Water Fuel

[Akron Dude]

actually, its very easy, and i know how to do it, and could even link to sources so other people would have the info.

[dropofahat]

Originally Posted by Akron Dude

he's more than likely a paid debunker, or owns alot of oil stock.

What the %#%?

Who said I was angry? I'm a little miffed NOW, because I'm being misquoted and mischaracterized.

If I owned "oil stock", would I say that exploring alternate fuels is a good idea?

I didn't say "gasoline is king and must never be replaced"! I WISH we could find a workable alternative to gasoline, if for no other reason than to stop our dependance on foreign oil (that's a WHOOLE 'nother thread!).

What I DID say was that: this guy's invention is not particularly new; in order to make the water "burnable", electricity is involved, and that means SOME OTHER KIND OF ENERGY SOURCE - in our country, regrettably, it's mostly fossil fuels or nuclear ("regrettably"? does that sound like a pro-oil nutjob??) - has to be used; the "separating" of the water uses up more energy than burning the HHO yields; therefore, the process is not particularly efficient.

Look, people, did I come off as some kind of foaming-at-the-mouth anti-alternative fuel wack job? I don't think I did!

Oh, and by the way, how can I make money by "debunking" on Ebaum's World? I'd like to look into it...


Seriously, I thought I offered a fairly sober explanation as to why the guy's invention was nothing special. If you think it's so great, put YOUR money behind it, and more power to you!

[dropofahat]

Originally Posted by Akron Dude

actually, its very easy, and i know how to do it, and could even link to sources so other people would have the info.

You know how to do what? Make water burnable WITHOUT using up more energy than the burning process would yield?

I'd like to see the links.

Below is a quote from a site dedicated to Stanley Mayer (one of the "Run a Car on Water" guys, who passed away.) It sums up the problem quite well:

The atomic make up of water makes the molecule perfect for a fuel source. The water molecule is composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. When the water molecule is separated into its component atoms (H and O) and oxidized as fuel, the resulting energy is two and one half times more powerful than gasoline. The byproduct of the combustion is water vapor. Making water as a fuel, powerful and pollution free!

The problem has always been how to separate water economically. Traditional methods of separating the bond of the water molecule have resulted in failure. To power a car by these methods would not move the car very far. The car’s electrical system could not recharge from the process quickly enough. The result would be a quickly drained battery.

If anyone can solve this problem, and PROVE THAT THEY CAN DO IT (i.e., prove that they use less energy than is put into the process - a great way would be to create a generator that runs itself on this fuel, and recharges a battery, which separates more HHO...), well, I'd tip my hat to the inventor.

If such a machine could be built (and PROVEN to not consume more energy than it creates), and all you had to do was give it more water - now THAT would change the world.

But that's NOT what we see here. What we see here is the equivalent of burning a ton of wood to create a few pounds of a wood substitute which burns a few times better than wood (yes, pound-for-pound the wood substitute is better, but you have to burn way too much wood to make it; there is a NET LOSS of energy in that system; it would make no sense to feed wood into such a system, you may as well burn the wood itself to get energy - am I making any sense to ANYONE???)

[rand0m]

It turns H20 into HHO ... thats the truth behind it for you.

....

....

(HHO if in that order doesnt exist, if its HOH .... thats called water)

[RamblingFool]

Originally Posted by dropofahat

What's your problem? Who said I was an anti-alternate fuel wacko? I happen to have said that exploring alternate fuels would be a great thing (did you miss that?) - it just happens that I think THIS GUY'S invention is not the next big thing. (Boy, I'm a real hater, huh?) Why do I think that? Not because other people have presented the same thing and it went nowhere; but because it's inefficient. Have you even read what I posted?

I'm going to resist insulting you personally the way you did to me, because I think it weakens one's argument. But it will be tricky...

