# Fuel of the Future: Water, is it a myth or legend?

#### Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,436
The reason water is considered an "ash" is it is the waste byproduct of burning hydrogen. As in rechargable batteries the reaction is reversable, at a energy cost.

I'm looking forward to commercial fuel cells (which has nothing to do with hydrogen generators, another term that has been misappropriated), where hydrogen and oxygen are combined chemically (not burned, I think) to produce electricity directly. NASA is real fond of using them, so they are practical, but expensive (platinum and paladium are necessary to build them, I think).

When I say I think, I'm say this is my opinion, and not fact.

Last edited:

#### Mark44

Joined Nov 26, 2007
628
Maybe it's long winded, but given that there isn't any such thing as HHO (and I regularly see it posted as if it were a real molecule) I think I would loose it.

In short, the whole term HHO is misleading, and I believe it was meant to be so. Declaring it is not a chemical doesn't work, if you insist on using standard chemical convention to describe it.
I haven't read all the links, so might be at a disadvantage here. My guess is that HHO is just another way to write H2O (the 2 indicates two hydrogen atoms).

#### Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,436
Check this one out, which was an indirect reply to this one.

So far this thread has been entertaining (as in worth reading). Linchiek positions have been pretty reasonable.

Joined Jan 10, 2006
614
Yup water is to H2 as Ash is to wood.
The energy used to convert water back to hydrogen and oxygen will of coarse always be more than you would get back when you burn them... entropy wins again.....

#### Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,436
You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't quit.

Ought to be my tag line. Another quote by a famous physist whose name I can't remember.

#### linchiek

Joined Jul 23, 2008
110
]The reason water is considered an "ash" is it is the waste byproduct of burning hydrogen.[/U] As in rechargable batteries the reaction is reversable, at a energy cost.

I'm looking forward to commercial fuel cells (which has nothing to do with hydrogen generators, another term that has been misappropriated), where hydrogen and oxygen are combined chemically (not burned, I think) to produce electricity directly. NASA is real fond of using them, so they are practical, but expensive (platinum and paladium are necessary to build them, I think).

When I say I think, I'm say this is my opinion, and not fact.
noted...! TQ!

#### jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
11,088
WikiQuote attributes it to CP Snow:

A common scientific joke, as stated by C. P. Snow, expresses the four laws simply and surprisingly accurately as:

Zeroth: "You must play the game."
First: "You can't win."
Second: "You can't break even."
Third: "You can't quit the game."
Or, it could be from the Michael Jackson hit song.

John

#### thingmaker3

Joined May 16, 2005
5,084
My father-in-law used to teach chemistry at the University of Washington. His interpretation was:

1) You can't get something for nothing.
2) You can only break even at absolute zero.
3) You can never get to absolute zero.

#### linchiek

Joined Jul 23, 2008
110
think out of the box, man...!

Joined Jan 10, 2006
614
It's one thing to think outside the box, but blind folly to totally ignore the basic laws of physics.

#### Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,436
I'm looking forward to some real numbers myself. Reading Linchieks posts posts we might actually get something.

#### HarveyH42

Joined Jul 22, 2007
426
Don't really need to look at the numbers to realize your are loosing energy, as heat. Both separating the water, and burning the gases, release a lot of energy as heat. that isn't used for anything. This is main reason you will never break even, a good portion of your efforts are wasted. Nothing wrong with dreaming, perhaps eventually someone will stumble on something to make use of the wasted heat energy. But right now, it's mostly hype and snake oil. People want cheap power, so anything virtually free is very attractive.

#### Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,436
Yep, but without real numbers it is hard to refute. The myths on this abound in the lack of real evidence, and most people simply slept through their science classes in high school, so they really don't get it. It is a lot of work doing this, more than I am willing to try, but if someone else does it I'm willing to listen to the results.

There is the slight chance something is happening, such as a catalytic process, that is increasing the effeciency of the gasoline burn. I don't believe it, but I'd like to see some real numbers for a change. The whole process is so inefficient that even a minor increase could go a long way.

#### Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
16,173
Comic books aside, there simply aren't any magic bullets. Like all gold rushes the guys who come out ahead are the shop keepers who sell the shovels and the pans.

#### thingmaker3

Joined May 16, 2005
5,084
Nothing wrong with dreaming, perhaps eventually someone will stumble on something to make use of the wasted heat energy. But right now, it's mostly hype and snake oil. People want cheap power, so anything virtually free is very attractive.

#### jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
11,088
Hmm... How evil of me would it be to sell variable-frequency, variable-PW, solder-it-yourself kits for moderately exorbitant prices?
A stock broker wouldn't even think of that question. Guess you are not one.

John

Last edited: