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.

 

2004 Dodge Pickup Runs on 100% Water

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

I think you are probably right, but there are many, many ways to get around your argument.


There are exactly none.


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.


I'm not going to "suppose" that because this premise is 100% false. Catalysts do increase the rate of reactions but do absolutely NOTHING to change the Chemical Potential of the system. And that's the crux of the situation!

What you are saying is an equivalent of this: it takes me X amount of energy to lift myself to the second floor from downstairs. However, if I sprinkle pixie dust on the steps, this amount will be less. Ponder this.




posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


NO. What I am stating is that water exists at differing energy levels. It is possible to take water molecules and extract energy from them by breaking them down and putting them back together at a lower energy state. That is accomplished by shortening the bond lengths and increasing the bond angle. It occurs naturally to a small extent, but it can be tweaked through physics and chemistry.

By doing this, we can satisfy the 3 laws, mainly the conservation of energy, because the total energy of the system is lowered as the work is done.

Flourescent light bulbs are a simple example of how energy states are mechanically altered and then we get work (light) when they go back to a lower state.

I don't think the Dodge is running on water, but I do think there is science to back up the possibility of extracting a small amount of energy from water.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


NO. What I am stating is that water exists at differing energy levels. It is possible to take water molecules and extract energy from them by breaking them down and putting them back together at a lower energy state. That is accomplished by shortening the bond lengths and increasing the bond angle. It occurs naturally to a small extent, but it can be tweaked through physics and chemistry.


No. What you are saying is that water as we know it and drink it does not exist in ground state and there is "other" water, an isomer of sorts.

This goes against a host of data from chemistry and spectroscopy. There is just tons of data on this. Sorry but your hypothesis is false.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Why? There are plenty of things that don't exist in their ground states. Specifically, everything radioactive.

Also, all of that data that you mention is verification that there are variances in bond angle and bond length. There are natural isomers of water, but they are very minor. They are not as apparent at stereochemistry isomers, or molecular weight isomers, but they are still isomers.

Again, I think we are agreeing, I don't think there is any magic bullet or pixie dust. I am only stating that the research is not worthless, and that the possiblity for a breakthrough exists.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Why? There are plenty of things that don't exist in their ground states. Specifically, everything radioactive.



There are plenty of nuclei that are NOT radioactive. Most of those in our surroundings aren't. There are unstable isotopes but that "everything" statement is just incorrect.


Also, all of that data that you mention is verification that there are variances in bond angle and bond length. There are natural isomers of water, but they are very minor. They are not as apparent at stereochemistry isomers, or molecular weight isomers, but they are still isomers.


One Isomer


The water molecule itself has only one isomer, a bent structure with a
central oxygen and two hydrogens bonded to it and forming a ~104.5
degree angle. (see www.iapws.org... and
www.lsbu.ac.uk...) In liquid water, however, the individual
molecules can form relatively loosely bonded "clusters" with various
geometries that are constantly being rearranged. (Think of a cocktail
party in which indivuduals are constantly moving from one conversation
clusters to another. The size and makeup of each cluster varies as a
function of time.) The clusters are held together by the formation of
a type of chemical bond known as a "hydrogen bond", which is much
weaker than the bonds that hold the hydrogens to the oxygen in the
water molecule itself, but are nonetheless strong enough to cause
cluster formation. The nature (i.e., geometry, size, lifetime, etc.)
of these clusters is a topic of current research in water chemistry
(see www.lsbu.ac.uk...).



[edit on 24-8-2010 by buddhasystem]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I had tossed around the Idea for use o my 2005 Tacoma. There is a guy on Youtube that has a system on a 2006 Tacoma. The questions I have are:

1) What are the temperatures involved in the gas generation?
2) How did they modify the vehicles Computer system to account for timing and the O2 Sensors?
3) Why 3 volts @ 55 Amperes?
4) Is it injected using the stock fuel rail?
5) HHO returns to water after a short time, How do you avoid water-logging the engine?
6) How do you account for the water condensing in the Oil?
7) How would the use of HHO affect engine wear?

