ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums Chat | 1 Users Online   
   
                 04/25/2014 01:20 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should be legally recognized?
  Latest Events
04/24/2014 08:55 AM
maricelclint receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Westhill Consulting Travel And Tours Guide: Experience Spa In Jakarta'
04/24/2014 04:18 AM
estrella242 receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Drew Barrymore Welcomes Second Daughter With Husband Will Kopelman'
04/24/2014 04:17 AM
estrella242 receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Kansas: Prosecutor Seeking Death Penalty Against Man Charged in Murder of Four People'
04/24/2014 04:17 AM
estrella242 receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Yosemite Park: Climber Falls 30 Feet'
04/24/2014 04:15 AM
estrella242 receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'FDA to Propose Rules for e-Cigarette Makers'
04/24/2014 04:14 AM
estrella242 receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Lupita Nyong´o Named Most Beautiful Person'
04/24/2014 04:13 AM
estrella242 receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Possible Debris of Malaysia Airlines Flight Spotted on Australian Coast'
  22.211 Visits   1 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
05/23/2006 05:40 AM ID: 54468 Permalink   

Retrofit Your Car to Run off Water

 

A Florida man has invented a car that runs partially on water. Inventor Denny Klein can see the day when you can run your car entirely off of water, but for now his "Aquygen" could double your gas mileage.

Klein's Aquygen is water broken down and turned into HHO gas, something scientists once thought impossible.

The current protype is a gas Aquygen hybrid. Klein says his invention can be retrofitted for any piston driven engine. The hybrid version of the car could hit the market in as little as 2 years: Aquygen units for industrial use are already for sale.

 
  Source: www.wave3.com  
    WebReporter: BornInKy Show Calling Card    
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  55 Comments
  
  finally...  
 
good news seems rare these days.
 
  by: HAVOC666     05/23/2006 05:45 AM     
  Another source  
 
You can find many more just by googleing Aquygen

http://www.hytechapps.com/...

 
  by: BornInKy   05/23/2006 05:46 AM     
  you can see a video of it  
 
@
http://www.youtube.com/...

this story was posted on digg.com as well.
 
  by: eddieflip   05/23/2006 02:50 PM     
  Make it  
 
This technology needs to be put on a fast track to production. Time to ramp up those factories in Detroit. Instead of $100B for war, lats spend 1% of that on getting this type of innovation to market ASAP. Even if you get less power (I don't know if you do) then a gas engine, the benefits FAR outweigh the loss. I'm sure someone from Excess... oops, Exxon is already trying to find a way to discredit it.
 
  by: justaperson     05/23/2006 03:26 PM     
  stupid  
 
This is just another electrolysis machine claiming to get more energy out of the process than it took to split the water.

As of yet, there has been no demonstratable & repeatable creditable claim of this phenomina in ANY reputable science journal.

It's simple -- you run electric current through water and you'll get hydrogen gas out of one diode, oxygen gas out of the other. You can collect the gases, re-mix them, and burn them. There are a lot of practical applications for this process, but powering a car is not one of them.

Why? Because the ammount of energy you get out of the burning hydrogen is less than you would from the battery you would need to split the water in the first place. Putting an electrolysis machine in a car is like creating a Rube Goldberg devices - adding a bunch of useless steps tpo achieve the same end goal. In this case, remove the electrolysis machine and powering the car directly via battery would be a more efficent method all around.

 
  by: Dedolito     05/23/2006 04:44 PM     
  Cost  
 
But if the burning hydrogen is cheaper to produce than purchasing normal gasoline fuel, then why not do it. Wouldn't it be stupid not to? Do you really think people will say " I found a cheaper way to power my car, but I don't because the process is stupid" the average consumer will do anything to get cheaper car power
 
  by: nexmari     05/23/2006 05:21 PM     
  i see the future....  
 
and water prices will go up!
 
  by: sp00ky187   05/23/2006 05:41 PM     
  lol  
 
sea water is free although it may contain turds
 
  by: JOCKSTEELUK   05/23/2006 06:06 PM     
  @nexmari  
 
Its not that the process is stupid..its that its ineffecient. Re-read Dedolito's post and you might understand.

Basicly more energy is used by the battery to produce enough hydrogen and oxygen to power the car than it would to have just powered the car with the battery. Which you should be able to understand is silly....why spend more energy to do something than needed?

