water fuel cell

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Octavian01, Mar 1, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Octavian01

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 1, 2008
    6
    0
    :eek:Ok I need some help, First my electronics knowledge consists of Military training, Quartermaster Chemical equipment repairer. basically i can follow a simple schematic and trouble shoot simple circuits. Project is simple I stumbled on an expired patent for Water fuel cell... Stan Meyer's patents, I've read them and gained a full understanding of the physics involved and even found a crossectional view of his water fuel cell injector. I've talked it over with the engineers at work, and we think we can replicate the injector fairly easy. But when I went back through the documents to compile a parts list to build the circuits I realize he laid them out like a flow chart, not a schematic... I need help if some one can design the simple circuits that combine to make it all work. I know they cant be that difficult, some are simply pulse generators, and gated frequency oscillators ect.. And i know what each circuits job is and which circuit needs to gather input from where, and send out put to where ect. If anyone would be interested in helping me with this project it would be greatly appreciated
     
  2. SgtWookie

    Expert

    Jul 17, 2007
    22,182
    1,728
    Sure, why not? ;)

    Could be interesting. Got links?
     
  3. Octavian01

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 1, 2008
    6
    0
    This one Describes the Injector and its circuit http://www.rexresearch.com/meyerhy/2067735.htm
    This one explaines the Gas Generator Voltage Control Circuit http://www.rexresearch.com/meyerhy/4798661.htm
    This one shows and explains the Water fuel Cell.... What it is and what it does,... Good videos to get a firm grasp of the idea. Now Keep in mind that the big tube they are using to separate the Water into Oxygen and Hydrogen i.e. Water Fuel Cell, will be replaced by the injector instead. reason being you would ideally want to generate your hydrogen on site on demand and into the Cylinders of your engine, to avoid complicated issues with storing the gass.
    This Link Is prolly the most informative I've found, http://rexresearch.com/meyerhy/wo92.htm it describes the Control and Driver Circuit for a Hydrogen Gas Fuel Producing Cell
    In it theres links to the block images of how the circuits work together and what they should do... Keep in mind though there aren't a whole lot of exact parimeters because so much is variable, and i think it should be so be cause every source of water is a little different as far as the pulse frequency required to cause molecular dissasociation. If i'm forgetting anything let me know
     
  4. SgtWookie

    Expert

    Jul 17, 2007
    22,182
    1,728
    Ahh, ok. You know that hydrogen isn't a producer of energy - it's a carrier.

    Looks like I have some reading to do though ;)
     
  5. Octavian01

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 1, 2008
    6
    0
    yes i know hydrogen isn't a producer of energy, its rather a combustable fuel like gasoline, except the yield from hydrogen is far greater than gas. I understand you have to first put energy in via electrolosis, to obtain the fuel (hydrogen)... But the Idea with stans version of electrolosis is different from what we all learned in middle school science about you having to put twice as much electrical energy in as the energy out (hydrogen gas combustion) will yield... In his method he's using variable pulse frequency to cause the atoms to dissasociate... Upon my research of others who have replicated his demonstration device, they have all reported creating impressive amounts of of gas, with as little as 12v going in to start, and then dropping down to just a few volts to keep it running... The main thing is it all has to do with a square wave frequency which must be attuned until the correct freqency is found for that particualr volume of water/ impuritys found within. The pulse wave generator i can build, and the apparatus i can also build,... its the supporting circuitry I'm lost with
     
  6. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    Any chemist would be curious to know in what way "every source of water" makes that water different in some fundamental way. Electrolysis is electrolysis. You cannot get out of any process whatever more energy than is put in - slick videos notwithstanding.

    Be careful with experimenting. Hydrogen will burn, but makes highly explosive mixtures with oxygen. If the electrolysis cell does not keep the two gases separate, there is the potential for an accident.
     
  7. Octavian01

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 1, 2008
    6
    0
    Any Chemist with a reasonable background enough to call them selves a Chemist, would know that all sources of water differ chemically, and thus their properties differ based on what impuritys are found in each source. For instance you can supercool or superheat distilled water, (meaning to chill below freezing point without ice crystalization, or to heat beyond boiling temp without physically boiling the water)... also it affects the electrical properties of water, since we know water is a dielectric, it does conduct electricity... but that in its self is a matter of impurities.. Distilled water won't conduct electricity (so they say, I have yet to prove or disprove that one myself) Tap water has chemical additives, i.e. salts which do enable the water to conduct better, and on down the scale to seawater which would be the best conductor because of its high salinity. However the more impurities in the water the more it impedes the separation of the molecules via high pulse voltage freqency resonation. If you had done some background research you would realize its still electrolysis in theory but its different from traditional electrolysis in the fact your not just cooking the water with straight DC current. Thus this New method doesn't have the heat loss atributed with old fashion electrolysis you would expect, and since your not loosing electrons via heat dissapation, you lower the required electron imput to sustain the reaction.
     
