We have plenty of sea water, purify it, use the sodium for molten salt reactors, and both forms of hydrogen, can h2 be used in normal fission reactors what about fission. Hydrogen should be as useful to us as it is to the universe.
has anyone thought about letting nuke reactors crack the water and somehow harness the hydrogen with out it being radioactive? Look at that nuclear plant in japan it blew the roof off. If we can do that without it being radioactive and still allowing the water to be turned to steam we could have a reliable source. What about pressure can water be cracked under enough pressure like in a diesel but xtimes higher? What about sea water and deuterium, could we use both isotopes of hydrogen?
@a1mint Well mister man, I meant breaking the atomic bonds. If you wanna get technical no water isn't a direct source of energy because the hydrogen has to be freed, but oil isn't a source of energy it's locked up sunshine, same with electricity it's just an energy conveyor. I get what you are saying it takes more energy to separate the 2, than would be released therefore just use the energy directly.
@a1mint But i do think we can find a way to produce hydrogen either on demand or for storage that utilizes a solid like catalyst that releases the hydrogen. It would only work if the x factor used (example would be the sulfur-iodine cycle) is cheaper than electricity or oil based fuels.
@cblazer There is a way to seperate H from H2O and that is with Alumina. The aluminum oxidizes and this frees up the H. Look at this video search on YouTube: "Just Add water: new fuel from aluminum nanoparticles"
@PatheticHero can we assume that h is produced when bauxite is refined to separate the aluminum from the excess? Don't worry about a1mint he's been on this thread for a LONG time lol I think he's just trolling now but he does interject useful information no matter if its relevant or not! Have you researched the Sulfur-iodine cycle it is 99% recovered and reused. If ones was to do it I'd use something like the alumina with electrolysis to heat up and speed up the flow rate.
@cblazer my interest started when Prof Jerry Woodall of Purdue University wanted to promote the idea of using the alloy of Aluminum and Gallium as a way to extract H from water.It works and the cost was very competitive to oil at that time (spring 2007). I heard him interviewed on Science Friday Nat'l Public Radio.Woodall did those little things like running ICE... Try this search: Just Add water: new fuel from aluminum nanoparticles
@a1mint YES, but Al is very available compared to most metals and apparently the refining/smelting costs are on par with Oil, perhaps cheaper. Once again here is a link for you to peruse/watch and let me know: Search YouTube for this word for word:
Just Add water: new fuel from aluminum nanoparticles
@cblazer I believe Japan was trying this.The problem is storage of Hydrogen.I will suggest the name of Prof.Jerry Woodall of Purdue University who was trying to promote Alumina as the carried of H energy.When Alumina is dropped into water it oxidizes which frees up Hydrogen.But I believe that the oil whores will shut that down instantly it is used for autos.There were videos on Utube by Woodall but all were REMOVED! Alumina is alloy of Aluminum and Gallium.
I guess one thing that most people miss is the influence of society. I believe that soceity is the driver of innovation. We use gasoline to power our vehicles when alcohol could work as well or even better. Why? We used LIQUID gasoline which doesn't burn very efficiently instead of vaporized or actual gas fumes which have a complete burn. Why? And water is comprised of two gases both of which burn very well, thank you very much. Abundant H means cheap and hence it is not economically viable.
@a1mint you are but mostly wrong. Oil refining and burning the gasoline comes at a huge cost of byproducts that are deadly to various forms of biology, i.e. life. Making alcohol has benefits that are contained within a closed loop. Grow carbohydrates, fermentation, then use the dregs as compost. Growing plants absorb CO2, petrol is a fustercluck while the alcohol production closed loop is biologically beneficial and would also create local economic growth. Oil has only costs.
@a1mint in addition gasoline doesn't really burn that well. The fumes of gasoline will have a complete burn! Liquid gasoline is mixed with O and has an incomplete burn. If you really want to use gas, then vaporize it and increase mileage up to a factor of 5 times. i.e. instead of 20 miles gallon, how about 100 miles a gallon? It is possible: do your home work.
@a1mint Oil is plentiful? Really? Well, you might wanna share that with the rest of the world and bring some proof of those hidden oil fields! FYI, O burns, it is used in most fires to create high temperature flame. e.g. an Oxy Acetylene torch uses more O than Acetylene, this set up uses two tanks. The gas that uses O more efficiently is Hydrogen. A Hydrogen torch tends to uses less Oxygen, but it still combines with O to make water: two H and one O, hence H2O.
@a1mint hopefully my last comment, we use gas due to political influence of wealthy oil industry. Henry Ford's car was a flex fuel vehicle that used either alcohol or gasoline.Prior to autos gasoline was a waste product dumped in rivers! There are alternatives and it is very simple, but everyone seems to wanna be like a good German during WWII and not believe in the evil that is in the hearts of authoritarian leaders, and I am not sure that evil evens exists, but greed certainly does.
@a1mint Okay, you need more information: have you ever heard of Alumina? It is an alloy of Aluminum and Gallium and when dropped in water, any water, it oxidizes which frees up Hydrogen. (Plus after the oxidation is scrubbed off, the Alumina can be used again. rinse and repeat) Professor Jerry Woodall of Purdue University was trying to promote this process but I don't know how successful that has been. Long story short, schools only tells you what the status quo allows them.
@arthujt1 I am an idiot who can only try... a glutton for punishment because I see H is a real potential but not until we can rid ourselves of the profit motive that will suppress good science to increase profit margins. Uh-oh... conspiracy!
@a1mint Like a broken record you keep playing the wrong tune... again. After cleaning the oxidization off, the Al can be used again. Yes the process would require energy, but so does drilling for oil, etc etc etc. No free lunch. Perpetual? Why do you believe is such nonsense? Let me clue you in: it is not perpetual. For our intents and purposes only the earth, moon and sun are perpetual. Without which you die. But you insist, the perpetual motion of the planets doesn't exist.
@a1mint Your arguments are not convincing due to your arrogant attitude. Try using real examples instead of rude insults. The fuel situation with H is sketchy, but vaporizing gasoline would improve fuel efficiency tremendously, but such techniques are not employed by auto makers. Simple question, why not? The common rational is economic in that auto makers and especially Oil Companies will make far greater profits. Corporations have legal MANDATE to make profits, not to improve products.
@PatheticHero It's NOT me that is being arrogant ! It is the people that completely disregard actual science. They make stupid claims that water is somehow a source of energy. I've tried to explain in every which way possible how that can not be true, but it goes in one ear, and out the other.
Clearly, the people here are either scamming or delusional or completely ignorant on actual hard science.
People have been completely ignoring the laws of nature here!
@PatheticHero the auto makers are in league with Oil companies and have been since at least the 1940's. Put simply the Automakers are the bitch of the Oil Companies, just like our Government is as well. There was a publishe by Shell Oil that stated the Shell engineers created cars that could get in excess of 150 miles a gallon. It sounds crazy, but this book was once in the Library of Congress though since the powers that be have been successful in removing it.
@PatheticHero ... you forget competition. It's very stiff competition out there! if any auto maker finds a way to improve fuel economy, they jump on it, which translates to increased sales and profit.
Look at Kia's rio. 40 mpg according to the EPA, and no added elite engine feature/option you have to buy (which the Mazda requires for instance).
End of day: none of that HHO crap accomplishes anything what-so-ever. It is a scam, period !
@a1mint -there are many ways to skin a cat. There is also the method of using gasoline as a GAS instead of a liquid. Briefly: if you boil pressurized(I'm not sure on the PSI) gasoline(between 100 and 200 F) it becomes a VAPOR, that VAPOR will burn far more efficiently than LIQUID GASOLINE. The LEGAL MANDATE* of CORPORATIONS is to make profit, not better products thus efficiency is denied..
*this is a requirement, a legal obligation of the corporate charter to satisfy stock holders.
@PatheticHero Injectors and carburetors mistify the liquid fuel so that it can further transition to gas. Liquid fuel does not burn, the gas off of it burns. It vaporizes very quickly, and it is the actual gas that burns not the liquid.
Therefore, what you propose should happen, already happens.
@a1mint Carburated gasoline does not have a complete burn of fuel some goes out the tailpipe...very sloppy. But look at a little Whisperlite camping stove. Very simple. Open valve fill primer cup with gasoline and turn off valve. Light primer cup and let the gasline heat up.When gasline is heated, then open valve and light burner. The pressurized gas vaporizes as it goes through the heated gasline. And it has a complete burn. OLD TECHNOLOGY. but it is doable.
Stop listening to TV and NASA Sceintists, They work for the Military Industrial Complex. When will you SHEEP figure that out. They KILL PEOPLE that tell you the truth, Yet you disguard it, And beleive the people that LIE TO YOU
@adam3176 Probem is, where is that hydrogen coming from?
Fact is, that is takes more energy to make available hydrogen, from processes like electrolysis, than the amount of energy that becomes available in the hydrogen.
Therefore, any kind of on-demand on-board HHO setup is, by definition, always a SCAM !
@a1mint not so! HHO systems that use the sun or wind as a source of energy generation get all for nuthin! Cavutation has been used by the space industry to produce hydrogen for rocket fuel for decades dimwit!!
@arthujt1 My process uses outside energy(voltage)to energize a coil that transforms a lower voltage to a higher one @60kvdc.The water is atomised,injected into a precombustion chamber,and exposed to the high voltage in a proportional way to allow the seperation of the hydrogen from the oxygen to form hydroxl,not hho. The hydrogen ignites,resulting in explosions causing a chain of events to follow,producing work. None of which violates any laws of nature!! To say so is idiotic!!!
@arthujt1 That's a complete bunch of PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC BUNK !
The FACT is that you can NOT create or destroy energy.
The FACT is that it ALWAYS costs MORE energy to split water than the amount of energy that becomes available in the hydrogen ! ! !
Claiming that you can somehow split water at a discount by doing some fuzzy electric method, THAT is UNSCIENTIFIC, and DOES violate the laws of nature ! ! !
@arthujt1 You're not reading what I wrote properly ! I said ON-DEMAND ON-BOARD HHO systems ! That is something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from using renewable resources to make available hydrogen that then gets stored in a storage tank.
