, allowing more aggressive timings for better performance and fuel economy and/or an engine design with higher compression ratio.
This is a well known property of hydrogen in ICEs. It is under active research by many university groups and all the major car manufacturers.
For one reason or other, most of the researchers are working on deriving the hydrogen from gasoline, rather than water. While I'm not entirely familar with the reasons why - some I've come across include:
1) An electrolysis system needs large quantities of high purity distilled water, as it will be contaminated by tap water
2) Electrolysis systems have traditionally been inefficient, bulky and needed large quantities of precious metals for the electrodes.
3) Direct reformation of gasoline for hydrogen is very efficient - considerably more so, than burning fuel to produce electricity to electrolyse water.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter