OT: Firewater?

ROD, that's why i said it was due for release on the 1st of April.You're obviously not easily fooled (unlike some here).

TOM JENKINS, I see you are also someone who knows his stuff, I'll keep an eye out for your answers to posts, I think you're someone who can be trusted to give good advice.

As for the other posters!

RSDORAN, My post specifically relates to the original article posted that was suggesting that a process of electrolosis NOT nuclear fusion or fission could generate power to run a car.

"The simple fact is that there are aspects of all sciences we do not fully understand. We will not know what can be done until we attempt it."

The laws of thermodynamics have proven been well tested. For centuries people have been attempting to create a perpetual motion machine, all have failed! The laws of physics arn't like traffic laws which can be broken if you feel like it.

504BlOKE, When will you accept a theory has been disproven?
I along with many others don't think that "Star Trek" is a documentry! True certain inventions (communicator=mobile phone, voice activated computer, automatic doors etc) have been inspired by the programme, but these are based on established scientific principles, all that was required was miniturisation of components etc.

ELEVMIKE, As Tom Jenkins states the device was not claiming to be a nuclear reactor.

Those who are still supporting the original post either are gullible or just TROLLING. I suppose time will tell which. The problem with Trolls is when do you believe what they tell you? Which means that nothing they tell you can EVER be trusted.
 
I do not always properly state what I mean on a subject.

I never assumed nor thought that is was nuclear or perpetual motion.

What I do believe is that it can be an alternative fuel.

As stated to obtain energy some form of energy is used. To make gasoline energy is used, to obtain hydrogen (or another source) for fuel another energy is used. The difference is that the end use does not consume gasoline which could lower our consumption of fuel oil.

I am not sure what efficiency has to do with it, what energy source is 100%? I will agree that gasoline offers more BTU or MJ per gallon than alternatives but that does not mean we can not develop their usage.

My point is that all sources of fuel/power, besides fossil fuels, should be developed for a variety of reasons like environment and the fact fossil fuel will not last forever.

The fact is modern atomic theory was developed within the last hundred years or so, there is so much we have not learned yet. BTW I know that atomic theory dates as far back as the 6th century.

The real FACT is that using hydrogen is viable but at this time its about MONEY, gasoline is still the cheapest option. I have no idea if what was originally offered is good or not, it is the technology of using hydrogen as a fuel that I think is viable.

As for trolling, I have been coming to this site for 4 or 5 years, if anyone thinks I would offer information that can not be trusted all they have to do is say so and I will stop. In this case it is a matter of opinion on the viability of a technology.

History has shown that you can not arbitrarily discredit new technologies.

BTW the N car thing was shown here in 2004 when it was actually done as an April Fool's joke. It originally did not state it was an April Fool joke, just that they could be ordered and delivery date was April 1st.
 
Last edited:
Remember cold fusion?

rsdoran said:
History has shown that you can not arbitrarily discredit new technologies.
Click to expand...

How many of you got suckered in and believed the story?
Without heat and radition I knew it was a fraud.
The press ate it up. Fools, and I don't think it was April.
The bigger fools were those that said they could reproduce the fraud. These were 'experts' and PHDs.
 
I put the link for the NCar. Hyperbole.

If you think that you are gonna get more mileage by using electrolysis, I've got some swampland in Florida I'd like to sell ya.;)
 
Kevin,

No where in the video does the guy claim his device to be efficient. He just makes the simple claim that he uses electrolysis to break the molecular bond. Any idiot with a battery can do that.

Trust me, I'm not about to run out and invest in this project, but I think your missing the point. You’re looking at this thing like it's a perpetual motion machine, but it's not, and there seems to be no claim that it is. I think we can all agree that there's a lot of thermodynamic bang to be derived from a cup of water once it's separated into H & O2. The question here is how efficiently can the molecular bonds be broken. We don’t know that answer yet. Just because the currently known process is about 25% eff. doesn’t mean that further development can’t lead to better efficiency. As I understand it some smart people are working on a process that super heats the water then runs it through an electrolysis process, which they claim is like 50% efficient. Who's to say that it can’t be done?

