It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Open-Source Specs Posted for 200% Efficient Water Fuel Cell!

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
man .... I just read the post frm the op ...

:!@!?!#?!#!#? ... do u really think that we are going to use water as fuel right now?

or u must be dumb or u are trying to get flags from dumb people

amazing thing is people that doesnt know crap talk about it as it is the savior of the human race ...

really, I dont know nothing about it, but I wont come here and post WOW WE ARE SAVED ...




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mdiinican
Just looking at the video, the rate at which the gas was bubbling out of the hose before he tipped it over did not look anywhere near fast enough to push the water out of the bottle in 12 seconds. I really suspect that there was a hole in the bottom of the bottle, which the guy uncovered when he flipped it over, so it would drain that fast.


You might be right. I did a test really quick, and it only took a hole the size of a sewing needle to duplicate the same amount of time. But I have not checked yet to see what a bubble rate would look like to get the same volume. The hose they use is at least a 1/2", so each bubble can displace a lot of water. The other problem with this test is that they hold the bottle out of the water, which by differential atmosphere pressure and gravity, the water wants to excape the bottle. So each bubble is expanding it's volume as it pushes in.

Other tests that I have seen, they dunk the whole thing under the water and get a different result.

Now, with all that said and even if these guys are full of crap about these numbers, this is still worth while. Because if you can save 30% on fuel, it will go a long way on cutting the amount of oil we use in this world, as well as the pollution.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
For those of you that are posting doubt about using water for energy, you really need to get a clue before you waste bandwidth posting. This has been done for well over 100 years. It is not new. It is oxygen and hydrogen.
The new tricks are how much can you produce with the least amount of engergy. You can run a combustion engine all day long on this, that is not rocket science.

We had the same problems and attitudes back in the middle 80's with Ethanol. I did the first testing for the South Dakota Corn Growers back the with racing applications and methanol/ethanol mixes. Now the Indy car series runs 100% Ethanol. It was a matter of making custom cams for timing, level and voltage of spark and delivery method of fuel.

There have been many people that have simply cashed out and patients bought up over time. You think in 100 years that we cannot get better efficiency out of a gas engine? Yeah right......



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by j2000
One thing that their plans do not give you is the electronics to run it. Almost all that have had success in the past have done so with a pulse modulation of he power. They do not show the package they are using in the video.


Yeah, the specs don't really seem complete. Do you want to try to contact them about that?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol
man .... I just read the post frm the op ...

:!@!?!#?!#!#? ... do u really think that we are going to use water as fuel right now?


Actually, yes, yes I do!

See the Denny Klein video that IFA420 posted on page 2. You can do some truly amazing stuff with this HHO gas.

For those who still don't want to believe it even after seeing it right there on Fox News, I really don't know what to tell you........



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Here's an interesting video on the subject:



Incase it is'nt embedded here's the youtube link
www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Hehehe, the great HHO fuel cells. They find their way into the alternative news sites every so often (not quite so much in mainstream news however).

I'm still blown away (although not as much anymore) how people, especially on this website, can't fathom this as a possibility. Quoting "laws" and physics from text books like they haven't been corrupt to the core since the start of modern day education.

In any event, I was heavily into HHO cells some time ago. I currently have one I built and connected to my car which is used to save on fuel. To not do so would be foolish. Our design is very basic ( we do not employ resonance in our model) and we certainly don't get 200% efficiency but we are increasing gas mileage by over 50% regularly. At this stage so are SOME of my friends and family members (the ones who were proactively willing to participate).

Here's where it is - if you think this technology would be embraced or that if it was true and viable that hiding it from the mainstream public would be impossible; then you have NO IDEA of our state of affairs. And by "our" I mean mankind's. We are so abhorrently suppressed with regards to information availability that it can still make me nauseous at times.

I was pretty active in the area of suppressed energy and spent most of my time and research working with HHO in particular. I wrote the Tinwiki article on HHO at one point in hopes of raising the importance of the issue in people's minds. I spoke at length for months and months to anyone I could in person. A friend of mine took it to the next level and tried to get HHO cell sales and installations as a officially sanctioned business. He had more than one meeting with the small business initiative assistance program offered in our area and even had a department head within the engineering faculty at a local university "sign-on" as it being a "viable technology". My friend strangely enough, (or not strangely at all) was advised by the dept. head that gov't approval chances were "next to zero".