I don't have a doubt that it runs on HHO alone but there are issues that will lead to engine failure if not addressed.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Here is where the potential for an automobile lies. I once had a 2004 Nissan Titan with far more horsepower than i ever used. It would consistently get 10 miles per gallon. It would get 10 miles per gallon in Spring with no A/C, no trailer, no load, and it would get 10 miles per gallon in August with A/C pulling a 7000 lb trailer up and down hills.

So, any extra load on the engine would not have affected fuel economy. There was a lot of wasted horsepower there.

If I would have installed a very high amperage unit to electrolysize water and inject H2 O2 HHO and H2O vapor into the fuel rail, I could have seen some appreciable effects without comprising the fuel economy by an additional load on the engine.

The benefit of an electrolysis system is that the water vapor adds mass to the fuel in the combustion chamber, you get the added effect of steam generation, and cooling potential to the engine. This was often used in WWII aviation engines. It also adds the H2 and O2 that we know are highly combustible and emissions free. It also has the potential to add the elusive HHO "Brown's Gas" to the system and reap larger benefits.

If you install this unit on a highly fuel efficient vehicle the negatives outweigh the positives, but if you install it on a behometh gas hog, then you have nothing to lose and everything to gain!

I have built this system in a garage setting using a spare alternator, extra battery, and several different types of electrode materials and shapes. I have gotten some good gas flow, but I have never gotten sufficient flow to entice me to install it on my truck. I was only tinkering with a few spare minutes here or there, and some cheap components from Dollar General, and I made progress. In a well-funded research setting, I believe there is a huge potential for an impact on the segment of vehicles with the worst fuel economy.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by getreadyalready]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


If you want better mileage, buy a Prius or a turbodiesel VW. Don't spend thousands on a system to ruin your truck.
Three volts is needed for the overvoltage in the electrolysis cell. More than that doesn't gain anything. You can calculate how much hydrogen is made knowing the total current and time. There are modifications necessary to your truck to use hydrogen. Use the money on gasoline and come out way ahead.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


If you want better mileage, buy a Prius or a turbodiesel VW. Don't spend thousands on a system to ruin your truck.
Three volts is needed for the overvoltage in the electrolysis cell. More than that doesn't gain anything. You can calculate how much hydrogen is made knowing the total current and time. There are modifications necessary to your truck to use hydrogen. Use the money on gasoline and come out way ahead.


LOL!

I agree!


Although it doesn't have to be a VW. Turbo Diesel Ford F-250 and F-350s are getting 20-25 mpg when they have a the performance chip in them.

My buddy went from 18-20 with exhaust and from 20-24 with the Performance Chip, and from 24 average to 29 Hwy when he "tunes" it for efficiency on a long drive.

That is almost 30 mpg in an F-250 4 wheel drive with 38" tires!

Spend your money on the proven upgrades and tinker with the other stuff just for fun.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You know what Buddha?

I have tried going into minute details on various subjects, many times before on this forum only to either have someone answer using their entrenched paradigms, completely ignoring whatever clarifications i may have given.

Then of course, two posts further along, someone else asks exactly the same question or makes exactly the same statement, as the one i had just addressed in detail, and you know what? I'm sick of it.

You believe what you want to, rely on your preconceptions, don't perform any experiments, and carry on using the same energy sources as you are currently using...it doesn't matter to me in the least..and that goes for everyone else that believes there are no savings to be made using this or similar systems, and are content to parrot physics laws and rubbish advances in this technology, despite never looking past their last physics lesson or text book.

Your choice folks.

If you are really serious about learning more about this subject, there are literally tens of thousands of REAL experimenters, out there in the REAL world, who are pushing and moving this tech forwards who are generally happy to share their knowledge and discoveries, most of them (the genuine experimenters, not the financial opportunists) at ZERO cost, except for maybe a 'thank you', and that is despite any of your objections and misconceptions.