Its simple math really.. Energy needed to split protons and electons and then ignite the two VS. The energy needed to power an electric motor.
 
  by: luc1ddr3am     05/23/2006 06:34 PM     
  @nexmari cnt..  
 
So my point being in the long run its probably not only ineffecient but it may not be economical..
 
  by: luc1ddr3am     05/23/2006 06:36 PM     
  @Dedolito, luc1ddr3am  
 
You guys should watch the YouTube video and read the source, this isn't just water broken down to H2 and O2 and burned. The water is broken down and combined to form HHO gas (NOT H2O vapor), something that was previously though impossible. Remember, this isn't just burning hydrogen to make water, it's something else entirely. Read about it before you declare it inefficient.
 
  by: Gamephreek   05/23/2006 06:56 PM     
  @gamephreek  
 
The concept is still the same..the article does not address anything scientific in terms of input/output energies, just that it forms HHO gas. So I'll have to look for some scientific journals but until then our comments may remain the same.
 
  by: luc1ddr3am     05/23/2006 07:07 PM     
  Sorry for another double post..  
 
I'm not sure what the exothermic energy released from HHO gas is compaired to H and O gas mixed or just plain H gas, and that is what really needs to be emphasized. HHO gas means nothing to the general population.
 
  by: luc1ddr3am     05/23/2006 07:09 PM     
  @nexmari  
 
Perhaps I wasn't clear --

It cost X ammount of energy to slpit H20 into H2 and O2 gas.

You get Y energy by burning the hydrogen.

The thing to note is that X > Y. Significantly greater even, for two reasons:

1. In Y, the ammount of energy released by the burning hydrogen is inefficent. Just like how the burning of gasoline is 80+% inefficent (the bulk of gasoline's potential energy is lost as radiated heat during the combustion), the burning of hydrogen gas is also inefficent and the bulk of the energy is lost as radiated heat.

2. When turning 2 H2O into 2 H2 + O2, the ammount of energy it takes to break the the bonds between the H's and O's is equal to the ammount of energy "gained" when reforming the bonds H-H and O-O.

However, when using the H-H in a combustion reaction, you dont want a 1-to-1 ration of H2 to O2 (this is because hydrogen must be mixed just right with oxygen to obtain a maximumly efficent burn), so you'd be losing the bond energy stored in the reagent you need less of as well.

All in all, I called it "stupid" because using water as a fuel source directly in a car is a total waste of electrical energy. The energy the battery has to put in to the splitting of water is greater than that of the energy captured for work by the burning of the hydrogen.

It would be more efficent in this situation to have the battery power the car directly.

That's not to say that hydrogen power is a lost cause. Yes, it costs more energy to turn water into H2 and O2 gas, but even with that loss of energy it's a viable fuel source, as long as you fill up on hydrogen just like you fuel up on gasoline now. As long as you aren't trying to do the conversion in the car itself it's a feasible alternative to gasoline when you take into account the limited range and cost of batteries in all-electric vehicles.
 
  by: Dedolito     05/23/2006 07:10 PM     
  @Gamephreek  
 
Yea, that's nice, except that HHO isn't a real gas. Find me an accredited source that has observed HHO (or Brown's Gas, or any of it's huge multitude of monkiers coined by con artists) behaving in any fashion other than standard electrolysis.

I would also note that any one of the multitude of con artists out there claiming that they are utilizing HHO become rather uncomforatble when you ask them to compare their energy output levels to the energy output levels of a standard electrolysis device. Also watch how the squirm when you ask them the total ammount of energy it required to split the water to begin with.

Go ahead, google the terms and read the quack sites. Without fail they describe a classical electrolysis reaction but wrap it up with a fancy new name.
 
  by: Dedolito     05/23/2006 07:17 PM     
  Oh, and I would also add...  
 
That most electrolysis devices are rather inefficent. There is a lot of waste heat generated by running electriity through water.

That said, I fully expect that the devices all these inventors have come up with have found ways to reduce the ammount of waste heat being generated, or found ways to ultilize the waste heat to facilitate the reaction tkaing place.

That said, even if the spliting of water to H2 and O2 was compeltely 100% efficent, you are still left with the two facts I enumerated in my above post.
 
  by: Dedolito     05/23/2006 07:20 PM     
  Before you label this a hoax...  
 
