The "Water Fueled Car"

[SwissMercenary]

Hi,
I keep seeing this 'HHO' thing, but I have no clue, and can't seem to buy one, about just what it is. If it is supposed to be some different structure of water, then I can't see that there would be much energy available and the molecule of water would just thermally revert to its polar V shape in a short (millisecond, microsecond, faster?) time. If the split is in a H, OH manner, then the chemistry gets interesting since both are very active bits, indeed the basis for most acids and bases. And separating water into a hydroxyl and a proton is probably very energy intensive. But, if the split is just into gases, then the output is just O2 gas and H2 gas.

--Pete

I've stumbled across this. At all helpful?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HHO

Skeptics point out that there is no solid evidence for any of these unusual properties, and suggest that all the observations could be explained by normal electrolysis and ordinary diatomic hydrogen and oxygen. Proponents seem reluctant to perform direct comparisons of Brown's gas with hydrogen/oxygen mixtures produced by more conventional means.

Claims that Brown's gas could be used as fuel for cars and other everyday energy needs are also met with skepticism, because it has not been demonstrated that it can be compressed to fit into a reasonable space without becoming dangerously explosive.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I've stumbled across this. At all helpful?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HHO

Thanks, but I'd already done the Google and checked out the usual suspects.

What I'm looking for is something that gives some solid technical data. If, as I suspect, what the people using these terms are trying to do is give the physical representations, then they should be differentiating between H-O-H (which should really be a roughly 100 degree V, but I don't know how to do that in a post) and H-H-O (which may or may not be linear, but is probably chimeral;)). But if that is what they mean, then I can find no data that that form of two hydrogens and an oxygen exists, is stable, can be made, can be converted back to normal H2O with a significant release of energy, etc., etc.

It is often easy to dismiss a valid claim coined in incorrect terminology as false because we normally assume that if someone doesn't know the vocabulary, then they don't know the technology. And this is usually a fair assumption, but there are exceptions. However, when the claims become too extreme, it is then necessary to find reputable sources that have actually taken the issue to the lab. And that is what is lacking here.

--Pete

[the Langolier]

It uses fuel to generate electricity to boil water.

Well, if this is the case, then it seems water isn't the fuel, and therefore we are no longer talking about a water-powered car.

It burns a lot of energy getting the car moving. Once the car is actually moving, fuel consumption goes way down and the car produces most of the electricity it needs to keep the water boiling as it coasts. There are wires running through the boiler that stay red hot from the electricity and keep the water around them very hot.

A similiar argument is that an electric powered car has an electric generator connected to it's drive shaft, allowing the generator to provide most of the power to run the car. It's simply not true. It will take WAY more energy to keep the water boiling than it will be able to "reclaim" from coasting/running. It doesn't matter how the wires are arranged inside the boiler (although the more surface area of heated wire you have touching the water increases efficiency), all that matters is the mass of water. Putting red hot wires in the water *sounds* good, but have you ever put a glowing piece of metal in water? It will steam and gurgle, and in about two seconds the metal will be cool to the touch, and so will the water. The reality is that it will take a lot of current to keep it boiling.

But the benefit of this technology, is that you could use electricity to seperate water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Electricity can (Key word being 'Can') potentially be produced in more environmentally friendly ways then burning fossil fuels. (See - geothermal, solar, hydroelectric (despite all of its flaws), tidal, nuclear).

This is a true point. But, once again, we would be talking about hydrogen powered cars. Also the issue just becomes "with what will we power our electrolysis plants?" instead of our cars. Not sure what you mean about the flaws of hydroelectric power. I grew up in Vegas, and we survive off Hover Dam.

[kandrathe]

You probably don't drive 50 miles to work one way when there can be ice, slush, or snow between November 1st and May 1st either. I would love to drive a vehicle that gets 100 mpg, however I also want one where I don't need to arrive late or not at all for 30-40 days per winter. My little SUV gets about 20 mpg, with a 4WD, and sufficient power to drive through a foot of snow. It gets me to work when I need to get to work, since employment is not optional for me.

