# New take on the electric car...



## ga2500ev (Apr 20, 2008)

One question: How exactly does it work?

ga2500ev


----------



## jamesasb (Jun 21, 2008)

it takes energy to split water though, and the product will be water aswell sureley. so where does the energy come from? what have i missed here?


----------



## Manntis (May 22, 2008)

water can be split into hydrogen and oxygen using electrolysis, which requires an electric power source (so is useless to use that electricity to make hydrogen, then use the hydrogen through a fuel cell to produce electricity, since you had the electricity to start with) or by chemical reaction. Hence the allegations of the metal hydroxide hidden in the car.

The alternative method, fusion, would be big news. No one has made a fusion reactor small enough to fit in a car.


----------



## Rook (Jun 5, 2008)

OK, I don't believe it, but one web site says:

The key to that system, it seems, is its membrane electrode assembly (or MEA), which contains a material that's capable of breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen through a chemical reaction. Not surprisingly, the company isn't getting much more specific than that, with it only saying that it's adopted a "well-known process to produce hydrogen from water to the MEA." Currently, that system costs on the order of ¥2,000,000 (or about $18,700 -- not including the car), but company says that if it can get it into mass production that could be cut to ¥500,000 or less (or just under $5,000). 

If it works, forget the car. I want one to run a generator at my house. We got an inch of rain today and that should be enough to keep the lights on for years.


----------



## Manntis (May 22, 2008)

Rook said:


> The key to that system, it seems, is its membrane electrode assembly (or MEA), which contains a material that's capable of breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen through a chemical reaction.


...and there you have it. Chemically separating hydrogen is a well known process, but you need to keep adding the chemical - making *that* a 'fuel', of sorts.

Generally speaking, water isn't a fuel, it's a waste product of combustion.


----------



## IdahoPuma (Jun 25, 2008)

I agree . Chemicals added .

Maybe they say you do not need to add chemicals ( because they come full ) but have to be ( eh hem ) 'serviced' every 100 miles LOL


----------



## Rook (Jun 5, 2008)

Plus God made the Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms in water stick together really good so it takes energy to separate them. Otherwise the ocean would split into two parts and the planet would explode the first time someone lights a cigarette.


----------



## Manntis (May 22, 2008)

Rook said:


> Plus God made the Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms in water stick together really good so it takes energy to separate them. Otherwise the ocean would split into two parts and the planet would explode the first time someone lights a cigarette.


agreed. Even at the molecular level water tends to bind, which is why it has such strong surface tension.

The old saw of "oil and water don't mix" is often explained by saying oil is hydrophobic - it doesn't "like"* to mix with water. Actually oil is hydrophilic - it would easily mix with water. Only water molecules attract each other so strongly that oil has difficulty cutting in.

*Engineer's note: I know, I know, I'm using the Pathetic Fallacy by saying an inanimate object 'likes' to do something. It's just an easier way of explaining things in laymans terms.


----------



## desiv (May 20, 2008)

Manntis said:


> The alternative method, fusion, would be big news. No one has made a fusion reactor small enough to fit in a car.


I believe Ronco's Mr. Fusion fit nicely in that Delorean!



desiv
p.s. Apparently I made up the Ronco part. I always thought it said that, but wikipeda says it was Fusion Industries Mr. Fusion!


----------



## Manntis (May 22, 2008)

desiv said:


> I believe Ronco's Mr. Fusion fit nicely in that Delorean!
> 
> 
> 
> desiv


Too bad it was really a European coffee maker plunked atop an empty bin  Imagine if they existed!


----------



## SciTech02 (Jun 21, 2008)

Perhaps it works by reacting with a very reactive metal? I know water will attack pure sodium and potasium metal (most metals in groups 1 and 2 on the periodic table of elements). They could then exploit this oxidation-reduction reaction to generate electricity, I guess? Of course, the reacting metal will get used up eventually, and would have to be replenished (probably by electrolysis). 

