why all "water car/hydrogen generators" are scams

[superdave1984]

This system violates BASIC laws of Physics! Anybody who's passed high school Physics should be able to see that it is totally impossible!

You're taking a molecule, splitting it apart, and recombining it. Where does your net energy come from? If you're really getting any, the world's energy problems have just been solved forever.

There are lots of things that you don't need to try in order to know that they won't work, like my perpetual-motion go-cart I envisioned when I was 5 years old. You can apply basic scientific laws and principals to a design in order to determine the outcome.

This is honestly the kind of idea I would expect a 5-year old to come up with and defend. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Perhaps I am missing something in this whole discussion, but who said anything about recombining the water molecule? If the thing claims to be able to do both, there is no way. Mainly because you burned the hydrogen needed to recombine into water. In my understanding this not done with these things. It releases the hydrogen allowing it to enter the air/fuel mixture. I believe that there should be a tiny bit of water vapor created after combustion, but that's going to happen anyway just burning gasoline. Hence the reason you have to add water to the thing every week or so depending on use. I do not claim it works or doesn't, but I do want to see for myself. I want a result either way.

 

[Evan]

Perhaps I am missing something in this whole discussion, but who said anything about recombining the water molecule? If the thing claims to be able to do both, there is no way. Mainly because you burned the hydrogen needed to recombine into water. In my understanding this not done with these things. It releases the hydrogen allowing it to enter the air/fuel mixture. I believe that there should be a tiny bit of water vapor created after combustion, but that's going to happen anyway just burning gasoline. Hence the reason you have to add water to the thing every week or so depending on use. I do not claim it works or doesn't, but I do want to see for myself. I want a result either way.

The molecule is recombined when you burn the Hydrogen. You're using oxygen from the vehicles intake...

The result is water. So you start with water and end with water. Energy is always conserved, so the net gain is 0 at best.

 

[MAKG]

That was FISSION. Fission/Fusion, they're two different things.

No, hydrogen bombs are fusion bombs. Get your facts straight.

And the Sun works with fusion.

That it is possible is known. The energy is not made from nothing. It comes from nuclear binding energy, observable through mass-energy equivalence -- one helium atom weighs a bit less than four hydrogen atoms. That's an enormous source of energy.

What you CAN'T do is fuse a set of atoms and then break them apart and expect to get anything out of it.

Fusion does NOT work with arbitrary materials. Only light elements, up to Iron-56 (and stars are known to fuse heavier elements than hydrogen, such as helium and oxygen, late in their lifetimes). For heavier elements, binding energies favor lighter configurations, so they split; for very heavy elements or elements with the wrong number of neutrons, spontaneously.

 

[Jason]

Ahhhh!

A hydrogen bomb uses nuclear FUSION to produce its energy.

The fusion reaction is triggered by a fission reaction.

Weaker nuclear bombs like the Fat Man rely on nuclear fission. The real early ones didn't even have plutonium and were surprisingly simple. They relied on a chemical explosion to shoot a uranium rod into a cluster of uranium "washers", resulting in critical mass.

That is correct. In my drunken posting I did not realize what type of bomb was being discussed.

 

[BeefStew42791]

You're taking a molecule, splitting it apart, and recombining it. Where does your net energy come from? If you're really getting any, the world's energy problems have just been solved forever.

LMAO I'm sorry but this is the very reason people like you fail at these kind of simple chemistry things. This has nothing to do with physics. This is chemistry my friend. Yes you are splitting a molecule but your not combining it with anything. You are taking the exhaust gases from your molecule split and placing it in the same environment with your fuel and air mixture. No molecules are combined at all. The hydrogen burns along with the gasoline, but as a seperate energy source. And as for net energy where does the net energy come from to ignite a few drops of gasoline that force the piston back down from top-dead-center? It is all the same. You take the hydrogen and added oxygen, tie it into the air intake, and it functions just like a normal internal combustion engine. Which is exactly what happens, the hydrogen combusts just like the gasoline. And actually yes, your right, this would solve the worlds energy problems IF the government's officials weren't controlled by the oil companies. But thats a whole nother thread entirely.

BTW your right, if the molecules were required to be recombined after they split it would be impossible without a form of energy to combine them. BUT there is no recombining required so that is not a problem. Afterwards it may recombine to form a water molecule but as dave said this happens even with normal gasoline. So again, your recombining argument fails to stand.

 

[Evan]

LMAO I'm sorry but this is the very reason people like you fail at these kind of simple chemistry things. This has nothing to do with physics. This is chemistry my friend. Yes you are splitting a molecule but your not combining it with anything. You are taking the exhaust gases from your molecule split and placing it in the same environment with your fuel and air mixture. No molecules are combined at all. The hydrogen burns along with the gasoline, but as a seperate energy source. And as for net energy where does the net energy come from to ignite a few drops of gasoline that force the piston back down from top-dead-center? It is all the same. You take the hydrogen and added oxygen, tie it into the air intake, and it functions just like a normal internal combustion engine. Which is exactly what happens, the hydrogen combusts just like the gasoline. And actually yes, your right, this would solve the worlds energy problems IF the government's officials weren't controlled by the oil companies. But thats a whole nother thread entirely.

