Plans for a water powered car.

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
I wish I had seen this ealier to help direct the thinking towards what is really working now.

Folks, were all being duped by the oil Industry. I don't have much time today to tell this but I have posted about this in other 'over unity' discussions, repeatedly. MTSU in Murfreesboro built one of these and the EXTRA power was BORROWED from the SUN!!!! Imagine the simplicity? THIS IDEA WORKED for them 20 years ago. Dr Rickett's problem was the electrolysis apparatus he chose was being used by NASA and the company with the patent wanted $1 Million. He now builds solar and electric cars but drives a HHO car to first place in the alternative fuel contests. We can now obtain the $10k device and I should go after it but it is certainly dangerous to play with the oil profiteers future. Dr. Rickett's can be googled. Good reading and I hope you all get an understanding. My duties have me in contact with EPA and I have pointed this out and they have, in open meetings with like minded enviromentalists, admitted that big oil runs the government way back when Clinton was POTUS. You know Bush had to be connected to big oil co's.




posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by CriticalCK
Big deal. He is either not telling the truth or not measuring correctly. The armchair scientists are right. All it takes is a very basic understanding in chemistry - topic: bond energy.


Actually they are looking at different things. The armchair scientists are looking at total energy in versus milage and saying you can't get more milage from the same amount of energy.

Of course autowrench is driving around a longer distance with the same amount of gas. The answer of course has to be better efficiency. It's not that there is more energy in the system but that it is being used better. Not hard with a powerplant thats around 15% efficient.

I think that that fuel cell is acting like regenerative breaking in electric cars. For example while the truck is idle gas is still being used but there is no milage generated from that. Now the fuel cell is taking some of that energy and recycling it for when the truck is in motion. No magic just better efficiency.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Justoneman
 


All true, Justoneman. I guess these people have not heard of Denny Klein. Danny has a Patent Application, number 20060075683, for an "Apparatus and method for the conversion of water into a new gaseous and combustible form and the combustible gas formed thereby."

US Cl. 48/197FM; 204/268 // 048/197.0FM; 204/268 Int'l. Cl. C10L 3/00 20060101 C10L003/00

Also published as: WO2005076767 (8-25-2005 )

Abstract --- An electrolyzer which decomposes distilled water into a new fuel composed of hydrogen, oxygen and their molecular and magnecular bonds, called HHO. The electrolyzer can be used to provide the new combustible gas as an additive to combustion engine fuels or in flame or other generating equipment such as torches and welders. The new combustible gas is comprised of clusters of hydrogen and oxygen atoms structured according to a general formula H.sub.mO.sub.n wherein m and n have null or positive integer values with the exception that m and n can not be 0 at the same time, and wherein said combustible gas has a varying energy content depending on its use.

Description RELATED APPLICATION [0001] This patent application is a divisional application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/760,336 filed on Jan. 20, 2004, which is a continuation-in-part application of the U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/277,841 filed on Oct. 22, 2002, a continuation-in-part application of the U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/065,111 filed on Sep. 18, 2002, and a continuation-in-part application of the U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/826,183 filed on Apr. 4, 2001.
source

A company called "Hydrogen Technology Applications"has also applied for a patent on the gas.

Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc. (HTA) has recently completed an initial round of testing with a Ford F250 (diesel) and on-board system producing Aquygen® gas. HTA was able to show about a 21% increase in fuel economy for these initial tests. Results from this testing can be seen at this link.
www.hytechapps.com...

So, may I ask something? If this technology is such a scam, and people talking about using it are such big liars, then why, pray tell, are major corporations being formed around it, and there are US Patent Applications on file for the HHO gas? I guess some just spend billions on lies and innuendo, on a thing that will never work?

I do not understand the plain anger from some in here that one of your member stumbled onto a technology that saves him some money? What is the purpose of that? And further, I mean, I know some will never believe it, that is the nature of humans, but why go to all the trouble debunking it, if you know it doesn't work in the first place? Care to explain this to me?

Big Oil will do ANYTHING to keep this out of your hands, friends. I am a little surprised that I have not had any threats for having it on my truck. I did have a State Policeman try to tell me it is illegal to modify my vehicle to get better mileage, and I had to ask him, do you work for the State of Ohio, or Standard Oil?