Umm Well yes if this was just pure electrolysis it wouldn't work. They explain why it doesn't work in even better detail on thier own website. I haven't seen this technology in action nor do I have or likly would be able to understand the fine details.. But they claim to have overcome the problems of regular electrolysis, paticularly the high cost of zapping the water, the small quantity of seperated gasses, and the instability of the gas. So before you try and prove it wrong you should at least know what thier claims are. They also have a wielding tool already for sell that runs of this technology so I'm sure if it didn't work then this article would be about the lawsuit against a company for selling products that dont work and are based on fake technological claims. It seems to me this isn't just a kindergarden science experiment. I would also imagine if its real then they would want to keep a lid on how it works because they want to make money off it and they don't have the resources of big commercial companies. Explaining how it works will waste thier own time and save thier competitors the time of reverse engineering it. if it works then I don't care if they bother to show the world how exactly in detail. As long as you put in the same oil as before and some water somewhere else, and if that gets you double milage, then would anyone really care if they have proven if it works or not in a scientific journal?
 
  by: jtgunslinger   05/23/2006 07:24 PM     
  Why critique the skeptics?  
 
We have no trials or direct examples except for a short news clip and someone elses word. I for one would like a scientific explanation OR direct proof by trial and data collection presented in a professional format. Until then you should be skeptical too lest you be taken advantage of.
 
  by: luc1ddr3am     05/23/2006 07:30 PM     
  They aren't skeptics...  
 
I'm sceptic myself. I'm not going to go around telling everyone it doesn't work and start throwing around details that might not apply. If it doesn't work they I'm sure they are only going to be able to fool the first person to buy it. Its not like a new vitamin that claims to reduce your risk to cancer. It will obviously work or it wont. And since no one knows that right now there is no point it calling it stupid and writing it off.
 
  by: jtgunslinger   05/23/2006 07:37 PM     
  Old News  
 
Cars running off water ALONE(not partially off water) have existed for years. A few guys here in America have made them, a guy in the Philippines has been running one for 30 years, guys in Australia. The REAL NEWS would be if the corrupt car corporations actually let someone be free to patent and produce cars that run on water.
 
  by: prophageus   05/23/2006 07:51 PM     
  @jtgunslinger  
 
I've read/watched/listened to their claims, and that's all they've have, claims. Some of them try and say that their process is not electrolysis, but yet when they describe the process they describe electrolyis using bigger, fancier, or made up words.

As for them having an actual product, I know second hand of at least 3 different academic attempts to purchase one of these miracle machines only to have them never deliver. One was at the university that I attended, the two others universities that had similar alternative energy research departments.

Maybe other people have gotten their generators but who knows, everything I've read so far screams "scam".

WHy would people do this? I don't know, ask the Tilley Foundation why they would go to such great lengths to try a foist a scam that would leave everyone involved vulnerable to legal reprocussions. Personally, I think everyone involved beleived Tilley, who himself was completely dellusional about how his miracle charger worked.

Then there's a link in the forums here about a guy who claims to have perfected this very technique of water splitting to gain more energy than is used. BUt he's a guy that never went to college. Pardon me, but I think I'll beleive the judgements of physical and chemical engineers over his claims as an independant inventor.

As for going around saying that it doesn't work -- if it does it violates a basic tenant of one of our fundemental understandings of the physical universe. Now, as a scientest I will readily agree that science should remain open to ANY possible outcome IF that outcome can be observed, repeated, and observed again.

However, minds much greater than these garage inventors have been trying to get around the laws of the universe for decades. If the full force of the educated world's private and academic intellect has been thrown at the problem only to hit a brick wall, then I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing a college dropout has managed to put together an earth-shattering device that will change the way we use energy for all time.

I would also like to say that even IF this fabled HHO molecule were to exist as these inventors claim, it would still be subject to the same rules of Thermodynamics that limit "normal" electrolysis as well as heat loss during combustion.
 
  by: Dedolito     05/23/2006 09:01 PM     
  @Dedolito  
 
Nice to see someone with an understanding of thermodynamics and chemistry. Thank you for choosing education over ignorance.

Any time you convert energy from one state to another there is loss in the form of heat, entropy. This is what prevents perpetual motion machines from working. Be it bearings in an engine or a chemical reaction in a combustion chamber, heat means energy loss to the environment. This is a law of physics and is to our knowledge unavoidable.

