PDA

View Full Version : Water Powered Fire?



MasterNetra
April 27th, 2010, 01:48 AM
http://www.yourdailymedia.com/media/1271899927/Water_Powered_Fire

I wouldn't of thought it do-able until I stumbled across this. No way oil companies are going to let this get implemented easily.

undecim
April 27th, 2010, 02:07 AM
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/8972/screenshotdx.png << Bad source of information.

He's using electricity to break the water apart. It's using hydrogen gas, not water. Actually, the water comes out as steam, so technically, some energy is lost to the water.

If you want to power a car with this, you would be better just using the electricity directly, or buying hydrogen already separated from a supplier.

Doctor Mike
April 27th, 2010, 02:48 AM
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/8972/screenshotdx.png << Bad source of information.

He's using electricity to break the water apart. It's using hydrogen gas, not water. Actually, the water comes out as steam, so technically, some energy is lost to the water.

If you want to power a car with this, you would be better just using the electricity directly, or buying hydrogen already separated from a supplier.No it depends on what method is being used to separate the the elements. What is the energy cost to benefit ratio?
if there is a net gain (20 % or more) as implied (not specifically) by the video then the engine using the gas would be able to provide the electric power for gas separation in water. There may be a catalyst in use here.

renkinjutsu
April 27th, 2010, 02:59 AM
I'm all for clean energy, but he specifically said that the fuel he uses is HHO, the water is only there to be converted to HHO.. It's how the water is converted that matters. Also the 2nd law of thermodynamic states that no energy conversion is 100% efficient, he's converting H20 to HHO (i still don't get it), then HHO to heat and also steam.. too many conversions!

Also, anyone ever watch Who Killed The Electric Car? very intriguing.. also makes me angry.

Npl
April 27th, 2010, 03:18 AM
I'm all for clean energy, but he specifically said that the fuel he uses is HHO, the water is only there to be converted to HHO.. It's how the water is converted that matters. Also the 2nd law of thermodynamic states that no energy conversion is 100% efficient, he's converting H20 to HHO (i still don't get it), then HHO to heat and also steam.. too many conversions!clearly he made the atoms quite mad to arrange in HHO formation! behold the powerful wrath of ****`d (off) water!

Seems like traditional electrolysis to me, and AFAIK you wont even get the full amount of energy back you used for this process?

samjh
April 27th, 2010, 03:30 AM
Also, anyone ever watch Who Killed The Electric Car? very intriguing.. also makes me angry.

It should make you angry, because it's rubbish. It completely ignores the commercial and technological difficulties facing car manufacturers (General Motors, in the film's case) involved in electric vehicles, as well as the socio-economic realities which made them commercially non-viable at the time. It also ignores the substantial investments made by GM in electric vehicle technology after the EV1's discontinuation. If the film had seriously examined those facts instead of jumping into the conspiracy route, it would have actually been informative.

Bright_View
April 27th, 2010, 03:37 AM
It should make you angry, because it's rubbish. It completely ignores the commercial and technological difficulties facing car manufacturers (General Motors, in the film's case) involved in electric vehicles, as well as the socio-economic realities which made them commercially non-viable at the time. It also ignores the substantial investments made by GM in electric vehicle technology after the EV1's discontinuation. If the film had seriously examined those facts instead of jumping into the conspiracy route, it would have actually been informative.

Source? Would like to read more about it. . .

sudoer541
April 27th, 2010, 03:38 AM
http://www.yourdailymedia.com/media/1271899927/Water_Powered_Fire

I wouldn't of thought it do-able until I stumbled across this. No way oil companies are going to let this get implemented easily.


thats kool!!
but what about fire Powered water?
or a Yoshi fired balloon?
...Ooooooohhhhhhh! what about Kirby (so cute and pink!!)
or uummmmmmm... fire powered air+ water? or the opposite?
what about fire powered computer? (AAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!! sounds very futuristic!!!):)

OMG!!!!!!!! Sarcasm!!!!!!!!!!:):P

Chronon
April 27th, 2010, 04:11 AM
Here's a decent (if short) write-up about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen

Note the "fringe science" section.

AllRadioisDead
April 27th, 2010, 04:21 AM
thats kool!!
but what about fire Powered water?
or a Yoshi fired balloon?
...Ooooooohhhhhhh! what about Kirby (so cute and pink!!)
or uummmmmmm... fire powered air+ water? or the opposite?
what about fire powered computer? (AAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!! sounds very futuristic!!!):)

OMG!!!!!!!! Sarcasm!!!!!!!!!!:):P
.....?

witeshark17
April 27th, 2010, 04:52 AM
*sigh* Another pipe dream! (You know I had to!) :guitar:

MasterNetra
April 27th, 2010, 05:27 AM
Here's a decent (if short) write-up about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen

Note the "fringe science" section.

