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: 6
29
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   
First post and this indeed is a very interesting topic. My father in law tried to tinker with this and it was fun lighting the bubbles with a loud pop from the bubbler and it seemed to work on the first few minutes but during a long trip, the solution became very hot and is producing steam.

I tried to show him some schematics (w/c i don't understand) that regulated the dc voltage in the system to prevent boiling and at which point he decided to stop.

I also notice that when in comes to free energy topics, it always goes down to the closed system argument. Why does it have to end up that way. Most of the system we have is open. Just like the energy we get from wind generators and hydro electric dams.

Anyway, I found this youtube where they burn water through some chemical reaction. He plugs their site on the video but the site is interesting too.





[edit on 25-11-2009 by nantax]

[edit on 25-11-2009 by nantax]




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by chiron613
 


I thought we are supposed to deny ignorance here, so why is it that people claim something is not true before they even look at it? It's not that the law of energy-conservation is being broken. The energy is likely coming from the zero-point energy field of dark-matter. The fact is, science IS being rewritten all the time. Some people still talk about the "big bang" theory as if that is current physics, when many up-to-date scientists have already shelved that idea. String Theory, which demands 10 (or 11) dimensions, opens the door for all kinds of energy coming from "empty" space, which in reality is not empty at all. Current physics is evolving and the more we learn, the more questions we have.

Denying ignorance is akin to embracing "new ideas", and I do understand that this is hard for people to do if they believe that man already has everything mostly figured out. But we DON'T have most things figured out, at least not from what is known by the majority of scientists. Perhaps the "black ops" scientists know more of what is truly going on...



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Here is a comment from www.peswiki.com as referenced in the 1st post.
For sure they are not my calculations... But his points seem valid.

In fairness, I should mention these calculations appear to be from a competitor... Although he freely admits this while comparing this system to his own...



Comment: Only about 80% Efficient

On Nov. 24, 2009, New Energy Congress member, Francis Giroux wrote:


Inaccurate Water Displacement Test of HHO Production using Hybrid Tech Energy’s Video


Water displacement is a good way to measure HHO gas production if it is done correctly. First I will give simple instructions for a water displacement measurement setup and then I will point out the obvious errors of the setup in the video claiming 200% efficiency in their HHO cell.

Simple instructions I usually give to an experimenter for water displacement measurement of gas production are as follows.

Take a two liter bottle full of water and turn it upside down in a bucket of water without spilling out any water (a one liter bottle will work just as well).

Take your gas hose from your electrolyzer and run it down into the bucket and up into the upside down bottle. Then turn on your electrolyzer and time how long it takes to empty the bottle of water by replacing it with gas.

More precise instructions would include efforts to keep the end of the hose and the open end of the bottle as close to the water surface in the bucket as possible and a measurement of the atmospheric pressure in the room, as well as voltage and amperage measurements on the electrolyzer.

Before we look carefully at their protocol let me say that being very familiar with the bubbling of gas out of a hose at two liters per minute makes it easy for me to see that the gas production was very similar to that of our electrolyzer running at that current.

Now let’s look at the apparatus in the video to see what varies from this protocol. First of all the gas hose is coming from a reservoir/foam separator that is half full of foam and the container appears to be 2-5 gallons. This would be meaningless if the above instructions were followed but they are not. The instructions above would not be as critical if the gas hose was coming directly from an electrolyzer with virtually no reservoir of gas space inside.

Now let’s look at how the protocol varies from my instructions. Before they start their timer (watch) they have the gas hose bubbling into the bottom of a one liter bottle full of water. Without exact measurement of the height of that bottle I will have to guess that the one liter bottle is 9 inches tall and the hose is inserted 9 inches below the water level. So what? The pressure on the end of that hose is 9 inches of water column, or roughly 0.375 psi. This would not matter so much if the gas hose came from an electrolyzer with virtually no gas reservoir inside, but here we have upwards to 2 and a half gallons or ten liters of compressed gas in the reservoir at 0.375 psi or 9” water column or 0.025 Atmospheres.

Now when the clock is started the bottle is inverted into the bucket of water and the hose is under a vacuum roughly equivalent to the pressure it had before because the water in the bottle is now pulling down and causing a vacuum at the end of the gas hose. During the timing of the test the vacuum dissipates as the water level inside the bottle goes down. However the equivalent total vacuum during the test will be roughly half the maximum vacuum of 0.025 Atmospheres. So the differential effective pressure difference before and during the test will be 0.025 + ½(0.025) = 0.0375 atmospheres during the test.

