Water As Fuel

except, it's not splitting the atom, it's splitting the molecule (the water molecule). It's very easy to get hydrogen and oxygen gas out of water - you can do it in your garage with a car battery and a bowl of water - simply make a couple of U shaped copper electrodes (just bits of wire), place them under the water, fill a tube under the water, place it over the bit of the electrode that sticks up and gas will displace the water and fill the tube - oxygen at one, hydrogen at the other. Light the hydrogen with a match and it'll explode with a pop, do the same to the oxygen and the match will burn extra brightly. Have you created energy? No. The energy it takes to make the gas is the same (or probably a little more) than you get back from the burning. It's clean fuel, but it's not free.

Not sure what this quack means by HHO, sounds a bit like H2O to me!

Don't get excited about this folks, it's not quite cold fusion!

H2O = hydrogen + 2 oxygen atoms
HHO = 2 hydrogen atoms + oxygen

Go back and read your high school chemistry book. H2O is two moleucles of hydrogen and one of oxygen.

Last time I checked H2O is still 2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen....

Owned the guy posting above. xD

BTW..why is the fueld called HHO? Isn't that the same as H2O which is water? o.0

Its because the molecule has been split. But you are still left with two atoms of hydrogen and one oxygen.

The simplest alternative would be to use solar energy to produce the electricity needed to separate the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. These gasses can be stored separately or mixed, no batteries are even required. Perpetual and clean.

This process (not this particular design obviously) has been around for a very long time, NASA has used it for both fuel and water recycling in their space craft for over twenty years (most likely longer). I won’t go into the whole conspiracy theory (although here it is justified), lets just say governments and large companies (oil) have had patents on these things for a very long time. Hmmm, how long does a patent last before the technology becomes public domain?

I will use solar energy to make electricity. I will use this to split water. Then i will use the product to make electricity. Wow why not just use the power directly from the solar panels.

Or we could go with the easier and cheaper way and use bio fuels like ethanol or bio-diesel. Oh ya even though they are cheaper then splitting water and storing hydrogen they still cost more then burning oil.

You would either have to reduce your cargo and passanger capacity to none (with no heater, radio etc) OR you would have to have a solar array (about the size of half a football field) strapped to the roof of your car. Not to mention, when it gets dark or cloudy, you will have little or no energy source. Of course batteries would help but how would you charge them? Sounds impractical and very expensive.

Of course you pay less for gasoline on a capital basis but your operational costs far outwiegh the initial capital and operational costs of alternative energies combined. This is really a no-brainer, think fiscally. Actually the cost to then end user would be less from the start, most likely you would be able to purchase the hydrogen and oxygen at 'gas stations'.

Two very important things could come from this;
1) Little to no pollution produced in the entire process.
2) The fuel would be renewable.
3) The oil companies would still have a place (plastics etc.) but the stock brokers would be stopped from creating such insane prices through their irresponsible purchasing practices.

Of course, that is an optimistic view. Since I have not heard of this 'invention' anywhere but Metacafe yet, I won't hold my breath.

My point was more if you are making electricity with solar power why not use that as electricity and then use the bio fuels to run cars. I know you can’t fit the enough solar panels on a car to run it. Heck you can't fit enough on a house to power it up with out lots of energy saving modifications. That is why my uncle who live out in the middle of know were and as solar back up for his house only has it power up one circuit with the fridge and gas furnace controls and what not on it. The fact hydrogen isn't practical for running cars is why you don't hear about it. Yes all the major car companies have made hydrogen cars either combustion, fuel cell, or both, but they were expensive and had a very short range. Also fueling those up was a pain. That is why they are looking to bio fuels. As soon as gas becomes expensive enough that you can produce bio fuels for the same price you will see the switch over start to pick up. Hydrogen is a dumb dream of a few years back the politicians still talk about.

The idea behind the solar to hydrogen ideology isn't one of an instant switch. Similarily to how we now store oil in barrels, the idea is that we NOW start producing hydrogen supplies for the day when our oil runs out / become a diseconomy to our society. We tend to think like the way that the rest of the world views Americans, like fast food. We need to think toward the future and not in the present, afterall, that's what has gotten us into this mess.

If all the pumps stopped pumping we would be out of oil real quick. Did you not see how much the interruption in supply from the hurricane messed stuff up. If we had massive amounts of stored oil ships not being able to port for a few days would have done very little.

As for storing hydrogen for the future that is like the dumbest thing I have ever herd. I mean where would be put enough to run the country for a year. Do you know how much more room hydrogen would take up then the oil to make the same amount of energy it would take up like a state.

