Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Water Fuel - a Solution for the Rising Fuel Prices

2 views
Skip to first unread message

virig

unread,
Aug 29, 2008, 4:02:27 AM8/29/08
to
What this system does is to use HHO gas to increase the efficiency of
your engine, to give you gas mileage improvements of between 30 to
50%.
http://carwithwater.googlepages.com/water_fuel_solution_fuel_prices

nobody >

unread,
Aug 29, 2008, 1:11:11 PM8/29/08
to
virig wrote:
> What this system does is to use HHO gas to increase the efficiency of
> your engine, to give you gas mileage improvements of between 30 to
> 50%.

NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.86.249.150

inetnum: 202.86.249.0 - 202.86.249.255
netname: DIALLOG
descr: Great Bear International Services (Pvt) Ltd, Wireless
Local Loop
descr: CDMA Operator, Pakistan

Someone *knows* their service provider will nail them for spam, so they
are using a proxy to post from Pakistan

VanguardLH

unread,
Aug 29, 2008, 9:14:24 PM8/29/08
to
virig wrote:

Please don't use "water fueled" unless you explicitly want to be
ridiculed. Water-fueled cars has a negative connotation based on all
the snake-oil gimmickry in the past. Water (steam) doesn't combust.
Using a non-combustible filler to lean-out the mixture doesn't improve
MPG since automotive engines are already designed to run at the
stoichiometric (optimal) 14.7/1 air-fuel ratio during cruise under
control of the ECU. Instead start referring to hydrogen-boosted systems
(which use electrolysis to produce diatomic hydrogen added to the
gasoline or diesel fuel to augment combustion) or to hydrogen-powered
systems (that use hydrogen alone as the fuel). You aren't using water
as fuel because obviously it doesn't burn no matter in what matter state
it exists. With hydrogen-boost schemes, you are electrolyzing the water
to produce hydrogen which isn't really so much for its addition to the
combustion as it is to produce a faster flame front to the fuel mixture.
It also helps to preheat the fuel (gasoline or diesel) to improve its
vaporization on injection to the cylinder. Using engine coolant means
the fuel preheat benefit isn't available for around 5 minutes.

It isn't a water-fueled car. That's just stupidity and marketing glitz
(i.e., lies) promulgated by low-brow consumers. It is a hydrogen-
boosted fuel mixture to augment combustion. If water were actually used
as the fuel, you already have an ample supply in your gas tank. Octane
has a chemical formula of C8H18. When combusted, the equation is:

2C8H18 + 25O2 = 16CO2 + 18H20
(see http://www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/~woodward/ch121/ch3_rxns.htm)

So more than half of the exhaust gases formed (for octane) is water.
You have never noticed the dripping water from your exhaust pipe, huh?
You don't add more water to only dump more of it out your tailpipe.
Unless you are promoting an old snake-oil water/steam injection scheme,
stop calling it "water fueled". You aren't *fueling* anything with
*water* (incorrectly called HHO by the site author which since there are
not 3 atoms of gases) and, in fact, the combustion already produces
water which eventually might even be recycled (captured, cooled, and
filtered) to resupply the electrolyzer tank to reduce having to refill
the hydrogen generator tank every couple of tankfills. Anything you can
electrolyze or catalyze to produce hydrogen will work. Household
ammonia could be used. Seen anyone claiming "ammonia fueled" cars?
Methane from manure could be used. The point is to carry the hydrogen
in a safe form (rather then in pressurized tanks) and keep the
generation of non-nascent hydrogen to only the level that is being
consumed at the time to reduce explosive risk. Aluminum pellets with
gallium can also be used for on-demand hydrogen generation. No water
involved there along with no problems with the water freezing in cold
climates.

And how long before you recover on your investment? A really good
hydrogen-boost kit with a non-explosive MULTI-CELL electrolyzer (to
provide enough non-nascent or diatomic hydrogen to prevent hydrogen
bittleness in metal and that gives decent MPG increase, like around 30%,
or more), a fuel preheater, electronic hydrolysis control, wiring kit,
vacuum switch, MAP/MAF sensor control, tubing, and miscellaneous will
run around $1000. There are a lot of $100-$200 crap kits out there, and
some that are actually explosive. A pop bottle or glass mason jar for
the electrolyzer tank isn't safe: the "tank" won't survive accidental
ignition and eventually someone would sue for being blinded by shards of
glass. Some junk kits look like a Red Green Show contraption (minus the
duct tape) with no safety precautions. Most are just single-cell
hydrogen generators that will not produce enough hydrogen to effect high
mileage gains. You'll also want to add a heating coil around the
electrolyzer tank to thaw out the water inside for cold-weather climates
which means you don't get the hydrogen enhanced flame front until the
ice that formed when your car was parked overnight changes to liquid to
then be electrolyzed, but you also don't get the faster fuel
vaporization until the engine coolant is hot enough to preheat the fuel
(which is why the solid pellet hydrogen generators hold more promise for
those areas, especially if hydrogen is the sole fuel). With a good kit
you might get anywhere from 20% to 50% increase in MPG but it depends on
the engine and your driving habits. Without going through all the math
(some of which assumes typical or expected values), it would probably be
around 25,000 miles before you started to recoup the cost of the kit.
If you have someone else install it, it'll take longer to recoup your
investment. You don't recoup faster on the cheap kits because you also
get less of a MPG boost with them. Adding PTFE (e.g., Xcel Plus engine
treatment, returning to their old Lubrilon name) and increasing tire
pressure will get you the 9% MPG boost of a single-cell hydrogen
generator. Meanwhile, have fun trying to convince your car dealer's
repair shop that the hydrogen-boost kit doesn't void the car's warranty.

