It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:52 PM
My thread actually went where i wanted it to go, and that is for you knowledgeable types to get discussing
and be spurred on to invent and redesign the wheel.

It also shows who the agents are, who want to stop you.

Be careful and watch who you trust, your taking on evil empires with your water machines. I know it works, Stan Meyers knew it worked and some of you know it works.

Best of British with your Quest

edit on 5-9-2011 by rigel4 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:13 PM

Originally posted by autowrench
With my current setup, tow reactors, regulated at 40 Amps per, lost no perceptible water content, and was still producing quite nicely the next morning when I checks them, as I do before ever trip. The water doesn't just go away, and the gas expands a lot. The bubbles are pure HHO, they go into a bubbler, and fro there are sucked into the air stream. I suppose on a really long trip one would lose a little water. I am thinking of adding a small vacuum line to an inlet port for gas production at idle, and of adding SS plates to my bolts for more production. You should really build one and see it work for yourself. Just don't light a match around it.

Well, now we know you are lying don't we. Off the top of my head if I remember correctly there is about 3000 liters of hydrogen gas per litre of water.

1 liter of water contains (approx) 55.56 moles of water, so 111.11 moles of hydrogen.

V = 111.11 * 0.08205784 * 295 / 1

Gives 2689.7 liters of hydrogen.

Hydrogen gas energy density is:

0.01079 MJ/L

A whopping 29.02 MJ's from a litre of water in your system for every litre of water. *Equal to 8.061111111 kWH.

So since you didn't top up, you probably didn't convert enough hydrogen to power much of anything eh?

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

To put this in perspective:

On the other hand, an internal combustion engine stores its energy in the form of gasoline—and gas packs a 33 kilowatt-hour punch in every gallon.

So again, how much water exactly were you burning through?
edit on 5-9-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:34 PM
I know the numbers don't add up energy-wise but we mustn't forget that the system is also injecting pure oxygen into the intake which theoretically allows running at leaner gasoline injection settings while maintaining optimum overall fuel/air ratio. On paper, the improvement in economy still doesn't compensate for the energy required for the electrolysis though.

I've seen claims of this being used in trucks, surely only trucks with petrol engines and not those with diesel engines as most trucks are?

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:50 PM
reply to post by Pilgrum

Using hydrolysis as lean burning fuel system is somewhat pointless is it not. You could do it without the fancy contraption. And you are absolutely right, I've gone over a few papers that show minimal gains. But there were way too many drawbacks to make it a useful system.

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:18 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:34 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:48 PM

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.


Exactly this. There's plenty of viable alternatives including water - just the oil companies own all the patents for them.

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 05:02 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:15 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 02:24 PM
To round off this thread, some scientists in Texas have successfully broken molecular bonds using ultrasound teqniques;
From Science magazine...
This particular bond is much stronger than the OH bond, the alternative is heating it to over 300 degrees.
Stan Meyer knew his stuff........

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by playswithmachines

Old news really,

The influence of sonic waves traveling through liquids was first reported by Robert Williams Wood (1868–1955) and Alfred Lee Loomis (1887–1975) in 1927

Sorry to burst your chemicall-bonded bubble

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 04:53 PM
reply to post by playswithmachines

Yes, it was not an efficient electrolysis, as this is how the process is called for separating things out of the water.
But with time they got better at it to make it cost efficient, in other words what you got out is more then what you put in as in energy.

It was the same thing with atomic energy at the start, what they put in was more then what they got out, but soon it changed and the tides turned, it's the same thing with water electrolysis, they will just get better and better at it but as long as there is oil and people with power that profit from it and gain more power from the oil industry I don't see how this could be put to use, regardless of what tec is out there, if it's water fuel or some sort of other fuel that is cheaper than oil.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:38 PM
It's not even an argument about "can you do this with water".

If people focused on any alternative fuel long enough, it would happen. Because there are hundreds of ways of doing the same thing.

Why wouldn't an oil barren spend 100k on offing developers of this tech. It saves his business.

Yes, its expensive to split the water into the gasses for burning. It's the same reason we buy power from the electric company. The gas company wanted to equip every home with a gas fuel cell for home power. That didn't happen either.

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:39 AM

Originally posted by chris17453
The gas company wanted to equip every home with a gas fuel cell for home power. That didn't happen either.

Maybe going off on a tangent here but:

That natural gas fuel cell technology has not been suppressed, it's only recently matured into consumer products at about 85% efficiency with distributors now setting up to supply them in Oz at least. The biggest stumbling block for most potential customers will be the upfront purchase cost which will appear unrealistically high for early customers (as it is for all new tech) but wait 2-3 years and volume sales will bring the price down. The current pricing is A$40000 plus installation for a 1.5kW unit that heats water as well as generating electricity so it would take a lot of years IE decades to break even on that outlay. It will only currently appeal to people with more money than sense that just have to have the latest tech and it's not currently eligible for any feed-in tariffs or government rebates.

Some info here - Bluegen

You could use a Bluegen unit to power your electrolyser for hydrogen production but you'll be on a guaranteed losing streak as opposed to simply using the natural gas. CNG (compressed natural gas) has real potential as a cleaner replacement fuel for transportation but the compression takes a lot of additional energy making the bottom line not much different to normal gasoline.

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:19 PM
reply to post by boncho

The effect is old, but this is the first time they have done it by 'tuning' to particular bonds.
The point is, the ultrasound used one tenth of the power needed to break the bonds hy heating

edit on 23-9-2011 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in