Say Goodbye to Hybrids

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search | Who's Online Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   Darren Say Grrrrrrrr Citizen Username: Darrensager Post Number: 405 Registered: 11-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 10:58 am:        Say goodbye to your High Gas Prices and your Prius. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3299610356332390298&q=water+fuel This is absolutely incredible.   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3387 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 11:04 am:        Darren, a couple of weeks ago this video was one of the hottest on cnn.com, and I tried to post a link to it. I agree, it's amazing. But only a few hours after I posted about it, it was totally gone without a trace from cnn.com and there has been no sign of it since. I'm glad you came across it, but I wonder why cnn.com pulled it, especially since it was apparently one of their most-viewed videos.   Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9712 Registered: 4-1997 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 11:11 am:        Cause it's fake?   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3390 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 11:20 am:        Could be. But damn, I hope not. If it did turn out to be fake, I'd expect cnn.com to still make it findable via their search feature, and make a quick edit to say that the inventor's scam had been debunked.   Darren Say Grrrrrrrr Citizen Username: Darrensager Post Number: 406 Registered: 11-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 11:31 am:        They have a website. I would think this guy has the highest price on his head versus anyone else in the world right now. The applications go far beyond what he's done. Not only would he take out the oil industry but also the electric industry as well. With his invention every home in the world could have their own power source. Just add water and bingo. Maybe its time to invest in water companies. http://hytechapps.com/   Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9714 Registered: 4-1997 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 11:45 am:        They'll be selling special cars that use the technology and have holes in the floor for your feet, so you can actually make the car move. It sounds more like Brown's gas, which becomes dangerously explosive when compressed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown's_gas   Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1404 Registered: 10-2004 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 11:51 am:        Hilarious. HHO = H2O. HHO gas = steam. 'Electrolysis' splits the atoms from each other? Hilarious   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14582 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 12:02 pm:        Hee hee hee hee!   Shanabana Citizen Username: Shanabana Post Number: 495 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 12:09 pm:        OK, this is fake, right? I remember an urban myth about reconfigured water atoms from ages ago...   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14584 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 12:11 pm:        Yes, it's totally fake. The reporter was fooled.   Shanabana Citizen Username: Shanabana Post Number: 497 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 12:15 pm:        Now that is awesome! It actually aired!   Pippi Supporter Username: Pippi Post Number: 2311 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 12:28 pm:        I checked snopes.com and couldn't' find anything on it... is there an article or anything debunking it?   Scully Citizen Username: Scully Post Number: 579 Registered: 8-2005 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 12:29 pm:        When something seems too good to be true...   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14588 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 12:31 pm:        Heating something to greater than the temperature of the sun? And that newly heated object doesn't ignite anything? And doing this with a torch that is barely warm to the touch? It doesn't make any more sense than camels passing through the eye of a needle. And there's no such thing as HHO. If it's a novel way to express H2O, then it doesn't represent any chemical change.   Scully Citizen Username: Scully Post Number: 581 Registered: 8-2005 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 12:40 pm:        Someone said that the reporter was fooled. Does this mean that this clip was actually aired? Don't they have fact checkers or something?   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14591 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 12:42 pm:        OK, perhaps the fact checker was fooled, too. And hey, it's just Fox. See the logo in the corner.   Scully Citizen Username: Scully Post Number: 583 Registered: 8-2005 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 12:43 pm:        Good point.   Darren Say Grrrrrrrr Citizen Username: Darrensager Post Number: 408 Registered: 11-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 12:45 pm:        Its not fake. Tom, you have too much time on your hands. Prove its fake.   Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 2188 Registered: 10-2004 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 12:46 pm:        Hydrogen Cars however are not new.   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14593 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 12:53 pm:        Darren, I did show the fallacies of the claims. My recommendation to you is not to defend this piece, because the longer you do so, the sillier you'll feel when you understand how wrong the claims are. A ball the size of my fist, if heated to the temperature of the sun (as if that were possible), would ignite at least a large nearby building.   Vincent the Dog Citizen Username: Howardt Post Number: 2037 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:00 pm:        Yeah, but Tom, you have a very large fist.   