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

[user 29855]

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

I forgot to mention:
If you take an aluminum object, such as a Diet Coke can, and place Gallium on it, it will very significantly weaken the aluminum so that you can crumble it in your fingers. So, it seems that an Aluminum/Gallium alloy would be rather brittle. Hmmmmm.

 

[RonDean]

We can Hope. Ron Did you watch the generator video?

I MUCH prefer reading text to watching videos - whether I agree with or like them or not. But (as I said) I did start the video (about Stan Meyer) but stopped it when I saw it was over 1/2 an hour and the little I listened to was poor quality. Instead, I searched for Stan Meyer's car. The Univ of Minn had this site. https://environment.umn.edu/education/susteducation/stanley-meyer-an-infamous-invention-and-death/"

That pretty much answered my questions about water-powered cars. I did not watch the video of the water bottle + generator and power grid tower. (Same objection to video sources) If you think it is really important, can you just describe the subject sufficiently so that I can search and find a text site on the same subject?

 

[Gr8ful]

Thought so, Thanks!

 

[Frood]

Hydrogen is ridiculously easy to produce via chemical reactions or electrolysis. There are trade offs though as changing the forms of materials requires energy and with the exception of certain fields of physics (many concepts still completely theoretical with zero real world evidence outside of some mindbogglingly complex maths) you are going to have a loss of energy. Peak efficiency solar is somewhere around 28% now I think... So only 28% of the sunlight absorbed gets converted into usable energy (the majority of the rest is typically converted to heat), said electricity can then be used to produce H2. So can a vehicle run further on the H2 produced, or will it run further on the charge the battery gets form the equivalent amount of electricity. In a chemical reaction unless you can just pick up things from the ground and dump them together, it will take energy to refine the materials. Making hydrogen gas in a wine bottle is a great example of this. You can add water, NaOH (lye/drain cleaner) and aluminum to a heavy glass bottle and eventually you will wind up with a very hot bottle with hydrogen gas and water vapor emitted from the top (because the reaction is exothermic) as the two materials react (with Sodium aluminate and if you used excess NaOH likely a highly alkali contaminated water).

So it comes down to the question of whether the pollution from and efficiency producing the H2 as a fuel is more or less damaging/efficient/cost effective than just using the fuels that would be used to produce the H2 directly.

Also, combustible != explosive on a 1:1 ratio. Without resorting to actually looking it up I'd say explosive capacity is a product of the leftover reactants from combustion, so if something easily combusts and has very little leftover products it won't be excessively explosive, while something that produces a large amount of waste gasses from the combustion is going to have more explosive capability. Or it may be to thermal waste energy, or quite a few other factors now that I think about it.

Just consider the above as listening to someone talking to themselves. I guess I could delete everything above but maybe someone else can make something of it or it will give you an idea since the only one I'm contradicting is myself no risk of giving offense.

 

[BlueMarkOhio]

You have to input more energy to produce hydrogen from water than you will recover when burning the hydrogen (or running it through a fuel cell). Just use the original energy input directly for higher efficiency.

It is just a matter of time before these free energy hucksters start claiming that their water hydrolysis input energy is multiplied by muon-catalyzed cold fusion in a palladium matrix (conveniently harvested from old catalytic converters). Or zero point energy. Oh heck, I think I'll just write up a white paper on that and sell it on the interwebs for $29.99. Results not guaranteed.

 

[Frood]

It is just a matter of time before these free energy hucksters start claiming that their water hydrolysis input energy is multiplied by muon-catalyzed cold fusion in a palladium matrix (conveniently harvested from old catalytic converters). Or zero point energy. Oh heck, I think I'll just write up a white paper on that and sell it on the interwebs for $29.99. Results not guaranteed.

LOL. Actually fusion has, for the first time ever, produced more energy than required to keep it going.
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/livermore-lab-net-positive-fusion-reaction/3289740/
https://lasers.llnl.gov/news/llnls-...riment-highlighted-in-physical-review-letters

Whether this will lead to a viable means of generating electricity for people to use is another question though.

You forgot to mention that you needed to use a dilithium matrix to extract the ZPE! Or is that what your white paper
was going to be about? Sorry for ruining the secret!

