Water Powered Generator, Converting H20 into Hydrogen as fuel & O2 as Clean Exhaust!

Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Van Living Forum

Help Support Van Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Gasoline fumes are more explosive.
About 46,300,000 results (0.36 seconds)
Search Results,Featured snippet from the web Hydrogen can be explosive with oxygen concentrations between 18 and 59 percent while gasoline can be explosive at oxygen concentrations between 1 and 3 percent. This means that gasoline has greater risk for explosion than hydrogen for any given environment

https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/why...drogen will not,steep contrast to other fuels.
 
Well, I’m not disputing that about gasoline and it’s also a given that hydrogen is one of the most explosive of gases. This is well known and my point is that anything that is very explosion needs to be treated with care & caution.

It’s not a gasoline vs hydrogen issue as far as explosiveness is concerned. When you are dealing with potential bombs no matter the degree of 🔥 certain care & precautions need to be known & implemented.

As well as with any new technology any possible secondary effects as well as long term consequences must be known to at least some degree.
IMG_2467.jpeg
INTJohn
 
I'm all for others risking to research so I don't have to. I hope they get paid for it.
 
And while I’m at it………
The OP assertion that oxygen is “clean exhaust” is debatable. Perhaps on a very short term individual micro level, just like co2 gasoline exhaust but what’s the “big picture” long term atmospheric environmental effects on a global macro level?

Sooo, we’re using all this water to make all this explosive hydrogen useful for all of Humanity’s uses while spewing all this “clean” Oxygen into the atmosphere………

Umm, right now the atmosphere is about 21% Oxygen and it’s also about 78% Nitrogen. Humanity’s health really really likes this ratio and you know what? So do plants the global vegetation breathing all that nitrogen. It’s a healthy ratio for both life forms. Very complementary relationship.

Suppose we just start pumping, globally, all this Oxygen into the atmosphere for oh you know say a 100+ years like we have these fossil fuel based greenhouse gases? What happens? Idk. No1 else does either.

Humanity’s health does not like oxygen levels that exceed 35% and ahh what is the impact on the Earth’s forests, plant life, etc with Nitrogen depletion? Not to mention that Nitrogen is also a necessary item for Human health? What is that impact of atmospheric Nitrogen depletion on Humaniry?

IMG_2467.jpeg

ain’t sayin, jus sayin
INTJohn
 
If we can safely and efficiently extract H from H2O and use it for fuel directly in our vehicles, it sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Or, maybe do the same to produce electricity in bulk instead of using coal and other fossil fuels and use that energy in some way to power our transportation. It doesn't have to be EVs that are carrying batteries around. City trolleys worked with overhead lines - as do electric trains in the rest of the world. I would think we could find some system to distribute energy to private vehicles on the highway and in cities and only need individual propulsion in rural settings. That would be good too. But, as INTJohn says, we need to research all the nasty details that could trip us up.

I just want an energy source that is healthy for us AND the planet - instead of the methods we are now using.
 
I think the exhaust is just water or O2 as it started as H2O & the H was split off & used as fuel. I do know the Oxygen level is lower now than 100 years ago as we had a car scrap yard a couple miles from where I grew up that had cars that the wood had rotted away but all the metal was still laying in the right place on the ground as well newer. They came in & took air samples from tires to compare to then current air. O2 has varied from 15% to 35% over the last 50 million years. I think we'll be OK. Don't worry, Be Happy!
During the past 100 years, however, atmospheric oxygen has declined by a comparatively speedy 0.1 percent because of the burning of fossil fuels, which consumes oxygen and produces carbon dioxide.
 
Last edited:
Unintended consequences can be a sneaky thing. All the computer modeling only tells us things based on assumptions made to extrapolate from. When the answers match up to what's expected it's tweaked and refined. And considered better. I'm certain that in a lot of cases that is true. But not all of them

We can tell climate change if going to kill us all. But we can't tell if it's actually going to rain next week on Tuesday. Maybe it's Wednesday? Who knows? We know that killer whales kill great white sharks. But we're surprised that they can do it one on one as was recently caught on video. Who knew?

The amount we actually know about how things work on this earth is amazingly small. But everyone seems so certain about everything because science. The end.
 
Happy Camper said:
Unintended consequences can be a sneaky thing. All the computer modeling only tells us things based on assumptions made to extrapolate from. When the answers match up to what's expected it's tweaked and refined. And considered better. I'm certain that in a lot of cases that is true. But not all of them

We can tell climate change if going to kill us all. But we can't tell if it's actually going to rain next week on Tuesday. Maybe it's Wednesday? Who knows? We know that killer whales kill great white sharks. But we're surprised that they can do it one on one as was recently caught on video. Who knew?

