Instructables
Picture of Renewable energy to power vehicle engine
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.
 
Remove these adsRemove these ads by Signing Up

Step 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/

Step 2: Supply hydrogen gas to engine

Supply hydrogen generated from electrolysis to engine through the petrol intake valve.

Petrol engine uses a mixture of petrol and air to fire. Instead of petrol we will be using hydrogen.

Do not pre-mix hydrogen with air intake as it may result in explosion.

Adjust the fuel(hydrogen) pressure to get the optium result.

The engine should fire now.

Step 3: Vary voltage of DC supply to control Electrolysis process

THIS IS THE STEP WHERE I HAVE NO CLUE OF WHAT CAN BE USED TO VARY VOLTAGE.
HOWEVER, I can help you of what can be done.

Use a tachometer sensor (tachometer is used to read the rpm of motor) to read the rpm of engine. According to the rpm of engine vary the voltage of the DC supply.

For example:
when the speed increases---the rpm increases---this shld increase the voltage----this will speed up the electrolysis process.

And, when the speed decreases---rpm decreases---the voltage decreases----this will slow down the electrolysis process.

'The key is to generate only required amount of hydrogen needed for combustion.'
1-40 of 112Next »
merkidemis6 years ago
The problem is the laws of thermodynamics. Energy is lost because the electrolysis of water is not 100% efficient, the combustion engine is nowhere near 100% efficient, neither is the alternater. Energy is lost through friction and heat. This is an ages old idea, and as impossible today as it was decades ago. If there was an additional source of energy to offset the losses, then it would be fine. A solar array, for example.
this argument that is based on the " laws of thermodynamics" is just plain foolishness. Merkidemis takes into account exactly what the other naysayers have spouted for years, and that is it, what is missing here is the benefit side of this ridiculas comment. It is true that it does take energy to produce brown gas, but what if I design a cell, test and install with an o2 and map enhancer, and save 50% on my gas useage........ is this an example of an energy source that does not work ? You naysayers need to do a FULL evaluation of this technology. Just spouting the laws of thermodynamics just doesn't cut it. I too studied therm in college and we advanced to Nuclear thermodynamics as well, ( that was nearly 45 years ago) and have used my engineering education my whole life. there are problems with any new or re-newed ideas, study the process, learn and experiment, you just piss me off with your narrowness.
Yeah, if you're such an expert then by all means, provide some examples where this has worked. Please provide a link to a frictionless alternator. And please don't accuse of narrowness. The whole reason all of us are even on this site is to find and share awesome new ideas and techniques. It just happens that this particular idea is neither new nor awesome.

The engine doesn't have to be 100% efficient to use water as a medium to tap in to the ether/unlimited energy that is all around us that comes from the sun.

I agree the gas you put in combustible engines are not efficient now at all for one reason they made the fuel heavier around the 1950's I believe so the fuel wouldn't get all the way burnt up and would come out the tail pipe look it up. If you just do a little research in history you can find credible people that have found way's of doing what this guy is talking about and been ridiculed, suppressed by the government's, and even some cases murdered like Stanley Myers for obvious reasons. It seems whatever someone says whatever someone invents even using the proper equipment to prove the results there is always someone saying the same thing over and over about the second law of thermodynamics. A lot of people say that the people who post such things are a part of the government but I just think some people are just brain washed by what they are taught in school. I have saw unlimited energy or free energy or over unity call it what you will but it happens it doesn't matter how as long as it works so please for the good of humanity just try and help instead of misquoting a law taken out of text.

yeah it seems as though solar cells will be required for this and a plug in charger for bad weather

It seems as if your video's were deleted?

merkidemis the bit that you fail to grasp is that if you can run an engine on this type of generator but not use all of the electricity from the alternator then the excess can be used to charge batteries or run an inverter and the other added benefit is that the heat generated from the engine can also be used to heat the watertank in the house and keep the engine running at a constant temp. The project I am building is for microgeneration so that I can be permanently disconnected from the grid and therefore not contributing to the carbon footprint. I am not looking to challenge the world of thermodynamics just harnessing energy to my advantage and not line the pockets of the greedy utilities companies.
Let's see, the theoretical max efficiency for electrolysis is about 82% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water), the most efficient alternator is currently around 22% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHD_generator), and most ICE engines, even with turbocharging, average around 20%, 37% being on the high end. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine). Even if you could capture some of the waste heat, converting it into usable energy to accomplish work (like heating the water to increase the electrolysis efficiency) is not going to get you to 100%. Plus you need to take into account the work you're actually trying to accomplish, such as moving a vehicle. Road surface friction, wind resistance, etc will all sap efficiency from the system.

