[Maz]

Since I have seen a number a of energy related topics on the boards in the past few weeks and Mitch decided to talk about cold fusion, I decided my next few posts will be related to new/renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuels. 

This particular post was inspired by the many, many electrochem. questions by Walman who also reminded me about Stanley Meyers' work on water cars.

Yes thats right...water powered vehicles.

Now I know you are all rolling your eyes saying things like "electrolysis takes about 5 times more energy in then you get out" or "If he really invented some new form of electrolysis why don't we all drive water cars?" and of course "Who cares?  Maz is nuts anyways!".

I would ask you naysayers to wait a bit and take a look at some of this guy's evidence.  NOTE:  I don't really buy it, but you never know.  It may be possible.

So lets begin with a basic review of electrolysis, which is the separation of certain bonded atoms or molecules by running electric current across them.  We are concerned here with the electrolysis of water which goes like this:

2H₂O --> 2H₂ + O₂  Where the H₂O was in liquid phase, and the hydrogen and oxygen products are in gas phase. 

When you put enough electrical current across water, you add enough energy for the water to split into its ionic components.  Hydrogen, being positively charged, moves toward the cathode and oxygen, being negatively charged, moves toward the anode.  When hydrogen cations hit the cathode, they get reduced and form H₂ gas.  Oxygen hits the anode and gets oxidized, forming O₂ gas.

Now the quantity of the separation is proportional to the amount of electric charge you send across.  This means that the more current you send through, the more hydrogen gas you get (within limits of course).  So we can all have electrolytic cells producing hydrogen to burn for our cars and homes, right?  Well...not exactly.  The amount of energy you get out from burning the products of the electrolysis is not greater then the amount of energy it takes to do the separation.  Classical theory predicts the maximum efficiency to be between 80 and 94%   See here for details  

This key point is where Stanley Meyers claimed to make a breakthrough.  Using his own design of an electrolytic cell, he said he gets somewhere around 1700% efficiency.
 
His design for the cell is different from contemporary cells in that they utilize tiny amounts of current.  Half an amp, for his 1700% efficient design.  The trick, it seems, is to use high voltages with low current and PULSE the current using large surface area electrodes. 

Why does this supposedly work?  You've got me there.  Perhaps there's some weird interaction driven by the strong force at the electrodes?  Maybe you cold fusion enthusiasts ought to look into it with high pressure confinement.  Maybe then you'll see your fusion. 

Whatever the case, and whatever your current opinion is, first watch these two videos.  The first is just 2 minutes long, the second is a more serious 17 minute clip.  THEN formulate your opinion.  Of course I would also say you should visit the wikipedia article on Stanley Meyer

Video 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIgOn1kRw5s

Video 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800

Obviously, I think that his 'water fuel cell'  is pretty much a vat of crock.  I am sure it is a conspiracy theorists dreamland, but then again, all the supposed "free energy" inventions are. 

Except for mine of course.  But that's a secret.



P.S.  If anyone reading this understands Japanese, could you please tell me what they are saying in this video?

[lemonoman]

I'll definitely watch those when I get to a higher-bandwidth connection!

It's research like this that makes me want to have my own lab and research time!

Good find Maz!

P.S. You're still nuts. lol

[Mitch]

So using less current generated more Hydrogen!? If this is true, wouldn't the big oil companies have tried to kill him by now?

[Maz]

He died several years back.  Cerebral Aneurysm was the official cause of death...after exiting a restaurant in his hometown.  Hence the whole conspiracy theory about him being poisoned by oil barons.  What I wanna know is...if it really worked so well, surely SOME scientist SOMEWHERE must have tried to duplicate it.  I mean, it isn't even that hard to test.  Where are THOSE results?

[Mitch]

The problem with something like that is reproducibility. Someone aside from the inventor needs to show similar results from a comparable design.

[Donaldson Tan]

How does the thermodynamics work out?

[Mitch]

Looks like someone else liked the video you posted Maz.

http://atomic-motor.blogspot.com/2007/04/gray-lines-between-reality-and-fiction.html

Although, I don't see a link back here. :p

[Maz]

Ohh, dude, he jacked my video.  And he doesn't even understand Japanese either! 

Well, we'll be the gracious ones.  If you wanna go hear someone talking completely out of there rear-end, go visit the link Mitch posted above. 

[Donaldson Tan]

The water car is clearly a scam. It is most probably powered by something else.

Imagine cars running on compressed air instead. The difference would be that the same fuel that cars use now would be use to run compressors at the petrol station to generate compressed air to run the new air cars instead. On top of a significantly improved fuel economy, carbon emissions by transport would be localised and concentrated, so it is easier to implement carbon capture. This is more likely and feasible approach to revolutionalise the transport market and mitigate climate change. Click the play button in the video below to see the Air Powered Car in action.

<a href="http://youtube.com/v/QmqpGZv0YT4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://youtube.com/v/QmqpGZv0YT4</a>

[Yggdrasil]

How is this better than electric cars?  It seems like both you essentially, "plug in" to the electricity grid to store electrical power, then use that power to drive your car.  In the case of the electric car, the electricity is converted to chemical energy in a battery and in the case of the electric cars, the electrical energy is stored in the form of compressed air.  It would seem to me that batteries would store the energy more efficiently, although I guess the compressed air car could have the advantage of quicker filling and better range.

[Maz]

Well, the water car is different in that it supposedly...somehow is tapping a different energy reservoir (the whole zero-point thing) which yields that obscenely high efficiency when analyzed strictly from Pin vs Pout.  So yeah, you've got an on board battery in series with a current source and a VCO I guess, but that just supplies what acts like the catalyst for the "water cell" to do it's magic. 

With the comp. air cars, you plug into the grid to run your air compressor.  Yes, you still suck power from the plants which is still generated by burning fossil fuels (primarily) of some kind, but now there are no fumes coming out of your exhaust pipe.  In essence, they have all been shifted and localized at the power plant that you draw your power from.  So you've got a much easier job ahead of you in terms of executing carbon capture, geodome's baby. 

As far as the efficiencies of either of these cars...well I'll wait for a scientific analysis by an independent panel before I declare the car problem solved.  The water car is just out there, and the comp. air car has a long way to go before becoming commercially viable. 

For example, in the video, one fellow says they use a thin cushion of comp. air to replace oil and reduce friction in the engine.  If you think it's hard to prevent oil leaks, just try pressurized air in a system with moving parts and thermal oscillations of both pressure and size. It'll do for a trolley, but a family car doing 75k miles a year for the avg. car life of 5 years?  Hmmm....get at it engineers. 

[Donaldson Tan]

If you think it's hard to prevent oil leaks, just try pressurized air in a system with moving parts and thermal oscillations of both pressure and size. It'll do for a trolley, but a family car doing 75k miles a year for the avg. car life of 5 years?  Hmmm....get at it engineers. 

It is not a problem for engineers. That's what engineers are paid to do.

The nice thing about compressed-air cars is that they are so light that the energy used to travel a fixed distance is lesser than a conventional car. In terms of perceived efficiency (energy consumed per mile), compressed air cars are better off than electric cars.