[SwissMercenary]

This is a true point. But, once again, we would be talking about hydrogen powered cars. Also the issue just becomes "with what will we power our electrolysis plants?" instead of our cars. Not sure what you mean about the flaws of hydroelectric power. I grew up in Vegas, and we survive off Hover Dam.

Habitat destruction, silt build-up, and the rest of the nine yards. Definetely preferable to choking ourselves on coal, but not idealistically-green, either. Well, considering that most of the world's rivers are already dammed to something approaching full capacity (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do recall us using something along the lines of 60% of the world's affordable hydroelectric power.) I suppose it can't really get worse.

[Nystul]

But the benefit of this technology, is that you could use electricity to seperate water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Electricity can (Key word being 'Can') potentially be produced in more environmentally friendly ways then burning fossil fuels. (See - geothermal, solar, hydroelectric (despite all of its flaws), tidal, nuclear).

This isn't a magical energy pancea, but if more of our electricity is produced from non-polluting processes, then this will produce less pollution in the long run. Oh, and it'll reduce our reliance on oil.

That's a big if though. For it to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels in a given location, all of the non-peak power in that location would have to come from something other than burning fossil fuels. Otherwise, you might actually be burning more instead of less, to make up for the lost efficiency. In most heavily populated areas that don't have some giant dam, I don't think this can be a reality unless there is a nuclear power plant involved.

Otherwise, the environmental benefit is a matter of emissions control. It's not that you are actually burning less fuels, but that you hope to contain the emissions at a power plant much more effectively than you could on thousands of individual automobiles which have very limited cost, weight, and size contraints.

[kandrathe]

And I thought the overall bad mpg of the US was just a myth. I am reminded of the hostage scene in Robocop with the mayor.
Most new cars around here (Denmark) get 15-20 km/l (or ~38-50 mpg) with mixed highway/city use and a competent driver. One VW model got as much as 30 km/l (or ~70-75 mpg) but it's not in production anymore, apparently due to bad worldwide sales. Bigger cars do get a worse fuel economy, but those are also a lot more expensive to both buy and own (taxation of cars is partially based on fuel economy). I'd toss a link, but the only site I know of with impartial tests requires paid membership and is in danish.

Rather, have the Federal Government offer corporate tax incentives for allowing some of their workers to telecommute at least 2 days per week. Reducing a significant amount of commuting to work would relieve road congestion, and reduce gas consumption and vehicle pollution realistically by 20-30%. If companies can work out the communications for outsourcing jobs to India, you'd think they could figure out how to communicate with their own workers in the suburbs.

[Occhidiangela]

And I thought the overall bad mpg of the US was just a myth. I am reminded of the hostage scene in Robocop with the mayor.
Most new cars around here (Denmark) get 15-20 km/l (or ~38-50 mpg) with mixed highway/city use and a competent driver. One VW model got as much as 30 km/l (or ~70-75 mpg) but it's not in production anymore, apparently due to bad worldwide sales. Bigger cars do get a worse fuel economy, but those are also a lot more expensive to both buy and own (taxation of cars is partially based on fuel economy). I'd toss a link, but the only site I know of with impartial tests requires paid membership and is in danish.

I had a small Alpha Romeo sedan when I lived in Italy. It got great gas mileage, high 20's in the city, and mid to high 30's on the hidghway.

There was a catch.

It was illegal to drive in the US, since It Did Not Meet US Emissions standards. Also it had no catalytic converter. It was a 1986. 1.6 liter engine, and I could run it all day at 120 km/Hr.

There is a price, a cost, for clean air. The Italians were not willing to pay it. They had already taxed gasoline to where it was 4 dollars per gallon, when gas was $1.30 per gallon in the US.

Occhi

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

Rather, have the Federal Government offer corporate tax incentives for allowing some of their workers to telecommute at least 2 days per week.

You mean the USA Federal Government? You know, the one that's dominated by cronies of big oil?

If companies can work out the communications for outsourcing jobs to India, you'd think they could figure out how to communicate with their own workers in the suburbs.

Like a bad teacher, most managers can do little more than take a head count and watch how much time the employee spends away from his desk. Outsourcing to India outsources the management function, telecommuting requires managers that can actually evaluate a person's productivity.