Using the gas law PV/T=PV/T we can figure out the amount of gas that went into the bottle coming from the reservoir and NOT from the electrolyzer. The gas hose was certainly big enough to dissipate any pressure in 12 seconds so we can say with assurance that the ending pressure was 1 atmosphere. The effective beginning pressure was 1.0375 atmospheres. The volume before was ten liters inside the reservoir. The volume after was ten liters inside the reservoir and X liters inside the test bottle. That is what we are trying to figure out. Temperature before and after were the same. So we can ignore temperature and our equation becomes 1.0375 x 10 = 1.000 x (10+X) Solving this equation for x we get X=0.375 liters of gas transferred from the reservoir into the bottle during the test that was not produced by the electrolyzer.

Other inaccuracies in their protocol was the turning of the bottle upside down into the bucket and how much water spilled out during this operation, and lastly the voltage that was used by the electrolyzer. Using a twelve volt battery charger is using at least 14.2 volts as would be using the alternator of a car. So figuring out electrolyzer efficiency with the proper voltage, which could have easily been measured with a voltmeter during the test, is essential. Also the video showed no bubble of HHO gas coming out the neck of the bottle before the stop watch was stopped and by watching the water level going down at the end of the test (which was very obviously slower than at the beginning of the test (when there was both vacuum inside the bottle and pressure on the gas inside the hose caused by the pressure in the reservoir). The video also didn’t show the stop watch being started (the watch and finger were off the screen). I timed the test myself while watching the video at 15 seconds.

I estimate that the inverting operation lost one ounce of water or 0.03125 liters. The pressure/vacuum caused 0.375 liters to come from the reservoir. That leaves 0.59375 liters of gas produced by the electrolyzer with 14.2 volts and 23.6 amps (assuming their ammeter was accurate) in 15 seconds. All these errors combined bring their 200% efficient electrolyzer to an efficiency of only 80% which is typical for a six cell unit running at 14 volts, which is what our Hydrogen Boost unit is.

All this calculating only confirms my estimate of the amount of gas coming out the end of the gas hose when they had it in the bottle of water.

Sorry for the dashed hopes but this is just another example of poor measurement.


[edit on 25-11-2009 by ByteChanger]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr

what the scam actually does is add a resistor in parallel to the oxygen sensor.

I honestly was not aware of that. Thank you!

The use of HHO also introduces an amazing amount of extra heat into the engine, as HHO burns at an even higher temperature than H2 in an excess of oxygen, about 2800°C. And of course, requiring an additional 23.6 Amperes of current from an alternator that was never designed to deliver that kind of current can have unwanted effects as well.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by MajorDisaster
 


You have a horrible understanding of the chemistry of combustion if you think the water is consumed and disappears. Unless there is a nuclear reaction going on, you're going to end up with as much matter coming out of the reaction as you have going in. If your only reactants are hydrogen and oxygen, all you can get out of the reaction is hydrogen, oxygen, water (H2O), and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2).
[edit on 24-11-2009 by nataylor]


Although I'm having a great time reading this thread and the masses amount of grade school chemistry and physics here, I have to comment that the above is not entirely correct.

A possible byproduct of this process would also be O3 or Ozone for the less informed.

Many posts here are claiming that the use of hydrogen gas as a fuel in this fashion isn't possible due to the needs of electrolysis. If one were to chemically separate the elements, or separate them based on the exposure to another element, then this hurdle is overcome.

In addition, there is no loss on energy from bonding O+O to O2 or O3. This happens naturally when a free floating molecule comes in contact to a compatible free floating molecule.

Now as far as the actual topic here goes, it wasn't long ago that people said the same thing about pretty much every fuel we use today.. can't get more out of it than we put in... Cant make fire from Ice...oh wait..you CAN make fire from ice.
Ok..back to the entertainment.

..Ex



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed

Although I'm having a great time reading this thread and the masses amount of grade school chemistry and physics here, I have to comment that the above is not entirely correct.

A possible byproduct of this process would also be O3 or Ozone for the less informed.

Yes, most of the responses are simplified. You really didn't expect a post-graduate physics thesis, did you? We're still working on the basics of combustion here...


Many posts here are claiming that the use of hydrogen gas as a fuel in this fashion isn't possible due to the needs of electrolysis. If one were to chemically separate the elements, or separate them based on the exposure to another element, then this hurdle is overcome.

