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: 8
29
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 
Thanks for teplying autowrench.

So how do you use your HHO unit?

To supplement the gasoline and get better mileage?

Or are you saying you only need water to run your vehicle now and no external power source? No more gasoline or any other fuel? Just water?

If the latter I'm interested in learning more about your setup.

My car passes the smog test but I'm still dependent on gasoline.




posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   
I admit I don't know squat about hydrogen or how to get it out of water.

I do know a lot (and I mean A LOT) about vehicles & the mechanics of how they run.

It will take more than a you tube video to convince me that their doing what they say they are.

1. It is super easy to install a toggle switch that would keep the truck from starting when they "tried it to make sure there was no gas in the fuel rail"

2. There shouldn't have been any gas in the fuel rail if they just did a 3,000 mile trip like they said.and the truck was on empty.

3. I would have to see it in person and inspect the truck myself before I believed it.

4. They would have to pipe the hydrogen through the fuel rail to the injectors anyways to get it into the engine.

5. They need to REMOVE the fuel tank, pump &lines from the truck and show me that the only line running to the fuel rail is the hydrogen line.

I, unlike others are not so easy to convince with a simple video.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwood
3. I would have to see it in person and inspect the truck myself before I believed it.
A few days after that video was made, someone DID show up to verify the performance in person. They told verification guy they weren't ready. peswiki.com...:_Hydrogen_Hog_by_Future_Energy_Concepts%2C_Inc.


In a recent video, Frederick Wells showed a Dodge 2004 pickup truck that allegedly had just finished a 3000+ mile trip running just on hydroxy gas generated on-board. He also said that they would be demonstrating the technology on August 21 to parties interested in investing (after validating tech technology).

Chava Energy was present on August 21 to validate the technology. However, it turned out that the claimed technology was not in a condition to be tested during the visit and the Inventor Fred Wells was not present either, only his business partner. Therefore, none of the claims could be validated and Chava Energy generously offered to conduct a test in the future once the system is running reliably.


If they really made a long trip with it and it worked it makes no sense to say they weren't ready, so something is wrong with that picture, don't you think?

Then the thing supposedly fried (fuel cell went dry). Now months later instead of having a working truck driving around, they are idling the truck in a lab and if I'm reading this correctly it sounds like that other cell really never did the job?

pesn.com...
.

On August 10 we reported that Frederick Wells of Prescott, AZ, USA and his associates had allegedly configured a 2004 Dodge pickup truck to run on nothing but water via their on-board hydroxy gas generator that uses the truck's battery power to electrolyze water, which is then ducted under pressure into the fuel rail. Then just prior to a demonstration that was supposed to take place, the cell malfunctioned and was damaged.

That cell was called "prototype 6"; and today for the first time we posted a fairly complete, though still rough set of plans for that version, compiled by James Sharp and Adam W., who are seeking to replicate the effect, being coached in person by Freddy. The cell produces hydroxy gas, but not in copious amounts needed to run a vehicle; apparently needed some adjustments in the design.
So cell #6 never produced enough HHO to power the vehicle? What were we looking at in the OP video?

Now he's working on prototype 7 and he did some of the things you mentioned:


On November 23, Freddy posted a video showing Freddy's Dodge Ram pickup truck running on water in Square1's lab. The gas tank is shown on the shop floor, removed from the truck. The fuel line was also removed. The truck was stationary and running in idle mode, on the hydroxy gas from water. The cell, controller, battery, and other apparatus were on the lab bench and floor, not in the vehicle, which is appropriate for this stage of research and development. In the video, the engine runs for about forty seconds before stopping, when the pressure in the vessel drops from 75 pounds down to 25 pounds.
Here's the video:



So he's got the fuel tank out, but it seems like a step backwards from the OP video doesn't it?



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by kyle43
 


Looks like a great breakthru for the future.
However some inventors of similar tech have disappeared over the last
couple of decades.

Anyhow it would be interesting to know the upfront capital cost in converting the pick up in question.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 

I would assume that you'd have to take into account the massive supernova the originally created the heavy radioactive element, would you not?



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by autowrench
 
Thanks for teplying autowrench.

