Hello,
I've recently heard of using water as fuel to cut down on the use of gas and have cleaner emissions, that we can convert our cars to do this. Does anyone have experience with this, does it work, is it safe? ZEMVUE
llovejoy
05-03-2008, 10:59 PM
Google it, there are many videos, too.
The problem is that the net energy is actually a loss, so not an efficient way to propel a car as it creates a carbon footprint via the use of electricity to convert the water into gases... oversimplified version, but essentially accurate.
liz:thumbsup:
Lenny
05-04-2008, 01:45 PM
Isn't it called "steam"?
Worked well, except Ford and friends got the government to by pass it via legislation around the turn of last century. Legislated was the "fact" that a vehicle start in less than 90 seconds. Steam took about 2 minutes....so we have the INTERNAL combustion engine, instead of the EXTERNAL combustion. And folks want government to control MORE? :2cents:
Braggi
05-04-2008, 02:46 PM
... And folks want government to control MORE? :2cents:
Yup. As long as decisions are made based on science instead of petrodollars in the back pockets of crooked politicians.
-Jeff
PS. What Ronald Reagan said when he signed the deregulation law that allowed everything from the S&L debacle to the mutual fund rip offs to the current mortgage industry collapse, " ... we've hit the jackpot, boys!" He couldn't have been more correct; as long as he meant his buddies in the banking and investing industry who were the ones sure to profit.
jearbear
05-04-2008, 03:59 PM
Regardless of whether it's an energy loss or gain, using water for fuel - either in this way or cracking it to get hydrogen - raises an even thornier issue than the current corn ethanol boondoggle.
Namely, where's the water going to come from?
Here in California, we're nearly always on the edge of a water crisis. Now picture converting all of the cars in California to use water for fuel. How will that effect the needs for water statewide?
When I've posed this to hydrogen engineers in the past, the only answer I've gotten is a shrug and a "well, it will come down as rain again anyway" - but they have no idea when and where.
For this reason, any usage of water as a source of any type of fuel I view with extreme skepticism, unless there's a satisfactory answer to the supply problem first.
Braggi
05-04-2008, 04:38 PM
... any usage of water as a source of any type of fuel I view with extreme skepticism, unless there's a satisfactory answer to the supply problem first.
Be skeptical because of the extreme amounts of energy required, but not because there isn't enough water. Treated "waste" water is abundant and is usually a "disposal" problem. Cracking water for hydrogen and oxygen is one way to clean up water that is dreadfully polluted, which is also a disposal problem. Look at runoff from the fields in central California. You can't drink it, but you can crack it. And there's a whole lot of sun out there we can drive solar panels with ... and those solar panels could shade the aqueduct that moves the stolen water to southern CA and that would save potable water ...
Forget it. Not on the GropenFurer's watch.
-Jeff
Dynamique
05-05-2008, 11:15 AM
Don't be so negative about Ahnold's environmentalism. This is one area where he has shown initiative and positive leadership. Because he's European, his "green" is not just a veneer or political ploy. A publicity opp yes, but not a phony gimmick.
... and those solar panels could shade the aqueduct that moves the stolen water to southern CA and that would save potable water ...
Forget it. Not on the GropenFurer's watch.
-Jeff
Braggi
05-05-2008, 11:28 AM
Don't be so negative about Ahnold's environmentalism. This is one area where he has shown initiative ...
Thanks for reminding me of that. I agree and it pays to look to the positive wherever it may come from.
Heck, maybe he's reading here???
-Jeff
PS. Should we all write him asking him where his hydrogen fueling stations along highway 5 are? Should we tell him a solar panel roof over the aqueduct would provide all the power necessary to turn polluted agricultural runoff water into hydrogen? Should we tell him there is also a set of high power lines running all along the aqueduct and highway 5 so the infrastructure is already in place to transport all that power?
