• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Denny Klein - Fuel from Water - Is this a scam?

It's a scam in that RunYourCarWithWater.org is using the video as a sales pitch. Their URL is plastered all over the video, and it's presented as "Water Powered Car Run On Water | Save Gas Fuel".

http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/

I wouldn't accuse John Kanzius of being involved in a scam. He's just the "inventor" of a profoundly inefficient method of producing hydrogen and oxygen.

There are always two choices when confronted by nonsense: either the person believes it, then he is a fool, or he does not believe the nonsense, then he is a con man.

Surely he cannot be overlooking in this case the simple notion that he could use the electrical power directly to run a motor or to heat the water to steam to run a steam engine, each method being much more efficient than RF breaking up water to get hydrogen to burn in an internal combustion engine or even more silly, using a Sterling engine.

I call con man. I am amazed at how easily the news media is conned.
 
It seems no matter what I post, someone says it can not work, or we Americans will NEVER see it happen in our lifetime. Amusing to say the least.

Now I see a Inventor can now turn just plain SALT Water, YES I said SALT Water from the Ocean to run your car with.

Now, I wait for all you experts, to now post this is impossible and it is just another Scam. Lets here it Experts, BUT at least First, View the following Video for yourself, is it just another Scam or is it real and does work the way this Inventor shows, just how it really works, Enjoy!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhr9463yhtQ&feature=related
Pay attention next time and you won’t make an idiot out of yourself.

Nobody has said that it’s impossible to make hydrogen from water. Anybody who’s taken Chemistry in high school knows it’s possible.

What we’ve been saying is that in a closed system (read: car on the road), it’s highly unlikely for an “HHO” system to have any benefit, because it takes much more energy from the engine than it returns to it.

Think of it this way: you and I set up a business arrangement where for every $100 you give me, I give you only $30 back, does that sound like a good deal to you?
 
Pay attention next time and you won’t make an idiot out of yourself.

Nobody has said that it’s impossible to make hydrogen from water. Anybody who’s taken Chemistry in high school knows it’s possible.

What we’ve been saying is that in a closed system (read: car on the road), it’s highly unlikely for an “HHO” system to have any benefit, because it takes much more energy from the engine than it returns to it.

Think of it this way: you and I set up a business arrangement where for every $100 you give me, I give you only $30 back, does that sound like a good deal to you?

You obviously haven't spent much time in the trucking industry.
 
Has anybody linked to these guys?
http://www.preignitioncc.com/woj/

I suppose I shouldn't be so naive at my age, but I am still surprised by the willingness of people to make sincere pitches for products that are complete crap.

This is a site that is skeptical of the claims and gives a few details on the people behind the apparent scam:
http://www.phact.org/e/dennis.html

Apparently, this is a scam whereby dealerships are sold for selling an HAFC. The HAFC is allegedly guaranteed to increase fuel economy 50 to 100%. The dealer organization is known as the UCSA dealer group, LLC. This is a posting by what appears to be a sincere but probably gullible dealer:

http://www.getpowerclub.com/nloct07.htm
davefoc-- great post . . . ty
 
If POOR Sir Lanka can invent a Hydrogen Generator, why can't XYNG already??? this Hydrogen Generator is already up and running a car with on just plain water with, why Can't this XYNG do the same already.???
WHY can't XYNG come up with this Turning plain water into fuel to run your car with already.????

Look what I was just E-Mailed, a Young man from of all places Sir Lanka, has not only invented this Invention already, but has a full running prototype to BOOT.

What is taking XYNG so long???, when other people from third world very POOR no less countries , have already not only Invented this Hydrogen Technology, but more important have cars running on it with very little Electric Power no less to accomplished it. My God what in the world are ALL these so called Brillint Inventors doing in the U.S Already, to at the very least, try and duplicate what already has been done in other countries already.
Now look for yourself how this fully working Hydrogen Generator runs a car on just plain water and a little electric current.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Water_Fueled_Car_-_Sri_Lanka


Water-Fueled Car from Sri Lanka

Posted: 30 Jul 2008 http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:W... 01:00 PM CDT

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:W...
A Sri Lankan inventor has come up with a super-efficient electrolysis method that allegedly enables a small vehicle to travel 80 kilometres on just one litre of water, without any danger to life or any impact on the environment. (PESWiki; July 23, 2008)

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:W...
 
An interesting link and site above, which appears to show, as usual, an electrolysis device that produces hydrogen, which can run an engine. But there's not much detail. The amperage is said to be low. What is the voltage, what is the source, and how long do you have to run it?

There's' no real mystery to the idea that you can get hydrogen from water. We did that in introductory science class with a battery charger and a bit of glassware. What we need is evidence that it's efficient.
 
