2004 Dodge Pickup Runs on 100% Water

reply to post by buddhasystem
I can certainly understand how literal you are choosing to be in this thread. Good for you, detail is good keep up the great work

No matter how many formulas you throw at this, it still works. You can say your math says it can't because of this law, and that law or whatever. What you are missing, is any law known to man is only a guideline, it can be broke, including gravity under certain circumstances. I have done this myself to an 85 yamaha 750cc, and to a 2000 toyota echo. I have the plans as well. You have a pulse-width modulator, an frequency generator, and your hho generator: hho was easier for me but watch out for waste, chromium, hexavalent style! (Google Erin Brokovic), wired into a control panel, you make your hho, on demand. Find out about Stan Meyer. You can check out what i am saying, you could even find me in person to find it to be true you tech savvy people. Just like in real llife, you nerds defending sciences that have mislead you are only holding you back.

Murder is illegal, but you can break the law right

reply to post by unityemissions


You are kind of on the right track.

The gas these guys (and many, many thousands of other people around the world, even myself) are producing, is NOT H2.

It's HHO, or Hydroxy, or 'Browns gas' it's OxyHydrogen.

The gas evolves as a very potent and powerful hybrid of Hydrogen and Oxygen, it's unique.

When it burns, the only byproduct is pure water.

So yeah, you're right they would produce power, and pure water as a byproduct.

I used to experiment a lot with this tech about a year ago, almost blew myself and my kitchen up once..my ears rang for about half an hour!

It's all about low power electrolysis, using Stainless steel plate 'cells' although some people use other materials such as titanium. A catalyst is added, although not always.

The trick to producing the most gas for the least amount of energy put into the system to crack the water and release HHO, is utilising a device called a 'pulse width modulator', this basically pulses the current into the cells, at various frequencies.

It seems these guys may have found a particularly efficient pulse frequency, that keeps the amps down in relation to the amount of gas evolved.

Take it from me, 55L of HHO per minute contains enough energy to run a car.
If they are only using 12v x 55amps, that's only 660Watts needed to operate the car.

EVEN if (and they don't say they do) they required a small petrol driven suitcase electric generator to recharge the battery as they drove, this would mean a remarkable saving on petrol, as you'd only need to charge the battery with the generator!

If this was used;

www.poweredgenerators.com...

The Honda EU1000i produces a clean sine wave of energy that does not spike and safe for sensitive electronic equipment. This generator consists of a 1.8 HP single cylinder Honda overhead valve engine. The .6 gallon fuel capacity is a problem for bigger jobs but for smaller recreational or home usage, the Honda EU1000i can run up to 8.3 hours at 1/4 load with Eco-Throttle

Stick it in the back of the truck and it would be able to charge the battery that powers the HHO device, that is making 55 LPM (liters per minute), that drives the truck engine and it would only uses approx half a gallon a petrol for about 3.5 - 4 hours of driving truck!

Think about that!

This has exciting implications for power generators too.
ETA, this has NOTHING to do with so-called 'free energy' or perpetual motion or creating energy from nothing as some people seem to think.

It has everything to do with ultra efficiencies, as energy needs to be put into the system, to release the considerable energy ALREADY stored in the water molecules, as HHO.



[edit on 23/8/2010 by spikey]

[edit on 23/8/2010 by spikey]

reply to post by unityemissions


Here is the best known way and most reliable system for you. And I recommend it being installed on all boats in case of war breaking out on our land the water maybe our only refuge from the blood bath and with this unit you will never have to worry about safe drinking water and well the sea will provide all the protein needed to survive for years.

www.alphausasystems.com...

reply to post by eazyriderl_l


I'm sorry, I'm not very science-literate but was your system efficient? Do you think it could be developed efficiently?

I really hope these guys can deliver!

Hi guys, very interesting topic here. Someone mentioned something about the amount of hho needed to run his 2.4l engine. Please do not forget the compression ratio. If your engine has for example a compression of 10:1, then you only need 1 part of fuel for ten parts of air.

Plus I really don´t see problem with conservation of energy here. I see it this way:

You definately CAN run a combustion engine on hydrogen, this is a proven fact.

The question is if you can get enough gas "on the fly", meaning enough liters of gas per minute.

In this example they apparently use less then one kw of power to produce the gas they need to run the engine.

Think about it less than one KW, that is less than 1,5 hp. There are even rc combustion engines that produce more power than that. And I am sure they produce anough gas to run an rc engine.

The question is, why haven´t we seen a commercial product yet? I have seen so many people over the years that claim to have achieved a car that runs on water. Why hasn´t anybody managed to build a prototype and then massproduce it in asia somwhere?

TPTB couldn´t have silenced or bought them all.

