want to make precipitator to purify water

[ban-all-sheds]

Sorry I can't helpw with your query, but how did you go about making your fuel cell?

That's not a fuel cell.

A hydrogen fuel cell uses hydrogen as fuel and generates electricity.

oil per barrel goes to $183 a barrel not far off

and is that any help when the electricity you are using to generate the hydrogen is itself generated using fossil fuels?

Even worse - most hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels of one sort or another (i.e. by getting at the H bits of the hydrocarbons), not from electrolysis of water, so it's a double whammy.

im no expert

i know s**t

You say those things, but you don't act as if you actually believe them.

You cannot - you simply cannot, create a completely closed system which will do work. It is not possible.

some people i do believe running the whole of the car on hydrogen its very possible

Yes it is, but by consuming hydrogen as a fuel - either by burning it in an IC engine, or using it in a fuel cell to generate electricity for electric motors.

Either way, you use it up - you cannot make it in the car and use the electricity that you can then make to both make more hydrogen and power an electric motor.

When you've used up the hydrogen in your tank you have to refill it, so where does the hydrogen come from, and how much energy does it take to make it?

Do some research into the hydrogen economy.

i dont believe you have any idea of the massive potential of hydrogen

Hydrogen as a fuel does have potential. I'm not sure where hydrogen fuel cells stack up in the technology race to create cheap, lightweight, long-life, reliable and efficient ways to generate electricity in a vehicle, but the potential of hydrogen is as a fuel, which you make, transport and then "burn" (in the loosest sense) to release the potential energy in it and use that energy to do work.

Whether the end-to-end efficiency will ever be attractive, I don't know, but there is the possibility to generate it from water electrolysed by nuclear generated electricity, thus minimising the fossil fuel use, but hydrogen is not going to be the foundation of perpetual motion, nor is it going to be the panacea for carbon emission reduction.

car runs on water

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iZmmXCUQoF8[/QUOTE]
Yeah - and if you get good enough at transcendental meditation you can levitate.

Did you notice that one of the comments on that youtube page was from someone who thinks that because rockets are powered by burning hydrogen and oxygen, the two components of water, you must be able to use water as a fuel in a car?

Have you noticed that the critics of this sort of snake-oil proposal are met with the same kind of responses as those who criticise people who think the world is flat, or that there really are UFOs and alien abductions etc, i.e. "you're all just mouthpieces for vested interests and governments conspiring to cover up the truth"?

 

[ibruceuk]

I must disagree with you there, you are missing the point.

Indeed Energy can neither be created or destroyed etc (except in the form of a fission reaction i.e. the sun) however we are not talking about using electricity and converting it to hydrogen which then powers the engione to power the alternator to power the cell etc etc.

Water, as inocuous as it seems, does harbour significant energy. The electricity is simply used as a form of catalyst to release this energy from the water.

The electrons flowing in the circuit from neutral to positive break the molecular bond of the water molecule (H20) and release it's constituent components Oxygen and Hydrogen. This requires a small amount of energy. The hydrogen once released from it's stable water molecule can then be burnt to produce kinetic energy.

The electrcitiy therefore is not the energy which is converted, simply a facilitator if you would like to look at it that way.

A perpetual motion machine would require NO 'fuel' to continue to run, in this case the fuel is water.

For 100s of years people have been trying to make 'perpetual motion' machines. A machine that gives out more energy than it consumes. For exactly the same length of time they have been failing - not because they haven't found the answer yet but because it just isn't possible.

There is hope in all of us, like hoping to win the lottery, however this is like trying to win the lottery without buying a ticket!

The only way you could get more energy out is if the laws of physics / thermodynamics/ entropy and basically all of science were wrong. Not just slightly wrong but completely wrong. Even when looking at the quantum level where weird things happen like particles just appear and disappear, on average you still have nothing and it still works out perfectly.

Any energy you take from the alternator will require the engine to work harder and use more fuel. An alternator I guess is only 80% efficient, so you have already lost 20%, now add the losses in making the H2 due to heating and finally the 30% efficiency of the engine itself. You have lost ma massive amount! Even if you had 100% efficiency in everything (this means ZERO friction, heating of components, and an 100% efficient car engine so no radiator needed to keep it cool!? etc) you still only get what you took in the first place.

The key to fuel efficient motoring is making the car as efficient as possible. Think about the energy getting you and your 1,500KG car up to 40mph, only to slow down again at the next junction. If that energy could be captured rather than wasted as heat in your brakes you could use it to accelerate again. Unfortunately we don’t have batteries that can charge that quickly, or capacitors small enough to store all the energy – but research in this field is rapidly being done and this is where any answers will be found.

So we want to get closer and closer to 100% efficiency where no energy is lost. This we can achieve through research and innovation.

Finally just think about the numbers. A modern 1.6 car engine produces about 100 bhp = 73 KW. In terms of electrical power, at 12 Volts that would be (73,000 / 12 = 6,083 Amps) Remember that is the OUTPUT of the engine and modern engines are about 30% efficient as most of the input energy (petrol) is wasted as heat and noise. This means you need to input 243 KW to get your 73 KW output. So this equates to (243,000/ 12 = 20,250 Amps)!!! If your alternator was working at full power you would probably get about 70 Amps out of it, so you would need (20,250 / 70 = 289) alternators fitted to your car! Now imagine them all working at full power and hopefully you can see there is no way your 1.6 engine could cope and it would just stall.

 

[ColJack]

but the point is, that in order to break the bonds, the electrical energy is used up exciting the electrons to the point that they break their "orbit" around the 2 nuclei and seperate the 2 atoms.. you are still using up the energy.. it's not all returned to the battery

think of it in terms of a newtons cradle.. with the electric as the swinging ball.. the free electron hits the orbiting electron and accellerates it by transfering kinetic energy to it.., slowing itself in the process.. meaning it has less energy when returned to the battery..

and even the fusion reaction of the sun uses up it's fuel reserve..it combines 2 atoms to make heavier elements.. the energy from the electrons is released but it's still there to start with.. it's not created..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

ibruce - if you could get more energy out of burning the hydrogen from water than you put into it to get the hydrogen out in the first place, then you would have perpetual motion, because chemically what you're doing is this:

1) Electrolysis: 2H2O → 2H2+ O2

2) Burning: 2H2 + O2 -> 2H20

The former reaction requires you to input energy to perform the work of splitting the water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen. The latter reaction gives off heat - that is the energy you can use to do work.

And you also end up with the water that you started with, which you can electrolyse all over again.

But what you are saying is that the energy you put in at (1) is less than you get out at (2).

Do you really not see the flaw in that?

 

[jikwan]

hi guys
im glad youve taken an interest hho production
i hope you took a look at videos

oh i mentioned i know **** i meant i studied this technology a lot
hundreds of hours i think i know quite a bit but i know next to nothing compared to the top experimenters on the alternative energy site
overunity.com
one problem when using hho is the rust it causes in the engine
the more hho you use the more things rust up
valves + exhaust+silencer etc

its been observed that hydrogen is produced from negative plate
oxygen from posative and a miture h + o from some particular configurations im still investigating this another of the many holes in my understanding

im in the process of abandoning using plates
i think using wire is the more efficient way

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UrtruEL4vI

john aarons is one of the leading experimenters in hho science
try looking at all 3 vids in the "fin" series

i hope to get back and make a few more posts if people are still interested

jikwan