Friends,
I have an Idea budding in my head to run engines on water as fuel.
Today, I will share my thoughts with you and provide you a good clue of what could be the solution of GAS alternative.
Friends, before starting with the instructable I want to make it clear that I haven't build anything with this idea as of now. So, I am not completely sure how far it is safe and possible.
With this in mind lets start the 'project ENVIRONMENT'.....
I TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY OF HARM CAUSED DUE TO THIS INSTRUCTABLE.
P.S.: Those who are looking for the prototype, this instructable will not help you.
I will like to thank all those whose instructables I have used here.
I have an Idea budding in my head to run engines on water as fuel.
Today, I will share my thoughts with you and provide you a good clue of what could be the solution of GAS alternative.
Friends, before starting with the instructable I want to make it clear that I haven't build anything with this idea as of now. So, I am not completely sure how far it is safe and possible.
With this in mind lets start the 'project ENVIRONMENT'.....
I TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY OF HARM CAUSED DUE TO THIS INSTRUCTABLE.
P.S.: Those who are looking for the prototype, this instructable will not help you.
I will like to thank all those whose instructables I have used here.
Remove these ads by
Signing UpStep 1: Basic Concept
The concept is to generate hydrogen from water through electrolysis and use it to power the usual petrol engine.
Electrolysis of water:
Go to my instructable on 'HHO generator' for more details.
http://www.instructables.com/id/HHO-generator/
Electrolysis of water:
Go to my instructable on 'HHO generator' for more details.
http://www.instructables.com/id/HHO-generator/
Visit Our Store »
Go Pro Today »
Also, please read past the first sentence in my initial post. This is a perfectly fine method to power an engine, but will not provide the closed energy loop the author is proposing it does. It would prove to be a fine hybrid system provided that the "DC Voltage Supply" step is getting additional power from another source, such as solar panels. But, at that point, you might as well cut out all the horrible efficiency losses and just use electric motors.
This kind of project has been popping up for decades, and for clear reasons none have ever worked. And none of those reasons have been because of the greed of energy companies.
I smell bull... That's not true. You might be talking about hybrid cars, but no car manufactory is going to fit brown's gas devices to their cars.
There is no way at all that any car using H2 and O2 as "additive" is going to run more efficient. Take a normal alternator on a diesel with 160HP: 2.5kW output max. we're not talking of 170kW. all that happens, if you feed your modern car hydrogen is that the ECU gets a serious headache and tells you to see your friendly mechanic.
but whatever, i'm fighting against windmills...
117kw
we have to use that sort of power to get the needed hydrogen output from the electrolysis process, now lets jump to car performance
normal family car puts from around 110kw-210kw, now obviously the cars below 117kw or more are very well incapable of putting out the power to generate that sorta of power. which leaves anything above 117 BUT.... that's not it, if your using 117kw +- to generate the power source for the electrolysis process you've got 0kw spare to put under the wheels, and may i add most engines aren't designed to work anything about 25% load @ 100% of the time which leaves to this calculation
117(+-)x4
=468kw
you will need a engine with that sort of output to be able to have a constant output of 117kw 100% duty cycle, but that's not it, that engine would need 4x as much hydrogen as the one previous the 117kw so it leaves me to say
there is no motor or electrolysis system that efficient to power its self, its almost like getting a generator to generate power to turn a motor which turns its generator to turns it power source (the motor)
so there for until we can make things more efficient this IS not going to happen
which leaves me saying most hybrid cars work from multiple power sources (electric and gas)
if there is anything wrong in the above statement i'de love to be corrected, these are my own theoretical hypothesis
being corrected means your being taught, YAY than i learn
As this is a stoichimetric mixture, it will burn 'clean' without use of highly 'Nitrogenated' air and thus create not NOX's.
I agree that this doesn't solve the problem of the need for intense energy to create the Brown's Gas, or H2 alone. This issue suggests that the solution is not to try to generate the fuel gas, whatever it is, in the vehicle, but to use solar and/or wind energy over as near as possible a continuous time period at home, store it in cylinders, and 'refuel' the vehicle overnight.
