Running a car on water via electrolysis

Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems
people just want to debunk the idea of combusting
hydrogen from water inside an internal combustion
engine, but yet again it seems a company has
produced the technology to make it happen:

http://hytechapps.com/company/press

Meanwhile the mafia known as the oil industry
are making tens of billions more dollars every year
and their pals in the dying US auto industry even now
can't comprehend that consumers don't want
gasoline-guzzlers.

----------------------------
"Rarpy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems
> people just want to debunk the idea of combusting
> hydrogen from water inside an internal combustion
> engine, but yet again it seems a company has
> produced the technology to make it happen:
>
> http://hytechapps.com/company/press
>
> Meanwhile the mafia known as the oil industry
> are making tens of billions more dollars every year
> and their pals in the dying US auto industry even now
> can't comprehend that consumers don't want
> gasoline-guzzlers.

In other words you and the Aquagen people are claiming that, in effect, more
energy can be produced than that needed to produce it. I also note that it
is an additive but if it worked that well, it wouled be a primary source of
perpetual energy.
Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.
Can I sell you a slightly used bridge?

--

Don Kelly
remove the X to answer

>

Rarpy wrote:

> Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems
> people just want to debunk the idea of combusting
> hydrogen from water inside an internal combustion
> engine, but yet again it seems a company has
> produced the technology to make it happen:
>
> http://hytechapps.com/company/press

Sure you can burn hydrogen in an ICE. Just as you can burn lots of gases. It's
simply very expensive and inefficient.

Graham

In article .com>, Rarpy wrote:
> Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems
> people just want to debunk the idea of combusting
> hydrogen from water inside an internal combustion
> engine, but yet again it seems a company has
> produced the technology to make it happen:

The problem isn't being able to do it, the problem is the _ENERGY_
required to separate the H2 from H2O.

H2 is really a battery, it just allows things like nuke plants and wind
farms to store the energy chemically. *BUT* H2 is very difficult to store.

Better off with ethanol as the chemical battery. 1) Easy to store. 2)
Easier to run todays cars on. 3) If done right, energy is gained from the
plant material and it's not just a 'battery'. Of course water is easier
to come by than the crops for ethanol, so that's the trade off.

Rarpy wrote:

> Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems
> people just want to debunk the idea of combusting
> hydrogen from water inside an internal combustion
> engine....

No, they don't, AssHole. The source of energy and yield down the line
are the issue.

Brent P wrote:

> In article .com>, Rarpy wrote:
>
>>Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems
>>people just want to debunk the idea of combusting
>>hydrogen from water inside an internal combustion
>>engine, but yet again it seems a company has
>>produced the technology to make it happen:
>
>
> The problem isn't being able to do it, the problem is the _ENERGY_
> required to separate the H2 from H2O.

Finally, a little sense.

On Feb 12, 7:54 pm, "Rarpy" > wrote:
> Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems
> people just want to debunk the idea of combusting
> hydrogen from water inside an internal combustion
> engine, but yet again it seems a company has
> produced the technology to make it happen:
>
> http://hytechapps.com/company/press
>
> Meanwhile the mafia known as the oil industry
> are making tens of billions more dollars every year
> and their pals in the dying US auto industry even now
> can't comprehend that consumers don't want
> gasoline-guzzlers.

A typical response based on emotions not on science or logic. You need
to get a basic education in science if you are going to try to argue
topics of this sort. Go to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...thermodynamics

and study the information. Many scientists have tried to disprove this
law without success, and many scams have extracted money from suckers
who do not understand basic physics.

Yes, hydrogen power internal combustion engines have been around for a
long time, and they work. The problem is how to get the hydrogen which
indeed can be extracted from water. Unfortunately it requires lots of
energy (usually electricity) to extract the hydrogen. When burned and
turned back into water in the engine, less energy is released than was
required to extract it in the first place. This is a fundamental
principle of physics and is not going to change.

Yes, solar energy could be used to extract the hydrogen, or it could
be used to charge a battery to power an electric car. According to
experts in the field, the second option is more efficient, although
not without problems. Go to

http://www.apec-conf.org/2006/APEC_2006_Plenary_3.pdf

for a good comparison of hydrogen, electric, and gasoline technology.

If you believe that consumers don't want gas guzzlers, then why have
all the foreign car makers started making SUV's, and larger, higher
horsepower versions of their cars? The answer is real simple, THEY
SELL. Sure, oil companies are making a profit, but do you think Honda
or Toyota or Volkswagen are not?

Study the facts, then you can present a reasonable argument based on
reality, not just spew out garbage based on nothing.

Rig up a Dehumidifier and you won't even have to stop to tank up on
water.
cuhulin

On Feb 12, 10:06 pm, Eeyore >
wrote:
> Rarpy wrote:
> > Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems
> > people just want to debunk the idea of combusting
> > hydrogen from water inside an internal combustion
> > engine, but yet again it seems a company has
> > produced the technology to make it happen:
>
> >http://hytechapps.com/company/press
>
> Sure you can burn hydrogen in an ICE. Just as you can burn lots of gases. It's
> simply very expensive and inefficient.
>
> Graham


No, it isn't that hard nor expensive. The same technology that
converts engines to run on natural gas can run hydrogen with some
adjustment. Now, the big kicker is that hydrogen is very low octane,
so something must be done about that. EGR in massive amounts is one
solution.

Tankage is a problem- compressed hydrogen provides limited range as
the size of the tank in cubic foot per megajoule of energy is large.
And of course, as others are pointing out, electrolysis is not free-
you need to put in as much or more energy than you get out.

www.devilfinder.com How to make your own automobile fuel

Start growing that corn and get busy.
cuhulin