So exactly how much power is required to break the bond between H and O2? I looked around but couldnt find any specific numbers.

Originally posted by pepsi78

Again: you had a bucket of water before the exercise. You have it after allegely driven over a distance. Same water. Where did the energy come from?

from oxigen and hidrogen made by an electolis that usues minimal power.

Ok. So according to you, it takes "minimal power" to separate H2 and O2, but when combined, they produce a lot of power? So you get power for nothing?

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by pepsi78

Again: you had a bucket of water before the exercise. You have it after allegely driven over a distance. Same water. Where did the energy come from?

from oxigen and hidrogen made by an electolis that usues minimal power.

Ok. So according to you, it takes "minimal power" to separate H2 and O2, but when combined, they produce a lot of power? So you get power for nothing?

To be honest I dont know how much it creates, all I know is that it's stronger than regular fuel.
259 degrees ferethight on the flame, and 10.000 ferethight when it comes in contact with metals, that was the point I was geting at, because it's high in combustion levels it can be used to power engines , it's 40 procent more eficiant than regular fuel, how ever if you convert it in to electicity it may not output much , but it's highly eficiant because it has a high cobustion level, if you convert in electicity and put it to run the engine it may not run at all, if you leave it as it is as fuel it will , it's burn level is at 40% more than regular fuel.
take a 9 volt batery, it's not all that , but hit it with the hammer and it will explode in your face causing damage, it's all about how it burns, if it burns good the engine will run.

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by Aelita
Ok. So according to you, it takes "minimal power" to separate H2 and O2, but when combined, they produce a lot of power? So you get power for nothing?

To be honest I dont know how much it creates, all I know is that it's stronger than regular fuel.

Honestly, it doesn't matter whether it's stronger than regular gasoline or not. The O2+H2 mix can (and should) be thought of as energy storage. By electrolysis, you create a certain amount of this fuel mix. By burning it in the engine, you get your water back plus the same amount of energy (not more) that you invested in breaking it up.

In a way it's like charging a battery. You put energy in, and then you get it back.

Stanley A. Meyer, the controversial Ohio inventor who had claimed his technology could produce a hydrogen-oxygen mixture with a minimal energy input (compared with conventional electrolysis) died on March 21, 1998.

He did not have a world-wide following, few people have heard of him. There were also those adherents and people who had invested in his activities --- Water Fuel Cell, Grove City, OH. He was famous for his claimed "water fueled car" which was exhibited - symbolically - in the BBC 1994 documentary on cold fusion, "Too Close to the Sun."

We were curious about Meyer's work. The late Christopher Tinsley of the UK and the late Admiral of the British Navy, Sir Anthony Griffin, who became frustrated by being unable or, more to the point, not allowed to confirm (or reject) Meyer's claims. [Edited by Don W]

[edit on 5/25/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by Aelita
Ok. So according to you, it takes "minimal power" to separate H2 and O2, but when combined, they produce a lot of power? So you get power for nothing?

To be honest I dont know how much it creates, all I know is that it's stronger than regular fuel.

Honestly, it doesn't matter whether it's stronger than regular gasoline or not. The O2+H2 mix can (and should) be thought of as energy storage. By electrolysis, you create a certain amount of this fuel mix. By burning it in the engine, you get your water back plus the same amount of energy (not more) that you invested in breaking it up.

In a way it's like charging a battery. You put energy in, and then you get it back.

It does matter, because if it's burning level is higher it will create suficent power in the engine's chameber under the piston, so the more combustion you have the more faster it would push the piston, it's just like you would constantly blow up a buch of batterys in u'r car engine, one of my uncles was a mecanic,I've see engines run on anything even on alcohol, it would mess the engine up but it will run, it is hidrogen after all, I didint say how much energy it would output, I didint say how much cause I dont really know, what you dont uderstand is that the fuel is already there and the device does not really make it because it's already in the water, it split's it, so the question would be how much energy let's say does a glass of HHO gas have?
You think this way," okay so the device consumes X energy to make the fuel and it I should get the same amount in the engine"
That is how you think, to finish this story we must find out how much energy would a limited amount of HHO gas produce.
You dont put energy to make the fuel, the fuel is already there I told you, you use energy to split it, for example I'm curios how much would 100 mililiters of HHO gas would produce when it burns.
elerctolisis means filtering rather than making fuel, it's a proccess that does not take great amount of power, you can make alot of HHO gas because the fuel is already there, what this proccess does is filter, it's all it does, it's filtering, you dont need big amount of power to filter and that is just it, you shoul calculate how much does HHO gas have, how much does a drop have, and not how much does it filter VS electicity.
If 1 drop will burn higher than regular fuel I think it's safe to say it outputs more energy than regular fuel.
How much water do you have in your tank, that's how much energy you have.
The electrolisis just filters is just a process that does not take gret amount of power to produce large quantities of oxigen and hidrogen from the water, it does not make them they are already there.





[edit on 26-5-2006 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by Aelita
Pepsi, I implore you to grab a physics book. Voltage alone doesn't move things, current does. Voltage times current equals power (as measured in watts). Please study basic electricity.

