I hear people talk about this magical Jesus guy a lot. He doesn't sink, from what I've heard. I imagine there'll be lots of people watching this science channel who also believe in mythology...right?
Yes because it is possible to drive with water...aluminum gallium with water injection produces hydrogen and as I remember there is oxygen in the air...et voila you run your engine with water...mmhh You just have to break through the oxidation layer of the aluminum...through chemical acids, nanoaluminum, gallium mix etc etc...mmhhh The last thing I read was powering a submarine with coffee powder and salt water with aluminumgallium....maybe it's salt water, not water??, and the US military is researching nano-aluminum with water as a battery for front-line operations...etc...etc...
Well, current science is really inaccurate and might even be intentionally misleading (just a hunch at the moment) so you never know. Perpetual motion might be real. I mean, 1000 years ago it was scientifically impossible fly. You would have been burned alive if you said it was possible.
Theoretically, it works, but idk if anyone is willing to risk it and actually try it. Plus, they are gonna have to make a car intended to work with water, which is nearly impossible
it works theoretically as long as you still got charge in your battery. but the battery will run out of juice eventually. btw it will run out of juice slower just moving the bike. thermodynamic's a btch
It totally works. You can even power a car with it! If you assume the efficiency is: 90% for the battery, 60% for electrolysis, 30% for the combustion engine, you can use 16% of the energy in your battery to go places. Oh wait EV can turn 70-80% in their batteries into movement. So a water bike would need a battery 5 times the size than an EV would, plus the electrolyzer, fuel tanks and engine.
It actually does work, It's an incredibly clean battery if you can consider the energy source to be clean. Efficient no, better than lithium, maybe in the future. Plenty of fake free energy videos that have some real science. It does work, just badly depending on how. Like sure I can use lasers to cook toast. Should I, no.
That is the major draw of using hydrogen powered cars. The most efficient way to store electricity would be to use a battery, but energy dense batteries are made of relatively limited resources. Octane powered cars use a very power dense fluid that can be burned with about 30-35% efficiency and still take out a lot of power for the space, but that's also a limited resource. Hydrogen however is all around us, but to get it you need to put in so much more energy than you can get out of it, although modern fuel cells are now getting to 40-60% efficiency. It's a competition of poor round trip efficiency, limited resources, and power density to find the best way to store power, and it's impossible to determine a single winner unless something all around better comes along.
why would the FBI be offing people? you dont think theres 10 other secretive agencies that would be more inclined towards wet work? lame jokes are lame.
I did my master thesis on splitting water using the sun, but not Photovoltaic, but rather use the sun against a photocatalyst metal to move electrons and induce the water splitting. I think this has a future if we are able to produce optimized materials based on this metal photocatalysts
@@iKingRPG That's the interesting thing about photocatalysts: Photocatalytic water splitting directly uses solar photons to drive the chemical reaction, potentially reducing energy losses associated with multiple conversion steps (as seen in PV-electrolysis systems). In other words it is one step. While Photovoltaic requires you to first get electricity out of solar and then use that to split, photocatalytic directly induces the split. The current state of the photocatalytic technology still shows less efficiency than Photovoltaic, but that's mainly due to the years of optimization for the Photovoltaic cells. Photocatalytic cells continue to be optimized.
@@nullnummer9332 Yeah that's the idea. It is in many ways like photosynthesis, where is also a form of transforming light into chemical energy, but in the form of glucose instead of hydrogen. But it also involves a catalyst in the chloroplasts and redox reactions induced by the excitation of electrons in the catalysts
Finally someone actually points it out. It always really annoyed me seeing videos about the man who got "assassinated" for making a "water powered car", and seeing everyone in the comments believing that it's possible, as if splitting water to make hydrogen and oxygen, then burning the hydrogen in oxygen to make water actually does anything. It's just turning one thing back into the same thing. If it somehow not only didn't lose energy, but gained energy in the process, then it would be violating the first and second laws of thermodynamics. There is no free energy device!
It is more complicated than that. The water must be ionized first with high voltage 10 - 20 thousand volts. Then within the cell there are blue lasers of a specific wavelength that point in one direction (there is a physics paper on this). The lasers increase the efficiency. I don't believe an electrolyte is needed. All the cells you see on e-bay are rip offs.
Genuine question: what is happening is not that it generates energy from nothing, the only thing it is doing is grabbing oxygen from the outside and thus causing combustion, just like engines that use gasoline? or what is wrong?
@@And20s That's not what is happening. If they did do that, then it wouldn't change anything. The process of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen produces two gasses, and they are produced in perfect quantities to be reacted back together. Burning the hydrogen, at this point, will never make more energy than it cost to split the water apart, because that would create more energy than you started with. If you instead used oxygen from the air, then you would be left with a tank full of oxygen that you got from splitting the water. You would then have to release this into the air, which replaces the oxygen you used. So the end result is still that nothing actually happened to the water. You started with water, and with an atmosphere full of oxygen, and you ended with water and an atmosphere full of oxygen. There's nowhere for the energy to come from, because the water never loses energy in the process, and none of the gases are consumed.
@@agmhelena7266 Yes, they split the water and use it in combustion. But combustion is just a fancy term for "reacting with oxygen". So the whole endeavor is ultimately pointless because you're splitting water only the put it back together, achieving nothing while losing energy to inefficiency.
Trying to make a car run on water is just like trying to heat up a house by burning ashes in the fireplace. After all, water is just the 'ash' of the combustion of hydrogen.
Ikr, It always weirds me out when ppl demonstrate such a lack of understanding while assume themselves "reasonable skeptic". I very much hope we just didn'T get the joke though...
Just because it can be done, DOES NOT mean its efficient. Just because one genius had an idea, DOES NOT mean it will work. Even Einstein got some things wrong in practice.
@@VinoVeritas_ if efficiency is irrelevant you'll end up investing more than you can gain. Only irrelevant if the question is "is it possible?" but RELEVANT if the question is "is it worthy?"
@@hermitcard4494 Storing solar energy for times when there's little to no sun is more important than the discussion around efficiency. After all, fossil fuels took millions of years to form and we haven't been concerned about the efficiency when using them. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
Researchers are developing cheap chemical and metal catalysts that help to split the hydrogen and oxygen molecules from water using far less electricity. This was always possible previously, but involved very expensive catalysts like platinum. Allegedly a guy figured out a different way with frequency resonation awhile back. Basically different forms/ways of vibrating the water optimally to get it to split apart using less electricity.
6:31 Why I hear Medhi from electroboom in my head screaming there's nothing as free energy! On a free energy device the hardest thing is to hide the powersource.
i had some CRAZY guy always come in to my work always talking up his water powered car and im like bruh u lying, and good to know these many years later he was infact lying
However, like so many people, he takes it as a given that nuclear is the end all to be all. Nobody ever considers the embodied CO2 and waste of all the mining of the ore, the extraction, the hydro metallurgy, the refinement, the centrifuging and processing that goes into the fissile material, nor all the materials and construction which go into the reactor and the building which it houses, nor the containment of the spent fuel, which has to be safely transported, stored, and managed *forever*. They treat nuclear like it's magic free-energy rocks you pluck out of the ground.
@@WaffleStaffelit is magic energy you pull from rocks any other form of large scale energy would need large scale construction. You are clearly misinformed about how much waste nuclear energy actually makes because it’s quite minor compared to the energy produced. It’s very clean idk who made you scared of nuclear but you just need to go a little bit further in your research
@@jamessiarom "Misinformed" "scared" "need more research" You literally just said it *is* magic energy you pull from rocks. I used to be a proponent of nuclear, and I would be again if anyone could show through a comprehensive analysis of the energy and resources required for nuclear from cradle to grave that it was a net producer, but no one has done such analysis. New reactor designs have great promise in terms of safety, but that does not negate the fact that gross energy in vs net energy out is unknown/undisclosed. It is ignorant and irresponsible to promote nuclear without that piece of information. Without it, it's just like electric cars, it merely shifts energy consumption out of sight. You haven't offered any data, so don't go talking out of your @$$.