Hmm well it might not of went to well in the past doesn't mean this guy hasn't figured how to make it work better.

lisati
April 27th, 2010, 05:35 AM
I wasn't that good with chemistry in my student days, but something about "HHO" doesn't sound quite right. And my first thought watching the video was that regular ectrolysis probably plays a part. :)

Frak
April 27th, 2010, 05:41 AM
Fox News...

Seriously?

betrunkenaffe
April 27th, 2010, 06:45 AM
Better use for the Hydrogen created by his electrolysis machine..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

Also, anyone that claims that they can use water itself as the fuel is lying and a con artist. It's possible to use electricity to separate the water into H2 and O2 and then burn the H2/O2 mixture later however you will experience a total net loss in energy, never a gain.

ssj6akshat
April 27th, 2010, 08:07 AM
You Need Macromedia Flash Player to view this file.Lol

Frak
April 27th, 2010, 08:14 AM
You Need Macromedia Flash Player to view this file.Lol
?

I don't get it.

v1ad
April 27th, 2010, 08:15 AM
here's a decent (if short) write-up about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/oxyhydrogen

note the "fringe science" section.

+1

wmcbrine
April 27th, 2010, 08:24 AM
Hmm well it might not of went to well in the past doesn't mean this guy hasn't figured how to make it work better.Stop kidding yourself.

Water + Energy => Hydrogen + Oxygen
Hydrogen + Oxygen => Water + Less Energy

It really is that simple.

BTW, this wasn't "Fox News" per se, but a local Fox broadcast network affiliate... possibly an even less reliable source, though not so much ideologically biased, as just gullible, and unequipped to evaluate scientific claims.

user1397
April 27th, 2010, 08:42 AM
The Hydrogen Economy is one of the biggest fallacies of our times...it just doesn't make any sense...


-> Energy flow, and consequently energy loss:

Electric car:
-> Renewable energy power plant -> electric station (via power lines) -> electric cars

Fuel-cell (hydrogen car):
-> Renewable energy power plant -> split water into hydrogen and oxygen -> transport liquid to hydrogen stations (requires trucks/trains/planes/boats, which in turn require hydrogen fuel) -> fuel-cell cars

:confused:

ssj6akshat
April 27th, 2010, 08:47 AM
?

I don't get it.

Macromedia was bought by Adobe years Ago.

Grenage
April 27th, 2010, 09:02 AM
Why is the hydrogen system a fallacy? Since when did a technology have to be efficient to be viable?

This tech has been around for a while, a few years ago a chap over here was "powering his car" with water. I note that nothing else was ever heard of him, and I doubt that's because the oil companies had him fed to pigs. Even 'if' a decent alternative is found soon, the oil companies would still make their money during the transition.

At the moment, bicycles are the best we have.

gnomeuser
April 27th, 2010, 09:41 AM
I always thought that the most elegant example of this specific reaction was the Heat & Glo Aqueon Fireplace. No pseudo scientific claims, no conspiracy theories just plain beauty.

http://gizmodo.com/116027/make-fire-from-water

Sadly they don't appear to sell it anymore.

The only claim I am not so sure about is the water vapor not needing venting. I don't know how much it puts out but I certainly have enough problems with dampness in my house and the mold spores which flourish as a result I am severely allergic to.

Chronon
April 27th, 2010, 09:42 AM
Hmm well it might not of went to well in the past doesn't mean this guy hasn't figured how to make it work better.
As I said, that section of the write-up is relevant:

The most common and decisive counter-argument against using the gas as a fuel is that the energy required to split water molecules exceeds the energy recouped by burning it, and these devices reduce, rather than improve fuel efficiency.[10]

Chronon
April 27th, 2010, 09:48 AM
Why is the hydrogen system a fallacy? Since when did a technology have to be efficient to be viable?

This tech has been around for a while, a few years ago a chap over here was "powering his car" with water. I note that nothing else was ever heard of him, and I doubt that's because the oil companies had him fed to pigs. Even 'if' a decent alternative is found soon, the oil companies would still make their money during the transition.

At the moment, bicycles are the best we have.

Hydrogen does make a fine fuel. The fallacy is in the claim that water is, itself, a viable fuel source. It is already oxidized, so you cannot use it as a fuel in an oxidation reaction (similarly for carbon dioxide).

Grenage
April 27th, 2010, 09:56 AM
Ah, I see (or don't). My science never went beyond school GCSE (age 15), so it's a little too much for me.