OK... where do I start? First of all, most of those weren't "my words", I clearly stated that I was quoted several sources. I stand by what they say, but point they weren't my "properly written, long winded sentences" - which by the way, I do know something about. You apparently don't, and you didn't read the posts all that well. If you had, you would know that the following has no bearing on what I talked about
When did I (or the sources I was quoting) say anything like this??? Not only did I not say this, but I corrected another poster who was worried about depleting water sources. I said that water was a by-product of the burning process, so we don't have to worry about depleting it. (I'll wait for you to check the posts, I didn't edit anything since your post...)

There are some other thigns you said that I'm not sure I should waste my time refuting (it did not INSTANTLY burn a hole through charcoal; it took a few seconds). I do not have "blind anger" toward

And it seems clear that YOU don't understand the main point I was trying to get across, so I'll make it simple for you (I think everyone else understood pretty well): This "inventor" does NOT directly use plain water as a fuel source; he uses hydrogen and oxygen gas (and yes, all torches of this "compressed gas" type DO have a cool tip like this one - other types of torches may be different), which are derived from water through a process which involves among other things, electricity; now (stay with me here) that electricity has to come from somewhere.

Still with me? Good.

Where does that electricity come from? Well, at the moment most of our electricity comes from either fossil fuels or nuclear power (true, some comes from hydro-electric, wind or solar power - more of those would be great, and if ALL our power came from those, then my argument goes out the window), so the odds are, greenhouses gases will be realeased OR nuclear power will be used to to the electrolysis.

So before the miracle power supply of hydrogen & oxygen gas even gets to your car or torch, much energy has already been used to get it to that point, MORE than would be extracted when you flame on or hit the accelerator.

I said "plausibly" you could a release more fossil fuels (I did NOT state it as a fact) than using gasoline directly, becase you are using a LESS effecient method of extracting energy. You HAVE to include the process of creating the gases in the equation; if you ignore that step, don't claim he's using water.


Does anyone else on this thread think I'm spreading propaganda, or that I am full of "blind anger"? I thought I was fairly reasonable, but maybe that's just me...

Since I didn't read alot of what you just said, unlike the last stuff. I'll go over this quickly.

The "wasting water" thing was in response to someone else who you didn't really provide any "answer" too.

About the burning a hole in coal thing, there is no difference in whether it was instantly.. or in fractions of a second (which it did), and besides, coal isn't supposed to burn in "a few seconds" either.. the issue I adressed there was you basically saying coal burns to nothing in 'seconds' from any type of fire. Not likely, my angry friend, not likely.

And finally, all the problems I adressed with 'your' angry speech weren't quotes, and were annoyed/angry statements.

This isn't a fuel source, the energy required to make this system function is greater than the energy output of the ignited gas. That's the simpliest way to explain this.

(to admins: you guys really should take down that video, you could get every dumbass who sees this to actually believe in that asswipe)

[dropofahat]

Originally Posted by RamblingFool

Since I didn't read alot of what you just said, unlike the last stuff. I'll go over this quickly.

The "wasting water" thing was in response to someone else who you didn't really provide any "answer" too.

About the burning a hole in coal thing, there is no difference in whether it was instantly.. or in fractions of a second (which it did), and besides, coal isn't supposed to burn in "a few seconds" either.. the issue I adressed there was you basically saying coal burns to nothing in 'seconds' from any type of fire. Not likely, my angry friend, not likely.

And finally, all the problems I adressed with 'your' angry speech weren't quotes, and were annoyed/angry statements.

You were completely wrong on your "wasting water" comment, at least when it comes to me. Again, I was the one who said that was a non-issue. And I gave a clear explanation backing up what I said - which you seem incapable of doing.