Why do you uneducated hippies think you can fix all the worlds problems with positive thoughts that have no basis in logic? How do you guys get to know all these amazing things us engineers never think of. Why don’t we just switch over to pyramid or crystal power.

Am I saying running a car off of hydrogen is impossible? No. am I saying that we can’t make it from solar power no. both those have been done what I am saying is it is not practical. That is why they have gone in the bio fuel direction. Every car company has at least made a hydrogen prototype. I did a report on them way back in high school. Some cities even had busses run off it for awhile. But they realized it was not practical and now they have shifted a lot of the research over to ethanol and bio diesel. I mean a car with a 90 mile rang and huge tanks of pressurized explosive gas.

They even had some creative ideas. I loved the one that ran off of rusting iron.

Don’t blame the oil companies or car companies though. If people would buy the more expensive alternate fuels they would sell them. I mean they are putting E85 everywhere now that people are willing to buy it. The problem is if you pulled up to a gas station and they had two fuels you car could run off one was normal gas the other was 100% bio fuel. But the gas cost $3 a gallon and the bio fuel cost $6 a gallon. Which one would you really fill up on? I mean really. They supply what people will buy it is a simple as that.

;]

But I don't think calling the dream for hydrogen to be a widely used fuel is dumb, no offense. Hydrogen is the simplest and most abundant element in the universe, it just makes sense for us to go this direction.

Almost all the hydrogen on earth is tied up in compounds such as water and hydro carbons. Hydrogen is not a fuel source it is storage at best. You have to use more energy to spit the hydrogen out then you will get from recombining it into water. I have not heard an engineer or scientist worth anything talk about it for like 5 years. Though politicians will talk about it but they don't have to base what they say on facts. I mean their job is to win a popularity contest every 4 years.

anyway, I'll trust you have done the numbers - Yes it appears modern technology is not capable of making this happen yet. I have not heard of anything on this clip outside of Metacafe, which makes me think - it's a flop.

Many dreams of the past are common place reality today. Hopefully we'll live to see the day that technology / engineering catch up to this and jump the conversion hurdle, getting a more clean - closer to par conversion rate.

I started looking some of teslas experiments and scalar waves when i stumbled onto this page, This guy is not the first to come up with his technology if you google or yahoo search: water fule stanley meyer you can find a bit of info on it. here is a link to a kit that claims to be able to make your car run with the use of this technology sorryf or breaking up the links ... peswiki.com/ index.php / Directory: Hydrogen_ from_ Water or

peswiki.com / index.php / Directory: HydroStar_ electrolysis

or just search for water fule there is plenty of info out there if you don't stop looking for it, If the info is true / applicable is another mater

Why bother with splitting water and recombine it. Why not just run cars off the fuel source used to make the power directly and cut out the middle man. Right now oil as we shift over to bio fuels run them off bio fuel. That is why every car company is making bio fuel cars or at least prototypes of them, and they all gave up on hydrogen ones like 6 years ago. Because they realized it was dumb and wasteful.

no ur dumb coz it would be ahell of alot cheaper to run on water

You have to have a source of energy to make run your electrolysis for the water. If you electrolysis cell is in the car like this guys that means that source is on board the car. So why not just use that source cut out some waist and save money.

Search for "Stanley Meyers on goog and watch the google video... It is not the car running on water that is the big deal... the big deal is HOW he gets MORE ENERGY out than what goes in... watch the video at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800

If he gets more energy out then he puts in why can't he use the machine to power it's self? Oh ya that is right because he is a flim flam man. If you could not see the flaws what that video was saying you’re not very smart. If his invention worked he could easily be rich. He would also be guaranteed for a Nobel Prize for proving that the amount of mass and energy in the universe is not constant, or at least for discovering 0 point energy. Also that video was by the lone lantern. Wow that is a reliable source of info there. They are almost as accurate as the weekly world news. By the way did you know bat boy got married? Are you a little kid or just that dumb?

You use the product to fuel your car. Not with electricity, but with combustion. You must have ADD, because it was all spelled out in the interview and you still got it wrong.

Not so. It is possible to run a car on solar. Do a search on "Honda Hydrogen Car." It takes approximately 1/4 acre of PV panels currently. But remember that typical PV efficiency is only 13 to 15 percent.. This is todays mass produced panel. Panels are developed with higher efficiency and other solar technologies have as high as 30-40% efficiency. See "Stirling" technology. These 25 kW units are certainly powerful enough to charge several electric cars or produce hydrogen for fuel cells. I have learned to keep an open mind and investigate thoroughly before forming a lasting opinion. It may be we need to do the same here... Yes, physics is physics, but we are finding out that we don't know half as much as we thought.