@a1mint Really? Ask the two people killed in cali about storing hho.oh yeah,you can't,they're dead.My process doesn't use seperation,then storage or even on demand..If you can really read,which I seriously doubt,you would see that.
@arthujt1 Stories and paranoia does not assign any credibility whatsoever.
You continue to confuse things. I point out how on-board on-demand HHO systems, and I do mean those electrolysis systems that use power from the alternator, those systems are utter in your face bullshit in the highest degree possible. I am just making damn well sure that that remain absolutely crystal clear and that not a single quack around here is going to get away claiming otherwise. There.
@arthujt1 Ok, so you want to use the heat that's normally lost and utilize that. That in essence would reduce the net loss output and increase the efficiency.
But not so fast: remember that conservation of energy natural law. It means that AFTER you do whatever it is that you're thinking of doing to use the exhaust heat - the heat that comes OUT of your system, must be lower than the heat that goes IN your system. Otherwise there isn't any energy converted.
@a1mint making better use of that available energy is allowable under ALL laws of science...if it takes 1 joule of energy to make something operate, and it has 1 joule plus afterward... You would have a point to contend with..My process has less energy after the initial energy is expended. (no free energy here...)It just makes more usable kinetic energy available than gasoline does.. as everyone knows, gas in an ICE can only output 25%! lots of room for improvement!
The water mol,when electrolytically torn apart, loses 2 ions(exothermic)causing heat, that expands,and can be used to cause that expansion upon a working surface to move exponentially.As time progresses,the atoms of the elements attract one another(reassocciation)this is the endothermic reaction in progress.(natural law..)Hydrogen makes this reaction happen much faster than gasoline can,causing a gain in reaction timing.The endothermic reaction occurs during the power stroke.
continued:as the endothermic starts, it absorbs energy to reconstruct the water mol.
leaving 2 ions shy. So, something is lost not gained,to the overall process. The exhaust is processed,just as nature does, to replenish those lost ions outside of this process, in another seperate one. This can happen in nature by exposure to the sun,OR any OTHER source of uv energy. An engine operating involves several processes and by itself is not self sustaining,requiring fuel of some kind.
continued:processing the exhaust is not a cost of energy, but rather a more efficient use of the hot deionized effluent,much the same as an exhaust gas recirculatory valve does..by recirculating the gas,more efficiency is determined for a more extended use of the same initial fuel charge. The same occurs during the recharging of the watermol,it regains two ions,is run through a heat exchanger,shrinks the ambient air, ready for remanipulation. None violates laws of nature.
continued:I have designed a new engine to take advantage of this process called the "Rotary Radial Turbine MOTOR". Due to the limitations caused by the basic design of an Internal Combustion Engine, there is insufficient Time of Flight to operate hydrogen in an ICE.It works much better in a rotary environment, where the rotor is congruent to the flywheel to cause accomplished work.(less loss due to kinetic transfer in an ICE).There are no pistons,just collapsable vanes.
The vanes are attached to the rotor ,eliminating the connecting rods,bearing drag, and valving ,all costing valuable energy to operate in an ICE. The output work can operate a genhead to make energy to operate the ignition coil(s),solenoids for timing control, and have much more energy potential leftover to operate the electrical amenities we require for comfortable motoring. The generator can charge batteries or super cap banks to operate vehicle motion. Google the "yo"car
@arthujt1 If you can find a way to take the heat from the exhaust and do something with that, great. But you can't simply circulate exhaust gas back into the engine and expect a gain.
A turbo uses the exhaust flow to increase the intake pressure.
But none of this has anything to do with hydrogen or HHO,
@a1mint no arguable point on those specific statements.What I do is take advantage of usable energy produced in a standard combustion process, and use alternative fuel to accomplish the same task by using a cheaper fuel. By using natural resources to produce that hydrogen becomes cheaper in cost than using electricity from a carbon sourced fuel. By recirculating the exhaust from an engine that uses hydrogen (even with gasoline)in some manner,you get longer use of that fuel.
@a1mint Then why does it? Testing by independent epa labratories state otherwise. An oak ridge tennesee lab is quoted in their white paper to congress in 2004 as their finding that hydrogen derived from a propietary process that they studied, increased the power output on both diesel and gas driven motors by at least 20% and severely reduced pollutants. MIT did the same tests and came to the same results. You say otherwise, I would rather trust them over you.
@arthujt1 NO ! on-board on-demand electrolysis based systems have *NOT* been proven to work ! Absolutely NOT they have NOT been proven. The MIT thing I have dealt with over 2 years ago extensively. It was not about this type of system at all ! Please provide a link to something credible about the Oak Ridge Tennessee lab white paper.
If I show otherwise, will you admit you're wrong, or will you simply ignore it and change the subject, like they always have done over 3+ years of arguing?
@arthujt1 You can *NOT* T A K E energy from the engine, convert that a bunch of times, eventually to hydrogen, burn that hydrogen, and expect a net gain.
It is NOT possible PERIOD !
Every time you convert an energy form there is ALWAYS a portion lost in the form of heat !
TAKING energy FROM the engine and converting it a bunch of times results in A LOT OF HEAT LOSSES !
HENCE: on-board on-demand HHO system FUNDAMENTALLY can NOT work !
@adam3176 it enhances the burn rate of gasoline by increasing the amount of hydrogen used in the combustion process, according to SCIENTISTS at MIT. They also discovered that water injection increases horsepower output. This has been used in racing applications for decades to increase engine output in a direct proportitional manner.
Vic Edelbrock introduced it in his product line in the late 60's...Warplanes used it during WWII. HHO doesn't have to use the electrolytic process.
@a1mint Water injection works. I personally used the process over ten years in different racing formats,on several different engine designs.It CAN and DOES increase horsepower output from an engine of anykind,even turbines used in aircraft,ask any pilot. I used it here in vegas to increase the output from methane driven turbines at local power plants by misting the air intakes for a 50% increase,while burning collected methane from a previous landfill way back in1987. still operating..
@a1mint One more thing, I honestly believe we can use hydrogen to some extent, but to do it we have to purify the water (energy) separate the hydrogen and oxygen (more energy) then find a way to store it (even more energy) It's just to dirty and their is way to much energy loss. We should be focusing on improving our batteries and using solar because a centralized distribution system of endless electricity will be more efficient and useful.
@a1mint We have a huge gap for improvement when it comes to electrical efficiency, better generator, motors, motor controllers, circuits, transmission, batteries...etc and all the types of generation solar, wind, nuclear, coal..etc. There is huge room for improvement I just can't wait until we get engines that turns generators using the earths magnetic field and the interplanetary magnetic field.. even cosmic ray focusing
@arthujt1 I am not the one that is making ridiculous claims. I am not the one that is claiming that there somehow is energy in water. Science knows and reveals that water is not a source of energy. Lying crooks like YOU are the ones that are making ridiculous claims. Therefore, the onus is on YOU to prove that you can do something that completely contradicts just about everything we know about science.
@a1mint Then why has NASA been using the process for over 30 years? Are they not scientific enough for ya? Space has enough vacuam present to boil water with NO external energy source. The hydrogen collected and the oxygen together form hydroxl, which is used to power navigational rocket motors in space...It can constantly produce even on the dark side of the planet. They now even use ion propulsion to do the same.
indeed is the most easy way to get out free of economical aspect( buying gasoline) and very big inconvenient for international guverments; they will have no control in future on our natural way of living the dominations of economical control in this domain is history. when you will see a lot of post with "is not efficient" if you are curios to find the real stuff, take in consideration all the data of this old process;they know analyze and seen already happend for a better living worldlife;
@a1mint Water is not a source of energy, It is a carrier of energy potential. How else can it be explaned that it can CONVERT by your own words,to other states of existence? It releases energy, just like gasoline, it attracts ions and becomes ice, just like a solid. this would be impossible as a steady state,which it is not. Stop making bogus comments you cant backup with fact.
@arthujt1 You clearly do not understand how energy works. No, water does not "release" energy. It takes MORE energy to split water than the amount of energy that becomes available in the split hydrogen. What part of that do you not understand?
YOU stop making a complete fool of yourself. You sound like a completely ignorant moron on the subject.
Perpetual motion1.First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.2.Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to the mass m, i.e., F = ma. 3.Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. Yes there is such a thing, all one has to do is get it going. To easy, stop hating on science.we all can do it.
@a1mint I am braging about the name of the end product, not the way we cold transform energy from one form to another, and I don't intend to hatefull!
@TheRoknemec My point is that something like a "water engine" is not possible because water is not a source of energy.
The arguments that some have been making that because water contains hydrogen, and how power hydrogen is, that because of that there is all that energy to tap in to.
My point is that that hydrogen is locked away, and takes more energy to make it available as standalone hydrogen vs the amount of energy that becomes available through it.
@a1mint You seem to ignore the method of breaking the covolent bonds of the water mol by using solar energy which is free...(means it doesnt cost (economically speaking..)zip. ) On utube there is a solar array that drives a steam engine that powers a 25kw genhead.how is not that a water engine(using steam) to make energy?? Its the same process large power plants use with natgas. Do your homework..
@a1mint gasoline is not a source of energy by itself either, but we have been using it for over a hundred years. If a substance is convertable, it can be used in a kinetic conversion to a mechanical use, such as a vehicle. Splitting water in one step(electrolysis), then using the hydrogen and the oxygen seperately is wasteful. Why not split the water and use it in an immediate fashion? By hammering the mol with a high energy plasma(lightning),this causes a visible and audible reaction..
@arthujt1 Another thing.. Lightning(plasma)fractures the water mol into hydrogen and oxygen. This causes the the atoms of both to shoot away from each other,releasing two ions in the process, expanding the air surrounding them, causing thunder,which we can hear. They then reassociate,to become deionized steam. This process can be replicated as we did in the lab,to become a controllable process,usable for kinetic movement. So much energy is potential, it blew the roof off our lab!!
@turners1 What does that have to do with anything?
We're not tapping into nuclear energy here at any stage. It's all just chemical reactions. Water can't be a source of energy at all. Not by anyone doing anything in their garage !
