why all "water car/hydrogen generators" are scams

[derek54401]

I have recently seen many people attempting to prey on unknowing consumers, who are fed up with high gas prices, by advertising a supposed system, which splits water into hydrogen and oxygen, which is injected into the engine to be used as fuel. These systems are advertised as using an electrolysis process to split water into supposed "HHO gas," using electricity from the car's battery.

Obviously this scheme was thought up by someone who had never taken so much as a high school science class. Water ( HOH, not HHO ) can be separated into hydrogen and oxygen gas, by passing an electric current through it.

H20 (liquid) ---> H2 (gas) + 1/2 O2 (gas)

As you can see, by the above balanced reaction, for each mole Water (HOH) decomposed, 1 mole H2 gas is produced, and 1/2 mole O2 gas is produced

In order to preform the above reaction (electrolysis), energy is required. this energy is produced by the car's alternator, and stored in the battery. In order to produce electricity the alternator must place a load on the car's engine.

by looking at the enthalpy of formation of the electrolysis reaction
(Δ Hf rxn = 286 kJ/mol), we see that 286 kJ of energy is required to split 1 mole (18g) of water into hydrogen and oxygen.

The electrolysis process is only 20-30% efficient, (70-80% of the energy put in is wasted as heat), however, for the simplicity of this explanations (and to satisfy sceptics and nay-sayers), we will assume 100% efficiency in the electrolysis process. The alternator which generates the electricity for the electrolysis process, again is only 50-60% efficient, but again, for the sake of simplicity we will assume 100% efficiency. Finally, the internal combustion engine of your car is only 20-30% efficient, but again, for simplicity we will assume 100% efficiency.

when the hydrogen gas produced by the electrolysis process is burned in the car's internal combustion engine, hydrogen is combined with oxygen to form water vapour (steam), in the following balanced reaction.

H2 (gas) + 1/2 O2 (gas) --> H2O (gas)

by looking at the enthalpy of formation of this reaction
(Δ Hf rxn = -241 kJ/mol), we determine that 241 kJ of energy is released by the burning of 1 mole of hydrogen.

conclusion:
we determined that to split 1 mole of water into hydrogen and oxygen gasses consumed 286 kJ of energy, assuming 100% efficiency. we also determined that burning the same amount of hydrogen that was produced released 241 kJ of energy. Even assuming 100% efficiency, we still experienced a net loss of 43 kJ (15%) of energy from this process, which supposedly lets us use water as a fuel. simple calculations show that we actually lose 15% more energy creating hydrogen than is produced by burning it. These supposed fuel saving gimmicks will actually make you burn more fuel, by forcing your alternator to work harder to generate electricity for a process which results in a net loss in energy.

by figuring in the losses in energy throughout the electrolysis process, and combustion cycle (efficiencies given earlier), we can calculate that the process is only 3-4% efficient.
at 100% efficiency, 85% of the energy used for electrolysis would be returned to the engine to preform useful work, however, in reality just 3-4% of that 85% is actually converted in to mechanical energy.
This means that for every 100 kJ of mechanical energy taken from the engine by the alternator, only 2-3 kJ of mechanical energy is produced by this so called fuel saving system.

 

[airborn_ranger]

is hydrogen viable as a standalone fuel?

thanks derek,
a scientific explanation is so welcome...one can not argue the arithmetic (balanced equations).

If hydrogen powered trucks were considered solely on the basis of an alternative fuel (one not using petroleum-based distillates) would hydrogen be a viable consideration?

a_r

 

[MAKG]

No. Think of hydrogen like a big gaseous battery.

Every "fuel" requires MORE energy to make it than it provides. For fossil fuels, that energy came from photosynthesis, geothermal energy, and so on. For hydrogen, it ALL comes from some external source. You have to make it. It takes more energy to make it than you get out.

It's not at all clear that hydrogen fuel cells will make better batteries than more traditional battery packs. The latter has undergone significant progress in recent years.

So, the question is, how are you going to MAKE the hydrogen without using petroleum? There are a few potential options, but nothing truly viable. No, not even nuclear. It still has unresolved and probably unresolveable issues of what to do with the waste.

 

[derek54401]

yes, when the hydrogen is produced using an outside energy source, such as electricity from the grid, stored in a compressed tanks, and then burned, then it is a great energy carrier. in this analysis, I was simply speaking of systems which are advertised across the internet under the claim of "run your car on water"

i am in no way suggesting that hydrogen is not a great energy carrier. in fact, I am sure that because of the low price of electricity, running a car on compressed hydrogen would be cheaper than gasoline. all we need is someone to come up with a system which could be retrofitted to our trucks.

 

[rboyer]

It's a shame that we have so much hydrogen on our planet in one form or another but cannot use it for several reasons which make so much sense. I definitely don't see a viable way to use it in our vehicles in the near future, but some day eventually it will happen.

 

[reno]

You have to remember people, Rome was not built in a day, we are at the beginning (for us) of HHO (and by the way the HH is from H2 (2parts) and O (1part)). When Gasoline was first made, took many years to get it balanced, then Regular was found to be bad due to Lead. It is a 100+ year old fossil fuel that never really did us no good. Gives off bad emmissions which caused us to mine Platinum for the catalytic converters and then making them a law. I for one would like to have a more effiecent motor that gives off no bad emissions so I can straight pipe if I want.

