Water Into Hydrogen

[norwestsailer]

Hi,

Due to the high fuel prices here in the UK, a lot of folks are seeking a different mode of fuel. A friend of mine actually nips in and buys cooking oil at the local supermarket and tips it straight into his diesel tank and at 39p a litre its a lot cheaper than a £1.00. his engine runs smoothly enough and doesnt smell too much. I would think that second hand cooking oil might smell of fish and chips but thats another debate.

The Petrol engine seems to be another matter. So searching the web (The font of all knowledge) I have just come across this website,

http://www.water4gas.com/2books.htm?hop=nhwstevec

What I would like to know is:-

Is it possible to make Hydrogen on demand as this website seems to suggest.

If it is as simple as they suggest why isn't everyone running their cars on it.

I am quite tempted to buy the books just to find out what its all about.

Has anyone else tried it out?

Being a poor sailor always looking for ways to finance the boat and cheaper fuel could help!

Com'on rack your brains and let me know what you think.

Would it be just a waste of money, all these thoughts go through your mind but if (big IF) it could work it would be brilliant.

Cheers

NWS

[delatbabel]

This is a scam.

We had this discussion on cruiser log a while ago. Firstly, the process of burning water for fuel involves electrolytic conversion of water into Hydrogen (a) 2 H2O = 2 H2 + O2. The second phase involves burning the hydrogen back to water (b) 2 H2 + O2 = 2 H2O. In theory the energy gained in step (b) is exactly equal to the energy used in step (a) so you gain nothing and lose nothing. In practice there is energy lost through heat dispersal, etc, and so the entire process loses you energy, not gains it.

In the article it talks about "converting" water to "HHO". This is a scam. Anyone with a basic knowledge of chemistry will tell you that water is H2O which is exactly the same thing as HHO just written differently. The guy wants your money if you are gullible enough to send it to him for his silly little book, that is all. You won't get free energy from water, it's not possible. If it was then (a) all of the world's power stations would run on it and (b) the first lightning strike into the ocean would make the planet explode (think: what if the world's oceans were really full of combustible liquid? such as petrol/gasoline/methylated spirits? lightning strike -- kaboom).

It takes many volts and much amps of current (many many watts) to usefully convert water to (combustible) hydrogen and oxygen in useable quantities -- I love how this guy does it in a small glass jar with a plastic lid. Still, if you're dumn enough to believe all of that, as we say here in Sydney, "I have a bridge to sell you".

[Trim50]

Well not so fast...if you add methanol to that water and use some nifty catalyst made by BASF, you can steam reform the hydrogen right out of the methanol and water at a substantial net positive energy balance when combined with the right fuel cell technology for making electricity.

However, I'm sure that if you follow the energy balance further back and include the energy needed to produce the catalysts and methanol...you'd end-up nearer to net zero.

Nuclear is looking better all the time...(solar is second hand nuclear).

[MMNETSEA]

Originally Posted by delatbabel

as we say here in Sydney, "I have a bridge to sell you".

Great Exposee !!!

Del, is it still up for sale ? where can I get a piece of the action ??

Richard

[delatbabel]

Originally Posted by MMNETSEA

Del, is it still up for sale ? where can I get a piece of the action ?? :huh:

Richard

Sure Richard. Check out the photo here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SydneyH...e1_gobeirne.jpg

Bridge in good condition, only one careful owner. Ownership entitles you to collect tolls from northbound traffic, southbound toll is paid to the government. Stinkboat in the foreground of the photo is an optional extra (you pay us extra, you don't have to take the stinkboat).

Just drop the money into my swiss bank account and she's all yours.

Del

[delatbabel]

Originally Posted by Trim50

Well not so fast...if you add methanol to that water and use some nifty catalyst made by BASF, you can steam reform the hydrogen right out of the methanol and water at a substantial net positive energy balance when combined with the right fuel cell technology for making electricity.

However, I'm sure that if you follow the energy balance further back and include the energy needed to produce the catalysts and methanol...you'd end-up nearer to net zero.

Nuclear is looking better all the time...(solar is second hand nuclear).

You're talking about a completely different technology here -- a fuel cell to catalytically convert methanol and oxygen to carbon dioxide and water, in a water environment, not using water as a fuel. The article (scam) mentions releasing no CO2, and doesn't mention the use of methanol. In any case your net energy gain is way below zero -- current methanol fuel cells run at about 30% efficiency, so you lose 70% of the potential energy contained in the methanol. Better off to just shove the methanol into your fuel tank and run your engine on it.

Yeah, nuclear looks pretty good (actually the word is "nucular" -- Homer Simpson).

Del

[MMNETSEA]

Originally Posted by delatbabel

"Better off to just shove the methanol into your fuel tank and run your engine on it."

Yeah, nuclear looks pretty good (actually the word is "nucular" -- Homer Simpson).

