What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.414 Comments
- tylerl, on 11/12/2007, -1/+103Let's make sure we understand what this technology is for...
Water is not the fuel--it's not the source of energy. Electricity from your local power plant is your source of power. Electrolysing water and then burning the result gets you around the simple problem that electricity itself doesn't burn. You can burn hydrocarbons, like butane or gasoline, but then you have to store the fuel (which can be dangerous).
Instead, you store water, a very stable substance. You use electricity to turn that water into fuel, then immediately burn the result, turning it back into water. You can even take that waste water and run it back through the system. You always get less power out of the system than you put into it (laws of thermodynamics in effect here); but you've effectively found a way to burn hydrogen without having to store the hydrogen and oxygen, which can be very dangerous to store.
A water-powered car isn't really powered by water. It's battery-powered. However, puting water into the system allows you to still use a combustion engine, rather than electric motors. It's not nearly as efficient, which is why this route isn't being pursued by auto makers. But there can be advantages, depending on your needs. - hammerattack, on 11/12/2007, -3/+93Not only did I take chemistry, I passed it. Apparently, you missed the chapter on isomer forms of water.
HHO and H2O aren't the same thing. In an H20 (water) molecule, the hydrogen atoms are attached to the central oxygen atom, and both are at about a 104°ree; angle. The isomer form HHO has two hydrogens bonded in series with an oxygen atom capped to one hydrogen all in a line. This molecular configuration is actually very unstable under high pressure or temperature. When compressed or heated, the molecule shatters, then chemically recombines to the more stable H20 isomer.
Now, I believe you were belittling others about their ignorance of chemistry? - psyon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+56Because we all know mythbusters tests everything perfectly.
- deepsub, on 11/12/2007, -5/+55"apparently it produces more energy that it consumes, though"
This is not possible. - swax, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34not me, bring those 4th gen reactors online asap, i like cheap energy and a glowing smile.
- Ryetronics, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27Does anyone else miss Mr. Wizard right about now?
- chamel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30Why do newscasters always make stupid personal comments at the end of stories????
"Now lets just hope we don't have a shortage on water"
How stupid of a comment is that...... Sometimes my head wants to explode....
Great Digg..... Great Story.......Lets hope our government is smart enough to use it and not pay the guy off to
keep it in check.. - wmarcello, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28I would like to know more of the science behind this. How exactly is water broken down into HHO by electrolysis? Is this completely stable? If this is old news, why hasn't it caught on? There must be some drawbacks...?
Amazing story, and new to me. - triplehelix, on 11/12/2007, -2/+19releasing stored energy and creating it are two different things.
no laws of thermodynamics are broken by any of our current energy production systems, yet we get more energy out of say petrol production then we put into it. that's not to say we created that energy, we just used less energy to get at the stored energy then we will get out of the fuel source.
you can absolutely get more energy out of fusion and fission then you put into it. you don't create the energy, you release it.
"Fission only produces more energy than it consumes in large nuclei (common examples are Uranium & Plutonium, which have around 240 nucleons (nucleon = proton or neutron)). Fusion only produces more energy than it consumes in small nuclei (in stars, Hydrogen & its isotopes fusing into Helium). The energy released when 4 Hydrogen nuclei (= protons) fuse (there are some decays involved as well) into a Helium nucleus is around 27 Million Electron Volts (MeV), or about 7 MeV per nucleon."
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae534.cfm
and i love the way you peppered your rebuttal with big words to make it seem like you had a clue. - inactive, on 11/12/2007, -2/+19It's surprising me how many people claim that HHO and H2O are the same thing. HELL NO. H2O is a compound, a water molecule with 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom with a specific structure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(molecule). All three atoms are bound with one another in a stable arrangement like that. Even oxygen gas (O2) and two separate atoms of oxygen are not the same thing (although, two separate oxygen atoms won't remain independent for a long time and will readily join into an oxygen molecule, which is stable)
BUT, HHO is a gas with hydrogen and oxygen atoms separated. If left by themselves, they will form water again, because it is stable. It does take a lot of energy to break those stable bonds in H2O and separate the atoms from one another. And that's what electrolysis does. So, it does take a lot of energy to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen. Once hydrogen is separated from oxygen, this process uses the explosive nature of hydrogen to easily ignite it in presence of oxygen, which acts as a catalyst for combustion.