I won’t believe this system actually works till I can see it with my own eyes and even then I doubt it is real because of the mumbo jumbo they will spew as justification.

If you add small amounts of water to any internal combustion engine it will run more efficiently just because the water is vaporizing and expanding, PV=nRT where P=pressure V=volume n=number of moles of gas, R is the universal gas constant, and T is the temp. (1 mole=6.02x10E23 molecules). That doesn’t make it a fuel that will run your car, just steam. Kits to do just this have been on sale worldwide for years, they usually have the undesired side effect of engine knock or ping. They also don’t work if the temp is below freezing in the engine compartment (the water freezes).

The energy to break the HO bond has to come from somewhere, be it electricity from coal, fission or fusion generators it just can’t appear from nowhere. I am skeptical, I would be overjoyed to be proven wrong.

@prophageus
show me
 
  by: valkyrie123     05/23/2006 09:08 PM     
  @dedolito  
 
"adding a bunch of useless steps tpo achieve the same end goal. In this case, remove the electrolysis machine and powering the car directly via battery would be a more efficent method all around."

exactly, however they aren't comparing the proformance to an electrically driven car, but rather a gas driven car, just another way to make cars hybrid power... which i'm all for, ultimately electric is the way too go... they are cleaner, they can be faster and last but certianly not least an electric motor and less breakable part than a gas engine...

and it would be alittle difficult to have an inferno car wreck off a pure electric car... atleast short of the good ole molotov cocktail being thrown threw the window... probably by an oil-industry fanatic...lol

i've seen an electric car in use 8hr battery life (via lithium ion batteries the size of breifcases), over 350km/h, 8 wheel all wheel drive (each wheel is independently driven)... i love these three factor... though i dispise the price tag, namely as a result of the battery cost... the car in question cost $300,000 (not sure if that canadian or american), but there is also a economy line for $200,000.

also another interesting thing is the brakes actually recharge the engine by utilizing the energy from the brakes themselves, the energy is from the resistance (friction).
 
  by: HAVOC666     05/23/2006 09:13 PM     
  @valk  
 
"Any time you convert energy from one state to another there is loss in the form of heat, entropy. This is what prevents perpetual motion machines from working. Be it bearings in an engine or a chemical reaction in a combustion chamber, heat means energy loss to the environment. This is a law of physics and is to our knowledge unavoidable."

actually there is 1 "perpetual motion device" seen it on TV about a year ago... the problem was the energy gain is next to nothing... all it is is a giant metal wheel, migt have been the camera angle but it looked like the way it was "working" was that the wheel was slightly bent and not quite completely vertical, it was spinning, slowly but spinning none the less... i would assume the simplest type of perpetual motion machine would be gravity driven as it appears was ultimately how this one was. though again i will state i imagine the power from it is minimal, but i did like the idea behind it.

as for heat loss, i'd think it wouldn't be hard to atleast use a portion of this heat that would be otherwise be lost... perhaps a metal that traps heat better.

just look at AMD and intel for instance... less power goes into an AMD chip than an intel chip, yet the AMD chips tend to outproform the intel chips... yet less power was used, the AMD simply utilized the input power better for greater output.
 
  by: HAVOC666     05/23/2006 09:32 PM     
  has to be done  
 
'There's this car and it runs on water, man... It runs on WATER, man!' -- Hyde, That 70s Show
 
  by: treyjazz   05/23/2006 09:54 PM     
  @havoc  
 
Give it time...it will stop :-)
 
  by: luc1ddr3am     05/24/2006 06:01 AM     
  all these Nay-saying "scientists" here  
 
From history , you can look and see that most inventions that changed the world came from men who were not educated scientists but ordinary folks who wanted life to be a bit easier. Take your scientific journals and blow them out the pieholes of society, they are not always acurate. i.e piltdown man; speeds at over 60MPH could never be achieved; mountain gorillas were a myth; hypersonic speeds would never be reached period; the space shuttle would never fly; the Hubble telescope would never be as good as ground based telescopes if it worked at all. All of those were articles in leading scientific journals at one time or another. I can find hundreds of other "hard science" facts that turned out to be true to the chagrin of the leading scientists of that era. You go play with your journals, I will keep my faith in the common inventors of the world and hope to God that the oil companies do not buy his patent from him.
 
