Make a Hydrogen Booster For Your Car; Runs on Water, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 2-1-2008 @ 11:16 AM by MurderSmurf
reply to post by an0maly33


Sure, you could do that, and actually it could be made very safe and reliable. It would work. To a point.

It’s just not even close to as good as using a battery to hold that recaptured energy like the Prius does. It would be a sort of Rube Goldbergish way of doing it.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by MurderSmurf]


reply posted on 2-1-2008 @ 01:38 PM by an0maly33
reply to post by MurderSmurf



well the benefit of this type of system is that it would be easy to fit to any existing car. adding battery packs and electric motors wouldn't be as easy i think. =)


reply posted on 2-1-2008 @ 08:17 PM by MurderSmurf
Originally posted by RogerT
Originally posted by MurderSmurfI can see how you conveniently disregarded, misunderstood, or just plain ignored:
Originally posted by MurderSmurf
Do you think the ideal conditions for one side are the same as for the other?



None of the above.

I said we should agree that your original statement about the energy on both sides being equal in a perfect world was not accurate before continuing to address efficiencies etc.

First you say it isn't, then you say it is, then you say it isn't again!?!?


When somebody tells you “in a perfect world,” it means in theory, ignoring a lot of factors.

Literally speaking, this can’t work even in a perfect world, because it would require two coexistent, different yet different perfect worlds.


Now that's confusing. I do wish you could make up your mind.

I wish you would read and experiment rather than just trying to pick apart what I tell you. Maybe if you did you would quit being so confused all the time.


It looks like you are arguing from theory, so this is a theoretical debate is it not? However, you state things as fact. Either you're arrogant, or ignorant, or you have personal experience which would be very valuable to share here.

You say that as if theory can’t also be fact. Scientific laws, rules, equations, etc. are called “theory” but they are also fact.


Have you experience building resonance/harmonic circuitry into 'cold' electrolysis systems, like Furnace Man has?

No, but it’s an interesting lead. It will never yield 100% efficiency or better, since that’s impossible.
But I do realize that it can increase efficiency.


If so, please share. If not, please confirm that your responses are based solely on your limited understanding of conventional chemistry and physics, so I can gracefully bow out of our debate and leave you to argue theory with others that enjoy that sort of thing.

And just what sort of thing do you enjoy?


reply to
post by an0maly33


Excellent point.

Not only would it make things simpler, but it ought to give you the benefits of a Prius (though not as pronounced) in city driving like the Prius does, without being nearly as lousy as the Prius for highway driving since it’s still basically an ordinary car.

(Contemporary hybrids are lousy for highway driving because of the heavy batteries and electric motor they have to carry and because of the undersized internal combustion engine.)

[edit on 2-1-2008 by MurderSmurf]


reply posted on 27-4-2008 @ 08:45 PM by jdieg
reply to post by Furnace_Man



Furnace_Man, I have been working on this, and agree that these other guys quoting physics, while they may be smarter than 5th graders, aren't actually looking at the right picture.

If I carry a can of gas to the middle of the road and ignite it, are they then saying that he resulting explosion can produce no more energy that I used in carrying it to the road. They are missing the point completely.

Anyway, my experiments have been DC and have produced "impressive" results, but I VERY MUCH would like to see your info on how you produced the precise AC required for yours.

Can you please provide some details about your modifications, and maybe some construction details of your lawnmower model?


reply posted on 23-5-2008 @ 06:38 AM by johndoeknows
Originally posted by NRen2k5
Hoaxes, all of them.

Water is not a fuel. No matter how you break water down into 2×H2 and O2, in an ideal system, you’ll only get as much energy out of burning it as you put in.

This is in an ideal system. In reality, a lot of energy is wasted trying to break water down into 2×H2 and O2 and then a little bit more is wasted in the combustion not being perfect.

Klein and Meyer and their kind are con artists. Their vehicles run off of some other kind of energy, whether it be a flywheel, a hydrogen tank or plain old gasoline.

In fact, similar to Newman refusing to run his free energy machines on their own output, I’m pretty certain I’ve heard Klein claim that his car is gasoline powered and hydrogen assisted, and that even though he claims to be able to run it on water alone, he chooses to use some gasoline.


I am no expert but this is my thought on it!

A car uses a dynamo which is always operating and charging the battery.
The battery itself has always a buffer (overcapacity).

So if you put an device on the battery or not, the engine still power the dynamo.

