• May 15th 2006 at 8:44AM
  • 81
The hydrogen economy is closer than we think. At least, that's the image portrayed by this TV news report from FOX 26 (as far as I can tell, the report aired last year, and I'm not sure which city this FOX 26 is in. For our purposes, these details don't really matter). 
The report focuses on Denny Klein, president of Hydrogen Technology Applications, and his water-powered car. There is some impressive imagery at work in the piece. Seeing someone pour water into an engine and getting energy out of it is pretty amazing. And slicing through metal with a water-based flame? Cool.
The actual technology is not as new or revolutionary as the reporter or the anchors make it out to be, but it is interesting to see how this technology – The Auto Channel says it's essentially Brown's Gas – is explained to the TV viewer. Wikipedia says, and I agree, to treat claims of running a car on this electrolyzed water with skepticism. Cool video, though. Very cool.

[Source: FOX 26 via The Auto Channel]

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 9 Years Ago
      There goes another argument about physics and how the hydrogen system cannot get energy out without putting energy in. Well, anyone who took physics should know that introducing an electric current into an aqueous solution of any conductive material causes heat and gas to be released. THIS IS the initial input of power... once the temperature is raised fracture of the molecules generally become more rapid because the material has already been stimulated or excited by the current. The Oscillation Circuitry aids in the process by not only reducing the amount of current necessary but by bringing the molecules into entrainment with the frequency. So, all your physics are in check... Power in has converted the liquid to its molecular components... there is of course slight loss of energy when this transpires - to again coincide with the laws of physics and conservation of energy. Depending on the design of the catalyst chamber, the metals used in the anode and cathodes, the frequency at which the electric current oscillates and the overall voltage input, this loss CAN be kept to a minimum.
      Because Hydrogen has much more potential, less volume of gas is needed to do the similar work of gasoline or other combustible liquid and/or gas. It burns hotter, faster and more cleanly than ANY other fuel source. Combustion creates power and heat, the power is used to move the pistons and the heat is necessarily dissipated and can be used to further heat the catalyst chamber, thereby reducing the amount of power needed to maintain an optimal temperature - of course this amount is negligible, but waste not want not. The power that is used to move the pistons also move a number of other devices, such as valves (that allow the gas intake and steam exhaust), distributor (that distributes a spark to each cylinder - although if you know your physics not nearly as much power is necessary because hydrogen is so much more volatile especially when mixed with Oxygen), fans (to dissipate the abundance of heat generated), alternators (which recharge the battery and run the electrical systems), etc.
      The steam from the exhaust can be partially reclaimed and injected back into the catalyst system. And YES, due to the law of conservation a certain amount WILL be lost!
      OK, let's review...
      We lost energy in the initial input stage...
      We lost energy during combustion...
      We lost energy in the exhaust...
      We are not getting something for nothing, the battery system starts the process... the process produces a jet of hydrogen and oxygen mixture which is injected into the cylinder... the spark ignites the mixture (and produces A GREAT DEAL MORE ENERGY OUTPUT than does any other fuel.) energy is lost in the process in the form of HEAT... the exhaust emission is superheated water vapor so we lose more through dissipation...
      The water IS eventually expended (the same as gasoline is)
      The anode and cathode are eventually expended during the electrolysis and have to be replaced.
      The input and output electrically, are fairly well balanced once the engine is running (the same as in a gasoline powered auto)
      WHAT PART OF THE PROCESS DOES NOT FOLLOW THE LAWS OF PHYSICS? I suppose some people do not believe this but it does work in practice as well as theory. I have produced Hydrogen by many different means including chemically and electrically... even mixed with ordinary air which is approx. 70% nitrogen the element packs quite a punch when it is ignited, even more so when mixed with pure Oxygen. So until you can discount the theory with more than hot air, I suggest you enroll in an education facility that can expand your shallow mind... just because YOU can not do something DOES NOT mean that it can not be done! I personally cannot design and build a television set, this does not mean that someone else CANNOT.
      BTW... what law of physics is this process NOT following?
      • 9 Years Ago
      Please forgive the spelling and grammatical errors above, but I had worked a 16 hour day, it was 2 am and I was typing quickly because I had to return to work at 8 am the following Saturday (today). I hope the debate on this and similar pages helps someone realize that water as fuel is not only possible, but also that sometimes you should just think outside the box. It is in this manner that a majority of today's technology has already become a part of our everyday life and how it takes creative thinking to break the bonds of criticism and skepticism that has been a part of almost every major advancement in technology and improvement to date.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Besides which, if you actually knew your physics and chemistry as well as you claim -- you would know that the potential energy of water and it's molecules of hydrogen and oxygen far, far surpass the potential energy contained in gasoline, which by the way, we use every single day to power our pollution creating automobiles.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Anyone ever thought that big oil and the governments have the same interests concerning consumption. TAX money is generated from usage, why would the government want to lose money? State governments like Ca depend on a certain amount of gas being sold every minute to pay their debt off. With greater fuel efficiency we ae being taxed less, politicians surely do not want that.

