VIDEO: Yet another possible alternative fuel - this one with about 60 percent water
Yes, I know there's going to be a lot of skeptics of "water powered cars" out there - and I'm partially one of them - but they are people out there who are going to attempt to remedy that in the next few months with a more controlled experiment. Mark Joyner is one of them.
The ten-minute video above is pretty self-explanatory, except for exactly who Mark Joyner is. He is apparently a well-accomplished marketer who has written at least one best-seller on the subject, and according to his website, is the personal savior of a good handful of people out there who have used his advice and made 'a whole heap.' According to his blog, he seems to be pretty interested in the environment and in saving it, with an emphasis on alternative fuels for transportation. He seems a little naive comparing the hydrogen-powered toy car experiment kit to reality, but his heart seems to be in the right place.
As for the fuel tested in the video, it seems as though it legitimately works. However, I hope in the controlled test here in the States, they measure emissions and efficiency. Whatever the metals are that are being mixed, I doubt are good for the environment, even if they're in the minority of the mixture. And how much cheaper can these metals be than regular fuel, especially since you have to mix real oil of some sort with it? I suppose we'll find out soon.
[Source: Mark Joyner via YouTube - Thanks for the tip, Linton!]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Arthur Embleton 11:34AM (6/24/2007)
What is the water used for in this mixture? Does it work without water? What metals are in that mixture? Has water been included just to get more hits on the internet from those seeking water powered vehicles? Lots of questions.
I am highly sceptical, water is an inert substance and would need some reaction (such as electrolysis) to change it into something that could be used for energy generation. The energy must be coming from somewhere; probably something in that sand like material and the left over oil. Diesel engines are flexible enough to run on left over oil at least for short periods.
It would be interesting to see how well this thing drives on that fuel.
Reply
LaserBeams 4:18PM (6/24/2007)
Certainly interesting - but I agree with the first commenter that something fishy looking is going on. In the video, they mix the metallic sand substance with water, and a bit of waste oil - stating that any lubricant will do - and then strain off the sand.
If I had to guess, it would be that the water was reacting with the metal sand to produce a combustible byproduct.
Reply
Chris M 9:06PM (6/24/2007)
There are several metals that will react with water to produce a metal oxide and hydrogen, but that isn't being used here - the "fuel" is liquid, not gaseous.
Water does not burn, not even after mixing with any "catalyst". What the diesel engine is really running on is the "waste oil" used in the mix, just like many other "veggie oil" diesels. I'm betting the "sand" includes a water absorbent, like silica gel, to remove the water from the waste oil so it can be used as fuel. It helped the scheme to use an opaque metal container for the fuel mix, so we can't see what is inside, or what is left behind.
In short, Mark Joyner was taken in by a very simple scam - unless he is in on the scam!
Reply
Calamity 10:57AM (6/25/2007)
Supposedly, adding a tiny amount of water can increase the cetane number of certain fuels. So you might get a small increase in mileage with a tiny amount of water in the mix. However, that would probably require at least some engine tweaking.
But 60 percent water? Even if it works, the cetane boost would be eclipsed by the simple fact that the water absorbs all the heat, ruining the Carnot principle.
What good is it to drive on 60 percent water if you end up with 4x lower mileage (or even worse mileage?
Whenever I hear "water car" I start to frown as water cannot logically be a fuel. No offense, but maybe these pseudo-engineers should take some thermodynamic classes?
Reply