Yes, I have a fair knowledge in Chemistry.


----------



## Manntis (May 22, 2008)

SciTech02 said:


> Perhaps it works by reacting with a very reactive metal? I know water will attack pure sodium and potasium metal (most metals in groups 1 and 2 on the periodic table of elements). They could then exploit this oxidation-reduction reaction to generate electricity, I guess? Of course, the reacting metal will get used up eventually, and would have to be replenished (probably by electrolysis).
> 
> Yes, I have a fair knowledge in Chemistry.


M + x/2 H2 <----> MHx + Heat


----------



## DVR (Apr 10, 2008)

SciTech02 said:


> ........I know water will attack pure sodium and potasium metal (most metals in groups 1 and 2 on the periodic table of elements). They could then exploit this oxidation-reduction reaction to generate electricity,..............
> Yes, I have a fair knowledge in Chemistry.





Manntis said:


> M + x/2 H2 <----> MHx + Heat



OHMIGOD, OHMYGOD, OHMYGOD!!!!!!

*NERDS!!!!!!!!!!!
*


----------



## Manntis (May 22, 2008)

DVR said:


> OHMIGOD, OHMYGOD, OHMYGOD!!!!!!
> 
> *NERDS!!!!!!!!!!!
> *


Nerds? on an electric car forum? *gasp*


----------



## tazdotnet (Apr 9, 2008)

LOL i have to say that comedy makes the science easier to take in, though my head still hurts from all that math...


----------



## IdahoPuma (Jun 25, 2008)

Yeah , math is killing me . Still trying to wrap my head around the size of AC motor to replace a 158HP at 4850rpm 203 torque at 3250 .

seems like a 50HP AC motor would be overkill .

How about a 10 , 15 or 20HP AC motor ?


----------



## SciTech02 (Jun 21, 2008)

DVR said:


> OHMIGOD, OHMYGOD, OHMYGOD!!!!!!
> 
> *NERDS!!!!!!!!!!!*


lollolollol!!!111one11111!!!


----------



## Manntis (May 22, 2008)

tazdotnet said:


> LOL i have to say that comedy makes the science easier to take in, though my head still hurts from all that math...


3 graduate engineers were discussing who might have been responsible for the design of the human body.

The first one said "Think of all the joints etc. it must have been a mechanical engineer".

The second one said "No no, what about all the electrical impulses and nerves etc? It must have been an electrical engineer".

The third graduate was shaking his head, "You are both wrong, the human body was designed by a civil engineer - who else would run a waste pipe through a recreational area"?


----------



## Ioku (Sep 27, 2007)

I'd like to know know how long the chemical they use will last if you can only go 1000 mile before it needs replacing it wouldn't seem that effective but if you can go 100,000 mile then that would be cool. But then how much would it cost to replace if it only $5000 like they were saying that wouldn't be bad. 

I also don't get why you need to keep adding water, I would expect the waste to be water so why not just make it a closed system that just recycles the water.


----------



## SciTech02 (Jun 21, 2008)

Ioku said:


> I'd like to know know how long the chemical they use will last if you can only go 1000 mile before it needs replacing it wouldn't seem that effective but if you can go 100,000 mile then that would be cool. But then how much would it cost to replace if it only $5000 like they were saying that wouldn't be bad.
> 
> I also don't get why you need to keep adding water, I would expect the waste to be water so why not just make it a closed system that just recycles the water.


True, it seems like they should reuse the water, but perhaps to have a holding tank for the water would be too heavy and big (the car _was_ small).


----------



## ga2500ev (Apr 20, 2008)

Manntis said:


> water is broken into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is run through a fuel cell, providing electricity to power the car. odds are they're using a metal hydroxide reaction, and just hiding the hydroxide (which would be the real fuel)


Thanks. I get annoyed when an article that states something that is obviously not true "The water is the fuel..." gets passed off as something legitimate.