I don´t get it. If it works, then sell it at a fair price. If it doesn´t work then please explain to me where the problem is. If you need less then 2 hp of energy to create the gas then that couldn´t be a problem. It is very similar to the energy consumption of an air condition unit.

If it does not produce enough gas then why not build ten of these units in a car? even at 20 kw, if it is enough to run the engine why not?

reply to post by kyle43


this is not new at all, there are many cars running on similar system's although I've not seen one running with such high amps before.

reply to post by Nightaudit


most unit's I've seen enrich the petrol with the hydrogen instead of just having hydrogen on it's own. Alls these plans are available on the net and they do work very well. what the big cars guys are after are a efficient hydrogen cell

reply to post by buddhasystem


sorry to burst your bubble but I've seen these cars work and work well. so boo to you

The rockets that sent men to the moon used liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, producing millions of pounds of thrust, but used in a ground vehicle they don't work??

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You're missing the points entirely.

No I'm not. The point is, if you separate H2 and O2 out of water, then burn it, you won't get any energy above what you expended in the separation process.

wrong! the trick is to find a highly efficient way to separate the H2 from the O.

finding the right combination of volts, amps and frequency pulse is the way to go, if there is a way, and i'm sure there is. my neighbour is producing 5 or 6 litres/minute, enough for a small lawnmower petrol engine. so a bank of these should be able to run a vehicle.

then again, maybe the "joecell" is the way to go, where multiple concentric stainless cylinders are used with 12V dc and a different type of energy is created that is still useful in petrol and diesel engines.

reply to post by spikey


I've just watched the video again, and it seems i'd made incorrect assumptions about how much power they are using to achieve the stated 55LPM HHO production...

I said (assumed) they were using 12V x 55amps (approx) to get their 55 LPM HHO...whereas in fact they state in the video that they are using much LESS energy than that!

The 12v x 55amps average is roughly 660W.

They say they are using 3V x 55amps, which is only 165W!

I'm sure the old guy said 3 volts..

Noticed at the end of the video, the amps shot up, probably due to heat (which is a problem on HHO systems) More heat of the electrolyte = more amp draw = more energy input required.

I'd suggest wrapping the whole system with active cooling, perhaps a refrigerant/compressor arrangement to keep the temps/amps down.

Either an arrangement like that, or another option would be to completely encase the outside of the reactor vessel in a number of peltier chips, that way the excess and unwanted heat can be scavenged and converted to electricity (with sufficient airflow and heatsinks to the 'hot' side of the modules)

Could even have both systems, an encasement of Peltier modules on the outside surface of the HHO vessel, and an active cooling coil wrapped around those, to take the heat away...the energy generated by the heat scavenging would probably 'pay' for the active cooling coil, with some left over to return to the battery.

reply to post by spikey


That heat amounts to some of the losses in the system and there's a large amount of energy lost in generating the gas as well as burning it in the engine. In fact, all stages of the process have significant losses and inefficiencies which means the overall efficiency from water to actual propulsion is really quite dismal. So dismal that this isn't worth pursuing at all but for some reason it's developed into a self-perpetuating myth courtesy of utube and the internet in general.

Yul Brown definitely had something but he wasn't proposing magic of any sort. Production of his 'Browns Gas' on an industrial scale (at bulk electricity prices) could potentially make a clean fuel that was cheaper than gasoline and that claim is still a valid one. Trying to make enough of it 'on-the-fly' in the vehicle is a waste of time. I've seen far better results from carbide, the sort miners used to generate acetylene for their lamps, than any water electrolysis system but, by all means, let the experiments continue (it's interesting).

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You're missing the points entirely.

No I'm not. The point is, if you separate H2 and O2 out of water, then burn it, you won't get any energy above what you expended in the separation process.

Yes this is the bottom line. The 55 amps they are using to separate the hydrogen is apparently coming from the deep cycle battery. If the battery stores 110 amp-hours that means you can produce 55 amps for 2 hours before running the battery down. So the way I see it, the battery is the source of the power for up to 2 hours. If they ran it for 4 hours I'd be impressed because then they would be breaking some laws of physics.

As it's presented it seems like a really dumb project. They are using electricity to power the vehicle through a very inefficient process of creating hydrogen first, then burning the hydrogen. It would be much more efficient to just use the battery to power electric motors, then you don't get all the inefficiencies associated with hydrogen production and combustion.

However there could be a simple way to make this a meaningful project that might work in sunny states like Arizona. Instead of getting the 55 amps to make the hydrogen from the deep cycle battery, get the electricity from solar panels mounted to the top of the vehicle. You could be powering the hydrogen generator even while the vehicle is parked in a parking lot, so you wouldn't need 55 amps (which a solar array might not provide anyway), just a smaller amperage to generate enough hydrogen for the next time you go driving.

So combine hydrogen production and storage with solar cell power and it's a meaningful concept.

