[QUOTE=Q.E.D.]
It doesn’t work that way. Yes, in theory you can run a car by electrolyzing water and then burning the resulting hydrogen, but since the energy you gain from burning the H2 is always less than the energy required to extract it in the first place, you still need to supply an energy source, such as a battery. In other words, what you’ve got there is an inefficient battery-powered car.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah. Don’t most oxides take a lot of energy to break up? In the case of metal oxides it’s worth spending the energy to get the metal but the object there isn’t to produce excess energy for use elsewhere.
And how would and HHO molecule exist? In the HH combinations (isn’t that hydrogen gas?) both hydrogen atoms have their outer shell filled with the requisite number of electrons so how does the O attach?
[QUOTE=groman]
I mean this is completely feasible with a few tweaks.
First, the car will have to carry the hydrogen (we can use oxygen from the air) which we get from the water. We get it from water using nuclear fission generated electricity, either through electrolysis at home (not yet available on required scale) or industrial electrolysis (available). For safety reasons hydrogen would probably have to be stored in a low pressure hydride instead of a high pressure gas form, to make the solid storage you would need some sort of a generator that takes electricity and hydrogen gas and generates the solid. This can be either onboard (impossible as of now) or not. Then the car can use an internal combustion engine to cleanly burn hydrogen and power a generator.
[/QUOTE]
I guess that’s feasible, but it sure sounds like a big waste of time. Why not use the solar panels on your roof to charge a lithium-ion battery, and use that to power a car? It would probably be a lot more efficient. Actually, looks like someone else put solar panels on the roof. Well, why not use your fission generated electricity to charge the battery, then? You’d be saving a lot of energy.
Incidentally, the thermodynamics that make this kind of solution so much better (and electrolysis so energy-intensive) are what make H2 vehicles a ludicrous pipe dream.
[QUOTE=Happy Clam]
I am asking from a position of complete ignorance, but wouldn’t the lowest energy state of H2O be ice? I mean, a solid is when a substance’s molecules have the least vibration and the least energy, right?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but when you turn water into ice you get 144 Btu/lb. Gasoline provides on the order of 13000 Btu/lb.
Say you start with a lb. of water at 70 F. You get 38 Btu when it cools to 32 F and another 144 Btu when it turns to ice. But how do you cool the water from 70 F down to 32 F?
And, of course, this isn’t the process described in the OP. That was changing water molecules from HOH to HHO. As was mentioned above, HH is hydrogen gas and O is free oxygen moecules which I guess would rapidly turn into OO. And as was also mentioned you get hydrogen and oxygen out of water by electrolysis which takes at least as much energy as you get back from burning the hydrogen..
[QUOTE=Q.E.D.]
H[sub]2[/sub]O is (obviously) water, while HHO is just the popular name for the mixture of H[sub]2[/sub] and O[sub]2[/sub] gasses in a 2:1 ratio. I’ve also seen it called “Aquygen” gas, a trademark of Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve finally had the chance to go over all the posts and this one in particular was the one they were talking about. They have a link on their site that shows the news segment I saw.
In principle, sure. But I don’t think the technology is quite there yet. Nor, for that matter, is the solar cell technology quite there yet: It takes a lot of energy just to make a solar cell, and most of them don’t last long enough to get that much energy out of sunlight. I hasten to add, of course, that this is just an engineering problem: There’s nothing inherent about solar panels or hydrogen energy storage which violates any laws of physics, and as technology advances, we will eventually reach the point where both are practical.
[QUOTE=Princhester]
James Randi’s been talking about this particular scam in recent weeks. www.randi.org
[/QUOTE]
A more specific link on Randi’s site for this particular story
As I tell my chemistry students, water is the ashes of burning. Ever try to burn ashes?
You can also tell that water is very low energy. How? Look around. It’s freakin everywhere! It must have very little reactive energy left, or it would be reacting with everything and changing itself all the time.
Not a very good test. Elemental oxygen is also freakin’ everywhere, and it is, in fact, very reactive. It’s just being replenished as fast as it’s being reacted away.
[QUOTE=powerjacob]
I saw on the news sometime last week this guy who has been successful in making energy out of water. His process turned H2O into HHO. He was able to turn the gas into a flame, thus applied his technology to his vehicle so it can run on water. How does this work, how much does it cost (building, maintaining, et cetera), and how can I do it? Any ideas?
[/QUOTE]
A simpleton’s alternative energy idea. Pure BS.
OTOH there are real engines that run on running water. They are called hydraulic turbines, water wheels, and hydraulic compressors.
[QUOTE=Ludovic]
Eh, I guess I shouldn’t venture into GQ since my posts always seem to be ignored
[/QUOTE]
Well, sure. That was in the rules when I signed up.
Seriously, though, I didn’t click on your link until just now, to see what you were talking about. The statement about flourine seemed to suggest an esoteric tangent to the discussion, so I figured “Eh, I’ll check it later - maybe.” It appears I’m not the only one who passed by it.
[QUOTE=Ludovic]
Eh, I guess I shouldn’t venture into GQ since my posts always seem to be ignored
[/QUOTE]
You’re absolutely right about the fluorine thing and I was thinking about including a qualifier regarding it, but it’s so unlikely that we’d see a practical fluorine/water internal combustion engine, I didn’t consider it worth mentioning in my post (particularly as you had already covered it).
In practical terms, water is hydrogen that has already been burnt - we can of course get it to react some more - even in a way that can be described as ‘burning’ - if we use a more vigorous or concentrated oxidant, but that’s probably true of other things too; the soot from a chimney is already burnt, but I bet we could burn it again in the presence of pure oxygen.
[QUOTE=enipla]
Could a modern internal combustion engine be adapted to burn either petroleum or hydrogen? Or both at the same time?
[/quote]
Yup. It can be done. If you run an engine on hydrogen, however, it lacks the same “oomph” as a gas engine, since hydrogen’s got a lower octane rating.
Why not? Every gallon of gas in your tank is equal to about five sticks of dynamite. Even worse, if your gas tank ruptures, all the fuel runs out onto the ground where it can easily be ignited by a cigarette or hot spark. By contrast, if a hydrogen tank leaks, the gas travels upwards and quickly disperses. (Most of the people on the Hindenberg died from jumping not burning, and the damn thing was painted with rocket fuel, so it’s no wonder it went up!)
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
You’re absolutely right about the fluorine thing and I was thinking about including a qualifier regarding it, but it’s so unlikely that we’d see a practical fluorine/water internal combustion engine, I didn’t consider it worth mentioning in my post (particularly as you had already covered it).
In practical terms, water is hydrogen that has already been burnt - we can of course get it to react some more - even in a way that can be described as ‘burning’ - if we use a more vigorous or concentrated oxidant, but that’s probably true of other things too; the soot from a chimney is already burnt, but I bet we could burn it again in the presence of pure oxygen.
[/QUOTE]
No, it isn’t; it’s amorphous carbon plus some impurities, the result of incomplete combustion in the fireplace. You could indeed burn it in pure oxygen, of course.
