Water Powered Engine

[Art]

Offering proof of a water powered car is easy, even a very stupid person can look up a catalogue:
http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView...Max=&SUBCATID=
this one just doesn't operate the way previously described,

No combustion occurs inside a fuel cell

and at this stage of delelopment, is nowhere near cost efficient for the market.
However, keep feeding it distilled water and it will keep running.

Inventors and discoverers waste their whole lives trying to prove themselves to the rest of the world,
it's a very lossy conversion of energy, even less efficient than petrol cars which start at about 25%,
(a very generous figure) and go downhill from there as parts get older.

[Ciaran_]

if you had read the earlier post you would know that i have a car battery running the electrolyser, and now when the engine's drive shaft turns, it turns an alternator which in turn changes the mechanical energy into electrical energy which charges the original car battery and it all happens again,
you see it makes sense and it works, tell me how this doesn't work and i will tell you how it does, because i have one and it works, so there will always be an answer

So how much energy does it draw from the battery and how much does it feed back in?

[J_C_103]

What the hell powers the electrolyser?

You didn't answer FreePlay's question yet.

[Ciaran_]

You didn't answer FreePlay's question yet.

He did, its powered from a car battery.

[Archaemic]

There is motion involved, therefore energy is lost to sound and heat.
There are wires involved, therefore energy is lost to heat.

You have not attained break-even, and you never will with this method.

[FreePlay]

And that's precisely my point. No matter how you power the hydrolyser, somewhere along the way you're getting power from an outside source. That would mean you'd need a car battery, the special engine, the hydrolyser, and ANOTHER power source mounted in this car. Or you'd plug it in somewhere, which is equally stupid.

Improving fuel efficiency by requiring someone to plug their car in for a few hours is silly. Besides... if you plug it in, how do you generate THAT energy?

[RandomThinker]

The energy going back in has to be less, though i am not too sure how much less "i have not tested it yet but i will report as soon as i can" And i have noticed that the electrolysis is slowing down the more i run the engine, so there is a loss of power
but hydrogen is a very good alternate fuel supply for many reasons,
one of which it's safety "hydrogen gas has one of the highest dispersal rates of any gas,"
it is extremely explosive,
it is very abundant,depending on how you look at it,
its proven that engines can and do run on hydrogen.
So think about it, how much energy goes into pulling fossil fuel out of the Earth
and compare that to what it would take to hydrolyze water eventually we are going to need something and i dont think this is a bad shift especially because its not that difficult
-= Double Post =-

even less efficient than petrol cars which start at about 25%,
(a very generous figure) and go downhill from there as parts get older.

Hydrogen is actually quite efficient due to it fast ignition there is less loss if energy due to heat and also in the conversion of an engine you must slow the spark timing to nearly TDC so the is also much less back work

[Art]

I mean the conversion of your mental/emotional energy to try to convince anyone
else here is a great potential waste of YOUR energy! (with an efficiency of about zero).

I can't say we can have a purely water powered car that is any more eficient
than a petrol powered engine, simply because I heven't seen that, but
if we apply the same flawed argument about the water energy to petrol engines,
we wouldn't have ever believed a petrol engine was viable either.
Why?
To drill for oil, then transport it, and then refine the oil, we need ...... guess what ?
Oil, diesel, and petrol....
One of the most colvoluted and lossy conversions of energy ever imaginable!

The concept that a water/hydrogen powered car could not work because of
conservation of energy is crap.
This would only not work if you were expecting all the water and electricity
back that you used to create the oxygen and hydrogen in the first place,
but that doesn't happen with petrol engines, and will never happen with any vehicle.

[FreePlay]

The energy going back in has to be less, though i am not too sure how much less "i have not tested it yet but i will report as soon as i can"

So you just proved that you lied earlier.

You said you had test results.

i do have evidence, i have an electrolyser and i have a small engine that runs on it now "no thanks to you", i do have proof because the engine "does" work, and i have test results because obviously i have tested it and it does work so obviously science does work that way.

You don't. You don't have anything, do you?

Art: How would you go about transporting and purifying the water, and powering the hydrolyser?

[Art]

With energy. Any more conservative method than the current method of
producing petrol (in Aus) or gasoline (in the US) will do.
I can purify water at home with a solar still much more efficiently than anyone
can produce fossil fuel at home if we all begin with the basic materials around us.
The point is an alternatively fueled car doesn't have to be a perpetual motion machine,
because that's not what the idea is competing with.