True, but this device does not even claim to do such. It uses electrical current to separate hydrogen from oxygen.

In addition, using a chemical separation usually means the chemical is used up when hydrogen is released. Thus, the cost of the chemical becomes the cost of fuel, and typically that has made attempts to use this method prohibitively expensive. Perhaps this will someday change, but so far no luck on that.



In addition, there is no loss on energy from bonding O+O to O2 or O3. This happens naturally when a free floating molecule comes in contact to a compatible free floating molecule.

Er, no. The O=O bond (as in O2) has an energy of 498 kJ/mol, while the O-O bond (as in ozone, O3) has an energy of 145 kJ/mol. Reference. This is why tropospheric ozone tends to break down into diatomic oxygen. The only reason ozone exists in the upper atmosphere is that the solar radiation provides enough energy to offset this difference.

Oxygen tends to form diatomic molecules because of this energy level of the double bond. That is why catalysts such as platinum and palladium are needed in fuel cells; they tend to cause oxygen and hydrogen diatomic molecules to split into atomic configurations so they can recombine into water. Without the catalyst, the O=O binds will not separate by themselves.


Cant make fire from Ice...oh wait..you CAN make fire from ice.

I have a feeling I'm just not catching what you are saying... care to elucidate?

TheRedneck


[edit on 11/25/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by MajorDisaster
 


What do you think you get when you burn hydrogen? You get water. So they convert water into hydrogen and oxygen and then those two combust and become water again. Assuming the only source of hydrogen and oxygen is the initial supply of water, you'd get back exactly as much water as you put in. So there's no reason this couldn't be used in a closed system.

Which of course is just another reason why this thing is fictional. There's no way you can start with a fuel, break it down, recombine it, end up with as much fuel as you started with AND an excess of energy.
Very good, but even worse than starting with a fuel, they are starting with water! Water is the byproduct of combustion of the hydrogen FUEL and oxygen. So you need to break the water down(by adding energy) into hydrogen and oxygen before you can burn it. The only way, so far that this type of system is useful is to store excess energy, such as from photovoltaic/solar power systems, as hydrogen and oxygen gases to be burned at night when the solar array is not putting out useful energy.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by butcherguy]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   



1. There is no such thing as HHO gas.


Water in the form of vapor?



Check out this thread you guys. I think the technology here has a better shot at creating a over-unity device.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 11/25/2009 by VonDoomen]

[edit on 11/25/2009 by VonDoomen]

[edit on 11/25/2009 by VonDoomen]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorDisaster
 


Yes, there are a few good groups on Yahoo. Check out the Bob Boyce group, as I said in an earlier post. He has a much more complicated design, and is (If I remember correctly) working with Toyota to put his design into production.
Some of the Stanley Meyers patents and designs are available there on PDF, too. Stanley's brother is also trying to resurrect his work, the last I knew.

As far as making the simpler designs work, I think a carburated vehicle is best.

Also, there are some in the Philippines who have working Joe's Cells, as well as the original in Australia. These are the really interesting ones. There are also groups on Yahoo for these.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Youtube has generators and lawnmowers that run on HHO. It's only a matter of time to refine the work. The risk is in getting the HHO gas input correct. HHO burns at around 5,000 degrees and tends to melt pistons if the mix is too strong. I'm sure people are using hho in this way to charge a battery bank. There are lots of technologies like this and they seem to work.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Well personnaly, from all i read on this subject.
I do not think i ever read somewere that peoples that ran their generator on HHo claimed that the engine was running hotter? Isn't it supposed to run cooler since the engine is more efficient thus dissipating less energy in heat but more in motion?

And by saying that, if the engine is more efficient, dont we need less ''fuel'' to make it run at the same power than before?

so by combining more efficiency of the engine running on HHO, and peoples trying everyday on Youtube or by themselves at their houses to bring the fuel cells or the HHO generator closer and closer to 100% efficient, and the increasing number of peoples saying that they made their car run 100% on water (maybe its not all true stories, but there is so much so there must be some true stories out of the falses ones). I think we cannot say that such thing is impossible...