 

[wanderlust]

LOL. Actually fusion has, for the first time ever, produced more energy than required to keep it going.

For how many nanoseconds?

"NIF achieved fusion ignition for the third time with 1.9 MJ of laser energy resulting in 2.4 MJ of fusion energy yield."

"Other than at NIF, the world’s largest and highest-energy laser, these conditions occur on Earth only in an exploding thermonuclear weapon."

So they spend million dollars to make deuterium-tritium capsule from diamond, to destroy it in nuclear explosion started by high power laser in a lab. Far from cheap power.

LOL indeed

BTW thanks for interesting article about the science of it

 

[BlueMarkOhio]

You forgot to mention that you needed to use a dilithium matrix to extract the ZPE! Or is that what your white paper
was going to be about? Sorry for ruining the secret!

My method doesn't require dilithium (so no "Burn" danger). It uses hydrogen ions within the interstitial octahedral sites of the face-centered cubic lattice of palladium to accumulate parallel ion sheets along crystalline matrix discontinuities that release Casimir Effect vacuum energy upon collapse.

See, I can techno-babble better than the "water engine" hucksters.

 

[frodo2222]

I MUCH prefer reading text to watching videos - whether I agree with or like them or not. But (as I said) I did start the video (about Stan Meyer) but stopped it when I saw it was over 1/2 an hour and the little I listened to was poor quality. Instead, I searched for Stan Meyer's car. The Univ of Minn had this site. https://environment.umn.edu/education/susteducation/stanley-meyer-an-infamous-invention-and-death/"

That pretty much answered my questions about water-powered cars. I did not watch the video of the water bottle + generator and power grid tower. (Same objection to video sources) If you think it is really important, can you just describe the subject sufficiently so that I can search and find a text site on the same subject?

My experience running the H2O machine on my old Ford diesel truck..MPG went from 17 to 21, black smoke from unburned fuel GONE...on my 2000 caravan with co.puters it was much harder to fool the computer..it kept thinking it was running too lean and dump extra fuel...there is ways around it but it's more electronic complicated

 

[jacqueg]

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.

Science is always finding out more. So no, not the end. There are some things we are pretty sure won't change, or if they do, it will mean we're all dead anyway. For instance, the direction from which the sun "rises". This will not change as long as the earth remains in its current orbit. Which is bound to change someday, but not in any time frame that it is worth us worrying about.

What science offers is the best way to test our assertions. For instance, while what we know about physics will undoubtedly change, those changes will continue to explain the Newton, Einstein, and Hawking theories and observations, but will also better explain things such as dark matter/energy.

 

[wanderlust]

What science offers is the best way to test our assertions. For instance, while what we know about physics will undoubtedly change, those changes will continue to explain the Newton, Einstein, and Hawking theories and observations, but will also better explain things such as dark matter/energy.

Not even that, there is more.

Science tries to discover a question which cannot be explained by current science. Makes experiment, and looks at the result. If results are confusing or "wrong", great: that is a way to improve our scientific understanding. Then, improved scientific theory which explains new experimental results is proposed, and scientific understanding advances.

Theory of gravity was just a theory, trying to explain heliocentric system better than the "obvious" earth-centric system. Special theory of relativity was explaining confusing fact that speed of light is exactly the same, even within a moving system. Imagine if a person walking in a speeding train, and person walking next to rails, were moving the same speed. Light does move this strange way, which does not match the expectations of the Newton's theory of gravity. And so on.

 

[Happy Camper]

They have actually detected gravity waves. Some excellent science happening.

I'm just pointing to those that take whatever science tells them today (or yesterday) as immutable and never subject to new information. Science is always subject to new information and results.

 

[RonDean]

They have actually detected gravity waves. Some excellent science happening.

I'm just pointing to those that take whatever science tells them today (or yesterday) as immutable and never subject to new information. Science is always subject to new information and results.

Yes. Science has always changed, evolved, and advanced. So far at least, nothing remains exactly the same. But, at any point in time we have to proceed as if that moment's best science is correct or at least most likely. Otherwise we get paralysis by analysis. For this moment in time, I think we can proceed on the assumption that electric motors are more workable than water motors. When someone proves differently, I'll be willing to modify my assumptions.