Tom R

Solar can't provide enough power?

Power is derived and stored over time. Likewise, you use the power in increments, not in a steady state. The same applies to powering a home. Solar is accumulated either by net metering to the power grid or in batteries. And, there are several people who use solar 'now' to power their homes and cars. Granted, these systems are generally large and expensive, however, the same principles can be applied to smaller vehicles such as electric bicycles, scooters and even smaller cars that are coming on the market. Each hp of course represents 746 Watts so it largely depends upon the size of the motor you wish to run and how long you wish to run it. I have an electric fishing boat for example, that charges off two panels on the canopy and can run at slow speeds as long as the sun is out, OR it can charge the battery when I am not using it and has extra power when I am not using it.

For the most part, Americans are addicted to large amounts of power. That issue needs to be addressed too if real progress is to be made. However, I know of people in E. WA state for example that run their houses on modest solar systems. They do not live like urban gluttons but usually are modest income country folk who get by just fine, at least for their homes. Some comments address the issues at low efficiency levels. We can achieve higher, and will. Also, consider the potential, not what it is today. Through matematics we can prove that we can power the entire planet with solar many times over. ( The real issue is cost per kW or HP. ) It is a question of making it economical. Of course, to achieve such things, it takes a belief in our capabilities, and given the state of the planet, do we have a choice or will we simply give up? We must look at alternatives even though some may look preposterous... The laws of physics say that celestial objects such as stars should orbit slower as the distance from a glactic center is increased. Yet, they do not. We have much to learn.

TomR

I never said it was not possible to make a solar farm and use it to power electric cars. I mean of course that is possible and would be pretty easy to do.

I do have a question for you? How do you figure that a 25kW unit would make enough hydrogen for several cars? I mean each car has a 80kW motor and two 25kW motors to drive it. That would mean it uses up to 130kW for drive power.

if you get 1/4 acre of extra room for solar panels in your yard that is great. My point is why not power your house off it first. Switching your house to solar would save more fossil fuels then using the same amount of solar to make fuel. The hydrogen just throws in a waist step. I mean yes get a few of those 25kw units and one of these cars will save some gas. Most people will probably get the ones that run of natural gass though. For those you have to burn more natural gas to make the hydrogen for the car then you would have to burn normal gas if you had a normal car.

This is good for cities. Then the people in the suburbs burn natural gas out there and you have fewer fumes in the city. Yes overall you did increase the total pollution you made but you will have less in the city. Happy day!

If you live somewhere with a big enough yard to put in the solar panels you will need more then one 25kW unit just to make enough power for your commute to work probably. I know it is not enough to run a normal house. That is why you can’t power your whole house off one of the 35kw generators they had at Home Depo after the flood. That only could power like a fridge and a few lights.

I said it was not practical to replace cars this way not that it was hard to do. Or that no one would pay money to feel good about saving the planet. Not acutely helping really but it feels like helping.

20 years

but didn't he say he was using an system of electrolysis to alter the properties?

Surely renewable energy sources (solar, hydro etc) could be employed to power the production of the HHO, theoretically doing away with the need for fossil fuels. Definitely worth throwing a couple of trillion at I'd say.

we could direclty use the renewable energy sources and cut out the waste. ;)

That seemes to be the thrust of many posts here and certainly makes sense from a sustainability standpoint. The reason that we're not all cruising around in solarmobiles already is because they offer significantly less performance and/or endurance and/or convenience than petrol car so no-one wants one. This hydrogen model looks to compete strongly on all those points and should appeal as a genuine alternative.

My point is that you need to make electricity to make hydrogen. If we use oil to make it it will take more oil to make the hydrogen then it would take to run a gas powered car. So why not use gas to power cars and the solar and hydro electric to help the power grid. Also we can produce enough electricity form solar, geothermal and hydro electric to power the country. This means if we want to go completely away from oil we will need to burn bio fuels. So why not save money and energy and just run the cars of bio fuel. Like bio diesel and ethanol. Yes a few years ago until they looked into it hydrogen sounded like a good idea but then they realized it would be costly and impractical. That is why all the car companies went away from it and are designing cars to run of ethanol. You won't see a shift over to bio fuel until oil prices go up enough that it becomes cheaper to produce bio fuel. I mean it costs more to run a dual fuel car off E85 and the oil reason it is close to the same price is government subsidies. When gas priced get to about 5-6 dollars a gallon or a little higher and stay there you will see us start to shift to bio fuels.