And what about you "Global Warming" freaks? Gasoline is now the cause, before it was Freon, R-12 to be exact, seems like you tree huggers should be fond of a "new" found energy source and hoping with enough people experimenting and testing it will completely replace fossil fuels as we know. We must keep looking forward. Remember "We are going to the moon" and people laughed? There are still the weird ones out there that believe it never happened. No new invention that hit main stream was ever good enough, everything gets refined in time and becomes more effecient, just takes that one person to discover a new way,release it,then along comes someone else improving the improved method.

 

[MAKG]

Umm, before you go foaming at the mouth, you might want to check your facts.

NO ONE blamed global warming on R-12. That was the southern ozone hole. It happens to be a greenhouse gas (as is R-134a), but no one cares because of the tiny volumes involved .

And review your history. No one laughed at the Apollo project. At least no one who had a clue.

 

[mfp4073]

Yeah, I saw a thing on tv about a guy who was running hydrogen cars and such. He had big storage tanks and was making his own BUT the important part was that all his power to do so was from a huge solar array he had setup. So it was basically all free (once you pay for parts).

 

[reno]

Umm, before you go foaming at the mouth, you might want to check your facts.

NO ONE blamed global warming on R-12. That was the southern ozone hole. It happens to be a greenhouse gas (as is R-134a), but no one cares because of the tiny volumes involved .

And review your history. No one laughed at the Apollo project. At least no one who had a clue.

You said it yourself, the southern Ozone, a hole in the ozone is a hole in the ozone, whether it be southern, northern central, where ever. And yes they laughed (not literally outburst of laughter), about space travel. That is why there is naysayers to this day about we never did it it was all a hoax. I even remember when cars ran on points,a distributor and a coil, 1bbl. 2bbl, 4bbl and six pack carbs, no computer, and look at the fuel mileage...not much different than most today. Not trying to start a flame, just look at it with an open mind, it is possible that one day this will be the most feasible alternative fuel source, or while tinkering with fuel alternatives someone will come out with something else that no one thought of and will win a noble prize (Who knows???? ), could be running from our own garbage like in Back to the future.

 

[MAKG]

Umm, reno, do you know what the ozone hole is? Hint: it has very little to do with climate.

And give ONE citation of anyone who matters even slightly "laughing" about space travel after 1958. Even figuratively. Names, dates, and occasions.

The truth is that it was taken fairly seriously from Goddard's days starting in the 1910s, and extremely seriously after von Braun's team successfully created the first long-range ballistic missile and the first cruise missile, in 1944-45. And it scared the pants off just everyone in 1958.

 

[reno]

Here are some videos I grabbed at random from a search....did not watch, just grabbed them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn6WZf_eOvE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifC6dqmsY1k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGhyqxjtVgs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hcY6LcUe7s

and here are websites grabbed at random..........

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/184/1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Kaysing

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

http://www.cybercollege.com/fog13.htm

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23Feb_2.htm

What more do you need? This is not about did we go to the moon, I know we did, but have an open mind to something that may have the possibility to do good. Blu-Ray and HDDVD is another fine example, they fought and fought and the better won, just like VHS vs Beta max.

 

[MAKG]

Man, what planet do you live on?

VHS vs. Beta? That was strictly a marketing war. VHS was an open spec, Beta wasn't. That Beta actually stored luminance and chrominance separately made it technologically far superior. But the marketing blew.

I'm not going to do your research for you. You haven't even bothered to watch the videos? Then why should I?

I'll say it again. Names, dates, and locations.

 

[Jason]

You want him to get names, dates and locations of people that said things nearly 50 years ago? It's impossible. Since you disagree with him how about you prove him wrong. He made a statement, you say it's false. Prove it. discussion/

 

[reno]

Thank you Jason, VHS vs Beta and all other arguments were just trying to show everything new, someone comes along and says Blah!! never work, and never give it a chance. I always give it a chance and in time, with enough people testing, it will surface if it is real or a scam. Scammers are always caught very quickly, but I have never seen a scam go as far as this, our government giving tax breaks for installing one also. If anything else, use it for that reason. Good grief, about $20 could potentially get you 5 -40 mpg and a tax break? That is for me........

 

[reno]

Man, what planet do you live on?

VHS vs. Beta? That was strictly a marketing war. VHS was an open spec, Beta wasn't. That Beta actually stored luminance and chrominance separately made it technologically far superior. But the marketing blew.

I'm not going to do your research for you. You haven't even bothered to watch the videos? Then why should I?

I'll say it again. Names, dates, and locations.

This is a book written by one that believes it never happened. I will do no more than this.....


We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle by Bill Kaysing
2.3 out of 5 stars (33) $13.91

Book Description
A fascinating in-depth account of how NASA and the American government faked the Apollo Moon Landings of the 1960’s and 70’s. From the moonwalks and rover rides to the return splashdowns, every step of the way you will see how the event was staged here on earth. Unlike the other books that make allocations that the moon landings were fake, this is the only book that shows you exactly how it was done. The author’s goal is to provide space enthusiasts around the globe with accurate historical reference what really happened and why the United States found it necessary to fake the moon landings.

This book also contains many high-quality original NASA photos with obvious clues proving the moon landings were faked. These images include: astronauts with tears in their spacesuit, helmets open, and animals on the moon surface.

Product Details

* Paperback: 386 pages
* Publisher: Gti Pubns (July 31, 2004)
* Language: English
* ISBN-10: 0974940542
* ISBN-13: 978-0974940540
* Product Dimensions: 10.9 x 8.4 x 0.9 inches
* Shipping Weight: 1.9 pounds