The amount we actually know about how things work on this earth is amazingly small. But everyone seems so certain about everything because science. The end.
Click to expand...
The End for you. OK.

But when we feel sick who do we ask for help? Someone who trained in medicine? AKA: Science. They might sometimes be wrong, but less so than the average witch doctor
Who do we want to design our cars, trains, and planes? Engineers? AKA: Science. And so on.

Even though we still have a lot to learn - we DO already know a lot we didn't know even a few years ago. The amount we have learned from centuries ago is staggering. I think I'll go with today's knowledge set.
 
RonDean said:
The End for you. OK.

But when we feel sick who do we ask for help? Someone who trained in medicine? AKA: Science. They might sometimes be wrong, but less so than the average witch doctor
Click to expand...
Yes, but for years modern doctors have ignored and in many ways belittled alternative healing. Herbal remedies from ancient civilizations handed down and even modified over centuries. Chiropractic for certain ailments. Acupuncture, massage, etc.

Yet in more recent times, medical doctors were not willing to accept that some of these methods work. And at times work better than the modern version. But not in every situation, of course. Just like every prescription or operation with modern medicine doesn't result in a positive outcome. I would say the vast majority of medical scientists and practitioners not too long ago would say that only modern medicine works. I would boldly say that the percentage would have been extremely high.

And they would have been wrong. Not in everything, mind you. Again, two things can be true at the same time.

RonDean said:
Who do we want to design our cars, trains, and planes? Engineers? AKA: Science. And so on.
Click to expand...
Yes of course. Learning, growing that knowledge. Using that advanced knowledge is smart and helpful. You want to use proven engineering. I'm not a luddite. I love tech, I love things moving forward. I also know that just because the vast majority believe something, that doesn't make it the absolute truth.
RonDean said:
Even though we still have a lot to learn - we DO already know a lot we didn't know even a few years ago. The amount we have learned from centuries ago is staggering. I think I'll go with today's knowledge set.
Click to expand...
Today's knowledge set is better than at any time in the history of mankind. But the entire set of knowledge isn't even in agreement with itself. There are differences of thought, opinion, procedure, assumptions, belief, perspective, etc, that color it all to some extent.

There's more than one way to do things. There's more than one way to come to the same conclusions. There's plenty of ways to use the same data and come to different conclusions. I have faith in the latest data set. Faith that it's the most advanced so far. But I don't have absolute faith in it, or the people behind it.

It's a great time to be alive and see some of the miracles happening as they unfold.
 
Happy Camper said:
Yes, but for years modern doctors have ignored and in many ways belittled alternative healing. Herbal remedies from ancient civilizations handed down and even modified over centuries. Chiropractic for certain ailments. Acupuncture, massage, etc.

Yet in more recent times, medical doctors were not willing to accept that some of these methods work. And at times work better than the modern version. But not in every situation, of course.
Click to expand...
The medical community didn't reject alternative healing, because they use prescription meds and most of those come from plants. Made in factories, but are made from plants. Well, it used to be MOST. I just read this (from the USDA):

A full 40 percent of the drugs behind the pharmacist’s counter in the Western world are derived from plants that people have used for centuries, including the top 20 best selling prescription drugs in the United States today.

For example, quinine extracted from the bark of the South American cinchona tree (Cinchona calisaya) relieves malaria, and licorice root (Glycyrrhiza glabra) has been an ingredient in cough drops for more than 3,500 years. The species native to the United States, Glycyrrhiza lepidota, has a broad range from western Ontario to Washington, south to Texas, Mexico and Missouri. Eastward, there are scattered populations. The leaves and roots have been used for treating sores on the backs of horses, toothaches, and fever in children, sore throats and cough.

Medicinal interest in mints dates from at least the first century A.D., when it was recorded by the Roman naturalist Pliny. In Elizabethan times more than 40 ailments were reported to be remedied by mints. The foremost use of mints today in both home remedies and in pharmaceutical preparations is to relieve the stomach and intestinal gas that is often caused by certain foods.

Consumers routinely assume that the medications they take and the food they ingest have been scrupulously studied by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They assume that many of these products are safe because they are natural. However, many herbals have never been seriously tested for efficacy or toxicity. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 eliminated the authority of the FDA to regulate vitamins, herbs and other food-based products, and therefore the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not regulate the use of any herbal supplement.

More:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/wildflowers/ethnobotany/medicinal/index.shtml#
 
INTJohn said:
Well, I’m not disputing that about gasoline and it’s also a given that hydrogen is one of the most explosive of gases. This is well known and my point is that anything that is very explosion needs to be treated with care & caution.

It’s not a gasoline vs hydrogen issue as far as explosiveness is concerned. When you are dealing with potential bombs no matter the degree of 🔥 certain care & precautions need to be known & implemented.

As well as with any new technology any possible secondary effects as well as long term consequences must be known to at least some degree.
Click to expand...
Hydrogen is not a "New Technology" Robert Boyle produced hydrogen gas as early as 1671 while experimenting with iron and acids. Hydrogen has some safety advantages over liquid fuels such as gasoline. When a gasoline tank leaks or bursts, the gasoline can pool, creating a risk that any spark would start a fire, or it can splatter, posing a great risk of spreading an existing fire. Hydrogen, however, will escape quickly into the atmosphere as a very diffuse gas. Also, hydrogen gas is nontoxic.
 
Stan Meyer explaining how his Hydrogen Car works. No high pressure Hydrogen tanks as it's all done at the engine.
 
Gr8ful said:
Stan Meyer explaining how his Hydrogen Car works. No high pressure Hydrogen tanks as it's all done at the engine.
Click to expand...

This video is over 1/2 an hour and the little I listened to was not good quality, so I searched for Stan Meyer car instead. The Univ of Minn had this site. https://environment.umn.edu/education/susteducation/stanley-meyer-an-infamous-invention-and-death/

It said (in part) that ... Parading a vehicle outfitted with his water fuel cell around the country, Meyer caught the eye of the public, and investors, with his revolutionary technology. Not long after obtaining his investment, in 1996 he was taken to court in Ohio for fraud on account that the fuel cell was using the already developed technology of the electrolysis fuel cell, and was just being marketed as an original idea. Additionally, there was also no evidence, besides eye witness reports, that the car actually ran. No clear videos of the car in motion were taken, which could be argued to leave the investors with doubt in the back of their minds. Stanley had to pay back the investments in full.
...The patent for the fuel cell has expired, so anybody could pick up where Stanley left off. If one were to have a breakthrough with this technology, and be able to mass produce it, there would be massive implications on protecting the environment.

I think I'll wait until someone else has actually completed the work before pinning any hopes on this particular technology.
 
INTJohn said:
And while I’m at it………
The OP assertion that oxygen is “clean exhaust” is debatable. Perhaps on a very short term individual micro level, just like co2 gasoline exhaust but what’s the “big picture” long term atmospheric environmental effects on a global macro level?
Click to expand...
This shouldn't be a problem, as when any process uses the hydrogen to produce power (e.g. in a fuel cell to generate electricity) it ends up combining with O2 in the atmosphere and producing H2O as exhaust anyway. So there shouldn't be any net increase in atmospheric O2 levels.
 
dhuff said:
This shouldn't be a problem, as when any process uses the hydrogen to produce power (e.g. in a fuel cell to generate electricity) it ends up combining with O2 in the atmosphere and producing H2O as exhaust anyway. So there shouldn't be any net increase in atmospheric O2 levels.
Click to expand...

IF (and that's a big if) we could change to burning water or some variation thereof and have a surplus of oxygen we can always eat more plants to restore the balance. (Note: This is NOT to be taken too seriously.)
 
Gr8ful said:
This you tube even shows him making it, you can skip to 17 min if you just want to see it work
Stan Meyer did this with a dune buggy but was killed. Below is a Government report on how it works. This could be so much better than EVs!
https://www.anl.gov/sites/www/files/2020-09/Hydrogen Fuel from Water_v2.pdf
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, am I missing something? Once again, we have the perfect conspiracy theory!! ? Big Oil (blessed be thy name....) is holding us back from producing free energy without any effect on the environment!!!!

Except for the fact that "HH+" is a secret that only Big Oil controls, is a central part of the functioning of this project. What if the chemicals involved are super-expensive? What if they are dangerous to handle, in limited supply, or whatever?

There is a group at University of California, Santa Cruz working on the efficient production of Hydrogen at room temperatures, and the electrolyte requires a ratio of Gallium and Aluminum. https://www.sciencealert.com/clean-fuel-breakthrough-turns-water-into-hydrogen-at-room-temperature.

However, this method uses Gallium/Aluminum alloy plates, and I'm really not prepared to produce alloys in my laboratory. <grin> Also, I believe this method requires that the plates be replaced after they are eaten by the process, unlike the use of stainless steel plates.

I'm going to call this BS unless someone has the formula for HH+.

Thoughts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top