Water-powered car: real deal or n-th scam?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

so are things that promise the ability to use water to make hydrogen to improve the fuel efficiency of your vehicle BS too?

as seen here

http://www.water-4-fuel.com/

It is absolute bullshit. Utter and complete bullshit. And I'm being polite.

The only people who are laughing to the bank on these scams are the scammers and snake-oil salesmen who sell these kits and plans for $50.

Yes, it is possible to produce hydrogen from water via electrolysis. That is legitimate. However, claiming that one will dramatically improve fuel efficiency by burning this hydrogen is complete bunk. Remember, hydrogen isn't an energy source. It's a kind of battery. You won't magically get more energy burning it than you put into liberating it from the water molecules. And, in fact, when you burn it in an ICE, you promptly throw away something like 70% of the energy as waste heat, which means you come nowhere near breaking even. Especially given the miniscule quantities of hydrogen produced by these systems.

Furthermore, these "water from fuel" scams fit the traditional pattern of snake-oil schemes:

A) Misuse of scientific terms: Yep. For example, the link claims that one gallon of water produces 1800+ liters of hydrogen gas. Well, that's nice, until one remembers just how dense hydrogen gas is. Apparently, these clowns have never heard of the Zeppelin, and that if one runs the numbers, one will find that these systems are, in fact, in violation of the laws of physics (because they'd have to produce more energy than you put into them for their claims to work.)

B) Wild, unsubstantiated claims: Yep, there's plenty of those. Backed by lots of unsigned testimonials and zero peer-reviewed research whatsoever.

C) Wild claims of conspiracy theories: You betcha! These systems claim you're sticking it to Big Oil and their Big Car Company lapdogs who doesn't want you to use their miracle technologies because you're taking money from their pockets and putting it into your own.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

so are things that promise the ability to use water to make hydrogen to improve the fuel efficiency of your vehicle BS too?

as seen here

http://www.water-4-fuel.com/

I gather that these systems are actually legit. They use electricity from the car battery to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water, then feed them into the fuel system, where they improve the efficiency of fuel combustion (rather than replacing it). Supposedly they'll improve your gas mileage significantly -- I hear numbers ranging from 10% to 40%.

The driver can affect the fuel economy of a car 10% to 40%. I'm renting a Ford Edge this week which is advertised to get 19 MPG city/24 MPG highway. I'm getting 28 MPG by hypermiling the thing. (Yes, I'm hypermiling a rental car. I'm weird that way, mkay?)

[Zixinus]

I gather that these systems are actually legit. They use electricity from the car battery to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water, then feed them into the fuel system, where they improve the efficiency of fuel combustion (rather than replacing it). Supposedly they'll improve your gas mileage significantly -- I hear numbers ranging from 10% to 40%.

It's bullshit because normal cars are designed to run on gasoline combustion in the engine, not hydrogen combustion. Hydrogen is a very dangerous e substance (a single spark can set it off), if it doesn't destroy the motor then it will at least cause damage to it. If that doesn't happen, then the hydrogen injected doesn't matter. Hydrogen is ROCKET FUEL people, it explodes violently and suddenly, its called "boom-gas" for a reason. You might as well pour nitroglycerin into the engine.

I can believe a regular engine and surrounding systems can work on hydrogen, WITH MODIFICATION TO THE ENGINE in question.

I have to admit it had me for a second, as I know that gasoline engines rely on gasoline combusting, so add hydrogen into the mix = more boom, more energy given to the motor. It's enough for people with less knack for machines to trick them.

For example, the link claims that one gallon of water produces 1800+ liters of hydrogen gas.

Plus, misusing measurement units. Gallon is imperial, liter is international. Not to mention the fact that hydrogen is GAS at most temperatures, so I doubt litre would be used. More like cubic meter, unless they are using cryogenics to cool the damn thing.

[Sea Skimmer]

It's bullshit because normal cars are designed to run on gasoline combustion in the engine, not hydrogen combustion. Hydrogen is a very dangerous e substance (a single spark can set it off), if it doesn't destroy the motor then it will at least cause damage to it.

Hydrogen is very dangerous? Really? And gasoline vapor, which is what the engine burns, is not? Are you fucking kidding?

If that doesn't happen, then the hydrogen injected doesn't matter. Hydrogen is ROCKET FUEL people, it explodes violently and suddenly, its called "boom-gas" for a reason. You might as well pour nitroglycerin into the engine.

Gasoline explodes with extreme violence too, and such explosions destroyed several WW2 aircraft carriers. In fact a name even exists for what happens when gasoline explodes rather then burns in a cylinder, its called engine knock and its like hitting the piston with a sledgehammer. Pistons and rings can be pitted, cracked and even outright blown into pieces which fly out the exhaust by engine knock.. This is why using the correct octane rating of gasoline at the pump is of vital importance.

You can use gasoline in a rocket too BTW, and in fact a liquid fuel like gas is more desirable then a gas like hydrogen. The first large rocket ever mass produced, the Nazi V-2, ran on alcohol, which happens to work in gasoline engines as well.

I can believe a regular engine and surrounding systems can work on hydrogen, WITH MODIFICATION TO THE ENGINE in question.

No, feeding a small amount of hydrogen into the intake air should not cause any problems, the ECU will compensate by leaning mixture. If you do a total conversion to hydrogen then you need hydrogen injectors, a hydrogen fuel system to feed the injectors, and a remapped or replaced ECU but that’s still nothing overwhelming.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

For example, the link claims that one gallon of water produces 1800+ liters of hydrogen gas.