Searched Google for metal Hydoxides and found this paper on using an oil suspended lithium hydroxide slurry as the fuel source:

http://www.safehydrogen.com/PDFs/28890o.pdf

So the real questions are:

1. What process is actually used to split the water?

2. What is the effectiveness of that process in terms of energy usage (since it'll take energy elsewhere to recover the fuel) and infrastructure costs (since you'll have to replace the real fuel when it is spent.)?

Until those questions are answered, like that above paper does a pretty good job in trying, it's just another pie in the sky idea.

ga2500ev


----------



## IdahoPuma (Jun 25, 2008)

Doubtful it is 100,000 miles . Such conversion would be more than nuclear reactor at scale . 100,000 miles for $5000 I doubt you could carry that kind of weight . (100,000 miles of energy ) .
thats like at best 50,000 pounds in a sports car or 600,000 pounds in a semi truck .
If 600 pounds of lead batteries = 100 miles than 600,000 pounds of batteries
If 300 pounds of LiPol batteries= 100 miles than 300,000 pounds of batteries 
If 100 pound ultraCap = 100 miles than 100,000 pound ultra cap 
50,000 gallons or 500,000 pounds of gas for 100,000 mies .

Yeah , enough energy for 3000 pound car to go 100,000 miles , but you are no longer at 3000 pound 

Also the amount of energy to extract hydrogen or chemical to carry is greater than the energy it produces .
Making a closed system you are thinking perpetual motion or CHAIN REACTION


----------



## Ioku (Sep 27, 2007)

Well not really sure were your going with these different weights for how far the car could travel, maybe you don’t really understand how this car works, but if you read the youtube description and what others have written here this car uses a chemical reaction to brake the water into hydrogen and oxygen and uses that in a fuel cell to make the electricity. Now I’m not sure how much of this chemical would be needed to get 100,000 miles I just through that out there as what I thought of as a good amount of usefulness for this system, if it needs replacing every 100 or 1000 miles and is expensive then I would seem very effective. 

And when I said make it a closed system I meant that in respect to the water, the waste in this system would likely be water so why not just keep recycling it instead of just sending out of the car. The real fuel would be what ever chemical they are using the water is just a way of transferring the energy.


----------



## IdahoPuma (Jun 25, 2008)

Ahhh OK

Yeah , closed for water only that way could make sense , but I have a sneaky hunch there would have to be a little added as it is not 100% efficient . Again I think you are right about the chemical being the main fuel .
It is a matter of KWH created per pound of chemical . 
rough guess of 4.5 watt per pound to sustain 70mph on flat level ground without wind . ( varies by vehicle set up )
So to sustain 4000pound vehicle ( with chemical ) would require 18KWH )
Now if one could produce 25,714KWH with total of 4000lb vehicle ( including chemical ) would be very interesting indeed 
You would have the 100,000 mile rig with chemical pack .
I think you would be close to or surpass nuclear for efficiency .
I usually do not mind researching such things until they try to sell me something . Have to make sure info provided is in no way affilated with the sell of product so info is not biased or a selling point .


----------



## Wattsthis (May 25, 2008)

WFC (water fuel cell) is real. Stan Meyer was the inventor. He is dead now. His brother, Steve Meyer continues his brothers legacy in selling the technology. It took Stan 15 years to develop and used straight tap water. The trick was in the electrical power supply that he used. He hit on the combination of resonate frequency, oscillation, voltage and amps that practically, low power and cost wise, breaks waters molecular bond. Its a sad story of law suits, stolen patents, ridicule and out and out theft. Many are duplicating the process now. A Japanese company is now making a commuter base on the technology. The US government has its thumb on it enough to kill it. Last word was the brother was done with all the bickering and holds out for 7 million or it dies with him. NATO was interested as well as the Brits. You really can just add water...in Japan! So much for good Ole USA. The "kits" or kit info on the web is pure garbage. The power supply was the key. One company, that I know of, is making adjunct HHO systems to improve fuel mileage.


----------