@turners1 it never did. its a lie. Just like the LIE that they dont know how gravity works, Or the LIE that they dont know the wavelength. They will never mention LASER and HYDROGEN In the same speach.. LOOK at what they are NOT telling you
@adam3176 The only LIAR here is YOU making FALSE claims how water is a source of energy. I have explained to you time and time again, but you seem to be suffering from some sort of short term memory loss !
AGAIN: it takes *MORE* energy to split water than the amount of energy that becomes available in the split off hydrogen.
@a1mint "water engines" have been around for over as century. Have you never seen or observed a steam locomotive? It uses coal or wood gas to operate. Why couldn't solar energy be used instead to heat the water,convert to steam,make work, then reassociate to a solid state,to be used over again and again?This doesnt violate any laws of thermodynamics or nature at all...just a better use economically. Then, why not use the lightning process(in nature) and trap that in an ICE?
@arthujt1 No, water engines have NOT been around for over a century. People scamming and lying about how supposedly you could run an engine on water, has been around for over a century. Big difference.
In a steam locomotive, the wood or coal is the source of energy. Water is not the source of energy at all !
@TheRoknemec "hydroxl" has been used in the scientific community for over 100 years.
"Hydroxy" is a coprighted term of use by Bob Boyce, an avid fan of water splitting who made a cross country trip on water alone (no other fuel,) two years ago. This was not coroberated by any acedemic institution, and he is attempting another trip when funding allows.
@adam3176 NO ! What are YOU smoking ? How the FUCK is there supposed to be energy that's available for use, in water ? Well ? The hydrogen isn't directly usable, because it TAKES energy to make that hydrogen available.
ps. sold a lot water energy hho buliding plans on the net lately? That is what you are doing is it not? Using multiple accounts and masquerading as a proponent? How many mentally retarded customers do you have annually anyway?
@arthujt1 Sense of entitlement only demonstrates arrogance. Proof would go a lot further. Of course, none of the claims has ever been proven. On a planet with like 8 billion people (not even sure how many these days anymore) for years on end, and still not a single proof of any water engine, perpetual motion, overunity, magnet motor, chemtrail, homeopathy, god, spirit, ghost, or any other superstitious pseudo scientific horseshit.
We all have the means to build perpetual energy devices, they are really not that difficult, i offer proof in the fact that each time a person succeeds at this, the government scoops them up and works with them, then you never hear about it, or them again. and the material that they used in all of its forms is no longer sold on the open market. It becomes a class 1 material that only can be special ordered. We all can do it. It is not that hard.
@youareonthetube1 The law of nature about the conservation of energy states that you can not create or destroy energy, but only convert it.
It is therefore not possible to make a perpetual motion machine.
It's also not rational to think that it is possible, because in all the years, with billions of people on our planet, there has not once been a demonstration of a working perpetual motion machine.
@a1mint 1.First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.2.Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to the mass m, i.e., F = ma. 3.Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. Yes there is such a thing, all one has to do is get it going. To easy, stop hating on science.we all can do it.
@cblazer This a1mint guy obviously hasn't done his homework on the subject of water splitting at all. He discounts the work of anyone(even Micheal Faraday),and then throws a couple insults in just to boost his own ego,not to make any valid point,because he doesn't have a point to contend with. Nobody has stated any violations of thermodynamic laws for instance, yet he keeps on and on about it.?? Yes, there are plenty of ways to acheive hydrogen from water,some undiscovered as yet.
@arthujt1 I recognize the law of nature about the conservation of energy. It states that you can not create or destroy energy, only convert it. It makes sense, because otherwise you'd be able to make energy go away, or pop it into existence. Just about all of the scientific discoveries would be wrong.
It isn't realistic or rational to claim that the laws of nature are wrong.
YES, that's what people claim here ! Because they claim that you can split water at a discount. Same thing !
@a1mint Not the same thing! The same level of energy intensity can be acheived at both lower levels of voltage potential and at higher, more intensive levels. Plasma is created in both instances. At 45kv the action of water seperation is quickened with more frequency of the action. This produces more hydroxl which is mixed with ambient air(which contains nitrogen)to combust in the chamber of an ICE. Its just an improvement of an age old process. Try splitting water w/ammonia(nh3).
@arthujt1 No amount of pseudo scientific confusing distractive nonsense is going to change the fact that it takes MORE energy to split water than the amount of energy that is released by burning the made available hydrogen.
I have stated? I have never stated that energy is being destroyed or gained in any process. Any fuel can be combusted to produce work. Gasoline is a carbon based fuel, and as we have seen,(on mythbusters, hydrogen burns.
hydroxl burns if manipulated properly. So, WHAT IS YOUR POINT??
hydroxl is a derivitive of the seperation of water into its primary elements
a1,TO CONTINUE, if you fill your tank with gas, you burn it, and it motivates you down the road,by creating a plasma in the combustion chamber,doing it very inefficiently.(25% at best...)hydroxl, being a vaporous fuel,needs less volume to accomplish twice, sometimes 2.5 times more workload output(hp)measured by ohio state and MIT.This is just a fact,not madeup nonsense as you state. This is also a much better use economically when comparisons are made to other fuels.
@arthujt1 No laws of nature are broken,just more effective use of the energy used to seperate the two elements. Of coarse it takes energy to do this,and there is no free energy involved..So, Why do you keep harping on violations of physics and natural laws? Stan Meyers never stated his theories or patents violated natural law.
they don't...Can a vehicle operate on water? YES!Various fuel cells have proven this recently and in the near past by more than one company or individual.
@arthujt1 Even with a more efficient engine running on HHO you still need to get the HHO in the first place. That requires energy and you get out less than you put in.
@sorova sounds like eating celery, takes more energy to mechanically digest it (chew it) then the energy it can deliver to your body in the process of chemical digestion (stomach/bowel)
@arthujt1 okay, now I'm getting interested. Don't know much at all on this topic but a guy was running his boat on water, conversted the engine. It raised the questian about how the water was being converted to release the hydrogen for those of us around who were not in the know. We know hyrdogen is explosive. I'd like to understand the conversion process- we thot our marina had a floating bomb across the warf. What are the safety procedures, and risks to this conversion?
@WaveOverBow any system that splits water on demand is much safer than one that attempts storage of the resultant gases,unless they are seperated,like that done on rocket boosters. Hydroxl is highly unstable as it contains its own oxidant.
@WaveOverBow No, there isn't any guy that ran his boat on water. It isn't possible because water is NOT a source of energy, period.
The only ones claiming that something like that is possible are the utter lying sack of shit CROOKS and SCAMMERS that stand to gain from pulling of such scams as selling building plans for nonsense crap like that.
@a1mint Do a simple search for Water splitting see for your self how many ways there are to split water other than electricity. I'm not declaring over unity, which you imply.
@a1mint You coninually ignore fact, so that makes YOU the one who is ignorant, not others. You refuse to accept long known and accepted facts that are published in white papers and other media available to the general public. YOU insult people you don't even know just to increase your ego and argue just to argue. This isn't even a debate of any intelligense, just you blathering on about the laws of nature which you clearly are devoid of any knowledge. What are you,Twelve??
@arthujt1 Siding with the scientific discoveries of the laws of nature, conservation of energy, is not ignorance. It's recognizing that one can not make energy.
What is insulting is people like YOU that make absurd statements, that somehow you can split water at a discount, thereby creating energy.
We'll let actual scientists decide who's ignorant here. I'm not worried for a split second.
Hello, im studying motorsport mechanics in the UK. im fascinated by your engine and think it is definatly the best way alt. energy resource instead of fossil fuels. My next project is to design a similar engine to what you have running in you vid. My question is do you have a Hydrogen fuel tank which you fill up with hydrogen or do you have a water tank and separate oxygen and hydrogen before it enters the engine? Thanks BWB
@a1mint several vehicle designs are being tested currently such as the Honda Clarity and others by nissan and general motors. Are they all scammers and delusional? It would seem you are one who has a problem with real science. Guess what? Science is based on discovery, not what we already believe. China has a SUV on their market that runs on water, as do they have buses that do so, converting water to hydroxl charging a battery system to harness energy, NOT destroy it..
@a1mint I studied for my doctorate at the university of colorado's physics department under Micheal Lapointe who is a principal in the CERN project in europe who recently published evidense of previously unknown keys to our existence in the universe. The work I accomplish is very valuable to my employers, who have a differing opinion to yours. I work with science everyday,and your rhetoric exposes you for who you are. Your blathering rants are childish and unneccessary. Go away!
@arthujt1 Your sense of entitlement doesn't impress me at all. What is rhetoric here, is you claiming that water is a source of energy, and how you claim that the conservation of energy natural law doesn't apply somehow. You are, in effect, claiming that you can create energy and therefore have an infinite energy source.
I'd like to talk to Michael Lapointe, and have a discussion with him about your claims. Let's see what an actual scientists has to say about your rhetoric.
@a1mint Sounds like you're just repeating yourself over and over again,with no new argument, due to your limitations.
Yes, water does not produce energy in its primal form,yet it can be used as a convertable path for energy exchange. Water can burn !!!
Society has been using it for years without realizing the potential at their disposal. We make it boil,(with low heat and vacuam)we freeze it , and we drink it. A high enough spark will work. >(45kv) lightning is not normal,study it!!
@arthujt1 I keep bringing up that law of nature, because there are continuously people, like you, that refuse to get it. You think that science is a joke, clearly.
No, water can not "burn". And no, water does not produce energy ! ! !
Making water boil takes an energy source, like burning coal, gas, wood, or an electric heating element, or any other heat supply. Water there isn't being an energy what-so-ever.
Again, you simply have absolutely no notion of actual real science. Totally ignorant!
@a1mint water is H20 Hydrogen and oxygen, last time i checked hydrogen does burn(hindenburg disaster)... You can use a lot of things to break down the water molecule into into it's two components, electricity is what most try to use, some use a chemical reaction, their is energy in everything it's just unlocking it is the problem..ignorant ass know it all.