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.

hello,

please check out us patent 7,789,048 for possible help in your inquiry. thanks for your help and kindness, ray

hello,

please check out us patent 7,789,048 for possible help in your inquiry. thanks for your help and kindness, ray

hello,

please check out us patent 7,789,048 for possible help in your inquiry. thanks for your help and kindness, ray

wic111 months ago
Link does not work.
Sounds nice, beautifull and cool and whatever... but 1. Noone ever saw a plans of how to do it. 2. If its worth, i can for a few if price is logical. 3. No plans, no option to build. If i would do something like it i would release it allmost for free... just to break power monopoly.
sdickens12 years ago
There is a way to make free energy batteries, see my website on my profile.
vov353 years ago
any microcontroller can do PWM, which will be fine for your purposes
shteef5 years ago
I find the heated discussions about this ible highly ammusing, I'm not an anyone's side, but you might be interested to know that both mercedes benz and BMW will be fitting Brown's gas systems(electrolytic hydrogen/oxygen from water)to most of there cars within the next year or so. Having discussed these systems with a engineering mate of mine at Mercedes, he tells me they will be used in addition to standard petrol/diesel engines and will improve fuel economy by upto 15%. The only issue they currently have is premature failure of the electrodes due to dificulties in purifying the water. He tells me the German motor industry has spent well in eccess of a billion euros researching this technology and although it does have potential to boost fuel economy we will never see it replace the need to burn another fuel as well. Basically you simply cannot generate the gas fast enough with any electrode materail yet dicovered. but you never know, unobtanium might work!
"you might be interested to know that both mercedes benz and BMW will be fitting Brown's gas systems(electrolytic hydrogen/oxygen from water)to most of there cars within the next year or so."

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...
Muscelz5 years ago
theory has been out there for years, im sure some hybrid cars work on this idea. BUT there has always been one problem, supply of hydrogen than oxygen, when splitting water molecules you are going to get 2ce as much oxygen than hydrogen meaning not as much hydrogen that you hoped for. and the splitting of H20 is very inefficient without a good electrolyte added, adding certain electrolytes can sometimes contaminate the hydrogen and oxygen coming out of the water. there for lowering the effect of hydrogen meaning it won't burn explosively or erratically that is does how it happens to do so in its pure form, THERE FOR the water must not be contaminated for the electrolysis process meaning the water will not be as good as a conductor than it was with the electrolyte added which brings me to the power going into the electrolysis process the sorta voltage you would be looking at going into the electrolysis electrodes in the water would have to something along the lines of 1-10kv at 3amp to about 9amp (higher the amperage the higher the voltage is put in) which works out to be a input power of 3kw to 90kw + 30% for inefficiency and that works out to be aroundddd

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
I freely admit that I'm a novice in this area, BUT... from lots of online reading it seems to me that much of the poster's discussion here treats the O2 as a 'waste' product. Why not be unconcerned with seperation of the O2 from the H2, and just make the conversion to what I think is referred to a HHO [which I also think is called 'Brown's Gas' which has been known for a long time.

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.
Umm, its actually 2 H's and one O that you get from electrolysis. Hence H2O, not HO2. Retake chemistry please :)
oh.... my bad, i always get confused
Crazy Fox4 years ago
Using NaBH4 as a catalyst for Charge Shell Confined and Internally Resonant Double Shell Plasma specifically as a mechanism for Hydrogen Fusion in a rotary engine. This working fluid modification of a processes patented at Micro-Combustion, Inc. does useful work in a wide range of applications including automotive. The reaction is Boron Proton + Hydrogen + Hydrogen

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.
JimJong5 years ago
people, i think that alot of people here are thinking of this as what muscelz said that it is like "getting a generator to generate power to turn a motor which turns its generator to turns it power source (the motor)" but its not. because the hydrogen is the FUEL, but unlike petrol fuels, when it is burned with oxygen it turns back into what it used to be. water. think of it this way when gas is burned the hydrogen in it reacts with oxygen and forms water vapor while the unburned carbon molecules that were linked to it split apart without completely reacting with oxygen to for CO insted of CO2. the same thing happens with hydrogen and oxygen alone but without the carbon. so gas and hydrogen burn oppositely while hydrogen burns in air to form re-electrolysable water, gas burns and splits into carbon and hydrogen which at the high temperatures of the burning bond with oxygen and oxygen.
JimJong JimJong5 years ago
you can technicaly re bond the hydrogen and carbons from te gas but it would require extreme conditions
JimJong JimJong5 years ago
and a lot of time
bitteracid6 years ago
So.....I created an account here just to respond to this.

