Water power

I thought it was HHO or Hydroxy Hydrogen and Oxygen. This guy is dead now? Was he another casualty of the Bush Administration? I've seen this before but was directed here because of a strange death...working with the military? Meeting with congress...and now he's dead...

It's on Fox News, it must be true!

4) After burning molecules of steam (high temperature water) have more KINETIC ENERGY than hydrogen molecules before the reaction. The difference in kinetic energy before and after the reaction (burning) is exactly THE SAME as the energy needed in step 2.

CONCLUSION: Cars do not run "on WATER" or "on HYDROGEN", but on ENERGY! Hydrogen molecules only "store" (accumulate) energy and release it when they burn (react with oxygen).

One still needs ENERGY!

Nothing new.
Here are few FACTS:

1) There is no WATER power but hydrogen power. Where to get hydrogen? One can get hydrogen from many different sources and one of them is WATER.

2) One needs ENERGY to dissolve water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen molecules.

3) Result of BURNING hydrogen (burning = chemical reaction with OXYGEN) is creation of WATER (steam).

This is real. I was working with a chemist/physicist and we were going to develop a similar technology. The energy required to transform water is not significant. This is real. You think we can't discover new forms of energy?

Does this machine actually produce HHO on demand? I mean can it produce as much or more as is being used? I have always noticed that my engine runs a little better on rainy humid days. Could it be possible that some water is being sucked into the intakes and undergoing electrolysis in the cylinder? Even if we don't eventually somehow convert cars to water quickly, maybe we can find a way to use this idea on a larger scale for our power grid. How much oil use will that cut down nationally?

fox and this is bs

all of you are gay

I hate when people refer to hydrogen gas or "HHO" as water. Water is chemically inert, it is dead. It is extremely stable. "HHO" is able to burn because it is UN-stable: this means it takes energy(gas, coal,etc) to convert water to HHO. You're not using water as a fuel, you are using an unstable hydroxide compound that has water as an emission. This is why local news reporters shouldn't try to report science news without serious editorial review by someone who knows something about the science.

1. water is pervasive over the surface of the earth; the presence of water vapor is not new, it did not CAUSE climate change. 2. CO2 has it's own niche in climate warming that is being overfilled. 3. there is already water vapor in any emissions. having ONLY water vapor would be an improvement in any case.