We seem to be having the same discussion in two spots.
See you at the bottom of the page.

the h2o passes through a thin special plastic where only the oxygen passes through the hydrogen attemps to join back with it and being a positively charges ion molecule passes along an electric bar causing a current, that can be used to power anything like cars , i sat a lecture on it, very boring but qwite insightful

im cofused wtf is going on

Im glad someone caught on. Yes, this is a fantastic invention and will solve many CHEMICAL pollution in the environment. However, the question is not a concern of energy conservation, but of THERMAL pollution. This is not a miricale machine where all is good and no bad can happen. When there is a reaction at the molecular level, epecially with hydrogen and oxygen, there is energy released. This energy is in the form of heat. If the invention takes off and everyone gets a "water car" the thermal pollution will increase dramatically. Therefore, the drop in chemical pollution (CO, CFC's, etc) that deplete the Ozone, will be replaced with thermal pollution. And in time, it will result in the same destruction of the planet.

Like burning carbon compounds doesn't produce heat? Its exactly the same as burning hydrogen.

Both produce heat. I'm not advocating the "water car", I was just saying it wont solve any problems.

This solves no pollution problem. A hydrogen car will cause more polution then a gas one just in a different place. In a gas car it will come out of the tail pipe. In a hydrogen car it will come out of the stack of the power plant making the power to break up the water. Also a hydrogen car would probably run off a fuel cell which produces almost no heat so a normal car would make more thermal pollution at the car but they hydrogen car would make more thermal pollution at the power plants cooling tower. If you want to get away from oil you options are bio fuels, solar, wind, nuclear(but we only have enough U235 on earth to last 90 years at the current use rate), hydro electric, and geo thermal. Hydrogen is nothing more then a storage method like a battery. That is why all the car companies went away from it years ago and moved on to bio fuel cars. Some times I am amazed at how little people know. I blame the news media. I think some people actually believe the news tries to inform them rather then just putting on things that are technically true (you can’t prove we lied…. and if prove it we will print a rhetorical on some middle page) to get the most viewers/reads so they can sell ad space. Also if someone says something that is wrong like a politician they can report that they said it and don’t have to mention that they are dead wrong or have no knowledge in the field, example Al Gore and his global warming stuff he always says stuff that is wrong and no one makes a big deal about it. I mean when did holding an office or acting in a movie make some one know everything. This leads to people who know very little believing they are informed. Like all the retards who think hydrogen is a source of energy to replace fossil fuels but don’t think of were the energy to make the hydrogen comes from. I mean a little kid who had jr high science could tell you that it you spilt up water then recombine it you can’t get as much energy out as you put in.

Agreed, this solves very little, if no, pollution problems. I am not advocating this "water car". But to comment on your reply:
>> If you want to get away from oil you options are bio >>fuels, solar, wind, nuclear(but we only have enough >>U235 on earth to last 90 years at the current use >>rate), hydro electric, and geo thermal.

Almost all of these create thermal pollution (i.e. nuclear power heats the water and puts it back into the environment, changing the eco-system).
My root point is that our children's children are F**k e.d. becuase there will be no solution for the global warming crisis.

Is only bad in localized areas. All the thermal polution in the world is not enough to chage anything. Yes if you put hot water back in rivers you will get fish kills and what not. But it is no wear near enough heat to affect anything. That is like saying if you shine a flashlight at a swiming pool it will heat it up.

should stop congratulating yourself. You haven't told us anything that other people haven't written on here anyway, and most of it just sounded like a rant rather than a coherent argument that (judging from your own opinion of yourself) we should be expecting.

You also missed out some of the huge problems there are with biofuel.

If you want to continue going around bigging yourself up and feeling important and superior, perhaps you should go and read Teemo post on Biofuel. Then you can continue impressing reta.rds with your VAST intelect.

Its a little more complex than your simple answer.

I'm not retarded (you'll have to trust me on that) and I do think that hydrogen will play a key role in future fuels. NASA also believes it to be an efficient fuel, trust me again whe nI tell you, they are not retarded either.

Your example of a school kid knowing you only get as much energy out of something as you put into it is good. In fact you are lucky to get as much energy out of something as you put into it. The law of conservation of energy says that energy is neither created nor destroyed, we can however change it from one form to others.

Fossil fuels take an incredible amount of energy to be made into petrol, ready for purchase at your local 'gas station'. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, nevermind our planet. It's already there for us and when we burn (oxydize) it, we get water. It just makes sense to go in this direction.