@cblazer *NO* ! YOU ARE THE IGNORANT ONE ! ! ! ! You do *NOT* understand how energy works ! You have absolutely no idea what-so-ever OBVIOUSLY ! ! ! !
It takes ENERGY to split water. The AMOUNT of energy needed to split water, is greater than the amount of energy that the hydrogen releases when you burn it. The product of burning hydrogen is water.
What PART of this do you not understand ? Good FUCKING grief already !
And YOU have the gaul to call *ME* ignorant ! You're NUTS !
@a1mint Ok, you do you understand that CAPS LOCKS IS THE SAME A SCREAMING. Learn some manners for one thing. Yes of course splitting water takes energy, I never claimed different, neither have i made the claim that it could take less energy to separate water than it could to produce oil, and i think it will in the near future, Jesus man you act like i raped your mother calm down. If you don't wanna be called a gov, zombie don't act like one.
@cblazer Oh puhlease, you've seen someone else yell at someone about caps lock this and that, you were impressed, and now you go monkey see monkey do, pathetic.
This is not about a comparison with oil. This is about how it takes MORE energy to split water, than the amount of energy you get from burning the made available hydrogen !
@cblazer Delusional insane paranoid hallucinating superstitious super morons like you always resort to saying the same thing in the end once you run out of bullshit to barf up:
"you are a government agent". "you work for the oil companies". bla bla bla.
Do you have ANY idea AT ALL how absolutely ABSURDLY and OVER THE TOP IDIOTIC you really sound? Does this COMPLETELY escape you ? ? ?
@a1mint Sure buddy, I didn't realize i was responding to an ill person. You just sound like one because they always come back with the same thought patterns of denial, diversion name calling..ect it's a pattern. Nothing I have said can explain your reactionary name calling like hallucination, superstitious, "super morons". I gave facts pure simple truths that stand on their own without an observers biases. Except the gov shill part I apologize I didn't realize i was talking to a child.
@bigwillybiker The engine in the vid is an internal combustion, 4 cycle engine design. The most this setup will accomplish is idling the engine only, no real accelleration due to more air/fuel neccessary. I was producing 60lpm of hydroxl which stretchs the stoiometric intake ratio to 32:1. You will need way more volume to make it work. A better approach :use a constant supply to run a magneto to charge super caps, like the new YO car from russia.
@arthujt1 Water is NOT a source of energy, PERIOD !
Anyone who claims it is, is either a completely ignorant on science, or else a complete scammer that tries to fool others. Take your pick pseudo science boy !
Can you make on that water will power a Generator? A Generator powered by Water is at the top of my survival list.....errr as long as i have access to water of course.
@a1mint water can't burn, but hydrogen can. By seperating the hydrogen and oxygen in a electrolytic process that can be done in the combustion chamber, water is seperated, then exposed to a high intensity plasma which burns the hydrogen atoms releasing 2 ions per atom, leaving deionized 400 degree steam as the water mol reassociates in the endothermic phase of the power stroke.
any electrolytic process SEPERATES hydrogen and oxygen equally at the same rate of attraction to opposing charged plates,or electrodes. The responsive gasses are reactive to any rate of charge(plasma)that sets in motion a single energy event or chain of events sufficient to cause kinetic motion or work by way of mechanical interaction..
A spark at .01 joule has the same ignition capability of that at 1 megajoule (a match versus a lightning strike)
Why should we really need pure Hydrogen and Oxygen? Can anyone find the condition where water vapor explode?
beancube2010 2 days ago
What is he touching on the engine when it starts to laboring and then clears up as soon as he stops whatever he's doing?
From 0:40 to 0:45
1SixpenceFan 3 days ago
We have plenty of sea water, purify it, use the sodium for molten salt reactors, and both forms of hydrogen, can h2 be used in normal fission reactors what about fission. Hydrogen should be as useful to us as it is to the universe.
cblazer 4 days ago
@cblazer Purifying sea water takes energy. There is no such thing as hydrogen fission reactors. Molten salt reactors (LFTR) do not use up salt.
a1mint 3 days ago
has anyone thought about letting nuke reactors crack the water and somehow harness the hydrogen with out it being radioactive? Look at that nuclear plant in japan it blew the roof off. If we can do that without it being radioactive and still allowing the water to be turned to steam we could have a reliable source. What about pressure can water be cracked under enough pressure like in a diesel but xtimes higher? What about sea water and deuterium, could we use both isotopes of hydrogen?
cblazer 4 days ago
@cblazer Nuclear power can not utilize hydrogen. There is no such thing as "cracking water". Water is NOT a source of energy, period.
a1mint 3 days ago
@a1mint Well mister man, I meant breaking the atomic bonds. If you wanna get technical no water isn't a direct source of energy because the hydrogen has to be freed, but oil isn't a source of energy it's locked up sunshine, same with electricity it's just an energy conveyor. I get what you are saying it takes more energy to separate the 2, than would be released therefore just use the energy directly.
cblazer 3 days ago
@a1mint But i do think we can find a way to produce hydrogen either on demand or for storage that utilizes a solid like catalyst that releases the hydrogen. It would only work if the x factor used (example would be the sulfur-iodine cycle) is cheaper than electricity or oil based fuels.
cblazer 3 days ago
@cblazer There is a way to seperate H from H2O and that is with Alumina. The aluminum oxidizes and this frees up the H. Look at this video search on YouTube: "Just Add water: new fuel from aluminum nanoparticles"
PatheticHero 3 days ago
@PatheticHero can we assume that h is produced when bauxite is refined to separate the aluminum from the excess? Don't worry about a1mint he's been on this thread for a LONG time lol I think he's just trolling now but he does interject useful information no matter if its relevant or not! Have you researched the Sulfur-iodine cycle it is 99% recovered and reused. If ones was to do it I'd use something like the alumina with electrolysis to heat up and speed up the flow rate.
cblazer 3 days ago
@cblazer my interest started when Prof Jerry Woodall of Purdue University wanted to promote the idea of using the alloy of Aluminum and Gallium as a way to extract H from water.It works and the cost was very competitive to oil at that time (spring 2007). I heard him interviewed on Science Friday Nat'l Public Radio.Woodall did those little things like running ICE... Try this search: Just Add water: new fuel from aluminum nanoparticles
PatheticHero 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PatheticHero That makes the metal the energy source, and that metal needs to be re-supplied.
a1mint 9 hours ago
@PatheticHero That makes the metal the energy source, and that metal needs to be re-supplied.
a1mint 9 hours ago
@a1mint YES, but Al is very available compared to most metals and apparently the refining/smelting costs are on par with Oil, perhaps cheaper. Once again here is a link for you to peruse/watch and let me know: Search YouTube for this word for word:
Just Add water: new fuel from aluminum nanoparticles
PatheticHero 2 hours ago
@a1mint who gives a sheet? The process works. Results are the goal. Do that search I posted.
PatheticHero 2 hours ago
@cblazer I believe Japan was trying this.The problem is storage of Hydrogen.I will suggest the name of Prof.Jerry Woodall of Purdue University who was trying to promote Alumina as the carried of H energy.When Alumina is dropped into water it oxidizes which frees up Hydrogen.But I believe that the oil whores will shut that down instantly it is used for autos.There were videos on Utube by Woodall but all were REMOVED! Alumina is alloy of Aluminum and Gallium.
PatheticHero 3 days ago
I guess one thing that most people miss is the influence of society. I believe that soceity is the driver of innovation. We use gasoline to power our vehicles when alcohol could work as well or even better. Why? We used LIQUID gasoline which doesn't burn very efficiently instead of vaporized or actual gas fumes which have a complete burn. Why? And water is comprised of two gases both of which burn very well, thank you very much. Abundant H means cheap and hence it is not economically viable.
PatheticHero 4 days ago
@PatheticHero Gasoline is refined from oil, and it's plentiful. Alcohol is not plentiful and comes at a cost.
Gasoline burns just fine.
Water has hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen can burn, oxygen can not. Water in essence, is burned hydrogen, and therefore NOT a source of energy.
a1mint 3 days ago
@a1mint you are but mostly wrong. Oil refining and burning the gasoline comes at a huge cost of byproducts that are deadly to various forms of biology, i.e. life. Making alcohol has benefits that are contained within a closed loop. Grow carbohydrates, fermentation, then use the dregs as compost. Growing plants absorb CO2, petrol is a fustercluck while the alcohol production closed loop is biologically beneficial and would also create local economic growth. Oil has only costs.
PatheticHero 3 days ago
@a1mint in addition gasoline doesn't really burn that well. The fumes of gasoline will have a complete burn! Liquid gasoline is mixed with O and has an incomplete burn. If you really want to use gas, then vaporize it and increase mileage up to a factor of 5 times. i.e. instead of 20 miles gallon, how about 100 miles a gallon? It is possible: do your home work.
PatheticHero 3 days ago
@a1mint Oil is plentiful? Really? Well, you might wanna share that with the rest of the world and bring some proof of those hidden oil fields! FYI, O burns, it is used in most fires to create high temperature flame. e.g. an Oxy Acetylene torch uses more O than Acetylene, this set up uses two tanks. The gas that uses O more efficiently is Hydrogen. A Hydrogen torch tends to uses less Oxygen, but it still combines with O to make water: two H and one O, hence H2O.
PatheticHero 3 days ago
@a1mint hopefully my last comment, we use gas due to political influence of wealthy oil industry. Henry Ford's car was a flex fuel vehicle that used either alcohol or gasoline.Prior to autos gasoline was a waste product dumped in rivers! There are alternatives and it is very simple, but everyone seems to wanna be like a good German during WWII and not believe in the evil that is in the hearts of authoritarian leaders, and I am not sure that evil evens exists, but greed certainly does.
PatheticHero 3 days ago
@a1mint Okay, you need more information: have you ever heard of Alumina? It is an alloy of Aluminum and Gallium and when dropped in water, any water, it oxidizes which frees up Hydrogen. (Plus after the oxidation is scrubbed off, the Alumina can be used again. rinse and repeat) Professor Jerry Woodall of Purdue University was trying to promote this process but I don't know how successful that has been. Long story short, schools only tells you what the status quo allows them.