Hummingbear
05-05-2008, 11:46 AM
PS. Should we all write him asking him where his hydrogen fueling stations along highway 5 are? Should we tell him a solar panel roof over the aqueduct would provide all the power necessary to turn polluted agricultural runoff water into hydrogen? Should we tell him there is also a set of high power lines running all along the aqueduct and highway 5 so the infrastructure is already in place to transport all that power?
I'm sure you know, Jeff, that the aqueduct carries "fresh" water from the Delta area to Southern California; not agricultural runoff. Perhaps you'd like to revise this suggestion?
Hydrogen as fuel will be energy-efficient as soon as we figure out how to harvest it from Jupiter. Meanwhile, we have sun, wind, and possibly ocean. None of which will fit in the gas tank of your SUV.
Hummingbear
Braggi
05-05-2008, 12:12 PM
I'm sure you know, Jeff, that the aqueduct carries "fresh" water from the Delta area to Southern California; not agricultural runoff. Perhaps you'd like to revise this suggestion? ...
HB, please! I suggested no such thing. Read the post again. I even mentioned the aqueduct carried potable water and the shading of the aqueduct would save water (actually, a vast amount of it).
The fact is that all along the aqueduct there is agriculture with polluted runoff so there's no shortage of "waste" water to crack. There are also sewage treatment plants along the aqueduct as other sources of water that could be used.
...
Hydrogen as fuel will be energy-efficient as soon as we figure out how to harvest it from Jupiter. Meanwhile, we have sun, wind, and possibly ocean. None of which will fit in the gas tank of your SUV. ...
Liquid hydrogen is in use today in internal combustion engines in automobiles. Two years ago at the Harmony festival they had two solar powered hydrogen generators churning out hydrogen and a liquid hydrogen powered van, made by Toyota, in the Toyota factory. This isn't new or unworkable technology. It's technology that exists today and has for some time. We've just been waiting for cheaper methods to produce hydrogen, which we now have, and the political will to move forward. There's a lot of fear around using compressed hydrogen as a fuel because so many have that damn Led Zeppelin album cover etched in the old acid soaked brain cells. But the fact is liquid hydrogen is safer as a fuel than gasoline and we tolerate that quite well.
google hydrogen powered automobile for many more sites.
You can even get a kit to convert your car at home.
-Jeff
Dynamique
05-06-2008, 11:03 PM
Yes, we should. If you send him an email, he'll send you a reply. It may be canned, but it's a response.
The Gropenator's obsession with hydrogen as a vehicular fuel is quite misplaced. Hydrogen is an even worse idea than corn-based ethanol.
While using PV arrays to "crack" wastewater into hydrogen and oxygen is about the best way to generate hydrogen, what are you going to do with all the crud that was suspended in the wastewater?
PS. Should we all write him asking him where his hydrogen fueling stations along highway 5 are? Should we tell him a solar panel roof over the aqueduct would provide all the power necessary to turn polluted agricultural runoff water into hydrogen? Should we tell him there is also a set of high power lines running all along the aqueduct and highway 5 so the infrastructure is already in place to transport all that power?
Valley Oak
05-07-2008, 05:58 AM
I'm not an expert on hydrogen fuel but how about capturing all of the 'crud' from 'cracking' and then heaping it up into huge composting piles, either by itself or blended in with other materials. It can be easily tested for stubborn contaminants that did not break down. If nothing is found then it can be reintroduced into the environment in some imaginative way, for example, food for some organism such as farm animals, or plants in a nursery, or anywhere else. If it is still contaminated then something else has to be done with it such as burning it in an oven and then dispensing it in the desert or burying it somewhere 'safe.'
Edward
Yes, we should. If you send him an email, he'll send you a reply. It may be canned, but it's a response.
The Gropenator's obsession with hydrogen as a vehicular fuel is quite misplaced. Hydrogen is an even worse idea than corn-based ethanol.
While using PV arrays to "crack" wastewater into hydrogen and oxygen is about the best way to generate hydrogen, what are you going to do with all the crud that was suspended in the wastewater?
Braggi
05-07-2008, 07:20 AM
...
