Hydrogene powered boat

Making the Gas with the engine for use in the engine. I wasn't going to store any Hydrogen.
Start the engine on Gasoline, the Alternator or Generator begins to create Hydrogen, and the Hydrogen is fed directly into the Carb along with the Gasoline. When the Engine begins to run poorly, smoke etc, turn the Gasoline tap off, and let the engine run on Hydrogen.
I thought: As long as you can keep water in that tank to produce Hydrogen, the little engine would run.
I sure wish I were correct in my thinking.

 

yeah well unfortunately it doesn't go like that.

alternator might be 80% efficient, hydrolysis 45% efficient, your gasoline engine 25% efficient.

So if you take 1hp to alternator to be used for the process the hydrogen burnt in the engine will yield 0.09hp back on crankshaft.
(1*0.8*0.45*0.25=0.09)

Common sense and physics will tell you that it makes more sense to NOT brake the crank in the 1st place (load from alternator).

 

1. Kilowatt is a unit of power not unit of energy. Statement of 79kw=1000 cubic feet is thus false.

2. All this water carb things are scams. Read my standard copy paste response below.


all scams.
I could write an essay here but I would have to re-write it every week (gets asked a lot). They all prey on the fact that people don't have too god of a grasp oh physics.

roughly 2 alternate and sometimes overlapping claims

1. hydrogen improves combustion - they point out that internal combustion engine only burns 30% of the fuel and hydrogen helps heat up the burning and makes it more complete. Claim is totally false - modern engines burn almost every molecule of the fuel. They are only 25-30% efficient but it is NOT because of unburned fuel. The car's engine burns all fuel - the low efficiency is result of friction, mechanical losses, heat etc.

2. With waste current from your alternator you can create enough hydrogen to produce substantial amount of hydrogen fuel for the car to burn. This is bogus on two levels. a) there is no "waste" energy from the alternator. Car's alternator creates electricity "on demand" ie. it will resist the motor more the more you have electric demand. Ever given a jump to another car that has a flat battery? Your car is running and you hook the cables to the car with flat batt. the idle often drops as the running car starts charging the flat battery. The load on the alternator went up and the motor works harder.
Now this electricity is supposed to split water to oxygen and hydrogen and then burn in the engine to be joined back into water. That is the claim and it can be done - however it will take multitude of more energy to split the hydrogen than you can ever recover from the joining (let alone with crappy combustion engine with said 20-35% efficiency).

That sort of sums it up.

There are many obvious flaws in the systems:
- really small currents are supposedly creating enough hydrogen to run the engine - not gonna happen unless there are higher forces and perpetual motion at play.
- the gas doesn't need any kind of advanced metering - you just pipe it into your intake. If the amount of gas actually amounted to something substantial it could totally mess your fuel/oxygen ratios and cause serious engine damage. Also the explosion risk would be rather huge as they have hydrogen and oxygen traveling in same pipe.
- none can really explain how this system really works - ie. what is the reason why it breaks the most fundamental physics laws of thermodynamics.

Add to that that these systems have been around since 80s, many high profile promoters have been sued for fraud, no real manufacturer has ever adopted any of them, you can build it in your garage from stainless steel...

Sure you can make a bubbler but it will not amount to anything.

 

kerosene,
Did you even check out the url I posted?
http://keelynet.com/energy/garrett.htm
here again.
THIS is the fellow who had and patented the special carbuerator in 1935 that ran off water. It includes schematics of his carbuerator that makes the hydrogen.The kilowatts to make 1000 cu ft of hydrogen is quoted from this site.
I'm not arguing for or against hydrogen power.
I DO think it would be nice if it worked! Especially for boats, because they float on water.
I;m keeping an open mind.

And how silly to say kilowatts of electricity cant spl[t water into hydrogen and oxygen. Happens all the time when you're charging batteries. If you argued that a different amount of electricity than quoted would be required, that would be up to research. But to say kilowatts cant make hydrogen muddies your credibility and your whole reasoning

 

I am saying that
a) patent doesn't prove on any level the invention's viability or that it works at all.

b) kw is not an unit of energy. It is an unit of power. Its ok if you don't know the difference but instead of questioning my credibility you should check what is the difference. kWh is a unit of energy. power * time = energy. you cannot say 1hp or 1kw can do certain amount of work. It is NOT a unit of energy. 1w can create 1,000 cubic feet of hydrogen - just takes a long time.

The fact that site you linked to uses kW as a unit of energy only validates my stance that its nonsense. If 30s patent made it possible to run things with water I can guarantee that either Germans, Chinese or Russians would have/be enjoying the free energy source.

For these machines to work it would mean that they can convert water to hydrogen with DRASTICALLY (1/10 or less) energy than is released when hydrogen is combined with oxygen again. Now that is obviously perpetual motion and never explained by these "inventors".

Now my generic answer had the comment of lack of fuel metering in typical fraud. Seems that this fraud includes a way of metering the fuel. It does not change the fact that taking power from the flywheel, converting that to electricity to convert water to hydrogen and then burning in internal combustion engine is a waste of time.


Keeping an open mind would mean taking my comments into consideration too.

 

1 horsepower = 33,000 ftlbs in 1 minute. It includes a weight (mass), a distance and a time.

quote you cannot say 1hp or 1kw can do certain amount of work quote

I do say it! It is THE ORIGINAL measure of work.

You are grasping at straws to sound convincing. You aren't convincing.

 

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/u5l1e.cfm

its says it rather well. Power is the rate at which work is done. Not the amount of work. Same difference as speed and distance. Its is inaccurate to say: "60mph takes me 500 miles". Sentence makes no sense. Likewise using unit of power for quantifying work is incorrect. Like I said you could use 1w or 0.001 w to create 1,000 cubic feet of hydrogen.

