Water as fuel, proof and patents!, page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times


reply posted on 26-5-2006 @ 05:59 PM by donwhite

posted by jtma508
Well Don, lots of people thought running ROP would protect their engine but there are reasons that simply isn't true. I recently replaced my Continental IO-520 with a IO-550.


Help me. I assume “IO” stands for “I” head, “O” opposed, 550 cubic inch displacement. Is that proprietary? As Lycoming uses HO for Horizontal Opposed. I used a Lycoming powered GPU - Ground Power Unit - when working on planes on the flight line while in the USAF. Continental - OTOH - made a lot of car engines from the 1930s into the 1950s. Kaiser-Frazer used them after WW2. Several marques, as the Brits say, such as Graham-Paige, Huppmobile, both used a flat-head in-line 6.

The engine cost around $30,000. This may be a little more than you care to know about LOP v. ROP but have at it: I have read tons on this as I should, I fly behind a $30k investment! I'll tell you that ROP does not protect the engine. [Edited by Don W]



I linked to the website. I read down to the MP and RPM gauges section. I was born skeptical and I hope I’ve not matured into cynical. My impression? Too much talk, not enough facts to suit me. Too much “puff” and not enough statistics to make me into a convert. Too much show, not enough go.

John Deakin is pushing a sea change in traditional engine fuel management. The US built 400,000 airplanes in WW2, and most - 75% - were air cooled reciprocating engines. Maximum economy, power and endurance was the operating paradigm. We know from every source that a rich engine runs cool. We know a lean engine runs warm or hot. All terms relative, of course.

In cars, a lean engine is prone to - close to - pre-ignition or pinging. Or knocking if really off. They say if you can hear it you have already done damage. I have to assume it is the same in aircraft engines. To avoid knock, I’d retard the spark or raise the octane rating. It would never occur to me to further lean out the mixture. For me that would be counter-intuitive. OK, I’ve said my piece. Thx for listening.


[edit on 5/26/2006 by donwhite]


reply posted on 2-11-2007 @ 06:52 AM by wingman77
www.youtube.com...

I understand the basics of physics and the conservation of energy. Many magnetic driven engines have been exposed as hoaxes; the conservation of energy is why these machines fail, they are essentially trying to tap free energy. Water cars have failed because the inventors were attempting to use an inefficient means of electrolysis to break the water molecules into their combustible forms.

Water is in fact, very similar to oil. Nature/God/Universe broke down the structures of organic matter over time leaving modern man with vast graveyards to tap. It took Nature/God/Universe much time and energy to convert this organic matter into a combustible substance, but it still isn't ready to use out of the ground. It must be found, drilled, pumped, transported, refined, pumped into storage tanks, and pumped into your automobile.

Water was also created by Nature/God/Universe; the big bang/creation occurred and matter was spread throughout the universe, molecules interacted and combined to form many different materials. Water was one of these materials that happened to form, Earth was lucky enough to capture an abundance of it. Nature/God/Universe input the energy into the creation of water through the same processes that formed everything else. Just like oil, water must be refined to convert it into a combustible substance.

What makes these latest discoveries different from the past is that a more efficient method of refinement has been discovered, it appears to be a reaction the water has to a given resonant frequency generated by radio frequency generators or ultrasonic frequency generators.

[edit on 2-11-2007 by wingman77]


reply posted on 2-11-2007 @ 04:25 PM by wingman77
reply to post by NRen2k5

What's giving you the energy to move the car is the HHO molecules being used in the combustion process. This doesn't violate the law of conservation of energy, we need to find out how much energy it takes for this process to brake the chemical bonds in water.

It might be a radio frequency generator running at 42khz; it has to do with sonochemistry , chemical kinetics, and resonance.


reply posted on 3-11-2007 @ 07:23 AM by NRen2k5
Originally posted by wingman77
reply to post by NRen2k5

What's giving you the energy to move the car is the HHO molecules being used in the combustion process.

There is no HHO molecule. The gas we’re talking about is more or less a stoichiometric mixture of H2 and O2. But for the sake of simplicity and your understanding, I’ll call the gas “HHO” for the remainder of this post.

The car will quickly run out of HHO gas and stall, because if it’s using the HHO gas to power the car, then there isn’t enough energy left over to keep separating the water into more gas.

It’s mind-numbingly simple. There is a certain amount of energy in the chemical bonds in water. It takes exactly the same amount of energy to break this bond as you get from making it. So even in a perfect world, it would take as much energy to electrolyze water as you would get from burning HHO. Meaning you would have no energy left over to power a car, only enough to keep separating and recombining water.

And in the real world, you always waste bit of energy in any process. In fact in electrolysis you waste a lot of energy. Even when you hit water with AC at some particularly sweet frequency and even when you add chemicals to speed the electrolysis.

