Build your own water burning engine

[Koaps]

Hi guys,

I found this on the internet and thought someone might find it an interesting read.

Might be fun to convert a lawn mower engine to vapor, I've seen another article that had actual pics of the working engines, but I cant find it anymore.

http://angrypacket.com/~koaps/VaporEngine.pdf

[Brian Moffet]

Let's put it this way...

The basic idea is that you're converting water into hydrogen and oxygen, which you then burn to create power.  In the process of burning the hydrogen and oxygen, you create water.  So, you transition from water back to water, and you need power to do so.  The real question comes from how much latent energy is available in water, how much energy is required to convert that water into hydrogen and oxygen, and what are the losses.

The page referenced plays sort of fast and loose with numbers, indicating no real strong scientific background or research.  Maintaining a 5 amp circuit requires a bit of work. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure I would like a pressurized mixed hydrogen/oxygen tank sitting anywhere near me.  

I remain dubious that this is economically feasable.  Lets look at it this way, if it was feasable, power companies would be running water-based electrical generation plants, rather than natural-gas electrical generation plants.   It would be tremendously cheaper for them, and they would get kudos for not polluting the environment.  

Brian

[louthepou]

These things always make me laugh, or cry, it all depends.

OK, let's look at one basic law of nature: energy is conserved - not used or created, just transformed. For the fun of it, let's just assume such a contraption is built, fired up, and works.

Ask yourself this question first. What's the energy flow?

1. Energy is stored in the battery.
2. It is transfered to the dissociated oxygen and hydrogen.
3. It is recuperated from the rebonding of the water molecule
4. Transformed finally in movement (kinetic energy). The car goes forward.

All is fine, until the battery dies out.

Why? You need to put energy back into it at some point. You could use the alternator of the car engine to recharge the battery (as proposed in the article), but the more energy goes back in the battery, the less energy drives the car forward. And with the losses in this system due to friction and others, there will never be enough energy to sustain the vehicle's movement for long.

The battery will run out of energy, the car will stop, you'll need to recharge the battery before you can go again. You can't extract more energy from the 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O reaction than you put in to begin with for the reverse reaction. Energy doesn't appear out of nowhere.

Here's a more simple, real "lowish relative cost" energy solution:

1. Build a windmill, hook it to a power generator, use the current to recharge batteries.

2. Use the batteries to power a Toyota Prius.

Welcome back to school...

Louis

[Koaps]

I was able to find my Winter 1995 copy of Psychedelic Illuminations(some hippy mag I bought off the haight back in the day cause it has this thing on water burning engines)

It's more rough in sketches, but it uses the same type of  propane injecter system for the carbs as a fork lift or RV uses. In fact its suggested that you get parts from here:

http://www.impco.ws/

It also has plans for a water recovery system for the exhaust.

In terms of power it uses, its the same exact system you normally use for charging, 12VDC from the alternator, the main difference here is the method of control, a pulsed current -vs- a constant current, which is why the other system uses 5 amp circuit to allow the mosfet to control the pulse(which I wouldn't imagine would be too hard to maintain from an 14V/20AMP alternator like our bike has, though I wouldnt put a system like this in a bike), plus it produces less compressed hydrogen then a constant current, IE only produces the amount of hydrogen it needs to keep at a certain pressure(measurable by the control system) instead of a system which is constantly producing hydrogen, which is more likely to produce higher and higher pressure levels)

I would think this ideal for remote locations with ground water access and the ability to have pressurized containers underground, piped to a generator with emegency shutoffs.

From what I have read on the subject, Hydrogen or Hydrogen fuel cells, have far less enegry loss compared to normal gasoline, something like 40-60 % loss compared to 80% with fossil fuels:

http://www.hydrogenus.com/harness1.htm

The reason its not being used in cars currently is political, 100%, technology is beyound the faults, airlines have had the technology to contain C4 explosions in cargo holds for some time, it wouldn't be hard to design extremely tough composit pressure tanks meant to hold compressed hydrogen, and expand on puncture.

The issue is same as with Bio-Diesel, anybody can make the fuel so there is no profit to be made, thus major loss to those with much invested into current fossil fuel technology. No way GM or Unical is going to let the general public produce thier own cost effective fuels.

http://www.spinninglobe.net/bioupdate3.htm

A farmer already was shutdown for selling Bio-Diesel for car use just because he couldn't afford to pay the people who did the million dollar EPA report saying Bio-Diesel is safe. Purely political, if they cared at all about the environment, that report would be open-sourced to the public so people can start using the technology. Instead they suppress the technology through various means. If you think about it, it pretty tricky stuff, as a fossil fuel supporter all I have to do is a EPA report on Bio-Diesel that costs a few million, then charge anyone who wants to produce the fuel $100,000 a year membership(which no small time farmer or producer can afford), so, now only the big boys in the fossil fuel industry can afford to produce the fuel, and they have no interest in doing so.

I would like to try building a non-road hydrogenerator, but I dont have the space to do it(apartment life sucks). I wouldnt be too scared of the pressures(small space, limited area to pressurize), but would want to make sure everything is vary tight and secured, grounded proper and whatnot.