The Gropenator's obsession with hydrogen as a vehicular fuel is quite misplaced. Hydrogen is an even worse idea than corn-based ethanol.
...
Only worse because his intention is to make it with nuclear power, which is disgusting to thinking people.
...
While using PV arrays to "crack" wastewater into hydrogen and oxygen is about the best way to generate hydrogen, what are you going to do with all the crud that was suspended in the wastewater?
Is it better to just let it soak into the ground, as happens now, or to collect it in drums and truck it to "disposal sites?" Most polluted water just percolates into the ground and pollutes ground water. So much better to separate the crud from the water, which will leave you with a tiny speck of pollutant per gallon. Once separated, most runoff pollutants can easily be broken down by putting it in a compost pile and letting the microbes do what they do. Paul Stammets also has mushrooms that will break down a lot of pollutants.
We can handle the solids a whole lot more easily than we can handle the liquids.
-Jeff
Lenny
05-07-2008, 02:54 PM
Yup. As long as decisions are made based on science instead of petrodollars in the back pockets of crooked politicians.
A "crooked politician"? We'll have to run that buy the double duck speak of redundancy department to see if it is fixable. :2cents:
Dynamique
05-08-2008, 09:53 AM
Of course responsibly processing the 'crud' in wastewater that makes it wastewater is preferable to letting it percolate into the groundwater or contaminate other surface water. What was that saying from the 1970s... "dilution is not the solution to pollution."
There are a lot of things that *can* be done with the contaminants. My point is that a process for dealing with it effectively needs to be part of the proposal up front rather than being faced with a pile of it in a toxic waste dump. We've made that mistake with nuclear waste, so hopefully we can all learn from that fiasco. Alas, some are slow learners!
Bioremediation is the way to go for wastewater treatment, IMO. However, a bioremediation facility takes lots of room and time to let the various creatures do their thing. Just another factor to take into consideration when formulating a plan.
Only worse because his intention is to make it with nuclear power, which is disgusting to thinking people.
Is it better to just let it soak into the ground, as happens now, or to collect it in drums and truck it to "disposal sites?" Most polluted water just percolates into the ground and pollutes ground water. So much better to separate the crud from the water, which will leave you with a tiny speck of pollutant per gallon. Once separated, most runoff pollutants can easily be broken down by putting it in a compost pile and letting the microbes do what they do. Paul Stammets also has mushrooms that will break down a lot of pollutants.
We can handle the solids a whole lot more easily than we can handle the liquids.
-Jeff
Valley Oak
05-08-2008, 10:38 AM
Kirsten, could you offer us some links on bioremediation or explain it a little bit more to us. I find this option fascinating. Would bioremediation break down tons of paint, chemicals, and other industrial wastes? How does it work? Do you have any direct experience or observation of this process in action?
Thanks,
Edward
Of course responsibly processing the 'crud' in wastewater that makes it wastewater is preferable to letting it percolate into the groundwater or contaminate other surface water. What was that saying from the 1970s... "dilution is not the solution to pollution."
There are a lot of things that *can* be done with the contaminants. My point is that a process for dealing with it effectively needs to be part of the proposal up front rather than being faced with a pile of it in a toxic waste dump. We've made that mistake with nuclear waste, so hopefully we can all learn from that fiasco. Alas, some are slow learners!
Bioremediation is the way to go for wastewater treatment, IMO. However, a bioremediation facility takes lots of room and time to let the various creatures do their thing. Just another factor to take into consideration when formulating a plan.
Dynamique
05-11-2008, 06:28 PM
Hi Edward,
Sorry for the delay in responding to your post.
My experience with bioremediation is definitely not first-hand. I did recently attend a workshop on using fungi in bioremediation and environmental cleanup, a process known as mycoremediation. However, that certainly does not make me qualified to speak on the subject!
One of the speakers at that workshop is involved with the sewage treatment plant in Graton, which is essentially a bioremediation plant. It somehow uses wetlands and redwoods to treat wastewater. I would love to participate in a guided tour of the Graton facility and see how this is done! Would anyone else be interested? If so, then maybe SCCA, the Sierra Club, and/or Daily Acts could sponsor such a tour. (Are you guys listening?)
