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: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Not at all, the electrical bond is not that strong.
The effects of high voltage, catalysts, resonance etc are never taken into account.
Dude, i just gave you about 50 Mb of data, have you read it already

edit on 5-9-2011 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Converters in cars need only to convert from combustion to steam. Not impossible or extremely costly. It can be cost effective.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 

You will not get more energy from using the hydrogen as fuel than it costs to split it in the first place. If you do so, you break the laws of physics in which case you can claim your Nobel prize and join the immortal ranks of Newton and Einstein. In hundreds and (assuming mankind lasts that long) thousands of years from now, you will be remembered as the person who broke the laws of physics, causing scientific understanding to be turned completely on its head. Your discovery would be of the magnitude of Newton's and Einstein's discoveries. If you asked any child to name 3 famous scientists hundreds or thousands of years from now, they would be able to name Newton, Einstein and you. Your name will become a synonym for unbridled genius, much like how people use Einstein's name in such a fashion.

It's easy to say that breaking the laws of physics is easy, but as with all things, talking is easier than doing. Actually breaking the laws of physics is a completely different ball game. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. No disrespect but many people claim to break the laws of physics with their experiments but the number of people to do so to date is exactly zero.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   


Your name will become a synonym for unbridled genius, much like how people use Einstein's name in such a fashion.
reply to post by john_bmth
 

I hope so


You never read those papers?
You quote, from your comfy chair, that i am sitting here extrapolating without having done any research?
Do you even have a garden shed??



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines



Your name will become a synonym for unbridled genius, much like how people use Einstein's name in such a fashion.
reply to post by john_bmth
 

I hope so


You never read those papers?
You quote, from your comfy chair, that i am sitting here extrapolating without having done any research?
Do you even have a garden shed??


The document doesn't demonstrate anything. A paper published in a credible journal where such claims can be assessed independently by relevant experts in the field, however, would. Talk is cheap. Documents are cheap. Patents prove nothing. Have you broken the laws of physics? Yes or no? If yes, where is your paper and Nobel prize? Like I said, it's easy to make such claims but it's another thing to demonstrate them irrefutably.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Just as i thought, no shed

IF you had read ANYTHING you would see that i have DISCUSSED this with a great many people, we have gone through all the stages of development, and are now at the stage where you can generate A LOT of HIGHLY EXPLOSIVE GAS using just a few amps.
The problem, as i have already stated, is adapting existing engines to run on HHO.
Please, please read all the posts...............



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 


Have you broken the laws of physics, I.e. getting more energy from the hydrogen than you spent splitting it? Yes or no?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


No, i have merely broken a weak electrical bond to create a much stronger chemical reaction.
Nothing new there, i'm afraid.......



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by john_bmth
 


No, i have merely broken a weak electrical bond to create a much stronger chemical reaction.
Nothing new there, i'm afraid.......

So you are spending more energy splitting the hydrogen than you are getting back by using it as fuel, correct?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Let's put it this way (since you haven't read all the posts),
We have experimented on many types of cell.
We can produce gas that can rip apart a 3mm thick stainless steel container using less watt-hours than your radio.
This has all been documented.
I have seen the effects of a hydrogen explosion, with just air (+-4% oxygen) and it is devastating.
Using this with pure oxygen will blow the engine to bits.
That's a lot of power.
Figure it out....



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 

So you are you or are you not spending more energy splitting the hydrogen than you are getting back by using it as fuel? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


No.
edit on 5-9-2011 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


To put it another way;
Can you blow an engine to bits using less than your bass speakers?
Yes.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Yes.

So you claim to have broken the laws or physics. Are you using scientific method to measure and collect your data, yes or no? If you are not, then your claims and measurements are effectively null and void. A simple yes or no will suffice.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Hydrogen is the mother of all fuels, and most chemical reactions.
Direct fusion into Helium is the most efficient method, as used by stars, the resulting difference in the atomic nucleus of helium is a direct result of your beloved E=MC2, mass is directly converted into energy.
This is fine since the process works also in reverse.
You could shorten the formula to E=M, as Dirac suggested.
It may well be that during this violent chemical reaction, temperatures are reached where a tiny amount of hydrogen fuses into helium, thereby releasing vast amounts of energy.
This all taking place within the concept of 'burning' hydrogen.
Now do you understand?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 


Are you or are you not getting more energy from the hydrogen than you spent splitting it? First you answered 'yes', then you edited your post to 'no'. Which is it?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Yeah, i had 'type before read' syndrome there



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Yeah, i had 'type before read' syndrome there

Fair enough


If you are not claiming to generate more energy from the hydrogen than you spent splitting it then I have no more questions. Whatever you are experimenting with may or may not have merit, it's not for me to say. I'm sure regardless you're having great fun getting your hands dirty so kudos to you



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Data was collected & analyzed, improvements were made.
I would estimate the most efficient designs at this time, that are verifiable, repeatable experiments indicate between 5 and 8 litres/minute for about 100 watts total input, this being sufficient to give extreme gas performance when used with gasoline.
As i have stated n times, the problem lies in;
1. Generating enough gas.
and
2. Mixing this in such a way as not to melt the engine.
For comparison, your headlights use about 120 watts, and place a nominal strain on the generator & therefore the engine. Modern generators (alternators) are very efficient, and are more than capable of running the HHO unit.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Thanks

For clarification, i am an electronic/mechanical engineer, i have a little knoweledge of chemistry, but my contribution to the project so far has been 'proofing' power supply designs, overcoming problems with MAP sensors, better cells etc.
I mostly get references to this or that Yootoob film & be asked to verify it, it does not work that way.
We really do the experiments, measure the results, share them.
There are about 20 of us in this particular group, but there are thousands of these groups.
My aim is to gather as much info as possible & spread it for peer review.
ATS is ideal for this

But yes, a lot of kooks & pseudoscience

I will trry to present as much as i can, time permitting, i am very busy now.
I do have a vast amount of data, however, that still needs reviewing, i'm talking Gb.....



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join