Also, before some of you experts trash these thoughts of a novice, remember that I admit my inexperience and only pose the questions in order to learn.
The nuclear reaction modification produces about 206 cal/mol excess heat from doped water added to the 103 cal/mol of heat from oil. This expands fractions of dissociation of the eliments of doped water in oil to drive the reaction thrust engine. Radiation is neutron emission limited with low level X-Rays and 4He that remain dissolved in sodium hydroxyl solution in a closed loop system. A lead oxide impregnated wool blanket provides ample radiation shielding. Problem is NRC Licensing and Patent Office acceptance based upon current Pier Review of the process. This is a simple engine made of Stainless Steel and using Tilting Pad bearings. throughout. This is not a free energy machine contrary to published claims. However the engine is about 85-90% efficient as a rotary thermal cycle reaction engine and is scalable. Water is indeed an amazing fluid and not always subject to the Coulomb Barrier mechanics given Quantum Ring Dynamics and the "Ball Lightning" Charged Double Shell or Kubleblitz und Zwitterbewegung.
Ne ways, your interest in alternative energies is excellent and much needed in our world. Unfortunately the ideas you present here are somewhat impractical. I do not mean to bash these ideas, but rather guide you with a little scientific thought.
Your idea, as i understand it, is to use batteries (as an on board power source) to supply energy to an electrolysis system that supplies hydrogen to run an internal combustion engine.
The problem i see lies in the chain of energy conversions here. With the proposed design, and assuming standard efficiencies for all processes, you would be lucky to see 20% of the energy supplied to the batteries actually output to move the vehicle. I say this because standard electrolysis is around 50% efficient, meaning that half of the energy supplied to the process is lost to heat. Good batteries are only around 95% efficient. And the internal combustion engine is only around 30% efficient. With all of these losses it results in an overall efficiency of less than 20%. This also doesn't account for the weight of these systems as the batteries and additional electronic equipment on top of the need for a full size IC (internal combustion) engine would make this a VERY heavy car, which only serves to reduce overall efficiency further.
A little food for thought, if batteries are 95% efficient, and brushless motors more than 90% efficient, vehicles made using only these two systems would then be more 85% efficient. We even have the infrastructure already in place.
Why then is the world investing in "hydrogen economies" with features like an all new infrastructure that must be built (and paid for somehow), vehicles that are less energy efficient then petroleum engines (on a grand scale), and further dependence on non-renewable resources (the most efficient way to produce hydrogen is not electrolysis or proton exchange membranes, but rather a process called ethane steam cracking (ethane=natural gas essentially, and is still roughly only 75% efficient)
I apologize to all for the massive post (i have written more than a dozen papers on the subject so i have a lot to say :) )
The second Law of Thermodynamics shows that everything in the universe will run down or ie. go toward an increasing state of disorder (rot, corrode, etc.). When you use energy, it is gone.
Hydrogen atoms are bonded in pairs - diatomic molecules - in nature. They do not occur as single atoms. As soon as there is a separation of Hydrogen from a substance such as HCL, there is an immediate bonding again of the H2. This is its nature.
H2 atoms, when they bond, do not give off energy. The reason they bond is that we know the lowest orbital around a proton will be "stable" if there are 2 electrons in it. Since each H atom has only one proton and one electron, the protons share their electrons and form an H2 molecule. The actual forces within an atom are not yet understood fully. But a theory is that the positive pull of the protons on the electrons is at least part (major, if not all) of what keeps the atoms together into one molecule.
Chemical reactions are one way to split bonds - hence you need to replenish the chemicals once they are used. Electricity is used in electrolysis, hence energy is used.
The amount of energy you get out of a system, because of the second law, is not enough to run the process and make more energy.
This is where people who have never used a Hydrolysis unit take their stand. And then they continue to argue theory.