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 :) )
Yes - I am sure the efficiency rating is not very good. Just like the internal combustion engine in our cars is only 20% efficient also! The key that everyone misses who knocks these systems is not how well the textbook melds into the system -- its the fact that people using these do save mileage and, therefore, their own money stays in their own pockets. I know when I presented the unit to my old physical chemistry professor, his first reaction was the same. He started into all of the theoretical problems with the system. And I agreed they were there. And then I told him how on the trip to visit the university, I had doubled my gas mileage from the previous trip (with the same vehicle) and could show him the figures. I got a laugh b/c his wife, sitting next to him, gave him a comical hit and said, "why didn't YOU come up with something like that?" I will say, again, like I have in other places, that yes, this system probably wears out the battery faster - and the alternator. However, I have yet to experience problems with either of these things. And, even if it does, it is a lot cheaper to replace a battery/alternator maybe one year earlier than I would have had to than to keep pouring a ton of money in the tank each week. In other places I have likened the system similar to increasing the pitch on a ceiling fan's blades. You do get more air movement, you do get more "cooling" benefit. Yes, it has to create a larger drag on the motor - however - it also seems to be within the design of the fans motor to handle the increased drag. The people I find who have something to say about how these units do not work have been, mostly, those with no hands-on experience with these units. Even the most educated have been theories/laws-only. I am a former physics and chemistry teacher so am informed on what the books say. But I went ahead and tried it anyway (back in '98) just because I wanted to see what would happen (experimentation). Building one nowadays is a little more complicated as you need bypass the O2 sensor - I have not yet done this - health issues have halted my own research. I researched into why I was seeing great improvement (OK - it boils down to cash staying in my pocket instead of being burned in the engine!). I wanted to know why, on the molecular/atomic level, why hydrolysis actually works. I was told by 3 different university professors that the actual working of hydrolysis are unknown. Ie. -- why does passing current through water split the H2O molecule? Yes, the simplistic answer is that the electricity breaks the bonds. We all know that. I wondered WHY does the electricity break the bonds? How does it accomplish this? I have seen that since we even have trouble knowing exactly what electricity/electrons is/are (at the deepest levels), we actually do not know why hydrolysis does what it accomplishes. Somewhere in my old notes I had once theorized the physical structure of the H2O molecule itself - and w.r.t. to available bonding sites - figured into it. I need to find those notes - health issues hinder recall. You asked why a new infrastructure, etc. The reason behind this is simple. The real world we live in, anymore, (above the personal world of individuals), has little connection with doing what is best for everyone. Greed is a more powerful drive than ever before. We do not NEED any large infrastructure when these type of systems are used. The H2 systems the "big guys" want us to use would have us solely dependent on them. I did not need anyone/anything but 12.00 to build my throw-together system (I had planned to refine it) - and I saved a lot of money. When gas was 2.25-2.50, my data from gas used/mileage showed that, on an average, I was "paying" 1.14 a gallon. I was filling up once a week instead of twice (during my normal, weekly routines). I had not changed anything except put my hydrolysis unit under the hood. No, it is NOT free energy - but it works - and I do not have all the facts as to why - yet. However, I did not mind since the REAL issue was that my money was in MY pocket! Would the people without this hands-on experience want me to rip the unit out of a car because it does not (seem to) fit into textbook ideas? Merry Christmas!
Just about the idea, this is a bit off topic, but I was thinking, about a year ago that if you had a hydrogen powered internal combustion engine that powered the car and charged a battery, that in turn performed electrolysis to get the H2+O mix then put it back into the engine and the water that came out get re-cycled into more fuel and in turn powered the engine again, etc. etc. etc. Then I was told abut the fact that there is a set amount of energy and that the energy would eventually (quite quickly) run out,so it would not work at all. But here is my off topic part, if there is only a set amount of energy in the world, would it be imposable to get energy from JOINING atoms and SEPARATING atoms, a bit like my original idea, but on a much different scale. My point is would it not defy all logic that if you got 2 H atoms, joined them together, took the energy they created, converted it into electricity, then split the He atom back into H atoms and got that energy, giving you an infinite, but most importantly FREE energy source that lasted for ever? Or is this just some big conspiracy theory set by the international world powers so they can get more money producing energy from fossil fuels, which costs money to them, but even more to us and the planet. That or I am just plain confused, or mixed up or something, please reply to this with your comments.
There are many facets to your question. So let me just try to state some things and see if you can glean what you need to.

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? :)

Ye, but i mean if you used nuclear fusion, then fission with the same things, joining them then splitting them, would that work???
NRen2k5 jotism5 years ago
Tough to say. Right now, there's no such thing as controlled fusion... and fusion and fission are done with elements at complete opposite ends of the periodic table.
jotism NRen2k55 years ago
And on completely opposite principles, if you could split He atoms, then you would get H² and lots of energy wouldn't you?
NRen2k5 jotism5 years ago
if... I guess.

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.
jotism NRen2k55 years ago
But if you had a stupidly accurate particle gun, and loads of He, then there would be a good enough chance of SOME fission happening is there not???
NRen2k5 jotism5 years ago
Maybe. Where are you going with all this, anyway?
jotism NRen2k55 years ago
An everlasting source of energy, think of it as a bit of a loophole in physics, and chemistry. An everlasting source of energy that the energy companies have probably already bought up all the patents for...
NRen2k5 jotism5 years ago
Your mistake.
jotism NRen2k55 years ago
But what if scientists have been wrong???
NRen2k5 jotism5 years ago
About thermodynamics? ROFL!
jotism NRen2k55 years ago
Ye, just like you are wrong about most of the stuff you "KNOW" your right about!!!
1-40 of 112Next »