Run your car on water?

[jbird6178]

Has anyone ever heard of this? Have you implemented this system on your vehicle and if so, has it worked for you? I have been interested in this idea for some time know but I don't know anyone who has acutally done it. Let me know what is working for you or what is not. Thanks.

[amosgoh]

Just gotten my car to convert to run on water recently. I bought a e-book and DIY the convertion myself and was pretty simple and straightforward.
Cost me like 60 bucks for the materials and my fuel consumption for last month was cut by close to 200 bucks. Got some positive feedbacks from my friend as well from the article and research i did on this as well. Read the article on my signature if you want more information. Share with the rest of your car buddies too man.

Fuel prices are just increasingly tremendously this days.

[Buffordboy23]

Originally Posted by jbird6178

Has anyone ever heard of this? Have you implemented this system on your vehicle and if so, has it worked for you? I have been interested in this idea for some time know but I don't know anyone who has acutally done it. Let me know what is working for you or what is not. Thanks.

I have installed a device on a 2004 Nissan Sentra a couple weeks ago and have obtained great results--the car averaged 40-50 MPG with 57 MPG as the highest for one trip.

This device does work despite the many individuals on various forums and websites that promote it as a scam. This is understandable for many reasons.

First, many of the websites that are trying to market the product only sell you a pricy e-book to learn about the essential concepts and how to make the device, not a ready-to-install product. The content and design of the websites is usually gaudy and overly-flamboyant in its presentation (wild bright colors, amazing customer testimonials, etc), which should make any potential customer cautious. Not to mention, their attempt to sound scientific in their descriptions--I often see the chemical formula "HHO", which is just a nonstandard way to write the chemical formula of water, or H20.

Second, I believe many people that criticize the device do not understand the basics of how it works. I have spoken with many individuals about the successes that I have had with the device and they state that I am pretty much full of BS. Particularly, among people with science backgrounds (I myself have a science background) their refutation concerning the device's benefits always hovers around the "First Law of Thermodynamics", which basically states that "you can't get more energy out of a system than the amount that you initially put into the system." Yes, this statement is always true; it is a fundamental law of nature that has been verified experimentally countless times. These people that hold dearly to this law as their only source as a refuting argument often don't even care to attempt to use the device because the law says it all, it just can't happen. I believe their thinking comes from their misconception of how the device actually works. From my discussions, it seems that these individuals believe that the water molecules are broken into the products diatomic hydrogen and oxygen (both are gasses) within the device initially via the energy supplied by battery--actually, the alternator contributes and, ultimately, the gasoline is the real source of the energy--and then the products reform back into water which releases energy, which is supposedly better for fuel economy. But this is not how the device works!! If it did work this way, these individuals would be correct--it would be impossible to get back the initial input energy plus the extra energy needed to run the vehicle than what we had to initially put into the system to break the water bonds. It is important to make clear that this device I speak of acts only as a supplementary system to the operation of the gasoline fuel system already installed in your vehicle, not as the vehicle's only source of fuel.

Third, many people cite the episode of Mythbusters that proved the device was a failure. I have only seen a portion of this episode on YouTube, but I believe that these individuals made some serious errors in their design. First, the Mythbusters showed the device in trial operation splitting the bonds of water and only producing a few gas bubbles per second, if that--my device produces a lot of bubbles. Perhaps, and this is purely speculation, they did not use an electrolyte or build the device correctly. Second, when the Mythbusters installed the device on their vehicle and tried to start their vehicle, the car would not start. Personally, this does not make sense to me. With their miniscule production of oxygen and hydrogen gases as seen in the trial, it is clear that not much of these gasses would make it to the engine cylinders for combustion. Therefore, I would expect that their vehicle should start normally via regular fuel injection with practically no added products from the electrolysis device. Another personal point of speculation is that there was no gasoline in the vehicle to begin with and that they were simply trying to run the vehicle only on water--if this is true, this idea will not work as previously mentioned before due to the "First Law of Thermodynamics." I don't know the educational background of the Mythbusters, but from what I saw of this episode they did not do a very good job of giving this "myth" a fair test--that is, if the "myth" was testing the device's application to increasing fuel economy rather than running a vehicle only on gasses obtained from splitting water.

As a last point, I believe many people think that the idea is just too good to be true. This argument makes sense to these people for good reasons. Gas prices are at an all time high, a private company that came out of nowhere is trying to sell the product rather than a reputable car manufacturer, and numerous gadgets in the past boasted of similar claims that proved to be false.