Kindly stop claiming that electrolysis takes no energy and H2O and HHO are the same thing! If you want, please refer to your chemistry books again. - thebanmagi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23Actually, no. They took the Hydrogen gas emitted by electrolysis and ran the car on that. This is a different gas, HHO, not just H. The explosion was funny on that episode though...
- VorpalK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15One of the prerequisites to become on-air talent in the (local) news business is that you must be completely and utterly incapable of understanding the words that come out of your mouth.
Think of a canary, only completely vapid. That's pretty close to the "best and brightest" in the studio.
Field reporters... marginally brighter. - TVarmy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16I'm digging this just because I feel it deserves more attention. I think it's false, but most people on the internet seem to think it's real without questioning it. Seeing as to how this is a technology site with a ton of skeptics, I think the members here can help to expose it as a fraud.
- Nick42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Yeah, it'd be more efficient to just charge a battery and use an electric motor than to do this.
- Djerrid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Here's another, promotional video: http://hytechapps.com/presentation/linked%20files/Hydro%20Tech/user%20added/FinalHTA05.mov
- Stoutlimb, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Fission & Fusion are nuclear reactions. There is still entropy in their reactions, they are just way more energetic. You can't make a nuclear reaction go backwards without putting at least enough work into it than you got. There is no such thing as getting more energy out of something than you put in, unless it's coming from another source, and then the same principle applies. Thermodynamics is basic high school science, did you fail that?
- Evervision, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14This is a proven invention. It's also refered to as Brown's gas. It was first discovered by Yull Brown. See the wikipedia entry for details. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown%27s_gas
- Ollin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Atleast that chick from the show is hot the one with the red hair ;)
- djflx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Here, let's just bag this BoingBoing commentary:
It seems like every 15 years or so some guy comes along and claims to have come up with a way to turn water into clean burning fuel. (Remember the "Bodine Gasoline" pill from the Beverly Hillbillies?) The thing is, any elementary school student can turn water into hydrogen and oxygen, which burns very nicely, turning back into water when it burns. But I have yet to hear of anyone who has come up with a way to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen without using more energy than you produce. If you had an electrolysis machine that produced more energy than it consumed, you could plug it into itself and have yourself a perpetual motion machine.
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/12/water_powered_cars_j.html
sheesh. - liquidcoooled, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11If you can run a car on just water that would be fantastic, but you have to use electricity to convert the water to the HHO gas first.
Look at the equation: Water + electricity = usable HHO gas.
Its just moving the energy conversion literally upstream.
You cannot expect to simply pour a glass of water into your empty car and drive home just yet folks. - dpk87, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13um, doesn't it take more energy to convert the water into a fuel than the fuel is able to produce, thus making this useless?
- logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -15/+24Yah, except for the fact that it smells just like a scam. Especially the way they kept displaying HHO as if it wasn't water.
- logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Yes, and we know that everything sold on the web is totally legit and there is no chance it is a scam.
I was dubious but willing to believe that he had found some way to energize water or use electricity to put it into some reactive state (perhaps make H2O2 and do something clever with that) to make his blowtorch work. However, the bit about super fuels is really dubious and the fact that they kept putting up HHO as if it wasn't just water convinced me it was a fake.
Also if you go read his webpage it reads just like the quack pages read. - ThinkFr33ly, on 11/12/2007, -2/+11Ya, there is something fishy about all of this. While I can see this being great for welding, how it could power a car by itself is a mystery.
Electrolysis is the simple process of passing electricity through water. This separates the water into hydrogen and oxygen. If you then use that hydrogen as a fuel by burning it, you turn it back into what it was originally (H2O), hence the water droplets when he used the flame on that surface in the video.
Alas, since nothing is 100% efficient, you end up losing some energy in the process of producing the hydrogen. Some goes to any mechanical stuff going on; some goes to current attenuation in the wires that feed the electricity from the power source into the hydrogen, some goes to any acoustic energy produced, etc.
How, exactly, a car could efficiently run on this is a mystery. You would need a power source to produce the electricity to do the electrolysis. This could come from batteries (horribly inefficiently and definitely not practical without a gas engine to go with it), or from the gas engine itself. In either case, the gas engine is more efficient by itself.
Of course, if the goal is to get off oil then hydrogen from electrolysis is one option, but it's definitely not the most efficient one. Hydrogen fuel cells can be far more efficient, as can alternative forms of hydrocarbon fuels like ethanol. Each has their problems, but all are better from an efficiency point of view. - ZapWizard, on 11/12/2007, -2/+11HHO referes to two hydogen atoms and one oxygen atom in gas form.