  by: judgedread   05/24/2006 02:30 PM     
  @judgedred  
 
I really hope you are right. It may be the only hope civilization as we know it has. Little else is being done to stem the impending doom.
 
  by: valkyrie123     05/24/2006 06:34 PM     
  Gravity could never  
 
supply power to a perpetual motion machine. Especially in the case of a wheel. As gravity acts on one side of the wheel in order to rotate it downwars, gravity is also affecting the opposite side of the wheel, trying to rotate upwards. In effect, gravity would negative itself, providing absolutely no power or energy whatsoever.
 
  by: Gnaglor     05/24/2006 07:48 PM     
  oh spare me  
 
" All of those were articles in leading scientific journals at one time or another. I can find hundreds of other "hard science" facts that turned out to be true to the chagrin of the leading scientists of that era"

yea? how about the hundreds of millions of hard science facts that have appeared in journals that ave been borne out?

Yes, science makes mistakes. But in the vast majority of cases they get it right.
 
  by: Dedolito     05/24/2006 08:59 PM     
  @luc1ddr3am  
 
" @havoc
Give it time...it will stop :-)"

thats the thing though it was at rest when it was constructed, but some force is causing it to move... my best gues from what i seen was gravity.
 
  by: HAVOC666     05/24/2006 09:57 PM     
  @HAVOC  
 
Your story about the "perpetual motion wheel" doesn't make sense. For a start, you are very vague on the facts, but the main problem with the story is the part where you say the energy gain was "next to nothing". Well, it either gained energy, or it did not? If it gained energy, no matter how little, it could be scaled so that energy could be produced on a larger scale. If it gained no energy, and was not an energy generator, then how was it suspended in our atmosphere? I assume the wheel was attached to something, and wasn't merely floating in the air? How did it overcome the laws of friction? Even if it were in a vacuum, it would have to be outside the earth's gravitational pull to spin forever, because you would need to tether it to something to stop it falling to the ground.

If the problem of friction had been overcome, and we had invented 100% efficient superconductors that require no energy to maintain, then I'm sure we'd have seen more news stories, and more applications than one guy on Shortnews who saw something on TV he thinks a year ago maybe. No offence.
 
  by: stephen.mcmahon     05/25/2006 03:32 AM     
  @Dedolito  
 
I never said they were wrong all the time, it's just that you can't place blind faith in any written work ...any. Just because some monkey in a labcoat says it can't be done diferently because of current technology that they know of does not mean it can't be done and says so in a journal somewhere does not make him/her right.
 
  by: judgedread   05/25/2006 04:19 AM     
  hm  
 
All i have to say is... This guy better not sell out.
 
  by: Ih4xjoo   05/25/2006 05:08 AM     
  @Gnaglor  
 
Wouldn't that logic also mean that a windmill wouldn't work?
 
  by: jimmypops   05/25/2006 07:38 AM     
  @jimmypops  
 
Can you localize the direction of gravity? Can you confine it to working only on part of your device?

No? Then it's not the same thing as a windmill.

If wind were to be used as an analog to gravity, the wind would have to blow at the windmill from all sides, equally.

In that case, no, the windmill would not work.
 
  by: Dedolito     05/25/2006 08:10 AM     
  @Dedolito  
 
"Can you localize the direction of gravity? Can you confine it to working only on part of your device?

No? Then it's not the same thing as a windmill."

I wouldnt say all that. It is possible, it just hasn't been done yet. I dont know how to explain how it would work, but I have an idea for it in my head.
It is possible.
 
  by: Ih4xjoo   05/25/2006 11:48 AM     
  Post Edit  
 
downward and negate, not negative.
 
  by: Gnaglor     05/25/2006 04:53 PM     
  @dedolito  
 
Who _ARE_ you? Just because you have a degree in SOMETHING that required you to take a chem 101 class doesn't make you a "scientest"; I'm pretty sure the guy that invented this technology can spell his profession. Stop being jealous of the fact that your degree is useless in light of your poor social skills.

That aside, refusal to accept ideas outside childhood propoganda is exactly what fuels the oil industry. Many of you reading this will pray for an alternative fuel source but continue to drive unnecessary distances and scoff at public transportation.
 
  by: drdrz   05/25/2006 06:24 PM     
  @drdrz  
 
You want my trasncript or something?