Earlier I mentioned the misconception some people have regarding how the device works, so I will next present how I believe the device works. Note that I have never purchased an e-book, so everything I say is from my own experience. If anyone can shed any further light on the subject I would appreciate a deeper understanding.

The device is connected to the car battery and operates via electrolysis--energy is taken from the battery and passed through two electrodes that sit within a water solution in the device's well to break the bonds of water. This creates a difference in polarity (+ or -) among the two electrodes. Now, the molecules and ions in the solution tend to have a polarity of their own and migrate towards the electrode that is opposite of their polarity. When they make contact, a chemical reaction occurs; they may receive an electron or give up an electron, which depends on the molecule or ion that we are talking about. The net result of some molecules giving up electrons while others gain electrons is a current that flows between the electrodes, and most importantly, that molecules break apart and form new molecules.

The two molecules that we want a lot of are diatomic oxygen and hydrogen in gaseous form. Now, since these molecules are lighter than the solution they rise and are then taken into the air system that will eventually enter into the engine's cylinders. It is likely, that some amount of this oxygen and hydrogen react to form back into water during this trip. However, the gas molecules that do make to the cylinders can be used during the combustion of the gasoline. Personally, I believe that the oxygen is the key input because it is essential to the combustion of gasoline, and since more oxygen is present in the fuel-air mixture the combustion of gasoline is more efficient, creating more energy for work. As a result, the onboard computer of the vehicle, the electronic control module, will modify the amount of gasoline injected into the cylinders, thus conserving gasoline while still maintaining the car's energy needs.

An important and fundamental question to the success of this device is the following: Is the extra energy that is created from the added products for combustion (oxygen and hydrogen) more than what was initially put into breaking the bonds of water. Note that this idea applies the "First Law of Thermodynamics" in a very different manner than the idea of running your car only on water. Here we are talking about the combustion of what otherwise would be "wasted" or unused gasoline molecules that would be changed into new molecules by the catalytic converter or be spit out of the back the tailpipe if they weren't converted, so energy is indeed conserved. My answer is a resounding yes due to actual results.

To break a bond of water we need a certain and precise amount of energy, which is temperature dependent. This energy is supplied by the car battery. However, the car battery is recharged by the alternator, which has a 50-60% efficiency in supplying output energy; the alternator is run by the energy created from the combustion of gasoline. In actuality, we need more energy to break one bond of water due to the inefficiencies of supplying energy to the device than what the minimum energy according to data of experimental chemistry says.

To my knowledge, this device is always installed underneath the hood of the vehicle. This has the benefit of the water solution absorbing the heat given off by the engine to the environment. The molecules in the solution gain more energy through the absorption of this heat, and as a direct result, this lowers the input energy from the battery in general that is needed to break one bond of water, which surely compensates in some manner to our required energy needs as discussed above. The extra energy can and does come from the battery (or more precisely, the combustion of gasoline), but the results more than compensate since the combustion of gasoline releases more energy than the energy needed to split water and that the gasoline is burning more efficiently and releasing a greater total energy.

The following is my current design for the device. I don't recommend buying the e-books, since any ambitious person can research online the essential concepts needed to build the device.

I built the electrolysis device using a one-quart plastic mason jar. For the electrodes, I used two parallel stainless steel plates spaced about three-eighths of an inch apart that have wires attached to both battery terminals--the distance apart between the plates is important (research "capacitors" to find out why). I have used copper in a previous design because it is a better conductor, but I found that the copper reacts funny and gets covered in a build-up rather quickly; the stainless steel, being a poorer conductor, disperses more heat into the water solution, which I think is a good thing, and provided better results. The jar was filled with water and a good amount baking soda--the baking soda acts as an electrolyte, making the solution have a greater tendency to pass current between the electrodes. I used a tube that extends from the top of the device into the air filter for moving the oxygen and hydrogen into the engine cylinders. I wielded a small bracket together that holds the device into place during driving.

As is evident, you don't have to make any modifications to your vehicle although I have saw that some people have done so. I used a clip-on ammeter to measure the current out of curiosity and found it to be about 8 amps, which is deadly. I have also heard that the functioning of the electronic control module (the main computer in an automobile that controls many necessary engine functions, such as the amount fuel injected into the engine cylinders) in some vehicle makes is programmed in such a way that the device isn't very beneficial--the vehicle I that installed this on was a 2004 Nissan Sentra and I had no problems. The only drawback that I can immediately see from using this device is a reduction in engine life (a portion of the oxygen and hydrogen gases is likely to reform back into water before entering the engine cylinders). Another drawback is dependent on the driver; the device requires high-maintenance to be effective.