  8. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    Looks like Meyer's gizmo would make a nifty blowtorch! Probably suck as a vehicle motor, though. Better to simply run electric motors from expensive new high-density batteries.

    I'm quite appalled by the thick hyperbole from the Rex Research site. They imply the Meyer device puts out more energy than it takes in. As we all know, whether interested in chemistry or electronics, the Laws of Thermodynamics do not posses loopholes.

    In the interests of seeing Meyer's work used for something useful, here is the link to his US patents: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...LEY&FIELD1=INNM&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT
     
  9. camerongf

    New Member

    Jan 29, 2009
    5
    0
    Hi there,

    Regarding the circuit schematics, I am in the process of building a fuel cell and have converted Stan Meyers diagrams into stripboard format.

    You can check out my Blog HERE

    From there you can download all the documentation absolutely free! I am all for uninhibited energy research and want to get as many people as possible to download these documents.

    Please check out the website and join in!

    On a more technical note, the discussions around "free energy" can become quite heated and this technology does get dangerously close to claiming the discovery of a perpetual motion machine. I am not so naive as to dismiss the laws of thermodynamics (at least not without proper consideration of the facts) and would like to clear up an issue surrounding this technology.

    We all know that it is impossible to produce energy in excess of that needed to create it. This is not what the water fuel cell does. In fact it IS best suited as an addition to an internal combustion engine (opposed to that of a blowtorch as thingmaker3 suggested) because what it effectively does is allow the internal combustion engine to burn fuel MUCH more efficiently. We all know how inefficient car engines are (up to 80%), and it is mainly due to uncombusted fuel that the energy is lost. The addition of Hydrogen gas (especially that produced by Stan's electrolysis method) makes the fuel mixture burn more completely, thus increasing the energy output by a greater degree than that needed to drive the electrolysis.

    Anyway, please visit my website and you can read much more about the technology, as well as get access to the information needed to convert your own car.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2009
  10. kubeek

    AAC Fanatic!

    Sep 20, 2005
    4,670
    804
    Well, if you plan to run on a mixture of fuel and hydrogen, then it may be possible. I don´t know if adding hydrogen really helps, but that is for you to try.

    If I was to do that, I would choose a different approach. I would get a tank of hydrogen, and make some way to inject it in the motor together with traditional fuel. Then you can compare, if the hydrogen really helps, what fuel/H2 ratios are usable and what yields the best MPG.

    Then you have to find if you can produce that amount of H2 and what amount of energy does that need (you can assume 100% effective electrolysis for this) and if it is possible to drain that much power from the alternator.


    Then you can finally see if all this will produce anything usable, or if it will be just useless weight in your car.
    Remember, that the hydrogen cell will load your motor to some degree through the alternator (or you would have to keep recharging the battery), and you need to tell if the power outcome made by more efficient fuel combustion is greater than the load you add to your motor.
     
  11. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    Kubek has put his finger on the reason why we remain skeptical of under-hood electrolysis. It would be trivially easy to use a source of tanked hydrogen to demonstrate under controlled conditions that adding hydrogen to the fuel stream actually has merit.

    So simple, in fact, that the lack of any such results is pretty good confirmation that it is not worthwhile. People have been using nitrous oxide (admittedly an oxidizer) since the 1930's. By now, anything in a tank that will burn or help burn has been tried.

    Hydrogen is a bit explosive, and so could be quite hard on an IC engine without extensive changes to spark timing. Once you're into a retarded situation, you're losing energy at a great rate because the duration of push on the piston is decreasing. Very hard to see any advantage to this.

    One other problem is that hydrogen is somewhat like alcohol as a fuel - it takes more energy to produce than you get back. Oil is nice, as the cost of production was born by the plants millions of years ago, so the only expense is in transport and refining.

    We also note that the persons most enthusiastic about hydrogen generators are those persons selling the appliances. Even the most over-the-top endorsements don't constitute proof.

    If, however, you can come up with hard figures, we will be happy to take a look and see if we can confirm the results.
     
  12. SgtWookie

    Expert

    Jul 17, 2007
    22,182
    1,728
    Ahh, but it's not simply hydrogen that's being introduced; it's a stochiometric mix of hydrogen and oxygen.

    Simply introducing hydrogen to an internal combustion engine would reduce the amount of oxygen available to burn with the gasoline vapor.

