Black Friday Is Almost Here!
The Inventory team is rounding up deals you don’t want to miss, now through Cyber Monday. Click here to browse!

Car Runs on Water, Inventor to Be Kidnapped by Exxon

I don't know enough about chemistry to say this is bullshit, but I'm sure you geniuses out there can let us know WTF is up with this. He says his company, Hydrogen Technologies, uses standard water to create HHO (isn't that just H2O?) and has created a car that can do 100 miles per four ounces of liquid refreshment. Please, for the love of God, enlighten me.


Prototype car runs 100 miles on four ounces of water as fuel [MobileMag]

Share This Story

Get our newsletter



This whole running on water thing is a load of BS.

First off, there is no such chemical as "HHO." It's called Oxyhydrogen, all it is is a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen gases, "HHO" is not a compound, it is not possible for it to exist. One Hydrogen atom cannot bond to both Oxygen and another Hydrogen. It just isn't capable of existing. What people are talking about is creating a mixture (a mixture just like if you mixed sand and salt together) of Hydrogen gas and Oxygen gas through the process of hydrolysis.

The following is something I have written regarding the subject—specifically in regard to powering the hydrolysis with an internal combustion engine that transfers its energy into electricity then uses the electricity for hydrolysis then uses the hydrogen as fuel. This process could also be powered by any other electrical source. When I speak about gasoline, you can replace it with battery power and you get the same effect.

[quote=soldier9599;1575031]This is complete BS. In a perfectly efficient engine, the amount of energy that you get out of the hydrogen fuel is the same as the amount of energy you have put into the water (that energy comes from gasoline) to turn it into hydrogen. All you are doing is using gasoline to turn water into hydrogen then back into water again, which uses the same amount of fuel as just running your car on gasoline. There is no chemical energy that is released in a chemical reaction that has the same products as reactants—all of the energy that was released by the oxidization of Hydrogen is the same as the energy that was already used by the gasoline to perform the initial hydrolysis (breaking down water to H2 and O2). So, assuming the engine has 100% efficiency, this uses exactly the same amount of fuel as a normal combustion engine.

This engine, though, is definitely not perfectly efficient, so there will be energy losses—just like in any other engine—except that it will happen two times over. If anything this will be less fuel efficient than your standard internal combustion engine that runs completely on gasoline.

Break chemical bonds of gasoline to get X amount of energy. Use X amount of energy to break down water (2H2O + X —> 2H2 + O2). Then burn (oxidize) your new Hydrogen fuel that you just used gasoline to create (2H2 + O2 —> 2H20 + X). Your overall equation would be:

2H2O + X —> 2H2 + O2 —> 2H2O + X


2H2O + X —> 2H2O + X

Your end result is the same amount of energy being put into your car as the amount of energy you got out of your gasoline for the hydrolysis (at 100% efficiency).

Why not, instead of taking gasoline's energy and putting into hydrogen then using that same energy that came from gasoline, just use the gasoline's energy in the first place. Since every transfer of energy sends energy into entropy, this overcomplicated (and expensive) engine ends up being less efficient.

Let's say your internal combustion engine is 50% efficient. In this case, you are only getting X/2 amount of energy getting put into your hydrolysis. Assuming that the hydrolysis has 100% efficiency (which it probably doesn't, I'm just being nice), you now have this hydrogen fuel that contains X/2 being put through the internal combustion engine (at 50% efficiency) so your output of energy into your wheels would be X/4. Let's say you just used straight up gasoline. You would put it through the internal combustion engine at 50% efficiency which would yield X/2 amount of energy being transfered to your wheels. Of course this is a hypothetical but the real life numbers would inevitably follow the same pattern.[/quote]

The same goes for using batteries. Why use a battery to turn water into hydrogen then burn the hydrogen when you (in an engine with 100% efficiency) wouldn't be getting any more energy out of the hydrogen than what you put into it from the battery? And, again, this isn't a 100% efficient engine, so you would actually end up with less energy output than you initially put into it from the battery.

Hydrogen fuel is a joke!