OH SNAP!
Water-Power Vehicles?!
Could the world's energy crisis be over tomorrow?! This guy has developed a process that turns regular old water into HHO gas, and he's even got a car that runs on it!
Comments
this is an ooold scam. look at this clip from the 80's- almost an exact replica of what we have here
http://befreetech.com/media/stan_meyers_bb.wmv
http://befreetech.com/media/stan_meyers_bb.wmv
"It will be a few years before the units go into mass production."
A few meaning 20?
short sighted people...
The first internal combustion engines were very inefficient and glitch ridden.
The first internal combustion engines were very inefficient and glitch ridden.
and also possible through the laws of physics...
http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Hydrogen_Technology_Applications_Inc
Seems there is some discussion on that page about this video and it application
Seems there is some discussion on that page about this video and it application
couple = 2
few = 3
some = 4
few = 3
some = 4
Yeah, and I'm still waiting for cold fusion to revolutionize the world!
Um, I have a chemistry degree... who can tell me what the F HHO is, and why it's different than water?
It was stolen from Steve Jobs!
http://hytechapps.com/presentation/linked%20files/Hydro%20Tech/user%20added/Sant illi,%20International%20Journal.pdf
Scientific published information on the techniques these guys used. You aren't going to disprove anything with a few lines on a fazed comment board. If you don't understand what's written on the linked .pdf (like I don't) then you aren't in a position to say that it doesn't work. Especially if the military and car manufacturers are signing deals with this guy.
Scientific published information on the techniques these guys used. You aren't going to disprove anything with a few lines on a fazed comment board. If you don't understand what's written on the linked .pdf (like I don't) then you aren't in a position to say that it doesn't work. Especially if the military and car manufacturers are signing deals with this guy.
My only problem is that the company hasn't gone public yet for me to sink a ton of money into their stock.
If it works, then that's great - but you're not getting energy from nowhere - the energy to produce the HHO has to come from somewhere, and if it takes 5kWh to produce 55scf of HHO, which in turn produces LESS (because it won't produce more, and there's no such thing as 100% efficiency)... Water power it ain't.
aether1 said:
Yeah, and I'm still waiting for cold fusion to revolutionize the world!
Yeah, and I'm still waiting for cold fusion to revolutionize the world!
We gotta get Keanu Reeves on this, ASAP.
1) Burn oil for electricity
2) Use electricity to create "HHO" from water
3) Patent your method of electrolysis
4) Preach to the masses that your car runs on water
5) Wait for senators and local TV news to look for a PR piece
6) Profit!
2) Use electricity to create "HHO" from water
3) Patent your method of electrolysis
4) Preach to the masses that your car runs on water
5) Wait for senators and local TV news to look for a PR piece
6) Profit!
http://hytechapps.com/applications/HHOStest-102103.htm
http://hytechapps.com/applications/HHOStest-051903.htm
Well doing a little more reading (to determine if this company would be something worthwhile to invest in) it looks like the news people overembelished a lot with the 100 miles on 4 ounces of water statement.
Using HHO Gas (very similar if not identical to "Brown's Gas") he boosted the MPG of his escort from 33 MPG to nearly 50 MPG of gasoline. Not bad but comparable and even beaten by gas/electric hybrids. He did this however with a standard 12 V battery and an aftermarket heavy-duty alternator.
So no it isn't a "miracle" fuel source. I think the emphasis is it being better than hydrogen because it's non-volatile, doesn't need to pull oxygen from the air, and can actually be produced in the vehicle from a small amount of water.
Also their method of electrolysis to create HHO is apparently very efficient compared to standard methods of producing hydrogen or the methods used in the past to create "Brown's Gas."
If they go public and start low I'll throw money at it.
http://hytechapps.com/applications/HHOStest-051903.htm
Well doing a little more reading (to determine if this company would be something worthwhile to invest in) it looks like the news people overembelished a lot with the 100 miles on 4 ounces of water statement.
Using HHO Gas (very similar if not identical to "Brown's Gas") he boosted the MPG of his escort from 33 MPG to nearly 50 MPG of gasoline. Not bad but comparable and even beaten by gas/electric hybrids. He did this however with a standard 12 V battery and an aftermarket heavy-duty alternator.
