Running on water and gas (again)

[dnt]

The technical ones in the group, what is your opinion of this...

Water for Gas

[Guest Greg Ross]

Have a look at this recent thread on Browns' Fuel. It's a scam, sorry.

http://forums.aaca.org/ubbthreads.php?ub...true#Post500312

[Guest StephenM]

It works. Usually used for boosted systems to cool charge. For daily continuous use you need a whole lot of water. OK for a stoplight drag race if you dont value your head gaskets. I never had one but an old friend did, CC 1957. His dad was a fighter mechanic during WW2 and built it for him.

Steve

[DAVES89]

That's not all it powers! I'll drink to that!

[Guest Greg Ross]

"It works"

Steve,

Presume what you're referring to is "Water Injection" as used in piston engined WW2 fighters for boost?

[Barney Eaton]

If you read carefully, you are not burning water, but gas (hydrogen).

Do some research on generating hydrogen from water and it appears that is what they are doing.

One of the science shows on TV showed how to put a charge into water and out comes the hydrogen. It will probably work BUT, the amount you produce is small and might give you great mileage at 10mpg, but as you go faster, and need more gasoline, the ratio of gasoline to hydrogen will drop dramatically and you will see very little improvement at speeds we normally drive.

The device cannot produce hydrogen fast enough to give you an improvement at highway speeds, Also, it would be interesting to see how long the guart or half/gallon of water actually lasts. One problem with steam locomotives, was the need to stop and take on more water.

[D-a-n-i-e-l]

OK for the last time!!!!

It is physically possible to run a car by splitting water in to Hydrogen and Oxygen.

<span style="font-size: 20pt">BUT</span>

conservation of energy law says, and it is a law not a theory, "energy can niether be created or distroyed".

So here is the short and sweet. It takes more energy to seperate the water into Hydrogen and Oxygen than you get when you burn Hydrogen to make water.

Basically if you ran this off your car battery,and put all the energy back into the battery you would drain your battery. Even if there were no lose of energy in the transfer of heat to mechanical and then to electrical you woul still not come out ahead.

One last thing. Water injection is used in some engines. Water is injected into the cylinder right after the power stroke and befor the exhuast stroke. This is usally done in diesel engines and does save fuel by using the heat that is alredy there, but it is not burning the water just making steam out of it. This prccess requires re-engineering the engine to include the additional stroke, in other words the cam spins one time for every three of the crank.

<span style="font-size: 17pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">THE END!</span></span>

[Jim NotreDame IN]

there is a such thing as a 6 stroke engine where after the exhaust stroke, water is injected and as the piston travels through another down and upstroke, the water expands into steam and helps the downstroke with its expansion, and cools the engine system as the steam is exhausted during the upstroke. both the expansion and cooling of the water / steam help the efficiency of the engine. the gentleman that owns crower cams is doing a lot of research in the 6 stroke engine design area.

as far as brown's gas is concerned, everybody is still writing it off as impossible because energy cannot be created or destroyed. what people still are choosing to ignore when they talk about whether an improvement can happen from this technology or not is the fact that the water is consumed, just like gas. the mileage improvements that people quote are because their engines are also burning water. there is no magic involved. what if you got 100 mpg of gasoline, but you used 3 gallons of water as well as one of gasoline to achieve it? does that sound more plausible?

in my opinion... fuel economy should not be a goal of ours as much as using a new fuel. i would happily drive all day at 2 miles per gallon, as long as i was only using water.

here's the beginning of what everybody will be arguing with me about...

the solution to this country's energy crisis is: remove all government taxes and profits that are received from oil and fossil fuels. the feds make more money from me in a year from gasoline taxes than they do in income tax. no bs, i did the math. think about it... every single thing that i buy is shipped and transported in some way, and that gas used is incorporated into the price that i pay for it, and the taxes reflect this too. if there was no profit to be made from oil products and energy costs as opposed to any other fuel, nobody would care if the world's power came from water. all of these suppressed patents would be available to the public and we wouldn't be destroying our own earth to make a profit. if you owned an oil well, would you be excited to spend money on some new technology that would lose you billions of dollars in profit each year? i sure wouldn't. we're stuck in a rut, as a world as a whole. its time to change.

don't be so quick to question unconventional solutions to the problems we face as a whole, and maybe with this open mindedness we will find a solution to our world's problems.

that's all.. you can stone me now. think about it though, if history has taught us anything, it has been to remain open minded. would you have believed anything about electricity 2 hundred years ago?