Which means that onboard electrolysis is a losing proposition. You’re using more energy than you’re getting.


This doesn't violate the law of conservation of energy, we need to find out how much energy it takes for this process to brake the chemical bonds in water.

It might be a radio frequency generator running at 42khz; it has to do with sonochemistry , chemical kinetics, and resonance.

Details, details.

I wonder where the 42,000 Hz figure comes from, anyway. Experimentation? Someone’s guess as to the angular velocity of valence electrons in oxygen? And it’s supposed to be a resonance thing, right?

Well, following Problem 28.3 here will give you an idea as to the angular velocity of electrons. The angular velocity of an electron of a hydrogen atom in Herz is:

1 cycle / (1.52 * (10^(-16))) seconds

That’s about 6.6×10^15 Hz. That’s 6.6 petaherz. That’s incredibly fast. Do you know of a function generator that can generate a frequency that high?

And remember, harmonics work on multiples, not factors. Let alone how resonance works.

Anyway, the plain fact of the matter is that, no matter how sophisticated your method, it will always take more energy to break down water than you get from recombining it. Period. Point final. End of story.

[edit on 3-11-2007 by NRen2k5]


reply posted on 3-11-2007 @ 08:15 AM by savageseb
Originally posted by NRen2k5
Originally posted by wingman77
reply to post by NRen2k5

What's giving you the energy to move the car is the HHO molecules being used in the combustion process.

There is no HHO molecule. The gas we’re talking about is more or less a stoichiometric mixture of H2 and O2. But for the sake of simplicity and your understanding, I’ll call the gas “HHO” for the remainder of this post.

The car will quickly run out of HHO gas and stall, because if it’s using the HHO gas to power the car, then there isn’t enough energy left over to keep separating the water into more gas.

It’s mind-numbingly simple. There is a certain amount of energy in the chemical bonds in water. It takes exactly the same amount of energy to break this bond as you get from making it. So even in a perfect world, it would take as much energy to electrolyze water as you would get from burning HHO. Meaning you would have no energy left over to power a car, only enough to keep separating and recombining water.

And in the real world, you always waste bit of energy in any process. In fact in electrolysis you waste a lot of energy. Even when you hit water with AC at some particularly sweet frequency and even when you add chemicals to speed the electrolysis.

Which means that onboard electrolysis is a losing proposition. You’re using more energy than you’re getting.


Anyway, the plain fact of the matter is that, no matter how sophisticated your method, it will always take more energy to break down water than you get from recombining it. Period. Point final. End of story.

[edit on 3-11-2007 by NRen2k5]



it takes 1.24 volts and 15 amps to generate enough H2 - O2 practically instantly (minimum of 1 litre/hour of HHO gas), the closer the electrolytes are to each other the better but not too close. And you do it with a DC current. + on 1 electrolyte, - on the other.

the funny part, is when you do it at 12volts, the voltage begins to drop by itself, amp current intake stays the same, and the amount of gas per hour stays the same, so talk about free energy?
sure if you construe the 12voltage drop to 1.24, to be a free energy difference, or if you construe to have 1 litre per of powerful burning gas with a mere 20 watt hour consumption.

Stanley meyer had made pulsing circuitry which allowed for maximum efficiency in electrical pulsing and thus Electromagnetic pulsing peaks needed for Electrolysis. not only that but the design itself, if geometrically correct, can provide more power.
he patented all his stuff. further more he was killed for it.
he had Various plans and patents for it, they all worked.


on the part where you talked about the car stalling, you are wrong. by what you are saying a car running on gasoline should stall too. this is why there is a battery, and why the car´s motor automatically recharges the battery.


Also i would find Hydrogen / Oxygen to burn way better than normal gasoline. lols, As a matter of fact i dare you to light up in your 2 cubic inches of HH0. your hand would probably blow off.

so imo, the law of conservation of energy is a big lie derived from the law of conservation of matter through assumption.

Matter and Energy are conserved, just in various forms and states, and various Systems.


reply posted on 4-11-2007 @ 12:30 AM by hotpinkurinalmint
The OP is incorrect on two counts. First, as many other posters have pointed out, "water powered" cars do not solve all the world's energy problems because the energy released from hydrogen fuel is not greater than the energy required to create it.

Second, just because something is written in a patent, it does not necessarily mean that it is good science. The U.S. patent office (as well as other patent offices around the world) focuses its limited resources examining patent applications to see if the inventions they describe are new. They do not have the time nor the resources to replicate experiments or try and build models of inventions.