PatheticHero 4 days ago
@PatheticHero
a1mint doesn't accept anyhting new,he can't handle more input,so why try?
arthujt1 4 days ago
@arthujt1 That's not true. What is true is that I do not accept pseudo science or anyone making false unsubstantiated claims.
a1mint 3 days ago
@arthujt1 I am an idiot who can only try... a glutton for punishment because I see H is a real potential but not until we can rid ourselves of the profit motive that will suppress good science to increase profit margins. Uh-oh... conspiracy!
PatheticHero 2 hours ago
@PatheticHero The metal is the source of energy here. And it is used up, and can't be used again.
You're attempt to sell a perpetual motion device fails again !
a1mint 3 days ago
@a1mint Like a broken record you keep playing the wrong tune... again. After cleaning the oxidization off, the Al can be used again. Yes the process would require energy, but so does drilling for oil, etc etc etc. No free lunch. Perpetual? Why do you believe is such nonsense? Let me clue you in: it is not perpetual. For our intents and purposes only the earth, moon and sun are perpetual. Without which you die. But you insist, the perpetual motion of the planets doesn't exist.
PatheticHero 3 days ago
@PatheticHero No, the metal is used. You pretend that perpetual motion is possible. Perpetual motion is not possible.
a1mint 9 hours ago
@PatheticHero In that case the metal is the source of energy and is used up. Once you stop giving it that metal, it stops working.
In short: you're a deceptive LIAR !
a1mint 3 days ago
Bunch of water-tards !
a1mint 4 days ago
@a1mint Your arguments are not convincing due to your arrogant attitude. Try using real examples instead of rude insults. The fuel situation with H is sketchy, but vaporizing gasoline would improve fuel efficiency tremendously, but such techniques are not employed by auto makers. Simple question, why not? The common rational is economic in that auto makers and especially Oil Companies will make far greater profits. Corporations have legal MANDATE to make profits, not to improve products.
PatheticHero 4 days ago
@PatheticHero It's NOT me that is being arrogant ! It is the people that completely disregard actual science. They make stupid claims that water is somehow a source of energy. I've tried to explain in every which way possible how that can not be true, but it goes in one ear, and out the other.
Clearly, the people here are either scamming or delusional or completely ignorant on actual hard science.
People have been completely ignoring the laws of nature here!
It's ridiculous !
a1mint 4 days ago
@PatheticHero the auto makers are in league with Oil companies and have been since at least the 1940's. Put simply the Automakers are the bitch of the Oil Companies, just like our Government is as well. There was a publishe by Shell Oil that stated the Shell engineers created cars that could get in excess of 150 miles a gallon. It sounds crazy, but this book was once in the Library of Congress though since the powers that be have been successful in removing it.
PatheticHero 4 days ago
@PatheticHero ... you forget competition. It's very stiff competition out there! if any auto maker finds a way to improve fuel economy, they jump on it, which translates to increased sales and profit.
Look at Kia's rio. 40 mpg according to the EPA, and no added elite engine feature/option you have to buy (which the Mazda requires for instance).
End of day: none of that HHO crap accomplishes anything what-so-ever. It is a scam, period !
a1mint 4 days ago
@a1mint -there are many ways to skin a cat. There is also the method of using gasoline as a GAS instead of a liquid. Briefly: if you boil pressurized(I'm not sure on the PSI) gasoline(between 100 and 200 F) it becomes a VAPOR, that VAPOR will burn far more efficiently than LIQUID GASOLINE. The LEGAL MANDATE* of CORPORATIONS is to make profit, not better products thus efficiency is denied..
*this is a requirement, a legal obligation of the corporate charter to satisfy stock holders.
PatheticHero 3 days ago
@PatheticHero Injectors and carburetors mistify the liquid fuel so that it can further transition to gas. Liquid fuel does not burn, the gas off of it burns. It vaporizes very quickly, and it is the actual gas that burns not the liquid.
Therefore, what you propose should happen, already happens.
Do your research next time.
a1mint 9 hours ago
@a1mint Carburated gasoline does not have a complete burn of fuel some goes out the tailpipe...very sloppy. But look at a little Whisperlite camping stove. Very simple. Open valve fill primer cup with gasoline and turn off valve. Light primer cup and let the gasline heat up.When gasline is heated, then open valve and light burner. The pressurized gas vaporizes as it goes through the heated gasline. And it has a complete burn. OLD TECHNOLOGY. but it is doable.
PatheticHero 2 hours ago
Stop listening to TV and NASA Sceintists, They work for the Military Industrial Complex. When will you SHEEP figure that out. They KILL PEOPLE that tell you the truth, Yet you disguard it, And beleive the people that LIE TO YOU
adam3176 4 days ago
@adam3176 Delusional much ?
a1mint 4 days ago
Hydrogen makes an Engine Purrrrrrr
adam3176 6 days ago
@adam3176 Probem is, where is that hydrogen coming from?
Fact is, that is takes more energy to make available hydrogen, from processes like electrolysis, than the amount of energy that becomes available in the hydrogen.
Therefore, any kind of on-demand on-board HHO setup is, by definition, always a SCAM !
a1mint 5 days ago
@a1mint not so! HHO systems that use the sun or wind as a source of energy generation get all for nuthin! Cavutation has been used by the space industry to produce hydrogen for rocket fuel for decades dimwit!!
arthujt1 5 days ago
@arthujt1 My process uses outside energy(voltage)to energize a coil that transforms a lower voltage to a higher one @60kvdc.The water is atomised,injected into a precombustion chamber,and exposed to the high voltage in a proportional way to allow the seperation of the hydrogen from the oxygen to form hydroxl,not hho. The hydrogen ignites,resulting in explosions causing a chain of events to follow,producing work. None of which violates any laws of nature!! To say so is idiotic!!!
arthujt1 5 days ago
@arthujt1 That's a complete bunch of PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC BUNK !
The FACT is that you can NOT create or destroy energy.
The FACT is that it ALWAYS costs MORE energy to split water than the amount of energy that becomes available in the hydrogen ! ! !
Claiming that you can somehow split water at a discount by doing some fuzzy electric method, THAT is UNSCIENTIFIC, and DOES violate the laws of nature ! ! !
a1mint 5 days ago
@arthujt1 You're not reading what I wrote properly ! I said ON-DEMAND ON-BOARD HHO systems ! That is something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from using renewable resources to make available hydrogen that then gets stored in a storage tank.
Seem that YOU are the dimwit !
a1mint 5 days ago
@a1mint Really? Ask the two people killed in cali about storing hho.oh yeah,you can't,they're dead.My process doesn't use seperation,then storage or even on demand..If you can really read,which I seriously doubt,you would see that.
arthujt1 4 days ago
@arthujt1 Stories and paranoia does not assign any credibility whatsoever.
You continue to confuse things. I point out how on-board on-demand HHO systems, and I do mean those electrolysis systems that use power from the alternator, those systems are utter in your face bullshit in the highest degree possible. I am just making damn well sure that that remain absolutely crystal clear and that not a single quack around here is going to get away claiming otherwise. There.
a1mint 3 days ago
@arthujt1 Ok, so you want to use the heat that's normally lost and utilize that. That in essence would reduce the net loss output and increase the efficiency.
But not so fast: remember that conservation of energy natural law. It means that AFTER you do whatever it is that you're thinking of doing to use the exhaust heat - the heat that comes OUT of your system, must be lower than the heat that goes IN your system. Otherwise there isn't any energy converted.
a1mint 3 days ago
@a1mint making better use of that available energy is allowable under ALL laws of science...if it takes 1 joule of energy to make something operate, and it has 1 joule plus afterward... You would have a point to contend with..My process has less energy after the initial energy is expended. (no free energy here...)It just makes more usable kinetic energy available than gasoline does.. as everyone knows, gas in an ICE can only output 25%! lots of room for improvement!
arthujt1 5 days ago
@A1mint,
The water mol,when electrolytically torn apart, loses 2 ions(exothermic)causing heat, that expands,and can be used to cause that expansion upon a working surface to move exponentially.As time progresses,the atoms of the elements attract one another(reassocciation)this is the endothermic reaction in progress.(natural law..)Hydrogen makes this reaction happen much faster than gasoline can,causing a gain in reaction timing.The endothermic reaction occurs during the power stroke.
arthujt1 5 days ago
@a1mint
continued:as the endothermic starts, it absorbs energy to reconstruct the water mol.
leaving 2 ions shy. So, something is lost not gained,to the overall process. The exhaust is processed,just as nature does, to replenish those lost ions outside of this process, in another seperate one. This can happen in nature by exposure to the sun,OR any OTHER source of uv energy. An engine operating involves several processes and by itself is not self sustaining,requiring fuel of some kind.
arthujt1 5 days ago
@a1mint,
continued:processing the exhaust is not a cost of energy, but rather a more efficient use of the hot deionized effluent,much the same as an exhaust gas recirculatory valve does..by recirculating the gas,more efficiency is determined for a more extended use of the same initial fuel charge. The same occurs during the recharging of the watermol,it regains two ions,is run through a heat exchanger,shrinks the ambient air, ready for remanipulation. None violates laws of nature.
arthujt1 5 days ago
@a1mint
continued:I have designed a new engine to take advantage of this process called the "Rotary Radial Turbine MOTOR". Due to the limitations caused by the basic design of an Internal Combustion Engine, there is insufficient Time of Flight to operate hydrogen in an ICE.It works much better in a rotary environment, where the rotor is congruent to the flywheel to cause accomplished work.(less loss due to kinetic transfer in an ICE).There are no pistons,just collapsable vanes.
arthujt1 5 days ago
@a1mint
The vanes are attached to the rotor ,eliminating the connecting rods,bearing drag, and valving ,all costing valuable energy to operate in an ICE. The output work can operate a genhead to make energy to operate the ignition coil(s),solenoids for timing control, and have much more energy potential leftover to operate the electrical amenities we require for comfortable motoring. The generator can charge batteries or super cap banks to operate vehicle motion. Google the "yo"car
arthujt1 5 days ago
@arthujt1 Sounds like a bunch of pseudo science. All very convoluted. Mushy, fuzzy.
a1mint 5 days ago
@arthujt1 This has nothing to do with on-board on-demand HHO systems. It also has nothing to do with "water engines".
a1mint 5 days ago
@arthujt1 If you can find a way to take the heat from the exhaust and do something with that, great. But you can't simply circulate exhaust gas back into the engine and expect a gain.