I mean it's ironic how Nuclear energy killed the least amount of people compared to solar and wind. Plus it's the cleanest and safest type we have as an option. Only problem is that the public has a negative stance on it lol
The ministry for debunking bullsh*t thanks you for your efforts. Sadly, this will not stop all the "10 year old built fusion reactor in his room" posts. And it wont stop the "energy from water" posts. And it wont stop the "energy from magnets" posts... But it is a step in the right direction. Thank you.
Scammers are also trying to make a living. At a certain point you have to tell people that their way of making a living is immoral and you refuse to support it.
@@Candlemancer Not exactly. Yeah, your comment is correct, but comparing scammers to UA-camrs, just doesn't fit. Scammers are doing something illegal like thieves, however, UA-camrs are working hard to make money for themselves, and of course their family.
Lots of energy storage or conversions or usage is inefficient. That's just nature. Hydrogen has other issues. Like it is difficult to store since hydrogen is smaller than all other atoms and tends to sift through stuff or get embedded in it if it cannot get through. It is highly flammable and specifically with oxygen (which is highly explosive in the right mixes as he showed). It is difficult to store it at the right pressures for storage and transport and later reuse to be useful. It is just highly inconvenient and not safe but if one would address the inconvenience and safety issues then hydrogen would be good. While water vapor as a byproduct in the air is still technically pollution if in high enough amounts (something that people forget) it is still much less scary pollution than a lot of the other pollution out there. In small enough amounts it is actually useful rather than a pollutant, so yes we should be using hydrogen fuel cells (again if the problems could be addressed and other better solutions aren't available).
@@mrmurdock6994 Light, but very low volumetric density - you don't get much energy in a tank unless you compress it a lot, which means you're dealing with a very hazardous fuel - far worse than regular gasoline, which is already bad enough. It'll leak through the most microscopic of openings, including easily slipping through rubber gaskets. It damages and weakens many metals on prolonged contact. You need a lot of safety precautions to handle compressed hydrogen safely, which makes doing so very expensive.
Phone apps don't work as accurate decibel meters, because smartphone microphones are MEMS devices that can only good to maybe 90 db before you're beyond their capabilities. Physical decibel meters have an electromechanical capsule that gets compressed by sound waves and can go as high as 140 db.
In short it works like this: Use electricity to split water into H2 and O Burn H2 and O to get less electricity Use this electricity to run car Sounds like making a cheese sandwich by adding cheese and removing it back
@ridwan6695 the original water powered car was invented by some guy decades ago and he showed off his invention. Some time later, strange men in suits offered to buy his water car, and they met in a diner where the man was poisoned.
The other thing is if you're going to use renewable energy like solar panels to split the water, you might as well use it directly to power an electric car or your house
I'd be surprised if that would work because you won't be able to strap the amount solar panels you would need to run your car in a meaningful way. It is that very ratio which forces us to use transportable energy storage such as batteries or gasoline.
@@Candlemancer and how exactly do you (hint) "directly power" (/hint) a car with solar panels, if these are not on a car? since that is not possible, we need (as i mentioned) to take energy storage with us. if it is batteries we take with us, i do not care if these have been charged using nuclear power, solar panels or something else - because that is an "indirect" transfer.
High quality vodka is mainly a clean mix of water and ethanol. You can run a car on Ethanol. The water part is tricky, though. Water is stronger than Conrods. Too much water and the engine blows up.
@@JonahNelson7 when something on a delorean breaks I'd always suggest the reason to be that it is a delorean ;) But jokes aside, ethanol can brittle some plastics and thus cause all sorts of problems in a fuel system which is not set up for it. And whether or not a car can run on whisky depends on the percentage. I wouldn't try though. 60% alcohol still translates to around 39% of water. Also the engine would run very lean dunno if that's a problem, Water-ethanol is used to cool down pistons so maybe not but then again one would only use very little Water-ethanol. To prevent it from running lean you would have to increase fuel flow by a factor of 2.5 which would flood the combustion chamber with 7-8% of pure water. If 10% of that doesn't evaporate, then theoretically, within 6 minutes of idling, half of the combustion chamber is filled with water. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure no Engine survives that.
“My car runs on water” “That’s impossible… how?” “You see this combine damn over here uses the kinetic energy of the water to make electricity, and my car runs of the electricity.”
Such an informative video, and for the people like me who are always looking for such kind of content (for innovations in tech) it helps a lot. Thank u :)
But obviously, turning matter into blue energy upon contact would be theoretically impossible by all means, so the Zelda one is definitely to remain science fiction, lol
Just a thought, isn't it true that in most solar farms they have to shut it down when they produce too much energy when the batteries are full and the demand is met? I wonder if they could have a modular hydrolysis station to convert that extra solar power and store it as hydrogen when needed
With hydrogen fuel cell cars, you are only able to use 20% of the energy you put in to split the water into H2 and O2. It can never beat the efficiency of EVs because H2 will never be cheaper than the electricity used to create it. So, next time when someone says hydrogen cars are the future, tell them: Why not put that electricity that you used to make that hydrogen directly into a battery powered car - you will get 5x the efficiency and cost you 3x less in fuel cost.
no one claims efficiency to be an advantage of hydrogen. If all you care about is that (not saying it's unreasonable), then yeah of course batteries are the way to go. But it's not so cut and dry if you're also interested in charge / refuel times, range, energy density, manufacturing, etc. As usual it comes down to trade-offs
@@camicus-3249 Energy density is about the same once you consider the tank you need to store the hydrogen. DC fast chargers are probably good enough for most use cases, but yes hydrogen does beat it there.
Except you still need to make the hydrogen fuel cells.. which are made of platinum and iridium, if I remember correctly.. and those are much more scarce than lithium.. So I don't think it's any more green to make batteries than fuel cells @@ShuAbLe
You still need hydrogen production facilities, means of transporting the fuelcell to refuelling stations, the stations themselves etc. Looking at the overall picture, it is just as complicated and infrastructure intensive as regular ICE engines.
Fuel cells driving an electric motor are actually more efficient than combustion engines. The problem is, hydrogen isn’t very dense; it may have a high specific energy per kilogram of mass, but it has an extremely low energy density per liter of volume. If we had fuel cells that could run on different fuels, we might see more of them.
@@logitech4873 : Car, no, but the OP said "vehicle" and didn't specify "car." So you could use any of the CNG fuel cell XCelsior buses produced by New Flyer in the last decade as an example, since this is the primary application of this technology.
That isn't true. Look at the full cycle cost. Fuel cells have an abysmal efficiency. (edit) I was assuming you understood that running a fuel cell on 'different fuels' simply uses the hydrogen and leaves behind the carbon, resulting in a much less energy dense byproduct. Running one on anything but pure hydrogen is horrifically wasteful. H2 is the theoretical best you can do.
you can share it.. but trust me .. they still wont believe you .. coming from someone who has had this same struggle for years .. especially if they are into the conspiracy theory ideal .. no amount of evidence will change their minds because they will just say you are one of them trying to suppress the tech.. lol stay strong.. at least some of us know how things really work..
8:39 This is also the case with electric cars, the majority of all electricity that is produced is produced with fossil fuels, coal and gas. And on top of that, a lot of energy is also used for the production of batteries used for electric cars. And don't forget the pollution that is created when raw materials such as cobalt have to be mined and refined, as well as the exploitation of children and poor adults in the countries where the majority of the raw materials are and yet everyone defends the electric car as if it is the answer to less pollution and you calls it 100% emission-free and that is a 100% lie. Just because you can't see or smell anything doesn't mean there isn't anything, you can't see or smell batteries but they're still there. After all, hydrogen cars are less polluting than electric cars since only electricity has to be produced to produce hydrogen, you don't have to use resources on the cobalt mines and other mines and the biggest bonus no exploitation of children and poor people what do you say to that ?
