Thoraiya DyerWhy you CAN’T Convert Your Car To Run On Water
June 29th 2008 21:53
Had enough of skyrocketing petrol prices? Desperate for a way out of this fossil fuel hole we’ve dug for ourselves? Everyone’s heard about this or that conspiracy theory where the oil companies have stifled new technologies that are easier, cleaner and cheaper. Wouldn’t we all love to convert our cars to run on water?
Do I think oil companies have stifled new technologies? Absolutely!
Do I think I can convert my existing car to run on water? Absolutely not!
Website Spirit of Ma’at ( Really Long Link ) is not the only place where I can download plans to, “use water instead of gasoline to run your car.”
While it’s very considerate of them to recommend that I, “use an old car that doesn't represent a loss of value if you can't make it work. And leave everything intact so that you can always reconnect back to gas if you have to,” I would rather they admit the truth: You can’t PRODUCE significant amounts of hydrogen in your existing engine, you can’t BURN hydrogen in your existing engine, and even if you could, you couldn’t get any kind of net energy gain out of the cycle.
Let’s find out why. Here’s an outline of the downloadable so-called plan.
“The Plan:
Build and install a low-cost alternative method for running your vehicle (internal combustion engine) on tap water, using off-the-shelf components.
This is simply an efficient way to convert ordinary tap water into gaseous hydrogen and oxygen, and then burn these vapors in the engine, instead of gasoline.
This "minisystem" runs easily from your existing battery and electrical system, and it plugs into your carburetor with simple off-the-shelf fittings.
You will be installing a plastic water tank, a control circuit, a reaction chamber, a hi-pressure carb/FI fitting, and 3 gauges, and then hooking into your existing carb/FI.
The simplicity comes from its being an "on-demand" system requiring no fancy storage or plumbing. You crank the gas pedal or throttle, and you electrically create more vapor for immediate consumption, on demand; low-high flow rate as needed, from idle to maximum power. The only real change is that you are using tap water as fuel, instead of the traditional petroleum-based fuel.”
Oh. My. God.
Did he say turn tap water into gaseous hydrogen and oxygen? And then burn them?
For starters, to “burn” something is to combine it with oxygen. Ask the Free Dictionary ( Really Long Link ):
“Burn, v. 1. To be on fire; undergo combustion. A substance burns if it is heated up enough to react chemically with oxygen.”
Oh, dear. Looks like you won’t be able to burn that oxygen… because it’s already combined with oxygen.
Hahahahahaha.
*wipes away tears of laughter*
Well, suppose we just burn the hydrogen, then. Hydrogen can be burned. In fact, lots of car companies are lining up to produce cars that contain hydrogen fuel cells, and some are already available, according to Hydrogen.org Really Long Link ):
“A fuel cell is fed hydrogen and air and puts out electricity, heat, and … pure water in the exhaust. An excellent animated graphic of an operating fuel cell can be found at: Really Long Link ”
And here’s the lovely Honda model (taken from: Really Long Link
What I’m taking exception to is the suggestion that you can convert water to hydrogen and oxygen in your existing engine…that you can burn hydrogen in your existing engine…and that you can somehow get a net increase in energy this way.
Problem 1: Electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen, using “a plastic water tank, a control circuit, a reaction chamber, a hi-pressure carb/FI fitting, and 3 gauges.”
I’m not really aware of any “off the shelf fittings” that look like this:
That’s a Stuart Energy trailer-mounted refueling system. It plugs into mains electricity and produces hydrogen and oxygen from water by electrolysis (passing an electric current through the water).
The point is, if you tried to do this with your car battery, it would be flat in about 10 seconds, and you’d have produced less gas than a gopher fart.
And you need more than that to run a car with.
“The Stuart Energy hydrogen fueling station … will generate approximately 120 kg of clean hydrogen fuel per day…Each bus in the project will require about 40 kg of hydrogen per day.” ( Really Long Link )
You don’t need as much as a bus, but you need more than a gopher fart. So, good luck with that. In the future, we’ll have solar and other methods for producing hydrogen ( Really Long Link ), but that’s in the future.
For now, not only does electrolysis require more electricity than a car battery is capable of providing, but it also requires catalysts – either platinum, in the case of acidic electrolysis (cha-ching! More expensive than gold, people!) or nano nickel and iron particles (that doesn’t sound off the shelf to me).
Problem 2: Pumping gaseous hydrogen and oxygen into the carburetor of a normal petrol engine and expecting the car to work.
Take a look at this simplified model of an internal combustion engine:
It’s from rkm.com.au ( Really Long Link ), which explains:
“INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES are mechanical devices that use controlled explosions (combustions) of petrol (gasoline) and air mixtures to rotate wheels. The reciprocating (back and forth) engine explodes the mixture (of fuel air) in a cylinder that forces the contained piston to move. This movement of the piston is transmitted (via the connecting rod) to a rotating device (crankshaft shown as a simple red disc) which is ultimately connected to the wheels (via gears, usually).”
Right. So, in a normal engine, petrol and air get mixed in the carburettor, they go to the cylinders, and a spark ignites them inside the cylinder, causing the controlled explosion that drives the piston.
Is hydrogen gas going to ignite and explode in the same way?
Nicholas P Cheremisinoff ( q=ignition" target="_blank">Really Long Link temperature 92 octane fuel&source=web&ots=Z8-QZv4Bk 5&sig=3yuhnJ-d-S82fQpN7F0lFSa tagw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_resul t&resnum=7&ct=result ) assures me that the ignition temperature of gasoline is 315 degrees Celsius.
This is echoed on the Hydrogen Now website ( Really Long Link ) which also mentions that:
“Hydrogen is less flammable than gasoline. The self-ignition temperature of hydrogen is 550 degrees Celsius.”
Well, the spark produced by your existing spark plug will probably still ignite hydrogen. That’s IF there’s a great enough concentration of hydrogen (it’s a very small molecule that can leak out of unimaginably small spaces) and IF the pressure is high enough (which is debatable). BUT, if it does burn, it’s certainly not going to burn with the same characteristics of the fuel for which your petrol engine is best suited.
And what happens then?
“Under ideal conditions the common piston internal combustion engine burns its fuel/air mix in the cylinder in an orderly and controlled fashion…This ignition advance allows time for the combustion process to develop peak pressure at the ideal time for maximum recovery of work from the expanding gases.”
What does that mean, exactly?
“In normal combustion, this flame front moves throughout the fuel air mix at a rate characteristic for the fuel-air mixture. Pressure rises smoothly to a peak, as nearly all the available fuel is consumed, then pressure falls as the piston descends. Maximum cylinder pressure is achieved a few crankshaft degrees after the piston passes TDC, so that the increasing pressure can give the piston a hard push when its speed and mechanical advantage on the crank shaft gives the best recovery of force from the expanding gases.”
Here’s the really fun part:
“When unburned fuel/air mixture beyond the boundary of the flame front is heated and pressurized by the advancing flame front for a certain length of time, detonation occurs. It is caused by an instantaneous, explosive ignition of pockets of fuel/air mixture. The cylinder pressure rises sharply beyond its design limits, and if it is allowed to persist, detonation will damage or destroy engine parts. The deleterious mechanisms range from particle wear caused by moderate knocking, to holes punched through the piston or head caused by serious knocking.”
Awesome! Destruction of engine parts! Holes in the pistons!
Wheeeeeeeee!
No wonder they want you to try it on an old, crappy car that you don’t love.
Problem 3: How to overcome the fact that the energy required to split water into hydrogen and oxygen is exactly the same as the energy gained when oxygen and hydrogen are combined again.
There’s nothing much more to say about Problem Number 3. Storing chemical energy is like putting money in a money box – you can’t take out more than you put in.
So, even if this scheme actually worked, even if you got 100% of the water to split, even if it was all perfectly insulated so that no energy was lost as heat and no gases escaped, you would still have a car that goes nowhere, because energy input would be greater than or equal to energy output.
Try not to cry. I know it’s a great disappointment. Until we start swapping petrol stations for hydrogen stations and buying purpose-built hydrogen cars, we just can’t have emissions-free travel.
But hopefully that day is not too far away.
Do I think oil companies have stifled new technologies? Absolutely!
Do I think I can convert my existing car to run on water? Absolutely not!
Website Spirit of Ma’at ( Really Long Link ) is not the only place where I can download plans to, “use water instead of gasoline to run your car.”