    In any event, experimenting with "water fuel cells" is potentially extremely hazardous, both to the experimenter in the short term (fire/explosion hazard), and the engine over the long (or even short) term. Dramatically increasing the speed of the flame front by introducing a stochiometric hydrogen/oxygen mix will hammer the dickens out of pistons & rings, cylinders and rod/main bearings, likely leading to premature failures - even if the ignition timing is significantly retarded.

    Nearly all vehicles made since the early 1980's have computerized controls (ECU) for engine functions; the average "shadetree mechanic" doesn't have the equipment to re-map the ECU functions. Narrowband O2 sensors won't work properly with a stochiometric hydrogen/oxygen mix added to the air/gasoline; one would have to go to (a) broadband O2 sensor(s), and keep close track of the EGT (exhaust gas temperature).
     
  13. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    Not to be too picky, but the claim is:
    That implies a contribution to the actual combustion of the gasoline, and not just an additional fuel source. The ECU will adjust fuel flow to maintain reasonably full combustion if the hydrogen is simply a fuel source - the interesting part is discovering just how it increases combustion efficiency.
     
  14. SgtWookie

    Expert

    Jul 17, 2007
    22,182
    1,728
    Yep, that's what the claim is. ;)
    But basically what's happening is that the flame propagation time across the combustion chamber is decreased.

    It would be quite interesting to try this with a rotary (Wankel) engine.
     
  15. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    Is flame propagation related to burning efficiency? Hard to see how.

    The extra pop might be hard on those slick carbon seals in a Wankel.

    NASA did really neat studies of jets (J-57's) running on hydrogen. They said it was the perfect fuel, but you need tankage like the Super Guppy to fly with even the liquid phase.
     
  16. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    Point of clarification, if you please... Are you claiming our cars spit unburned fuel out the tailpipe? If so, please document. If not, please clarify.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2009
  17. SgtWookie

    Expert

    Jul 17, 2007
    22,182
    1,728
    Well, I'd think that as the piston started travelling downwards in the cylinder, the fuel/air mix gets relatively stratified, which might tend to slow the flame front. Of course, one wouldn't want detonation to occur.

    That's true - but don't you think it a bit odd that Wankel engines have relatively poor fuel economy when compared to piston engines?

    Now that would be an interesting read!

    Ever been to Cape Kennedy/Cape Canaveral? They have a few Saturn V rockets there. There's an F-1 engine on a stand that was rated for 1.5 million lbs of thrust. :eek: Five of those powered the 1st stage. I think the F-1 was the most powerful rocket engine ever flown.
     
  18. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    Re the J-57 - the engine was so happy that it could be throttled down to the point that the compressor blades could be followed around. I can't recall the source, though.

    The Wankel's fuel economy is odd. Since the engine does not reciprocate, it's almost intuitive to imagine the steady unidirectional rotation as having to be more likely to be more efficient. I've never read enough about them to have a clue.

    The Smithsonian has a sectioned F-1 on display. Pretty awesome. I think the Saturn V consumed a volume about equal to an olympic swimming pool each second - something on the order of a million horsepower just in the pumps.

    Speaking of stratified - ever seen a WWI era Dusenberg engine? There is a smaller diameter cylinder in the head, and the valves actually protrude in from the sides. The rocker arm is long enough to run one end on the camshaft, pivot in the middle, and work the valve directly. I think it used a volute spring on the valve shaft. Probably low enough compression to run on kerosene once warmed up.

    We're off the topic a bit - can the OP answer a couple of our questions?
     
  19. Farlander

    Active Member

    Oct 14, 2008
    158
    0
    I agree with Sgt that the rotary engine is the way to go for HHO fuel. As I've stated before one of the major problems is ignition timing.

    Stan built what he called the water fuel injector, to replace the existing spark plugs in a fuel injected motor. I suspect he also had a WFC on board. The assembly was (2) concentric tubes, charged positive and negative. HHO from the cell passes through the middle of the center tube. H2O passes between the two tubes, and is ionized by voltage field. The mixture that arrives in the cylinder is well blended HHO and charged water, which is hit with a HV spark. Some extra HHO is produced in the cylinder and combustion/expansion/steaming occurs. Exhaust gas can be passed through a photon chamber (LED) and reused as fuel.
     
  20. camerongf

    New Member

    Jan 29, 2009
    5
    0
    The option of playing around with pressurized Hydrogen is definitely not attractive to me. Its a dangerous thing to have in your car, which is why the water fuel cell appeals to me so much. All the energy is stored in the water which is totally non-combustible, and the Hydrogen is used as it is made, reducing the risk of explosion. I do agree however that this will be a more energy expensive process. I am looking forward to seeing my results.

    As another point of interest, HERE is another website from a guy who's using Hydrogen technology for powering an airplane. He asked me to provide him with more information on the water fuel cell so that he can look into developing his fuel cells in a similar way.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.