What's the battery in a hydrogen car made of? What are the fuel cells made of? Toyota Mirai, Hyundai Nexo, BMW iX5 - they all use the same lithium ion batteries that EVs use. And the fuel cells use quite a lot of platinum. I wonder where that comes from. And then there's the fact that they use about 3x as much electricity as EVs.
finally someone credible answered that god damn question which seemed to have no definitive answer. As a teenager I was fascinated with electrolysis and I was convinced (by such scams on internet) that it really produces more energy than was put into it, and couldn't understand why all the world isn't using it at massive scale. Then with each year I doubted it more and more.
@Beau_Guerrier all I did was summarize the video, watch the video. It's less efficient because they have to burn fossil fuel to create the hydrogen that would be used to power the vehicles.
@@brendolbreadwar2671 And that's just to begin with, forgetting completely about hydrogen embrittlement, significant losses due to leakage, and the unsustainable maintenance of the required infrastructure.
He could of poured that bottle of water into his vehicle and there would have been no noticable difference. Lots of testing at corporate labs has been done with ethanol/water combinations on that subject. A full tank of E10 will happily accomodate .5l of water. That doesn't mean I'd do it on purpose of course.
@Action Lab -- Question -- you said the electrons move from one side of the cell to the other, thru "a wire". Question is -- Could we place magnets at this junction, and use the electrons passing in flight, as a way to help produce more power to the loop (NOT 100% loop due to law of conservation and other things mechanical friction, etc), where an alternator or large battery would not be needed, and the impact to the -- IN and OUT sides of the equation help balance out , thus making it more efficient and practical ? It seems that we could use the flow of electrons much like we do in "regenerative breaking" or like in the case of "wireless charging". Thanks
I have watched various debunkers of the water car over the years. Keely in the 1800s used tuning fork frequency to splt water, then came the Garret Carburettor, then Andrija Puharich, then Stanley Meyer, Daniel Dingle. Gene-Pax etc...What I would like to see is the Puharich approach has any efficiency improvement on the electrolysis. His claimed technique was to use rectified AC to create a pulsed DC , and then use the natural frequency a multiple of 600hz (42,000 i think) to use resonance to assist in the splitting. The result would be analogous to those nail puzzles that slide apart easily if they are rotated to the correct alignment. Puharich claimed a rotation to 102 degrees of the h2o molecule. Could you do such an experiment?
@@Candlemancer I don't understand what are you trying to say? I'm saying that EVs are not exactly the solution. Am I an obtuse by sharing thoughts? Elaborate, please.
Cool video, James. No wonder I've always thought water couldn't work as a fuel by itself! Long ago I had that idea but would only have been able to explain my reasoning simplistically: "It's not flammable!"
8:22 well tbf you centralize where the co2 is created; at the hydrogen plants instead of all the billions of cars worldwide. From there you can control those co2 emmisions, capture them or perhaps throw them through the fischer-troper reaction
I would like to know if there is any difference in output when you use it as a fuel cell to run an electric motor and when you use it in combustion engine.
The bigger problem with hydrogen is transportation and storage: because it's a lighter-than-air gas and can't be used any of the current gasoline infrastructure, because everything needs to be gas-tight and stored has to be under high pressure, to have enough vehicle range. Then there is also the problem of about 1% leakage every day, because hydrogen is such a small molecule it can slowly migrate through pressure-vessel walls. Even LPG/natural gas is easier to work with as vehicle fuel, as it can be liquified under pressure at room temperature to fill fuel-tanks/gas cylinders in the vehicle very quickly, whereas hydrogen must be cooled close to absolute zero to be liquified and can't be done mechanically, using pressure.
I'm glad you made this video. Many people are confused by the hype and every video we have that explains chemistry and the concept that "there is no free energy", is a video that helps us all. Now how do we get our politicians and folks in the media to learn this?
I tried to convince one of my coworkers of this about 15 years ago. He hooked up one of those hydrogen generators to his engine thinking it would increase his fuel economy. I explained to him that it took more energy to split the water than it produced to burn it in his engine and the only way it could even theoretically increase his fuel economy is if the hydrogen somehow made the gasoline burn a lot more efficiently, which was unlikely. He decided to continue with the experiment, but ended up going to another job before he could tell me the results.
Making a fuel cell is still very expensive as you need rare metals. Making hydrogen directly burns too much energy and it is the most expensive car fuel (still in experimental phase), unless you have spare energy (e.g. from a nuclear power plant overnight). Storage of hydrogen is very complicated as it is the smallest molecule. Transferring to a consumer is also difficult, you cannot avoid leakage. So we are still waiting for some "future" technology that can solve all these problems.
7:18 I'm confused. Sure it's the product but I need an explanation on why "it doesn't have any chemical energy to give". When H2 reacts with O2 it's exothermic and releases energy, clearly stated in the part where they combusted H2 gas. Do you really *have* to split water apart? I thought you're only combining them together and just releasing the water vapor as a byproduct. That way you're don't consume more energy than you're releasing.
One method you might try is as follows. Instead of using low voltage high amps to split the water molecule into its atomic parts. Let’s use high frequency voltage and low amps. Take a rectangle piece of steel even better if it’s transformer structured cut the piece in half so you have two U shaped pieces now on side rap about 100 rounds of wire and on the other piece rap about 400 rounds, now anchor these two pieces in a way that they both have an extremely small air gap between the cut edges. 1/32. Now for our electrodes we need to think in terms of capacitors, a capacitor is two plates separated by a median, so let’s take a piece of 3/4” Stainless Steel 315 round tubing and call it the cathode, now take a piece of 1/2” Stainless Steel 315 call it the anode and place it on the inside of the cathode, so that the walls do not touch but are as close and possible, now submerged the cathode and anode in water. Connect one side of larger coil to the cathode and the other to the anode and this should results in a net gain hydrogen oxygen separation for use. Note that the in coming power to the small coil must be pulsed this is one of the reasons it used less then 1 amp. I have tones of documentation that I would be like to share if any want to have more details on this method called Voltrolysis
I had no idea that people still thought this was even a possible way to power anything due to the amount of energy it takes to split water in the first place vs what you would get in return. Guess they're still out there...
Great video, touches on many areas that are often misunderstood. Hydrogen will be a viable alternative fuel when we have greater renewable energy penetration and need ways of storing some of that energy. No one single energy storage method will work for every application, it will take a mixture of methods to solve our energy needs. Hydrogen, batteries, pumped hydro, flywheels, etc.
I appreciate the use of joules in your method… loads of debunks of hho show them running an open loop fueled generator… which doesnt adjust for the added fuel so of course they don’t get better economy. I still want to see an apples to apples dyno run of an hho assisted car in closed loop fueling versus an unassisted in closed loop… (think highway cruising not drag race) The parasitic loss of the alternator and natural losses in the inefficiency of the ICE may in the end be overcome by the addition of the external/cleaner/cooler fuel source.
"When you burn it back together...," haha, nice. I haven't normally thought of burning something as doing what melting does in other situations. I've always thought of melting together as combining, and burning as separating (like whatever happens to paper or wood that gives us smoke, etc.) So this "burn it back together" is oddly interesting to me.
"That's like standing 100 feet away from a jet engine." Yeah, you'd also have to be inches from the explosion to get this effect. To be certain, it's louder than expected, but I feel like that's kind of important to note.
It’s really just a matter of entropy. The entropy of water is already higher than that of the hydrogen fuel. Any attempt to decrease entropy will only increase entropy as a whole. So we have 2 options here: 1. Make hydrogen fuel viable, but we’re not “making” the hydrogen fuel. We can only mine the hydrogen gas from outer space, for example Jupiter. But for the space technology we have now, this will end up costing more energy. 2. Make water fuel viable, but we need something else that has a greater energy potential to react with the water, such as the strong Alkali metals. But in that case the energy source is just the metals at this point, and we don’t have a rich resource of those. In conclusion, no we can’t have water fuel, at least for now.