[J_C_103]

With energy. Any more conservative method than the current method of
producing petrol (in Aus) or gasoline (in the US) will do.
I can purify water at home with a solar still much more efficiently than anyone
can produce fossil fuel at home if we all begin with the basic materials around us.
The point is an alternatively fueled car doesn't have to be a perpetual motion machine,
because that's not what the idea is competing with.

No one said that it had to be perpetual motion, but I think the point was to prove that it isn't exactly the most efficient way to produce energy, although it is a clean source of energy.

[RandomThinker]

when i posted the first post stating my completion of the engine, i had literally just got it to run. I didn't have time to study it more long term until the more recent post stating that the electricity going back in was less and that the engine ran worse the longer i used it. it is obviously not a perpetual motion machine, and i do apologize if i led any one to believe that. But it did run for a few minutes before i had to re-power everything. and personally i think the is good foe a first step and if you dont agree I dont care. And to be honest i dont care if you think i and an engine or not, i did not make this thread for fame merely for help which i have received "even if it is very small" that is why i continue to post

[Judas]

A water-based engine is so unfeasible as to be ignored out-of-hand.

The sheer amount of energy required to split up the water into enough hydrogen to be used as fuel would far outweigh the energy the hydrogen itself could produce. It's a complete loss.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's an equal trade. You put energy into water, and split it into oxygen and hydrogen. When you re-mix the hydrogen with oxygen, you get water, and the by-product is electricity. And I'm pretty sure you get out the same amount that you put in.

But yes, a water powered car isn't exactly plausible. You'd have to alter the water somehow, which would require energy. Let's just stick with gasoline and electricity.

[RandomThinker]

well its not equal because there is energy lost as heat and light and resistance and things of that sort, but most people only have problems with hydrogen cars because the don't like the idea of making hydrogen (think it takes to much energy, "i disagree, but people have their opinions" It is proven by many people including scientist that hydrogen, when used correctly, is actually more efficient the our gasoline cars and way more than electric cars. thanks for your input.

[Judas]

well its not equal because there is energy lost as heat and light and resistance and things of that sort, but most people only have problems with hydrogen cars because the don't like the idea of making hydrogen (think it takes to much energy, "i disagree, but people have their opinions" It is proven by many people including scientist that hydrogen, when used correctly, is actually more efficient the our gasoline cars and way more than electric cars. thanks for your input.

It probably is more efficient, but it would take too long for everyone to get hydrogen cars, and to put hydrogen stations everywhere. I just think that people are afraid of change.

[RandomThinker]

You are 100% right, people do fear change. but i made thins thread because i am working on converting a car myself not converting the world's vehicles, and i plan to produce hydrogen myself.

[psp p0wnz]

alrety been done by somone on youtube sorry

[FreePlay]

when i posted the first post stating my completion of the engine, i had literally just got it to run. I didn't have time to study it more long term

Dude, you f***ing lied, flat out. First, you said you had test results. Then, AFTER tha, you said you didn't.

[Art]

I just think that people are afraid of change.

The conversion of mental energy could have become more than zero percent efficient,
had the conversion been made in this thread, but it wasn't.

[FreePlay]

Huh?

I'm more than happy to accept change, when the change is actually viable.

[RandomThinker]

I did have test results just not extensive ones, and you can bash me as much as you want on that but i dont care if you believe me or not but i would like help. that IS the purpose of this thread. and i know its been done i just want to replicate it myself.

[FreePlay]

And you CONTINUE to lie!
There's a vast difference between

i have not tested it yet but i will report as soon as i can

which means YOU HAVE NOT TESTED IT AT ALL, PERIOD, FULL STOP, and

I did have test results just not extensive ones

which means you HAVE tested it.

You're lying.

[Art]

Huh?

I'm more than happy to accept change, when the change is actually viable.

Your not among the half that are waiting for a perpetual motion machine before any other idea is viable.

I agree all the way with FreePlay, It just seems so damn redundant to even explore an alternate fuel source when the energy output is less than the energy input.

No one said that it had to be perpetual motion

-= Double Post =-
Oh, my mistake, looks like you are, and you also claim to know Science.

