Plans for a water powered car.

reply to post by deadeyedick


But I've learned how to run it on the outside air, let's say an oxygen-run car. This is when you can take the air and use it as a fuel. It's a little bit harder than a car running on water without electrolysis but it works.

reply to post by john_bmth


I posted equations and two links to a paper written by Andrija Puharic and so far your reply has been naught but the usual garbage I'm sure most have come to expect from you.

Not even a slight attempt to address the Chemistry and Math (or is that not close enough to your definition to be called science?!)

Your participation in these threads is really very unimpressive.

Originally posted by RogerT
reply to post by john_bmth

 

I posted equations and two links to a paper written by Andrija Puharic and so far your reply has been naught but the usual garbage I'm sure most have come to expect from you.

Not even a slight attempt to address the Chemistry and Math (or is that not close enough to your definition to be called science?!)

Your participation in these threads is really very unimpressive.

I don't care for dodgy websites or wikipedia biographies (which isn't in any way pertinent to his claims), I care for solid, peer-reviewed science. If he's written a paper that demonstrates he's getting more energy out than it (as you keep claiming), link up the paper from the credible, peer-reviewed journal it got published in. Quit trying to avoid the issue and shift the burden of proof on to me. Never mind what i think about some dodgy website (I don't care to waste my time reading it), lets see what the experts think. Show us the paper as peer-reviewed by experts in the relevant scientific fields that supports your extraordinary claims.

Roger_T, let's turn your argument around. You expect me to trawl through his website and pick through his "Chemistry and Math". You seem to accept his "paper" as valid, so I want to know on what basis. Evidently it's passed your personal peer-review so I'm assuming you have relevant qualifications. Do you have a PhD in chemistry and are you active in the area of research your PhD was awarded in? No? Lets leave it to the experts then, that's what the peer-review process is for. Post up the peer-reviewed research of his that supports his (and your) claims.

I don't have a a PhD in chemistry but I am a PhD student in an unrelated field who has research both accepted and rejected for publication through the peer review process so I'm intimately familiar with the strict requirements for good, sound research that is required for publication in credible journals. I am absolutely confident that the referees reviewing on behalf of credible journals pertinent to the relevant fields of research have the credentials and experience to assess whether Mr. Puharic's results and methodology are valid and sound. I don't accept his claims at face value and I certainly don't hold your vouch for him in high regard seeing as you do not have the credentials and training to confidently asses his findings. Let's see what the experts say, post up his journal publications that support his claims!

So enough side-stepping, enough straw man diversions, enough ducking the burden of proof and shifting it on to me, post up the peer-reviewed research that Mr. Puharic has published in credible journals that demonstrates he is indeed getting more energy out of the hydrogen splitting process than he is putting in. As they say, "put up or shut up". Enough excuses!

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by RogerT

 

How many times must this be mentioned?
You. Will. Spend. More. Energy. Splitting. Hydrogen. Than. You. Will. Get. Back. As. Fuel.

There is absolutely no way around this.

Fod God's sake people!


If you use an outside source of FREE ENERGY called the SUN via a solar panel your energy physics is all ironed out. It is that simple and many of you have ignored how free the energy is from our sun.

Originally posted by Justoneman

If you use an outside source of FREE ENERGY called the SUN via a solar panel your energy physics is all ironed out. It is that simple and many of you have ignored how free the energy is from our sun.

edit on 1-10-2011 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

"Free" as in financially free is not the same as "free" as in "over unity" free. What is being claimed by certain posters in this thread is "over unity" free. That is the point of controversy.

reply to post by john_bmth


You do realize you are attempting to insight arguement in a post who's soul intention is to further their reasearch of said subject. Your only intention thus far has been to come here just to call us all idiots when the op was asking for assistance. If you're so insistent that your point of view is correct seeing how you obviously feel your futher educated than anyone else in this post, then go publish your own findings in your prestigious scientific journal and leave the real science to those actively trying to make a difference. It'd be a lot more constructive than spouting off to those that don't care for your input in a sad attempt to bewiddle us.

Originally posted by john_bmth
"Free" as in financially free is not the same as "free" as in "over unity" free. What is being claimed by certain posters in this thread is "over unity" free. That is the point of controversy.