[Guest MauiWowee]

Suppressed patents=urban myth.

[Jim NotreDame IN]

Nikola Tesla has patents that are still classified, and there is a clause written into the homeland security act that allows the government to hide public record of technology that is considered privileged. same thing applies with how there are international shipping laws on powerful computers. there are things that are unlawful to ship to places not deemed worthy by our government, and in the same way, there are things that are hidden from public record concerning technology.

i'm not trying to start the conspiracy theory thing and "the man" and big brother and all of that stuff, but i do truly believe that there is a lot of money spent to ensure that we still buy gas instead of other energy sources.

did you see the movie "who killed the electric car"? the carb (California air resources board) mandated that a percentage of all vehicles sold in the state had to be zero emissions. gm produced an all electric car called the EV1, that you plugged into the wall when you got home to recharge, and had about an 80 mile range between charges. california built charging stations and people leased the vehicles. gm sued the resources board to remove the mandate, and following their success (because every other major auto maker's layers got on board) gm reclaimed all of the vehicles and shipped them to a desert test track and crushed them. it is fact. recorded on film. despite several celebrities that liked the vehicles and held a benefit that raised several times the sale price to buy the remaining cars. every single one was destroyed.

there are millions and billions of dollars at stake that would be lost profit for many of the world's large companies and governments, that these organizations are very interested in protecting. i don't think that is very hard to believe, do you?

[D-a-n-i-e-l]

I am all about finding alturnative energies and I am a fan of Tesla.

As far as the electric car idea, were are you getting the energy to charge it? Answer, mainly coal burning pwer plants. Not much gain there. The real goal here is to reduce polution, right?

Biofuels are a wonderful idea, but even if all our nations produce went to them we would only power 1-3% of our vehicles.

Next water powered car. If they ever become possible, what will we drink? I mean we can barely water our crops, and California and Arizona are already asking to barrow water from other states. Hmmm not quite the answer.

Hydrogen powered cars. Our best source of Hydrogen is burning natural gas, not a great source.

The only real answer is one of two things. One drive less. Or two solar powered cars and sosiety.

Solar panels are not effeciant enough, yet, to provide reliable power for a car, but they are reliable enought to provide electrical power for our nation. There is an article that states, if wee would have spent the same amount of money on solar panel placed in the southwestern states our nation would not have to produce power by any other means. With that plan you could justify going to all electric cars, for normal day to day driving. Although you would want to keep a gas powered one around for long trips.

[Guest steveskyhawk]

The electric car was killed by the government because if a car didn't use fuel there was lost revenue on highway use taxes collected when fuel is purchased.

[Guest TommyH]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim ND IN</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> despite several celebrities that liked the vehicles and held a benefit that raised several times the sale price to buy the remaining cars. every single one was destroyed.</div></div>

No. More than 40 had thier main controllers removed, and the remnants shipped to select museum and universities.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

-Thomas Jefferson

I agree that gas is expensive, and that taxes are a big part of it. I think the biggest problem is the coruption in our government. "When the government gives you money, use lowest bid, keep the rest(spend it all)"

Did you know we spent almost $20,000,000 to determine why rats eyes were red? Sounds like money well spent to me!

You cannot create energy. Energy can only be transfered. It cannot be created, it cannot be destroyed. This is a scam, people are hurting for money, and your average yuppie is very gulible. "You'll discover how to generate free energy in your car or truck." I didn't have to read any further to know what was going to happen. Please, do not buy this crap. If it reaally worked, it would be on the news, in stores, and sold out. I ask you this: Is it?

[Guest MauiWowee]

Gentlemen and ladies........all this has what to do with Reattas?

[dnt]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: D-a-n-i-e-l</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK for the last time!!!!

It is physically possible to run a car by splitting water in to Hydrogen and Oxygen.

<span style="font-size: 20pt">BUT</span>

conservation of energy law says, and it is a law not a theory, "energy can niether be created or distroyed".