For all it's promise, at the basic level, this technology is VERY simple to experiment with and to understand.

There is no 'creation of energy' and certainly no energy is being created from 'nothing'. YES energy is being introduced to the system, and YES energy is being consumed by the system...but you have to remember, that the energy is being efficiently RELEASED/LIBERATED from the H2O, not created.

What is happening is a novel method, using relatively low power electrolysis, and novel electronics in the form of a pulse circuit to liberate the considerable energy STORED in H2O, to use as a fuel in a combustion engine.

The HHO gas (just one name among many) contains both Hydrogen and Oxygen, which together produce more energy than Hydrogen alone.

A small petrol generator, can provide enough power to recharge the battery used to produce the HHO, estimates based on the video in the OP are that a single gallon of petrol, driving a charger to a deep cycle battery, will allow a vehicle, run solely on HHO, to operate for approx 6-8 hours continuous driving.

Is it a done deal? NO...are there MANY needed refinements? YES...people are working on these and other problems with these systems as i type...ALL over the world.

Soon, when these systems are perfected, by all means ignore them and continue to use traditional and expensive fuels and energy, babbling away to yourself that it breaks this law or that law...it doesn't matter to me, and it certainly wont matter to the majority of people who will be driving their vehicles and powering their homes with them...most folks won't care HOW it works, only that it does.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Nobody pay attention to Buddhasystem. No matter what school he/she went to, they can't teach common sense.

What Buddhasystem is argueing is compeltely irrelevant to this topic, and they don't realize it.

Here are the FACTS;

-Cars and trucks CAN run on 100% hydrogen. We already have many cars and trucks that do.

-Hydrogen CAN and IS extracted from water every day. It's called electrolysis.

-You WILL loose energy in the process of extracting hydrogen from water. However, that doesn't mean you can't run your truck or car off of hydrogen you produced (which is the point).


So, OP, yes it is possible to run a car or truck off of hydrogen (water). However, you will waste some energy doing so. But then again, refineries wich turn oil into gasoline waste more energy than anyone could spliting water into hydrogen and oxygen.

Buddhasystem.... you need to learn to read, and need to learn some common sense. People are looking for alternative fuels, Hydrogen is one of them. The point of this topic is not free energy. The point is that it IS possible to split water into hydrogen and use the hydrogen gas as a combustion source to run a combustion engine.

Although there is some wasted energy in the process, there is ALSO a TON of energy wasted when turning oil into gasoline. You can call that "exergy". Look it up.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
A long time ago I invented a potassium/water engine.

I never told anyone. In fact, right now on ATS is the first time I ever talked about it....

Read about the reaction between potassium and water.....



Elemental potassium is a soft silvery-white metallic alkali metal that oxidizes rapidly in air and is very reactive with water, generating sufficient heat to ignite the evolved hydrogen.


en.wikipedia.org...

www.youtube.com...

www.metacafe.com...

Potassium get so hot that it splits water to hydrogen and the heat then ignites the hydrogen. Cool huh?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

There is no 'creation of energy' and certainly no energy is being created from 'nothing'. YES energy is being introduced to the system, and YES energy is being consumed by the system...but you have to remember, that the energy is being efficiently RELEASED/LIBERATED from the H2O, not created.


Water molecule being at its lowest potential, I'll have to call bullcr@p in that.


What is happening is a novel method, using relatively low power electrolysis, and novel electronics in the form of a pulse circuit to liberate the considerable energy STORED in H2O, to use as a fuel in a combustion engine.


You can't liberate something that wasn't trapped there in the first place. A molecule is in its ground state. Deal with it. No electronics can create a lower energy state in the H2O system, pulsed or not.


The HHO gas (just one name among many) contains both Hydrogen and Oxygen, which together produce more energy than Hydrogen alone.