So no it isn't a "miracle" fuel source. I think the emphasis is it being better than hydrogen because it's non-volatile, doesn't need to pull oxygen from the air, and can actually be produced in the vehicle from a small amount of water.
Also their method of electrolysis to create HHO is apparently very efficient compared to standard methods of producing hydrogen or the methods used in the past to create "Brown's Gas."
If they go public and start low I'll throw money at it.
Um, I have a chemistry degree... who can tell me what the F HHO is, and why it's different than water?
HHO is a different molecular structure, H-H-O as opposed to H-O-H (standard H20).
I feel a bit of Brown's gas coming on right now. *squeak* sorry. too much fiber. ahhhhhhh.
I love how you see loads of things like this... yet we're still running on petrol. You've got to ask Why?
Plus, the laws of thermodynamics were written by man. Man has been known to be wrong on occasion. Sometimes it takes a crazy guy *waves arms in the air like a crazy person* in his basement to discover something that changes everyone's way of thinking and understanding.
Man usually corrects himself in a decade, and besides laws of thermodynamics are written in stone, the amount of time and energy put into making peat into crude oil is not equal to the energy produce from burning the shit.
yeah, 100 miles on 4oz of water.....and 3 gallons of gas to convert the water
This is the truth
Hydrogen peroxide rockets were used even in WWII, H2O2 knowledge is not new, nor is it the solution. The issue here isn't about the fuel, it's about the endless energy source our reliable fox news anchor was pimping out.
I think the point that every person who has had college level physics or chemistry education is trying to make is that without the actual destruction of matter, it is impossible to have a seemingly endless source of energy. (even though energy <-> matter conversion is included in the refined first law of thermodynamics)
In this video, it is true that all he feeds is water into these systems, but what you don't see is the huge ass battery he has in the trunk that is needed to perform hydrolysis. If you take the tried and tested second law of thermodynamics that states that any manipulation of energy results in some kinda of loss to entropy, you will also know that since he is doing not only one conversion (water -> H2O2), but in fact two (H2O2 -> kinetic energy) it is most likely quite a bit more ineffecient than the fuel-cell cars already being developed.
Unless some news source cites a new solution with the word "fusion" in it, human's age of gluttonous energy consumption is coming to an end.
/shrug (PS, he didn't use wikipedia, he used http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae280.cfm)
I think the point that every person who has had college level physics or chemistry education is trying to make is that without the actual destruction of matter, it is impossible to have a seemingly endless source of energy. (even though energy <-> matter conversion is included in the refined first law of thermodynamics)
In this video, it is true that all he feeds is water into these systems, but what you don't see is the huge ass battery he has in the trunk that is needed to perform hydrolysis. If you take the tried and tested second law of thermodynamics that states that any manipulation of energy results in some kinda of loss to entropy, you will also know that since he is doing not only one conversion (water -> H2O2), but in fact two (H2O2 -> kinetic energy) it is most likely quite a bit more ineffecient than the fuel-cell cars already being developed.
Unless some news source cites a new solution with the word "fusion" in it, human's age of gluttonous energy consumption is coming to an end.
/shrug (PS, he didn't use wikipedia, he used http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae280.cfm)
I think I believe someone who gets on the news more than some wikipedia scientist who tries to debunk ideas on a fazed comment forum.
Fuck you. I'm a college student who has taken three years of chemistry, and two years of physics courses so I probably have better credentials than you. That was a quote from my physics prof.
the laws of thermodynamics were written by man. Man has been known to be wrong on occasion.
Are you suggesting that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong? If you need to change the laws of thermodynamics to believe something you saw on Fox News, I'd bet that the thermo has it right and Fox has it wrong.
The first internal combustion engines were very inefficient and glitch ridden.
The first internal combustion engines also ran on concepts that followed some basic natural laws.
HHO is a different molecular structure, H-H-O as opposed to H-O-H (standard H20).