Just to let people know, the Decibel is a ratio, so saying 121 dB is like saying "121 times bigger" - Bigger than what? You need a reference unit. "121 times bigger than... a car". So we need to set 0dB to mean something. When measuring acoustics in the environment, the human-weighted dBA is usually used, where 0dB is at the nominal limit of human hearing. In the sound world, we would likely use dB SPL (re 20 μPa) (@ a given distance) which is a weighted RMS measurement. But anyway, for clarity, you should always give the reference unit.
I've got an idea, maybe you could simply use solar panels, and even though you will have to stop eventually, it'll recharge, and when you buy a car, you simply get the water and leave it out for an hour or two In the sunlight, then bam! It works (note all companies will hate this car since it infinitely works and the only money they could make would be on repairs)
We have had propane motor vehicles for years (e.g., forklifts that can handle heavy loads.) We should try that in cars or natural gas. Not sure if it’s cheaper but makes more sense than hydrogen as a fuel.
Yeah, you didn't switch the bottle in that jumpy edit, lol. Reminds me of that 70's British TV show, _Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased)_ - the whole scene jumps every time the ghost appears or disappears 🤠👻
I think it would not be safe to be in those cars because if one hits another, or worse one hitting a semi, everyone would die, even the ones on the sidewalk within a 400-500ft radius. I think the best thing is safety as well as efficiency. Your demonstration gave me this idea because of how violent the reaction was.
I'm going to be doing some extreme voltage field experiments using electrets as soon as I master making them. I wonder how a static electric voltage field on the order of 1 MegaVolt/cm would modulate the amount of energy required to split H20 moelcules? In fact, I wonder if by using electrets you could have avalanche electrolosys in the same way you have avalanche conduction in a diode. Basically, I wonder if a rediculously powerful static electric field could work as a catalyst that lowers the energy barrier for electrolosys. Or ionise it. would the Franz-Keldysh effect or the Stark effect be in play? This would not be free-energy of course, what the electric field would be doing is aligning the dipoles in the bulk mass off the water and pre-straining the molecules so that the energy barrier required to dissociate the molecules is reduced.
Nice of to relate to your ineficient water splitting device, I have managed to achieve 250 litres a minute of H and O2 from a power draw of 25 amps at 13v
That sounds _a bit_ questionable in view of the Faraday constant's value of 26.8 amp-hours per mole and the molar volume of an ideal gas of about 25 litres at 1 bar and 25° C.
It was nice knowing you bro 😔🕊️
💀
Gone But Never Forgotten ⚰️🥀
????
@@theBoy_69_
Guess its the conspiracy from Oil companies that is Said to kill Anyone trying to make an engine running on water🤷🏼♂️
They gonna come for him noo😢😢💀💀
How does it run on water? Wouldn’t it sink?
Ba dum tsss
I hear people talk about this magical Jesus guy a lot. He doesn't sink, from what I've heard.
I imagine there'll be lots of people watching this science channel who also believe in mythology...right?
If a car's doors are sealed and it's balanced then it should float like a boat, since the inside of a car is mostly air.
@@takanara7 Both for good and bad car doors are not usually that well sealed.
@@takanara7but no normal car is sealed like that. The doors aren't the only hole.
This video is going to win so many internet discussions
Yes because it is possible to drive with water...aluminum gallium with water injection produces hydrogen and as I remember there is oxygen in the air...et voila you run your engine with water...mmhh
You just have to break through the oxidation layer of the aluminum...through chemical acids, nanoaluminum, gallium mix etc etc...mmhhh
The last thing I read was powering a submarine with coffee powder and salt water with aluminumgallium....maybe it's salt water, not water??,
and the US military is researching nano-aluminum with water as a battery for front-line operations...etc...etc...
you do know that, a car running on water, is called a boat, right?
😂😂that's nice
I've never seen them run, only floats. Then again, I've never been under the water to spot their legs.
no, a motor boat
@@monsesh1316 There's actually wheels just under the surface
Ironic how land yachts exist
That was the most straightforward explanation of fuel cells I've ever been exposed to. Thank you, very awesome 🙂👍
I hate how thermodynamics ruins all my childhood dreams and "inventions" .
Well, current science is really inaccurate and might even be intentionally misleading (just a hunch at the moment) so you never know. Perpetual motion might be real. I mean, 1000 years ago it was scientifically impossible fly. You would have been burned alive if you said it was possible.
oh boy i totally relate to this
thermodynamics has ruined more 'inventions' than i could count and specifically it's the second law that people always forget about
I hate the one tht ruins perpetual energy. The 1st😡🤭🤣🤣
I hate realizing how my childhood dreams were nothing but a suicidal inventions
"Great! it works, but there is a problem, it doesn't work"
Edit: 2.3K like!!! Holy moly
Theoretically, it works, but idk if anyone is willing to risk it and actually try it. Plus, they are gonna have to make a car intended to work with water, which is nearly impossible
it works theoretically as long as you still got charge in your battery. but the battery will run out of juice eventually. btw it will run out of juice slower just moving the bike. thermodynamic's a btch
It totally works. You can even power a car with it! If you assume the efficiency is: 90% for the battery, 60% for electrolysis, 30% for the combustion engine, you can use 16% of the energy in your battery to go places. Oh wait EV can turn 70-80% in their batteries into movement. So a water bike would need a battery 5 times the size than an EV would, plus the electrolyzer, fuel tanks and engine.
All you need to run a car on water is a Mr Fusion. Simple!.
It actually does work, It's an incredibly clean battery if you can consider the energy source to be clean. Efficient no, better than lithium, maybe in the future. Plenty of fake free energy videos that have some real science. It does work, just badly depending on how. Like sure I can use lasers to cook toast. Should I, no.
The hydrogen is just being used as a battery when you think about it
not just hydrogen, gasoline and diesel are chemical batteries too.
@@UninstallingWindowsyeah but those are less rechargable lol
@@zetahurley7323nah, just a lot slower.
That is the major draw of using hydrogen powered cars. The most efficient way to store electricity would be to use a battery, but energy dense batteries are made of relatively limited resources. Octane powered cars use a very power dense fluid that can be burned with about 30-35% efficiency and still take out a lot of power for the space, but that's also a limited resource. Hydrogen however is all around us, but to get it you need to put in so much more energy than you can get out of it, although modern fuel cells are now getting to 40-60% efficiency. It's a competition of poor round trip efficiency, limited resources, and power density to find the best way to store power, and it's impossible to determine a single winner unless something all around better comes along.
Yeah. Scary batteries.
*the FBI waiting for him to look out his windows*
why would the FBI be offing people? you dont think theres 10 other secretive agencies that would be more inclined towards wet work? lame jokes are lame.
No
I did my master thesis on splitting water using the sun, but not Photovoltaic, but rather use the sun against a photocatalyst metal to move electrons and induce the water splitting. I think this has a future if we are able to produce optimized materials based on this metal photocatalysts
But first, you must escape hired assassins from the gas industry 😐
If you're gonna use solar just charge a battery with that energy instead of doing tons of energy conversions which violates conservation of energy
@@iKingRPG That's the interesting thing about photocatalysts: Photocatalytic water splitting directly uses solar photons to drive the chemical reaction, potentially reducing energy losses associated with multiple conversion steps (as seen in PV-electrolysis systems). In other words it is one step. While Photovoltaic requires you to first get electricity out of solar and then use that to split, photocatalytic directly induces the split. The current state of the photocatalytic technology still shows less efficiency than Photovoltaic, but that's mainly due to the years of optimization for the Photovoltaic cells. Photocatalytic cells continue to be optimized.
@@martfp88 so you'd use solar to effectively store energy in hydrogen more efficiently by avoiding an extra step?