For the few that says that the rust will kill the engine, a cheap solution is that when your about to turn the car off u make it run on pure gasoline so it burns all the water vapor, the more expensive solution but not impossible is to : change the stock valves to stainless steel valves witch yall can buy already for almost every engines, changes the valve stem for stainless, put your exhaust in stainless too and a plastic, aluminum or stainless intake. there you go oh and some fancy expensive spark plugs too.

anyway this thing is possible but just not achieved yet, the laws of physics might be against it, so what.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by grey580
 




Send in the Physics Police!


I'm sure the thread is about to be flooded with them, yes...but if I understand what they're claiming, no thermodynamic laws are being violated at all. They're simply using water as fuel. The "200% efficiency" is not counting the fact that the system must be fed water.

It's no more a free energy device than a campfire is.


Getting hydrogen from water and running engines on it is nothing new and is extremely well accepted science. The problem with this case is that it takes energy to break the H2O bonds apart to get this hydroxy gas, then when you combust it, it releases thermal energy and turns into pure H2O. So, water is both your fuel and your exhaust here... How do you break something apart, recombine it into the same form, and end up with more energy than you put into it? Nothing is being consumed here, because nothing is ever truly consumed in a chemical reaction... it's just changing forms, and in this case the initial form is the same as the final result.

I believe you can use hydroxy gas to boost the efficiency of an internal combustion engine (which is far from efficient), especially when you harness things like excess engine bay heat and somewhat wasted electricity from the alternator, but that will still depend on gasoline as the primary fuel. There's just no way to run an engine purely on water alone without disproving the second law of thermodynamics, because it would be a perpetual motion machine. It would be an incredible scientific breakthrough if someone accomplished this, but until there is independent replication of these results, I have to remain extremely skeptical.

I could hook up a big electrolysis cell to a vehicle, produce enough hydroxy gas to completely replace the gasoline and appear to power the engine 100% on water, but the truth is that the cell would be pulling so many electrical amps that it would really be running the engine on stored energy from the vehicle's battery, which would drain rather fast. The alternator could not keep up with the energy demands to replenish it, and installing a larger alternator would only serve it add more drag to the engine and increase the energy demands further. There's just no point at which the energy generated exceeds, or even matches, the energy required.

Rather than boldly trying to break the laws of thermodynamics, which may not even be possible, I'd take a shortcut around them... We are constantly bombarded with a ridiculous amount of free energy that we don't harness. Heat, light, wind, sound waves, radio waves, etc. are all forms of energy that surround us, but we really don't use. There is difficulty in harnessing enough of any of them to be worthwhile, but if we could make a breakthrough there, we could have usable amounts of free energy. Heat energy is a good target, because we are already have some decent means to harness it, and yet we still blatantly waste huge amounts of it, in nearly everything that we do. There are ways to get electricity and mechanical energy from just heat, and it also reduces the amount of electricity needed for electrolysis to produce this hydroxy gas. So, let's harness all this wasted energy and use it to produce hydroxy gas and run our engines on that... we wouldn't have cars that run on water, but rather cars that run on water + heat and electricity from free sources.




[edit on 25-11-2009 by TurboDC4]

[edit on 25-11-2009 by TurboDC4]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
For all those who were saying that water isn't a viable fuel source, I really hate to do this, but,

www.blacklightpower.com...




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Question to all the conservation knuckleheads… does it take an Atomic explosion to create an Atomic explosion?



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Not a fan of this at all we have a world wide water crisis and now what water there is remaining they want to use to power trucks and cars and what not. I for one would prefer to walk and have drinking water.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by KeeperOfGenisis
Not a fan of this at all we have a world wide water crisis and now what water there is remaining they want to use to power trucks and cars and what not. I for one would prefer to walk and have drinking water.


Take the water from your house, put it in the tank, create HHO, use it as fuel in the engine (create water vapor with spark), goes trough the exhaust in the atmosphere, in clouds, as rain, in the lake, back in the tank.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
Rubbish. Whatever this guy is doing, hes not getting twice the energy out of a system that he puts in. The experiment hasn't been duplicated by anyone else yet. It won't be. No one will be able to duplicate the results this guy had. As a result, scientists won't accept this as a real phenomenon. That's how science works. But this guy will claim that scientists are all in on a conspiracy to suppress this discovery because Big Oil doesn't want such a thing, yadda-yadda-yadda.