And so it was of course, denied for program assistance. He now continues to make and install basic HHO cells (gradually improving on previous designs) mainly in transport trucks.

As my research and study continued I eventually moved away from HHO and suppressed energy in it's entirety as I became astonished with other disciplines of suppressed information. This is especially the case for what I consider the biggest fraud/suppression area of all: health/medicine.

If you find technology such as HHO and its FREE ENERGY potentials impossible, then you would shrivel up and die if you wrapped your head around the implications of how we are being taught about what is health, medicine and how the body does/doesn't work. The lies and truth manipulation here are free energy x100 in my opinion.

Thus, it occupies every spare minute of my day and has for the past 18 months or so. If we are to live and operate in this "civilized" society, health care education and its information manipulation is of core importance and some of the most dire in regards to the current perceptions of what is "true".

I'm positive there are thousands of HHO users across Canada alone, all getting involved and learning under their own initiative and being forced to spread the information via word of mouth or the Internet. Certain Scandinavian countries have outlawed hydrogen experimentation meaning it's now illegal to "play with water". I have no doubt that if need be, if the pressure was really on, they would easily sign legislation and forbid H2O separation here as well as some kind of public or national danger.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Thanks for the compliment, buddhasystem!



Originally posted by MajorDisaster


But, suppose a NEW way to perform the electrolysis using much less energy could be discovered - as Stan Meyer, and others, supposedly have done. Well, if that's true, then it would be perfectly feasible to have a generator running on water, without violating any Laws of Physics.

Use a little bit of energy to change the water into HHO gas, then burn the HHO gas to get a LOT of energy out. Make sense?


No, It does not make sense. If you somehow achieved ideal 100 % efficiency of electrolysis, by burning the created HHO gas you cannot get more energy than it originaly took to electrolyse the water.

I'll even write it down simplified for you:

H2O + energy (electrolysis)-----> H2 + O

H2 + O (burning)-----> H2O + energy

Energy in the first and second equation is the same. Something to do with conversation of it. Prove me wrong and go get a nobel prize.


Resulting gas could make the car more efficient, but I am leaning towards making it even less efficient and corroding the engine, while at it.
But surely not efficient above 100 %...



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorDisaster
 


According to the posts on youtube, they are running staight up DC. You would not be able to do this though. There has to be a restriction of power or after a little time, the heat would get out of hand and boil the water.

You have to control the energy going in, but you can find a balance. I think pulse modulation thru coil would be a better producer and you can ramp up higher energy and alternate the sequence. Just a cheap MSD or Accel coil can give you 55,000 Volts with little put in.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
My "read between the lines" was that the guy probably has received some big time threats...and decided the only way to stay alive was to get the plans public.

That is really the only way anyone who develops a workable overenergy device will be able to stay alive.

Those of you who are convinced no overenergy device will ever work are in for a rude awakening in the not too distant future. ZPE is real, does not violate the laws of thermodynamics and is nipping at the heels of big oil.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by chiron613
 


Science is an ever evolving thing. What they say is solid ground today, becomes quicksand tomorrow.

In order to be a scientist, you need to accept change, embracing it with open minds, when it is presented. Science is ever finding out, things change.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Deleted duplicate post

[edit on 24-11-2009 by sixmilelake]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeBrew
Quoting "laws" and physics from text books like they haven't been corrupt to the core since the start of modern day education.


Any decent educational program comes with a comprehensive lab course. Advanced programs come with hands-on experimentation. That is to say, you see what you measure and draw conclusions. That can be in physics, chemistry and most other sciences. If you are saying that all oscilloscopes were secretly tampered with to produce a manufactured result, have a nice day.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
First post.. greets guys and gals!

So the fuel cell produces hydroxy gas.. which on their website is HHO or H2O as it's known around here. That's my first point. I'm rusty at calculating so please correct me.

The process is

Electrical energy from generator -> cell

Cell produces HHO which is steam -> goes to generator and/or engine with alternator

Driven Generator's electrical energy -> cell

The generator has a friction loss as well electrical losses..