Aelita... I beg to differ. It is in fact voltage that moves 'things'. Current is the quantity that is moved.

Going back to my original point... you seem hung-up on the 'free energy' thing. My post had nothing to do with 'free energy'. Why does the water technology stuff have to be 'free energy'. Your current car isn't 'free energy'. Either is your bicycle. But they get you around. The water fuel technology I was talking about address economics (and pollution). Isn't that good enough for you... for now at least?

In the vehicle I mentioned, water was broken down into this HHO gas using the onboard alternator which kept storage batteries charged. The power available from the batteries was used to breakdown the water. The HHO was mixed with the gasoline at the carbuerator and the resulting gas mileage was 50% better. A second trial eliminated the additional storage batteries with results that were impressive but less than when the storage batteries were used. Why? Clearly because the HHO producing system's efficiency is linked to power input. And that power input is limited by the output of the alternator. Although they replaced the stock alternator with a 'heavy duty' one they were still limited to what alternators were available off-the-shelf. It would be entirely reasonable to build a still higher output alternator that could provide the ideal output for the HHO system thereby eliminating the need for any additional storage batteries.

And if the inventor's tests are accurate and he system can reduce the consumption of gasoline by 50+% it would represent an important application of water as fuel, no?

Originally posted by pepsi78

To be honest I dont know how much it creates, all I know is that it's stronger than regular fuel.
259 degrees ferethight on the flame, and 10.000 ferethight when it comes in contact with metals

Do you know what makes the flame so much hotter when it comes into contact with metal

Also if the gas burns so hot when it contacts metal how come it doesnt just meltdown the cylinder heads and walls, valvles, pistons, rings etc.. when burned in an IC engine

O-K folks. About this "free energy" hubbub, and "law of conservation...", hasn't anyone done a through analysis of the patents by building the models in every conceivable variation and tested them under strict controlled scientific conditions? Well? Anyone?

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the idea of fusion also "free energy"? If "free energy" does not exist, then why are we funnelling billions into it (see Z Machine and X-1)?

Warp... we think of combustion as an oxidative process. In all cases it's the reaction between some hydrocarbon with oxygen that is central to the combustion process. I can't offer an explanation of the Aquygen process but we do know that there are no hydrocarbons involved. The process, therefore, has to be some other form of combustion than the traditional oxidative one. In the internal combustion engine the HHO gas is being sparked... it explodes and expands (driving the piston and instantaneously lowering the temperature) and is then vented. There isn't a continuous supply of HHO gas (only a measured amount during the intake stroke) as there is in a torch.

Yeah... ain't gonna happen in our lifetime though.

40 years ago people were sitting around, getting stoned, and having conversations exactly like this:

"...we're gonna bring down The Man."

"...yeah, like... there's a guy who made a car that...runs on water or something..."

In fact, I think you can even find references to it in some of the 60's movies.

Nothings happened on it. Nothing will. Not in our lifetimes. Water will continue to be the alleged solution to every problem until people discover something new. Sorry to sound so pessimistic on this, I've just heard this topic going on since before I was even born.

TheLibra you may be right. However, there has been one development that completely changes the equation: the internet. If you clear away the obvious whack-jobs there is a body of private people pursuing this aggressively. They are sharing their findings and developments in the public domain. This has never happened before in history. It was impossible. The vastly accelerated sharing of information is helping to push the process forward and also makes it much, much more difficult to bury or suppress the information. Maybe it won't happen. But if ever there was a chance it's now.

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by Aelita
Ok. So according to you, it takes "minimal power" to separate H2 and O2, but when combined, they produce a lot of power? So you get power for nothing?

To be honest I dont know how much it creates, all I know is that it's stronger than regular fuel.

Honestly, it doesn't matter whether it's stronger than regular gasoline or not. The O2+H2 mix can (and should) be thought of as energy storage. By electrolysis, you create a certain amount of this fuel mix. By burning it in the engine, you get your water back plus the same amount of energy (not more) that you invested in breaking it up.

In a way it's like charging a battery. You put energy in, and then you get it back.

It does matter, because if it's burning level is higher it will create suficent power in the engine's chameber under the piston, ]

That last part is the heart of this hoax. The combustion of hydrogen and oxygen to form water WILL NOT release more energy then the energy required to disassociate the two gasses from the water to begin with.

This is a fundamental law of chemistry and can not be changed.

But, hey, it’s your money. Go ahead and invest it in this technology.


(sucker)

Hydrogen-boosted gasoline engines are being researched by major manufacturers. Indeed, a higher efficiency of burning gasoline can be achieved when hydrogen is mixed with fuel and the engine is appropriately tuned.

The best results from their controlled condition experiments are nowhere near the 2-fold increase of efficiency reported by Aquigen. I seriously doubt that result.

Yes, I believe that using hydrogen and/or other additive, you can modify your engine's output. Just like adding nitro does the same. But water does not "become fuel".

posted by warpboost

posted by pepsi78

To be honest I don’t know how much [heat] it creates, all I know is that it's stronger than regular fuel.

Also if the gas burns so hot when it contacts metal how come it doesn’t just meltdown the cylinder heads and walls, valves, pistons, rings etc . . when burned in an IC engine? [Edited by Don W]

The four states of matter. Solid, liquid, gas and plasma.