      WHy is there a car pool lane in major cities that is always almost near empty during congestion. If it was effective at lower consumption it would be filled. In fact its a politicial tool to brag that it encourages less consumption that lowers emmissions, when im fact adding a lane for traffic would lower congestion and increase the freeway speeds and lower emissions greater than a carppool lane completely filled with cars.
      • 9 Years Ago

      Reply to A+ Chemistry Student --

      You don't need to lecture me about basic chemistry, my friend. You obviously know something about this, even though I believe that you're mistaken on this, so I'd like us to consider this as an opportunity to educate others through our discussion.

      I was just tying to figure out what relevance most of your comments had to running cars on water.

      Of course I know what diatomic hydrogen is, and what deuterium and tritium are, but I've never heard any claims that these supposed water-powered cars run on cold fusion, so they're irrelevant. And I think that we can both agree to ignore trivial effects like the Earth's gravitational and magnetic fields for the purposes of this discussion, and to consider only factors clearly involved in this supposed chemical reaction.

      I have never said that hydrogen is not a good fuel. It's an excellent fuel (hydrogen fuel cells have been used in the space program for many years), and it may even be the wave of the future, if we can overcome some of the technical problems.

      --> I'm just saying that cars powered by water do not exist, and they never will.

      So, my friend, you still haven't answered my question: "Water goes in, water comes out -- so where does the energy come from?" Water at room temperature of course has the kinetic energy of its molecular motion, but to extract that you would need to cool it, and then deposit the waste heat into a sink at an even lower temperature, namely the environment. For that you would need to input energy (like a refrigerator, which is probably the largest energy-consuming appliance in your home).

      You seem to be saying that the energy to drive the car can be extracted from the environment, but that would violate the Second Law. (E.g. there's plenty enough heat energy in a tub of hot bath water to boil a cup of tea, but it can't be extracted efficiently.)

      I'm really not sure just what you're saying, so please clarify this. Heat always flows from hot to cold, as you recall.

      So again my question, "Water goes in, water comes out -- so where does the energy come from?" You haven't answered it yet, my friend. So where does the energy come from? (The correct answer is that it comes from the battery only. There is no net gain from electrolyzing water.)

      • 9 Years Ago
      BTW, if anyone is interested... I can send the schematics, the US patent documents, video of the actual catalyst chamber itself in action and other pertinent info regarding this by zip file.
      Cert. Env. Serv.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Response to Alfred Wamsley:
      In 1979, I tested a "water injection" system to blend water and gasoline in a standard gasoline engine. It was a farce then and is a farce now.

      Response to others:
      It's all energy --- HEAT. That doesn't pop up out of the wild blue!!!
      • 9 Years Ago
      you guys are all haters! A water powered car is awesome! America doestnt want people to have good gas, because gasoline is one of the biggest selling things! they make sooo much money off of all of us everyday.
      • 9 Years Ago
      I would treat *anything* reported by Fox with skepticism.
      • 9 Years Ago
      You know, I really could use some help here.

      dplemnah - hint - america on line.
      • 9 Years Ago
      As shallow as americans are, this water powered car or air for that matter, would need to do 0 - 60 in under 5.0 and have the name of German company for anyone to believe it or buy it.
      So Sad
      • 9 Years Ago
      Re: Comment No. 5

      Alfred Wamsley was right about the development of a product that mixed hydrocarbon with water and got a
      fuel that was touted to get more miles per gallon than straight gasoline, naphtha, diesel, etc.

      The inventor made that claim and got a lot of coverage from news media that took him at his word. What he actually had, probably accidentally,was a fuel that didn't get any extra miles from the hydrocarbon content, but did cause combustion at a relatively low temperature which reduced the smog-causing emissions by something like 25 percent.

      Caterpillar didn't invent it. A guy in Reno did, and he convinced Cat to invest $10 million to bring the stuff to market. Cat was roughly a 50 percent owner and had contractual right to determine how it was marketed. Problem was the guy went off to Australia and re-sold the process without a word to the Cat people. They'd had enough and walked away.

      Meanwhile, better ways to cut down the harmful emissions, such as gasoline-hybrid, natural gas-hybrid and the beginnings of the hydrogen fuel cell era came along and there was no longer any point in developing a market for water-fossil fuel blends.

    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X