Plus, misusing measurement units. Gallon is imperial, liter is international. Not to mention the fact that hydrogen is GAS at most temperatures, so I doubt litre would be used. More like cubic meter, unless they are using cryogenics to cool the damn thing.

Whoops. That should be 1800+ gallons. I was suffering from an extreme case of charlatan-induced rage at the time and got my units mixed up. And one uses gallons and liters as a measure of volume. Though this is disingenuous on their part, owing to the difference of densities of hydrogen gas versus water. If they intended to be honest, they'd have used masses . . .

[Zixinus]

Hydrogen is very dangerous? Really? And gasoline vapor, which is what the engine burns, is not? Are you fucking kidding?

I meant that hydrogen gas is more dangerous. I recall that its reaction with oxygen gives much greater energy then gasoline's reaction does by far. It's one of the the most powerful endothermic (the one that gives heat in case I got the wrong term) chemical reaction.

Yes, I admit that my post was illy expressed, but my point still stands: a car's engine was designed to run on gasoline, not hydrogen. The stress of the materials and everything was meant to withstand gasoline-air reaction's heat and stresses, not hydrogen-air reaction's stresses.

This is why using the correct octane rating of gasoline at the pump is of vital importance.

And wouldn't mixing hydrogen into gasoline fuck that up?

No, feeding a small amount of hydrogen into the intake air should not cause any problems, the ECU will compensate by leaning mixture.

I didn't know that. But still, how much can an ECU compensate?

If you do a total conversion to hydrogen then you need hydrogen injectors, a hydrogen fuel system to feed the injectors, and a remapped or replaced ECU but that’s still nothing overwhelming.

My point was that you need to modify the engine and assorted stuff for it to work, not that it would be impossible for it to work.

[His Divine Shadow]

Burning hydrogen is less dangerous to be around than burning gasoline due to the way it acts, hydrogen is clean and fast burning and disperses quickly in the atmosphere. Gasoline doesn't burn quickly and cleanly, is a liquid that can splash on your and continue burning.

[PeZook]

Thinking of hydrogen as a battery makes it far easier to evaluate wild claims like these.

That water-4-fuel site basically says: We use the car's alternator to charge your battery, and then charge another battery and then use that charge to drive your vehicle! Awesomenity! Super-efficency for the scientifically illiterate!

Pure chemistry. H2O has a lower energy state since it's already underwent the 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O reaction. You get water and energy out of it.

Then you take the water, pump energy into it, so you get:

2H2O + energy = 2H2 + O2.

Yep...you can legitimately call hydrogen a glorified battery. Really, I had a C in chemistry in high school and can still figure that out.

[Sea Skimmer]

[
I meant that hydrogen gas is more dangerous. I recall that its reaction with oxygen gives much greater energy then gasoline's reaction does by far.

It gives off somewhat more, by mass, but this makes little difference when comparing a liquid fuel to a compressed gas of much lower density. Both are an explosion risk in theory, but in practice if you had a hydrogen gas generator onboard the car you’d have too little and too lightly compressed of hydrogen around to worry about.

Yes, I admit that my post was illy expressed, but my point still stands: a car's engine was designed to run on gasoline, not hydrogen. The stress of the materials and everything was meant to withstand gasoline-air reaction's heat and stresses, not hydrogen-air reaction's stresses.

The combustion temperatures and pressures found inside an internal combustion engine are highly variable depending on how the engine is designed. You cannot simply say hydrogen fuel is higher stress because it has more energy; that just means you squirt in a lower mass of fuel to keep things at the air-fuel balance you want (normally about 14.7 to 1 for gasoline by mass). An ECU already has to continuously adjust fuel flow to do this in response to changes in the throttle plate position (cars no longer have direct linkages from the foot pedal to the fuel flow).

And wouldn't mixing hydrogen into gasoline fuck that up?

Its possible that it could cause knocking, or preignition or misfiring but if such a problem did occur it can be overcome, particularly with a lean mixture.

I didn't know that. But still, how much can an ECU compensate?

Infinitely within the limitations of its programming, which will have minimal and maximum cutoff points so that faulty sensor data doesn’t make the engine small or flood. The only physical limitation is the fuel injector its self, besides limitations on the accuracy of the sensors telling the computer how much fuel is needed. A fuel injector squirts in a series of incredibly rapid pulses of fuel at a constant pressure, how much fuel is injected is controlled by the pulse width of the single sent to the fuel injector, longer the pulse width the larger the total fuel charge. A typical charge of fuel is hundreds of pulses in an absurdly short fraction of a second; and the computers can precisely control the number of pulses used. You just can’t have fractions.

My point was that you need to modify the engine and assorted stuff for it to work, not that it would be impossible for it to work.

With a small charge of hydrogen in the intake air you don’t need modifications. An onboard hydrogen generator would have absurdly limited capacity and I highly doubt the trickle of hydrogen it could produce would cause problems.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Burning hydrogen is less dangerous to be around than burning gasoline due to the way it acts, hydrogen is clean and fast burning and disperses quickly in the atmosphere. Gasoline doesn't burn quickly and cleanly, is a liquid that can splash on your and continue burning.

And as I recall, even if it escapes and ignites, hydrogen tends to be less dangerous than gasoline simply because it's so light. It, and any flames go straight up quite fast, carrying the heat with them; as opposed to heavier burning substances like gas, which goes sideways more ( even as vapor ). A lot of the people on the Hindenburg survived because of that; spectacular as the flames were, being hydrogen flames most of the heat went up and away from people.