So how do you use your HHO unit?

To supplement the gasoline and get better mileage?

Or are you saying you only need water to run your vehicle now and no external power source? No more gasoline or any other fuel? Just water?

If the latter I'm interested in learning more about your setup.

My car passes the smog test but I'm still dependent on gasoline.


I use gasoline just like everyone else does. The HHO makes the gasoline 100% efficient, so it all burns, instead of perhaps 60% like in a normal engine. The principle here is simple. Back in the 1960s, we had what was called High Performance engines. Some of these would produce 400 real horsepower at the rear wheels, and had giant 4 barrel carburators, or multiple carb setups. I had one 348 Chevy big block with a Tri-Power, that's three 2 barrels that work in sequence. The ignition system in these cars produced something like 40,000 volts, and the gas was near 100 octane. On a well tuned engine, the exhaust pipe would burn out white, or light grey in color. We used to brag about that effect. Looked at any modern car's tailpipe lately? Black and sooty.

Today's engines are way more efficient, and use either throttle body or port fuel injection fuel systems. The gasoline we are forced to use is like 87 octane, if that. The stock ignition system lacks voltage for a complete burn. So up to 40% of the gasoline you buy collects in the CAT, and goes to waste. I have upgraded my stock ignition system to a digital MSD setup with a 50,000 volt coil and HP ignition module. I have also hacked into the ECM feed wire and installed two variable rate adjustable resistors, so I can manually control the amount of fuel that is being fed to the engine. For the "City" setting I have to keep it near 15% off full, so the engine doesn't die in traffic, but the "Highway" setting I can run at up to 25% off full. That is 25% less gasoline, the HHO makes up for the rest, the gas expands.

What the HHO does is enhances the gasoline, and cleans out the engine, the burning of gasoline produces carbon and sulphur which collects inside the engine, dragging down performance and stability. What then comes out the tailpipe is a great deal cleaner than before, my own tailpipe is dull white in color, and I don't have to run a CAT anymore. I get instant starts, and gained a lot more available power, my 350 V-8 produces 200 HP stock.

I can, and have passed an Indiana smog test with flying colors, but got a warning for removing the CAT. I can get 30 mpg on a good day, and 40 on a real good day, and never less than 25 on any day. Before this setup I was lucky to get 16 mpg.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   
I think this is just awesome. This totally clean and abundant source of energy could solve so many of today's problems. Not only will it power automobiles, but this process could be easily converted to heat and power individual homes, or used on an industrial scale to provide electricity to entire cities. It's so simple, so logical, and so obviously the right way to go.

How much you wanna bet it's going to be in use 20 years from now by anyone other than the occasional guy tinkering in his garage? "They" WANT us to be dependent on foreign oil - Heaven forbid we drilled our OWN oil - while perversely pursuing a "green" agenda fronted by the now debunked Global Warming advocates. They want to be able to tax you on every breath you take, after all it counts as part of your carbon footprint right?

They NEED ever dwindling stocks of fossil fuels to be our main source of energy because the revenues prop up "friendly" regimes in the Middle East. You guys know I was seriously rolling my eyes when I wrote "friendly" right?
Saudi Arabia, our erstwhile ally in the GWOT and the source of much of America's oil imports, is also the main source of funding for al-Qaeda and the Wahhabi brand of Islamic fundamentalism from which it derives its religious venom.

The Saudis are playing us for suckers, and our government is playing along with a wink and a nod. They aren't our "friends," and we shouldn't be buying their oil; not when we can get all of the free energy we need from WATER. I say let them choke on it.

But that's just me.

EDIT: How much would it cost to convert my Ford F-150 to this system? A Kia minivan?
edit on 12/7/2010 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
so it all burns, instead of perhaps 60% like in a normal engine. .... So up to 40% of the gasoline you buy collects in the CAT,

Your figures are waaaaay off. Modern engines burn 95-98% of the fuel (my Golf TDI is about 98%). If you were only burning 60% your CAT would blow up and you would have billows of black smoke coming out of your exhaust.

The only people who claim engines burn 60% of the fuel are the cowboys who sell "HHO kits".