A German guy named Otto invented the 4 cycle IC engine. Sometimes call the “Otto” cycle engine. As to the question why internal combustion engines don’t melt down, the answer is, they do. OTOH, knowing the amount of heat involved, engineers (and inventors) have managed to get the working temperature inside a combustion chamber very high without destroying the engine, provided you operate it properly. You cool it. Either air or water. Water is better for most applications. Air cooled engines are lighter than water cooled for the same combustion chamber displacement. Of course, all water cooled engines are also giving up heat to the surrounding air.

The fuel to air mixture is critical in an IC engine. In gasoline engines the ratio runs from 10 parts air to 1 part gasoline, rich, to 16 parts air to 1 part gasoline, lean. When the engine is cold, it needs a rich mixture, when at normal operating temperatures, it needs a leaner ratio. The choke reduces the air flow, thereby enriching the mixture.

The leaner the mixture the hotter it burns. Like all things, up to a point. The exhaust valve is the engine part most exposed to high temperatures. The valve seat, a space ground into the head, is water cooled. To aid in cooling, some exhaust valves have sodium filled stems to conduct heat away from the valve’s head. Intake valves are cooled by the incoming fuel-air mixture and at the valve seat. Oil under pressure is pumped through the bearings and the piston rings. The oil pan holds 3X the amount of oil needed for lubrication which is a “heat sink” for the oil. Between air, water and oil, all the parts of an IC engine are kept in normal operating temperature ranges.

It is said an IC gasoline engine is 25% efficient, that is, it converts 25% of the latent heat in gasoline into motion. The rotation of the crankshaft. The remaining heat is lost to friction, out the exhaust pipe and to the surrounding air mainly through the radiator. The fan cools the radiator but also cools the engine, too.



[edit on 5/26/2006 by donwhite]

Not entire true, Don. I fly a prop plane. Because mixture changes with altitude we have to adjust our mixture when we change altitude. One of the biggest myths in engine management and one perpetuated by the engine manufacturers themselves is that the only safe way to protect one's engine from overheating and prematurely destroying itself is to run the engine 'rich-of-peak' (ROP). That is, find the mixture setting that causes the exhaust gas to reach its peak and then enrich the mixture until the temperature drops by some number of degrees (most commonly 25-50C). Somewhat recently independent engineers have challenged this notion and found that the engine runs coolest and most efficiently on the other side of peak. That is, find the peak temperature and then continue to lean. The engine will 'peak' and then begin to drop in temperature until it begins to get fuel-starved and will then run rough. Those of us 'in the know' run our engines ~25-50C lean of peak (LOP).

posted by jtma508

Not entirely true, Don. I fly a prop plane . . mixture changes with altitude . . we adjust our mixture when we change altitude. One of the biggest myths in engine management perpetuated by engine manufacturers is that the only safe way to protect one's engine from overheating and prematurely destroying itself is to run the engine 'rich-of-peak' (ROP). [Edited by Don W]

I learned what (little) I know from Roger Huntington ME, who wrote great columns for ‘Road and Track’ in the 1950s. I was around when charter memberships in the NHRA were offered. I read the English mags, Autocar, Motor and CAR. As well as the American mag, Sports Car Illustrated - SCI, Car and Driver, and of course, Tom Cahill in Mechanics Illustrated, and etc. Now I read SIA - Special Interest Autos.

My favorite engine of all time is the Ford 427, made from about 1963 to around 1970. Believe it or not, in 1963, Ford offered your choice of the NHRA dual 4 bbl carbs version or the NASCAR single 4 bbl carb version, including 4 speed, Equa-lok rear axle of 4.11 ratio, alum bumpers, hood and deck lid, Balsum seats, i.e., early buckets from a truck, and fiberglass fenders and door skin. All for $1,313.00. The “half-fast” back ‘63 Galaxy 500 listed for $2,895.00. For $4,200 you could own a very fast car. The 427 would redline at 8,000 rpm in the 1/4th mile. Very fast for coffee can sized pistons. Drive shafts and third members often gave up the ghost when popping the clutch to get a quick run. Oops, I wax nostalgic. Sorry about that.

OTOH, jtma508, would you not agree that the ROP setting while consuming more fuel, offers great protection to careless pilots who will not always pay attention to mixture settings, etc. OR, how much does a new Lycoming HO-360 cost? I just looked that up on their website but they do not quote prices. But you are correct, running it at LOP peak power would give both better fuel economy and more available power.

“ . . recently independent engineers have challenged this notion and found that the engine runs coolest and most efficiently on the other side of peak. That is, find the peak temperature and then continue to lean. The engine will 'peak' and then begin to drop in temperature until it begins to get fuel-starved and will then run rough. Those of us 'in the know' run our engines ~25-50C lean of peak (LOP).

You can’t fault a man “in the know” but as an old-timer, I’d be much more inclined to run MY own plane on the rich side, but if I was renting a plane, maybe I’d use the lean side. Depends on the rental contract and whether I was flying over water. (I can’t swim.)


[edit on 5/26/2006 by donwhite]