You can use aluminum pellets to produce hydrogen from water (see
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070515WoodallHydrogen.html) using a
catalytic reaction rather than use electrolysis. Just another way to
create hydrogen on-demand and in a safe form for transport, but this
solution doesn't involve petro fuel and instead geared for a hydrogen-
powered engine. Gallium is the catalyst so it doesn't get consumed and
can be recycled. Aluminum oxide is a by-product. Another scheme to
produce hydrogen is through nanotube photochemical diodes that use solar
energy to physically break apart a water molecule
(http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-07/ps-rgh071508.php). Yes,
water is used as the source for the hydrogen (there are others) but
claiming any car is "water fueled" is simply misrepresenting what is
actually happening. The general technology is to augment or supplant
with hydrogen no matter what the source. Water is used now because it
is cheap but drinkable water from ground water (aquifers comprise 80% of
our source) is being depleted. Huge aquifers that had 4 trillion
gallons of water are now down to 50% capacity. Desalination of sea
water adds more expense to providing a source from which to extract
hydrogen along with the transportation costs of providing that
desalinized water (you think bottled water is cheap?). We need to start
thinking about the total picture so we don't solve one problem only to
exacerbate another.

So after we consume our petroleum to no longer have any to enhance its
combustion with hydrogen and then consume our drinking water to produce
hydrogen to directly to burn that alone, what next natural resource
shall we consume until it's gone? Xcel Plus has their new glycerin-
based fuel that runs at $0.75/gallon. Great, yet another biofuel. Grow
food to eat or grow it to burn for traveling. I wonder which will win
out. Are you going to ignore mass hunger deaths just so you can afford
to drive your car? How much more deforestation are we going to permit
so we can both feed us and generate biofuels? What price rise in food
are we willing to tolerate due to the competition to produce biofuels?
At what point in deforestation do we end up not having sufficient
vegetation to produce something more crucial to our lifestyle (oxygen)?
If you don't think biofuel production has a negative impact on food
production, try placating the Mexicans that had to pay 16% increase
(above inflation) last year for maize because of the rising competition
for biofuels due to competition with flex-fuel vehicles. Biofuels solve
one problem and exacerbate another. Using up our depleting drinking
water in hydrogen generators solves one problem and exacerbates another.

Folks need to remember that they are still consuming cheap fuel (cheap
to produce). What you're paying for now at $4/gallon is still cheap.
There is still plenty of petro-based fuel sources but not that can be
produced cheaply in a form usable for consumer consumption using current
or near-future technologies. The cheap lighter oils will run out in 25
to 50 years but heavier sources that are more expensive to distil will
still be available for several hundred more years. After adjusting for
inflation, the current gasoline prices (in the USA) are only slightly
higher than way back in 1922. According to the Energy Information
Administration (EIA), in 1922, gasoline cost the current-day equivalent
of $3.11 and today it is about $3.77/gallon - only 20% more than 86
years ago. Gasoline is a minor expense considering the overall cost of
car ownership. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics,
gasoline was 33.4% of the total cost of owning and operating a car in
1975 but which declined to 17.1% by 2006. By contrast, the fixed costs
of ownership (insurance, licensing, taxes, and financing) and
maintenance costs have increased nearly fivefold since 1975. Americans
are spoiled by the prolonged low cost of gasoline. Citizens elsewhere
are already paying double or thrice what Americans pay. Bet you never
think about that Starbucks venti latte that costs $23/gallon.

Look at the stupidity in city planning where we sprawl out to suburbs or
mini-towns but without the infrastructure to survive on its own so
residents must car travel to get groceries, clothes, and other
necessities rather than designed into small self-supporting hubs.
Sprawl forces us to travel farther and depend on transportation that
consumes fuels. We designed our own doom and then bitch about it.

The article mentioned by the OP makes claims about using water to fuel
your car. No, water doesn't burn. "use HHO gas" and "generates HHO
from a small reservoir of water with the aid of a tiny amount of
electricity from your car battery" continues to spread misinformation
about burning just hydrogen, NOT water. Hydrogen can be generated using
electrolysis, catalysts, (and now maybe even photosynthesis) to provide
on-demand hydrogen production without the dangers of transporting the
combustible gas. HHO (correctly as H2O since you don't have 3 gases in
the reservoir plus you should be producing non-nascent H2 to prevent
metal brittleness) is *not* hydrogen, and you aren't burning water in
your car (but actually generating it from the combustion), and this
article is so vague and misleading that it devolves into a snake-oil
show. It has links to "Drive Car Using Water" which has nothing to do
with water (or hydrogen) but instead is about tips on driving habits to
improve mileage.

Fuel cells to produce hydrogen on demand aren't new. This article is a
disservice to anyone trying to get information on hydrogen-boosted
(augmented) or hydrogen-powered systems. These articles are more of a
consumer telling another consumer how they think the process works but
getting way too many points wrong in the telling. Tis the problem with
these blogs that purport to be news sources.

It's not the water you want for burning. It's the hydrogen you're
after. Water is "cheap" now (depending on where you live, of course, it
can be very expensive). If we aren't going to further deplete our
aquifers (and distil it to prevent mineral sludge) to run our cars, I
wonder how much desalination adds to the cost of providing water that is
usable as a hydrogen source without fouling up the electrolytic
generator. Also, water as the hydrogen source is not always the best
source. A block of ice in the electrolyzer tank is worthless when you
get into your cold car in the early winter morning, or you don't run the
engine coolant around the tank to keep the water in liquid form when
speeding down the highway in the winter.

0 new messages