You have not attained break-even, and you never will with this method.

followed by:

And that's precisely my point. No matter how you power the hydrolyser, somewhere along the way you're getting power from an outside source

No power source will ever be viable for you, including the ones you're using to
power the PC you're typing on. Break even doesn't happen in this universe.

[FreePlay]

I know break-even power doesn't happen. But if I can have a full power-generating process that doesn't include fossil fuels, that's great. Even if the development of the process requires a gradual evolution away from fossil fuels. But if all people have is pipe dreams, without any way to improve upon their ideas... then I'll pass.

[Archaemic]

Um, break-even is when you get more power out than you put in. Obviously, it has to come from SOMEWHERE, but break-even does exist. You need to put in energy to start a fire, but you get a lot of energy OUT of it that comes (primarily) from the oxygen and carbon (or whatever element you're burning, like hydrogen) bonding into such a state that it requires less energy to be stable than it did for them to be apart. The energy you put in is what breaks the initial bonds, but what comes out is more. This energy does not come from nowhere, but it's still exceeding break-even. Break-even does not imply that energy is coming out of nowhere. We all know this. Or, at least, I'd hope that anyone posting in the science forum would know this.

[RandomThinker]

freeplay i can cut your words and make them sound different too. (just like a reporter) i was answering a question about the input energy compared to the output energy i did not test that because my tester was broken but there are way more things that can be tested then just input electricity and output electricity

[FreePlay]

Cut the bullsh*t. Don't pull this "just like a reporter" crap on me. I'll quote your entire post.

i do have evidence, i have an electrolyser and i have a small engine that runs on it now "no thanks to you", i do have proof because the engine "does" work, and i have test results because obviously i have tested it and it does work so obviously science does work that way. Where's your evidence? Where's your proof? Where's your test results? now i have figured out how to do that which i created this thread for so i would now like any help with making it larger scale if you can help me in this goal please do. Thank you

The energy going back in has to be less, though i am not too sure how much less "i have not tested it yet but i will report as soon as i can" And i have noticed that the electrolysis is slowing down the more i run the engine, so there is a loss of power
but hydrogen is a very good alternate fuel supply for many reasons,
one of which it's safety "hydrogen gas has one of the highest dispersal rates of any gas,"
it is extremely explosive,
it is very abundant,depending on how you look at it,
its proven that engines can and do run on hydrogen.
So think about it, how much energy goes into pulling fossil fuel out of the Earth
and compare that to what it would take to hydrolyze water eventually we are going to need something and i dont think this is a bad shift especially because its not that difficult
-= Double Post =-

even less efficient than petrol cars which start at about 25%,
(a very generous figure) and go downhill from there as parts get older.

Hydrogen is actually quite efficient due to it fast ignition there is less loss if energy due to heat and also in the conversion of an engine you must slow the spark timing to nearly TDC so the is also much less back work

You said you had test results. Then you said you hadn't tested it. You're a liar.

And you're an idiot, too. You said Hydrogen's safety was a selling point... then said IT IS EXTREMELY EXPLOSIVE.

[PSPHax0r9]

freeplay i can cut your words and make them sound different too. (just like a reporter) i was answering a question about the input energy compared to the output energy i did not test that because my tester was broken but there are way more things that can be tested then just input electricity and output electricity

Hypothetically, if I were solely developing a revolutionary alternatively-fueled engine which multi-million-dollar companies currently have teams of hundreds of people working on, I would think that I would be able to use grammar and punctuation correctly.

[RandomThinker]

it is very explosive when contained but if you get a leak in you tank it disperses so fast it is very unlikely to explode so it IS safe, and who said i was alone? Also, did you not understand what the post said? Because the way i see it your either a Fuc*ing retard or just a winy bitc*, and freeplay i have seen you post in many places, and all of them were smart answers that made sense which pisses me off because u don't seem to understand this one.
I have received no help and am going to stop posting so i will not know what any one says after this so it is useless to post to me directly, so if you helped me thanks and if you just pissed me off fuc* YOU.

[FreePlay]

You're amazing.

You said you had proof, and I told you to share it. You have yet to do so. Instead, you attack me.

Care to prove further that you're a liar?

Your attitude shows that you're just another attention-whoring teenager making silly claims when he doesn't REALLY understand science at all.