An extra device on the battery will not make the engine or dynamo work harder if your driving? the battery itself will just take longer to be fully charged! (but regular driving is needed to allow the battery to charge).

So connecting an hydrogen booster to a battery takes the access energy from the battery turns it into hydrogen which makes the engine more fuel efficient.

Or am I wrong?

What I like to know doesn't the water damage the engine?


reply posted on 23-5-2008 @ 03:14 PM by mdiinican
Originally posted by johndoeknows
Originally posted by NRen2k5
Hoaxes, all of them.

Water is not a fuel. No matter how you break water down into 2×H2 and O2, in an ideal system, you’ll only get as much energy out of burning it as you put in.

This is in an ideal system. In reality, a lot of energy is wasted trying to break water down into 2×H2 and O2 and then a little bit more is wasted in the combustion not being perfect.

Klein and Meyer and their kind are con artists. Their vehicles run off of some other kind of energy, whether it be a flywheel, a hydrogen tank or plain old gasoline.

In fact, similar to Newman refusing to run his free energy machines on their own output, I’m pretty certain I’ve heard Klein claim that his car is gasoline powered and hydrogen assisted, and that even though he claims to be able to run it on water alone, he chooses to use some gasoline.


I am no expert but this is my thought on it!

A car uses a dynamo which is always operating and charging the battery.
The battery itself has always a buffer (overcapacity).

So if you put an device on the battery or not, the engine still power the dynamo.

An extra device on the battery will not make the engine or dynamo work harder if your driving? the battery itself will just take longer to be fully charged! (but regular driving is needed to allow the battery to charge).

So connecting an hydrogen booster to a battery takes the access energy from the battery turns it into hydrogen which makes the engine more fuel efficient.

Or am I wrong?

What I like to know doesn't the water damage the engine?


Except for some unavoidable friction and losses to eddy currents and back EMF, the amount of mechanical power it takes to turn an alternator depends on it's load. So using the alternator to do anything but operate the engine will make it use more energy. Consequently, using the alternator to electrolyze water will reduce the fuel efficiency, unless a mixture of gasoline and hydrogen is just *that* much better than straight gas or straight hydrogen.

I don't see why it would be, but hell, throw me some reputable numbers and I'll change my mind.

[edit on 23-5-2008 by mdiinican]


reply posted on 27-5-2008 @ 03:26 PM by Anonymous ATS
haha this is obivious scam, you can't gain energy by doing this cause hydrogen is nowhere to be found in the world. This means you would have to make hydrogen which costs more ENERGY than you gain from burning it. You can use forexample oil to power the manufacturation which means in the end you will lose ENERGY.

However energy doesn't equal money so if you have a booster and can manufacture hydrogen somewhat cheaply, it might be still cheaper than the gas. (In other words if you buy oil it is not even close the amount of energy required for making the hydrogen however, you can get the power from nuclear plant for much cheaper energywise than from oil).

So as you can see you don't need to break rules of physics to make booster worthawhile, it's economics really. And currently Nuclear energy is a lot cheaper than oil energy.


Hydrogen has other benifits too, it doesn't pollute and you could imagine some systems can run better with that kind of fuel (If you can't use straight nuclear energy which is always better, however hydrogen is a method to store it too).
This is the reason why it is good to have a machine that can produce it with very little energy loss.

Anyway I doubt hydrogen will play a big part in anything ever but I could be wrong. There are probably much "better" same kind of substances already.

And I think this "free energy" thing is redicilous. Energy is always free and can't disappear, it just changes form to hear (and rays which also later on transform to heat), so therefore a machine that can transform heat to energy would give us as much energy as we wanted (ofc solar power is free too).



reply posted on 27-5-2008 @ 05:56 PM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Luther777



Water, on it's own, contains no harvestable chemical energy. In hydrogen production it is just the cold source of energy carrier atoms. In order to produce hydrogen, you must put in move electrical energy than you get out in chemical energy in the hydrogen. So why is the hydrogen movement an interesting one. Here is the answer: gasoline emissions are some of the worst emissions possible environmentally. We CAn produce hydrogen from such sources of electricity that are non carbon sources such as wind, solar, or nuclear. If hydrogen can be produced this way (which it can) and can be transported stored and used in a safe, cost effective way (which it can't yet) than we could all drive around without the slightest worries about carbon and it's implications geo-policitally, or environmentally.
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^




Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 16 hours ago, 69 replies
Official Maine Caucus Results Thread!!
  2012 US Elections, Posted 6 hours ago, 57 replies