I hope that this information is beneficial to some of its readers and I would be inclined to discuss any meaningful and constructive thoughts regarding the device's operation and design.

[Greenblurr93]

I'm watching this thread to make sure no spam enters... keep it technical and ill leave it open... and no bans will be handed out.

[belater]

I wonder what is being done to get this news to everybody and I wonder wha the oil companies think of it?

[belater]

Is there a patent for the conversion and is there a possiblity of this being offered as conversion by mechanics and car manufacturers? here is more info about the process being a success: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...water+gas+fuel

[Greenblurr93]

Oil companies obviously dont like this, and car manufacturers wont offer this anytime soon because it costs money for R&D, so until someone MAKES them offer an alternative fuels car, they most likely will drag their feet in coming out with one.

[serge_saati]

I don't trust that.

Because the converter use the energy of the car (from the engine through the alternator) to produces the hydrogen. So you don't save energy.

And even if you connect it to a spare battery, the pressure of the hydrogen is too low to save a considerable quantity of fuel. Hydrogen need to be compressed at about 10000 psi with a special compressor. In the kit, it's not compressed at all.

It's just a scam.

[Greenblurr93]

I wouldnt say its ALL a scam, as me and a friend have sucessfully done this, it wasnt nearly as glamerous as people make it seem and needed a lot of refining to keep the car running, but it is possible

[serge_saati]

In fact, after installing the kit, the car will run on hydrogen AND gasoline.
99.7% on gasoline and 0.3% on hydrogen.

And the car will use 2% more fuel to supply the kit to cover the energy loss.
In global, fuel consumption will increase about 1.7%.

So your car works, but still with gasoline and a little bit of hydrogen. What is your new and old fuel consumption? I guess it's the almost the same.

[72chevelleOhio]

Not this run your car on water crap again...
Read post #9 (first sentence)


....so if I convert my car to run on water and put pee in it instead, I could recycle AND save money on gas???

[curtis73]

Buffordboy... a very well-though out post, but the fact remains that you can't get more out of combusting H and O than you spend getting them apart - regardless of the temperature of the water you're splitting. Added heat doesn't loosen the chemical bonds of the H and O. That is a fixed issue.

So... it doesn't matter if you try and run pure H and O, or just use it as a supplement, you're still getting less return than you're spending. To say that splitting H2O then recombining it yields a positive net energy violates the laws of thermodynamics, period - regardless of how much H and O you use to supplement the normal fuel.

Its true; additional oxygen will cause the fuel to burn much more violently and with more heat, but to suggest that you don't use that extra energy (and more) to merely sustain electrolysis is the flaw of your argument.

The bottom line is this. No matter what you do, no matter how many patents are issued, television shows tested, no matter how many catalysts or magical magnets the aftermarket says they have; you CANNOT split water and then recombine it for a net gain of energy. At best using today's technology under the hood of a car, you might see less than 10% of the energy you spend splitting make it back to the electrolysis after you've recaptured the energy from its combustion.

The other flaw I see is that you claim 8A at a supposed 14.4V. That's a mere 115W; not nearly enough to actively produce any appreciable amount of gasses. My guess is that you only have to refill your bottle about every 10,000 miles.

In order to get a good fizz like opening a soda bottle (still not enough to make a difference) you would need somewhere in the vicinity of 40 amps at 14.4V. The other question I have is this... if you put baking soda in that water, and the plates are 3/8" apart, that should be almost a dead short. Not sure why you're only getting 8A from that continuity.

[serge_saati]

Originally Posted by 72chevelleOhio

Not this run your car on water crap again...
Read post #9 (first sentence)


....so if I convert my car to run on water and put pee in it instead, I could recycle AND save money on gas???

You don't understand what I say. I say that it's not working and I explain why. I told to Greenblurr93 that his car run 99.7% on gasoline, so he still pollute.

And like Curtis say, it doesn't produces enough gazes anyway.

[72chevelleOhio]

Originally Posted by serge_saati

You don't understand what I say. I say that it's not working and I explain why..

I wasn't talking about your post, I know it don't work. Thats why I made the joke......

[Buffordboy23]

Originally Posted by curtis73

Buffordboy... a very well-though out post, but the fact remains that you can't get more out of combusting H and O than you spend getting them apart - regardless of the temperature of the water you're splitting. Added heat doesn't loosen the chemical bonds of the H and O. That is a fixed issue.