Darren Say Grrrrrrrr Citizen Username: Darrensager Post Number: 409 Registered: 11-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:02 pm:        No Tom, you did not. You stated opinion. You're not an expert in this field as I don't claim to be either. Looking at Dave's post on Brown's Gas. This is close to the same thing. Understanding that Brown's gas is real and tested. My opinion is that this inventor merely found a more efficient way to separate the H20 into HHO. So, my opinion is its not fake. Especially if as reported he's in talks with the US Gov on applications.   Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9717 Registered: 4-1997 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:04 pm:        Quote: Searching US Patents Text Collection... Results of Search in US Patents Text Collection db for: aguygen: 0 patents. Q.E.D.   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14596 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:06 pm:        H2O means two atoms of H and one atom of O. How can you call it separated when you come out with HHO? That's still two and one. I don't have to be an expert to know a camel doesn't fit through the eye of a needle. There isn't that much stored energy in water. The video gave me such a knot in my stomach, I couldn't watch the whole thing.   Bajou Citizen Username: Bajou Post Number: 482 Registered: 2-2006 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:21 pm:        This is a scam. Oxy-hydrogen torches do exist, and electrolytic hydrogen generators to produce gas for these torches have been available for years. The problem is that oxy-hydrogen torches are rubbish, when compared to oxy-acetylene, because the flame is a lower temperature and has a lower density. Cutting or welding steel or other modern alloys is very difficult, and very slow, because of the high temperatures required. Scamsters have promoted hydrogen torches for a long time, often claiming obvious BS like 'Brown's gas', 'Klien gas' or a 'stabilised monatomic hydrogen oxygen mixture'. Moreover they were often willing to demonstrate cutting and welding - usually with low temperature metals like lead, or tin. Convincing to dumb investors, but a joke to engineers and metal workers. Hydrogen torches are most commonly used for fine heating and soldering where precision and controllability are more important than raw power e.g. by jewelers. As you might imagine, for a small, occasionally used device, an electrolytic gas source is ideal. Damn and I am blond...   Darren Say Grrrrrrrr Citizen Username: Darrensager Post Number: 410 Registered: 11-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:28 pm:        Man has tried for a very long time to separate the hydrogen from oxygen in water for a limitless supply of fuel. Just because no one mentioned it to you doesn't mean its not possible. Pure hydrogen burns. I think most of us recall the Hindenburg. That was filled with Hydrogen. IF this guy actually figured out how to effectively separate the hydrogen from the oxygen and utilize the oxygen within the water to allow the hydrogen to burn without using the oxygen in the atmosphere, its incredible. Do I personally think its possible. Yes. Do I think this guy did it. Yes. WHY do I think that way? Here's a link to his patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=% 2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,689,259.PN.&OS=PN/6,689,259&RS= PN/6,689,259   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14602 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:45 pm:        http://digg.com/technology/Water_Fuel_-_HHO_Gas   Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 2189 Registered: 10-2004 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:45 pm:        The issue is that creating hydrogen requires electricity. The only way to make hydrogen cost effectively is by using nuclear power. Although, I will say that at least electricity is renewable vs. oil which there is only a finite supply. So I wouldn't rule out hydrogen quite yet. That guys car btw, is only like 30% hydrogen powered, so IT TOO is a hybrid. You may as well change the subject of this thread now. Darren, I did about a 30 minute google search and found PLENTY of info showing how this guy has invented nothing new. I would suggest that you do some more research. I sent you on the right path with my wikipedia link above.   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3393 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:55 pm:        Given the attention the guy is getting, I'd bet that the veracity of his claims will be publicly known within weeks if not sooner. (The disappearance of the story about him from cnn.com is not encouraging, but I'm still hopeful he's legit.) Let's not assume that something is impossible and just see what develops. Lots of things we take for granted today were considered impossible until somebody came along and proved otherwise. A hundred years ago, scientists thought that the Milky Way galaxy was the sum total of all matter in the universe.   Vincent the Dog Citizen Username: Howardt Post Number: 2038 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:56 pm:        what was the date of the CNN broadcast?   Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9721 Registered: 4-1997 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:58 pm:        If it works as described everyone's car will be a little Hindenburg. Unless someone can overcome the First Law of Thermodynamics   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14604 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 2:00 pm:        Time for a wager. Darren, how about thirty bucks?   Mayor McCheese Supporter Username: Mayor_mccheese Post Number: 1629 Registered: 7-2004 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 2:00 pm:        I can, and do every day.   Darren Say Grrrrrrrr Citizen Username: Darrensager Post Number: 411 Registered: 11-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 2:17 pm:        $30 that says this guy's machine really works. Your on!   Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9723 Registered: 4-1997 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 2:19 pm:        Define "really works". It's been shown to work 40 years ago (Brown's gas). The question is the practical use of it in a safe manner.   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14605 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 2:21 pm:        As Bajou points out, there are such torches. We have to be more specific. I'll bet $30 that water will not be found to have enough energy to power things that have used things such as petroleum products. Let's give it six months for it to be debunked, OK? The system must not require more energy as input than the system releases.   Darren Say Grrrrrrrr Citizen Username: Darrensager Post Number: 412 Registered: 11-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 3:01 pm:        I was never arguing that point Tom. My thoughts from the get go was that this man's machine worked, and that it could very well have other applications that go beyond a torch. As stated above, I believe he invented a more energy efficient way to separate the Hydrogen from the Oxygen in a water molecule to produce a water torch. That's what I'm betting on. You called it fake, and now you're saying based upon what Bajou posted, there are such torches. So, which one is it? Is the guy scamming everyone or not? My bet to you he's not. You, in your expert opinion stated he was. Why are you changing you tune now? IF you could increase the efficiency even further (thanks to technology advancing) you could effectively get to the point where the system could be totally self sufficient, not needed any additional power sources to fuel the separation of the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Did I ever say this guy did that? No. Do I think he made a big advancement. Absolutely YES! You need to eat your words Tom. I think you saw the fact it was broadcast on a Fox affiliate and you're so left wing that you disregarding it being real. That's fine, I can understand that. I don't believe everything I read in the NY Times. But that means you're letting your political beliefs get in the way of facts, and thats an entirely different thread we can discuss some other time. You thought the guy was fake. Now it seams based upon some research that he may be onto something. I think that at the end of the day, if this guy has taken a leap forward even in existing technology, just like the Japanese did with American electronic goods, the world is in a position to be a much better place.   Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 2193 Registered: 10-2004 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 3:08 pm:        I swear I feel no one is willing to do just a little research here. I already googled this, it took about a half hour to figure out that there is NO breakthrough here. This guy is doing electrolysis to create hydrogen. The car is a hydrogen based car and the car is a hybrid. He is only augmenting the petroleum gas that is already in his car with hydrogen which gives him about a 30% gas savings. As for Tom's rule that it must require more energy as input than the system releases, I think that is sort of unfair basis. How much energy went in to creating petroleum? What is our goal here? To create a cheaper fuel? A more efficient fuel than petrol? Or are we are trying to create a more ecological and renewable energy supply? Are we willing to use nuclear energy to create hydrogen?   Bajou Citizen Username: Bajou Post Number: 490 Registered: 2-2006 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 4:47 pm:        Dear Darren GRRRR: stop growling and re-read my post. The torches and the electrolytic hydrogen generators have been in existence for a while now but the heat the torches produce is actually nowhere near as hot as would be required. The scam is that they show him using the torch to cut through metal when he more likely is cutting through a piece of lead made to look like metal. The torches are used to to do extreme fine and very sensitive work with jewelry or dental labs. The Jeweler can restore old siler jewelery with semi or precious stones inlaid and then dental labs can sotter after the porcelan is already on the crowns. Both the stones in the silve and the porcelan for dental work would shatter using a regular torch.   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14607 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 7:04 pm:        Using more energy than you reap is a dealbreaker. That's like going to a bank and handing over a $10 bill so you can stick three quarters in the soda machine and letting the bank keep the change. The "hotter than the sun" was also a giveaway. Give me a break. Or are you saying you really believe the claim? I realize a lot of energy went into producing petroleum, but that's OK for this argument. The petroleum contains stored energy. You can release the energy by burning it. You are not applying more energy to the store than the store is releasing.   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3396 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 9:42 pm:        The surface of the sun is about 11,000ºF. The flame from acetylene torches is generally around 5800ºF - 6300ºF. Sorry, Tom, but I'm not buying your assertion that a flame merely twice as hot as a blowtorch "would ignite at least a large nearby building" or, for that matter, that such a temperature is so difficult to achieve. The core of the sun is 27 million degrees F, but I doubt that is the temperature that the inventor claims to be reaching in his device.   Bajou Citizen Username: Bajou Post Number: 499 Registered: 2-2006 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 9:57 pm:        MY DEAR NOTEHEAD IF YOU STAND ANYWHERE NEAR 6300 DEGREES YOU AND THE DONKEY YOU RODE IN WOULD BE ASHES..   Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 2194 Registered: 10-2004 Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 9:14 am:        Tom, I'm not so sure about your argument regarding using more engery than you reap. First off, if I hand over a $10 bill so I can pay $9.50 for my case of soda and in the process not sh*t upon our environment, well maybe it's worth the extra price. I think electric cars are great conceptually because we can create an endless supply of electricity. But in actuality they haven't successfully made an electric car work for the wide variety of uses that we need from automotives. So if we can use electricity to create hydrogen and then use hydrogen to power cars, even if it is more expensive, at least it is a renewable energy source. Petroleum is finite. I just think you are being short sighted by only analyzing things soley on a cost basis. It almost seems >>shudder<< like something a Republican would do.   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3399 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 10:32 am:        Hey, Bajou, I would never put my donkey in harm's way. I found that info on Wikipedia. You can dispute it with them, if you like, but I suspect the individual who posted that data has more expertise than you do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_torch#Acetylene   kevin Supporter Username: Kevin Post Number: 719 Registered: 2-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 10:58 am:        Since the byproduct of hydrogen combustion is water, does that mean that you need a stainless steel exhaust system, starting at the headers because of rust? Also, most of the older engines are cast iron. The new engines with aluminum heads have steel valve seats. Will these things rust when hydrogen is combusted? Piston rings are usually made of cast iron or steel... Gasoline also helps provide some top end lubricant since it is a petroleum product. I'm just curious as to the suitability of the current crop of engines to support combusting hydrogen over a long period of time.   Darren Say Grrrrrrrr Citizen Username: Darrensager Post Number: 414 Registered: 11-2001 Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 5:05 pm:        Kevin, Ever look at your exhaust when you first start it up on a cold morning. That white cloudy stuff coming out of the exhaust pipe is moisture (water.) The moisture disappears after awhile because the engine and exhaust system warm up. There is water in your gas tank right now. This is reason why some people put additives in their fuel during the winter so the lines don't freeze. There's a reason why we don't bring our newer cars to Meineke or Midas for a new muffler. That's because modern exhaust systems are corrosive resistant or currently made from low grade stainless steel already. Most last the life of the car. IF an engine was developed utilizing Hydrogen and Oxygen, such as what's being described in Denny Klein's torch, the system has its own source of oxygen from the water itself. Hence an engine that ran on this "fuel" would not need an intake valve, only an exhaust. The engine itself would not rust again as it heats up all moisture would naturally burn off. Modern engines would do very well, if not better combusting hydrogen over gas. Gas has a lot of additives and other garbage in them as many people know. This is a reason why gas is "refined" from the original oil that comes out of the ground. Still, they don't get all the junk out, and hence the reason why fuel injectors get dirty and valves gum up over time. Its the carbon by products of burning gas that cause an engine a premature life, along with not changing your oil of course. If you were burning pure Hydrogen and pure Oxygen, your engine would stay clean I would dare say indefinitely, including the oil! That's if water is the only byproduct. That's one heck of a clean burning engine. Did anyone notice that Denny was using distilled water as his fuel source? I think the current engine technology is there to be able to support combusting hydrogen. I think you could vastly reduce engine weight by the reduction of parts needed to do so. VW, AUDI, and their family of brands almost all now have direct fuel injection into the cylinders of the engine and the only group that is using this new technology. Since its proven my thoughts are it could support combusting hydrogen in the same manner without the use of an intake valve or plumbing.   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14612 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 5:55 pm:        Alleygater, I agree with you on monetary costs. Petroleum is artificially low-priced. Some chief reasons: 1. The production of the crude oil occurred over millions of years. We are borrowing from the past. When it is depleted, we can't produce more crude oil quickly enough. 2. Use of fossil fuels depletes the supply, effectively borrowing from the future. 3. Use of most energy (maybe all) pollutes (sh*ts the environment, as you say) which we are probably not paying for properly. How can we compensate our grandchildren for this? We may one day build this cost into the price of gas and oil, but we haven't yet. My argument wasn't about monetary costs. I'm saying it makes little sense to me to put more energy into a battery (or whatever) than we reap from it. OK, no store or engine is 100% efficient, but there is a point of diminishing returns, beyond which we should look for other ideas. At this point, when you build a fire to boil the water, I say the fuel for the fire is your fuel, not the water. And of course, a breakthrough is when the normal compromises no longer exist. I have hope that breakthroughs will continue to come. I'm just not convinced that we'll be using water as a fuel in our lifetimes.   Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9746 Registered: 4-1997 Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 5:57 pm:        Hey Tom, I found another site about using water as fuel so you can make another $30 off of Darren. http://www.netmar.com/~maat/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm   Darren Say Grrrrrrrr Citizen Username: Darrensager Post Number: 417 Registered: 11-2001 Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 11:20 pm:        Dave, I think Tom is the one that owes me $30.