If you can't see the flaws in what you just said there is really no point to trying to explain anything to you.

I will give you this to think about though. If hydrogen cars are so great, why did all the car companies decide they were not practically 6 years ago after they all made a prototype or two? Now they are making bio fuel cars if you have a new car there is a pretty good chance it is duel fuel. Read your owners manual.

I will explain the insult thing though. I am bitter and jaded. It comes from the intelligence gap between me and the people I have to deal with regularly. The intellect gap between me and an average person is over twice that of the gap between a retarded person and an average person.

So have you ever been in a special ED class or state run group home for them. You know how annoying it gets to talk to them because they are so clueless. Imagine almost everyone in the world being like that.

... that car comp0anies did NOT continue with the hydrgen car is because it was not economically viable (i.e. they wouldn't profit from the car's sale after all the work put into making one: and i think the hydrogen- fuel-systems they were using were not cheap to make) So they stop making them, not because it wouldn't solve problems. It just wouldn't make them enough money.

trusting you have been tested and are not just a manic bullshit artist. Try to remember, there are others that are above normal intelligence too. While the majority of strong opinioned individuals on here are simple (to put it nicely), there are some on here that have a rather high level of comprehension. They are likely on Metacafe for the same reason you are - boredom, intellectual challenge, whatever. The more complex the mind the greater the need for recreation play/recreation. Who knows, you may make a friend or two. FYI, 136. And if you think your frustrated, try explaining something to Mr. Logo, dumb as a stump but opinionated as a visiting mother-in-law.
;]

It is IMPOSSIBLE to get more energy out of a fuel than what you put in it. For example, it takes more energy to construct gasoline than you get when you burn it. So what if you don't get the same amount of energy out of the wire as you put in it; the point is, the energy is now USABLE. It's not about getting more energy, it's about harnessing as much energy as we can into something useful.

I must say, though, I'm quite skeptic about this technology. A few years ago, a guy said he had developed a water-powered engine. Everyone, even the government, believed him, until they found out it was a fake.

It seems to me that if this was all true, why haven't we heard more about it? Why hasn't it been on the front page of newspapers? And my last and most importaint question:

How old is this clip? That might reveal if it is real or fake.

The energy was put into is billions of years ago by the sun. That is why it is a fuel source not a storage or transfer method.

he wouldnt have got a patent if he had anything to worry about!

His only hope is that his hummer for the US military is a success. Then he will have them as his "bodyguards".

help me Obi Wan, you're my only help

They have busses and cars driving on hydrogen in Iceland. There are special hydriogen "gas" stations. The hydrogen is produced with help from the pollutionfree water powerplants. Only water/steam coming out the exhaust pipe woohoo...

and fill this guys "water car" fuel tank.

But that process is different. The hydrogen that you put into your car has to be refined and processed.... it's not taken directly as the Hydrogen you and I breathe in our atmosphere. This guy's fuel is water (hybrid with gasoline)... the same water you and I can drink.

I think you're the only one.... Its too reactive to hang around as H2 in the air, and will be oxidised to H2O.

Hydrogen is like you said H2 (diatomic molecule) and is a part of the air we breathe. It is in a VERY LOW concentration of 0.5 parts per million. My previous comment was just to clarify that companies can't just take hyfrogen from the atmosphere and use it as fuel for their fuel cell cars. Hydrogen from our atmosphere has to be processed and refined, which uses many other fossil fuels in the process.

Put on your aluminium foil hat and think for a moment.

With oil supplies running out in 20 years, the world's oil companies will soon be the world's largest owners of worthless real estate.

Big oil (like BP) is trying to find new sources and would pay him billions for this patent if it were a real solution. But thetruth is, it is not a solution.

what planet do you live on?

not that many people use cutting torches and fromt he clip that is the only thing this is good for.

a flim flam man.
His torch may work well, but his car thing is a scam. I do agree though we need more good scam artists. Dumb people have way too much of their money. With out scam artists who will take it away from them.

the saying is
when something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

.

Actually big oil would pay him BILLIONS for it, if it worked.

Big oil understands oil reserves are running out and they will have nothing left to sell in 20 years.

Give me facts GOP man, show me what big oil companies have done in the last 10 years to promote alternatives source of energy?. Did you know the Wankel engine (far more efficient) was killed by oil companies, they need V8's, V12's, no fuel efficient machines, more consumption, more power to them. Our oil dependence is costing us more than we think, we are intertwined with Saudi Arabia, the Saud house, the Bin Laden family, they have us by the balls.