There's a reasonably good article describing bioremediation and its uses on Wikipedia at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioremediation
Kirsten, could you offer us some links on bioremediation or explain it a little bit more to us. I find this option fascinating. Would bioremediation break down tons of paint, chemicals, and other industrial wastes? How does it work? Do you have any direct experience or observation of this process in action?
Thanks,
Edward
Valley Oak
05-11-2008, 06:39 PM
Yes, I would be very interested in going on a tour. School tours are educational for young students as well.
Thank you,
Edward
Hi Edward,
Sorry for the delay in responding to your post.
My experience with bioremediation is definitely not first-hand. I did recently attend a workshop on using fungi in bioremediation and environmental cleanup, a process known as mycoremediation. However, that certainly does not make me qualified to speak on the subject!
One of the speakers at that workshop is involved with the sewage treatment plant in Graton, which is essentially a bioremediation plant. It somehow uses wetlands and redwoods to treat wastewater. I would love to participate in a guided tour of the Graton facility and see how this is done! Would anyone else be interested? If so, then maybe SCCA, the Sierra Club, and/or Daily Acts could sponsor such a tour. (Are you guys listening?)
There's a reasonably good article describing bioremediation and its uses on Wikipedia at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioremediation
Ocean
09-27-2009, 11:54 PM
Since it's been of particular interest to me most of my life, I thought I'd chime in on the "run your car on water" concept.
If your actually interested in learning of some of the amazing research that's been done on the subject, google Stanley Meyer. Look for him on YouTube. Also check out "Burning Salt Water" as well as HHO powered welding equipment. Very Interesting...
~Ocean
BancheroTreeService
05-02-2010, 09:49 AM
Water is two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, both of which are highly flammable. If you can figure out how to use solar, plus a battery, plus regenerative braking and get the efficiencies figured out then yes you could burn water in an internal combustion engine fairly easily.
As I understand it...anyone who has tried to publicize or commercialize the technology has been bought off, arrested or disappeared.
I don't think it is a science or technology issue it's a matter of political will.
Braggi
05-02-2010, 10:13 AM
Water is two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, both of which are highly flammable. ...
Those atoms are held together by one of the strongest bonds known to chemistry. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to separate them. That's why nobody is doing it on a commercial scale. Commercial hydrogen production is usually accomplished by stripping the H2 atoms from natural gas.
... I don't think it is a science or technology issue it's a matter of political will. We have been forcibly addicted to oil just like the Chinese were forcibly addicted to opium.
Well, that's nonsense. It's an issue of physics, not politcs. Until there is a vast oversupply of energy, such as massive solar in the Sahara or too many nukes, there won't be hydrogen from water. It just takes too much energy - far more than you get back by "burning" it.
Sorry, I wish I was wrong.
-Jeff
pbrinton
05-03-2010, 08:41 AM
Oh,Jeff, you are just a tool of western reductionist "science!" Don't you know that the oil companies, along with the Trilateralists and the Freemasons, paid for all that "research" that says that you cannot separate the H from the O, and got the results they wanted. There are at least 10 technologies to do it easily that were bought up by GM and suppressed so they can go on selling us internal combustion engines and making all that money off us. I have heard of people who had their workshops broken into just when they were on the verge of successful demonstrations of completely free and limitless fuel, and had all their papers stolen, and their prototypes ruined.
You need to open your mind to the power of the Law of Attraction, which says that all you have to do is believe, and you can run your car on water if you want to, or kitchen scraps even.
Patrick Brinton
Friction's a drag.
Gravity brings me down.
Vacuums really suck.
Those atoms are held together by one of the strongest bonds known to chemistry. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to separate them. That's why nobody is doing it on a commercial scale. Commercial hydrogen production is usually accomplished by stripping the H2 atoms from natural gas.