So here is the short and sweet. It takes more energy to seperate the water into Hydrogen and Oxygen than you get when you burn Hydrogen to make water. </div></div>

First, let me unqualify myself. I am not an engineer, I am not a scientist, and I am not a mechanic. Therefore, my comments must all be taken with a "grain of salt"--whatever that means.

Take for example a stick of dynamite. It is quite passive in its stick-state, carry in your pocket, ostensibly harmless until activated by a blasting cap. The blasting cap represents a very small amount of energy that releases substantially more energy. So why does it have to be differant with making HHO, a small amount of electrical energy to transform a part of H20 into the very powerful HHO gas?

So, as with the dynamite, which does not create or destroy energy, the blasting cap merely releases the energy, can't we release the HHO energy utilizing a much smaller amount of energy?

[D-a-n-i-e-l]

The blasting iniatiates the chemical reaction and the combining of the compounds in the dynamite with oxygen provide the boom. Just as in the combining of H with O.

Now after your explotion with the dynamite, it would take more energy than was exerted by the initioal reation to seperate those compounds back into the compounds found in dynamite. So in short, both produce energy but to reverse either one would take more energy than they make when burning/exploding.

[Guest TommyH]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: D-a-n-i-e-l</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The blasting iniatiates the chemical reaction and the combining of the compounds in the dynamite with oxygen provide the boom. Just as in the combining of H with O.

Now after your explotion with the dynamite, it would take more energy than was exerted by the initioal reation to seperate those compounds back into the compounds found in dynamite. So in short, both produce energy but to reverse either one would take more energy than they make when burning/exploding.</div></div>

Take for example a stick of dynamite. It is quite passive in its stick-state, carry in your pocket, ostensibly harmless until activated by a blasting cap. The blasting cap represents a very small amount of energy that releases substantially more energy. So why does it have to be differant with making HHO, a small amount of electrical energy to transform a part of H20 into the very powerful HHO gas?

So, as with the dynamite, which does not create or destroy energy, the blasting cap merely releases the energy, can't we release the HHO energy utilizing a much smaller amount of energy?

One last time. It takes the same ammount of energy to process H20 into H2 and O2(These molecules are never in a single state, they are always bonded with something, even themselves.) Have you ever had a teacher put H2 and O2 gases into a big water bottle? Nothing happens. But, when a match is dropped into the bottle, a reaction occurs. The heat is nesessary to force the two molecules together in a chemical reation, forming H2O. Basically, using H2 as a fuel source is not a correct statement. H2 is merely transporting energy from one point to another. It is( currently) very unefficient to burn fossile fuels only to release the H2 molecules. Even electrolysis is worse. Did you know that over 17,000 scientists beleive that global warming is just a natural cycle of earth, and humans have nothing to do with it? Did you know that less than 3,000 of the other scientists interviewed believed that global warming was caused direclty by humans? A volcanic eruption released many times more CO2 gas than the whole history of human existance?

I know you guys are trying to save money, but you need to pay better attention to the wording, and the actualities of how things work. I am not saying you are stupid, but because you are not a scientist(niehter am I) you need to do a little more research any ideas like this that you have. I don't mean to sound crass about it, please do not be offended.

Thank you for bringing up another scam for all of us to avoid, though.

[dnt]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ronnie</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This whole discussion about is carport engineering at it's finest! </div></div>

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Guest TommyH]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dnt</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ronnie</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This whole discussion about is carport engineering at it's finest! </div></div>

You say that like it's a bad thing. </div></div>

Is it?

lol

[Guest ekvh]

It's awesome! I love the dialogue. Keep hope alive! Keep hope alive!

[Guest EDBSO]

If you take a caustic water solution and toss some aluminum into it Brown's gas is spontaneously formed and the aluminum consumed.

The disadvantage for automotive use is that you can't shut it off or slow the gas down.

As for the electrolysis of water there is some evidence that varying the frequency of the current can dramatically increase gas production.

[Guest ekvh]

Try reading this one for a dose of lala land:

http://www.thejoecell.com/ Thinking outside the box is okay, I wonder what it's like to live outside the box.

[Guest EDBSO]

Time to get the reading glasses out and save some money!

[Guest ekvh]

Try googling Sonoluminesence to cook your brains a bit more. There are power sources available to us if we figure out how to harness them.