I would like to see anyone come up with a process for producing that molecule. Water is very very stable, HHO is not a favorable structure, and if it ever existed it would be very unstable and very dangerous.
This will kill AMERICA.
Or not. Whichever...
Before you folks make yourselves look even dumber, take a look at CNN's coverage (link in post 64) which explains that this version is more efficent than previous methods.
The Kitner Boy - stick around while the clown who is sick does the trick of disaster
May 24th, 2006 (9:45 PM)
74
Filomena: "I thought Wankel invented the rotary engine"
"the flame instantly turns hotter than the surface of the sun"
wow... ignorant TV reporter... scary.
Umm... what if you made a factory that used this technology to produce the HHO gas from water by using Solar energy. Sure it would probably have to be a big field of solar panels but if it could make enough electricity to produce the gas mayb it would be worth it?
debashis said:
Someone studying for their Chemistry midterms?
Someone studying for their Chemistry midterms?
Mikey said:
Um, I have a chemistry degree...
Um, I have a chemistry degree...
SwitchMvHs said:
Fuck you. I'm a college student who has taken three years of chemistry, and two years of blah blah
Fuck you. I'm a college student who has taken three years of chemistry, and two years of blah blah
I was going to make an American education joke, then I remembered that English is spoken outside of this continent.
I still won't believe it until I see it work on MythBusters.
/me <3 kari ^_^
Videodrome said:
Umm... what if you made a factory that used this technology to produce the HHO gas from water by using Solar energy. Sure it would probably have to be a big field of solar panels but if it could make enough electricity to produce the gas mayb it would be worth it?
Umm... what if you made a factory that used this technology to produce the HHO gas from water by using Solar energy. Sure it would probably have to be a big field of solar panels but if it could make enough electricity to produce the gas mayb it would be worth it?
Where would you build said storage facility/plant that if it blew up (terrorist / malfunction / conspiracy) it wouldnt cause any harm to civilization??
oh.. on the moon?? ok, that will work..
MOONWATERPLANT 4TW
SwitchMvHs said:
H2O2 is hydrogen peroxide, it reacts to form water and oxygen gas, which is useful as an oxidizing agent, but not as a fuel itself.
If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
The good news is they have cured cancer in mice :)
H2O2 is hydrogen peroxide, it reacts to form water and oxygen gas, which is useful as an oxidizing agent, but not as a fuel itself.
If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
The good news is they have cured cancer in mice :)
Sorry about that, I've got H2O2 on the brain right now. Since I've been reading up on the use of it in the garden
Off the top of my head I don't really rember what the chemical comp of browns gas is. but either way what this guy is doing is making Browns gas I think it's 2H2:O2. Either way it takes more energy to produce it than it is worth
"the flame instantly turns hotter than the surface of the sun"
wow... ignorant TV reporter... scary.
wow... ignorant TV reporter... scary.
not really - the surface of the sun is only about 5000 degrees Celcius - HHO (supposedly) can burn brick at 9000.
The temperature of the Corona actually reaches about 5 million degrees though...
Coronal Heating ftw
Ok, this is the correspondence I recieved from my chemistry professor this morning regarding the issue:
Here's a very well respected guy with a PhD in Chemistry, he lives and breathes this stuff (lectures at Oxford too every now and then) and he says it's bogus. Say what you will about "wikipedia science"??? whatever that is supposed to mean, but if this doesn't convince you then I'll stop wasting my breath.
Yes, there's something wrong. He is producing H2(g), not "HHO." He may
be observing spectroscopically an intermediate excited state of water that
he's calling "HHO", but, whatever it is, it quickly becomes H2 + 1/2 O2.
The stuff with the metals is probably formation of metal hydrides and
oxides -- quite exothermic, hence the extra heat.
Fundamentally, he is using up electricity to produce H2. Thermodynamics
doesn't lie. It may be a technologically useful way to get to H2 -- I
can't tell from the video -- but until we can figure out how to produce
massive amounts of electricity without consuming fossil fuels we're not
ready to use his stuff to power all our cars. It would be lovely to have
a catalyst that would take the energy needed to split water directly from
sunlight, but I don't think he's got that.
