Who killed the Inventor of the Water Powered Car?
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (12)
sorted by:
H20 have two 465 kJ/mol for each H-O bond. H2 have 432 kJ/mol bond O2 have 493 kJ/mol bond
So, when breaking 2H20 -> 2H2 + O2 you have to make from 2 * 2 * 465 kJ/mol of water 2 * 432 + 493 kJ/mol of H2 and O2 To do it, you have to add from somewhere 503 kJ for breaking 2 moles of water into 3 moles of detonating gas. Or, considering 1 mol is 22.4 liter of gas, 7.485 kJ/l or ~2 Wh per liter of gaseous fuel.
When you burn that hydrogen/oxygen mix, the process is reverted and you will get same 2 Wh/l of energy.
So, any method of hacking H from water, will demand at least 2 Wh per liter of gaseous fuel. Then, burning it in engine you will get same 2Wh per liter. What is the point to add senseless process of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen to burn them later getting same spent 2 Wh/l ?
And that is without accounting for losses in splitting and burning. Also, mix of H2 and O2 is higly flammable and even small amount could create a total mess in your fuel system.
If Meyer somehow found a way to break the bonds with lower energy, than there are no need for any fuel at all. You break the water with, say, 1Wh/l then burn it in engine making 2Wh/l and use 1 Wh/l for moving and other 1 Wh/l to split the water that created while burning. There will be no need to refuel the car with water at all.
So, hardly that was what he did.
May be Meyer invention was adding water droplets to the fuel mix. It really works and allow to get more power from same amount of fuel. To the expansion of burning fuel added expansion of boiling water. But that can't be named "running car on water" and was known long before Meyer.
So, we don't know what really was Meyer invention and was it at all.
AFAIK, for over 20 years nobody replicated Meyer gas generator. Every time experimenter get just regular electrolisys, and not very effective. Using regular electrolisys have no sense as described above.
If you know a story of successful replication (getting flammable gas from water with less than 2 Wh/l), with exact and thorough description of differences from obviously non-working Meyer patent that prevented it from working, please share with class.
There was a lot of "outstanding inventions" of cheap energy. None of them give anything interesting. Even hardcore replicators like J.P.Naudine get nothing.
IDK, in all that stuff the most annoying thing is "inventors" themselves, really. Talking about "saving world" they somehow leave worst possible documentation, if any.
Meanwhile, any energy we could have is eventually from our Sun. From obvious solar panels to even nuclear. Every single kind. So, with high probability any new energy source will be also solar. :)
Thank you. The “engine that runs on water” is an old scam, going back to the 1930s, at least.
Stanley worked for NASA space program at one point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell
His patent, Gas electrical hydrogen generator:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4613304
It mentions a particle accelerator.
From what I remember, his design also had a resonant cavity or shockwave cavitation chambers, somewhat similar to the Tesla earthquake machine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavitation
His patent, Resonant cavity for a hydrogen generator:
https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0103656A3/en?inventor=Stanley+A.+Meyer
Note: non-electrolysis method of splitting H2O
List of Stanley's patents:
https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Stanley+A.+Meyer
Not a good sign, really.
Patents does not mean that inventions is useable or even work at all. In no way patents could be a proof of invention. You could literally write any garbage in patent application and if you pay patent fee, if that garbage laid out in application according patent office rules and nobody else filed same patent you will be given a patent.
It absolutely does not matter, really, how you provide energy to destroy H2O molecule bonds. If the reason of bonds destruction is cavitation, shockwave or whatever, then, you should spend at least same energy to create that cavitation, shockwave or whatever. You just add some intermediate step in energy utilisation and so add some losses on conversions. Breaking water through cavitation, shockwave or whatever initiated by electricity will be just less effective than direct electrolisys.
Theoretically, you could take some additional energy inducing some kind of, say, cold fusion in water, but there are at least two problems: at first, all LENR experiments including "classic" cold fusion show that you spend more energy to force reaction than you will get from it. Second, you need heavy water, D2O, not regular one. And heavy water is very expensive, there are no any sense to run a car on deuterium-oxygen mix because a songle trip to supermarket will cost you much more than all gas that you will burn in lifetime.
Things are not work by magic. Everything is connected and if you have to provide some energy to some process, you have to source it somewhere. If there is no any additional process that could be a source of additional energy in your device,you have to provide all of it.
I'm not a physics major but cavitation is pretty interesting nonetheless.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21598/is-there-more-energy-in-the-collapse-of-a-cavitation-bubble-than-the-energy-requ
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4c17/9bb62e643957a01497672647f7804859e1a6.pdf
https://www.achrnews.com/articles/130064-patent-filed-for-invention-that-makes-steam-using-cavitation
Cavitation is interesting process, but none of claims of excess energy was reproduced. You could write anything, but unless there is independent confirmations of experiment with obvious excess energy, it is all crap.