-c

[Koaps]

Before I run off to school, check this out....

http://www.amer-grp.com/Hydrogen_Engine.html

Its more of a realistic anwser to the problem, notabley the ending,

"Lastly, to get a vehicle to run competely on Hydrogen means only the vehicle manufacturer can re-write the emission control system; which is why we have a seperate vehicle manufacturing concern that re-titles vehicles and meets EPA re-testing and regulations.  NONE of this is simple buy it and install it yourself except limited use Hydrogen boosting which will behave differently in all vehicles depending on the emission control system.  We can tell you how to do it; but it is unlikely you will be able to do the modifications required yourself."

L8rs
-C

[Coil Coyle]

Why convert to hydrogen?
Just mount a rubber band powered propeller on the front
to pull the vehicle around and then have a pinwheel on the back winding up the rubber band.

Check it out at < iatetoomuchacidtoo.org > :o

 ;D
coil

[Koaps]

Interesting idea, but I prefer the hamster in the crankcase with the 12VDC anal probe providing pulsed timing signals, but you need to have a shocker switch to kick him over when he dies.

[Lucky]

wheather it's feasable or not doesn't matter, as long as the idea is being discussed, it'll happen eventually.

did any of you really think i'd be riding around with a working oil cooler? :>

[Brian Moffet]

The reason its not being used in cars currently is political, 100%, technology is beyound the faults, airlines have had the technology to contain C4 explosions in cargo holds for some time, it wouldn't be hard to design extremely tough composit pressure tanks meant to hold compressed hydrogen, and expand on puncture.

Never mentioned it being used in cars. I mentioned it being used to generate electricity in the large power plants, who certainly have enough clout, money, and political influence to do something that is good for the envirnonment.  

Every time I go to work, I see (assuming a clear day) a very large natural gas powered electrical generation plant.  And it's right next to the ocean, a ready supply of water.

As far as the "free energy" is concerned (posted by louthepou), Koaps doesn't say that this is a perpetual motion machine.  If this system works, then you would "burn" more fuel than you collect, and the rest of this fuel does go into losses.

Hmm, just thought of this.  This "plan" sounds a lot like a "hydrogen fuel cell"  http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/fc_systems.html

Brian

[Koaps]

It would be interesting to see a Hydrogen Fuel cell that powers a Hydrogen engine(Read that a chemical reaction to produce DC to create another chemical reaction for providing the compressed combustable hydrogen to the combustion chamber).

There would be loss, but no more then a standard combustion engine, probably a lot less. Even though it requires enegry to produce hydrogen, it requires less enegry to ignite it than a fuel mix of hydrocarbons. This is easy to see, you can light gasoline on fire and watch it burn, where as hydrogen gas ignites into more of an explosion, think Hindenburg.

Dirty, the Cars and Powerplants are the same deal if you think about it. Powerplants are businesses made for profit, if the technology isn't highly profitable, it wont be built. The power industry from day one is highly cut throat(thank J.P.Morgon for that) and the main forces behind our power grids(Edison and Tesla) were in a battle for the rights to build the power grids. Tesla won and the same generators that he built are in use today. I've worked for a company dealing with home automation and providing remote metering, something you would think ALL power companies would jump on since it could save millions in rolling backouts, but no, power companys in the USA will absolutely NOT invest into new technology, period, I know this for a fact. Even with deregulation going on in CA, its extremely difficult to introduce a new technology into the power system. Our company had to go to Europe, and we dealt with Vattenfall to prove our technologies.

Just because a technology could save the environment doesn't mean squat to power companies. If it can't(same argument as with Cars) produce the amounts of profit that current non-environmental technologies do, there is zero motivation to use those technologies, and even worst, the power companies will lobby our government to thier favor, why is it since Bush got elected, all these enviromental protection laws are being overturned, that only benefits those who violate those laws, which Car companies and Power companies seem to be the biggest violators of all industries, theres land just a few miles up on the freeway from me that can't be used again because of the arsenic in the ground left by PG&E from storaging various types of power components, but they will endup developing on that land for low income housing because it's profittable, you see this all the time in the East Bay Area of San Francisco Bay Area, there are lots of places developed on land that is not EPA sound, and is giving people cancer, yet no one does anything much to stop it. It is sad to say, but thats the truth.

I personally would like to think that if I ran a power company, I would run it ethics, but I'm sure people who think like that, don't end up in powerful positions anyways.  >:(

[Brian Moffet]

My last comment on this:

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-12/p39.html

Brian

[h2olawyer]

Just because a technology could save the environment doesn't mean squat to power companies.

Maybe not, but saving millions of $$ in legal fees & regulatory compliance does. ?If it was truly viable now, someone would be using it or planning its development.

H2O

[Walt_M.]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry, laughter feels better so I will laugh!

[Extent]

They say it's possible with FI as well, but make no mention on remapping the ECU.  I'ld like to know how they could get it to work without completely throwing the ECU for a loop, even if I belived the premise.