Are you suggesting that the powering of vehicles using Hydrogen is not viable (assuming that the hydrolysis was done elsewhere), or that it's simply impractical to say that a vehicle can be run on Water? I am assuming the latter.

Chronon
April 27th, 2010, 10:13 AM
Ah, I see (or don't). My science never went beyond school GCSE (age 15), so it's a little too much for me.

Are you suggesting that the powering of vehicles using Hydrogen is not viable (assuming that the hydrolysis was done elsewhere), or that it's simply impractical to say that a vehicle can be run on Water? I am assuming the latter.

I am saying the latter. It's the demos where they show water going in one end and useful energy coming out the other end where they are selling snake oil and obscuring what's really going on.

Grenage
April 27th, 2010, 10:21 AM
To that I will toast!

user1397
April 27th, 2010, 12:14 PM
Why is the hydrogen system a fallacy? Since when did a technology have to be efficient to be viable?

This tech has been around for a while, a few years ago a chap over here was "powering his car" with water. I note that nothing else was ever heard of him, and I doubt that's because the oil companies had him fed to pigs. Even 'if' a decent alternative is found soon, the oil companies would still make their money during the transition.

At the moment, bicycles are the best we have.Well I agree that a technology does not have to be completely efficient to be viable of course, but why settle for hydrogen when you can just bypass it and just use electricity to power everything?

Electric cars have been around a lot longer than fuel cells, and the technology for batteries is only improving. Research the Tesla motor company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors) for awesome examples and look up the Nissan Leaf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf).

Yes, nothing is 100% efficient, but an electric motor is far closer than a fuel cell or an internal combustion engine.

And yes I agree, the bicycle is the best mode of transportation.

sdowney717
April 27th, 2010, 12:26 PM
anyone remember the 200 mpg carb?
http://www.rexresearch.com/pogue/1pogue.htm
http://www.allpar.com/old/200-mpg-carburetor.html

If these things really existed, for competitive reasons, they would be in cars today.

mcduck
April 27th, 2010, 12:32 PM
Well I agree that a technology does not have to be completely efficient to be viable of course, but why settle for hydrogen when you can just bypass it and just use electricity to power everything?

Electric cars have been around a lot longer than fuel cells, and the technology for batteries is only improving. Research the Tesla motor company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors) for awesome examples and look up the Nissan Leaf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf).

Yes, nothing is 100% efficient, but an electric motor is far closer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor#Efficiency) than a fuel cell or an internal combustion engine.

And yes I agree, the bicycle is the best mode of transportation.

The biggest problem with using electricity directly is charging. You can't just stop at gas (charging ;)) station and fill the batteries in few minutes but you definitely can do that with hydrogen or other gases.

The batteries also tend to be heavy, and take a lot of space, when compared to gas.

So while using electricity directly provides better total efficiency, fuel cell + gas actually gets much closer to what we can (and want to) do with our cars in normal, daily use. Perhaps development in battery technologies will change that in future, but currently fuel cell is the more practical solution.

sdowney717
April 27th, 2010, 01:12 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/13/algae-solve-pentagon-fuel-problem

http://www.heatingoil.com/blog/darpa-biofuel-from-algae-could-cost-only-1-per-gallon215/

internal combustion is going to always be here.
Make oil from algae and it works well, and works with existing infrastructure from refiners down to cars. then that is what will happen. There is a lot of money and politics invested in the oil business and that would never go down easy. It will be extremely difficult to force the changes we all would like to see happen. At least oil from algae solves several issues such as

cost of an alternative fuel
burning fossil carbon
peak oil production
wasting food corn on fuel

Bright_View
April 29th, 2010, 12:46 AM
The biggest problem with using electricity directly is charging. You can't just stop at gas (charging ;)) station and fill the batteries in few minutes but you definitely can do that with hydrogen or other gases.

The batteries also tend to be heavy, and take a lot of space, when compared to gas.

So while using electricity directly provides better total efficiency, fuel cell + gas actually gets much closer to what we can (and want to) do with our cars in normal, daily use. Perhaps development in battery technologies will change that in future, but currently fuel cell is the more practical solution.

You can always switch battery packs at battery pack switching stations if battery packs are standardized. This is not a good argument for the delay of using electric vehicles. Additionally it is likely that if charging is done at dedicated stations, then quicker and more efficient methods could be used for charging (though this may depend on what types of battery are in use).

Bright_View
April 29th, 2010, 12:57 AM
So while using electricity directly provides better total efficiency, fuel cell + gas actually gets much closer to what we can (and want to) do with our cars in normal, daily use. Perhaps development in battery technologies will change that in future, but currently fuel cell is the more practical solution.