Also, the US Patent system as a whole does not really get upset if a patent based on junk science is allowed to issue. Patents based on junk science protect inventions that do not work. Nobody is going to feel cheated if someone else has the exclusive right to make, use, or sell an invention that is completely useless because it does not work. Therefore, nobody is going to make a fuss if a patent based on junk science issues because nobody is being cheated whne a patent based on junk science issues. (Perhaps the patentee is cheating himself or is being cheated by his lawyer, but that is another story.)

The only way a patent ever gets tested for its scientific validity is if it is involved in litigation. Patents must describe who the invention can be made or used. Sometimes patents do not describe in enough detail how to make and use and invention, so they are declared invalid by the courts during litigation. In theory, a junk science patent could be declared invalid because it does not teach others how to make and use an invention. (E.g. A perpetual motion machine patent could be struck down as invalid if someone who reads the patent could not construct a perpetual motion machine because it is impossible to do so.) Junk science patents are useless, however, so nobody is going to get sued trying to infringe junk science patents.


reply posted on 4-11-2007 @ 12:21 PM by NRen2k5
Originally posted by savageseb
Originally posted by NRen2k5

1) There is no such thing as “HHO.” The gas in question is a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and hydrogen. It is not a newly discovered molecule.

2) Producing fuel from water requires more energy than burning the fuel will give you. Much more. So you can’t “fuel” a car with water.

I’ve stated and repeated this at least twice at this point.



UUUHHHHH, do you consider making 1 litre of gas per hour with a 20 watt hour consumption rate an inefficient way of creating fuel out of water?

Yes. One litre of hydrogen gas is a very small amount. It won’t even fuel a car for a minute.


Originally posted by NRen2k5
Stan isn’t doing it. He’s dead. And no, he wasn’t ever doing it either. He was perpetrating the same scam as Denny Klein.

Water is not a fuel. Period.

Misinterpret the numbers all you want. Keep falling for the stage act. But you will never, ever fuel a car with water.


there is not only patents with pictures and explanations, but videos and press releases. please refrain from posting anymore lies.

Oh, I didn’t explain patents in this thread already? It must have been another of the free energy threads.…

Patents are not proof that an invention works. They’re just a means of protecting an invention. The U.S. Patent Office is generally not concerned with whether an invention works or not; only that it’s new.

Demonstrations are easily faked. Press releases prove other than that you can attract the attention of the press. Which is not a difficult task.


and water is a fuel. fuel for the body, and fuel for utilities and technology.

No, water is not a fuel for the body. Carbohydrates are fuel for the body. Water is more like a lubricant and coolant for the body. Coincidentally it’s not a half-bad coolant for technology either.


reply posted on 4-11-2007 @ 01:47 PM by savageseb
Originally posted by NRen2k5
Originally posted by savageseb
Originally posted by NRen2k5

1) There is no such thing as “HHO.” The gas in question is a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and hydrogen. It is not a newly discovered molecule.

2) Producing fuel from water requires more energy than burning the fuel will give you. Much more. So you can’t “fuel” a car with water.

I’ve stated and repeated this at least twice at this point.



UUUHHHHH, do you consider making 1 litre of gas per hour with a 20 watt hour consumption rate an inefficient way of creating fuel out of water?

Yes. One litre of hydrogen gas is a very small amount. It won’t even fuel a car for a minute.


Originally posted by NRen2k5
Stan isn’t doing it. He’s dead. And no, he wasn’t ever doing it either. He was perpetrating the same scam as Denny Klein.

Water is not a fuel. Period.

Misinterpret the numbers all you want. Keep falling for the stage act. But you will never, ever fuel a car with water.


there is not only patents with pictures and explanations, but videos and press releases. please refrain from posting anymore lies.

Oh, I didn’t explain patents in this thread already? It must have been another of the free energy threads.…

Patents are not proof that an invention works. They’re just a means of protecting an invention. The U.S. Patent Office is generally not concerned with whether an invention works or not; only that it’s new.

Demonstrations are easily faked. Press releases prove other than that you can attract the attention of the press. Which is not a difficult task.


and water is a fuel. fuel for the body, and fuel for utilities and technology.

No, water is not a fuel for the body. Carbohydrates are fuel for the body. Water is more like a lubricant and coolant for the body. Coincidentally it’s not a half-bad coolant for technology either.


hahahaha, aight then, stop drinking any water for 7 days, and tell me how you feel afterwards.


no, you are wrong, 1 litre of H2/02 gas with some air intake will blow your face straight of your body and all your limbs with it.

please just stop posting paragraphs of # that got nothing to do with subject. i gave you some numbers, now go to your virtual lab and try em out b4 posting anymore. as well pay some respect for the people that have lost their lives, and have been encarsurated for merely trying to get this info out to the world, just so that a**h0les like you can enjoy it....
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^