{snip} There's' no real mystery to the idea that you can get hydrogen from water. We did that in introductory science class with a battery charger and a bit of glassware. What we need is evidence that it's efficient.
It can never be efficient. It's that perpetual-motion problem- it can't be done. It always takes more power to generate the hydrogen than can be retrieved by using it.
 
It can never be efficient. It's that perpetual-motion problem- it can't be done. It always takes more power to generate the hydrogen than can be retrieved by using it.

Nonsense. The ISS uses hydrogen/oxygen split from water all the time. They don't need to bring fuel to the ISS because they have an energy excess. Power, and heat. It is the safest, cheapest and cleanest way to use the massive amount of solar energy available.

It is only a problem if you are trying to generate hydrogen from the same motor that is burning the hydrogen. Obviously that won't work.

But fuel from water is a very simple procedure. People do it all the time.
 
Robinson, I think you saw something in JJM's post that he didn't intend. His reference to a perpetual motion machine was referring to the idea of using the output of a motor to drive a generator that powers the hydrolysis that is used in a fuel cell to drive the motor. Perhaps he should have said "possible" instead of "efficient" and his meaning would have been more clear. If that is not what he intended, my apologies.

I guess the disconnect here with people who think this is possible is that they continue to believe that there is chemical energy available from water. That is that the hydrogen can be separated out of the water molecule with less energy than can be retrieved by oxidizing the hydrogen to recreate the water.

There is now an internet cottage industry mining the resources of people who think this is possible.
 
Last edited:
Nonsense. The ISS uses hydrogen/oxygen split from water all the time. They don't need to bring fuel to the ISS because they have an energy excess. Power, and heat. It is the safest, cheapest and cleanest way to use the massive amount of solar energy available.

It is only a problem if you are trying to generate hydrogen from the same motor that is burning the hydrogen. Obviously that won't work.

But fuel from water is a very simple procedure. People do it all the time.
Of course it's simple, as I mentioned in the post JJM was responding to. If you have lots of one kind of energy available, and it isn't useful in its raw form, and if efficiency of the conversion itself is not the most important thing. then it's a grand idea. It seems a perfect way to get fuel at a space station, for example.

That's a different thing from saying that a water powered car is a great breakthrough, or even a good idea. It might be a superb idea if you have more electricity (or generating capability) than you need, and don't want to carry batteries around, but it's still inherently an inefficient energy trade, unless that Sri Lankan inventor has come up with something we don't know about (and that he isn't explaining). An inefficient conversion of energy is not always a bad idea. Consider hydraulic rams, or deep well jet pumps. A ram is a great way to get water pressure if you have lots of natural water flow to waste, and that is often the case. A deep well jet may be the only way to get water pressure, and then it hardly matters that most of it is going back into the well.

The fault I see in the Sri Lankan hydrogen car linked to is just that: that it does not mention the overall efficiency of the process, and the question remains unanswered whether or not it's a useful economic tradeoff.
 
I saw another milage scam where gasoline containing impurities like water, ketscup, tabasco ..... were run through the catalyst in the exhaust line.

It was turned into plasma, somehow got through the injection system, and improved the combustion proces to give xxxx% increase in fuel economy.

There are an amacing number of scams around.

As for making hydrogen onboard your car, could it be an alternative to regular batteries?
You plug it in at night, fill on water, and have a full hydrogen tank in the morning.

It would probably give a lighter car, but how is efficiency of a fuel cell in/out compared to a battery.
 
One of the technical issues regarding hydrogen-powered cars is that hydrogen is explosive. Especially when there's lots of oxygen around too.

A vehicle accident involving a hydrogen-powered car is far more likely to take the form of an explosion than one not involving a hydrogen-powered car. A survivable accident suddenly becomes a lot less so.
 
...

As for making hydrogen onboard your car, could it be an alternative to regular batteries?
You plug it in at night, fill on water, and have a full hydrogen tank in the morning.

It would probably give a lighter car, but how is efficiency of a fuel cell in/out compared to a battery.

Battery charge efficiency is complicated. Lead acid batteries seem to be characterized in general as something like 85% efficient, but the charge efficiency varies with the state of charge and as the battery approaches fully charged the efficiency falls off significants (like to about 60%). Lithium ion batteries do better. One site I saw said the efficiency was 99.9%. I don't know if it's that high but lithium ion batteries are better in that they don't self discharge as much and the efficiency is higher.

Battery chargers can be very efficient, in the range of 90% any way. So assuming lithium ion and taking a guess that the actual efficiency of the battery is about 90% when all the little gotchas are taken into account the round trip efficiency of a lithium ion battery/charger system might be 80%. Note this is my own rough guess and I stand to be corrected on this.