It seems like a great alternative to other welding gas's, just add electricity.
For those who say that electricity comes from fossil fuels anyways: While that is true, powerplants are much more effecient and can contain and process greenhouse gas's much better then your average car. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Massacre, please take a basic thermodynamics class. You said:
"initially you would have to run the battery to make the initial gas, but once you put that through that engine and burn it, it produces enough energy to run itself and recharge the battery, just like gasoline except H2 and O produce a lot more energy."
Ok, so they make the gas. Realistically, this is taking a little bit of energy from the engine and storing it in the gas (by making 2H2 and O2). When that goes into the energy and combines, it produces LESS energy than you took out of the engine to make it.
In other words:
Normal Engine: 85 hp out of engine, 10% mech loss -> 76.5 HP to wheels.
This *****: 85 HP out of engine, 10% mechanical loss, 3 HP loss to electolysis ->73.5 HP to wheels
When recombined you'll only get 2HP back... you are losing energy.
If this was able to run itself, it'd have a MUCH more important use. It'd be able to create fresh water for every person on the planet. (As the result of this chemcial eaction is energy+fresh water). The problem is that it takes a lot of energy to run this process... which is also the reason the reason why this doesn't work.
Find your nearest water-demineralisation plant... ask them how much energy they USE. Hell, goto a well funded high school chemistry lab and do the damn test yourself. Even better, build the damn rig at home. - triplehelix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9i wish i could dig that chemistry lesson twice.
- DanThe1Man, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9You have to be careful with this stuff, it's dangerous.
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html - emperortomato, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Is this a hoax or are they just stupid? About 2 mins into the vid they show what is presumably supposed to be a molecule of water, but they show it as HO2. If you went to elementary school you probably know that's not right.
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11So, is this guy just making Hydrogen gas and clueless about it? HHO doesn't make any sense, since HH is quantum stable. The water part isn't that impressive, if you burn burn any Hydrocarbon you get CO2 + Water, so....
- chrisc2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"apparently it produces more energy that it consumes, though"
Isn't that kinda sorta impossible? - triplehelix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9add a solar panel on the roof of the car to charge the battery, and one or two on your roof at home and there should be little to no fossil fuel involved.
- Migdilio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Persol, if you're going to call someone an "uneducated doushe," learn how to spell "douche."
Irony defined. - podwich, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@ thebanmagi: I don't think you get it. Water is H2O (HHO, HOH, whatever). Hydrogen gas is H2 (or HH, if you prefer). You need oxygen gas (O2) to burn the hydrogen. 1 mole of the newly created hydrogen gas reacts with 1/2 mole of the newly created oxygen gas, releasing heat and making water.
What they did on mythbusters is the same thing-they took H2 and burned it in an engine. Hydrogen doesn't care where it came from-electrolysis or whatever. It's just hydrogen. If it comes from a hydrogen compressed gas tank, it'll have to react with atmospheric oxygen instead of oxygen produced from electrolysis, but it's still the same thing. - truthRises, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8One of the easiest ways to recognize a physics or chemistry scam (and this is a scam people, or at least craptacular reporting) is to see if you can build a perpetual motion device with the new proposed technology. If this thing worked like they say it does... "solely on water" with no other mentioned power input... you could just shunt the exhaust water back into the fuel tank and it would run forever.
In computer science we call this a proof by reduction. YOU CAN NOT BUILD A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE, PERIOD. Thus if someone claims they have an invention that makes this possible, you know for SURE that they are full of *****.
There is SOMETHING else powering the electrolysis. Even if it's catalyzed in some novel way, it will still take at least as much energy to make this gas as it produces when it's burn, guaranteed by thermodynamics (which is the ROOT of electrochemistry as some have tried to obfuscate).
Not to mention that combustion engines are VERY VERY inefficient. You lose %80 of your chemical reaction energy to heat, not mechanical power. A hydrogen fuel cell would be better, you lose %40-50, but you still can't just pull energy out of your ass.
Water will always require lots of energy to turn it into hydrogen gas. So carrying HEAVY ASS WATER around is not a good solution. You must carry a battery AND the water, instead of just a battery.
The liquid fuel problem is this: Liquid fuels are currently much denser energy sources than batteries. The problems come in two forms:
1. Energy Conversion - internal combustion sucks... we need something more efficient to get the electrons out of the fuel, exploding it inside a little cylinder just creates a lot of heat. Fuel Cells are more efficient. They pull the electrons right out of the fuel and power electric motors with it.