While it’s very considerate of them to recommend that I, “use an old car that doesn't represent a loss of value if you can't make it work. And leave everything intact so that you can always reconnect back to gas if you have to,” I would rather they admit the truth: You can’t PRODUCE significant amounts of hydrogen in your existing engine, you can’t BURN hydrogen in your existing engine, and even if you could, you couldn’t get any kind of net energy gain out of the cycle.
Let’s find out why. Here’s an outline of the downloadable so-called plan.
“The Plan:
Build and install a low-cost alternative method for running your vehicle (internal combustion engine) on tap water, using off-the-shelf components.
This is simply an efficient way to convert ordinary tap water into gaseous hydrogen and oxygen, and then burn these vapors in the engine, instead of gasoline.
This "minisystem" runs easily from your existing battery and electrical system, and it plugs into your carburetor with simple off-the-shelf fittings.
You will be installing a plastic water tank, a control circuit, a reaction chamber, a hi-pressure carb/FI fitting, and 3 gauges, and then hooking into your existing carb/FI.
The simplicity comes from its being an "on-demand" system requiring no fancy storage or plumbing. You crank the gas pedal or throttle, and you electrically create more vapor for immediate consumption, on demand; low-high flow rate as needed, from idle to maximum power. The only real change is that you are using tap water as fuel, instead of the traditional petroleum-based fuel.”
Oh. My. God.
Did he say turn tap water into gaseous hydrogen and oxygen? And then burn them?
For starters, to “burn” something is to combine it with oxygen. Ask the Free Dictionary ( Really Long Link ):
“Burn, v. 1. To be on fire; undergo combustion. A substance burns if it is heated up enough to react chemically with oxygen.”
Oh, dear. Looks like you won’t be able to burn that oxygen… because it’s already combined with oxygen.
Hahahahahaha.
*wipes away tears of laughter*
Well, suppose we just burn the hydrogen, then. Hydrogen can be burned. In fact, lots of car companies are lining up to produce cars that contain hydrogen fuel cells, and some are already available, according to Hydrogen.org Really Long Link ):
“A fuel cell is fed hydrogen and air and puts out electricity, heat, and … pure water in the exhaust. An excellent animated graphic of an operating fuel cell can be found at: Really Long Link ”
And here’s the lovely Honda model (taken from: Really Long Link
What I’m taking exception to is the suggestion that you can convert water to hydrogen and oxygen in your existing engine…that you can burn hydrogen in your existing engine…and that you can somehow get a net increase in energy this way.
Problem 1: Electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen, using “a plastic water tank, a control circuit, a reaction chamber, a hi-pressure carb/FI fitting, and 3 gauges.”
I’m not really aware of any “off the shelf fittings” that look like this:
That’s a Stuart Energy trailer-mounted refueling system. It plugs into mains electricity and produces hydrogen and oxygen from water by electrolysis (passing an electric current through the water).
The point is, if you tried to do this with your car battery, it would be flat in about 10 seconds, and you’d have produced less gas than a gopher fart.
And you need more than that to run a car with.
“The Stuart Energy hydrogen fueling station … will generate approximately 120 kg of clean hydrogen fuel per day…Each bus in the project will require about 40 kg of hydrogen per day.” ( Really Long Link )
You don’t need as much as a bus, but you need more than a gopher fart. So, good luck with that. In the future, we’ll have solar and other methods for producing hydrogen ( Really Long Link ), but that’s in the future.
For now, not only does electrolysis require more electricity than a car battery is capable of providing, but it also requires catalysts – either platinum, in the case of acidic electrolysis (cha-ching! More expensive than gold, people!) or nano nickel and iron particles (that doesn’t sound off the shelf to me).
Problem 2: Pumping gaseous hydrogen and oxygen into the carburetor of a normal petrol engine and expecting the car to work.
Take a look at this simplified model of an internal combustion engine:
It’s from rkm.com.au ( Really Long Link ), which explains:
“INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES are mechanical devices that use controlled explosions (combustions) of petrol (gasoline) and air mixtures to rotate wheels. The reciprocating (back and forth) engine explodes the mixture (of fuel air) in a cylinder that forces the contained piston to move. This movement of the piston is transmitted (via the connecting rod) to a rotating device (crankshaft shown as a simple red disc) which is ultimately connected to the wheels (via gears, usually).”
