Water as a fuel.... again.

HighFrequency · Post by **HighFrequency** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:22 pm

This time it's not just theories. Here's the link to the video (it's on buzzhumor.com so don't get distracted by the ladies): http://www.buzzhumor.com/videos/1382/Wa ... Blow_Torch

He said he used 4 ounces of water on a 100 mile trip in his car. I wonder what kind of speeds he was getting.

I have been under the impression that currently, it takes too much energy to split water apart to make it efficient. I guess this guy did it. What do you guys think?

Smoke_Maker · Post by **Smoke_Maker** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:10 pm

That one almost broke my BS detector

Chris Smith · Post by **Chris Smith** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:15 pm

The laws of physics always apply.

On the Atomic level, 4 ounces of H2O IF SPLIT [which has never been done] will always equal E=Mc squared. [a zillion miles or more?]

Too bad we dont have a clue yet?

History in the next few century's perhaps?

Robert Reed · Post by **Robert Reed** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:20 pm

Four ounces of water - Great! But how much energy was used to perform this magic feat?

jwax · Post by **jwax** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:17 am

4 ozs H2O = 4 lbs BS
Over unity gain!

dacflyer · Post by **dacflyer** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:29 am

talking about alternate energy and BS, check this link out..

http://www.electricity4free.com/

i have yet to see a working model..and the e-mails never get returned either, Hmmm...

they are always talking about demonstrations..but never say where..

ecerfoglio · Post by **ecerfoglio** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:03 am

Dacflyer:

Perhaps they don't answer your emails because you didn't send them your check

A free registration can be obtained by ordering the demonstration video for $19.95.

I don't know how much does it cost (in USA) to make a copy of a video and post it, but it seems that their "business" is just to get those "registration fees"

The last time I've looked it up, the first and second principles of Termodinamics where still valid....

philba · Post by **philba** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:12 pm

how about this one - http://www.steorn.net/en/technology.aspx?p=5 I love the greater than 100% efficiency claim. now why didn't I think of that???

Robert Reed · Post by **Robert Reed** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:38 pm

On the subject of cheap energy - what about radioactive waste? These reactor rods contain several hundred small pellets (would easily fit into a cigarette pack sized container). Many,many of the rods are discarded at change out by power companys across the country every 18 mos. If one could safely harness the power of just one pellet, even at it's first half life, it would have adequate power to drive a vehicle and probably out live it's owner. However, I don't know how the inevitable auto collision factor would enter in to this.

Chris Smith · Post by **Chris Smith** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:35 pm

Thats easy, just illegal, and now super illegal these days thanks to the guy who gets his shoe laces tied each morning for him, in the White House.

We piss away more energy than you want to think of, like those large plumes of flame at every well head.

Too much trouble to harness and sell it, .......My.. AS*?

dacflyer · Post by **dacflyer** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:45 pm

all these rivers,,,and so few water wheels. to spin generators...
there can be enough here easily i think with all the streams and creeks rivers etc...i never seen them running dry yet

haklesup · Post by **haklesup** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 11:06 am

Those poor guys got their idea butchered by that idiot FOX reporter.

I looked at this before and as far as I can tell, they use an electrolysis process that does not seperate H and O but leaves them as a mixture to be reburned (recombined) pretty soon after being made. As a blowtorch this is great, it has clear benefits but is not perfect for everything, nothing is.

As a fuel for a car, the inventors fully acknowledge (in their own webpage) that it would take more electricity than a normal electric car to run entirely on water (the reporter left this out for sensationalistic reasons) but when this gas mixture is added to gasoline then sent to the engine, the resulting fuel (they claim) is more efficient (more MPG) than gas alone even when accounting for the additional power consumed by the alternator needed to power the electrolysis.

That data will be interesting to see if it is confirmed or if the gain is insufficient to justify a parctical engine modification. Think how coca cola is so much better with the bubbles and now imagine gasoline with extra free hydrogen and oxygen fizzing in it ready to burn. It seems plausable when you ignore the reporters hype.

These things often die on the vine. I often wonder what happened to that miricle coating for car radiators that was said to catalyze air pollution and clean the air as we drive (I think it made its way onto an ionic breeze)

Chris Smith · Post by **Chris Smith** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 1:02 pm

No one wants to add in the corrosive effects of pure hydrogen on metal?

H and O still have an effect on modern cars, which is why the hydrogen and hybrid cars use exotic materials including ceramics to slow down or stop this effect.

Any benefit can be out weighed by the motor having a short life span.

jwax · Post by **jwax** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 3:55 am

philba- Now those Ireland folks are asking the world for a commitee of 12 scientists to evaluate their "free energy" machine!
I volunteer! hehe.
http://www.steorn.net/en/technology.aspx?p=5

dyarker · Post by **dyarker** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:29 am

dacflyer - Can't put a wheel in a river or stream because a fish might get bumped on the head! Evironmentalists scream and shout about conserving energy, converting to clean energy, blah, blah, blah. Mostly they're right about how bad oil is; but at every alternative suggested they shout about some other problem. If we could capture the hot air from ranting environmentalists there wouldn't be an energy problem.

T&L Publications

Water as a fuel.... again.

Water as a fuel.... again.

Who is online