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
reply to post by unityemissions
 

I would assume that you'd have to take into account the massive supernova the originally created the heavy radioactive element, would you not?


Yes. This seems to be the most reasonable explanation of where the energy came from. I think it can be thought of as being the same with water. Who is to say that water doesn't hold a high energy potential just waiting to be realized by the proper extraction technique? Water sure has been through a lot on this earth. It's moved around a lot, and been through some major happenings on this planet over the years.

Could I be entirely incorrect. Of course! I just have an intuition that there's something to this. Energy is absolutely everywhere. We just need to come up with better methods of extracting it is all.

Tinker away, eccentrics!




posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Any gains in fuel economy have been offset by a lack of preformance and durability. Don't go for the scam.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions

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.


How do you explain the atomic bomb?

Little energy input, massive energy output.

There is no breaking the law of conservation.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by unityemissions]



speaking of atoms....How come cars don't run on nuclear energy ? That would be efficient !!!!



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
Who is to say that water doesn't hold a high energy potential just waiting to be realized by the proper extraction technique?
Who is to say? You write this as if chemists and physicists don't know the amount of energy in the chemical bonds of a water molecule and how much energy is released or absorbed then the molecule is disassembled and reassembled! Chemists and Physicists are to say, that's who, because they have measured the energy in this chemical bond as most people who understand chemistry know.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...


Consider the combination of two molecules of H2 with one molecule of O2 to form two molecules of water, H2O. Energetically, the process can be considered to require the energy to dissociate the H2 and O2, but then the bonding of the H2O returns the system to a bound state with negative potential. It is actually more negative than the bound states of the reactants, and the formation of the two water molecules actually releases 5.7 electron volts of energy .


So you get 5.7 electron volts of energy when the molecules are combined, and it takes that much energy (actually more because no process is 100% efficient) to break the molecules apart. So please don't pretend this energy is unknown, it isn't.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Please don't pretend that scientists know exactly how the universe works, because they don't.




posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 

My claim isn't that they know how the universe works.

My claim is that they have measured the chemical energy in splitting and recombining a water molecule so it's a known quantity.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


You seem really informed on this topic.

I have been doing some studying on alternative energy, looking at wind, solar, and water,
and I have been really looking into water.

Have you looked into the work of MIT physics professor Walter Lewin?
He may be one of the most brilliant people on the planet when it comes to water energy potential.

He has a number of lectures on Youtube.

Some are longer, but they are all worth watching when you have the time.
He is truly gifted in showing his work, and the potential energy of water.

I seriously would not be surprised at all if the man has his entire home running on water energy.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by thegoodearth
 


Thank you. I am not familiar with that name, so I will go and look him up.

I do think that water has a lot of potential, and I think there are many other alternative ways to harness and/or conserve our energy. I think it is a major crime against nature that we waste so much energy in the forms of heat, pollution, friction and other inefficiencies. I also think that 100% of our energy sources have gravity or solar radiation as their source. To me there is no such thing as "renewable" energy. Every action has a consequence. If we harness wind energy we are taking something away from the atmosphere and there are unforseen consequences to nature. If we harness wave action or tidal energy we are taking something away from the natural processes in the oceans. We learned the hardway that hydroelectric energy came with major environmental consequences. If we begin harnessing all of the solar energy we are taking something away from the natural action of solar heating. Even geothermal could have devastating effects if we overuse it. Imagine harnessing and venting all of the Earth's inner heat and energy processes into the atmosphere and ultimately into space. Imagine the consequences.

Our energy greed could conceivably rob the Earth of its Inner processes, rob the atmosphere of its natural processes, rob the oceans, rivers, and streams of their natural processes, and even rob all the solar radiation from the air before it ever strikes the Earth. We could burn up every fossilized organic thing that has ever lived on this Earth, and we could kill every natural process the planet has to offer, and at some point in the future it still won't be enough energy for our needs! Estimates range from 2150 to 2350 before we could conceivably be at that point in our existence.

CONSERVATION is really the only solution! We have to make things more efficient, and we have to limit the amount of things we can use our power for.