BTW your right, if the molecules were required to be recombined after they split it would be impossible without a form of energy to combine them. BUT there is no recombining required so that is not a problem. Afterwards it may recombine to form a water molecule but as dave said this happens even with normal gasoline. So again, your recombining argument fails to stand.

Chemistry is a branch of Physics. Regardless, your idea fails due to the laws of PHYSICS.

When you burn the Hydrogen, that's when the atoms are being recombined to form a water molecule. With normal gasoline, the fuel is already in a state that will burn, whereas water isn't. You need to apply energy to extract the Hydrogen, and you don't ever get all that energy back. You're comparing two totally different things. My recombining argument stands, and is supported by very basic scientific laws.

There is no such word as "nother".

 

[MAKG]

Question for BeefStew:

Is combustion a chemical or physical process? How about electrolysis? What happens to the hydrogen when you burn it?

Please define chemistry for us, as its quite clear that you mean something a bit different than the conventional definition.

 

[Psychopete]

In my drunken posting

You need to lay off the sauce. J/k

But I wonder how long this thread will go for. You can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it.

The technology isn't good enough to split it quick enough efficiently. That's where one would shine, it doesn't make sense to build something that's based off technology proven not to work. It's the same thing, over and over again.

Trust me, if this actually made a bit of difference, the car companies would be all over it. "Ahg, the oil companies though!" That's all bullshit, American car companies need that technology to be/stay profitable at this point. They are hurting trying to make car more economical.

I would be almost willing to install your machine on one of my vehicles for some unbiased tests.

I thought this was pretty interesting:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4276846.html?series=19

"I'm using fuel-injector pulse widths directly from the OBD II port. That means I'm measuring the actual time the injectors are open and delivering fuel. When the HHO generator is toggled on, there's no change. And when it's turned back off, there's no change. Well, the computer's system voltage sags a couple of tenths of a volt, indicating the current drain to run the electrolyzer."

Pete

Edit:

And you don't need physics classes to understand what's happening here. At least I didn't.

 

[BeefStew42791]

AHH STUPID computer, I had a hugely long well written answer for you guys and then my computer crashes...OMG I hate this thing. I really don't have time to write all that I did now so lets just REALLY compact this.

If you burn hydrogen, even just a 1 of the 2 parts needed to make water when combined with a single oxygen atom obviously a water molecule cannot be made due to the lack of sufficient hydrogen. And as far as the regular fuel being in a sufficient state that is the purpose of the electrical current being run through the water with the catalyst. This breaks it down till you have oygen, and hydrogen. period, they're done, its broken down to its fundamental state. There is no energy used to recombine the molecules because the hydrogen combusts along with the fuel. Really all the hydrogen is doing is causing your gasoline to burn more completely which then gives you better gas mileage due to the lesser amount of gasoline needed to run the vehicle.

Ah good question. Combustion itself can be done with not only gasoline but many other compounds, and is therefore a physical process since there is no single chemical reaction used in the explosion BUT there are several chemical processes done in the physical reaction of combustion such as the gasoline converting itself to co2 emissions and others. Electrolysis is pretty much self-explanatory though, in chemistry and, manufacturing btw, electrolysis is a method of separating chemically bonded elements and compounds by passing an electrical current through them. To see this for yourself try passing direct current from a battery or other DC power supply through a cup of water, I will say again however you will need some baking soda or other catalyst otherwise you will be very bored. Obviously this is not the more complex system used to make this achievable in a vehicle, but it does demonstrate the effects of electrolysis.

Finally to define chemistry..chemistry is the study of the chemical world and its application in our lives. Now I'll ask how that is relevant to this discussion? And if you really don't know what chemistry is what are you doing arguing your case about this?

And no, your right pete just to send a current through water will not break the molecules down speedily enough for it to be worth it BUT AGAIN that is where a simple catalyst of baking soda or whatever else would work certainly makes up for it.

As for this guy's report..I'm not sure why he expects there to be an automatic adjust right when he first starts it..and if you read this article here, http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4276771.html?series=19, that guys "analysis" is pretty much blown out of the water. Obviously it can be done and oh, a car company did try it and guess what, it worked Another thing is that guy never displayed any results, any diagrams, nothing..he didn't even reveal what kinda car he had. All he did was put a picture of the unit up which was taken while it was sitting on the ground..and if thats where it stayed well DUH of course he didn't get any results. Seems very fishy to me.

 

[phatcap]

MAKG, i agree that these units can't possibly do what they claim, but something about the proponents' posts makes me wonder. are they completely brainwashed or just oblivious to truth? where do they get the numbers? why would they lie about it? what would be the point? they seem pretty passionate about this so it kinda makes me wonder if it does work ("magic" i suppose).