Sorry, but while I agree with you, my cynicism based on observations of how things really seem to work leads me to believe that we'll be seeing pigs fly before we see big companies embracing telecommuting in more than a token manner.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Hi,
You mean the USA Federal Government? You know, the one that's dominated by cronies of big oil?
Like a bad teacher, most managers can do little more than take a head count and watch how much time the employee spends away from his desk.

Lol. Pesky reality dashing my hopes for pragmatic progress. :lol:

Outsourcing to India outsources the management function, telecommuting requires managers that can actually evaluate a person's productivity.

My experience with outsourcing is more that it moves the mismanagement offshore as well, then the lawyers all win. I've been managing IT shops for many years now, and it kind of freaks them out when I do away with the time reporting systems. Many people have become relient on using time reporting as a CYA, rather than be productive and proactive.

I tell them that they can keep doing it if they want to, but it might only be good for figuring out how good they can estimate their time. It's been my experience that they are just a weekly lie, and if you really want to manage people you measure results. I like to think of this style as more "keeping it between the ditches", rather than "follow the white line". Often there is no white line, unless someone takes the time in advance to clear the path and paint it and those trail blazers are often wrong as to where the road should really go. After 20 years in the software construction business I'm really tired of trying to explain to CFO's why the actuals are three times higher than the estimates.

Currently I'm managing a group of 24 people in two teams, one team is server/networking and the other team is software. They have the option of telecommuting if they want. I have a bi-weekly meeting and we go around the table pretty quickly (3-5 min each) and discuss "what did you get done, what are you doing for the next two weeks, and what are your obstacles". It's amazing how productive people are when they are answerable to their peers for planning and carrying their own weight. I also make sure the "to do" pile is just slightly more than the available work force. It gets real obvious to everyone involved when people are sand bagging.

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,


Sorry, but while I agree with you, my cynicism based on observations of how things really seem to work leads me to believe that we'll be seeing pigs fly before we see big companies embracing telecommuting in more than a token manner.

--Pete

Get out your umbrella.

My brother has been working from home for IBM for four years. Three to four days in the office at home, and one or two in the Chicago office. (Of course, there are trips to Brazil and China, two and four respectively each year, but funnily enough, while he is there, he communicates to the home office in Chicago via similar means to his set up in the home office (his house in this case) in a Chicago suburb.)

If only my boss would allow it, I could do tele work two days of five.

Bloody meetings, force me to be present the other three days out of five.

Occhi

EDIT: Forgot a paren

[--Pete]

Hi,

I've been managing IT shops for many years now, and it kind of freaks them out when I do away with the time reporting systems.

Bet you came up from the technical side, have one or more degrees ending in 'S', and never darkened the halls of an MBA program :w00t:

But eliminating time reporting was never much of a option in my work, most of it for the government who wanted accountability in 6 minute slices.

Ah, well. In the early seventies I worked for Western Electric. A progressive company, we worked a 37.5 hour week, and we really did work just that many hours, on average, since a crisis bought us comp time which we could take off when things got slack. And the talk was of a 35 hour week in a few years and a 20 hour week by the millennium. My expectation for telecommuting is modeled on that reality -- there is a start (Sue can and often does telecommute), the start kind of stalls out for one reason or another, and the idea dies on the dung heap of 'unimplementability' except for the occasion blossom blooming where a person of some imagination and ability can keep it alive.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Get out your umbrella.

We call them 'bumbershoot' out here. :lol:

My brother has been working from home for IBM for four years.

And does that make him the norm for IBM or the token I mentioned? There are a lot of people telecommuting, but in my estimate, they are a small fraction of all those that could be. Given that we've gone from an industrial economy to a service economy, many workers do not need to go to the office to do their job (which often just consists of answering the phone, looking at a computer screen, and writing some form of report -- all of which they do on a computer).

If only my boss would allow it, I could do tele work two days of five.

Bloody meetings, force me to be present the other three days out of five.