Upper Div:

Molecular Biology of Eukaryotic Cells
Behavior and Analysis of Enzyme Receptor Systems
Advanced Cell Biology
Vertebrate Embryology
Molecular Genetics
Human Genetics
Developmental Genetics
Advanced Eukaryotic Genetics
Genes and Gene Expression
Structure and Function of Biomolecules
Bioenergetics and Metabolism
Regualtion of Cell Function
Developmental Biology of Marine Invetebrates
Physical Chemistry for the Life Sciences
Physical Chemistry: Thermodynamics, Equilibria and Kenetics
Organic Chemistry for Health and Life Sciences

Is that geeky enough for you? Last time I checked, a degree in advanced molecular genetics makes me a scientest. Who are YOU? What expereince do you have in the physical sciences to blindly beleive the word of quacks who beleive they can solve the world's energy problems with water?

"refusal to accept ideas outside childhood propoganda is exactly what fuels the oil industry."
Let me get this straight, you are calling the fundemental Laws of Thermodynamics "childhood propaganda"??

You don't get more energy out of a system than you put in, it's that simple. If you think you are, you aren't taking into account the whole system.

 
  by: Dedolito     05/25/2006 10:21 PM     
  @stephenmacmahon  
 
"@HAVOC
Your story about the "perpetual motion wheel" doesn't make sense. For a start, you are very vague on the facts, but the main problem with the story is the part where you say the energy gain was "next to nothing". Well, it either gained energy, or it did not? If it gained energy, no matter how little, it could be scaled so that energy could be produced on a larger scale. If it gained no energy, and was not an energy generator, then how was it suspended in our atmosphere? I assume the wheel was attached to something, and wasn't merely floating in the air? How did it overcome the laws of friction? Even if it were in a vacuum, it would have to be outside the earth's gravitational pull to spin forever, because you would need to tether it to something to stop it falling to the ground."

yes i was designed like a ferris wheel, although bent in places and on and slight angle... but this could be camera folly, and i realise this. i would imagine friction wasn't entirely overcome. however the power input could be entirely natural input (meaning man has put no energy into starting the wheel to move) as it appeared from the video. by next to nothing i mean the wheel is massive by moving very slowly, the fact that its moving means energy is present, according the the video howeverit started moving entirely on its "own"... i question it too, however it was label a perpetual motion machine.

the show also included a snakelike ocean vessel than used piston power by tidal force... it was essentially a giant floating chain and where the chains would link would be was an internal piston being powered via wave activity.

"If the problem of friction had been overcome, and we had invented 100% efficient superconductors that require no energy to maintain, then I'm sure we'd have seen more news stories, and more applications than one guy on Shortnews who saw something on TV he thinks a year ago maybe. No offence."

well i know what i saw, wether it works as it was toted and appeared to be working is entirely debatable.
 
  by: HAVOC666     05/25/2006 10:40 PM     
  @HAVOC  
 
It look like any of these devices?

http://www.lhup.edu/...

These all will spin for a very long time if sufficiently massive but the will eventually wind down. Worse yet, the more complex the design, the faster the wheel grinds to a halt.
 
  by: Dedolito     05/25/2006 11:43 PM     
  @Havoc  
 
You aren't talking about the wheel they had on Mythbusters are you?

"Temperature wheel: wheel of tanks joined together by spokes set in a pool of water. Half of the tanks filled with propane, which settles to the water side of the wheel. The sun heats water, which heats propane and causes it to shift to other side of wheel, which induces rotation. The wheel worked, though the best designs only manage one rotation per minute. The device is a basic solar energy harvester." - taken from a website that describes the various episodes of mythbusters, lol.
 
  by: TheAvenger8     05/26/2006 01:01 AM     
  @Dedolito  
 
no i don't hink it was... it actually looked like alot of scrap metal for the most part actually, didn't look like the parts were designed for what they were used for... though all those appear as if they would works the same way.
 
  by: HAVOC666     05/26/2006 01:29 AM     
  @theavenger8  
 
""You aren't talking about the wheel they had on Mythbusters are you?