As for the charcoal thing (which is silly anyway, I never said the torch wasn't hot, I just said it's not particularly especially hot, for a hydrogen gas torch, but you insist on revisiting it, because you have no other points to make...). First of all, it's CHARCOAL, not COAL. Huge difference. The video says, and I quote: "it takes only seconds to literally burn a hole through charcoal". It doesn't say how many seconds, but it's certainly not "instant" or fractions of a second. It doesn't take a miracle torch to burn a hole through charcoal in seconds. But again, this was never really an issue - I grant you the torch is hot. I never debated that. And here's another stupid invented quote by you (it's not a misquote, because you made this up out of thin air, because you're being a jerk) - I NEVER SAID that "charcoal burns to nothing in seconds from any type of fire". You keep arguing about things that I never said, because you're dopey.

And as for your last point (is this really the best you could do to refute my points?), I admit that I have no idea what you mean by: "all the problems I adressed with 'your' angry speech weren't quotes, and were annoyed/angry statements", because you write terribly.

Basically, None of what you said refuted anything I said. Probably because you admittedly didn't read the post you're refuting. That's a pretty dumb thing to do.

All I said was that his invention is not new; and it is too innefficent to be useful.

What do other posters think?

[dropofahat]

Originally Posted by TravisK

This isn't a fuel source, the energy required to make this system function is greater than the energy output of the ignited gas. That's the simpliest way to explain this.

(to admins: you guys really should take down that video, you could get every dumbass who sees this to actually believe in that asswipe)

Travis, I've been trying to say that all along. But I've been misquoted and misrepresented.

[Akron Dude]

here ya go:

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/water.html


Carl Cella was a character written in God's Book.
At the age of 18, he built his first actual hydrogen generator unit in 1983, mounting it in the trunk of a 1979 Cadillac Coupe de Ville. He built more than one using the profits from his Heavy Metal Band "Rampage." He said, "I can't sell actual working units, but nothing but death itself can stop me from distributing this booklet in the hopes that people will take initiative to wake up from the big lie of oil-dependency for auto fuel, and flood the street with hydrogen-powered cars, If enough people find out how simple it is, public pressure may someday soon be put on the government, resulting in the long overdue media exposure they're all so afraid of. Eyewitness news in L.A. didn't want to let the word out that an actual working vehicle had been built by an 18-year-old metalhead! He forgot to mention you need to add electrolyte to the water.

and also the plans:

http://automorrow.com/articles/meyers.html

Taken from exitmundi.nl:

[...]
Hydrogen is indeed a cheap, clean energy source. But there's a catch: you can't find it anywhere in nature. You will have to make it first, by splitting up water (H2O) into hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2). And that costs you... yes, energy.

Next, you will have to compress your hydrogen into a high-pressure tank, in order to carry it around. Those tanks are heavy, and the compressing costs you even more energy. So in the end, you're better off using common fuel. Hydrogen costs you more energy than it will save you.


--But why the fuss over hydrogen powered cars then?

The basic idea behind that is that you should use wind or solar energy to create the hydrogen. This would give you a clean source of fuel. But as we explained already, that trick doesn't work. The whole process is just NOT energy efficient.

It has been estimated that oil would have to become twice (!) as expensive, before the hydrogen economy would begin to pay off.

[iplop]

I posted that video.

*feels warm and fuzzy*

Holy hell akron dude, somebody wrote gullible on the ceiling! Take a good look at the site you're at: http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/ (I can't tell if that's satirical or not)

And dropofahat, I know, the only reason why I've registered on the forums is to just back you up. It's good to see that some people are willing to live in reality.

[jijiji]

I'd prefer using illegal immigrants as an alternative fuel source. Think about all the problems it would solve.

[iplop]

About the 70's news report(the water powered dune buggy):

Could I see a credible site debunking it? I just can't see how a news station could do a report like that and not observe a fuel tank. Also, what news station was that? I've seen their faces before on TV.

edit: Further more, I even saw his device working in his documentary. The amp-meter was indicating a very low flow of electricity. (That said, I'm unsure of the voltage.)

Like as they cross the border, make them run through a turbine? Brilliant! Unless you mean to incinerate them, which wouldn't yield very much energy output...