Also, if you mean hydrogen fuel cell, then you are arguing for a fuel that is incredibly hard to store and transport since it's a gas. It cannot be pumped in pipes or transmitted down power lines the way that gasoline and electricity can be. Furthermore, last I checked (and this was a while ago), the cars that are capable of using hydrogen cost about a bazillion dollars to make right now. So all in all battery power looks pretty good I'd say.

jrusso2
April 29th, 2010, 02:14 AM
When I was a child I used to see this ad and it said Burn water in your car !

And it was some tablets you put in your gas tank. I laughed. I guess not everyone gets it but someone said there is one born every minute.

wmcbrine
April 29th, 2010, 05:54 AM
So while using electricity directly provides better total efficiency, fuel cell + gas actually gets much closer to what we can (and want to) do with our cars in normal, daily use.I really disagree. My car, like most people's, is home every night. If it's an electric, I can charge it right here. The only reason the "quick charge" of gasoline (or hydrogen) matters is that I have to go somewhere else to do it, somewhere that's neither origin nor destination, just an inconvenient necessity.

Of course it's an issue for longer trips, but that isn't normal, daily use.

Frak
April 29th, 2010, 06:12 AM
I really disagree. My car, like most people's, is home every night. If it's an electric, I can charge it right here. The only reason the "quick charge" of gasoline (or hydrogen) matters is that I have to go somewhere else to do it, somewhere that's neither origin nor destination, just an inconvenient necessity.

Of course it's an issue for longer trips, but that isn't normal, daily use.
Well, we have batteries that can fully charge in a matter of seconds, it's just an issue of getting the stations on the road. (And the public aware that they exist)

clanky
April 30th, 2010, 02:08 PM
There has been a phenomenon known to steam engineers for years known as a hydrogen fire, in a boiler if soot is deposited on the steam generating (or more commonly on the superheating) tubes and catches fire then the heat produced can melt the tubes causing water to escape, the fire is so intense that the water will break down into hydrogen and oxygen and will become self sustaining.

The chemical formula is not as simple as 2H+O though, there is carbon (from the soot involved as well, at least initially, but the fact remains that it is possible for water to burn exothermically even if it requires a lot of energy initially.

Thankfully I no longer work on steam ships so it is not something that i have given much consideration to recently.

renkinjutsu
May 1st, 2010, 08:55 PM
The biggest problem with using electricity directly is charging. You can't just stop at gas (charging ;)) station and fill the batteries in few minutes but you definitely can do that with hydrogen or other gases.

The batteries also tend to be heavy, and take a lot of space, when compared to gas.

So while using electricity directly provides better total efficiency, fuel cell + gas actually gets much closer to what we can (and want to) do with our cars in normal, daily use. Perhaps development in battery technologies will change that in future, but currently fuel cell is the more practical solution.


Keep in mind that there are certain things that can be done to make an electric car's battery last longer..

some examples would be:
- coating the car with solar energy technologies.
- while the car is in motion, use the wind coming through the vents to the engine to power small turbines
- use the kinetic energy (and inertia of the car) while the car is still in motion (of course not when the foot's on the accelerator)

also, note that storing a high amount of hydrogen is NOT what you want.. In the case there's an unexpected spark or glitch, the whole thing goes kaboom (assuming there's enough oxygen) to burn up the fuel

MasterNetra
May 25th, 2010, 01:04 AM
I'm all for clean energy, but he specifically said that the fuel he uses is HHO, the water is only there to be converted to HHO.. It's how the water is converted that matters. Also the 2nd law of thermodynamic states that no energy conversion is 100% efficient, he's converting H20 to HHO (i still don't get it), then HHO to heat and also steam.. too many conversions!

Also, anyone ever watch Who Killed The Electric Car? very intriguing.. also makes me angry.

btw way I don't completely believe in the law of thermodynamics, I believe 100% conversion is doable...provided the conditions for doing so are met...now what these conditions are, is something we must discover. Same thing with creating matter. I mean after all no matter how far back its traced at some point it had to be created, otherwise how else would it come into existence? And not claiming there is a god or anything mind you, but there must be conditions that can exist in some way that creates matter/energy, if or more optimistically WHEN we figure it out what those conditions are and learn to replicate them artificially then our resource troubles are over... heck we could make our own secure planets and solar systems. heh, "Planetary Architects / Planetary Artists" to think one day our descendants might visit worlds created purely for art and/or settle on worlds created purely for residential purposes, oh the possibilities...

solitaire
May 25th, 2010, 01:11 AM
hhmmm......

Just thinking that there must be enough oil now floating in the gulf to make that water useful as a fuel source... ^__^ lol

wmcbrine
May 25th, 2010, 05:05 PM
MasterNetra, you should read this story (http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html). You're in for a long wait. :)