Well, that's nonsense. It's an issue of physics, not politcs. Until there is a vast oversupply of energy, such as massive solar in the Sahara or too many nukes, there won't be hydrogen from water. It just takes too much energy - far more than you get back by "burning" it.
Sorry, I wish I was wrong.
-Jeff
BancheroTreeService
05-09-2010, 10:37 AM
I don't have a background in chemistry but I have heard a bunch of really cool ideas for colonizing the moon and interstellar travel that are all based upon finding water in space. Apparently water on the moon means it's possible to build a breathable atmosphere and to provide energy for propulsion. You can find some of those discussions on TED. The way the scientists talk, it sounds like the technology already exists and is proven.
It may very well be that the net energy is negative after solar power is used to crack the water. Cool idea none the less.
Braggi
05-09-2010, 01:52 PM
... It may very well be that the net energy is negative after solar power is used to crack the water. Cool idea none the less.
That's just it, how much energy does it take to electrolyze the water? The answer is: a lot. How much do you get back when you burn it: not nearly as much. That doesn't mean it's impossible, just that you need a very cheap energy source so you can afford to have a great deal of loss and still wind up with full fuel tanks (or tanks of gasses for breathing). Once we have a lot of thermal solar power plants up and running (in north Africa, for instance) there will be a lot of power available to do things like crack water. My fantasy is it will be done with polluted water and reduce the pollution problem to a dry powder or a more concentrated liquid that can be dealt with chemically. Wouldn't it be nice to have tankers full of polluted water pulling up to power stations, offloading polluted water and reloading with hydrogen fuel? It will be quite a while, I'm afraid.
-Jeff
Zeno Swijtink
05-09-2010, 02:15 PM
This came just through.
***
Cheap New Metal Catalyst Can Split Hydrogen Gas From Water at a
Fraction of the Cost (https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-05/cheap-metal-catalyst-can-split-hydrogen-gas-water-fraction-cost)
CLAY DILLOW - POPSCI
https://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/100430154902-large.jpg
A Cheap Catalyst for Splitting Water Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory researchers (from left) Jeffrey Long, Christopher Chang and Hemamala Karunadasa. Roy Kaltschmidt, Berkeley Lab Public Affairs
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but it can be difficult and costly to get at the raw gaseous stuff, at least in the kind of commercial volumes that could sustainably fuel a hydrogen economy. But researchers at the DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have made a substantial leap toward a hydrogen-based future by devising a cheap, metal catalyst that can split hydrogen gas from water.
The ability to pull apart H2O molecules into their constituent atoms is, of course, the key to creating a hydrogen-based energy economy. If we can do so in a cheap and energy efficient manner, we could potentially turn Earth's vast supply of water into our own vast supply of cheap, clean power.
But most hydrogen gas on earth comes packaged as natural gas -- a carbon-based fuel -- or packed into water, which can be split into oxygen and hydrogen through a process called electrolysis. Electrolysis requires a good deal of electricity, but if renewable fuels generate that power the process can be carbon neutral. What it can't be is cheap; electrolysis requires a catalyst to split water into oxygen and hydrogen gas, the most common of which is platinum, which retails at some $2,000 per ounce.
Seeking to drive the cost of electrolysis down to more reasonable levels, the Berkeley Lab team devised a high-valence metal they're calling Mo-oxo for molybdenum-oxo (PY5Me2, for you chem. geeks out there). The catalyst requires no additional organic additives or solvents, can operate in neutral water (even if it's dirty) and works with sea water -- meaning we could literally be looking at oceans of cheap energy. Best of all: Mo-oxo is about 70 times cheaper than platinum.
Don't expect to see Mo-oxo splitting seawater into large volumes of hydrogen gas right away. The research is still preliminary and the Berkeley team is just getting into some of the more exciting chemistry. They're looking for additional similar metals that might generate hydrogen gas at even higher efficiency, so by the time this kind of tech is commercialized we may have found an even better catalyst. In the meantime, Mo-oxo marks a sort of corner-turning for water electrolysis. Any great shift to non-carbon fuels is ultimately going to be driven by economics, and finding less expensive ways to generate hydrogen gas is integral to kicking off that sea change.