Show me that all these companies have not been big contributors to the last two republicans campaigns, in return they got no regulation about using coal, reducing emissions, what is the reason Detroit stubbornly pushes SUV's?, big pieces of junk, no wonder most americans buy japanese despite desperate efforts from american automakers who still don't get it. Just the facts, now show me what you got, doesn't matter if in 20 years oil reserves will dry out, by that time the entire planer will be dead anyway thanks to pollution. We still have time to wise up and look for adn cheaper cleaner sources.

The oil companies are keeping things from coming to light.
The government put bombs in the world trade centers.
It was a cruse missile that hit the pentagon.
Kennedy was shot by a gunman in the sewers.
We didn't land on the moon.
And we have alien space ships at area 51.
We have a stargate in the mountain in Colorado.

Why would the oil companies promote alternate energy? That is like having the beef farmers promote you to eat more chicken. Just because beef farmers don't put money into promoting chicken does not mean they are plotting against the chicken farmers.

The reason car company make SUV's is because people buy them. They make cars people buy. If more people buy one make of car they make more of it. That is not the oil company’s fault that is the people buying the SUV's fault. Now the people are willing to buy hybrid vehicles and economy cars they make a lot more of them.

Foreign car companies make SUV's too it is not just American one you crazy nut job. The reason American car companies are in trouble is they have bad union contracts. I mean most of them have work pools because they can't fire people with hundreds of people getting full pay and benefits who don't have a job. They just show up and sit in a room and do nothing for a few hours. When GM said they wanted to give the workers they didn’t need 100grand and pay for 4 years of school for them the union went threatened to strike because it was not fair. Hmmmm wonder why the companies who only have to pay the people working and pay them a wage the same as other industries instead of like double that are making money. i just don't know. It must be the oil companies. lol

But it will not raise a bridge up. It will also shatter a crystal glass.

The simple fact is you can not go from a lower energy molecule to one with higher energy without putting the energy into it. If you discover how you will win a noble prize and be the most famous scientist ever. You will mad Einstein and Newton look like nobodies.

That's not really what I am getting at... Consider the idea of stored energy already in a system and only needing a bit of energy of the right type to upset the system. I think the tern is "potential energy". Like a 1000 pound marble on top of a mountain. Just a litlle push and off it goes wrecking havoc below. Also like an avalanche, or an atom bomb. You don't need to input the energy that allready is there if you can free it and it may take considerably less energy to do so if you can be very percise in how you apply the energy. So the water molecule can be upset with its resonant frequency if that vibration can be closely controlled enough. So that is an alternative to using electricity to break up the molecule. Maybe the inventor uses a combination of electricity and resonat frequency?

H2 and O2 have more energy in them then H2O. So using resonace to split them would be like using it to take a marble from the bottom of a mountan to the top not from the top to the bottom. That energy has to come from somewhere. to realse stored energy you have to go from higher energy to lower. like going from the top of a mountain to the bottom. or going from hydrogen and oxegen to water, going from a big nucleas to one closer to 60 particles (fission), going from a small nucleas to one closer to 60 particles (fusion). You can't get power from splitting helium into hydrogen, making urianum out of smaller attoms, or splitting water.

http:// video. google. com/ videoplay ?docid=-3333 9921941 68790 800
((remove the spaces))

As has been pointed out earlier, typical electrolysis consumes more power than is produced, but Stanley Meyers developed a way to pulse the electricity to what is being called "fracture" of water that consumes less energy than is liberated in the form of hydrogen. (That pulsation may be related to resonant frequencies.)

If it starts as water and ends as water you cannot get a net energy gain from the reaction. The total amount of matter and energy in the universe is constant. If you are getting energy it has to come from somewhere. I'm not going to say it is not a more efficient then the normal method, but I have a feeling this is like the cold fusion guys. It looks great at first but after a closer work they realize it was a crap scam.

I mean energy from nothing makes no sense. You start with water and you end with water and more energy. You can then use the water to make more energy. Not buying a perpetual motion machine. Not buying it till I can take it to a lab and take readings on it. Oh wait he hasn’t let anyone do that. Hmmmm I wonder why. He sets it there and shows look I am making hydrogen. But does he make it into a device to measure volume and take temperature reading. Then compare the amount of hydrogen and oxygen gas and temperature to see the ending energy in the system. Oh wait no of course not. Because then they would realize there is an energy loss and his scam would be done. I mean this is almost identical to the cold fusion scam. I mean look at the device it is almost identical.