That all is besides the point and silly to argue about. The point more relevant here is that you cannot create energy from nothing (start from water - do bunch of stuff - and end up with water again).

 

Like I said, I'm open minded about it. I don't intend to invest in it. The bubblers where you use exhaust heated air and put some old crankcase oil in the water to start the process, are minature refinerys and the engine runs a short time off the evaporated light hydrocarbons. I'm not stupid.
Hydrogen has a lot of energy in it. Rockets, hydrogen bombs, ect.
Race cars use water injection to prevent pre-detonation at high speed.

The great lakes, being sweet water, are kind to steel ships.
I was fortunate early in my career, to sail on a couple lake ships built in the late 1800's.
The triple expansion steam engine was fascinating to me. The same steam went from the high pressure cylinder, to the middle pressure cylinder, and finally the low pressure cylinder. Each cylinder did the same work, but because the used expanded steam was lower pressure, each piston had to be larger, more area, to extract the same amount of energy.

ICEs seem to me rather crude in efficiency, by comparison. They only use the exploding gas or diesel once.

If someone can make a more efficient engine, I'm in favor.
You are correct in that you have to weed out the crackpots and the con artists.

As far as the argument,"If it could be done, it would already be done."
That's anti=progress. Good enough for grampa ISN'T good enough for me.

 

All true though all examples above use quite different principles.

Turbocharger does partially achieve capturing some of the waste heat. Still plenty of heat wasted in ICE.

Agree - as a blanket statement its not good. My point was more that if there was working patent that could be ripped of in such lucrative field as energy generation it likely would be stolen already. When you add to the context the fact that car companies/governments etc. are spending billions for energy solutions and the fact that water fuel scam is frequently surfacing skepticism is well justified.
Add the fact that these systems challenge the very core physics laws (without explaining how they are able to do it).

Optimism and searching for solutions is important but being realist and ignoring dead ends is important too so that efforts can be directed in things that can at least potentially offer real solutions.

 

I agree.
But I'm not yet convinced hydrogen is a dead end.
Our planet is nearly 3/4 water.
I'm strongly inclined to think there is an energy source there.
The What and the How are the questions need to be answered.

 

Our planet is nearly 3/4 water.
I'm strongly inclined to think there is an energy source there.

You have a better chance finding Dark Energy in the Dark Matter , that astronomers claim make up 90% of the universe.

FF

 

Oh, I know black holes exist. I keep losing stuff and figure a black hole sucked it in.

 

And in 2 minutes 1 horsepower can do 66,000 ft lbs of work, in 3 minutes 99,000 ft lbs, and so on. Power is the amount of work done or energy transfered per unit time.

So does "The theoretical power required to produce hydrogen from water is 79 KiloWatts per 1,000 cubic feet of hydrogen gas." mean 79 kilowatts ir required for 1 sec, 1 minute, 1 hour, 1 day, or ????? Without specifying the time it's a meaningless statement. Sometimes energy is specified in terms of a power for a time as in kilowatt-hrs, ie the amount of energy equal to 1 kilowatt for 1 hour, also equal to 60 kilowatts for 1 minute and 3600 kilowats for 1 second.

 

I have no idea what was intended by the author of the article.

Here is verbatim from the article:
quote:
Electrolysis of water
The theoretical power required to produce hydrogen from water is 79 KiloWatts per 1,000 cubic feet of hydrogen gas.

Modern electrolyzers consist of:

1) Tank cells with monopolar electrodes. Porous diaphragms separate the alternate cathodes and anodes to prevent gas mixing. The anodes and cathodes are connected in parallel to keep the required voltage at approximately 2 volts and to permit high current densities. This arrangement requires a large floor area.

2) Bipolar electrodes, connected in series and suitably insulated. The electrodes are cathodic on one side; anodic on the other side. This arrangement requires less floor space, is more complex, and requires high voltages.

High pressure can also increase electrolyzer efficiency. A commercially available electrolyzer operates at pressures of 30 atmospheres (about 450 PSI), 194 degrees F., requiring 300 amperes of electric current at 217 volts. Other units operating at current densities of 800 amps per square foot can produce up to 4,400 pounds of hydrogen per hour.
end quote.

But I suspect he intended 79 kilowatt hours, because:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...55iRCg&usg=AFQjCNHVafe_EZFldvE2OFjqHqfVRiADvg


Hydrogen and oxygen can be produced from water
using electricity with an electrolyzer. This article
describes the installation and operation of a 12 cell
Hydrogen Wind Inc. 1000 Watt electrolyzer. This
electrolyzer can produce 170 liters/hour (6 cubic
feet/hour) of hydrogen and 85 liters/hour (3 cubic
feet/hour) of oxygen (at standard temperature and
pressure).

This translates to an efficiency of 51%, where 3
kW-hr/m3 equals 100% efficiency at 20°C.

or 929.4117647058824 cu ft produced by 79 kilowatt hours. Close to 1000 cu ft.

 

I'm not a great debater, though I enjoyed being on the debate team in high school.
If you can't attack the "facts} presented, you attack the presentation. If the presentation is unassailable, you attack the language, semantics, or meanings of terms. If this doesn't work, attack the presenter.

If a typographical error/ommission is more damaging than can be resolved by simply asking for clarification, then no one on this planet has any credibility. Because all have erred.

Is hydrogen potential energy source? Absolutely!

http://www.htcenergy.com/mediaCenter/FAQs_H2.htm

Hydrogen has the highest energy content per unit weight of any known fuel-52,000 Btu/lb (120.7 kJ/g). It burns cleanly and when burned with oxygen, the only byproducts are heat and water. The process of converting hydrogen to energy using engines or fuel cells is much more efficient than the comparable gasoline counterparts.

Now developing the technology to make it efficient and safe is the crux!