@@nullnummer9332 Yeah that's the idea. It is in many ways like photosynthesis, where is also a form of transforming light into chemical energy, but in the form of glucose instead of hydrogen. But it also involves a catalyst in the chloroplasts and redox reactions induced by the excitation of electrons in the catalysts
Finally someone actually points it out. It always really annoyed me seeing videos about the man who got "assassinated" for making a "water powered car", and seeing everyone in the comments believing that it's possible, as if splitting water to make hydrogen and oxygen, then burning the hydrogen in oxygen to make water actually does anything. It's just turning one thing back into the same thing. If it somehow not only didn't lose energy, but gained energy in the process, then it would be violating the first and second laws of thermodynamics. There is no free energy device!
It is more complicated than that. The water must be ionized first with high voltage 10 - 20 thousand volts. Then within the cell there are blue lasers of a specific wavelength that point in one direction (there is a physics paper on this). The lasers increase the efficiency. I don't believe an electrolyte is needed. All the cells you see on e-bay are rip offs.
Genuine question: what is happening is not that it generates energy from nothing, the only thing it is doing is grabbing oxygen from the outside and thus causing combustion, just like engines that use gasoline? or what is wrong?
@@And20s That's not what is happening. If they did do that, then it wouldn't change anything.
The process of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen produces two gasses, and they are produced in perfect quantities to be reacted back together. Burning the hydrogen, at this point, will never make more energy than it cost to split the water apart, because that would create more energy than you started with.
If you instead used oxygen from the air, then you would be left with a tank full of oxygen that you got from splitting the water. You would then have to release this into the air, which replaces the oxygen you used. So the end result is still that nothing actually happened to the water. You started with water, and with an atmosphere full of oxygen, and you ended with water and an atmosphere full of oxygen. There's nowhere for the energy to come from, because the water never loses energy in the process, and none of the gases are consumed.
i thought they spilt the water then use it as a combustion engine. ill just stick to calcium carbide + h²0 + 0² i guess
@@agmhelena7266 Yes, they split the water and use it in combustion. But combustion is just a fancy term for "reacting with oxygen". So the whole endeavor is ultimately pointless because you're splitting water only the put it back together, achieving nothing while losing energy to inefficiency.
Trying to make a car run on water is just like trying to heat up a house by burning ashes in the fireplace.
After all, water is just the 'ash' of the combustion of hydrogen.
However, an oxyhydrogen torch can do some amazing things.
@@whig01how is that relevant?
Good point
Technically it is possible to further "burn" ash or water in fluorine but that's not very practical to say the least
Herman Munster's father in law invented a pill that made it work.
@@kekersdev It's only relevant as to why you might use electricity to make oxyhydrogen from water, it isn't efficient to run an engine of course.
0:02 famous last words
At 0:05 it transitions from the bottle open to bottle closed
@@IJoeAceJRI wow just noticed that
@@IJoeAceJRIhe ain't making enough off this video to pour water in his tank 😂
“Mr. Anderson, welcome back! We miss you.” 💀
Who needs cars that run on water when we have boats?
Ok dad
@@mandarbamane4268 ok kid
😂
Not a car which runs on water, a car that uses water to power up instead of petroleum or diesel
@@janechanlder2675OK, grandpa.
Backyard scientist: But how can I use this to blow stuffup?
Leave him
I don't know if I should laugh or be afraid of the amount of misinformation in the comments
I know you u are r from the FBI
Ikr, It always weirds me out when ppl demonstrate such a lack of understanding while assume themselves "reasonable skeptic". I very much hope we just didn'T get the joke though...
@@yeternat .
It's so weird so see these conspiracy theorists in a science channel.
Sitting here wondering that too
this is a good video, the average person does not understand the concept of energy
water absorbs solar energy like a battery according to Doctor Gerald Pollack at UW there's a 4th phase of water...
@tomr6955unicorn farts are methane.. guess what methane is? Flammable...
Now we just need a vehicle that runs on golden rain and brown liquid
@@TheSilverShadow17one of them as a fuel, other as an oxidiser
@@Dellvmnyam Which one would you make the fuel and oxidizer?
Just because it can be done, DOES NOT mean its efficient.
Just because one genius had an idea, DOES NOT mean it will work. Even Einstein got some things wrong in practice.
Efficiency is irrelevant if the energy is being provided via solar PV.
@@VinoVeritas_ if efficiency is irrelevant you'll end up investing more than you can gain. Only irrelevant if the question is "is it possible?" but RELEVANT if the question is "is it worthy?"
@@hermitcard4494 Storing solar energy for times when there's little to no sun is more important than the discussion around efficiency. After all, fossil fuels took millions of years to form and we haven't been concerned about the efficiency when using them. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
See: Einstein airplane wing
@@VinoVeritas_ We most certainly have been concerned about efficiency. See: mpg
Researchers are developing cheap chemical and metal catalysts that help to split the hydrogen and oxygen molecules from water using far less electricity. This was always possible previously, but involved very expensive catalysts like platinum.
Allegedly a guy figured out a different way with frequency resonation awhile back. Basically different forms/ways of vibrating the water optimally to get it to split apart using less electricity.
6:31 Why I hear Medhi from electroboom in my head screaming there's nothing as free energy! On a free energy device the hardest thing is to hide the powersource.
The "nice controlled reaction" you are looking for happened beautifully in the Shuttle's main engines.
True, and also in its fuel cells.
yeah I'd strap an RS-25 to my car
Lockheed Martin ahh solution @@blazernitrox6329
i had some CRAZY guy always come in to my work always talking up his water powered car and im like bruh u lying, and good to know these many years later he was infact lying
All petrol/diesel cars are water powered tho
Thank you for throwing some common sense on these charlatans!
However, like so many people, he takes it as a given that nuclear is the end all to be all. Nobody ever considers the embodied CO2 and waste of all the mining of the ore, the extraction, the hydro metallurgy, the refinement, the centrifuging and processing that goes into the fissile material, nor all the materials and construction which go into the reactor and the building which it houses, nor the containment of the spent fuel, which has to be safely transported, stored, and managed *forever*. They treat nuclear like it's magic free-energy rocks you pluck out of the ground.
@@WaffleStaffelit is magic energy you pull from rocks any other form of large scale energy would need large scale construction. You are clearly misinformed about how much waste nuclear energy actually makes because it’s quite minor compared to the energy produced. It’s very clean idk who made you scared of nuclear but you just need to go a little bit further in your research
@@jamessiarom "Misinformed" "scared" "need more research" You literally just said it *is* magic energy you pull from rocks. I used to be a proponent of nuclear, and I would be again if anyone could show through a comprehensive analysis of the energy and resources required for nuclear from cradle to grave that it was a net producer, but no one has done such analysis. New reactor designs have great promise in terms of safety, but that does not negate the fact that gross energy in vs net energy out is unknown/undisclosed. It is ignorant and irresponsible to promote nuclear without that piece of information. Without it, it's just like electric cars, it merely shifts energy consumption out of sight. You haven't offered any data, so don't go talking out of your @$$.
Meanwhile promoting other charlatans...
I mean it's ironic how Nuclear energy killed the least amount of people compared to solar and wind. Plus it's the cleanest and safest type we have as an option. Only problem is that the public has a negative stance on it lol
The ministry for debunking bullsh*t thanks you for your efforts. Sadly, this will not stop all the "10 year old built fusion reactor in his room" posts. And it wont stop the "energy from water" posts. And it wont stop the "energy from magnets" posts... But it is a step in the right direction. Thank you.
Remember kids: Ignore the sponsors (because many of these are scams) but don't attack the UA-camrs. They are just trying to make a living.
Scammers are also trying to make a living. At a certain point you have to tell people that their way of making a living is immoral and you refuse to support it.
@@Candlemancer Not exactly. Yeah, your comment is correct, but comparing scammers to UA-camrs, just doesn't fit. Scammers are doing something illegal like thieves, however, UA-camrs are working hard to make money for themselves, and of course their family.