"Temperature wheel: wheel of tanks joined together by spokes set in a pool of water. Half of the tanks filled with propane, which settles to the water side of the wheel. The sun heats water, which heats propane and causes it to shift to other side of wheel, which induces rotation. The wheel worked, though the best designs only manage one rotation per minute. The device is a basic solar energy harvester." - taken from a website that describes the various episodes of mythbusters, lol."


nope wasn't on mythbusters... though i love the show, but it was on the discovery channel, i never seen that episode either. i don't think the mythbusters even built something this big... including the washing machne launchers, scorpion, catapult and trebutche (sp?)....

i wish i could remember the details of the show better but i was actually on shortnews at the time, divided attention, the tv wasn;t getting the better half either...lol
 
  by: HAVOC666     05/26/2006 01:36 AM     
  hahaha  
 
this is so funny, all you idiots trying to argue with dedolito on this one. (Dedolito did make some small technical errors and contradictions but his argument is a good one.)

The one area i could see this being of any practical usage would be as a replacement for a battery. Consider the water as a reverse battery.

A battery allows you to store energy by converting electrical energy into electrical potential.

Consider water and this device to be like a flat battery. You can add electrical energy to it to provide potential energy in the form of H2 and O2 gas. This can then be converted into electrical energy (AND HEAT!) by using a fuel cell. This generates electricity by recombining the gases via the use of a catalyst.

The question is, would such a series of devices be more efficient than a battery? It would need to have a device to perform the electrolysis, a means to store the gases, and a device to reconvert the gases to water and energy.

I'm not saying it isn't more efficient. It might well be. What I will say is that it can't "Run off water".

To run off water, it would need to convert water into a state of less energy. Chances are with all the water around us, we would know about this state already because it would occur naturally.

another way to look at all this to imagine a ball on a series of hills and valleys. The hills represent higher energy states (gas), the valleys lower energy states (water). Now to roll the ball along lets help things by placing it at the top of the hill (gas). Give it a little push (burn the gas). it rolls down the hill (into water).

If the surface was really slippery and had very little friction (ie a very efficient system) then it might roll up to the top of the next hill if you gave it enough of a push (the initial energy added). But can you imagine the ball rolling on forever?

--

Regarding the blowtorch run off water. I think if you look carefully you will find the cord to plug into the wall. (Good idea actually, saves having to store the gas)
 
  by: jendres     05/26/2006 02:20 AM     
  do a little research  
 
Goodness... do a little research people before blatantly writing off this technology without any thought given to it. Just because something was taught traditionally doesn't mean you should follow it like a zombie without question.

I swear, the big breakthroughs in history have occured because somebody went against the grain (in terms of the scientific community). The scientific community believed A to be true. Some "qwack" comes along and does B, yet nobody believes him until many years later. This happens to be one of those things.

Do me a favor and read up on everything before responding. Also, watch their demo video and they explain a little bit about it. Don't come back and act like you know the exact science behind it either, because you don't. Science isn't king, and it shouldn't be treated as such. They're called theories for a reason, and remain so for an extremely long time before being given the status of a "law". Everything's always up for questioning.

To question is being a good scientist. Don't just take what you hear from some geezer prof as absolute fact, because it's not. Break out of your zombie-trance and embrace creativity -- if you have a theory, go with it and question the very things you learned in that institution you give a god-like status to!

I applaud the crazies working away in their basements, because they're the source of real progression!
 
  by: dyinman   05/26/2006 09:15 AM     
  @dyinman  
 
“Goodness... do a little research people before blatantly writing off this technology without any thought given to it.”

Pardon me, I have watched the video linked, and I’ve read various sites. I’m telling you that all that is being described is standard electrolysis with fancy new names for known phenomena. Explain to me why when challenged by someone who actually knows what there are talking about, instead of some bubble-headed journalist, that they go all evasive? Why they refuse to let their miracle devices be compared to standard electrolysis devices? Why they won’t analyze this so-called HHO gas for energy states? You see? I am questioning, so have others. The quacks have not provided any answers beyond “trust me, it works.” Who’s asking who to take things on faith now?

“Just because something was taught traditionally doesn't mean you should follow it like a zombie without question.”

There’s a bit of a difference between reasonably questioning scientific conclusions (as all conclusions should be) and claiming that you can completely circumvent a core tenant of science, a tenant that is interwoven with nearly all aspects of science.

”I swear, the big breakthroughs in history have occured because somebody went against the grain (in terms of the scientific community). The scientific community believed A to be true. Some "qwack" comes along and does B, yet nobody believes him until many years later. This happens to be one of those things.”