Fossil Fuels are a necessary component in medicines, plastics/materials, insulators, machine parts, lubricants, and many other integral parts of our society. Burning them up faster than we can pump them out of the ground is an egregious act. It is short-sighted, dangerous, and wasteful! Sadly, all of our other potential energy sources are equally short-sighted!

If there is a magical formula that allows us to "cheat" natural laws and harness the power of splitting and recombining water atoms, then I am all for it. In my experience, nobody cheats Mother Nature for very long though!



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Arb, you are exactly right. With what we currently know and utilize, it takes more energy to split the water than what we get to recombine it.

However, if there is some magic combination of catalysts, frequencies, magnetics, or other mysterious force that allows us to "coax" the water apart with very little energy, then there is a lot to be gained by recombining it.

A NASA scientist I spoke with showed me how to change my paradigm of looking at deep space travel. He showed me how a spacecraft could conceivably move 1000's of lightyears using "zero-energy" and still not violate the laws of physics. We just have to expand our definition of the "system" to include the solar system, or the galaxy, or the entire universe! The mass of a spacecraft and its occupants is so small in comparison to a larger system, that we can meet conservation of energy requirements in standard physics calculations and still get huge amounts of force. (Example, when I jump I move up and the Earth moves down. There are equal and opposite forces at play, I move relatively a lot, but the Earth hardly notices. The same concept could apply to a spacecraft being slingshotted by the Universe.)

Maybe this secret Water Power has a correlation to that example. Maybe there is an outside the box way of looking at Physical Chemistry that would allow our existing understanding of the laws to still work and still harness the energy of the Universe? I hope there is!



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Maybe this secret Water Power has a correlation to that example. Maybe there is an outside the box way of looking at Physical Chemistry that would allow our existing understanding of the laws to still work and still harness the energy of the Universe? I hope there is!
I'm not saying there aren't some ways to get power we haven't thought of, I'm sure there are. Many people were interested in cold fusion and even though it didn't pan out yet, I think some research is ongoing at a reduced level. And there are other possibilities too.

A catalyst can aid some reactions obviously, which is why cars have the catalytic converters, but it changes the activation energy and not the total net energy of the overall reaction.

So let's look for some out of the box creative thinking on ways to get free energy. My favorite "free energy" device is the Atmos clock, it draws energy not out of the vacuum but out of the air, even better since we live in air and not a vacuum. Unfortunately the power to weight ratio and other factors render this method inappropriate to propel a vehicle, etc., so it has very limited applications.

I'm all for finding better energy sources, but from what I've seen so far, the only HHO apparatus that seems to make sense is a setup like Bob Lazar has, except it would use solar panels to collect the energy to split the water molecules, then the car can run on hydrogen or HHO. We'd still have to address the fact that gasoline engines aren't designed to run on HHO so a new engine design or HHO modification might be needed, but that's a workable concept, though it requires some investment and infrastructure that will limit its use for now.

My biggest concern is that if I run my car on HHO my engine might be in bad shape after 10,000-20,000 miles instead of the 100,000+ miles I expect to get out of an engine, but this isn't an insurmountable problem with proper engine redesign. But I fear customers of the HHO kits that try to improve gas mileage may find some nasty side effects on engine life if the engine isn't modified for HHO use. And running on pure HHO it's more of a concern.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

However, if there is some magic combination of catalysts, frequencies, magnetics, or other mysterious force that allows us to "coax" the water apart with very little energy, then there is a lot to be gained by recombining it.

This is about as likely as getting ash to turn into wood, then burning the wood. That is, not very likely at all.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Originally posted by autowrench
so it all burns, instead of perhaps 60% like in a normal engine. .... So up to 40% of the gasoline you buy collects in the CAT,

Your figures are waaaaay off. Modern engines burn 95-98% of the fuel (my Golf TDI is about 98%). If you were only burning 60% your CAT would blow up and you would have billows of black smoke coming out of your exhaust.

The only people who claim engines burn 60% of the fuel are the cowboys who sell "HHO kits".


You beat me to that. These figures are nonsensical. Besides, other numbers still don't square -- 16 mpg can't become 30 mpg regardless of that -- there are many other inefficiencies in the system, besides the combustion percentage.




top topics



 
29
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join