 

[BeefStew42791]

MAKG, i agree that these units can't possibly do what they claim, but something about the proponents' posts makes me wonder. are they completely brainwashed or just oblivious to truth? where do they get the numbers? why would they lie about it? what would be the point? they seem pretty passionate about this so it kinda makes me wonder if it does work ("magic" i suppose).

um..ok hi, you question numbers? you didn't even bring any numbers with you to disprove it. You just went off the handle and agreed, what reasons do you have to agree with him? Does he back up a background belief? does his reasonings reinforce some forethought you had? or did you just pick the guy to agree with that you liked the most? and I would hardly call eyewitness accounts and factual results and experimentation brainwashed.. Ya know a lot of people have made reference to this being "science". Science is the testing and experimentation of a hypothesis. So far I haven't heard from one person who has tried all the things outlined that worked for other people that it hasn't worked for. And you call me brainwashed

 

[MAKG]

Beefstew, that post was complete nonsense.

I asked you to define chemistry because YOU didn't know what it was. You made a circular definition ("chemistry is chemistry"), and clearly don't know. What it really is is the subfield of physics that keeps track of interacting bound electrons within atomic systems. Combustion is BOTH physics and chemistry, as is charging or discharging a battery. And chemistry has nothing to do with "application to our lives." Depending on WTF you meant by that, that's either chemical engineering or sociology.

You're what Feynman would have called "not even wrong." You are spouting absolute rubbish that makes no sense whatsoever. Every last detail.

Here's your next exercise. Define "catalyst," and explain how it is different from an electrolyte.

You might have been able to BS your way through high school like that (though I really doubt it), but some of us do actually understand the systems at hand.

This is amazing. You break down water into hydrogen and oxygen, and you don't have enough to make it into water again? Have you taken even the first day of a chemistry class without flunking out? If you started a class last week, you would be completely done with stoichiometry by now.

 

[MAKG]

Science is the testing and experimentation of a hypothesis. So far I haven't heard from one person who has tried all the things outlined that worked for other people that it hasn't worked for. And you call me brainwashed

You quoted a link to an article that did precisely that. You did read it, didn't you?

Brainwashed is a very nice way to put it. I think you have a serious comprehension problem.

 

[phatcap]

these things must have a device on them that tricks the gas gauge into thinking there's more fuel in the tank than there really is. that's the only thing i can come up with as to where their numbers come from.

and beefstew, the reason i agree with makg is because he obviously knows his shit. like he's said a million times in this thread alone, it's basic laws of science. you can't go outside those parameters. (not tryin' to kiss ass or anything) he, unlike YOU or any others on here who have been scammed, actually gave us simple comprehensible explanations on why it doesn't work and never will in it's current incarnation. you just tell us you do this and this and this and tada! presto! 10 more mpg's. i hear what you are saying, it just doesn't compute. sorry.

 

[BeefStew42791]

ah where do I begin..

did you even read my post? you asked me to define "chemistry". now if my definition wasn't good enough perhaps the Webster's New World Dictionary is enough for you. Chemistry: 1. "the science dealing with the composition and properties of substances, and with the reactions by which substances are produced from or converted into other substances" 2. "the application of this to a specified field of subject or field of activity" 3. "the chemical properties, composition, reactions, and uses of a substance". Now, I dare you to deny what the very dictionary says, which is in fact exactly what I said. You brought up a single field of the study of chemistry, "the subfield of physics that keeps track of interacting bound electrons within atomic systems". How about all the cations and ions and formula's and theories and laws and principles that go along with that? I'm not sure why you brought up chemical engineering as that is a subfield of chemistry. And sociology...yea thats dealing with just the study of society in general and has really nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

And you my friend are what

Now, I'm not sure if I should even waste my time with this retort anymore because obviously my own words would be totally ignored. But however if you insist a catalyst is, very simply, any substance that does not undergo a permanent chemical change that serves as an agent in the process of catalysis which is the speeding up (or slowing down) of the rate of a chemical reaction. Now, this differs from an electrolyte in that an electrolyte is ANY substance whcih in solution or a liquid form that is capable of conducting electric current by the movement of its dissociated positive and negative ions to the electrodes.

And I truely do not appreciate you trying to downgrade my knowledge and udnerstanding of the task at hand, WHICH if I may remind everybody is the process of splitting a water molecule into its basic elements so that the hydrogen can be burned along with the gasoline in your car. If you'd like to jack the thread again however I'd strongly advise however that you not since this is a widely shunned practice.

And again, I ask you..did you? While I know it really doesn't prove much but I in fact finished my chemistry course with a 98 average. So your argument that I have no knowledge in this field is rather redundant. Furthermore I'm not sure what you sought to accomplish in what you said near the end..I fail to see an intelligent retort besides you spouting off without any proof behind what you're saying. Plus you missed a step, you don't just break the water down you also burn the hydrogen.

Your move.