Think of it this way; that thick black oozy stuff we all seem to depend on so much already contains a certain amount of thermodynamic energy. But you can’t put it in your gas tank until you REFINE it. By refining crude oil, your extracting, (not creating), the particular hydrocarbon strands you need for running your car. I think we all bought in to the idea that it's economically efficient enough for us to pay for when we make our weekly visit to the pump.

Don’t think that I believe in fairy tales of creating more energy from less. My point is that’s not what this is about. It’s about how efficiently can one existing form of energy be converted into another more useful form. Keep in mind, nobody is making hydrogen, they're just extracting it.

 
Elevmike,

If you watch the video he claims that he can run his car on water!

It dosen't matter even if you could be 100% efficient at extracting the hydrogen and oxygen you will never be 100% efficient in burning that hydrogen. Any power that you derive from burning that hydrogen is less than the power you used originally to create the hydrogen.

Hydrogen and Oxygen gases are not easy, cheap or safe to store. Lots of people won't run their cars on Liquid Petroleum Gas as they are worried about the potential explosion risk, the risk of a couple of tanks of Hydrogen and Oxygen are much greater!

Crude oil is a fuel, it will burn (remember the fires in Iraq) and many industrial boilers even run on crude oil. Try getting water to burn.

Hydrogen is a fuel, the space shuttle depends on it, but there will never be a engine that burns hydrogen - uses the energy from that combustion to move the car etc. AND generate its own hydrogen and oxygen from electrolysis to burn again.

This leads us to the conclusion that the battery must be the power source for the car.

If you are using a battery (to supply the power for electrolysis) why not connect the battery to an electric motor instead of an internal combustion engine?

Alternative energy sources are required, these might include solar power, wind power, wave/tidal power, biofuels such as rapeseed oil or wood (grown specially not from a rain forest!) or even nuclear power.

Don't forget of course that water was one of the first energy sources (the water wheel that drove mills before the first steam engines were made)
(To be precise it was the kinetic energy of the water flowing downstream not the water itself)
 
Kevin(spark) said:
ROD, that's why i said it was due for release on the 1st of April.You're obviously not easily fooled (unlike some here).

TOM JENKINS, I see you are also someone who knows his stuff, I'll keep an eye out for your answers to posts, I think you're someone who can be trusted to give good advice.

As for the other posters!
Click to expand...

I chuckled when I read this.:) Let's see, Rod and Tom are the smart ones. As for the rest of you.....well. :confused:
 
Hydrogen is a fuel, the space shuttle depends on it, but there will never be a engine that burns hydrogen - uses the energy from that combustion to move the car etc. AND generate its own hydrogen and oxygen from electrolysis to burn again.
Click to expand...

No kidding, that's why the car is a hybred.. What's missing in the video is how much gasoline did it take to convert that 4 oz of water to hydrogen. All I'm really trying to say is that this guy closely skirts the legal definition of fraud by not claiming effecency or having invented a perpetual motion machine. Your presuming that he is making thoes outlandish claims, but in effect is seems to me he really has nothing new to offer.
 
From http://www.hytechapps.com/applications/HHOStest-051903.htm:

The first test was conducted with the prototype vehicle operating on gasoline only. The prototype vehicle was topped off with fuel from the test track fuel pump and ran the 51.5 miles at 60 mph with the AC off. The prototype vehicle was then topped off with fuel from the test track fuel pump and it was determined that the prototype vehicle consumed 2.1 gallons of fuel. For this 51.5-mile test, the prototype vehicle averaged 24.5 mpg.

The second test was conducted with the prototype vehicle operating with the HHOS on. The prototype vehicle was topped off with fuel from the test track fuel pump and ran the 51.5 miles at 60 mph with the AC off. The prototype vehicle was then topped off with fuel from the test track fuel pump and it was determined that the prototype vehicle consumed 1.05 gallons of fuel. For this 51.5-mile test, the prototype vehicle averaged 49.0 mpg.

Now he makes no mention of what kind of condition his battery was in before or after these tests, but he is working on something that appears to have promise. No its not a perpetual motion machine, but I am curious to see and hear more... With the full skepticism this technology deserves.
 
Back
Top Bottom