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.

 

Why can't water be used as fuel

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 

From your thread:


HO is Brown's Gas, or Oxyhydrogen, a mixture of Hydrogen and Oxygen, twice as much hydrogen as oxygen, thus the name "HHO."



turned the "bubbler" to obtain a nice flow of the gas, it's brown in appearance, by the way, but is named for the inventor.

Now the thing is... hydrogen, oxygen or any mixture of them are colorless!



the engine runs quieter now, and has a lot more power than it used to have

Did you make a dyno run? Have you checked the emissions(NOx values would be interesting)? You are most likely tampering with the air-fuel ratio. But why should you care about emissions, right? You want to save fuel? Drive a more economic car!

Whatever you are trying to sell here is scam. Come back when you've got your car running on HHO only. LOL.




posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   
currently us alone uses 20billion barrels of oil per day.

being wishful that we can can somehow apply modern science to turn the water from our oceans into the same yield of fuel is ambitious as well as fantastical.

delusional thinking increases as we run out of fossil fuels by around 2100.(with a fast growing population) where theres a will, there's a way??

if only we had conserved while we looked for that way, though

edit on 29-8-2011 by ignant because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by moebius
 


All I can say it this: Build one for yourself and test it. Then you can say it does not work. I will not waste anymore time on you guys that claim something built and working on three vehicles is a scam. And trust me I will run my engine on HHO alone, just as soon as I can built a plate design Reactor and contain it in an airtight container inside my van. You can keep your little cheap economy cars, I will drive my big American made Chevy V-8, thank you very much. I didn't run a dynometer test, (expensive, and a long trip to the city) but I did have an emissions test done, and passed. My tailpipes are so clean you could eat from them.

For you that are interested in saving money, and cleaning out your engine, check my thread here.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


Your thread resembles an advertisement. It would be fairly easy (given the time you claim to have put into your system) to do a work up of the results the system got.

You recommend taking out oxygen sensors and the catalytic converter out of a vehicle with this system. Then claim it did fine on emissions... Where I am from that isn't even legal...

While there are studies that show a small amount of hydrogen gas reduces emissions and increases efficiency of gas burning engines, you have not proven anything in your thread. You haven't broken the process down enough for anyone to make an objective opinion. And while improved efficiency (albeit small) is a reality, it could also be done with a hydrogen canister.

I would be interested for you to run your system for an allotted period of time, measuring the gas output, so people could actually have an idea of how much gas you are producing. (That might break the scam though wouldn't it?)

First start by calling HHO for what it is, oxyhydrogen gas. Or at least try and explain why: when you do a century old process, somehow you get a different product from all the millions of other people doing the same thing, getting oxyhydrogen.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by autowrench
 


Your thread resembles an advertisement. It would be fairly easy (given the time you claim to have put into your system) to do a work up of the results the system got.

You recommend taking out oxygen sensors and the catalytic converter out of a vehicle with this system. Then claim it did fine on emissions... Where I am from that isn't even legal...

I would be interested for you to run your system for an allotted period of time, measuring the gas output, so people could actually have an idea of how much gas you are producing. (That might break the scam though wouldn't it?)

First start by calling HHO for what it is, oxyhydrogen gas. Or at least try and explain why: when you do a century old process, somehow you get a different product from all the millions of other people doing the same thing, getting oxyhydrogen.


Gee, I did not mean for it to be an advertisement at all, What I did was buy an existing reactor from a dealer, use it for a time, see it's drawbacks and flaws, and design and build my own design. Which does work much better that even I thought it would, and offer it FREE to everyone. I worked out a simple design, cheaply built, using locally obtained parts, a true do-it-yourself project that can be built by anyone.

I am not selling anything here at all. I do not want a penny, even though I live on a fixed income, and could sure use a few million. What my purpose here is to bring BIG OIL to it's knees, and stop it completely if possible.

A corporation has already patented the HHO gas, don't you see where this is going? Within a few years it will be commercial. You will be filling up your tank with a highly explosive gas that will leave a very large smoking hole if two of them come together at speed. How do I know this? Hydrogen is very explosive! I worked in the Automotive Trades for 38 years, and know my way around. I am offering you all a technology that is very expensive to just go out and buy. I have been running mine for two years solid. It is tested to my satisfaction.

I live in Southern Ohio, it is not law here to get your vehicle emissions tested. I did it just to see if the truck would pass. I gave this to our local Sheriff's Dept, they are considering it, as they have little money to run patrols. I also offered it to the local school bus garage and fire department, plans, parts list, photos, and showed them mine working. I am doing my part to clean up America. Is that a bad thing?

