Nightshade

Most here know that H2O is water. It's the "H" part that can power
a car or a cutting torch if it were easy to get at cheaply.

This man may be on to something if the oil compaines and the
gov't doesn't shut him down or bury what he's found......

https://youtube.com/watch?v=HF__Qlhtnws

Let's hope there is great success to be had.

bragi

I hope this is for real, but I suspect one of the following is more likely:

1. It takes more energy to carry out the electrolysis than the energy you get from burning the hydrogen;
2. It's a hoax. (The claim that he went many miles on a few ounces of water is especially suspicious.)

Doug5150

It's not new, and he didn't invent it.
It's most commonly called a water torch, or a "Brown's gas" torch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen
~

gerv 

Seems like the #1 might be a real possibility. But seems like there may be some hope that it could succeed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis

NYU SOM

Correct. In fact, it's the second law of thermodynamics. The first law says you can't create or destroy energy, you can only get it to change form. There has to be an energy input in this system. For example, you could have a nuclear power plant make electricity. You use that electricity to split water into H2O into H2 and O2, you can then burn the H2 along with O2. If each step is 100% efficient then the energy you get from burning the H2 and O2 together is the same amount of energy that the nuclear power plant generated.

Unfortunately the second law of thermodynamics says that you can't be 100% efficient.

This guy appears to say that he splits the water using electrolysis, that requires electricity. Perhaps he could plug the car in at night and use a giant battery on the car, but the energy has to come from somewhere.

In the case of gasoline the energy is stored in the chemical bonds, gasoline is at a higher energy state than CO2 and O2, by converting gas into these components you convert energy from a chemical energy to mechanical energy and heat. Water is already at a lower energy state than H2 and O2, therefore water can't be used as a form of energy.

There is no free lunch.

Roody

A good explanation. I think people forget that gasoline (petroleum) is actually solar power. Plants used the solar power input, over the course of millions of years, to put those chemical bonds in place. Millions of years to store it, and we will need only about 200 years to release it all!

Elkhound

I have heard it suggested that electricity from solar or wind can be used to extract hydrogen from water, the hydrogen to be burned at night, or on calm days. I don't have the technical knowledge to say if this is feasable or not.

StephenH

So he uses water and electricity. Electricity isn't free, so it's not like he's getting something for nothing. And yes, electrolysis uses more energy than what you can get back out by burning the hydrogen again.

Yes, you can use solar or wind energy to produce hydrogen. Only problem is the cost. That and storing the hydrogen.

TuckertonRR

Hydrogen "power" is a fantasy. Forget about it. For more info, read the chapter on hydrogen in the Long Emergency. Anybody with a physics degree knows it's BS

rhm

Hey, some of us with humanities degrees know it too!

Doug5150

This is possible, but it's not economical.
The efficiency loss from separating the water by electrolysis is considerably greater than if you just used the electricity to charge a battery to run an electric vehicle in the first place.
~

TuckertonRR

Hey, I've got an mba and I do!

Hobartlemagne 

His patent will be bought and taken out of the market- just like the
guy who invented the battery for the EV-1.

Smallwheels

This guy uses radio waves to make salt water burn. I found it because my products affect cancer cells. I was searching for other information about cancer cures and found this story; https://youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR6UKFM&feature=related

bragi

This just means it's even more inefficient than straightforward electrolysis. Every time you change energy from one form to another, you lose a certain percentage along the way (see above post on thermodynamics). The more steps you have, the less viable it becomes. (Unless you're converting the energy into a form that's usable, e.g., potential energy from water stored behind dams being converted to kinetic energy and then into electricity.)

I'm fairly sure that the guy in the video knows all this as well; he's clearly not stupid. Whether or not he's ethical is unknown.

Bikepacker67

Frankly, if humans were to find a truly viable alternative to FF's, it would only mean that we would continue to expand our population and, of course, accelerate resource extraction (water/minerals/soil/natural habitats/etc.) which inevitably leads to environmental collapse.

Any way you slice it, the **** Saps are living beyond the means of the planet.

Smallwheels

Salt water is cheap!

It doesn't need to be mined or pumped out of deep underground wells. It doesn't matter if it takes a little more energy to convert it. All of us could afford to spend the money on the salt water to get the energy.

What I wonder about is how expensive are the radio wave generators and can they be shielded to prevent the excess radio waves from escaping and microwaving us.

Once the fuel burns it turns back into water and rejoins the hydrologic cycle.

Imagine having a ocean going motor boat with such a power unit. As long as the radio wave generator was working you could motor forever.

Bikepacker67

MMMmmmmmmm... FREE LUNCH!

StephenH

"What I wonder about is how expensive are the radio wave generators " More to the point, it's just going to use more electricity than what you get out of it, regardless of the equipment cost.

bragi

You seem determined to miss the point...

Roody

If we could bring the discussion back to the terrestial plane....

Yes, electrolysis is inefficient, but that doesn't mean it's no good. Consider that solar is probalby the most promising "new" source of power. It's relatively cheap, very clean, totally renewable and "almost there" technologically. The big drawback to solar is storage. Hydrogen is one of several solutions being considered. None are close to 100 % efficient, and (as somebody pointed out) it's physically impossible to devise a fully efficient storage system. However, a 50 or 60 % efficient system would be a lot better than what we've got now. I mean, isn't 50 % of something better than 100 % of nothing?

This endless quibbling about the so-called drawbacks of alternative energy is anything but productive. I guarantee, in a very short time a 50 % efficient system is going to look very attractive.

damnable

There are other ways to produce hydrogen without directly using electricity.

Have a look at this which I found a while ago. It's only in small scale research stage but it's pretty pure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9vniN54Aok

CaptainCool

Yes. This. Hydrogen is not an alternative to gasoline; it is an alternative to batteries.

Roody

That's a very good way to put it.

Solar power generation technology is probably advanced to the point that it could provide all of our daytime electrical needs within just a few years. Nighttime needs--that's another question all together.

Electricity will definitely be the basic power for automobiles in the future. There are no more magic juices to operate cars with. How the electricity will get into the cars is an open question. It might be hydrogen, biofuels, plug-in batteries, or something we haven't even heard of yet. Whatever it is, the electrical power input will be greater than the power output where the rubber meets the road. The system will not be 100 % efficient. Therefore, it's ridiculous when other people here quibble against hydrogen (or whatever) because it's "inefficient." Of course it's inefficient--that can't be changed, it's a fact of life.

Nightshade

For now, millions of people expect different results by doing the same thing. "They" have a very
hard time wrapping their mind around the notion that burning something isn't the only way
to get energy. Science knows that there are other ways to propel objects but have yet to find a
a way to do so on a mass scale.

It wouldn't hurt to get rid of the intenal combustion engine either.