A turbo uses the exhaust flow to increase the intake pressure.
But none of this has anything to do with hydrogen or HHO,
a1mint 5 days ago
@arthujt1 No amount of pseudo scientific horseshiit is going to change these facts:
1) you can not create or destroy energy, only convert it !
2) every time you convert an energy form, some of that energy is converted to heat which is lost !
3) it ALWAYS takes MORE energy to split water than the amount of energy that becomes available in the hydrogen !
4) on-board on-demand HHO systems can *NOT* offer ANY advantage !
a1mint 5 days ago
@a1mint no arguable point on those specific statements.What I do is take advantage of usable energy produced in a standard combustion process, and use alternative fuel to accomplish the same task by using a cheaper fuel. By using natural resources to produce that hydrogen becomes cheaper in cost than using electricity from a carbon sourced fuel. By recirculating the exhaust from an engine that uses hydrogen (even with gasoline)in some manner,you get longer use of that fuel.
arthujt1 4 days ago
@arthujt1 gasoline in = motion out + heat out.
That heat is normally lost. How do you propose to convert that heat into something usable?
a1mint 3 days ago
@arthujt1 Nonsense ! Taking energy FROM the engine, converting it a bunch of times, will ONLY result in net LOSSES ! ! !
And the gasoline does not "burn differently" at all with a tiny bit of hydrogen !
Fact is that the gasoline and the hydrogen independently bond to oxygen, and don't influence each other !
It is IMPOSSIBLE to gain ANY energy here ! ! !
a1mint 5 days ago
@a1mint Then why does it? Testing by independent epa labratories state otherwise. An oak ridge tennesee lab is quoted in their white paper to congress in 2004 as their finding that hydrogen derived from a propietary process that they studied, increased the power output on both diesel and gas driven motors by at least 20% and severely reduced pollutants. MIT did the same tests and came to the same results. You say otherwise, I would rather trust them over you.
arthujt1 4 days ago
@arthujt1 NO ! on-board on-demand electrolysis based systems have *NOT* been proven to work ! Absolutely NOT they have NOT been proven. The MIT thing I have dealt with over 2 years ago extensively. It was not about this type of system at all ! Please provide a link to something credible about the Oak Ridge Tennessee lab white paper.
If I show otherwise, will you admit you're wrong, or will you simply ignore it and change the subject, like they always have done over 3+ years of arguing?
a1mint 3 days ago
@arthujt1 You can *NOT* T A K E energy from the engine, convert that a bunch of times, eventually to hydrogen, burn that hydrogen, and expect a net gain.
It is NOT possible PERIOD !
Every time you convert an energy form there is ALWAYS a portion lost in the form of heat !
TAKING energy FROM the engine and converting it a bunch of times results in A LOT OF HEAT LOSSES !
HENCE: on-board on-demand HHO system FUNDAMENTALLY can NOT work !
P E R I O D ! ! ! !
a1mint 5 days ago
@arthujt1 I am curious, you have any websites, references, etc?
PatheticHero 3 days ago
@adam3176 it enhances the burn rate of gasoline by increasing the amount of hydrogen used in the combustion process, according to SCIENTISTS at MIT. They also discovered that water injection increases horsepower output. This has been used in racing applications for decades to increase engine output in a direct proportitional manner.
Vic Edelbrock introduced it in his product line in the late 60's...Warplanes used it during WWII. HHO doesn't have to use the electrolytic process.
arthujt1 5 days ago
@arthujt1 Water is not in any way being an energy source here !
a1mint 5 days ago
@a1mint Water injection works. I personally used the process over ten years in different racing formats,on several different engine designs.It CAN and DOES increase horsepower output from an engine of anykind,even turbines used in aircraft,ask any pilot. I used it here in vegas to increase the output from methane driven turbines at local power plants by misting the air intakes for a 50% increase,while burning collected methane from a previous landfill way back in1987. still operating..
arthujt1 4 days ago
@arthujt1 Water is not a source of energy here. And the increase will not be 50%. You're greatly exaggerating here!
Ultimate it's all about this: energy in = energy out.
Law of nature, conservation of energy.
In this case: fuel in = motion out + heat out.
If water vapor can make the heat out lower, then the motion out becomes higher.
Water vapor might accomplish that, but there is only so much that can be achieved.
I'm guessing merely a few % if that, plus there could be complications.
a1mint 3 days ago
@a1mint One more thing, I honestly believe we can use hydrogen to some extent, but to do it we have to purify the water (energy) separate the hydrogen and oxygen (more energy) then find a way to store it (even more energy) It's just to dirty and their is way to much energy loss. We should be focusing on improving our batteries and using solar because a centralized distribution system of endless electricity will be more efficient and useful.
cblazer 3 days ago
@a1mint We have a huge gap for improvement when it comes to electrical efficiency, better generator, motors, motor controllers, circuits, transmission, batteries...etc and all the types of generation solar, wind, nuclear, coal..etc. There is huge room for improvement I just can't wait until we get engines that turns generators using the earths magnetic field and the interplanetary magnetic field.. even cosmic ray focusing
cblazer 3 days ago
Does it come in a Hemi?
dadrules714 1 week ago
Great now they'll bottle water and sell it for $8.00 a gallon.......oh that's been done...
How long till you sell the patent to say..Ford and we never see it again?
How long till Exxon /BP lobby to have it outlawed......
Has the middle east declared jihad on you?
To think grand daddy Bush helped Hitler for a cool $M to form Humbles oil(Exxon) to be out witted by water.
dadrules714 1 week ago
@dadrules714 All this could be up for debate, if only water could be a source of energy. Unfortunately, it is not.
a1mint 6 days ago
@a1mint Really? Thats your big response? Prove it is not,or go to bed, it's past your bedtime young man...
arthujt1 5 days ago
@arthujt1 I am not the one that is making ridiculous claims. I am not the one that is claiming that there somehow is energy in water. Science knows and reveals that water is not a source of energy. Lying crooks like YOU are the ones that are making ridiculous claims. Therefore, the onus is on YOU to prove that you can do something that completely contradicts just about everything we know about science.
You LYING sack of SHIT !
a1mint 5 days ago
@a1mint Then why has NASA been using the process for over 30 years? Are they not scientific enough for ya? Space has enough vacuam present to boil water with NO external energy source. The hydrogen collected and the oxygen together form hydroxl, which is used to power navigational rocket motors in space...It can constantly produce even on the dark side of the planet. They now even use ion propulsion to do the same.
arthujt1 5 days ago
@arthujt1 I really don't get people like you ! What the FUCK is wrong with you man? Seriously!
NASA is using hydrogen. And? That is NOT what is being debated here !
What is being debated is how water is NOT a source of energy. NASA also knows that water is NOT a source of energy !
Water CONTAINS hydrogen, but it's locked away and NOT ready for use, UNLESS you SPEND energy to split it.
You *KNOW* this goddamnit ! WHY are you INTENTIONALLY trying to CONFUSE people simply by using the word NASA ??
a1mint 5 days ago
@arthujt1 A vacuum changes water from a liquid form to a gas form. That doesn't release any hydrogen !
a1mint 5 days ago
@dadrules714 and it will happen soon,regardless of idiots like a1meatstick...
arthujt1 6 days ago
@arthujt1 LIAR LIAR LIAR WITH YOUR PANTS ON FIRE ! ! !
a1mint 5 days ago
indeed is the most easy way to get out free of economical aspect( buying gasoline) and very big inconvenient for international guverments; they will have no control in future on our natural way of living the dominations of economical control in this domain is history. when you will see a lot of post with "is not efficient" if you are curios to find the real stuff, take in consideration all the data of this old process;they know analyze and seen already happend for a better living worldlife;
binemaicadicala 1 week ago
@binemaicadicala If only water could be a source of energy. Unfortunately, it is not.
a1mint 1 week ago
@a1mint Water is not a source of energy, It is a carrier of energy potential. How else can it be explaned that it can CONVERT by your own words,to other states of existence? It releases energy, just like gasoline, it attracts ions and becomes ice, just like a solid. this would be impossible as a steady state,which it is not. Stop making bogus comments you cant backup with fact.
arthujt1 1 week ago
@arthujt1 You clearly do not understand how energy works. No, water does not "release" energy. It takes MORE energy to split water than the amount of energy that becomes available in the split hydrogen. What part of that do you not understand?
YOU stop making a complete fool of yourself. You sound like a completely ignorant moron on the subject.
a1mint 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Perpetual motion1.First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.2.Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to the mass m, i.e., F = ma. 3.Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. Yes there is such a thing, all one has to do is get it going. To easy, stop hating on science.we all can do it.
youareonthetube1 1 week ago
Oh, yeah suddenly electrolysis product is called HHO gas. C'mon, it's actualy Hydrogen and ogygen... Just saying....
TheRoknemec 1 week ago
@TheRoknemec It takes MORE energy to split water than the amount of energy that is released when burning the made available hydrogen.
a1mint 1 week ago
@a1mint I am braging about the name of the end product, not the way we cold transform energy from one form to another, and I don't intend to hatefull!
TheRoknemec 1 week ago
@TheRoknemec My point is that something like a "water engine" is not possible because water is not a source of energy.
The arguments that some have been making that because water contains hydrogen, and how power hydrogen is, that because of that there is all that energy to tap in to.
My point is that that hydrogen is locked away, and takes more energy to make it available as standalone hydrogen vs the amount of energy that becomes available through it.
Just making sure everyone gets it.
a1mint 1 week ago
@a1mint You seem to ignore the method of breaking the covolent bonds of the water mol by using solar energy which is free...(means it doesnt cost (economically speaking..)zip. ) On utube there is a solar array that drives a steam engine that powers a 25kw genhead.how is not that a water engine(using steam) to make energy?? Its the same process large power plants use with natgas. Do your homework..
arthujt1 1 week ago
@arthujt1 Using solar energy to boil water does NOT make water an energy source. In that case, the solar energy is the energy source.