The problem is that none of the people (I personally have experienced) who argue against this system have any hands-on experience. The Mythbusters DID actually make a show on it - their unit did not work b/c they could not get it to make hardly any Hydrogen at all. They had water and electrodes. I made my unit and, before I put it into my car I put a car battery charger on it to test it. It did not matter how much amperage I put into the unit - I did not get very much hydrogen. When I put Epsom salt - as a catalyst - into the water, the electrodes started fizzing like Alka-Seltzer. I was making a lot of hydrogen.
The Mythbusters did not have anything as a catalyst in their water, hence they did not get a lot of hydrogen. If they would have had a catalyst - they would have seen a lot more hydrogen made. The Hydrogen (and Oxygen from the other electrode) are highly combustible. And, again, people can naysay this all they want to. But until they have had hands on experience, they really have nothing of value to say after they point out that it LOOKS like the system should not make an increase in mileage.
I know it does. I used it. I saved a lot of money. I realized I did not know everything there was to know!
When (If) a naysayer builds one, installs it, (and now with newer cars than I used mine on there also needs be a circuit to fool the car's O2 sensor), and publish their results, they, too, will probably be trying to find out why it works. They will have more than just theory to back up their claims it cannot work not work.
Our scientific laws change constantly based on observation. The problem is that there are a lot of book geniuses out there who "know" something is impossible so why try it. After all, if man were meant to fly, he'd have been born with wings. Also, what goes up must come down - remember to tell that to Voyager I for me OK? :)
The problem isn't "book geniuses who "know" something is impossible so why try it", it's people who throw their textbooks out the window just because they see some pretty bubbles.
You mentioned the second law of thermodynamics but it's a shame you don't understand it. Where do you think the energy you're using for the hydrolysis is coming from?
SNIP
And no, the laws themselves don't change, only our understanding of them does.
SNIP
This is exactly what I have been trying to tell you!
As is the common result of dealing with a situation like this, you have ended up arguing my point back to me.
Your comments ignore the facts (harsh word to deal with when they are not in your corner) that you have only book knowledge without hands on experience.
You are choosing (note that word) to take a position of opposition and have, in so doing, abandoned the very basis of the scientific method. It appears your mind has is made up that "what I know to be true is true no matter what and i do not have to experiment with anything to see if I might be missing something or do not fully understand something."
In the rules of debate, the term ad hominem arises to describe a situation when one of the parties has obviously found they are in error and, therefore, feel cornered. Whether they know it or not (and mostly they do not), they respond with a "rebuttal" which is nothing more than a lashing out at the character of the person with whom they are debating. It is akin to the "cornered animal effect," but on a more sophisticated level.
An ad hominem response is noted by those who deal with counselling, debate, teaching, psychology, etc. as a mental admission that the party issuing the response has found they are not able to refute the other party in a valid manner. Hence the "cornered" party offering the faulty rebuttal now are driven by their emotions and abandon legitimate reasoning/facts.
The result is that the party in question then makes a faulty argument based on the list of following tenements.
An Ad Hominem response is recognized to be based on:
1. making assumptions about the other party's thought processes, mental activity, and motivations;
2. incorrectly assigning words/actions to the other party which were never a part of the other party's stated viewpoint;
and
3. a resort to insulting the character of the other party.
Please note how your last posting steps through this list quite thoroughly (and in the predictable manner of any/all ad hominem responses).
You fulfill step 1 when you stated:
SNIP
You're kidding yourself, about a lot of things ... rather than trying to figure out why you're getting the results ... you think ...."
SNIP
You statement implies you are able to tell what my thinking is and the motivations behind my thoughts. Rather than read what I have stated my motivations and thoughts are, the quotation above shows appears to say you know what my thinking processes are.