Actually it's the financially free. The I squeezed an extra 5 miles from a gallon of gas kinda free. I have seen many posts in the thread stating clearly that they are not talking over unity.

Also before things get to peer review don't they go through a bunch of proof of concept encarnations?

reply to post by daskakik

If you're splitting the hydrogen in situ using energy derived from either gas or hydrogen, you will lose energy due to the unavoidable inefficiencies of conversion. Granted, if you stuck a solar panel on your roof and used that energy to split the hydrogen, it would be for all intents and purposes "free" (as in financially).

Originally posted by mutatismutandis
reply to post by john_bmth

 

You do realize you are attempting to insight arguement in a post who's soul intention is to further their reasearch of said subject. Your only intention thus far has been to come here just to call us all idiots when the op was asking for assistance. If you're so insistent that your point of view is correct seeing how you obviously feel your futher educated than anyone else in this post, then go publish your own findings in your prestigious scientific journal and leave the real science to those actively trying to make a difference. It'd be a lot more constructive than spouting off to those that don't care for your input in a sad attempt to bewiddle us.

Argument? He's making over unity claims. I'm asking for evidence. People such as yourself get all prickly when having to actually rationalize their beliefs and support them with evidence. You don't like extraordinary claims being challenged and evidence demanded? Keep living in your comfortable bubble where no one has to justify what they say, but at least stop posting in a Science & Technology forum claims are expected to be backed up with evidence.

reply to post by john_bmth


That is like saying regenerative breaking doesn't work because your getting a fraction of the energy available due to losses. Of course there are losses but getting a fraction back is better than loosing it all to heat.

its probably already been done but is being suppressed by the oil companies so they dont lose money on petrol sales

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by john_bmth

 

That is like saying regenerative breaking doesn't work because your getting a fraction of the energy available due to losses. Of course there are losses but getting a fraction back is better than loosing it all to heat.

Lets sayyou have 1 unit of energy. If you spend that unit splitting hydrogen, you would get, say, 0.8 units of energy if you managed to achieve 80% efficiency. If you use that 0.8 unit of energy to split more hydrogen, you would get back 0.64 units of energy, and so on until you run out of energy. You will not gain any energy, you will always lose energy. You're better off using that unit of energy to propel the car rather than splitting hydrogen to be used propelling the car.

reply to post by john_bmth


What about the units of energy being burned while the car is at a red light? Or when coasting or breaking?

You're already loosing 80-85% of the energy so a couple of points should make a noticable difference in milage.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by john_bmth

 

What about the units of energy being burned while the car is at a red light? Or when coasting or breaking?

You're already loosing 80-85% of the energy so a couple of points should make a noticable difference in milage.

But you won't gain any energy to actually boost your mileage. In order to boost your mileage, you would have to generate more energy than would be used for splitting the hydrogen. The only way to achieve this is to introduce an external power source, such as a solar panel. Think of a dynamo on a bike. You are the power source and the dynamo taps the energy from the wheel rotation to generate electricity. You probably won't notice it, but you would be travelling slightly slower or using slightly more energy to maintain speed than you would without the dynamo. If you were to use the electricity from the dynamo to power an electric motor to help turn the back wheel, you would not see any benefit, as you would be able to achieve faster speeds for longer distances without the dynamo/motor configuration. The only situation where you could effectively get a free lunch is if you engaged the dynamo when rolling down hill when you are not peddling, but of course that comes with it's own limitations and drawbacks.

reply to post by john_bmth


Your recovering lost energy.

Efficiency not overunity. If you ride an electric bike with a dynamo that recharges it's battery only when you are breaking then the ride would be the same but upon breaking you would be getting some of that energy back into the battery.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Your recovering lost energy.

Efficiency not overunity. If you ride an electric bike with a dynamo that recharges it's battery only when you are breaking then the ride would be the same but upon breaking you would be getting some of that energy back into the battery.