Del

99 ml Methanol - M + 1 ml Vermouth + green Olive = end of day cockpit cocktail -- Dean Martin

Richard

[Trim50]

Originally Posted by delatbabel

You're talking about a completely different technology here -- a fuel cell to catalytically convert methanol and oxygen to carbon dioxide and water, in a water environment, not using water as a fuel. The article (scam) mentions releasing no CO2, and doesn't mention the use of methanol. In any case your net energy gain is way below zero -- current methanol fuel cells run at about 30% efficiency, so you lose 70% of the potential energy contained in the methanol. Better off to just shove the methanol into your fuel tank and run your engine on it.

Yes, obviously it's a scam, however you make it sound as if it is impossible to get energy from water without putting more energy in than you get out.

A reformed methanol fuel cell actually gets 1/3 of its hydrogen from the water in the steam shift reaction of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide and hydrogen. With the proper catalyst and conditions, this process is nearly 100% efficient at disassociating hydrogen. The 30% thermodynamic efficiency based on LHV of methanol is pretty darn good. I challenge any combustion engine to achieve this efficiency on methanol and water. A typical gasoline automobile engine operates at around 25% thermal efficiency. In order to get electricity from that engine, you must drive a generator taking another cut at the efficiency. We produce electricity directly and our efficiency includes the process of making the electricity.

Our gross efficiency is actually upwards of 40%, we net 30%. Balance of plant and power conversion eat-up approximately 10%. I'm not quite sure how you're calculating your energy gain, nonetheless, we are getting more energy out of the system than we are putting in...otherwise there would be no purpose in extracting energy from fuel. I guess it really depends on how big your process loop is...in the end, it's all second hand nuclear.

[seaescape]

Hi. Very interesting conversation. This book thing is proberly a scam but there is alot of info on the web about hydrogen from water. There have been and are companys out there trying to do just this.

If you are really keen I suggest a search on "Stan Meyers" (alot of cloak and dagger stuff including men in black, black vans and tinted windows) or a check on patents is other good search.

See Ya

Kevin

[svtadpole]

Despite other comments in this thread, the extraction of Hydrogen from water by electrolysis is simple & whilst unlikely to provide an internal combustion engine with 100% of it's fuel requirement, it can easily produce up to 75% of fuel used ... a workable system to produce hydrogen-on-demand can power petrol (gasoline) or diesel motors ... moreover, the hardware is easily sourced & assembled by anyone with a few basic tools ... my system consists of a 2ltr plastic jar with a screw-on plastic lid, 2 lengths of stainless threaded rod (I chose stainless steel because it is resistant to molecular migration between the anode & cathode) secured by nuts & washers through the lid (pos = anode & neg = cathode) ... a gas outlet nozzle also exits through the lid & is connected by a rubber hose directly into the engine's air intake (since the gas is already a vapour there is no need to handle it like liquid fuels which need a carburettor or injector to create a vapourised gasoline or diesel mist) ... when the motor is running a vacuum is created in the air intake which both sucks the gas in & prevents it escaping ... the power comes from a second alternator (my 8 horse Yanmar diesel has dual-belt pulleys) via a simple on/off switch & thick copper cable (it is unwise to power such hydro gas generators from a battery as when power is connected the battery will be drained very rapidly resulting in a short, excessive & violent burst of gas) ... the fuel gas emitted is a mix of Hydrogen & Oxygen (both highly combustible) in an estimated ratio of 2:1 ... the amount of gas expelled is relative to the amount of power going in & is regulated by the output capability of the alternator ... the jar is filled approx two thirds (this leaves enough headspace in the jar to avoid liquid or bubbles being forced into the engine) using distilled water with a spoonful of baking soda added as a catalyst ... I start my motor normally using diesel only (gas generator switched off) with the throttle set to idle RPM (now burning very little diesel) the power to the gas-maker is switched on resulting in an instant rise in RPM to just about 75% ... this enables me to motor along at 75% RPM using just the amount of diesel required for idling RPM ... when the fuel gas is switched off the engine drops back to idle RPM, running on diesel only, & I have normal throttle control for docking or mooring etc ... when Hydrogen gas is burnt the exhaust emission is just water ... all-in the project has cost no more than $50 ... my system produces enough fuel gas to power my single-cylinder 8hp engine from idle up to 75% RPM. I doubt it would make enough fuel-gas to achieve similar results when coupled to a large cubic capacity multi-cylinder motor ?

[MMNETSEA]

Originally Posted by svtadpole

a workable system to produce hydrogen-on-demand can power petrol (gasoline) or diesel motors system produces enough fuel gas to power my single-cylinder 8hp engine from idle up to 75% RPM. doubt it would make enough fuel-gas to achieve similar results when coupled to a large cubic capacity multi-cylinder motor ?

I remember asking my new driver to take my diesel engined Mercedes to the company's fuel pumps and fill it up as I was going on a long trip - At the end of the day got into car and drove about a mile when the engine - raced - then clattered - then exploded. The coroner's inquest determined that the car had been topped up with gasoline (petrol). The result of poor communication on my part.