Right. So, in a normal engine, petrol and air get mixed in the carburettor, they go to the cylinders, and a spark ignites them inside the cylinder, causing the controlled explosion that drives the piston.
Is hydrogen gas going to ignite and explode in the same way?
Nicholas P Cheremisinoff ( q=ignition" target="_blank">Really Long Link temperature 92 octane fuel&source=web&ots=Z8-QZv4Bk 5&sig=3yuhnJ-d-S82fQpN7F0lFSa tagw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_resul t&resnum=7&ct=result ) assures me that the ignition temperature of gasoline is 315 degrees Celsius.
This is echoed on the Hydrogen Now website ( Really Long Link ) which also mentions that:
“Hydrogen is less flammable than gasoline. The self-ignition temperature of hydrogen is 550 degrees Celsius.”
Well, the spark produced by your existing spark plug will probably still ignite hydrogen. That’s IF there’s a great enough concentration of hydrogen (it’s a very small molecule that can leak out of unimaginably small spaces) and IF the pressure is high enough (which is debatable). BUT, if it does burn, it’s certainly not going to burn with the same characteristics of the fuel for which your petrol engine is best suited.
And what happens then?
“Under ideal conditions the common piston internal combustion engine burns its fuel/air mix in the cylinder in an orderly and controlled fashion…This ignition advance allows time for the combustion process to develop peak pressure at the ideal time for maximum recovery of work from the expanding gases.”
What does that mean, exactly?
“In normal combustion, this flame front moves throughout the fuel air mix at a rate characteristic for the fuel-air mixture. Pressure rises smoothly to a peak, as nearly all the available fuel is consumed, then pressure falls as the piston descends. Maximum cylinder pressure is achieved a few crankshaft degrees after the piston passes TDC, so that the increasing pressure can give the piston a hard push when its speed and mechanical advantage on the crank shaft gives the best recovery of force from the expanding gases.”
Here’s the really fun part:
“When unburned fuel/air mixture beyond the boundary of the flame front is heated and pressurized by the advancing flame front for a certain length of time, detonation occurs. It is caused by an instantaneous, explosive ignition of pockets of fuel/air mixture. The cylinder pressure rises sharply beyond its design limits, and if it is allowed to persist, detonation will damage or destroy engine parts. The deleterious mechanisms range from particle wear caused by moderate knocking, to holes punched through the piston or head caused by serious knocking.”
Awesome! Destruction of engine parts! Holes in the pistons!
Wheeeeeeeee!
No wonder they want you to try it on an old, crappy car that you don’t love.
Problem 3: How to overcome the fact that the energy required to split water into hydrogen and oxygen is exactly the same as the energy gained when oxygen and hydrogen are combined again.
There’s nothing much more to say about Problem Number 3. Storing chemical energy is like putting money in a money box – you can’t take out more than you put in.
So, even if this scheme actually worked, even if you got 100% of the water to split, even if it was all perfectly insulated so that no energy was lost as heat and no gases escaped, you would still have a car that goes nowhere, because energy input would be greater than or equal to energy output.
Try not to cry. I know it’s a great disappointment. Until we start swapping petrol stations for hydrogen stations and buying purpose-built hydrogen cars, we just can’t have emissions-free travel.
But hopefully that day is not too far away.
| 59 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Thoraiya Dyer
Demented World
I don't know how many have tried, but even fake journalist shows like current affair and today tonight are running stories on saving petrol using water. They show a range of people with unsealed salsa dip jars full of water and electrodes strapped under the bonnet and make no comment on the mechanism or anything evidence-based.
Sigh.
Comment by charles
FanFootball
ZCars
Ponderous
Meanwhile, people can do what Prince Charles did with his Aston Martin - converted the car to run on white wine!
No, I kid you not!
Comment by Master Lee
This technology has been around for over 40 years, Tesla himself tried to promote it from some of his ideas and of course was told otherwise like sad lil sites like this.
So it doesn't work - well, shows you never tried it have you - I myself being an engineer sought to try it and was impressed with the results. my suv get's a 54% step up from before, thus my mpg is 11mpg more than before.
Say what you wish, but you are simply ignorant and have no clue - and seems they master's know more than the naysayers.
(spraying a large "L" on your foreheads)