Looks like your post regarding a water powered car has stirred up
quite a lot of healthy interest on the list. I'm replying somewhat late
and most of what I'm about to type has be covered off by other
list members. However I'd like to add my two cents worth...
In reply to your original post:
>
>As far as I understand it, I can separate the oxygen and hydrogen of water
>molecules via electrolysis. Is this correct?
>
Yes.
>Is hydrogen a combustible gas? Is it combustible enough to run an internal
>combustion engine?
>
Yes hydrogen will combust and Yes it can be used to run an internal
combustion engine (ICE).
>Would the motion produced by burning the hydrogen in the engine be able to
>generate enough electricity to continue electrolysis and power spark plugs,
>lights, wipers, power windows, etc?
>
Here's the gotchya, the traditional and most proper physics answer is, No.
The electrical energy input required to break down water into hydrogen and
oxygen is far greater than the amount of energy that can be reclaimed by
subsequent combustion of these same gases.
Traditional physics would maintain that while you could build your
electrolysis
motor car, it would always require more electrical energy than the engine
could
generate via the alternator. That this electrical energy deficit would be
supplied
from the cars battery and that the car would only run for a very short
period before
the battery was completely flat.
>Besides O2, what emissions would there be? What does hydrogen produce when
>it's burned? My chemistry teacher never touched on this kind of stuff, so
I
>could be totally off on everything.
>
Hydrogen when combusted with oxygen produces water. Because of the high
temperatures involved with the engine this water would be in a gaseous form
of water vapour, or steam.
>
>If the above is correct and there would be no other emissions besides
>oxygen, then would we have a water powered car that also operates cleanly?
>
The emission would be water vapour or steam and precious little else and
Yes, your preposed water powered car would have near absolute zero
polutants in the exhaust.
>I searched Dejanews for similar articles, and all I found was a post
>similar to this. The person that replied apparently didn't understand the
>question and belittled the poster saying, "no such thing as perpetual
>motion." Hmm, the word perpetual motion was
I suspect that the person replying to the post probably did understand the
question.
Although they may well have been a little kinder and thoughtful in their
response.
Here the 'perpetual motion' issue that so often causes traditional physics
types to start
foaming at the mouth runs something like this:
If we can produce enough electricity from the car engine for production of
gases
via electrolysis to keep the engine running. Then we could capture and cool
down
the cars water vapour exhaust, giving us plain old water again. This water
in turn
could be returned to the cars 'water' fuel tank ready to be turned into fuel
gases again.
If this type of system were to function it would in fact be a form of
perpetual motion
as no additional energy would need to be applied to the system to keep it
running.
A more objective person (with less schooling in physics perhaps?) might well
argue
that because no system is perfect. That our preposed water powered car
engine would
have losses. That not all the steam would be successfully converted back to
water and
because of this the car would eventually run out of water and stop. Does
this then mean
that our hypothetical car is no longer a perpetual motion machine and as
such is allowable
in the eyes of conventional science?
I suspect not, as conventional science is rather adament that 'water' is NOT
a fuel.
Since the car obviously can't function without a fuel source I guess that
puts
paid to this idea being persued by any university grant project ;-)
While on the subject of 'fuels' I might throw in a couple of additional
thoughts.
Was uranium considered a fuel before some bright spark went and built an
Atomic
bomb? Since large numbers of respectable scientists were adament that
such a bomb was simply not possible, I guess not.
Now this Atomic bomb thing intreiges me for another reason. Much of the
efforts expended by many members of this list revolve around the search
for 'over-unity' devices. A system or machine which outputs more energy
than is put into the system in the first place.
Is not an Atomic bomb a fine example of an 'over-unity' machine? If perhaps
a rather distressing one. Certainly the energy output far exceeds the amount
of energy contained in the explosives used to trigger it. The answer of
course
is 'No' the Atomic bomb is not 'over-unity' because of E=MC^2. The fantastic
output produced comes from directly converting uranium matter into energy.
So just how much energy is contained in a kilogram of water? Why then is
water or any other form of matter not a 'fuel' source?
I don't know the answers to these questions but in cynical moments I suspect
that it just might simply be that we don't know how to use water as a fuel
and
not because it isn't one.
>I'm sure something is wrong with this system, as it hasn't already been
>built (it was the first thing I thought of when I learned about
>electrolysis, so I'm sure others have thought of it before). I just want
to
>know why it wouldn't work.
Just because something has not been built yet does not mean it is bad idea
and won't
work! If everyone down the ages held dear to this notion, then absolutely
nothing at all
would ever have been invented. Right up to and including the cave mans 'fire
poking'
stick used to rearrange the burning logs. And as anyone who has burnt their
fingers in
a fire will attestify, this tool was a bobby dazzeler of an idea (grin)!
Moreover while it is important that we allow our science to develop upon the
knowledge
of previous generations. Allways keep in mind that the science of any
particular century
would regularly wander on down a blind alley and get stuck there. By which I
mean that
no trained scientist in this century would have attempted to build your
water powered
car because they would 'know' that it could not possibly work. Irrespective
of wether it
did work or not in reality.
Now before you rush out and invest any time or money on your idea, let me
stress that
I personally don't believe that it will work. That in this instance
'excepted' science is correct.
At least with regard to conventional electrolysis. Why? Because I've tried
it.
I've been working with small electrolysis cells in an attempt to generate
enough
gas to light a small lab Bunsen burner. My thinking being that it I can
light a burner
then I should be able to run an ICE, albeit a small one. I've not had much
success,
nothing seems to work short of throwing a massive continuous DC current
across the
electrolysis chamber.
If something along these lines can be made to work it won't be with
conventional
electrolysis principles. I've been playing with oscillating the electrical
current, magnetic
field and/or voltage pulse applied to the cell. Something akin to Stanley
Meyers
'Water Fuel Cell' or Puriarch's work (I hope I've spelt that name
correctly?). Information
on both of these 'patents' can be found in the KeelyNet archives. Again I
must stress
with no success.
Now before someone jumps on me for casting dispersions on either Stanley or
Puriarch
I should point out that all I am saying is that I can't get these systems to
function. I'm not
saying that they will not function. I keep an open mind, even if my
experimental data seems
to support the traditional electrolysis view.
If you or anyone else on this list is interested I am happy to provide exact
details of
what I have done to date, which does not work. If only to save someone the
trouble
of reinventing my square wheel (grin).
Sorry the post was so long.
Cheers Steve.