What the gas does is:
1. Enhance the gasoline to 100% efficiency.
2. Clean out all carbon and sulphur, what actually causes engine failure.
3. Reduce emissions produced by un-burned gasoline, almost 1/5 of what you buy goes into the CAT, that is what a CAT is necessary.
4. Emits only Oxygen and a little water moisture.
5. More that doubles miles per gallon.

I posted full instructions on where to obtain all parts, assembly of the reactor(s), dangers involved, safety issues to take, photos, and tips on running the technology. And what do I get? Flak, and calling it a scam. I do not care, I am just trying to help a poor economy that pays way too much for fuel that is not efficient in the first place, and cause wars in the second place. I will not defend it again in this thread. Some of you have already made up your mind that it will not work for one reason or other, none of which involved actual testing of the design. The world is full of armchair scientists.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench


A corporation has already patented the HHO gas, don't you see where this is going? Within a few years it will be commercial.

 


Do you mind linking us to the patent as apposed to advertisement? It looks like a registered trademark, not a patent...

Oh, because it is trademark, they patented a generator and trademarked "HHO" because it's not real.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
You ask why can't water be used as a fuel, because major oil companies and investors won't be making money. That's why. There are many possibilities, but oil makes more money.


If water could be used as a fuel, then the Romans would have built railroads and spacecraft, and an oil company would be in the olive packing business.

The real reason water can't be used as a fuel is because it is a lowest energy state of common atoms.

Why are the oceans full of water? Because it is the lowest energy state. If it weren't then some natural process would have combusted it all (say plants and algae eating it as food) and the oceans would be full of whatever this magic water would burn into (and so would living cells) and water would be rare, valuable and trapped deep underground, and people would make up conspiracy stories about the water companies.
edit on 29-8-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-8-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-8-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-8-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I have faith in you guys.
Once you get past the Horsepower rules,
you might find something that makes water expand.
Come up with a piston cycle/flush/expand again motor
some day.
If I remember right I got a baking powder, powered submarine in a cereal box
45 years ago.
And i have never seen a UFO thread on here where the UFO was rated in Horsepower.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by autowrench


A corporation has already patented the HHO gas, don't you see where this is going? Within a few years it will be commercial.

 


Do you mind linking us to the patent as apposed to advertisement? It looks like a registered trademark, not a patent...

Oh, because it is trademark, they patented a generator and trademarked "HHO" because it's not real.



I can order a 1000 dollar torch set up right now that will generate and burn HHO gas and can sublimate tungsten. It's pretty real, and the combustion of oxidized hydrogen's only byproduct is water vapor which goes right back into the air and into the hydrologic cycle, no loss of water, fog instead of smog...

Alot of folks will debunk this saying that splitting water molecules with electrolysis is just too inefficent, well duh, carrying around a couple thousand pounds of steel isn't ever going to be a freebie, but have you ever seen the efficiency ratings of a typical internal combustion engine? Most of it is lost through heat. The only real difference is a nasty little thing called money, right now the petroleum industry has the most of it and don't plan on giving it to someone else. Gallons of gasoline vs Kilowatts of electricity, that ratio is equalizing IMO, and I highly doubt an ever increasing four dollars a gallon is going to trump wattage much longer.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by twitchy


Alot of folks will debunk this saying that splitting water molecules with electrolysis is just too inefficent, well duh, carrying around a couple thousand pounds of steel isn't ever going to be a freebie, but have you ever seen the efficiency ratings of a typical internal combustion engine?

 


Where did you think you were getting the energy for hydrolysis if it wasn't from the terribly inefficient internal combustion engine?



If you want to rebut this with something else, replace "internal combustion engine" with "coal" or "natural gas" or "solar". I won't even touch nuclear given Japan's recent failure...

Solar has a shot in the future.... But not right now.
edit on 30-8-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
We used to think electrolysis was the only way to break the Hydrogen Bond.


In 2007 John Kanzius figured out how to break the Hydrogen Bond with radio waves, which is 1000 times more efficient than electrolysis.

He woke up from a DREAM with the idea and immediately got out his old ham radio and two of his wife's frying pans to use as emitter and receiver. When he placed a glass of salt water in between the frying pans the salt water....began to BURN....the hydrogen bond was broken and the molecules were so excited they auto ignited.

Scientists came to study it and were surprised to find the temperature in the extreme KELVINS...he created a mini-star.