What part of that do you not understand?
a1mint 6 days ago
@a1mint gasoline is not a source of energy by itself either, but we have been using it for over a hundred years. If a substance is convertable, it can be used in a kinetic conversion to a mechanical use, such as a vehicle. Splitting water in one step(electrolysis), then using the hydrogen and the oxygen seperately is wasteful. Why not split the water and use it in an immediate fashion? By hammering the mol with a high energy plasma(lightning),this causes a visible and audible reaction..
arthujt1 1 week ago
@arthujt1 Another thing.. Lightning(plasma)fractures the water mol into hydrogen and oxygen. This causes the the atoms of both to shoot away from each other,releasing two ions in the process, expanding the air surrounding them, causing thunder,which we can hear. They then reassociate,to become deionized steam. This process can be replicated as we did in the lab,to become a controllable process,usable for kinetic movement. So much energy is potential, it blew the roof off our lab!!
arthujt1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@arthujt1 It *ALWAYS* takes *MORE* energy to split water than the amount of energy that becomes available in the split hydrogen.
What part of that do you not understand?
a1mint 6 days ago
@arthujt1 Gasoline *IS* an energy source !
It *ALWAYS* takes *MORE* energy to split water than the amount of energy that becomes available in the split hydrogen.
What part of that do you not understand?
a1mint 6 days ago
@a1mint E=MC^2.....
turners1 5 days ago
@turners1 What does that have to do with anything?
We're not tapping into nuclear energy here at any stage. It's all just chemical reactions. Water can't be a source of energy at all. Not by anyone doing anything in their garage !
a1mint 5 days ago
@turners1 it never did. its a lie. Just like the LIE that they dont know how gravity works, Or the LIE that they dont know the wavelength. They will never mention LASER and HYDROGEN In the same speach.. LOOK at what they are NOT telling you
adam3176 4 days ago
@adam3176 The only LIAR here is YOU making FALSE claims how water is a source of energy. I have explained to you time and time again, but you seem to be suffering from some sort of short term memory loss !
AGAIN: it takes *MORE* energy to split water than the amount of energy that becomes available in the split off hydrogen.
AGAIN: what part of this do you not understand?
ACKNOWLEDGE goddamnit !
a1mint 4 days ago
@a1mint "water engines" have been around for over as century. Have you never seen or observed a steam locomotive? It uses coal or wood gas to operate. Why couldn't solar energy be used instead to heat the water,convert to steam,make work, then reassociate to a solid state,to be used over again and again?This doesnt violate any laws of thermodynamics or nature at all...just a better use economically. Then, why not use the lightning process(in nature) and trap that in an ICE?
arthujt1 1 week ago
@arthujt1 No, water engines have NOT been around for over a century. People scamming and lying about how supposedly you could run an engine on water, has been around for over a century. Big difference.
In a steam locomotive, the wood or coal is the source of energy. Water is not the source of energy at all !
What part of this do you not understand?
a1mint 6 days ago
@TheRoknemec "hydroxl" has been used in the scientific community for over 100 years.
"Hydroxy" is a coprighted term of use by Bob Boyce, an avid fan of water splitting who made a cross country trip on water alone (no other fuel,) two years ago. This was not coroberated by any acedemic institution, and he is attempting another trip when funding allows.
arthujt1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@arthujt1 It *ALWAYS* takes *MORE* energy to split water than the amount of energy that becomes available in the split hydrogen.
What part of that do you not understand?
a1mint 6 days ago
I would trust a scientist to research the feasibility of using water to power a vehicle, but it is the mechanic I would trust to build an engine. :)
addean79 1 week ago
@addean79 Water is not a source of energy.
a1mint 1 week ago
@a1mint Sure it is.. plenty of energy in water, what are you smoking?
adam3176 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@adam3176 NO ! What are YOU smoking ? How the FUCK is there supposed to be energy that's available for use, in water ? Well ? The hydrogen isn't directly usable, because it TAKES energy to make that hydrogen available.
ps. sold a lot water energy hho buliding plans on the net lately? That is what you are doing is it not? Using multiple accounts and masquerading as a proponent? How many mentally retarded customers do you have annually anyway?
honeapathsc(dot)blogspot(dot)com
a1mint 4 days ago
@addean79 I am both..I worked for 10years for government, then almost 25yrs as a petroleum engineer and automotive designer. Best of both worlds!!!
arthujt1 1 week ago
@arthujt1 Sense of entitlement only demonstrates arrogance. Proof would go a lot further. Of course, none of the claims has ever been proven. On a planet with like 8 billion people (not even sure how many these days anymore) for years on end, and still not a single proof of any water engine, perpetual motion, overunity, magnet motor, chemtrail, homeopathy, god, spirit, ghost, or any other superstitious pseudo scientific horseshit.
a1mint 6 days ago
We all have the means to build perpetual energy devices, they are really not that difficult, i offer proof in the fact that each time a person succeeds at this, the government scoops them up and works with them, then you never hear about it, or them again. and the material that they used in all of its forms is no longer sold on the open market. It becomes a class 1 material that only can be special ordered. We all can do it. It is not that hard.
youareonthetube1 1 week ago
@youareonthetube1 The law of nature about the conservation of energy states that you can not create or destroy energy, but only convert it.
It is therefore not possible to make a perpetual motion machine.
It's also not rational to think that it is possible, because in all the years, with billions of people on our planet, there has not once been a demonstration of a working perpetual motion machine.
a1mint 1 week ago
@a1mint 1.First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.2.Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to the mass m, i.e., F = ma. 3.Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. Yes there is such a thing, all one has to do is get it going. To easy, stop hating on science.we all can do it.
youareonthetube1 1 week ago
LMFAO over here... HHey A1meatstick. When you graduate the fourth grade come back and see us.
jigjag78 1 week ago
@cblazer This a1mint guy obviously hasn't done his homework on the subject of water splitting at all. He discounts the work of anyone(even Micheal Faraday),and then throws a couple insults in just to boost his own ego,not to make any valid point,because he doesn't have a point to contend with. Nobody has stated any violations of thermodynamic laws for instance, yet he keeps on and on about it.?? Yes, there are plenty of ways to acheive hydrogen from water,some undiscovered as yet.
arthujt1 1 week ago
@arthujt1 I recognize the law of nature about the conservation of energy. It states that you can not create or destroy energy, only convert it. It makes sense, because otherwise you'd be able to make energy go away, or pop it into existence. Just about all of the scientific discoveries would be wrong.
It isn't realistic or rational to claim that the laws of nature are wrong.
YES, that's what people claim here ! Because they claim that you can split water at a discount. Same thing !
a1mint 1 week ago
@a1mint Not the same thing! The same level of energy intensity can be acheived at both lower levels of voltage potential and at higher, more intensive levels. Plasma is created in both instances. At 45kv the action of water seperation is quickened with more frequency of the action. This produces more hydroxl which is mixed with ambient air(which contains nitrogen)to combust in the chamber of an ICE. Its just an improvement of an age old process. Try splitting water w/ammonia(nh3).
arthujt1 1 week ago
@arthujt1 No amount of pseudo scientific confusing distractive nonsense is going to change the fact that it takes MORE energy to split water than the amount of energy that is released by burning the made available hydrogen.
a1mint 1 week ago
@a1mint How does that relate to what of anything
I have stated? I have never stated that energy is being destroyed or gained in any process. Any fuel can be combusted to produce work. Gasoline is a carbon based fuel, and as we have seen,(on mythbusters, hydrogen burns.
hydroxl burns if manipulated properly. So, WHAT IS YOUR POINT??
hydroxl is a derivitive of the seperation of water into its primary elements
9micheal 'faraday professed this,not me
arthujt1 1 week ago
@arthujt1
a1,TO CONTINUE, if you fill your tank with gas, you burn it, and it motivates you down the road,by creating a plasma in the combustion chamber,doing it very inefficiently.(25% at best...)hydroxl, being a vaporous fuel,needs less volume to accomplish twice, sometimes 2.5 times more workload output(hp)measured by ohio state and MIT.This is just a fact,not madeup nonsense as you state. This is also a much better use economically when comparisons are made to other fuels.
arthujt1 1 week ago
@arthujt1 No laws of nature are broken,just more effective use of the energy used to seperate the two elements. Of coarse it takes energy to do this,and there is no free energy involved..So, Why do you keep harping on violations of physics and natural laws? Stan Meyers never stated his theories or patents violated natural law.
they don't...Can a vehicle operate on water? YES!Various fuel cells have proven this recently and in the near past by more than one company or individual.
arthujt1 1 week ago
@arthujt1 Even with a more efficient engine running on HHO you still need to get the HHO in the first place. That requires energy and you get out less than you put in.
sorova 1 week ago
@sorova sounds like eating celery, takes more energy to mechanically digest it (chew it) then the energy it can deliver to your body in the process of chemical digestion (stomach/bowel)
WaveOverBow 6 days ago
@arthujt1 okay, now I'm getting interested. Don't know much at all on this topic but a guy was running his boat on water, conversted the engine. It raised the questian about how the water was being converted to release the hydrogen for those of us around who were not in the know. We know hyrdogen is explosive. I'd like to understand the conversion process- we thot our marina had a floating bomb across the warf. What are the safety procedures, and risks to this conversion?
WaveOverBow 6 days ago
@WaveOverBow any system that splits water on demand is much safer than one that attempts storage of the resultant gases,unless they are seperated,like that done on rocket boosters. Hydroxl is highly unstable as it contains its own oxidant.
arthujt1 5 days ago
@arthujt1 The problem is that it takes MORE energy to split water than the amount of energy you get back from burning the made available hydrogen.
That is why "HHO" is such a scam !
a1mint 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WaveOverBow No, there isn't any guy that ran his boat on water. It isn't possible because water is NOT a source of energy, period.