Step 2 -- you post also contains the following:
SNIP
"you think the laws should be changed. "
SNIP
Here you have assigned a concept/statement to me which I never made. The words recorded in the my postings show I am/ was trying to understand why it the system works. I never said anything to the effect of, "I am doing this in an attempt to change the laws of science." In fact, the very thing you state, that the laws do not change, only our understanding of them, is the entire concept (stated in and) behind my postings!
Yes, I could have explained it better when I made a statement to the effect that the laws of science change. I was taking it for granted that, being this statement was engulfed within the context of all my entries here (where, again, its clearly stated I am trying to figure out why this system works in light of the laws), that the reader would not lift my statement out of the main body of the postings and see it as a separate entity. Re-read what is posted and keep it in context please.
And the 3rd predictable step follows in your statement:
SNIP
I'm not accusing you of being a scammer - only a fool.
SNIP
In a free county, you have the right to your opinion. I just hope you can take the time to examine/study what the term ad hominem means so that, in the future, you will have a holistic viewpoint during a discussion. It will make your time spent more profitable for all of us.
I have been, and will always be a teacher. One of the main reasons I continued to post here was that I know some people will read all of this. I saw the probable outcome of this situation after your fist response. The rules of debating taught me how to recognize this type of situation a long time ago. As I do with anyone/everyone, I was stating facts and explaining my thoughts in order that information could be shared and maybe we could all have some benefit from it. I was hoping to learn from anyone else who had the same experience so I might better comprehend the situation as my collected data attests.
You were moving towards an ad hominem response from early on. So with statement of direct observation and reasoning based on collected data (the building blocks of true science) I tried to divert the discussion from the (useless) end result of stone throwing. This way anyone reading the material here would also be able to add to and/or profit from being a part of the discussion. As is typical from the originator of an ad hominem reply, facts and reason have been pushed aside and ignored.
When it was within my duties to teach students about the ad hominem concept, I found the basis and origin of how a self-defeating, ad hominem response arises is best learned by studying a case where a debate was settled b/c one party fell into this self-made trap. So although although non-desired response was not avoided, these postings have made for a classic, predictable example. Readers who will take the time to go through these postings will hopefully learn from this example, be able to avoid one themselves, and hence make for a better, more profitable conversation in their experiences.
I wish you the best - this will be my last posting to you as it is now defined o the community where we both stand. People can benefit from reading the posting not only from the aspect of being able to add new ideas, but they also will, hopefully, be able to gain a better ability to make profitable debate.
All this having been said, you should know the typical response after an ad hominem submission is to leave the situation with one last stab - and maybe even a hope of "pushing some buttons."
I honestly do wish you well -- or I never would have taken the time to write all of this :)
I do have hands on experience along with my knowledge. Your critical failure is your inability to distinguish observations from facts.
For millennia, people watched the sun rise in the morning and set in the evening, and "knew" the "fact" from lifetimes of experience that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
"You are choosing (note that word) to take a position of opposition and have, in so doing, abandoned the very basis of the scientific method. It appears your mind has is made up that "what I know to be true is true no matter what and i do not have to experiment with anything to see if I might be missing something or do not fully understand something."
You have a lot of gall to accuse me of abandoning the scientific method. You've come to a conclusion that contradicts longstanding theory without offering any of your own. You just shrug your shoulders and refuse to determine how it works or even if it really works the way you've observed. You are just taking a position of opposition: "I've observed something interesting that I can't mesh with existing theory, so existing theory most be wrong!"
"In the rules of debate, the term ad hominem (...)"
I did not employ ad hominem.
Your definition of, like so much else you post, is just plain wrong.
Ad hominem in logic
I've told you that you're wrong, and only after you've failed to realize it have I called you a fool. Ad hominem is if I say you're wrong because you're a fool. Huge difference there.
I'm really sorry to hear that you're teaching your students a completely false definition of ad hominem. You're teaching them to consider so much criticism as personal attacks and to ignore it. That's not just anti-intellectual, that's paranoia!
Lighter atoms are easy (relatively speaking) to fuse and heavier atoms are easy to split. I really don't know how the opposite could be done.