[Koaps]

Well, the idea behind the link with info on the oxygen sensor is to sell you on the idea of using hydrogen injection for newer modern cars with multiple oxygen sensors, is possible with a combination of two of their booster systems(one for hydrogen, one for oxygen sensors). Most of what they are talking about is how the oxygen sensor will hinder the ablity to use hydrogen injection(same concept as propane injection in diesel) because the steam effect in exhaust cools the sensor causing it to riching the mixture which is the opposite of what you want to do with hydrogen injection(you want to lean the mixture). The oxygen booster fixes the sensor output to the ECU to prevent more fuel from being added. Not sure what the hydrogen booster is, but from reading it sounds like the actual injector system.

This is more geared toward a bi-fuel motor then pure hydrogen based. I would imagine since the ECU has been setup for timing of the motor size and its basic workings(cam system, what not) that it would be able to control a bi-fuel system with no modification outside of modifying the sensors telling the ECU when to lean/rich the fuel, based on emissions.

Unlike our bikes, cars have far more advanced ECU systems and can adapt to changes in exhaust content and not need an actual timing map to set the mixture but instead do it more on the fly based on oxygen readings from 2 to 4 sensors, maybe more.

[Koaps]

My last comment on this:

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-12/p39.html

Brian

Heheh, I like how you kept saying its not economically feasable yet that link you posted is saying it is and providing various ways it could be done, also its mainly talking hydrogen fuel cells and other types of fuel cells, a hydrogen engine burns hydrogen, its not an electric motor being run from a DC source of a fuel cell. They are completely different things, but I like that link, interesting stuff.

I would imagine the future will not be hydrogen but superconductors and anti-matter engines(magnettically trapped anti-protons) but its completely not practical right now, this is from NASA's site:

"Anti-matter is very very very expensive to make (a gram of antiprotons would cost several hundred billions of dollars to make...) And you thought the price of gasoline was bad!"

[Extent]

Well I don't know about about what all manufactuerers are doing (all I know is based on Honda ECUs) but it's a little less magical than just reading the sensors and making the engine right.  When the ECU is running in closed loop mode it is completely ignoring all outside inputs and is working entirely off baseline maps.  You can't just change things and expect it to work perfectly.  For instance if you turbo charge the engine, even if you replace the MAP sensor with a 3 bar unit the ECU only has fuel maps and ignition tables for 1 lb of boost before it throws a check engine light.  Putting in an aftermarket EMS or at least reflashing the stock program with proper maps is critical in situations like that.  And if you change the amount of boost your running you have to go back and start tuning again.

In this case you're entirely changing the physical properties of the fuel.  Everything that the ECU knows about how much gasoline to inject is suddenly wrong.  What is the octane rating for this water vapor that your burning?  However much the ECU runs the injectors for it's going to be expecting a certain amount of gasoline, how much vapor will get thru instead and what are it's properties?.  it's not going to cool as well as gasoline so I'ld worry about burning up injectors in high RPM applications.

[Koaps]

Yea see what you mean, the ECU mentioned was for 6 to 8 cycl. engines with 4 sensors. I guess a system like that might be more mapped based on emissions.

A pure hydrogen engine would absolutely need a difference ECU, since ideally so far seems to be pulsed controlled discharges from a MOSFET to the reaction chamber then another charge to the ignition system.

A bi-fuel might be easy to get away with stock ECU with modified sensors, but I really dont know. Would be interesting to find out since I want to learn to build custom ignition systems and ECU's.

Personally I wouldnt want to use a stock ECU on any modified engine for lack of customization and data logging, but that tends to not be practical except for race motors.

[admin]

well my take on the hydrogen fuel thing is that a bifuel system is pretty much a show stopper.  where hydrogen is a completely different animal. forget about o2 sensors and ecu maps. you have to throw away all the existing fuel related stuff and start from scratch.
How are you going to deliver the fuel, how are you going to regulate the mixture to
be efficient and not melt the pistons etc. That is assuming you will use a regular piston type internal combustion engine. Once you determine what systems will do the job, then you can design the controls and iron out the details.
what I mean is that, why use something that isn't that efficient to begin with.
why couldn't they for example come up with a water based frictionless engine.
one of the byproducts is water so why not use water for lubrication ?
all that is really needed is to convert the energy to mechanical power, it's time to get the imagination cranking. dump the need for any fossil products.
I noticed the amer-grp site had a "buy now" link so I pretty much threw away everything that was stated on the page as marketing.


The physics today article pretty clearly stated what I've read and heard along with some additional technical info which I appreciated ( thanks for the link! )
many of the articles and science tv clips leave out the hard facts and technical
details that I think are important to getting the whole picture.

speaking of magnets, aren't they doing some cool shit with those too ?
ok, I'm digressing but has anyone gotten their hands on those super rare earth magnets ? you know the ones that you can't take aprt because they're so strong ?


:D
-Ron

[ozian]

If any of you are going to have a play with hydrogen, just remember it's dangerous gear. The gas clings to synthetic clothing & that gives off static sparks.
Result =  :o  :'(


Ian