So... it doesn't matter if you try and run pure H and O, or just use it as a supplement, you're still getting less return than you're spending. To say that splitting H2O then recombining it yields a positive net energy violates the laws of thermodynamics, period - regardless of how much H and O you use to supplement the normal fuel.

Its true; additional oxygen will cause the fuel to burn much more violently and with more heat, but to suggest that you don't use that extra energy (and more) to merely sustain electrolysis is the flaw of your argument.

The bottom line is this. No matter what you do, no matter how many patents are issued, television shows tested, no matter how many catalysts or magical magnets the aftermarket says they have; you CANNOT split water and then recombine it for a net gain of energy. At best using today's technology under the hood of a car, you might see less than 10% of the energy you spend splitting make it back to the electrolysis after you've recaptured the energy from its combustion.

The other flaw I see is that you claim 8A at a supposed 14.4V. That's a mere 115W; not nearly enough to actively produce any appreciable amount of gasses. My guess is that you only have to refill your bottle about every 10,000 miles.

In order to get a good fizz like opening a soda bottle (still not enough to make a difference) you would need somewhere in the vicinity of 40 amps at 14.4V. The other question I have is this... if you put baking soda in that water, and the plates are 3/8" apart, that should be almost a dead short. Not sure why you're only getting 8A from that continuity.

This is the one and only refutation that I will offer a rebuttal to. As I said in my original post, my intentions are to discuss the design and operation of the device, which is a constuctive endeavor that I am willing to contribute time towards; trying to make every non-believer believe that the device does work just by arguments is very time-consuming and not very effective due to the amount of garbage that already surrounds this subject.

You are right that adding heat doesn't loosen the bonds. I never mentioned that statement in my post. Instead you probably interpreted something differently than what my intent actually was--I will look at my post and modify it accordingly at some time. Heat does raise the kinetic energy of the molecules, and according to the collision model, faster moving molecules react more frequently.

You are also right the energy is fixed when breaking the bonds of water. The splitting of water into oxygen and hydrogen is an endothermic reaction, which means in order for this reaction to happen we need energy (heat) absorbed from the surroundings. Since the device does absorb heat from the engine, this probably supplies a majority of the heat for the reaction rather than relying solely on the battery as many refuting arguments often cite.

I measured that 8 amp current with the automobile turned off, so this could be why.

To be really clear to all of the readers of this thread, like I said in my orginal post, this device (at least my own personal design) requires high maintenance--during a recent one hour trip I had 1/4 of a quart of water remaining. Originally, I used copper as my electrodes and the one electrode crumbled in a few days and the other had deposits.

Thanks for your support concerning my main argument of how the device works.

Originally Posted by curtis73

Its true; additional oxygen will cause the fuel to burn much more violently and with more heat

I'll crunch some rough numbers for you. A gallon of gas has mass of approximately 2.5 kg. The mass of one-quart of water is about 1 kg, or .9 kg of O2. Suppose that I average 50 miles per gallon on my recent trip, so I used one gallon of gas. According to the amount of water remaining in the device, I put about .7 kg of O2 into the engine with this gallon of gasoline. Now, assuming that the compression ratio is 10:1 (I think this is standard for vehicles), I'll use 25 kg of air to combust with the 2.5 kg of gasoline. Of this 25 kg of air, 20% or 5 kg is O2. So what this means is that I supplied 14% more oxygen to the engine to be used during combustion. Of course, only a portion of this oxygen will be used to increase the efficiency of the gasoline.

If it's all about the oxygen, then why not use a higher compression ratio with more air? Well, for the similar scenario in regards to the addition of the .7 kg of O2, we would be inputting about 2.5 kg of nitrogen, or 13% more air than the standard compression ratio. Higher compression ratios lead to engine knocking, which actually decreases the efficiency of the combustion and may damage your engine. I am not a car expert, but this number seems extraordinary.

I see that you are a respected authority on this forum and I respect your opinion. However, I disagree strongly.

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence," as Carl Sagan once said. I have provided directions on how I built my device, so feel free to spend a couple of dollars to try it out. Note that oxygen sensors may provide a problem with some vehicles--sensing more oxygen can cause the ECU to inject more fuel to even out the mixture, which is opposite of the results we seek (thanks to serge_saati for reminding me of this point).

Best Regards,

Buffordboy23