Hydrogen is just an inefficient way of storing energy
no its not. its it the best. because it is light and can be compressed.
@@mrmurdock6994 It can still escape over time, even in proper containers. Regular batteries are definitely more efficient.
Lots of energy storage or conversions or usage is inefficient. That's just nature. Hydrogen has other issues. Like it is difficult to store since hydrogen is smaller than all other atoms and tends to sift through stuff or get embedded in it if it cannot get through. It is highly flammable and specifically with oxygen (which is highly explosive in the right mixes as he showed). It is difficult to store it at the right pressures for storage and transport and later reuse to be useful. It is just highly inconvenient and not safe but if one would address the inconvenience and safety issues then hydrogen would be good. While water vapor as a byproduct in the air is still technically pollution if in high enough amounts (something that people forget) it is still much less scary pollution than a lot of the other pollution out there. In small enough amounts it is actually useful rather than a pollutant, so yes we should be using hydrogen fuel cells (again if the problems could be addressed and other better solutions aren't available).
@@mrmurdock6994 Yes, it takes a lot of energy to create it *and* to compress it for storage. Doesn't sound like the "best" to me.
@@mrmurdock6994 Light, but very low volumetric density - you don't get much energy in a tank unless you compress it a lot, which means you're dealing with a very hazardous fuel - far worse than regular gasoline, which is already bad enough. It'll leak through the most microscopic of openings, including easily slipping through rubber gaskets. It damages and weakens many metals on prolonged contact. You need a lot of safety precautions to handle compressed hydrogen safely, which makes doing so very expensive.
“So there’s this car that runs on water. It runs on water, man!” - Steven Hyde,
Was looking for this comment 😂
Like eeh he knows the truth
"So it is a boat"
Saying these engines and fuel cells run on water is like saying that humans are powered by poop.
Wellll, there are politicians.
@@solarsynapsethose aren't powered by it but they are full of it
Phone apps don't work as accurate decibel meters, because smartphone microphones are MEMS devices that can only good to maybe 90 db before you're beyond their capabilities. Physical decibel meters have an electromechanical capsule that gets compressed by sound waves and can go as high as 140 db.
In short it works like this:
Use electricity to split water into H2 and O
Burn H2 and O to get less electricity
Use this electricity to run car
Sounds like making a cheese sandwich by adding cheese and removing it back
Great video! Thanks for all the effort you put in to plan, record, edit and upload your videos. The knowledge you impart is valuable to all!
As soon as infinite energy gets involved you know something is fishy.
Do NOT go out to any diners with strange men, dude
i dont get it 🙁
😔
@ridwan6695 the original water powered car was invented by some guy decades ago and he showed off his invention. Some time later, strange men in suits offered to buy his water car, and they met in a diner where the man was poisoned.
@@fringeflixDo NOT reproduce.
@@fringeflix the men explained why its not practical and he poisoned himself most likely
A punch of reality to people without science in their brain. Love it. More of these kinds of videos pretty please
The other thing is if you're going to use renewable energy like solar panels to split the water, you might as well use it directly to power an electric car or your house
I'd be surprised if that would work because you won't be able to strap the amount solar panels you would need to run your car in a meaningful way.
It is that very ratio which forces us to use transportable energy storage such as batteries or gasoline.
@@steffenrumpel2784 no one said you putthe panels ON the car...
@@Candlemancer and how exactly do you (hint) "directly power" (/hint) a car with solar panels, if these are not on a car?
since that is not possible, we need (as i mentioned) to take energy storage with us. if it is batteries we take with us, i do not care if these have been charged using nuclear power, solar panels or something else - because that is an "indirect" transfer.
This made me remember the guy that made his car run on Vodka lmao
High quality vodka is mainly a clean mix of water and ethanol. You can run a car on Ethanol. The water part is tricky, though. Water is stronger than Conrods. Too much water and the engine blows up.
@@kooooonsis that why the Delorean fuel injector blew up in Back to the Future 3 when they tried using strong whiskey?
atleast vodka actually has fuel
@@JonahNelson7 when something on a delorean breaks I'd always suggest the reason to be that it is a delorean ;)
But jokes aside, ethanol can brittle some plastics and thus cause all sorts of problems in a fuel system which is not set up for it. And whether or not a car can run on whisky depends on the percentage. I wouldn't try though. 60% alcohol still translates to around 39% of water. Also the engine would run very lean dunno if that's a problem, Water-ethanol is used to cool down pistons so maybe not but then again one would only use very little Water-ethanol. To prevent it from running lean you would have to increase fuel flow by a factor of 2.5 which would flood the combustion chamber with 7-8% of pure water. If 10% of that doesn't evaporate, then theoretically, within 6 minutes of idling, half of the combustion chamber is filled with water. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure no Engine survives that.
“My car runs on water”
“That’s impossible… how?”
“You see this combine damn over here uses the kinetic energy of the water to make electricity, and my car runs of the electricity.”
Lol… that’s the only way that sentence makes sense. Well done.
When life gets more difficult than chemistry 😂
Such an informative video, and for the people like me who are always looking for such kind of content (for innovations in tech) it helps a lot.
Thank u :)
If we had this, that would be one fair step forward towards the also impossible existence of Link’s Master Cycle Zero
But obviously, turning matter into blue energy upon contact would be theoretically impossible by all means, so the Zelda one is definitely to remain science fiction, lol
Just a thought, isn't it true that in most solar farms they have to shut it down when they produce too much energy when the batteries are full and the demand is met? I wonder if they could have a modular hydrolysis station to convert that extra solar power and store it as hydrogen when needed
but storing hydrogen is difficult and expensive
There is literally no difference between that and just buying more batteries, except that batteries are an order of magnitude more efficient.
With hydrogen fuel cell cars, you are only able to use 20% of the energy you put in to split the water into H2 and O2. It can never beat the efficiency of EVs because H2 will never be cheaper than the electricity used to create it. So, next time when someone says hydrogen cars are the future, tell them: Why not put that electricity that you used to make that hydrogen directly into a battery powered car - you will get 5x the efficiency and cost you 3x less in fuel cost.
yeah, but sun and wind are free and storing evergy by spliting water that becomes water again when used is way more green than bateries
no one claims efficiency to be an advantage of hydrogen. If all you care about is that (not saying it's unreasonable), then yeah of course batteries are the way to go. But it's not so cut and dry if you're also interested in charge / refuel times, range, energy density, manufacturing, etc. As usual it comes down to trade-offs
@@camicus-3249 Energy density is about the same once you consider the tank you need to store the hydrogen. DC fast chargers are probably good enough for most use cases, but yes hydrogen does beat it there.
Except you still need to make the hydrogen fuel cells.. which are made of platinum and iridium, if I remember correctly.. and those are much more scarce than lithium..
So I don't think it's any more green to make batteries than fuel cells @@ShuAbLe
You still need hydrogen production facilities, means of transporting the fuelcell to refuelling stations, the stations themselves etc. Looking at the overall picture, it is just as complicated and infrastructure intensive as regular ICE engines.
Fuel cells driving an electric motor are actually more efficient than combustion engines. The problem is, hydrogen isn’t very dense; it may have a high specific energy per kilogram of mass, but it has an extremely low energy density per liter of volume. If we had fuel cells that could run on different fuels, we might see more of them.
most of the fuel cells vehicles being used are running on natural gas, to power the fuel cell.
@@carlosgaspar8447 Could you name one car like this?
@@logitech4873 : Car, no, but the OP said "vehicle" and didn't specify "car." So you could use any of the CNG fuel cell XCelsior buses produced by New Flyer in the last decade as an example, since this is the primary application of this technology.