An article I read on wikipedia lists the round trip efficiency of a fuel cell/ hydrolizer system at 50%. So a battery system seems like it might be more efficient. There are complications with fuel cell efficiencies also and current ones as I recall aren't completely happy running at varying discharge rates. And there are jillions of problems to be worked out before a fuel cell car is going to be coming off the production line.

So right now if efficiency or availability is the issue a lithium ion battery pack seems to be better.

But energy mass density favors hydrogen. Lithium ion batteries aren't too good on the basis of energy mass density compared to tankful of that good old gasoline and they are several times better than lead acid batteries with regards to mass energy density.

On mass energy density alone hydrogen is a winner over even gasoline. Unfortunately, on volume energy density hydrogen isn't all that wonderful compared to gasoline, even when it's compressed. And even more unfortunately hydrogen needs to be compressed into heavy tanks for use in a car and the weight of the tanks plus the energy to compress the hydrogen are another hit against hydrogen fueled cars.

So I remain somewhat confused as to why the hydrogen hoopla. You need to make it and doing that cheaply isn't a slam dunk. You need to store it and it's just a lot harder to store hydrogen in a car for fuel than gasoline. And you need to oxidize it in a fuel cell (burn it in an ICE and any possible hydrogen benefits disappear as you get stuck with ICE efficiencies of about 20%) and there are issues associated with using fuel cells in cars, including the fact that they are expensive and it doesn't seem like it's that easy to make them cheap. And when all of the issues of distribution, storage, efficiency and safety are taken into account hydrogen doesn't look nearly as cool as one is lead to believe by current hydrogen hoopla.
 
Last edited:
Well, it is the only way i can think of to get a car to run on water, unless amphifibius and going downstream.:)
 
Nonsense. The ISS uses hydrogen/oxygen split from water all the time. They don't need to bring fuel to the ISS because they have an energy excess. Power, and heat. It is the safest, cheapest and cleanest way to use the massive amount of solar energy available.
Have you seen a picture of the ISS. It has big panels facing the Sun. They are called "solar panels" because they have a coating that absorbs light from the Sun ("solar" refers to the Sun) and converts it into electricity.

The electricity can be used directly; but the ISS is bathed by the Sun only half the time. So, some of it is used to split water into its components, hydrogen and oxygen (in a process called "electrolysis"). When the ISS is not bathed in Sunlight, those gases can be passed through a "fuel cell" to generate electricity.

If you have followed this narrative, you will realize that hydrogen is not the "source" of power, it is just the medium in which the power is stored (the Sun is the source of power). If the ISS were always facing the Sun, they would not need fuel cells. Storing energy in hydrogen is not efficient (it is better to use the energy directly); but it works well in that application.

It is only a problem if you are trying to generate hydrogen from the same motor that is burning the hydrogen. Obviously that won't work.
A good start! Now, note that converting power into hydrogen and back into power is inefficient. It sometimes serves in a pinch; but it is overall wasteful.

But fuel from water is a very simple procedure. People do it all the time.
Now this becomes a little technical. "Fuels" are harvested from nature. Hydrogen is not found in nature. It must be manufactured. (The "fuel cell" is unfortunately named). Harvested petroleum, coal, firewood, etc. provide more energy than is expended in harvesting them. Production of hydrogen results in a net loss of energy, it is fundamentally inefficient.

Is that simple enough?
 
{snip} So I remain somewhat confused as to why the hydrogen hoopla. {snip} And when all of the issues of distribution, storage, efficiency and safety are taken into account hydrogen doesn't look nearly as cool as one is lead to believe by current hydrogen hoopla.
We have, above, an example of the irrational exuberance over hydrogen. In the US, in general, it could make sense for energy storage in some limited situations. For example, use of electricity declines at night; whereas, production proceeds apace. It makes sense to store the nighttime excess for daytime use.

For example, Northfield Mtn. (Massachusetts) has a reservoir excavated out of it's top. At night, water is pumped out of the Connecticut River and up to the reservoir. During the day, the pump runs backwards (as a generator) as the water flows back into the river. Overall, it is inefficient; but it saves some of the power that would otherwise be lost.

One could imagine a similar use for hydrogen in an area lacking a convenient mountain/water-source pairing. I leave it to engineers to figure out what energy storage process is best for a given application.
 
Well, it is the only way i can think of to get a car to run on water, unless amphifibius and going downstream.:)
There actually is another way, which despite many obvious drawbacks can sort of work, and may well have been used by an older generation of water-car scammers: calcium carbide. Put a pellet of carbide in a tank of water, and out comes acetylene. Very combustible. Can run an engine. There are tinkerers making these rigs as we speak. Cost of carbide, safety, emissions and engine longevity all remain an issue, I think, but there is indeed a way to fill a tank with water, plop a little "magic pill" into it, and drive away.
 