Many small companies have one or two designated meeting days. The rest of the week, there are either no meetings, or they are electronic. In some of these companies, employees don't even have designated work spaces at the 'office'. A few available desks and workstations and a couple of meeting rooms cover the needs when someone actually goes in. But, again, these setups are the exception, not the norm.

Nope, I'm sticking to my story. Telecommute is a comparative rarity.

--Pete

[eppie]

So, take your anti SUV prejudice and shove it. Just because you are blind does not mean there is nothing to see.

--Pete

Yeah why don't we make this into a 'look a this example, so it is true discussion Pete'....a great way to kill a discussion anyway. I mean, how about all those millions without a SUV....how do they survive?
I also vote for sending SUV to Africa...every african has the right to own a SUV...I mean....food...wel you can do two days without....but an SUV....no way.

Beside your personal experience Pete. SUV are for normal use unnecesarry, they consume on average a lot more then lighter cars and they are also much more dangerous for the trafic-members that are not in it (like people in smaller cars/ on bikes/ pedestrians).

Everybody can come with excuses to buy the biggest car available...it is however a lot wiser to come up with reasons to buy a small car, that is very fuel efficient.
But seeing as most people wont do that...the 15 % tax idea doesnot seem bad to me.

[eppie]

Thanks for the links, but I do not believe the entire answer is "efficiency" related, but a more holistic cost benefit analysis, which is why I discuss "total system cost."

For the rest in the thread, the water is converted to HHO by electrolysis, the hydrogen burned, and H2O is a byproduct. You still have to have the battery power/flywheel/Generator, etc, to sustain the electrolysis reaction, if you "fill the tank with water" or you have to create tanks of HHO and fill your car's tank up with HHO at a "filling station." The filling station, of course, requires a lot of electricity to keep converting H20 to HHO for you to "burn" in your car. The issue at hand is how beneficial the non carbon emissions are, what efficiencies one can accrue from that (no more catalytic converters for cars that are pure HHO driven) and what weight and performance savings can be passed along to reduce total system's cost.

The remark about "we want to drive an SUV anyway" is another cost benefit consideration for some customers, but not for those on a budget.

Occhi

I don't really see what you mean with HHO here occhi.

Anyway, a water fueled car would use solar panels to do the elctrolysis (and for that reason would also use some kind of acid to make the elctrolysis possible). What you can think about is a hybrid car. Solar panels continue to generate electricity to do the electrolysis, the hydrogen and oxygen gas get stored (in the car) and used whenever possible. If at some point the hydrogen is finished, standard petrol can be used instead. (it probably requires different engines though).

The other option is going to the petrol station and fill up your car with hydrogen (which hopefully is obtained in a more environmentely friendly way). At least this way you only emit water. (but I'm not sure if it is the environment or the shortage of oil that we should worry about most).

Another option is the solarpowered car that uses an electromotor. These things (in the solarpowerchallenge in australia) can get an average of more than 100 km/ hour measured over a distance of 4000 km.
These cars however are completely flat, and not very comfortable to sit in......so unless we get more efficient solar cells, this is not an option.

[Rhydderch Hael]

I have no clue what so ever how this stuff works, but in all fairness, until you make something better, ...

Metallic deuterium maintained in a metastable matrix for cold fusion.

Light in weight, lots of power, and best of all— tastes like chicken.

[Occhidiangela]

I don't really see what you mean with HHO here occhi.

1. What you can think about is a hybrid car. Solar panels continue to generate electricity to do the electrolysis, the hydrogen and oxygen gas get stored (in the car) and used whenever possible. If at some point the hydrogen is finished, standard petrol can be used instead. (it probably requires different engines though).

2. The other option is going to the petrol station and fill up your car with hydrogen (which hopefully is obtained in a more environmentely friendly way). At least this way you only emit water. (but I'm not sure if it is the environment or the shortage of oil that we should worry about most).

"Brown's gas," which is from the link. There has been further discussion on that by others.

1. And for driving at night, eppie? ;) The weight penalty for massive eletctrical storage has been a known problem for about 80 years. There were battery run cars designed in the 20's and 30's that, due to lack of range and considerable weight, were not practical alternatives to petrol driven cars.