I have not attempted to sell anything but an idea. I am an idea man, having ideas is how I made a great deal of money for myself in the service trades. I can still remember the long lines at the gas stations during the shortages and embargos of the 1980s, and seeing today's gas prices? I paid $78 today to fill my van up with gas. That represents money that could be used for other things. Like renting a video, perhaps, or having a few beers to drink tonight. There are no patents on my design. It can be built, using easily available parts, for under $100. Who wouldn't give $100 right now if they could double their gas mileage? Especially those who commute to work every day? I had my doubts too, until I tried it. I also had my doubts about synthetic oil, radial tires, port fuel injection engines, aluminium cylinder heads, and a lot of other things we use every day without a second thought. Oh, the government does want you to run your car on Hydrogen, but they want to sell it to you. Can you imagine for a minute....loading your beloved family up in your car, filling the tank with a highly explosive gas, and driving down the road? A hard crash, or a car fire, and nothing left by a large, smoking hole. Not me, I would much rather make it on demand.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Nobodies"mad".just Pressing you to backup some wild claims:

If I follow your posts you have yet to actually run your full size v-8 solely on the bubbles in your mason jar? With No gasoline fuel input at all; (except for your stated "priming run to build up a quantity of this "HHO").
speaking of "HHO":
if you could explain what element or compound you are creating (in your mason jar) would go along way to backup your Argument. As we could look at its specific chemical properties. Its' vapor pressure(volume); how much energy it contains; heat it produces upon combustion.etc etc.
heres where I'm goin: a handy dandy chart of figures for equivalent energy present by weight or volume:
You'll notice 1gal regular gasoline=114,000 btus; 1gallequivalentof hydrogen: 319 btu/cu ft (with 350+ cuft) equiv to 1gallon of gas.
en.wikipedia.org...


just sayin... This is a simple idea: energy out = energy in-(losses)

( I.E. onversion losses", due to less than 100% efficiency; heat and noise from frictionand internal combustion, wind resistance; "fluid viscosity losses" (energy spent forcing oil around the engine lubrication system).

If you can get more energy than you put in.(over unity) get out to the garage! document; claim your Nobel prize for physics.. enjoy the million dollars.
Enjoy;

You maybe getting better gas mileage by creating a more efficient combustion in the cylinder and eaking out all the power that gallon of gasoline can produce.That's not the same as running solely on hydrogen created by onboard electrolysis.

I've said all I've come to say..
and won't be bothering you anymore tonight.
"Deny ignorance".

cheers.
edit on 30-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   


You maybe getting better gas mileage by creating a more efficient combustion in the cylinder and eaking out all the power that gallon of gasoline can produce.That's not the same as running solely on hydrogen created by onboard electrolysis.


Please show me where I said that I was running on HHO alone?
I use water, and Food Grade Lye. One teaspoon to the quart. The HHO enhances the gasoline to nearly 100%, and as a bonus, it cleans out the stuff that kills engines, carbon and sulphur, and running it does not pollute the atmosphere anymore. The old engine runs quiet now. The HHO, along with the ECM hack, is what doubles the gas mileage. People have ran cars on just HHO, I am not one of them, yet. And I stress that word yet. Of course, since I have seen what people do when they see someone running this, when I do finally get it just right, and run on HHO alone, I will not be posting it in this forum. I will just keep it for myself, and my friends and family.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


keep the corporations away from our fresh water !!!!

that would be a catastrophe

stick to hydrogen fuel cells, another abundant element, and the byproduct is....water !



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Don't give up on the idea of a water-powered car....I don't care what anybody says, I feel that it can be done! In the meantime, electrolysis can definitely be used to increase fuel economy in both gasoline and diesel powered vehicles. I used to work for NAPA Auto parts 3 years ago. The manager told me about a long haul semi truck driver who made an electrolysis device, and went from 6 MPG to 8 MPG. Doesn't sound like much, but for those type of vehicles, that MPG gain is just that much more profit. Anything you can do to reduce the money sent to the Saudis is a good thing IMHO.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
This is the story of the perpetual motion machine. There are legends that at some point they have existed, but surely there is a net loss of energy from combustion to regeneration (i.e. you still have to load it with fuel). A noble thought, but just wait your ass until Rossi's Cold Fusion device starts powering automobiles. That will be a few years from now, but it is going to be insanely big. It will blindside the establishment and knock down all sorts of walls. Very interesting time in the near future, I suggest to simply keep your head above water.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CriticalCK
Big deal. He is either not telling the truth or not measuring correctly. The armchair scientists are right. All it takes is a very basic understanding in chemistry - topic: bond energy.
The HHO process is inefficient and definitely not over unity. But the people making tweaks other than just adding HHO may be getting some changes from the other tweaks they make irrespective of the HHO part of the mod, like tampering with the smog controls might cause the car to fail the smog test, and some of these extra modifications would definitely cause the car to fail the visual inspection by the smog test facilities in my area, as pointed out by this Pop mechanics guy who's experimenting with HHO kits:

Water-Powered Cars: Hydrogen Electrolyzer Mod Can't Up MPGs


But guess what? My fuel economy is exactly the same, whether the HHO generator is turned on or not. And that's exactly what I expected. This isn't anecdotal evidence from several tankfuls of gasoline. It's steady-state, flat-road testing, and I don't even pretend to have actual economy numbers. I'm using fuel-injector pulse widths directly from the OBD II port. That means I'm measuring the actual time the injectors are open and delivering fuel. When the HHO generator is toggled on, there's no change. And when it's turned back off, there's no change. Well, the computer's system voltage sags a couple of tenths of a volt, indicating the current drain to run the electrolyzer.