Also how come you never see him plug it into a fuel cell run off it why does he always plug it into a wall socket? If I wanted people to believe me I would start it with a battery then run it off a fuel cell and unhook the battery. If the amount of hydrogen produced did not go down then you would know it was true. Why does he not do this simple thing? I can only think it is because this is a scam. If I saw it running off it’s own power with a increasing amount of hydrogen being made instead of decreasing I would buy it. I mean that is all he needs to do to prove it and it would be easy if he is telling the truth.

I understand your argument, but, there's more to what we are seeing than science: politics play an important role. Probably more important than science. Stanley Meyers did say he was scared and he was murdered eventually. I'd say intrinsically with any new method of doing something, that there will be more to the story than what the rest of us will get. The inventor tries to protect themselves, the threatened try to protect themselves and the end consumer of the information gets an imperfect picture of reality.

Furthermore, I think it is useful to talk about how dreams might eventually be accomplished and that includes expanding on and into our current convictions. I'm sure that well before atomic energy, it was common scientific sense to say the energy just wasn't there. But then our understanding changed. You know a common way to look at an energetic situation is to draw system boundaries so the situation can be isolated and thought about. But no system is really isolated and also all systems are infinitely deep. So our science will always be at least a little off. But this drives science to expand towards both what we observe and what we want to observe, for good or bad... If we apply our creativity and understanding to “How can we get more energy using water as part of the solution”, maybe we’ll get some new understanding eventually. Since science is always growing, if we do this long enough, I’m sure it will become clear. Maybe it won’t be what we envisioned, but that doesn’t really matter in the end.

You have to be going from a less sable to more stable nucleus to get energy. That is why big atom like uranium we get energy from through fission, and small ones like hydrogen give off energy in fusion. They follow the exact same principle that if the reaction gives off energy then the end products have less potential not more. It is like why objects fall down not up. How rechargeable batteries work, and normal electrolysis and fuel burning.

If the products have more internal energy then the reactants it is and endothermic process. If they have less it is an exothermic process. If you expect people to believe this guy really made an exothermic process where the products have more internal energy then the reactants I would have to see something that shows that to believe it. If he was telling the truth he could easily use the methods I said in my last post to prove this. I mean it would take maybe an hour to set up tops. I can’t think of any reason he would not do something that simple to prove his claim if it were true.

I mean if a chick was claiming you got her pregnant that you didn’t have sex with wouldn’t you agree to a DNA test. Now someone who says there is no way they can be the dad but refuses the test you have to wonder about. Or if the wanted to test fire your gun to rule it out as a murder weapon, if you didn’t do it why would you object. I mean I would gladly do it to show I was not guilty. Now if someone were to get rid fo the gun before police could get it what would you think.

But I guess it makes more sense that this device he won't let anyone examine or see working the way he says it does, really acts differently from everything else in the world we have observed. That is way more logical then him being a con man. yupers

it takes more money to splitting the water energy molecules than the oil so that means you pay more money and you still use oil to regenerate

Is a cumbustable fuel. it can be made with a simple battery applied to the unique electrolysis device with in an engine compartment. no oil needed to make the combustable gas to run the cumbustion engine.

Why not just run the car off a motor powered by the battery you are using to make the gas? It would be more efficient.

I was starting to think everyone who saw this was a retard.

he isn't becasue it doesn't work lik eyou think it does.

they are called H-bombs. They work a little diffrent though.

but Metacafe won't let me

but youre right, this'd be an easy way to soon run out of water although there is so much of it and then youll see a bunch of useless hippies clan that will protest for something that no one cares

We will not run out of water from this since it splits water then recombines it. You end with the same amount of water that you started with. It just is a way to use the electric energy differently. How are you an ME and not know how electrolysis and burning hydrogen work. or did you just make that name even though you are not an ME.

so that can be used as the fuel....

a perpetual motion machine you can use the exaust to power it. Magic i like it.

to allow people to kill themselves. No more Carbon Monixide deaths in garages. Now when someone tries to kill themselves in a garage, the worst thing that will happen to them is that they will become over-hydrated. lol

I'm not sure about your first point though because he likely doesn't use clean water anyway. He uses H2O. H2O isn't the water you and I drink... it's distilled water. It's a pure form of water that doesn't have an appealing taste either. It's very simple to create H2O just by neutralizing regular drinking water with acids and bases (HCl and NaOH).

Your second point could be true though.

People buying Avian (Naive spelled backwards) belive there are different types of H20....