The US Navy gave out a contract to research the technology and a company in California has been studying it. There facility has been bombed TWICE. It's a technology many in the world don't want to see come to light.

The new Ford Class US Navy Aircraft carrier could use its nuclear reactors to take salt water and create jet fuel.

The Navy wants to use the Fischer-Tropsche process to take the released hydrogen-oxygen and combine it with carbon in the salt water to create diesel and jetfuel.

All from a DREAM..... But they likely don't want to see this technology released until the other guys have their oil used up...and we bomb them into stupidity so they can't figure out this new technology to use for themselves.


Imagine if China or Russia were the first to push this new technology on the world.....Saudi Arabia would be penniless...as would we. We have elements that don't want this technology to see the light of day.


There is also a story of an eccentric inventor in a small town in Italy who developed this technology in the 1980's, before John Kanzius. He also was told to keep quiet about it...and the Italians have been secretly working on it for decades.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGg0ATfoBgo

We have an infinite energy supply. You can build this device all by yourself today. All you need is an old ham radio and 2 frying pans.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


In 2007 John Kanzius figured out how to break the Hydrogen Bond with radio waves, which is 1000 times more efficient than electrolysis.

What is your source?

What I've found:

He said that they were experimenting for something that might desalinize saltwater rather than an energy source, and the more they try, the saltwater gets hotter until it caught fire. At that point, this method can't be used as an energy source because it used more energy to generate the waves than the energy of the burning gas.

www.waterfuelcarengine.com...

He heated water by radio(radio frequencies are to low to affect H2O bonds) and released some hydrogen by thermolysis. I see nothing special here. Microwave ovens are heating water too.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
You use up more energy separating the hydrogen from the oxygen than you get from using the hydrogen as a fuel. There's not much more to say than that, really.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
If anyone ever comes up with a way to extract hydrogen from water and use the hydrogen as energy (fuel) that requires 20% or less of that energy to do it... The oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear energy corporate giants would move in to buy them out, kill them all off and make it go away.

You can't have clean, cheap, abundant energy... It will destroy the economy.





posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


It would violate the laws of physics so I wouldn't hold your breath.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


As much as I would love to see a working (over-unity) HHO device, there has got to be a downside to violating at least 5 accepted laws of physics to do so. The economy would be the least of our problems.


ETA: JB beat me to it...lol
edit on 30-8-2011 by twinmommy38 because: type too slow



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


Radio waves, from a ham radio and two frying pans? I dunno. Seems too simple ish. But on the flip side, we can boil water with micro waves......so maybe....feasable?

My dad and I have been building hot rods, (old school carburetor) since I was young. We are just grease heads, not scientists...but... We love the IDEA of HHO. Higher octane...better burn...good for the environment and you would still have that V-8 sound. But the engine is SOOO inefficient. And the use of electricity to separate molecules, on demand seems very far fetched. It works for plumbers, but needs distilled water, with baking soda or something...I dunno. And requires A LOT more energy than a car would be capable of producing with just a battery and alternator. A higher output alternator would be the key...maybe.

Anyways, looking forward to the day it is common placed. I'll leave that to my nerd kid to figure out. haha.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


There's nothing to be ashamed of for using hydrogen as a fuel, both for combustion or controlled fusion.
The thermodynamics law is obviously wrong somewhere because you can RUN A CAR on water, using less energy to do it than the Airco or the sub-woofers.
I have already pointed out the immense difficulties with both versions of conversion.
However, i agree with you that 'going offworld to find new elements' is farfetched & unecessary.
We have all the energy we need, right here.......
BTW hydrogen IS the most abundant element in the universe, and fusion seems to be working just fine for Sol

Oh, yes, you said that catalysts are 'a source of energy', well they are not, look up the term CATALYST.
So who's talking pseudoscience?
edit on 30-8-2011 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-8-2011 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Demoncreeper
 


Quote;
"And the use of electricity to separate molecules, on demand seems very far fetched. It works for plumbers, but needs distilled water, with baking soda or something...I dunno. And requires A LOT more energy than a car would be capable of producing with just a battery and alternator. A higher output alternator would be the key...maybe. "

What is your source for this?
Have you taken the effects of high voltage & resonance into account?
Yes, if you shove 12 volts at 100 amps through salt water you het hydrogen, also you get hydrogen chloride and/or sodium dioxide both of which are poisonous.Also you get hot, salty water.
No good for tea at all..........



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Scientists have also been beaming high powered Sonar to break the Hydrogen bond in water ...and create mini-stars:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


They're fascinated with that right now and trying to figure out what the heck is going on scientifically.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join