[JeanneP]

99 ml Methanol - M + 1 ml Vermouth + green Olive = end of day cockpit cocktail -- Dean Martin

Won't that make you blind if it doesn't kill you first? *Methanol - Wikipedia

[MMNETSEA]

Originally Posted by JeanneP

Won't that make you blind if it doesn't kill you first? *Methanol - Wikipedia

Jeanne -- take M away from Methanol - we have ingredients for a party?

Richard

[KevinBarr]

Hi Folks,

I am preety new here so I am not sure if I am speaking out of turn. I cannot speak to the validity of the idea that is being proposed on that site, but the value of hydrogen is not in the energy balance. The value of hydrogen is that it is a portable energy source - once the hydrogen is captured, it can be taken with you to be used at need.

If you need more, a small electrolyser, a pump and a tank is all you need to store it. And one thing most boats have is wind - so a wind generator could supply the power (but this is besides the point).

No one challenges how much it costs in terms of energy to refine oil into petrol. I wonder if it is more than to extract hydrogen from H2O...?

Kevin

[svtadpole]

Originally Posted by KevinBarr

Hi Folks,

Generating Hydrogen by electrolysis is easy ... & hydrogen-on-demand (ie used as soon as it is made) is very safe ... storing Hydrogen, however is fraught with danger beginning with pumping & compressing it into some kind of storage container ... the result, potentially, is a veritable bomb !!

[KevinBarr]

Originally Posted by svtadpole

Generating Hydrogen by electrolysis is easy ... & hydrogen-on-demand (ie used as soon as it is made) is very safe ... storing Hydrogen, however is fraught with danger beginning with pumping & compressing it into some kind of storage container ... the result, potentially, is a veritable bomb !!

But then, so is gasoline or propane for that matter. You are not going to carry gas in an open bucket, but you have it on you boat. Same thing with hydrogen. If fact, the systems for handling hydrogen are far more airtight and safe than those used for common petrol. I know - I use them every day. Storing hydrogen is often more safe as well. Your gas tank is not rated to 5000 or 10,000 psi, after all.

So no, the "hydrogen is a bomb" story is urban myth propagated by the uninformed, I am afraid to say.

[Trim50]

I spent year designing 10,000 psi hydrogen storage systems...they are safer than your gasoline tank. In fact, they will be the only thing to survive if your car gets hit by a train.

On of the tests that the tanks needed to pass was a 50 caliber round. The thick carbon fiber tank stops a 50 caliber round...not many things do.

[delatbabel]

Originally Posted by KevinBarr

No one challenges how much it costs in terms of energy to refine oil into petrol. I wonder if it is more than to extract hydrogen from H2O...?

In a watt-hour for watt-hour comparison, yes it is.

Go have a look at the laws of thermodynamics and their applicability to potential energy and chemical energy. H2O (water) is a very stable substance and to extract H2 from it (unstable) requires a large amount of energy. Theoretically, the energy you get from recombining hydrogen and oxygen to make water (very high) is exactly the same as the energy it costs to extract hydrogen and oxygen from water in the first place.

Crude oil is, relatively, a high chemical energy compound (low stability -- it will "burn", or recombine chemically into more stable / low energy compounds by itself given starter energy) and extracting petrol from it is just a distillation process, it doesn't require an electrolysis reaction. The energy return you get from burning petrol is higher, because you're not just taking it back to crude oil, you're burning it to form carbon dioxide, water, and other gases (including nasty oxides of nitrogen but that's beside the point).

So crude oil is already a source of energy, whereas water is not.

The advantage of using hydrogen, despite the energy return being lower, are many, however. You get a cleaner burn (hydrogen burns to form water only, no carbon dioxide or other nasty gases). Hydrogen is a high energy compound and transporting it is one very efficient way to transport energy over long distances. And, of course, that the source compound (seawater) won't ever run out.

So, for example, a high energy (nuclear powered, for example) power station that is not ideal to have near centres of population could be used to extract hydrogen from seawater, and then the hydrogen generated could be transported and used in households or vehicles, whatever. So you could build a big stinking nuclear power station on a deserted coastline somewhere (north western Australia comes to mind, although parts of northern Canada may be just as suitable), use it to extract large amounts of hydrogen from the sea, and pipe or transport that to hydrogen fuelled power stations nearer cities which would then produce energy without any local pollution.

It's debatable whether the cost/energy trade-off from such a solution would be better or worse than, say, the process of growing biofuels and using these to generate electricity. Probably biofuels would be the winner because the technology required is more readily available, less objectionable to the public (doesn't matter where you build your nuclear power station, someone's going to picket it), and the biofuels are more stable in transit. Essentially the biofuel process captures solar energy (sunlight used to make the plants grow) and converts this into a form we can use in an existing oil or diesel fuel power station.

However as the total fossil fuel reservoir available to the planet declines to nothing over the next century or two, both solutions are probably going to need to be examined if we're going to have enough energy to fuel our current and future needs.