Injecting steam into the engine.. it's already steam so vaporization effects on compression ratios in the engine are minimized as would be momentum effects of water aiding air fuel mixing.. compared to injecting water.

convert water to steam: 627.6 Watt hours per liter (540 calories per milliliter)

If they're running 276 Watts per hour.. 0.440 liters of steam per hour.. is that right?

A pick-up truck might use one megaliter of air per hour running flat out over the redline..(600 cfm carb?)

Assuming 50,000 liters of air per hour cruising 55mph.. I'm not sure that .440 liters of steam is going to do much in the engine. Maybe a mechanical engineer can "one up" me on this or correct me, and do the generator-steam calculation as well?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


If you think the energy requirements to separate 1 molecule of H2O is completed fixed as "physics" vehemently claims it is, then you sir, can have a nice day.



edit: spelling

[edit on 24-11-2009 by StrangeBrew]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by sixmilelake
 


Before you confuse anyone else along with yourself, you should first learn that a gas combustion engine is run on oxygen from the air. The fuel you put in is only to ignite it. I am glad you figured out how much air it burns, now figure out how much fuel it takes to light it.

Now to make it fun.
What is the compression ratio?
What is the compossion of the cam dynamics?
What voltage and voltage gap are you using for the spark?
What is the material of the parts of the engine for heat dissipation?

You cannot make quick assumptions based on Scientific knowns. I am an Engineer and over the years have broken some laws.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I am surprised at all the criticism. This tech is valid, and is being regularly tested! It is obviously not "free" energy, nor is it "overunity," but it does provide a real boost to economy, especially in the case of the rather inefficient internal combustion engines!

This is not magic, it is an additional way to harness some wasted energy and get our existing engines running closer to 100% efficiency.

It helps in many ways, it cools the combustion chamber, it adds mass to the fuel, it provides a favorable chemical reaction, it provides a boost of "steam" power from latent H2O vapor (while providing cooling).

Also, this company is making their plans publicly available, they are not trying to sell snake oil! They are saying, we have had some success with this, we will continue to build and refine our version, but here are the basics for other people to try.

So, all the Healthy Skepticism is Great, and Of Course we won't violate the laws of Physics, nor will be create OverUnity or Free Energy, but we can certainly investigate and expand our knowledge of devices such as this!

I can also say from personal experience that there is enough wasted energy in an automobile engine to power this device, and that HHO Gas, H2O vapor, H2 gas, and O2 gas can be created and injected into the engine without providing any significant additional load on the engine. I have made this work, but I have not gone far enough to measure its effect on the engines efficiency. I have a feeling my setup will provide very little benefit if any, but now I can refine it with better catalysts, and better energy storage devices, and maybe report back better results in the near future.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Here is another thing I get a kick out of. How many here know which end of a screw driver to use? Have you ever even built an engine before?

Here is a pic of the first engine in one of my boats that I am currently doing. Yes there is two of them. Together they will produce around 1000 hp. Put that in your pipe and smoke it! Oh, and it has a wet bar also!




I plan on putting HHO on these motors. If I can save 30% on fuel and I should gain 8 to 12 % power. That gives me an extra 100 plus HP to play with at around 80 mph.

That will save around $240.00 everyday I take it out. Yes, this baby can go thru 200 gallons in a full day. Gas at the marinia's is not cheap either.
How long will it take to pay for an HHO investment. Depends on how fancy I go.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorDisaster
 


I need to see componants, then I hope it works. Ten years ago the :cold fussion" debachal left a bad taste in my mouth. I don't see how anything short of a tokamak will work. Hope I'm wrong.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeBrew
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


If you think the energy requirements to separate 1 molecule of H2O is completed fixed as "physics" vehemently claims it is, then you sir, can have a nice day.


Yes, I'm having a pretty fine day, thank you.

There is nothing "vehement" about stating a common result of multitude of experiments. Mankind's understanding of basic chemistry and physics is pretty remarkable, among those members of it who have keen interest in this subject and spent time in the lab. Then of course there is the ignorant bunch, who claim they can "trick" a molecule, a magnet or a piece of rock into behaving according to their volition, and contrary to physics laws, most of which have been tested to umptieth decimal place.

I vehemently claim indeed, that if you walk off the roof of a building, the resultant energy release will be significant so as to cause you damage. Go ahead and say that "energy requirements" are flexible, and feel free to demonstrate by experiment. I'll send flowers.




top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join