i want to run a car only on water is it possible.


i want to run a car only on water is it possible.i am thinking about solar panels to generate hydrogen from water and then use it in an internal combustion engine.Is it feasible please suggest me?

sort by: active | newest | oldest
Its possible, but not cost-effective, because you can't get enough hydrogen into a tank with practical methods, and you can't afford enough solar panels to crack water into Hydrogen and Oxygen.

Steve
HVahead5 years ago
Yes it is entirely possible!!! I have no clue why everyone is saying its not... there is a small town police station that has converted all of there (six) cars to use water as an alternate fuel source due to low gas budget. While it is not likely that you would have time nor money to build an efficient enough HHO generator *** (hho is browns gas, you dont use just the hydrogen, you use both the hydrogen AND oxygen produced as a mixture, as it will not turn into water without ignition, and that is just what happens in the combustion stage leaving the emissions water vapor(and minute amount of gasses if your running it as a hybrid))*** to run your car 100% on HHO, you could easily build a system that will supplement your current fuel source gaining anywhere from 20-300% increase on mileage.you can build a system for anywhere around $50 and up.
And how would using your battery be breaking ANY laws of physics. each average HHO cell uses about 3 amps. so what do you do to get back that energy...DONT USE THE RADIO!!! its not rocket science guys.I encourage you to do the right thing and continue trying to saving our planet (and your wallet ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucKuyOAt3D0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUgUF5M3FTI&feature=related
rickharris6 years ago
Lets assume you have a 1 litre engine - your engine will suck in 1 litre of fuel and O2 per 4 revolutions (assuming it is a 4 stroke engine)

So at respectable running speed of 4000 RPM it is sucking in 1000 litres of fuel/air per min or 16 liters per second. 16 litres is approx 4.2 gallons of fuel/air PER SECOND.

You would need to generate hydrogen in the proportions of 2 : 1 (H20) so twice as much H is needed per unit of O. IF generating this much Hydrogen were easy, or even possible we would ALL be driving cars fuelled with water by now. Sorry No it isn't possible. (at present.


Yessss, but what do you actually need for a stoichometric burn ? AFAIR its something like 30:1. 16 litres of fuel/air, at 30:1 is only 0.5 litrers of hydrogen per second or 1800 litres per hour.

That is assuming its not pressurised at the inlet manifold, but inlet pressure in modern engines is more than 1bAR.
I guess correct - Still a LOT of hydrogen to generate in real time. Steam is still a better bet.
Real time ? I was assuming he'd have the wit to do this off-line !
sanchayanroy (author)  steveastrouk6 years ago
either i can use real time or off line
but plz tell me upto how much extent it is possible in both the cases
currently i am using 175 cc engine.
Question not specific.
> Lets assume you have a 1 litre engine - your engine will suck in 1 litre of fuel and O2 per 4 revolutions (assuming it is a 4 stroke engine)
. Shouldn't that be "per 2 revolutions"?
Suck - Squeeze- Bang - Blow I make that 1 intake per 4 revs??
. That's four strokes/cycles. Two strokes per revolution. Suck = down, Squeeze = up, Bang = down, Blow=up: two revolutions.
intake is only 1 per 4 revs then?
. Intake (or any of the other three strokes or cycles) is once per two revolutions. Intake = 0-180degrees. Compression = 180-360. Power = 360-540. Exhaust = 540-720. Then back to Intake.
. Each stroke (or cycle) is only one-half revolution. A 4-stroke|cycle engine fires every other revolution. A 2-stroke|cycle engine fires every revolution.
Your right! Thanks for the correction. Still a lot of H needed
Z.Backas6 years ago
I like the idea of a "gravity powered" car with water (or anything else, really), as the counterweight. The tank would sit high in a lightweight but stable car frame and pulleys connected to the tank would drive the transmission and wheels. As the tank descended, it would be held from just dropping by the tension the rope has form the wheels on the road. You could choose to have a gearbox or not, if you were unhappy with accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2.
Okay, this is a ridiculous an unrealistic design for actual use, but I'd love to see it done!
Problem is, you can only hoist a limited amount of mass, and once it drops you get no more energy out of it. Pumped-water is one way of _storing_ energy -- some major electric companies use it as a way to store power produced off-peak for use on-peak, by filling reservoirs overnight and using them to run generators during the day -- but the power has to come from somewhere else.
That's exactly where the idea came from!
I think if the water maybe slowly leaked out at the end, and you just filled it up with at a gas pump but with water in it, it would work, for a few feet at least.
Or to get more technical, you could go the route of the electric companies and just add turbines that the water drives with it's GPE.
Not like any of this is feasible, with water at least.
Tungsten weights?
Increase the weights, and you also increase the mass that has to be moved as well as the friction resisting that motion. I don't think there's any way to make this practical for more than those hypothetical "few feet".

High-speed flywheels, in vacuum containers, were being considered as an energy storage mechanism for a while. Those aren't efficient enough either.
Well if we're talking hypothetical here, if the weight was on a pulley and the wheels were gears and the track was like a chain, you could have infinite traction basically, and your only limit would be how high you could get the weight.
you could translate a 500 pound weight held 3 or 4 feet in the air into maybe a quarter mile if you geared it up.
And first time the vehicle moves, it falls over.

In theory, practice and theory are the same. But in practice...
kelseymh6 years ago
No. That isn't feasible, because the efficiency is too low. You would need to make the car out of something like paper or cardboard, and not have any driver or passenger adding weight.

To run a car on water, you probably want a steam engine.
rickharris6 years ago
HOWEVER! It is quite possible to run your car on water - To get rid of the heavy gear box and with a bit of effort and ingenuity meet the efficiency of current internal combustion engines + burn any cheap fuel you like.

http://www.steamcar.co.uk/lsr_history.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_car
Maybe a sterling-cycle engine, generating power for batteries/electric motors, might be suitable for a real vehicle?

Would work - Advantage you can use any fuel you like
orksecurity6 years ago
More efficient to use the solar panels to charge batteries to drive an electric car. And even then, it's going to take a LOT of charging to get enough energy to travel.

If it was that easy, it would already have been done.
Dr. Pepper6 years ago
Keep your combustion engine in the car and run it off the seawater in the Gulf of Mexico.
+1 Pretty funny.
Thanks.
rickharris6 years ago
Lets assume you have a 1 litre engine - your engine will suck in 1 litre of fuel and O2 per 4 revolutions (assuming it is a 4 stroke engine)

So at respectable running speed of 4000 RPM it is sucking in 1000 litres of fuel/air per min or 16 liters per second. 16 litres is approx 4.2 gallons of fuel/air PER SECOND.

You would need to generate hydrogen in the proportions of 2 : 1 (H20) so twice as much H is needed per unit of O. IF generating this much Hydrogen were easy, or even possible we would ALL be driving cars fuelled with water by now. Sorry No it isn't possible. (at present.