Braggi
05-09-2010, 02:25 PM
... Any great shift to non-carbon fuels is ultimately going to be driven by economics, and finding less expensive ways to generate hydrogen gas is integral to kicking off that sea change.
Outstanding! It's really only a breakthrough if it can be scaled up in a big way. I'm ready. Bring it on!
-Jeff
Thad
05-09-2010, 02:59 PM
And all the while this conversation is going on not a word about Sonoma County's interest in wave electrical power generation on the coast.
How much more interesting to wonder and speak about what prototypes might begin to be experimented with here.
That's just it, how much energy does it take to electrolyze the water? The answer is: a lot. How much do you get back when you burn it: not nearly as much. That doesn't mean it's impossible, just that you need a very cheap energy source so you can afford to have a great deal of loss and still wind up with full fuel tanks (or tanks of gasses for breathing). Once we have a lot of thermal solar power plants up and running (in north Africa, for instance) there will be a lot of power available to do things like crack water. My fantasy is it will be done with polluted water and reduce the pollution problem to a dry powder or a more concentrated liquid that can be dealt with chemically. Wouldn't it be nice to have tankers full of polluted water pulling up to power stations, offloading polluted water and reloading with hydrogen fuel? It will be quite a while, I'm afraid.
:2cents:When it is done correctly, I don't necessarily think that the term [I]carbon neutral is the only thing to consider because actually it is possible that more carbon could be sequestered by the technology (techniques) of local farm alcohol production as well as the food that gets produced in doing so.
There is a book about it; the book is called alcohol can be a gas!.
Has anyone here heard of or read that book?
Here is a link to the homepage of the website;
[I]home | Permaculture & Alcohol Can Be A Gas (https://www.permaculture.com/welcome)
Welcome to Alcohol Can Be a Gas! | Permaculture & Alcohol Can Be A Gas (https://www.permaculture.com/)
here are a couple more links in that website has which are excerpts from the book, that may be of interest:
Excerpts from the Book! | Permaculture & Alcohol Can Be A Gas (https://www.permaculture.com/book_menu/360/277/329)
Ch 03 - The Permaculture Solution to Fossil Fuel Dependency |
Permaculture & Alcohol Can Be A Gas (https://www.permaculture.com/book_menu/360/277/329/383/426)
Excerpts from the Front Matter | Permaculture & Alcohol Can Be A Gas (https://www.permaculture.com/book_menu/360/277/329/381)
Excerpts from the Back Matter | Permaculture & Alcohol Can Be A Gas (https://www.permaculture.com/book_menu/360/277/329/389)
Ch 13 - Surprise! Ethanol Is the Perfect Fuel | Permaculture & Alcohol Can Be A Gas (https://www.permaculture.com/book_menu/360/277/329/386/440)
Ch 14 - Alcohol Versus Gasoline in Your Engine | Permaculture & Alcohol Can Be A Gas (https://www.permaculture.com/book_menu/360/277/329/386/441)
Ch 21 - Smaller Engines | Permaculture & Alcohol Can Be A Gas (https://www.permaculture.com/book_menu/360/277/329/386/448)
Ch 24 - Cogeneration and Other Systems to Provide Energy from Alcohol | Permaculture & Alcohol Can Be A Gas (https://www.permaculture.com/book_menu/360/277/329/386/451)
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->Or you can select any one or all of these links above, and a lot of other things from the heading that says, Alcohol can be a gas! on the home-page or any of the other pages linked to in the heading area which also have gobs of information.:thumbsup:
This is a very interesting subject. Not for bashing, but rather for the exploration of otherwise unknown methods of working with water - potentially as a fuel. Think such terms as "resonance" and "water capacitor"
You will find MANY interesting videos of people who are doing this exploration, especially with techniques such as the "Joe Cell"
Go to youtube.com and search for "joe cell water" or "joe cell running car"
You will be impressed with the amount of energy folks are putting into this potential.
