reply to post by NRen2k5

---

I understand your point, but I'm still not 100% convinced. Is there a system to convert the water into hydrogen efficiently outside a vehicle, then using it in your car (if that makes any sense)

reply to post by Furnace_Man

---

I'll take it .

Storing hydrogen is dangerous and costly. Just make the hydrogen and oxygen as you need it and there is no storage problems. You don't even have to bother separating the H gas from the O2 gas, they burn better together.

reply to post by Furnace_Man

---

So what you are making is a hydro booster (Just to avoid confusion)?

But you can’t make them nearly fast enough. And it takes more energy to make them than you get out of them.

Yup, that's the common misconception.....

We'll see.

Part 2 of this link leads to a 404 error. Do you have the complete set downloaded or located elsewhere?

No, it’s the cold hard truth.

i doubt they are really selling it with the 'overunity' angle, if you know what i mean. more likely, they are simply trying to claim that their little gadget improves combustion.

a good indication is the part where they're talking about CO and NOx emission reductions. exhaust temperature would of course be another interesting aspect they simply omitted. if combustion was perfect, you wouldn't need a catalytic converter would you? iow, there is always room for a little improvement.

www.svpvril.com...

Yet another link. I just went into yahoo search and typed "puharich hydrogen" without the quotes. There are tons of links on this.

You could put this system in your basement and hook it up to your furnace. Heat your home with water!

I can run a lawnmower engine on my small scale test setup, I just need to make everything bigger and put it in the car.

Note: The above was done with 100% water, no gasoline, not even for starting. When all is working in my car, then I'll post pics.

What kind of modifications did you do to the design?

My mods are mostly in the reaction chamber, (the thing that almost looks like a spark plug) I made it in a piece of 4" PVC about 6" tall. Two pieces of copper pipe are one inside the other to give the correct gap distance and diameter as described in the text. I'm using copper temporarily, the finished device will use stainless steel.
The circuit is kind of difficult, I tried a few different designs and they all worked but some worked better and that's what I stuck with.
Introducing the gas to the engine is going to be another set of challenges. In the lawn mower I just drilled a hole in the air cleaner and stuck in a hose. But in a car I might have to use something similar to an LP gas carb,,, I think. Not sure yet.

No, they most definitely are selling it with the overunity angle. For an onboard water electrolysis rig to provide a performance boost, it would have to be overunity.

I already explained this at least twice. Since people seemed to be having trouble understanding the high school introductory physics involved, I put it in a way you’d only need grade school math to understand. If you still don’t understand, then I guess it’s hopeless.



NOx?



Yes, you would. Because even if you can ensure perfect combustion, you can’t ensure perfect gasoline. Sure, there’s some room for improvement. But performing electrolysis on water onboard to produce hydrogen to burn in the engine is a losing proposition. It takes more energy to separate the water into 2×H2 and O2 than you’ll get by burning the mixture. I’ve already said this more than once.



It would be more efficient to just heat your home electrically than it would be to use electrolysis to make hydrogen to burn.

Think about it:
Electricity -> Losses -> Electrolysis -> Hydrogen combustion -> Losses -> Heat
vs
Electricity -> Losses -> Heat



Check your electricity consumption. It would be cheaper to use an electric lawnmower than it would be to electrolyze water to fuel a gas fuelled lawnmower.

And no, you can’t fuel a car with water. As I’ve already pointed out probably a half dozen times already, it takes more energy to break down water than you get from burning the resultant gas.



In other words, never.

[edit on 3-11-2007 by NRen2k5]

i advise you to step back and look at the picture from another angle, which apparently includes only hoaxes, frauds and ignorant people without concept of 'high school physics', as you love to put it.

the electrolyis gear is not put in for power, it's used to generate gases which are supposed to help combustion. that point cannot be argued, imho, since they clearly said so in the first video. whether it works or not is open to debate, of course.



www.greenfacts.org...

why is everybody so proud of physics when they don't get even the most simple chemical notation?

your insistance on 'overunity' is unfounded, the tell-tale sign of a perpetuum mobile would be that you do NOT need any fuel. in this case all they claim is that you'll need less fuel, not even that much less. they need the hydrogen/oxygen mixture, on-board electrolyis is but one way to get it, sp please stop focusing only on that aspect. the electrolyis rig won't use any more juice than car lights, probably less.

PS: what do you think a catalytic converter does?

The problem, as I see it, with using H2O as fuel, in place of oil, is what on earth are we all going to fight over in the future?

I guess that any country with a large body of fresh water would be fair game for a major Coalition invasion?..........

reply to post by BillyTheCat

---

If salt water can be used, look at the ocean. That's a lot of fuel.

Just want to get this straight.

Are you saying that following the Puharich work, you have succeeded in building a system that electolyses water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, and that the burning of the resultant gases produces more energy than that which was used in the electrolysis process?

And if you keep saying it I'll ignore you even more!

Quite simply, Yes.