That's assuming he can find any credible scientists to even perform the experiment, which probably isn't going to happen. This process, were it real, would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which basically says you don't get more out of a (closed) system than you put into it. Scientists consider this a "Law" because it has never been shown to fail, and there is a theoretical underpinning that firmly supports the Law. It is theoretically possible that this Law might be broken, but it would require a massive amount of evidence to get anyone to believe it. If this Law turned out to be incorrect, it would make Einstein's revolution in physics look tame by comparison. There wouldn't be one branch of science that didn't need to be rewritten, if this were true. It would be the discovery of the millennium, the most important scientific discovery in the world. And it all started on the Internet, right?

But it's not true.


Ahh, the beauty of open source. The nice thing about this is those of you who are skeptics have nothing preventing you from testing it yourself.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by KeeperOfGenisis
Not a fan of this at all we have a world wide water crisis and now what water there is remaining they want to use to power trucks and cars and what not. I for one would prefer to walk and have drinking water.


I don't know where you got this information from, but that is simply not true. Water is the most plentiful resource on the earth, and second to hydrogen, in the universe as well. If our atmosphere began to bleed off then liquid water could become scarce, but water would remain on the earth in the form of ice as soon as mean temperature of the earth dropped below the glacial shell point. Even in such a case, there is still liquid water available beneath the frozen surface of the shell, and as long as there is a source of radiation, life can continue to exist. In fact, most primitive life on earth can thrive in such an environment while currently complex life (such as ourselves and most plant and animal species) could not, at least not without an artificial environment.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
This is interesting:



Postscript: HybridTech Site Attacked

Right after Sokol sent out the plans yesterday, their HybridTech website came under attack. People accessing the site through Firefox or Google's browser were put on notice that the site was malicious: "Reported Attack Site ... www.HybridTechUSA.com" The malware was removed this morning. Now Sokol is seeking to get his site off the "attack site" listing.

From what his site hosting administrator has been able to determine, someone got access through FTP by accessing Sokol's email inbox where the password information was held. The timing of this attack is certainly suspicious. He said he's been online with websites for 10-plus years and has never before had any problems before.


Postscript II: PESWiki Attacked

Nov. 13, 2009; 11:00 pm. This evening I went to the PESWiki site and noticed that the link for this story was gone, the image was gone that I had uploaded, the feature page that I had created was gone. And the history function of the site did not show any logged-in users other than myself accessing the pages where I had posted links to the story. It's as if someone who has system-level access reverted the site to a 24-hour old archive version, wiping out all mention of the above technology. I've reported this to PESWiki host support. It's possible that with the malware that was on the HybridTech site that somehow PESWiki was infected, and in order to remove the infection the site was reverted to an archived version, and the system operators just haven't gotten around to notifying me yet.


Postscript III: Another Site Attacked

Nov. 14, 2009; 9:20 pm: Sokol has another site, HHOFuel.net... and it was attacked last night or this morning -- the same malware attack that happened to his other site.


pesn.com...

If there's nothing special about these specs, then why did both of their sites come under attack immediately after they posted them?



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by j2000
 


If they're full of crap about the numbers, then they just have a electrolysis cell. Which would have been big news in like 1800, but it's gotten less exciting over the past 210 years.

Honestly, if the process isn't very efficient, then you will be using more fuel than if you just burned it in your car, at today's power generation mix (mostly coal and nuclear). Hydrogen gets to be a better idea the more fossil fuel independent the power grid is.

If you're using coal, converted to electricity by a power plant at about 60% efficiency, then using the electricity to electrolyze water at about 30-80% efficiency, then using that to run a car at about 30% efficiency, you're on the margin with the amount of fuel it would take to run a car off gas at about 30% efficiency.

reply to post by makeitso
 


Water vapor is a normal product of burning anything with hydrogen in it, gas included. Rust isn't a concern.

You won't be able to run straight hydrogen in a typical gasoline engine. They're not set up for it at all. With some minor modifications, a wankel rotary engine can run off hydrogen, because of it's low compression ratio.

reply to post by MajorDisaster
 


No. There is nothing right about this statement. I recommend re-learning everything you ever learned about chemistry and physics. You don't just "misplace" atoms when you burn stuff. All the energy released was stored in the bonds between the atoms, only in nuclear power does anything happen to the atoms themselves. And only in antimatter reactions do you actually remove a particle from existance.

reply to post by v3_exceed
 


Sure it's a spontaneous reaction, so you don't have to use energy to do it, but it will happen before you put the gasses in the engine, so the O-O bonds will have to be broken in order to create H2O, so you'll get a bit less energy when you burn it. Not much, of course, but still.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join