ALSO
I will simply say that getting a mere 30mpg in a 4cyl car is a complete waste of most of the fuel being consumed. Furthermore, there has been a tonne of "underground" research and development on this subject and how to improve efficiency by at least double if not quadruple. It is generally called "Evaporative Carburetor" technology. It is not a joke. It is very real, and many people have either died or been paid to be quiet. Regarding the Joe Cell above??? Mr. Joe died.
Here is a link to a page with a scanned document (published in 1982) which I have provided on my personal website. It is a full resolution PDF, 49 pages, 17mb. It is called "Secrets of the 200 MPG Carburetor" and that is what it is. For personal use only, please read it before making assumptive comments.
Hello,
I've recently heard of using water as fuel to cut down on the use of gas and have cleaner emissions, that we can convert our cars to do this. Does anyone have experience with this, does it work, is it safe? ZEMVUE
Braggi
05-24-2010, 05:06 PM
... Think such terms as "resonance" and "water capacitor"
... It is called "Secrets of the 200 MPG Carburetor" and that is what it is. ...
Ocean, you build it, I'll buy it. That goes for anyone else reading this. Make it affordable or even fairly expensive and I'll buy it. I volunteer to be an early adopter.
-Jeff
Ocean
05-25-2010, 03:39 PM
I appreciate that Jeff - and in fact I feel the same! Most likely I will end up building something for my self... but that is much different than building for someone else. For the public, it must be highly engineered, tested, approved and mass produced. This is the great challenge and I would love to do it but I think I need at least $20 million to get started and follow through!
Anyone with $20 million???
Ocean, you build it, I'll buy it. That goes for anyone else reading this. Make it affordable or even fairly expensive and I'll buy it. I volunteer to be an early adopter.
-Jeff
Braggi
05-25-2010, 11:55 PM
... This is the great challenge and I would love to do it but I think I need at least $20 million to get started and follow through!
Anyone with $20 million???
Ocean, there are a lot of people with $20 million. A lot. There are even people with $20 billion to invest. You think Bill Gates would hesitate for one second if he thought he could buy technology like what you're talking about? He'd jump on it immediately.
There is one little detail preventing this: physics. Or to put it another way: reality. It hasn't been built because it really can't be built. There will be incremental improvements on the "fuel cell" technology and there will be incremental improvements on electrolysis of water. It won't look like a carburetor that sprays water into the fuel mix though. That won't happen.
Wish it would.
-Jeff
Ocean
05-27-2010, 07:09 PM
Have you researched any of the information or videos about the "joe cell"? It's quite interesting and you might start to wonder what's really going on... I myself refuse to believe that "we" know all there is to know about physics - our modern understanding is quite young! Besides that, a great many entrepreneurs and inventors with "free energy" systems have been bought off or destroyed - reminds me of Tesla - I believe he had developed a way of "beaming" electricity across the room - but guess who wouldn't have it??? the Copper Mining industry!!! All those wires crossing the streets to deliver electricity is a huge market that would never exsist if we were able to pull electricity "out of the air".
I think that 200mpg on evaporated gas or ethanol is proven, and that's what I'd put the $20 million towards. Water fuel deserves as much, but because the methods are not so clearly and articulately "proven" I don't feel that I could guarantee a result... Even though I'd love to run that experiment.
I think it's only a matter of time, that we will see such things in full operation on a grand scale... but like you said, baby steps.
~Ocean
Ocean, there are a lot of people with $20 million. A lot. There are even people with $20 billion to invest. You think Bill Gates would hesitate for one second if he thought he could buy technology like what you're talking about? He'd jump on it immediately.
There is one little detail preventing this: physics. Or to put it another way: reality. It hasn't been built because it really can't be built. There will be incremental improvements on the "fuel cell" technology and there will be incremental improvements on electrolysis of water. It won't look like a carburetor that sprays water into the fuel mix though. That won't happen.