Bottled water or tap water isn't H2O... it's water with a bunch of minerals and chemicals added. Water from a glacier isn't even H2O... you can't find pure H2O on earth, you have to make it.

can't you see the flaw? The alternator doesn't charge the battery for free, it's powered by the engine - you're suggesting using the alternator to charge the battery that splits the water to fuel the engine. It doesn't work - the only energy in the system is the initial charge in the battery - when that is done the engine stops. The alternator adds nothing to the process.

What I was implying is that the battery would still drain, but the life of the battery and the distance the car can travel would be prolonged. It can be kind of like an electric car in that it would be plugged into a wall socket and charged up again. But again, that is under more efficient conditions.

You just don't get it I'm afraid. You simply don't put an alternator on a electric car...It'd be like using a battery to light a bulb, using the bulb to illuminate a solar cell, and usin the output from the solar cell to charge the battery! It's circular - there is no new energy being introduced, and energy cannot be created or destroyed. If you don't get this please don't argue or post again, go and learn some physics instead!

I am well aware of the law that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and I know what an alternator does. Your analogy of a light bulb perfectly illistrates what I was talking about: reusing wasted energy. It is an attempt to increase effiency, not create an unlimited power source.

You could put a generator in the car. That kicks in when you are breaking or coasting to store the extra power in batteries. Then you could have a motor to use it when you need extra power. This allows you put a smaller gas engine in. All this would be controlled by a computer. Since is it kind of mixing a gas powered car and an electric car you could call it a "hybrid".

Oh wait they already thought of that and make them. You’re a step behind guy. look up "hybrid cars" on any search engine you will get lots of them.

I mean you could add the making hydrogen step in their but that would just be wasteful and not needed. I mean it is way easier and more efficient to store the energy in a battery. Oh wait that is why they make them that way.

You think you get what I'm saying, but no where in my post did I mension a hybrid car. There will be no gasoline anywhere in the car. It will run off pure H20.

"Your a step behind guy." Try reading next time.

in your last post you said "Your analogy of a light bulb perfectly illustrates what I was talking about: reusing wasted energy. It is an attempt to increase efficiency, not create an unlimited power source. "

Ok you wanted a pure electricity car that works the same way. So buy some extra batteries and put a rectifier on it so you can plug it into the wall, and change the software around a little. You will have a very low range with it though. You also would need to put in a touch bigger motor. I have seen stories about people who have done it that have pretty short commutes.

As for a gas electric hybrid or you all electric one the only diffrence is the all electric would have a much shorter range and take a few hours to charge.

As for you water thing. That is just dumb. This guy’s hybrid car just used water injection. As for his pure water one it would just run off the batteries. So why not run it off the batteries directly? Why throw in the middle step of waste.

The powering a car off water thing is retarded at best, but I would say more like idiotic.

CHEESE SANDWICH??

If you electrolysis system is in the car that means you have your power source for it in the car. So why not just directly use that power source instead of splitting and recombining the water? I mean that would save you the losses from those to steps.

It is like a Rube Goldberg Machine. It looks neat but is impractical and wasteful.

you get way more useable work out of a fuel cell then a conbustion engine useing the same amout of hydrogen because you have no wear near the heat losses.

What are you going to use to get the electricity to make the hydrogen out of the water? You would burn more oil running a hydrogen car the an gas powered one. I would just be burnt at the power plant instead of in your car.

You are so insiteful. The world's (not just America's) need for oil has caused so much hate in the middle east. Why didn't I see this before? Oh yeah, its because the middle east has been the way it is for THOUSANDS of years. They are extremely pessimistic people with a series of bad events and a streak of never ending bad luck.

Although i think thousands of years is an understatement. Tens of thousands is more like it.

another guy already did something similar to this a while ago but recently he was poisoned(he was ovbiously assaninated) by the name of Stan Meyers

on four ounces he went 100 miles

its a good thing you know what you're talking about

just last week - he looked at it in his honours project. It, apparently, makes the engine more powerful - it's not about adding oxygen (the oxygen isn't free, it's bound up as water) but what it does is to make the engine run cooler (so you can run it faster and harder to take advantage of the extra cooling effect), and when the water vaporizes into steam you get extra expansion in the cylinder which increases the force the piston is displaced with. The negatives are that water is forced down past the rings into the crankcase, so it corrodes the engine and pollutes the oil. These things can be overcome with stainless components and better sealing at the rings, but it's only economic to do this in specialised high performance engines. I guess it's a little like bringing steam engine technology (external combustion) forward to internal combustion technology. I'm not an expert on this by any means, and would appreciate any comment from anyone who is. Thanks.