The only ones claiming that something like that is possible are the utter lying sack of shit CROOKS and SCAMMERS that stand to gain from pulling of such scams as selling building plans for nonsense crap like that.
Here, read this: honeapathsc(dot)blogspot(dot)com
a1mint 5 days ago
Is there any water-energy believer out there that is NOT a retard? So far, they're *ALL* absolutely retarded !
a1mint 1 week ago
@a1mint Do a simple search for Water splitting see for your self how many ways there are to split water other than electricity. I'm not declaring over unity, which you imply.
cblazer 1 week ago
@cblazer If you suggest that there can be a net gain of energy, then YES, you ARE declaring overunity.
But the fact remains that it costs MORE energy to split water than the amount of energy is released when burning the made available hydrogen.
a1mint 1 week ago
@a1mint You coninually ignore fact, so that makes YOU the one who is ignorant, not others. You refuse to accept long known and accepted facts that are published in white papers and other media available to the general public. YOU insult people you don't even know just to increase your ego and argue just to argue. This isn't even a debate of any intelligense, just you blathering on about the laws of nature which you clearly are devoid of any knowledge. What are you,Twelve??
arthujt1 1 week ago
@arthujt1 Siding with the scientific discoveries of the laws of nature, conservation of energy, is not ignorance. It's recognizing that one can not make energy.
What is insulting is people like YOU that make absurd statements, that somehow you can split water at a discount, thereby creating energy.
We'll let actual scientists decide who's ignorant here. I'm not worried for a split second.
You're pathetic !
a1mint 1 week ago
Hello, im studying motorsport mechanics in the UK. im fascinated by your engine and think it is definatly the best way alt. energy resource instead of fossil fuels. My next project is to design a similar engine to what you have running in you vid. My question is do you have a Hydrogen fuel tank which you fill up with hydrogen or do you have a water tank and separate oxygen and hydrogen before it enters the engine? Thanks BWB
bigwillybiker 1 week ago
@bigwillybiker The problem is that water is not a source of energy.
Also realize that the LAWS OF NATURE state that you can not create or destroy energy. You can only CONVERT energy.
The total amount of energy out is always the same as the total amount of energy in, in ANY conversion process ! ! !
Don't let any of the fools here convince you otherwise. They're a good combination of ignorant people and scammers in videos like this.
a1mint 1 week ago
@a1mint several vehicle designs are being tested currently such as the Honda Clarity and others by nissan and general motors. Are they all scammers and delusional? It would seem you are one who has a problem with real science. Guess what? Science is based on discovery, not what we already believe. China has a SUV on their market that runs on water, as do they have buses that do so, converting water to hydroxl charging a battery system to harness energy, NOT destroy it..
arthujt1 1 week ago
@arthujt1 You are either completely confused, or you're lying through your teeth.
Water is NOT a source of energy. What part of that do you not understand?
Stop talking about science. You know clearly absolutely NOTHING about it, what-so-ever ! You simply wouldn't recognize it from a hole in the ground !
Stop embarrassing yourself with your complete fantasy pseudo science !
PROOF ! REFERENCES ! LINKS ! ANYTHING CREDIBLE !
Either THAT ! Or else you're a complete IDIOT !
a1mint 1 week ago
@a1mint I studied for my doctorate at the university of colorado's physics department under Micheal Lapointe who is a principal in the CERN project in europe who recently published evidense of previously unknown keys to our existence in the universe. The work I accomplish is very valuable to my employers, who have a differing opinion to yours. I work with science everyday,and your rhetoric exposes you for who you are. Your blathering rants are childish and unneccessary. Go away!
arthujt1 1 week ago
@arthujt1 Your sense of entitlement doesn't impress me at all. What is rhetoric here, is you claiming that water is a source of energy, and how you claim that the conservation of energy natural law doesn't apply somehow. You are, in effect, claiming that you can create energy and therefore have an infinite energy source.
I'd like to talk to Michael Lapointe, and have a discussion with him about your claims. Let's see what an actual scientists has to say about your rhetoric.
MORON !
a1mint 1 week ago
@a1mint Sounds like you're just repeating yourself over and over again,with no new argument, due to your limitations.
Yes, water does not produce energy in its primal form,yet it can be used as a convertable path for energy exchange. Water can burn !!!
Society has been using it for years without realizing the potential at their disposal. We make it boil,(with low heat and vacuam)we freeze it , and we drink it. A high enough spark will work. >(45kv) lightning is not normal,study it!!
arthujt1 1 week ago
@arthujt1 I keep bringing up that law of nature, because there are continuously people, like you, that refuse to get it. You think that science is a joke, clearly.
No, water can not "burn". And no, water does not produce energy ! ! !
Making water boil takes an energy source, like burning coal, gas, wood, or an electric heating element, or any other heat supply. Water there isn't being an energy what-so-ever.
Again, you simply have absolutely no notion of actual real science. Totally ignorant!
a1mint 1 week ago
@a1mint water is H20 Hydrogen and oxygen, last time i checked hydrogen does burn(hindenburg disaster)... You can use a lot of things to break down the water molecule into into it's two components, electricity is what most try to use, some use a chemical reaction, their is energy in everything it's just unlocking it is the problem..ignorant ass know it all.
cblazer 1 week ago
@cblazer *NO* ! YOU ARE THE IGNORANT ONE ! ! ! ! You do *NOT* understand how energy works ! You have absolutely no idea what-so-ever OBVIOUSLY ! ! ! !
It takes ENERGY to split water. The AMOUNT of energy needed to split water, is greater than the amount of energy that the hydrogen releases when you burn it. The product of burning hydrogen is water.
What PART of this do you not understand ? Good FUCKING grief already !
And YOU have the gaul to call *ME* ignorant ! You're NUTS !
a1mint 1 week ago
@a1mint Ok, you do you understand that CAPS LOCKS IS THE SAME A SCREAMING. Learn some manners for one thing. Yes of course splitting water takes energy, I never claimed different, neither have i made the claim that it could take less energy to separate water than it could to produce oil, and i think it will in the near future, Jesus man you act like i raped your mother calm down. If you don't wanna be called a gov, zombie don't act like one.
cblazer 1 week ago
@cblazer Oh puhlease, you've seen someone else yell at someone about caps lock this and that, you were impressed, and now you go monkey see monkey do, pathetic.
This is not about a comparison with oil. This is about how it takes MORE energy to split water, than the amount of energy you get from burning the made available hydrogen !
a1mint 1 week ago
@a1mint i don't know who you work for but i do recognize the tactics and you sir are shill.
cblazer 1 week ago
@cblazer Delusional insane paranoid hallucinating superstitious super morons like you always resort to saying the same thing in the end once you run out of bullshit to barf up:
"you are a government agent". "you work for the oil companies". bla bla bla.
Do you have ANY idea AT ALL how absolutely ABSURDLY and OVER THE TOP IDIOTIC you really sound? Does this COMPLETELY escape you ? ? ?
Are you THAT oblivious ? ? ?
Un-FREAKING-believable !
a1mint 1 week ago
@a1mint Sure buddy, I didn't realize i was responding to an ill person. You just sound like one because they always come back with the same thought patterns of denial, diversion name calling..ect it's a pattern. Nothing I have said can explain your reactionary name calling like hallucination, superstitious, "super morons". I gave facts pure simple truths that stand on their own without an observers biases. Except the gov shill part I apologize I didn't realize i was talking to a child.
cblazer 1 week ago
@cblazer Do only "ill" person here is *YOU*. YOU are the one seeing conspiracies. YOU are the one suffering from delusions. Not me !
You haven't said anything factual as of yet. You are the one not understanding science and the law of nature about the conservation of energy !
You think that magically, there are ways to split water at a discount. It's NOT possible !
a1mint 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bigwillybiker The problem is that water is not a source of energy.
Also realize that the LAWS OF NATURE state that you can not create or destroy energy. You can only CONVERT energy.
The total amount of energy out is always the same as the total amount of energy in, in ANY conversion process ! ! !
Don't let any of the fools here convince you otherwise. They're a good combination of ignorant people and scammers in videos like this.
a1mint 1 week ago
@bigwillybiker The engine in the vid is an internal combustion, 4 cycle engine design. The most this setup will accomplish is idling the engine only, no real accelleration due to more air/fuel neccessary. I was producing 60lpm of hydroxl which stretchs the stoiometric intake ratio to 32:1. You will need way more volume to make it work. A better approach :use a constant supply to run a magneto to charge super caps, like the new YO car from russia.
arthujt1 1 week ago
@arthujt1 Water is NOT a source of energy, PERIOD !
Anyone who claims it is, is either a completely ignorant on science, or else a complete scammer that tries to fool others. Take your pick pseudo science boy !
a1mint 1 week ago
scam
32937isready 1 week ago
is there any video about how to make then am fed up by people just showing off
braveGurkhali 1 week ago
wow look at this troll
giantgreenbuddy 1 week ago
Can you make on that water will power a Generator? A Generator powered by Water is at the top of my survival list.....errr as long as i have access to water of course.
thegroove2000 2 weeks ago
@thegroove2000 Too bad that water is not an energy source.
a1mint 2 weeks ago
@a1mint water can't burn, but hydrogen can. By seperating the hydrogen and oxygen in a electrolytic process that can be done in the combustion chamber, water is seperated, then exposed to a high intensity plasma which burns the hydrogen atoms releasing 2 ions per atom, leaving deionized 400 degree steam as the water mol reassociates in the endothermic phase of the power stroke.
arthujt1 2 weeks ago
@arthujt1 It takes more energy to split hydrogen from oxygen than the amount of energy you get from burning the made available hydrogen.
Therefore, water is not a source of energy, and hydrogen is not readily available on earth.
a1mint 1 week ago
@a1mint
any electrolytic process SEPERATES hydrogen and oxygen equally at the same rate of attraction to opposing charged plates,or electrodes. The responsive gasses are reactive to any rate of charge(plasma)that sets in motion a single energy event or chain of events sufficient to cause kinetic motion or work by way of mechanical interaction..
A spark at .01 joule has the same ignition capability of that at 1 megajoule (a match versus a lightning strike)
arthujt1 1 week ago