2. Pollution - when we burn petro fuels, we are upsetting the carbon balance of the planet. And dumping nasty chemicals into the air, which could be scrubbed out. The carbon is still a problem even without the sulfur. If we burn bio fuels, ones that are made of plants which grew recently, we are only releasing the carbon that those plants absorbed, PRESERVING the carbon balance.
With this information, you ought to be able to intelligently debate on new fuel sources.
Much love. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Yes, they did lie. They didn't do anything that isn't done in an undergrad chem class.
Electrolysis is a very well known process. They are trying to claim that this process is somehow different, yet the process operates the same way, and has the same result (with the exclusion of the magical amount of energy gained out of thin air). - TomRitchford, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Let's see...
Too good to be true? Check.
Contrary to basic laws of science? Check. (The first and second laws of thermodynamics)
Classic scam that has been tried again and again? Check. ("The car that runs on water")
Come on, folks, show some smarts. It seems like many of you, particularly earlier posters are taking this seriously.
This isn't "hydrogen power" -- it's an obvious confidence scam.
(Disclaimer: you can never be 100% right with science. A skeptic must admit the chance of error. I will however give you literally 1000 to 1 odds that this system doesn't work as presented, if you want to bet with me...) - SakisRakis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10HHO is not the same as H2O, refer to the very detailed post above.
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The thing is this guy is claiming it's not hyrdrogen gas he's making and burning, but some weird ass reconfiguration of HOH, that he says is HHO. And Massacre, that actually is the definition of perpetual motion. You somehow split HOH to HH and OO using X Joules, and then burn them, getting Y Joules out of it, where Y > X, so you can capture back X joules, and redo the water splitting you just undid, and use (Y-X) joules to do whatever.
- doles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"ahh, duhh, of course its real, electrolysis process changes the water molecule into usable hho gas"
Yes... But one tiny problem with that. It takes more energy to do that than you get from the gas. So yeah, you *can* do it, but it requires another power source. - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Of course you must have noticed his flame also burns the exact same color hydrogen gas does, and not just outright believed some kook, right???
Oops? - timan72, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Yes, you can make Oxygen and Hydrogen from water ... but the dumb thing is... you need tons of electricity to devide it. It is NO energy source, just a way to transport energy.
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7No nazi, it isn't. That's the important point. A molecule is defined by its structure as much as what totals of what types of atoms are in it. HOH isn't the same thing as HHO, but HHO is impossible to begin with so for some REAL examples just google 'isomers'.
- Jowitz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Seems true enough, sure it might now be (as many of these things seem to be), but it could. The web-page for the company can be seen here: http://hytechapps.com/ and the patent seems to be here: http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US2004074781&F=0
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Massacre, stop being an uneducated doushe.
- Slummock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Oh, just so you know, It's not HHO(H2O) gas being used here which is just water as a vapour.
It is H2 O.
This story is widly inaccurate. - djflx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Where are you going to get the electrical power to drive the electrolysis machines?
Unless you're using hydroelectric dams or nuclear plants, there's oil, coal, ethanol... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Molsen, this isn't an energy source. There is no energy 'stored' in fresh water.
They are using hydogen/oxygen as a battery (yes, more complicated than that... but I'd have to use big words). - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The complaint is that they are claiming to be making this energy while driving. In reality, they are just adding an extra layer of losses between the gas and the wheel.
This technology is basically the sdame princible as hydrogen fuel cells... problem being that they are useless if you don't generate them before driving, or using axle generators (regenerative braking). - ultralame, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Two items:
1)
I haven't thoroughly read all the articles, but if this guy invented a non-electrolysis catalyst that produces H2 and 02 from water, he might have something.
2)
The water would need to be very clean- no minerals, no disolved solids. That's not exactly dirt cheap, and would add to the cost.
I think what they did was apply his h2/o2 burning torch machine to an automobile, and it uses electrolysis.
For all you non-science types:
First law of thermodynamics: You can't create energy. You can only move and store it.
Second Law: (in practical, simplified terms): You will always have energy losses.
You can't win, you can't break even.
So there's no way that the buring of the H2/O2 mixture can produce enough energy to move the car (massive mechanical energy loss), return to its original state of 'water fuel' AND produce enough electricity (via an alternator) to power the next round of electrolysis.
IF he did that, he deserves the next 400 Nobel Prizes. -
Show 51 - 100 of 406 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is