I loved the comment on the web site that we could just get all the
electricity needed from the car battery. And when the battery runs down
-- how do we recharge it? By consuming fossil fuels to run the engine.
I don't know how you can convince people who don't want to understand the
science and what it tells us. And even scientists are subject to
believing nonsense outside of their own narrow speciality. Chemists
regularly write to Chemical and Engineering News saying that evolution is
false, for example. The most powerful function within the human brain is
that of denial -- "don't confuse me with the facts." Politicians live and
breathe denial these days.
Sorry, I know this isn't a very satisfactory answer. Good of you to get
agitated about stuff like this. Someone needs to.
Joe N.
be observing spectroscopically an intermediate excited state of water that
he's calling "HHO", but, whatever it is, it quickly becomes H2 + 1/2 O2.
The stuff with the metals is probably formation of metal hydrides and
oxides -- quite exothermic, hence the extra heat.
Fundamentally, he is using up electricity to produce H2. Thermodynamics
doesn't lie. It may be a technologically useful way to get to H2 -- I
can't tell from the video -- but until we can figure out how to produce
massive amounts of electricity without consuming fossil fuels we're not
ready to use his stuff to power all our cars. It would be lovely to have
a catalyst that would take the energy needed to split water directly from
sunlight, but I don't think he's got that.
I loved the comment on the web site that we could just get all the
electricity needed from the car battery. And when the battery runs down
-- how do we recharge it? By consuming fossil fuels to run the engine.
I don't know how you can convince people who don't want to understand the
science and what it tells us. And even scientists are subject to
believing nonsense outside of their own narrow speciality. Chemists
regularly write to Chemical and Engineering News saying that evolution is
false, for example. The most powerful function within the human brain is
that of denial -- "don't confuse me with the facts." Politicians live and
breathe denial these days.
Sorry, I know this isn't a very satisfactory answer. Good of you to get
agitated about stuff like this. Someone needs to.
Joe N.
Here's a very well respected guy with a PhD in Chemistry, he lives and breathes this stuff (lectures at Oxford too every now and then) and he says it's bogus. Say what you will about "wikipedia science"??? whatever that is supposed to mean, but if this doesn't convince you then I'll stop wasting my breath.
The blowtorch is pretty cool though.
Is the torch more or less efficient than current acetylene (sp?) torches?
Is the torch more or less efficient than current acetylene (sp?) torches?
SwitchMvHs said:
Ok, this is the correspondence I recieved from my chemistry professor this morning regarding the issue:
Ok, this is the correspondence I recieved from my chemistry professor this morning regarding the issue:
your prof should get on FOX news to counter-spin the bullshit.
:)
Unless he has invented a sustainable cold fusion reaction to break the water bonds... I dont want to hear any more.
If it is being used to get more energy out of convensional combustion of hydrocarbon, it may be a winner... but not likely!
SPANG!
If it is being used to get more energy out of convensional combustion of hydrocarbon, it may be a winner... but not likely!
SPANG!
gfunkusarelius said:
yeah, 100 miles on 4oz of water.....and 3 gallons of gas to convert the water
yeah, 100 miles on 4oz of water.....and 3 gallons of gas to convert the water
amen. Ethanol seemingly puts all these "new clean fuels" in the ground. They're not new, and they require you to burn an assload of fossil fuel to extract enough electricity to produce them. Whereas with alcohol, we've had a fairly clean way to make for centuries. plus, it makes syphoning fuel from cars more fun. I'll take a mouth full of alcohol over a mouth of gasoline any day!
There is a solution, but so far is not possible.
1. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another.
2. Energy is wasted, when work is done, in the form of heat.
Find a way to change heat back into another form efficiently, and you fix "global warming" and the "energy crisis" at the same time.
1. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another.
2. Energy is wasted, when work is done, in the form of heat.
Find a way to change heat back into another form efficiently, and you fix "global warming" and the "energy crisis" at the same time.
I think the emphasis is it being better than hydrogen because it's non-volatile
of course its volatile, its a gas at room temperature.
| home | login | new user |