Before you HHO proponents start bombarding me with hate mail, chill. You may have some amazing anecdotal evidence that these systems work. But I'm not swayed by over-the-road proof unless the conditions are constant--the variables are too, well, variable. And that includes my own testing. There's too much noise in the data collection, statistically speaking, and quite a bit of room for experimenter bias. From considerable experience with other gas savers, I know even the subtlest change in driving habits can influence the results. I won't be convinced of any fuel savings until I see results on a dynamometer, where I can control everything except the HHO.

I spent a good hour on the phone yesterday with Fran Giroux of hydrogen-boost.com. He tells me that the HHO injection is only an enabler for other devices and changes. The fuel savings doesn't come from the energy contained in the hydrogen as it's burned, which is what I've asserted all along was implausible. Giroux sells a system of modifications that disables the engine management's computer and makes the engine run extremely lean--as lean as 20:1. That's far from the normal 14.7:1. The hydrogen is necessary to let the ultralean mix burn completely, he claims. There's also a heater for the fuel to promote complete vaporization, and some additives for the fuel and oil to complete his system.

Interesting? Why, yes. But there's a catch.

These mods come under the category of tampering with a federally mandated emissions control system, making it impossible to pass the underhood visual inspection component of many state smog inspections. To pass this underhood check, no part of the emissions control system can appear to have been modified or disabled. Add in the OBD II pass-fail to the smog check, and odds are these modifications will keep you from getting a smog sticker. That means you might have to disable--and perhaps remove--the system to pass the annual test. Just don't get caught in between.

I had another long talk yesterday with Steve Rumore, my off-road buddy turned HHO donater. He's experimenting with several vehicles, and actually getting some consistent results--fuel-economy improvements to the tune of 10 to 12 percent on diesel trucks pulling trailers. He's tinkering with some of the same things Giroux is suggesting. We're looking into ways to refine both his and my experimental methods. But I'm convinced there's a lot of placebo effect. I also think that these mods may be increasing fuel economy independently of the HHO injection. So stay tuned, because we're still testing. Once we get some more data onboard, we'll be dyno testing.
So when he says that "I also think that these mods may be increasing fuel economy independently of the HHO injection." and the mods tamper with the federally mandated smog control systems, then yes it's plausible that the other modifications can have an effect on fuel consumption. But according to the author who tested the HHO kit, it's not the HHO kit that's resulting in any improvement, it's the other mods that likely involve tampering with a federally mandated emissions control system.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Basic thermodynamics. Can't get as much, or more, energy out (especially not with combustion) as you put in to separate the H2 and O2 gases.

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

The only reasonable way to do this would be Hydrogen fuel cells, but even that's not an efficient process. Besides, it would be nice to avoid using the same stuff we need to survive to power our cars
.

The really interesting/promising stuff has to do with super/ultra-capacitors. Lots of energy storage and a much higher charge/discharge rate than any Lithium Ion battery.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 

I will try to take pics of my system for you.
This is exactly how im set up except before i go to the fuel rail i bubble it in gas.
The end result is hho plus gas vapor.
You need the gas vapor to get a slower burn.
The number one thing you need to do is use a nano cermic coating.
The hydrogen will cause engine embrittlement if you dont coat it.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainIraq
Basic thermodynamics. Can't get as much, or more, energy out (especially not with combustion) as you put in to separate the H2 and O2 gases.

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

The only reasonable way to do this would be Hydrogen fuel cells, but even that's not an efficient process. Besides, it would be nice to avoid using the same stuff we need to survive to power our cars
.

The really interesting/promising stuff has to do with super/ultra-capacitors. Lots of energy storage and a much higher charge/discharge rate than any Lithium Ion battery.


When the hho is burnt it turns back to water.
There is a company using this process for waste treatment.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   


There was a patent that done this.

Riddle me this when you get in a vehicle and step on the gas you are not giving it more gas you are increasing the air flow.In most combustion engines they have no fuel restriction only air restriction.How would fuel efficiency be even close.This has always been this way on engines however now days some vehicles are more confusing.Now th o2 sensors when they sense oxygen in the exhaust they increase fuel going to the engine.Designed to fail.
edit on 30-9-2011 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
After reading up to page (5). I have decided to park my shat and walk. It's allways been free. Goodnight all.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed... but did you factor in ether/dark matter/orgone... whatever you want to call it. It's there for the transmuting.

And, seriously; how could you possibly say that energy isn't free. This planet as well as 8-11 other one's in this solar system seem to get plenty of it from that H/He ball of plasma and light 93 million miles from Earth.