If you charged the dynamo only when breaking then yes, you would effectively be capturing waste energy. However, I think in practicality the energy recuperated would be so minor as to not be worth while as I think tertiary factors would weight against it. For example, it may transpire that the added weight of the extra equipment negates the energy saved from the configuration. Maybe town driving where one brakes regularly you might see a marginal increase but I really don't think the braking distances involved are large enough in practicality. Don't get me wrong, I think hydrogen fuel could potentially be at least a transitional phase away from fossil fuels but not in the way being discussed in this thread.

reply to post by john_bmth

I was just putting an example out there. The impracticality of that system doesn't mean it would be impracticle in another. Got to remember that in a normal car there are more points where energy can be recovered because the engine is always running.

Actually I would probably try to find a way to change all that wasted heat into electricty to do the electrolysis. Peltier's might work.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by john_bmth

 

I was just putting an example out there. The impracticality of that system doesn't mean it would be impracticle in another. Got to remember that in a normal car there are more points where energy can be recovered because the engine is always running.

Yes I was wondering why you were using a bicycle example, instead of hybrid cars where this technology is already implemented.

You already have the electric motors and batteries needed in the hybrid cars so there's not much to add but a tiny amount of electronics.

But I agree with John Bmth that it's not practical on a bicycle; I wouldn't add all that extra weight to my bike, but I'd love to have a hybrid car with regenerative braking.

In the example of idling at a red light, there have been novel solutions tried, like engines that can change the number of cylinders they run on (see en.wikipedia.org...), so you have less cylinders generating heat from combustion at lower power or idle, but it seems like turning the engine off would be the best solution if it wasn't so inefficient to restart it. You probably need to be stopped around 10 seconds or more to make it worthwhile to stop the engine.

I'll admit there's some possibility that if you drive in Los Angeles where it's estimated that 1 gallon in 4 is burned at idle, that using the idle power to generate HHO MAY and I emphasize MAY provide some benefit. This is because you are using some energy to run the car at Idle. When the car is motionless, the energy requirements to move the car are zero. Therefore there is a surplus of energy being consumed that's not doing any practical work. However, you have to keep some things in mind.

When you turn on the HHO generator, the alternator gets harder to turn. This means you have to potentially burn more gas than you were burning before, to overcome the additional torque required to keep the alternator turning at the same speed. So because you're using more gas, it's not clear cut that you would derive benefit from doing this. While it might be worthy of testing, I suspect the far better alternative to HHO generation would be to figure out how to stop running the engine at idle, like just turn it off. That's what this guy did:

Follow up to Turning Your Car Off

... simply turn your car off if you were going to sit at a stop light for more than ten seconds....

In the month leading up to my decision to turn off my car at long stop lights, my car averaged about 31.25 miles per gallon, based on 1,406.4 miles traveled and 45.05 gallons of gasoline consumed. In the month following my decision, my car averaged about 33.05 mpg, based on 1,559.9 miles traveled and 47.2 gallons of gasoline consumed.

Because I didn’t take any long trips during either of the two months and almost all of the miles were piled up commuting to work, driving to the golf course or running various odds and ends, I can say without reservation that the main reason behind my 5.75% jump in fuel economy.

Granted, on a hot summer’s day, turning your car off at a stop light may not be the best thing in the world to do, but I would imagine that even if you were to do this just during your morning commute and later in the evening, you would probably add another 3% to your car’s gas mileage.

And as I’m sure you’re well aware by now, if each of us were to increase our fuel economy by 3%, we would save billions of gallons of gas (and billions of dollars) over the course of a year.

The 25% of gasoline wasted at idle figure in Los Angeles includes stop and go on the freeway, and on the freeway you're not really stopped long enough to turn off your engine. But the regenerative braking helps there. The 5.75% savings sounds credible to me for someone who stops at a lot of stoplights, I see no reason to doubt it. But I do see reasons to doubt whether HHO generation to recover gasoline wasted at idle will result in a net positive or a net negative. It seems to me it might just be a wash, though it could go slightly either way depending on some details. It seems to me you'll save more by just turning the engine off.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


john_bmth mentioned going down hill without peddling so I just went with it.

If someone puts one of these things in their car and they say they see improved milage then, giving them the benefit of the doubt, it's not a question of "can it work?" but "what is actually causing this?".

Now it could just be a biased observation or even a change in driving style but it might be something someone hasn't thought of testing before.