Aren’t you missing a step? Having made your electricity, you’ve either got to store it (inefficient) then use it in an electric motor (which is pretty efficient) or you’ve got to use it to create hydrogen (efficient) then burn it in an IC engine (highly inefficient). You’re not taking into account the last step in the second option.
Here’s an adage that’s also a scientific truism: Oil and water don’t mix.
Anyone who has done an electrolysis experiment in chemistry lab, then passed the overturned beaker over a burner to watch the flash, had to observe the condensed water vapor on the sides. When you oxidize (burn) a mixture of H and O, it turns into H2O.
The central fallacy of Stan Meyer’s mythical dune buggy, as well as this story, is that your engine circulates a mixture of relatively thick oil. If you lose your head gasket, one of the primary indicators is oil in the radiator. Even discounting the loss of combustion efficiency of a blown head gasket, possibly the greatest hazard is water entering your oil supply. It will congeal the oil, thicken it, and seize your motor. Oil and water are not, to use the proper term, miscible.
The hydrogen in your little science experiment was a pittance compared to the amount required to power an internal combustion engine. Leaving a film of water on your cylinder walls a thousand times a minute that gets skimmed by the wiper ring and returned to the sump will destroy your oil in no time flat. No oil = no engine.
Perhaps one of Stan Meyer’s breakthroughs was the invention of a new lubricant that tolerates water. The website that memorializes him doesn’t mention it. It does mention that the original dune buggy is now for sale:
Best of luck in your hydrogen endeavours. Be sure to smile smugly and wave as you pass me in my vehicle, while I’m burning (literally) dinosaur fuel.
Next topic: abiotic oil theory
:dubious:
At typical engine cylinder operating temps (well over 500 F), I’m pretty sure water is a gas. How’s that going to leave a “film” on your cylinder walls? Come to that, how do you explain the successful operation of actual hydrogen-fueled vehicles (yes, Virginia, they do exist) using the exact same oil circulation system as conventional gas-powered cars? These are just modified stock engines, you understand. Yet, they don’t accumulate water in the oil like you claim they should.
Bonus: guess what one of the major components of gasoline combustion is? Go on, guess.
I agree “Brown’s gas” is bad science, at best, but there’s no reason to make up facts to argue against it.
::: Sigh:::
Where to begin?
With oil temps in a modern engine running about 250F, accumulation of water in the oil is not really a problem.*
FYI for every gallon of gas you burn, your engine creates 1 gallon of water.
I see Q.E.D. stole most of what I was going to say, so I will resist piling on.
*In very cold areas, coupled with very short trips, water accumulation in the engine oil can become an issue (along with dilution of the oil by excess gasoline). The solution is simple, run the car at operating temp and evaporate the water and gas.
It seems people do this. A problem being the efficiency of an internal combustion engine is limited, and in practice it averages about 20%. Fuel cells do about 40%.
This is an inherent limitation of internal combustion engines and all “heat engines”. Read up on the Carnot Cycle if you like. A fuel cell is not a heat engine and isn’t limited by Carnot whose maximum theoretical efficiency is about 60%. A fuel cell’s max is around 80%.
Given that we get 30% to 40% out of big, expensive, high-efficiency electricity power plants (which are heat engines), and only 20% out of a little car engine (also a heat engine), getting “only” 40% from a first gen fuel cell car is pretty damn good. It doubles the energy efficiency.