That isn't true. Look at the full cycle cost. Fuel cells have an abysmal efficiency. (edit) I was assuming you understood that running a fuel cell on 'different fuels' simply uses the hydrogen and leaves behind the carbon, resulting in a much less energy dense byproduct. Running one on anything but pure hydrogen is horrifically wasteful. H2 is the theoretical best you can do.
@@knurlgnar24 Direct methanol fuel cells produce both water and CO₂ in their exhaust.
somebody wants to keep himself away from the hit list of certain companies
I thought the title said "A cat that runs on water!" Got very excited for a moment there 🤣🤣
That video exists.
my dumbass thought the same thing.
Goto tiktok... thats the home of cat videos 👍
Yours is 4 inches or less….
0:18 A supercomputer with an extremely slow hard drive 😂
thank you, i've ben explaining this for years and almost no one believe me, now i can share this video
you can share it.. but trust me .. they still wont believe you .. coming from someone who has had this same struggle for years .. especially if they are into the conspiracy theory ideal .. no amount of evidence will change their minds because they will just say you are one of them trying to suppress the tech.. lol stay strong.. at least some of us know how things really work..
8:39 This is also the case with electric cars, the majority of all electricity that is produced is produced with fossil fuels, coal and gas. And on top of that, a lot of energy is also used for the production of batteries used for electric cars. And don't forget the pollution that is created when raw materials such as cobalt have to be mined and refined, as well as the exploitation of children and poor adults in the countries where the majority of the raw materials are and yet everyone defends the electric car as if it is the answer to less pollution and you calls it 100% emission-free and that is a 100% lie. Just because you can't see or smell anything doesn't mean there isn't anything, you can't see or smell batteries but they're still there. After all, hydrogen cars are less polluting than electric cars since only electricity has to be produced to produce hydrogen, you don't have to use resources on the cobalt mines and other mines and the biggest bonus no exploitation of children and poor people what do you say to that ?
What's the battery in a hydrogen car made of? What are the fuel cells made of?
Toyota Mirai, Hyundai Nexo, BMW iX5 - they all use the same lithium ion batteries that EVs use. And the fuel cells use quite a lot of platinum. I wonder where that comes from.
And then there's the fact that they use about 3x as much electricity as EVs.
@@logitech4873
You clearly do not understand the technology of a hydrogen car, there is no battery, only a fuel cell
@@bjørnjacobsengaming Name one such car.
I've literally been wondering about this for years! I'm so happy you made this video.
How did you get the water out of your gas tank? Is there some filtration system that can handle that much water in the tank?
Just before he puts the bottle in, there is a subtle cut where the lid appears back on the bottle.
@@xenomorphgourmet1005 Sneaky!
Combustion is combining oxygen with another atom. Water is hydrogen ash. You can't burn ash, and you can't burn water.
Who wouldn't want a car that burns as efficient as the Hindenburg ?
@@nimrodquimbus912 Did you reply to the wrong comment? What does that have to do with what I said?
@@dahat1992 I'll take that as a , "YES"
@@nimrodquimbus912 You didn't ask a yes or no question. You're a bot parroting comments, huh
@@dahat1992 You mad ?
finally someone credible answered that god damn question which seemed to have no definitive answer. As a teenager I was fascinated with electrolysis and I was convinced (by such scams on internet) that it really produces more energy than was put into it, and couldn't understand why all the world isn't using it at massive scale. Then with each year I doubted it more and more.
Could you provide links for the fuel cell the car and the small soloar panel??
Even if we made hydrogen by electrolysis... Wouldn't it be way more effcicent to charge batteries in EV's with that electricty?
It won’t run on water, but it could run on hydrogen
Yeah, basically the conclusion. Other than hydrogen being so inefficient that it creates more CO2 than if you just used the normal stuff.
@@brendolbreadwar2671 elaborate
@Beau_Guerrier all I did was summarize the video, watch the video. It's less efficient because they have to burn fossil fuel to create the hydrogen that would be used to power the vehicles.
@@brendolbreadwar2671 And that's just to begin with, forgetting completely about hydrogen embrittlement, significant losses due to leakage, and the unsustainable maintenance of the required infrastructure.
Did you watch the video?
Either the title was edited after the video was uploaded or a significant portion of this audience doesn’t have reading comprehension
...or, you, also, feel that knit picking semantics is an acceptable way to educate.
Nice try FBI
We all know you're planning!
@@malachiteofmethuselah9713 What do you mean semantics the title literally says it's impossible
@@bob-km4uq debating efficiency numbers is nothing like impossible.
0:07 bro used transition,so he couldn't ruin his fuel tank ,he knows that he can't risk it😂still but what about Toyota's water based engine concept
He could of poured that bottle of water into his vehicle and there would have been no noticable difference. Lots of testing at corporate labs has been done with ethanol/water combinations on that subject. A full tank of E10 will happily accomodate .5l of water. That doesn't mean I'd do it on purpose of course.
@@knurlgnar24 but it will cause long term fuel tank issue like rusting something as I heard
@@AK_Blizard not in a car already built/converted to be able to use E85
@stevevernon1978 It makes your fuel less efficient and it could cause problems.
@Action Lab -- Question -- you said the electrons move from one side of the cell to the other, thru "a wire".
Question is -- Could we place magnets at this junction, and use the electrons passing in flight, as a way to help produce more power to the loop (NOT 100% loop due to law of conservation and other things mechanical friction, etc), where an alternator or large battery would not be needed, and the impact to the -- IN and OUT sides of the equation help balance out , thus making it more efficient and practical ?
It seems that we could use the flow of electrons much like we do in "regenerative breaking" or like in the case of "wireless charging".
Thanks
I have watched various debunkers of the water car over the years. Keely in the 1800s used tuning fork frequency to splt water, then came the Garret Carburettor, then Andrija Puharich, then Stanley Meyer, Daniel Dingle. Gene-Pax etc...What I would like to see is the Puharich approach has any efficiency improvement on the electrolysis. His claimed technique was to use rectified AC to create a pulsed DC , and then use the natural frequency a multiple of 600hz (42,000 i think) to use resonance to assist in the splitting. The result would be analogous to those nail puzzles that slide apart easily if they are rotated to the correct alignment. Puharich claimed a rotation to 102 degrees of the h2o molecule. Could you do such an experiment?
Bro dodged a bullet
His own bullet
water is hydrogen ash. Good luck running any engine on ash
You need electricity to hydrolysis.
So why need water? Just use EV 😂
But battery components are expensive and environmentally harmful to produce, bonus, there were EVs exploding due to battery failures.
@@mearetomHydrogen is quite explosive as well
@@ziggytron345 Yes, I'm only stating that currently, batteries are bad for the environment. Not saying hydrogen are better or inferior.
@@mearetom you were strongly implying so by saying "but". Don't be obtuse.
@@Candlemancer I don't understand what are you trying to say? I'm saying that EVs are not exactly the solution. Am I an obtuse by sharing thoughts? Elaborate, please.
Cool video, James. No wonder I've always thought water couldn't work as a fuel by itself! Long ago I had that idea but would only have been able to explain my reasoning simplistically: "It's not flammable!"
Thanks for teaching the basic concept of energy and basic chemistry!
"runs on" is a very misleading word.. more like "store energy"
3 minutes for real
Bro is trying to reinvent the steam engine
8:22 well tbf you centralize where the co2 is created; at the hydrogen plants instead of all the billions of cars worldwide.
From there you can control those co2 emmisions, capture them or perhaps throw them through the fischer-troper reaction
I would like to know if there is any difference in output when you use it as a fuel cell to run an electric motor and when you use it in combustion engine.
But but... A car that runs on water... Isnt that just a boat?
When I first read the title of this video my eyes mistook car for cat. 'A cat that runs on water!'
The bigger problem with hydrogen is transportation and storage: because it's a lighter-than-air gas and can't be used any of the current gasoline infrastructure, because everything needs to be gas-tight and stored has to be under high pressure, to have enough vehicle range. Then there is also the problem of about 1% leakage every day, because hydrogen is such a small molecule it can slowly migrate through pressure-vessel walls.