Shame on us for forgetting this.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by compsen34
 


The majority of the gasses that humans use could be replaced with hho gas gained from solar panels.
Every thing from deep fryers to heaters.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
The fact this thread has gone on so long shows some people don't understand some fundamental issues.

I'll try to break it down in a way that's easy to understand:

Electricity is ran through water, which breaks it into Hydrogen and Oxygen.

You route the Hydrogen to the combustion chamber in the motor, then it combusts and moves the pistons, which turns the crankshaft, which turns the belts, which turn the alternator.

The electricity from the alternator is routed back to the water, to split the Hydrogen and Oxygen out of water.

Yeah it sounds good, but it won't work. Ever. It's not physically possible. Why?

Because when you are using electrolysis to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, you are using a given amount of energy. Lets call that value "n"

So the process of splitting water into Hydrogen and Oxygen consumes "n" amount of energy. Now you have the Hydrogen in a free and combustible form. Here is the kicker. The amount of energy contained in the hydrogen, is always going to be LESS than "n" This is physics. Simple physics, really, that many here are too dense to understand.

So when you use electrolysis to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, you are always going to consume more energy, than the energy contents of the Hydrogen that you have isolated. This is fact, and it's never going to change.

So it doesn't matter where the electricity comes from, as long as it's coming from the combustion of the Hydrogen, it's a circular system that is operating at a loss. Meaning, even if you were JUST trying to have a motor/generator combo that ran on ITS OWN with just water, it wouldn't work. Add in the energy required to move a car, AND split water? Sorry, it's BS



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by James1982
The fact this thread has gone on so long shows some people don't understand some fundamental issues.

I'll try to break it down in a way that's easy to understand:

Electricity is ran through water, which breaks it into Hydrogen and Oxygen.

You route the Hydrogen to the combustion chamber in the motor, then it combusts and moves the pistons, which turns the crankshaft, which turns the belts, which turn the alternator.

The electricity from the alternator is routed back to the water, to split the Hydrogen and Oxygen out of water.

Yeah it sounds good, but it won't work. Ever. It's not physically possible. Why?

Because when you are using electrolysis to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, you are using a given amount of energy. Lets call that value "n"

So the process of splitting water into Hydrogen and Oxygen consumes "n" amount of energy. Now you have the Hydrogen in a free and combustible form. Here is the kicker. The amount of energy contained in the hydrogen, is always going to be LESS than "n" This is physics. Simple physics, really, that many here are too dense to understand.

So when you use electrolysis to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, you are always going to consume more energy, than the energy contents of the Hydrogen that you have isolated. This is fact, and it's never going to change.

So it doesn't matter where the electricity comes from, as long as it's coming from the combustion of the Hydrogen, it's a circular system that is operating at a loss. Meaning, even if you were JUST trying to have a motor/generator combo that ran on ITS OWN with just water, it wouldn't work. Add in the energy required to move a car, AND split water? Sorry, it's BS



you are right and wrong.the gain from one hho cell on your car is to help the gas burn faster and cleaner.Once the proper adjustments are made to the computer the vehicle will see an average of 20 percent better gas milage and the exhaust is cleaner than most new vehicles if not better since all the gas is being burnt.You have to trick the computer cause when oxygen is present in the exhaust it sends signal for more fuel.the hho makes it burn so clean you will see a decrease in milage until you tell the computer that c02 is present in the exhaust.
edit on 1-10-2011 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by deadeyedick
you are right and wrong.the gain from one hho cell on your car is to help the gas burn faster and cleaner.Once the proper adjustments are made to the computer the vehicle will see an average of 20 percent better gas milage and the exhaust is cleaner than most new vehicles if not better since all the gas is being burnt.
Your car was in hideous shape if 20 percent of the fuel wasn't being burned.

In well maintained modern cars it's more like 1%, maybe 2% at most:

www.fuelsaving.info...

A more complete / faster burn.

Typically makers of these product suggest that a large proportion - 10% or more - of the input fuel escapes unburnt from the engine, to be either released into the atmosphere as pollution or uselessly burnt in the catalytic converter. This is just not true, at least for any reasonably modern car in good condition - the true loss is only about one or two percent, so the potential for improved economy is equally small.
So if you really got a 20% improvement due to a more complete burn, it was because your car was in hideously bad shape. You won't get that from a more complete burn of gas in a well maintained modern car where the total opportunity is only 1-2%.
edit on 1-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


What about the HHO being made while idle, or helping the engine run cooler (less wasted as heat) or giving a little umph so that you can ease back on the gas while it still feels like your driving the same. Now put them all together and add all the other tweaks and you have increased efficiency.

Actually 20% of the 15% or so return from common cars is only 3%.
edit on 1-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join