If you imply that it's a mix of mono-atomic hydrogen and atomic oxygen -- indeed combustion of that mix will yield a lot more energy than burning H2 and O2, because in former case you don't have to break bonds in the respective molecules. Assuming that you somehow inhibit recombination on atomic H and O into their respective molecules (which happens in routine electrolysis), you would still get back only the equivalent of the energy you put in. In ordinary electrolysis, H and O atoms recombine (they are both reactive) and that energy is lost. But I repeat, even in mono-atomic case, you will only get back same.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Buddhasystem.... you need to learn to read, and need to learn some common sense.


...and you need to stop leaving high water marks of ignorance on this forum. Seriously.

Because if you are willfully ignore basic laws of physics, there is zero common sense in your behavior.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
Then of course, two posts further along, someone else asks exactly the same question or makes exactly the same statement, as the one i had just addressed in detail, and you know what? I'm sick of it.


That’s a well-used psyche warfare tactic to burn out opponents. It’s like creating a large circular argument where if you can’t win the argument you bring it back to the beginning and try to burn out or frustrate your opponent. And if one or two entity/operatives utilizes several usernames they can do this indefinitely.

But be of good cheer… most honest observers can recognize this tactic and will always side with the truth.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
I don't understand the confusion. What is the big deal about this tech? You have to use more energy to make the fuel than you will get from burning the fuel. Where is the energy to make it coming from? Unless it's from a free source (i.e. solar panels) then I really don't see the point, even then why not just use the panels to charge the battery of an electric car? Surely that would be more efficient?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
I don't understand the confusion. What is the big deal about this tech? You have to use more energy to make the fuel than you will get from burning the fuel. Where is the energy to make it coming from? Unless it's from a free source (i.e. solar panels) then I really don't see the point, even then why not just use the panels to charge the battery of an electric car? Surely that would be more efficient?


Well at last - a ray of light in the realm of darkness.

Thank you.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Which technical body/University has tested this to confirm it works as claimed?

They have had it tested, havent they? Or why havent they had it tested?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I'm seeing that Buddhasystem is very actively att... commenting on posters who believe that a car running on water is a real deal. I don't understand the reason for such and aggressive active commenting.

I have so far no experiences myself, but I know a few people who have experimented with resonant water electrolysis. That is, electrolysis that seems to be able to split water into combustible gas with much less energy than is theoretically possible. It's quite tricky, and you can't use DC to split water unless you want to do it the old-fashioned way. Many people have tried several different constructions and the consensus is that it's a very tricky process to get working right.

OK. Let's assume that we've been able to split water into HHO gas, with far less electrical power than was taught to us at school. We feed that gas into a car engine and we assume it runs just fine. The exhaust from the engine then consists mainly of water vapor, plus some nitrogen oxides as we feed air to the engine as well.

However, if we take all water vapor coming from the exhaust and condense it back to water, we would seemingly have all the consumed fuel available for re-use in the electrolysis cell. That would be a nice perpetuum mobile, effectively! We would never run out of fuel!

But... what I've heard and understood from those who have experimented with HHO gas, this isn't working. The water coming out from the exhaust can't be split into HHO gas any more using the resonant electrolysis cell, and it only splits into combustible gases if we use the much higher "taught-at-school" amount of DC power.

What's the difference? The water used for working HHO fuel gas electrolysis needs to come from the nature (as all water generally comes). That water has been subjected to the Sun's energy when it was free in the atmosphere, in the rivers, in the lakes and seas. Whereas the water coming from the engine exhaust is deprived of its mysterious "extra" energy until it has received enough energy in the free nature from the Sun. I think this is the key.

It's all about solar power eventually, not anything magical!


[edit on 24.8.2010 by Hobbymat]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne
 


The amount of energy needed to make potassium metal far exceeds the hydrogen produced from reaction with water. You would be better served to use that energy to charge batteries for your electric car.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join