Even LPG/natural gas is easier to work with as vehicle fuel, as it can be liquified under pressure at room temperature to fill fuel-tanks/gas cylinders in the vehicle very quickly, whereas hydrogen must be cooled close to absolute zero to be liquified and can't be done mechanically, using pressure.
I'm glad you made this video. Many people are confused by the hype and every video we have that explains chemistry and the concept that "there is no free energy", is a video that helps us all. Now how do we get our politicians and folks in the media to learn this?
I tried to convince one of my coworkers of this about 15 years ago. He hooked up one of those hydrogen generators to his engine thinking it would increase his fuel economy. I explained to him that it took more energy to split the water than it produced to burn it in his engine and the only way it could even theoretically increase his fuel economy is if the hydrogen somehow made the gasoline burn a lot more efficiently, which was unlikely. He decided to continue with the experiment, but ended up going to another job before he could tell me the results.
You know what the results were :)
Making a fuel cell is still very expensive as you need rare metals. Making hydrogen directly burns too much energy and it is the most expensive car fuel (still in experimental phase), unless you have spare energy (e.g. from a nuclear power plant overnight). Storage of hydrogen is very complicated as it is the smallest molecule. Transferring to a consumer is also difficult, you cannot avoid leakage. So we are still waiting for some "future" technology that can solve all these problems.
7:18 I'm confused. Sure it's the product but I need an explanation on why "it doesn't have any chemical energy to give". When H2 reacts with O2 it's exothermic and releases energy, clearly stated in the part where they combusted H2 gas. Do you really *have* to split water apart? I thought you're only combining them together and just releasing the water vapor as a byproduct. That way you're don't consume more energy than you're releasing.
One method you might try is as follows.
Instead of using low voltage high amps to split the water molecule into its atomic parts.
Let’s use high frequency voltage and low amps.
Take a rectangle piece of steel even better if it’s transformer structured cut the piece in half so you have two U shaped pieces now on side rap about 100 rounds of wire and on the other piece rap about 400 rounds, now anchor these two pieces in a way that they both have an extremely small air gap between the cut edges. 1/32.
Now for our electrodes we need to think in terms of capacitors, a capacitor is two plates separated by a median, so let’s take a piece of 3/4” Stainless Steel 315 round tubing and call it the cathode, now take a piece of 1/2” Stainless Steel 315 call it the anode and place it on the inside of the cathode, so that the walls do not touch but are as close and possible, now submerged the cathode and anode in water.
Connect one side of larger coil to the cathode and the other to the anode and this should results in a net gain hydrogen oxygen separation for use.
Note that the in coming power to the small coil must be pulsed this is one of the reasons it used less then 1 amp.
I have tones of documentation that I would be like to share if any want to have more details on this method called Voltrolysis
A NOBEL ! 👍
...for being as you are 🙏
Thank you so much.
1:55 dark💀
You need to be safe bro. They are coming
0:01
says "A car that runs on water"
proceed to make a car POWERED by water
this is going to piss off allot of government officials
I had no idea that people still thought this was even a possible way to power anything due to the amount of energy it takes to split water in the first place vs what you would get in return. Guess they're still out there...
Great video, touches on many areas that are often misunderstood. Hydrogen will be a viable alternative fuel when we have greater renewable energy penetration and need ways of storing some of that energy. No one single energy storage method will work for every application, it will take a mixture of methods to solve our energy needs. Hydrogen, batteries, pumped hydro, flywheels, etc.
I appreciate the use of joules in your method… loads of debunks of hho show them running an open loop fueled generator… which doesnt adjust for the added fuel so of course they don’t get better economy.
I still want to see an apples to apples dyno run of an hho assisted car in closed loop fueling versus an unassisted in closed loop… (think highway cruising not drag race)
The parasitic loss of the alternator and natural losses in the inefficiency of the ICE may in the end be overcome by the addition of the external/cleaner/cooler fuel source.
"When you burn it back together...," haha, nice. I haven't normally thought of burning something as doing what melting does in other situations. I've always thought of melting together as combining, and burning as separating (like whatever happens to paper or wood that gives us smoke, etc.) So this "burn it back together" is oddly interesting to me.
Your memory will always remain in our hearts, thank you for your great science videos😢
The Action Lab, what a great channel it used to be. Fly high little soul😔😔🕊🕊
"That's like standing 100 feet away from a jet engine."
Yeah, you'd also have to be inches from the explosion to get this effect. To be certain, it's louder than expected, but I feel like that's kind of important to note.
Have you tried using ultra capacitor because of how quickly it charges and discharges electricity ⚡️ would the be a viable approach?
It’s really just a matter of entropy. The entropy of water is already higher than that of the hydrogen fuel. Any attempt to decrease entropy will only increase entropy as a whole.
So we have 2 options here:
1. Make hydrogen fuel viable, but we’re not “making” the hydrogen fuel. We can only mine the hydrogen gas from outer space, for example Jupiter. But for the space technology we have now, this will end up costing more energy.
2. Make water fuel viable, but we need something else that has a greater energy potential to react with the water, such as the strong Alkali metals. But in that case the energy source is just the metals at this point, and we don’t have a rich resource of those.
In conclusion, no we can’t have water fuel, at least for now.
Just to let people know, the Decibel is a ratio, so saying 121 dB is like saying "121 times bigger" - Bigger than what? You need a reference unit. "121 times bigger than... a car". So we need to set 0dB to mean something. When measuring acoustics in the environment, the human-weighted dBA is usually used, where 0dB is at the nominal limit of human hearing. In the sound world, we would likely use dB SPL (re 20 μPa) (@ a given distance) which is a weighted RMS measurement. But anyway, for clarity, you should always give the reference unit.
I've got an idea, maybe you could simply use solar panels, and even though you will have to stop eventually, it'll recharge, and when you buy a car, you simply get the water and leave it out for an hour or two In the sunlight, then bam! It works (note all companies will hate this car since it infinitely works and the only money they could make would be on repairs)
We have had propane motor vehicles for years (e.g., forklifts that can handle heavy loads.) We should try that in cars or natural gas. Not sure if it’s cheaper but makes more sense than hydrogen as a fuel.
Yeah, you didn't switch the bottle in that jumpy edit, lol. Reminds me of that 70's British TV show, _Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased)_ - the whole scene jumps every time the ghost appears or disappears 🤠👻
Don't let the CIA see this. 🙏😭
I think it would not be safe to be in those cars because if one hits another, or worse one hitting a semi, everyone would die, even the ones on the sidewalk within a 400-500ft radius. I think the best thing is safety as well as efficiency. Your demonstration gave me this idea because of how violent the reaction was.
I'm going to be doing some extreme voltage field experiments using electrets as soon as I master making them. I wonder how a static electric voltage field on the order of 1 MegaVolt/cm would modulate the amount of energy required to split H20 moelcules?
In fact, I wonder if by using electrets you could have avalanche electrolosys in the same way you have avalanche conduction in a diode.
Basically, I wonder if a rediculously powerful static electric field could work as a catalyst that lowers the energy barrier for electrolosys. Or ionise it. would the Franz-Keldysh effect or the Stark effect be in play?
This would not be free-energy of course, what the electric field would be doing is aligning the dipoles in the bulk mass off the water and pre-straining the molecules so that the energy barrier required to dissociate the molecules is reduced.
Nice of to relate to your ineficient water splitting device, I have managed to achieve 250 litres a minute of H and O2 from a power draw of 25 amps at 13v
That sounds _a bit_ questionable in view of the Faraday constant's value of 26.8 amp-hours per mole and the molar volume of an ideal gas of about 25 litres at 1 bar and 25° C.
Finally someone who explained to me, without conspiracy theories, why hydrogen cars don't exist. Thank you
Wtf. Hydrogen cars exist. Try watching the video again.