It can never be efficient. It's that perpetual-motion problem- it can't be done. It always takes more power to generate the hydrogen than can be retrieved by using it.
Solar-Power Breakthrough, NEVER Say NEVER it could never happen about Hydrogen running your home or Car with, look at this:

Researchers have found a cheap and easy way to store the energy made by solar power.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/21155/
By Kevin Bullis

Splitting water: Daniel Nocera poses with a device for breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen. The device uses an inexpensive catalyst that he has developed.
Credit: Donna Coveney, MIT
Multimedia
Watch Daniel Nocera explain how his catalyst can be used to store sunlight.

Researchers have made a major advance in inorganic chemistry that could lead to a cheap way to store energy from the sun. In so doing, they have solved one of the key problems in making solar energy a dominant source of electricity.

Daniel Nocera, a professor of chemistry at MIT, has developed a catalyst that can generate oxygen from a glass of water by splitting water molecules. The reaction frees hydrogen ions to make hydrogen gas. The catalyst, which is easy and cheap to make, could be used to generate vast amounts of hydrogen using sunlight to power the reactions. The hydrogen can then be burned or run through a fuel cell to generate electricity whenever it's needed, including when the sun isn't shining.

Solar power is ultimately limited by the fact that the solar cells only produce their peak output for a few hours each day. The proposed solution of using sunlight to split water, storing solar energy in the form of hydrogen, hasn't been practical because the reaction required too much energy, and suitable catalysts were too expensive or used extremely rare materials. Nocera's catalyst clears the way for cheap and abundant water-splitting technologies.

Nocera's advance represents a key discovery in an effort by many chemical research groups to create artificial photosynthesis--mimicking how plants use sunlight to split water to make usable energy. "This discovery is simply groundbreaking," says Karsten Meyer, a professor of chemistry at Friedrich Alexander University, in Germany. "Nocera has probably put a lot of researchers out of business." For solar power, Meyer says, "this is probably the most important single discovery of the century."

The new catalyst marks a radical departure from earlier attempts. Researchers, including Nocera, have tried to design molecular catalysts in which the location of each atom is precisely known and the catalyst is made to last as long as possible. The new catalyst, however, is amorphous--it doesn't have a regular structure--and it's relatively unstable, breaking down as it does its work. But the catalyst is able to constantly repair itself, so it can continue working.

In his experimental system, Nocera immerses an indium tin oxide electrode in water mixed with cobalt and potassium phosphate. He applies a voltage to the electrode, and cobalt, potassium, and phosphate accumulate on the electrode, forming the catalyst. The catalyst oxidizes the water to form oxygen gas and free hydrogen ions. At another electrode, this one coated with a platinum catalyst, hydrogen ions form hydrogen gas. As it works, the cobalt-based catalyst breaks down, but cobalt and potassium phosphate in the solution soon re-form on the electrode, repairing the catalyst.
 
Originally Posted by JJM
It can never be efficient. It's that perpetual-motion problem- it can't be done. It always takes more power to generate the hydrogen than can be retrieved by using it.
Solar-Power Breakthrough, NEVER Say NEVER it could never happen about Hydrogen running your home or Car with, look at this: {snip}

If Nocera has found a more efficient method for generating hydrogen, it still does not get around the fact that it wastes energy. So, NEVER stands; it is still that perpetual motion problem. It remains for the engineers to work out when this will be a useful method (where the energy losses are acceptable, balanced against other considerations).

The fact remains that this technology depends on the amount of sunlight available. Increasing the output of hydrogen from small to "not so" small is a drop in the bucket; welcome, nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
If Nocera has found a more efficient method for generating hydrogen, it still does not get around the fact that it wastes energy. So, NEVER stands; it is still that perpetual motion problem. It remains for the engineers to work out when this will be a useful method (where the energy losses are acceptable, balanced against other considerations).

The fact remains that this technology depends on the amount of sunlight available. Increasing the output of hydrogen from small to "not so" small is a drop in the bucket; welcome, nonetheless.

This looks like his patent.

Embodiments for the invention include a process for the production of hydrogen comprising a protic solution, a photocatalyst capable of a two-electron reduction of hydrogen ions; and a coproduct trap. The embodiment includes exposing the reaction medium to radiation capable of photoexciting the photocatalyst to produce hydrogen. The protic solution may comprise at least one of hydrohalic acid, a silane, and water, and the hydrohalic acid may be hydrochloric acid, hydrogen bromide, hydrogen fluoride or hydrogen iodide. The present application also describes novel transition metal compounds. Embodiments of the compounds include a compound comprising two transition metal atoms, wherein the transition metal atoms are in a two-electron mixed valence state and at least one transition metal is not rhodium; and at least one ligand capable of stabilizing the transition metal atom in a two-electron mixed valence state.

Patent number: 6863781
 

Back
Top Bottom