Saving Fuel

[donkers]

Does anyone know about vehicle modifications which allow you to add water to your fuel which is split into Hydrogen for burning and oxygen to enrich the mix.
Are they a joke or genuine. If genuine can you recommend sites

[Seafarer1966]

This is the subject of a recent post. You can't add water to a petrol or diesel engine.

Hydrogen is a component of water and the technology exists to extract it from water. Hydrogen can be used as a fuel although it is extremely combustable (take the R101 airship disaster before WW2 as an example...it used hydrogen gas tanks to float across the Atlantic but it burst into flames when it landed).

There is speculation that someone has already designed a water powered engine that extracts hydrogen from the water. Further speculation suggests that the major oil companies bought up all the designs and patents and are sitting on them. They want people to buy their expensive oil...not use free water.

Noel Edmonds got stung for a large amount of money (he never admitted exactly how much) in the 70's when he invested in a research project on building such an engine. It was a sophisticated and brilliant scam which just proved that if you are rich it doesn't mean you also have brains.

[buildersmate]

Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen (hydrolysis) requires provision of a huge amount of INPUT energy to accomplish. Its the same amount of OUTPUT energy (in reverse) that is produced by a NASA rocket burning the 2 elements to produce thrust to drives that rocket.
This, as far as I can see, is a non-starter of an idea.

[Mortartube]

On the contrary buildersmate, it could be done from seawater with wind farms at sea, stored under water in tanks and pumped ashore when needed. It would all be out at sea in case it did go bang and if the tanks were built into a conical depression on the sea bed, much of the blast would go pretty much upwards and not out causing a huge wave. But as it doesn't use oil, all of those greedy ministers with shares in oil companies and the chancellor reaping his tax on oil using the ruse it's for "environmental purposes", it hasn't got a chance.

All new technology is expensive at first until it becomes the norm, this would probably cost less to do than the nuclear power stations and the waste disposal from them that the government wants to fund.

I agree that hydrogen has its problems but being environmentally unfriendly isn't (or needn't be) one of them.

Hydrogen is the ONLY currently available fuel that can be 100% environmentally friendly (in terms of production methods) and it's use. It doesn't make or need to make any greenhouse gases.

[sp1214]

On a similar theme I knew someone who was gullible enough to purchase a device which fitted to the carburettor to reduce fuel consumption. It had something to do with magnetism and worked similar to magnetic bracelets.

[dundurn]

Water injection (look it up on wiki) is used in engines but it's got nothing to do with water as a fuel - it acts as a heat buffer, lowering the temperature within the cylinders and thereby reducing NO2 emissions.

[sp1214]

Or what about a device that gives almost perpetual motion see this working prototype https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvB3PiPBozU

[gen2]

Mortartube, There is a much more basic reason why we dont have hydrogen generators at sea like you describe.

Yes, the electrolysis of seawater does produce hydrogen, but it also produces chlorine and a solution of sodium hydroxide - both of which are environmentally harmful. It causes more problems than it solves.

[chadad]

I saw an advert for a device that when fitted to a car engine reduced petrol consumption by fifty percent.
I purchased three of them and installed all three in my car.
But it is causing me a terrible problem.

It means that I have to bail out my fuel tank every eighty miles.
chadad.

[beso]

Running a car on hydrogen produced by wind turbines does not constitue running it on water. It is running it on wind energy. It does hold come potential but while there is no efficient means of producing hydrogen in place it is just plain stupid.

Indeed running cars on hydrogen as it currently stands is simply running them on coal at hideously poor efficieny and increased pollution. Convincing well meaning consumers to buy hydrogen cars has to be one of the greatest environment dupes ever.

I always find it amusing that people are so prone to believing that energy can be extracted from water which is essentially one of the products of many types of combustion.

I still have not seen anyone suggest that we use carbon dioxide (the other major product of combustion) as a fuel. Yet it makes no less sense than using water.

Just think of it.
"Save money and help reduce the Greenhouse Effect. Run your car on Carbon Dioxide. Millions of tonnes are produced all around us every day."

[beso]

Actually just pour the water straight into your fuel tank. Only needs a small amount and it is guaranteed to stop that car using any fuel at all.

[beso]

Here in Australia a very stupid arrogant Premier of the State of Queensland in the late 70s was backing a water powered car.

A big demonstration was planned on television with lots of hoopla. Unfortunately just as they were about to show the breathtaking new technology they realised they had lost the key to the car so it couldn't go ahead. Such a shame

[jake-the-peg]

As already stated you can't run engines that split hydrogen from water and then burn it again.

It's an eternal motion machine and breaks the "conservation of energy"

However here's an adaption that runs your car on hydrogen:

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm

The problem isn't the engine it's fueling - hydrogen is dangerous because it's so explosive and storing it as a gas (even compressed is very inefficient. (short range).

Liquifying it would make the refueling process dangerous from cryogenic burns and increase the lisk of explosion.

So far experiments with hydrides have also been disappointing.

It's one of the big challenges of our time.