2. Your "hopefully" is hardly a sound basis for massive infrastructure development. The cost, both in energy and in "clean up and other associated costs" of "obtaining hydrogen" is no trivial matter.

As to "different engines." The hybrid engine's practical problem stems from whether you optimize engine design for petroleum combustion, or hydrogen combustion, and what the performance penalties are for suboptimizing the design to allow either.

The NAHBE (Naval Academy Heat Balanced Engine) was a design (about 30 years ago) that used a constant pressure combustion system -- it had a domed/conical piston -- and burned all sorts of fuels: gas, kerosene, peanut oil among others. It got about 50 miles per gallon. I don't note a lot of NAHBE's on the streets today. Each alternative fuel, and for that matter each alternative fuel, comes with a price, just as petrol comes with a price.

Occhi

Edit: spelling, and the fact that I could not find any links for NAHBE.

[Roland]

Furthermore, you wouldn't be emitting oxygen, you would be emitting WATER

Very true.

- the product of burning hydrogen.

Uh-oh. Not quite. The burning of Hydrogen ALONE does not produce water. It is the combination of one Oxygen atom plus two Hydrogen atoms and the application of fire that creates water. Hence the atomic breakdown of H2O. You can't just burn hydrogen (or anything, for that matter, that I know of) without oxygen as well, but your statement as it stands is a bit misleading.

Just had to nit that.:P

The problem with steam is the boiler itself. In order to make a useful steam engine, you need a high amount of pressure in order to turn a turbine (thus turning mechanical energy into electrical). It's this pressure that makes steam engines so inherently dangerous, and why they are not very popular in recent applications. They are much cleaner burning, provided you use a clean-burning fuel, but they are also much more dangerous. Gasoline engines use controlled mixtures of gasoline "mist" and oxygen, compressed down to extreme levels, and then ignited, creating a small explosion that drives a piston, which in turn moves a crankshaft, etc. But the reaction is much more controllable, and provided things aren't horrendously out-of-spec, much safer than a steam engine (or, rather, using a boiler).

I don't see steam as any savoir for our energy problems in this day and age. We got away from it for a reason - it would be a step backwards to start using it again for any large-scale applications (such as cars). A giant tank filled with 1,000 PSI (arbitrary numbers, mind you, for example's sake) of boiling hot steam is a very dangrous thing. Imagine what would happen in a car-crash - instant explosion of metal and steam. You'd be a moving bomb should anything go wrong. Just not a smart idea.

[Occhidiangela]

I don't see steam as any savoir for our energy problems in this day and age. We got away from it for a reason - it would be a step backwards to start using it again for any large-scale applications (such as cars). A giant tank filled with 1,000 PSI (arbitrary numbers, mind you, for example's sake) of boiling hot steam is a very dangrous thing. Imagine what would happen in a car-crash - instant explosion of metal and steam. You'd be a moving bomb should anything go wrong. Just not a smart idea.

Imagine two cars doing about 35 in a T-bone type collision . . . with 1200psi steam in a system that just got craked. (FWIW, int eht 1960's the Navy went to 600 psi steam from 1200 psi steam in many ships: with turbines taller than you are.)

Scalded, and burned by boiling water . . . ouch, and permanent burn damage to tissue, blinding, etc.

*shudders*

Occhi

[Doc]

I guess most of you have completely forgotten that most early cars were powered by steam piston engines... It was gas powered cars that were considered unsafe and dangerous for the longest time.:PAnd have none of you ever driven a steam powered tractor? They still make those you know, because there is still demand for them, because they can do things combustion engines can't do.:D

I noticed a steam powered turbine being mentioned... Not turbine, piston... Pressure builds, piston is raised, moves mechanical assembly of whatever kind to create movement, pressure released, piston drops, pressure builds.

One of GE's diesel / electric locomotives uses steam instead of an all combustion system. It is very efficient, powerful, and SAFE. I don't remember all of the details, but I remember seeing something about it on either the Discovery channel or the Learning channel some time back. I do not know the details of how it works, but it has a diesel powered boiler of some kind. I bet if it was converted to biofuel of some kind it would be quite good. It won industrial design rewards for being so clean burning and powerful.