Unfortunately that's not the way they present it and it makes them look like total morons.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Buddha,

I think you are probably right, but there are many, many ways to get around your argument. I don't believe any of these garage devices are utilizing the complex chemistry and physics it takes to get around your arguments, but I will name a few anyway.

Brown's Gas, Bond Length, Bond Angle, etc.

Suppose there is a frequency and a catalyst that makes it easy to split the water with a low amount of energy. Then suppose there is an electrostatic environment that favors the HHO gas instead of the H2 O2 gasses. Then suppose that the HHO gas can be recombined to H2O, but with a shorter bond length and higher bond angle, thus a lower energy state in its stable configuration.

Assuming all of those hurdles are thoroughly researched and utilized, then the water engine is plausible. You take normal water with a certain energy state, you get the most efficient electrolysis possible by utilizing harmonics and catalysts. Then you contain the gas in the perfect environment to maintain the Brown's gas. Then you "combust" the two volatile gasses and use the combustion energy to produce work and you have a byproduct of H2O at a lower energy state.

In theory, you could see real work done, and still have a conservation of energy due to the varying energy states of the water molecule. Would it be enough to move a car? I doubt it, but would it prove correct in theory, probably!!

reply to post by buddhasystem

The energy stored in gasoline is derived from the chemical potential of its molecules that can be oxidized. You can't oxidize water. Give it a try.

That is the most ridiculous logic I've ever heard of...you admit that chemicals can store potential energy...you even admit that through simple, low energy techniques, such as a single spark, a tremendous amount of energy can be released. Water may not release this energy via oxidation, but how can you immediately conclude there is no other process (such as an electrical one), that could also allow us to harness the potential energy that ALL chemicals have, you've just got to know how to release that energy or transform it into something you can use.

In fact, going beyond the chemical level we see that all particles have a tremendous amount of power, and through nuclear fission a mind-boggling amount of energy can be released. Often we can take advantage of natural processes and characteristics associated with the energy medium in question (such as the random decay of atoms). Just because we can't "burn" water mean there is no other way of manipulating and taking advantage of its properties to transform it onto something more usable.

[edit on 24/8/10 by CHA0S]

reply to post by kyle43


Electrolysis of water is about 70-75% efficient, at best, because of the internal resistance of the cell. If you start with 100 units of energy and use it to make hydrogen, you will have 75 units of hydrogen energy to burn. Even if the engine was 100% efficient in converting the energy [it is 30-40% efficient, at best], this is a losing proposition.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by kyle43

 

Electrolysis of water is about 70-75% efficient, at best, because of the internal resistance of the cell. If you start with 100 units of energy and use it to make hydrogen, you will have 75 units of hydrogen energy to burn. Even if the engine was 100% efficient in converting the energy [it is 30-40% efficient, at best], this is a losing proposition.

"Currently" you are partially correct. BUT, there are engines in production that are reaching 75% efficiency and above! There is a very good generator that has built on the idea of the old rotary style aircraft engines and used modern solid state technology and materials and it is reaching 90% efficiency and above!

Then, we have my post above. We are learning more and more about electrostatics and harmonics. It is possible that a breakthrough will come very soon on how to catalyze the electrolysis and make it take far less energy.

Then, as in my post above, there is research on the bond angles and bond lengths in a water molecule. Theoretically there is no reason we couldn't take a higher state water molecule, electrolyze it, and then let it naturally go back to a lower energy H2O state.

It is entirely plausible that we can get measureable Work from a water engine. I don't honestly think it will move a car very far, but it is not impossible.

reply to post by getreadyalready


The three laws of thermodynamics are:
1. You can't get something for nothing.
2. The best you can do is break even.
3. You can't even break even [entropy term].

No amount of handwaving, wishful thinking, or misinterpretation has ever got around these, even with 90% efficient generators, etc. Even if you let everything be 100% efficient [not ever likely in reality] and the entropy term will get you. Using "more energetic" water makes one ask how much more energetic and where the energy is coming from.

In the real world, the amount of energy needed to make the hydrogen would likely be at least 3 to 4 times the amount you get out of the Dodge truck.

All this will be moot when we commercialize LENR.

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by unityemissions

 

You are kind of on the right track.

The gas these guys (and many, many thousands of other people around the world, even myself) are producing, is NOT H2.

It's HHO, or Hydroxy, or 'Browns gas' it's OxyHydrogen.

The gas evolves as a very potent and powerful hybrid of Hydrogen and Oxygen, it's unique.

There are no "hybrids" in the science of chemistry, there are atoms and molecules. So I'm asking you to be precise here, which one are you talking about? It won't help to "trick" the conservation of energy anyway, but we want a clean discussion anyhow.

When it burns, the only byproduct is pure water.

When H2 burns when mixed with O2, it only produces pure water. Your point?