On what basis to you come to the conclusion that this is “one of those things”? Because someone said so? Someone who has not offered up his design for scrutiny? Someone who cannot truly explain where this “free energy” is coming from? Someone who has not even demonstrated to the public with an independent study that their device works? What happened to the oh-so-vaunted quality of “questioning” that you spouted off about in the previous paragraph? Why do you take on faith what these quacks claim and ignore what a couple hundred years of scientific observation has borne out?

”Do me a favor and read up on everything before responding. Also, watch their demo video and they explain a little bit about it. Don't come back and act like you know the exact science behind it either, because you don't.”

Ok then, since not a single source has adequately explained the phenomena, why don’t YOU explain it to the masses then. You seem to believe that it works as a matter or fact. I’ve explained why it doesn’t.

"Science isn't king, and it shouldn't be treated as such.”

So then by what process do your quacks think they are claiming they have developed their miraculous technology? Magic? Unicorn farts and fairy turds?

“They're called theories for a reason, and remain so for an extremely long time before being given the status of a "law". Everything's always up for questioning.”

You are confusing disciplines. Laws are the core tenants of Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry. Theories are the core tenants of the Biological Sciences. There’s a difference between Theory and theory, the latter applying to any supportable hypothesis across disciplines. And yes, everything is up for questioning, even Laws and Theories. However, one must have extraordinary proof before attempting to unseat a core tenant of science. These quacks have not even come close.

”To question is being a good scientist. Don't just take what you hear from some geezer prof as absolute fact, because it's not. Break out of your zombie-trance and embrace creativity -- if you have a theory, go with it and question the very things you learned in that institution you give a god-like status to!”

Yes, let’s break the mold! Come up with radical new approaches! Come up with devices and methods that will unshackle previously un-imagined energies. And make sure your claims are reproducible by others. Oh damn, that last one means I can’t con anyone.

‘I applaud the crazies working away in their basements, because they're the source of real progression!”

Wow, really?!?! What a revelation! I guess all those silly corporations are wasting all those hundreds of billions of dollars on their R&D departments. They should just send all their scientists home and have them work out of their garages!
 
  by: Dedolito     05/26/2006 08:18 PM     
  Gas companys  
 
They are millions of gas stations, if we changed to a car that didnt use gas. Millions of people will be out of work... I say. stop trying to phase it over to some other fuil consumption. and make 100% electric cars. Its vary posiable they did it in the 70s with out nearly the quality of batterys we have today. Put Big Oil out of business. lay off the some 1 million people who work at gas stations. Make the change now before it becomes to hard to make.
 
  by: imbyjam   05/26/2006 09:37 PM     
  So you read everything? Interesting...  
 
OK, Dedolito, since you insist on being such a smartass, obviously you failed to read their paper available in Word document off their site. It does a little more explaining... providing some numbers and measurements.

Assuming you know exactly what's up and not actually reading everything makes you appear lazy and foolish.

An excerpt off their site:
"Although applications for Aquygen™ Gas have been emerging for several years, its fundamental properties have only recently been explained by Ruggero Maria Santilli, Ph.D., an internationally acclaimed scientist, in a report submitted to the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. (Available as a Word document; right-click to download or left-click to open if using MS Windows OS.)"
 
  by: dyinman   05/27/2006 12:13 AM     
  @anyone  
 
I understand Thermodynamics, but I just wonder it these guys have come upon something new. If they are able to brake away a single H and are left with H + HO, I wonder if a natural thermodynamic reaction claiming ambient background energy may follow, allowing for a relative energy gain that would keep the system in balance but, be beneficial and practical in many application?
 
  by: gmiles   05/27/2006 04:22 AM     
  @dyinman  
 
Do try again. I read that paper and guess what? They are describing electrolysis. The combustable gas they get out? Describes H2 + O2. The properties of that gas when burned? Hydrogen combustion in the presence of oxygen to the T.

Let's delve into the "scinece" a bit. The researcher claims that a novel peak was observed at 33 amu and that this peak could not be explained by any known substance.

BZZZZZT wrong! NH2(OH) is a common enough by-product of electolysis and has an amu of 33.

Why? Because absolutly pure water cannot conduct electricity. What happens when you pass electricity through impure water (other than create H2 and O2)? You grow some *really* funky crap on the surface of the diodes. This is why you gotta clean the rods every now and again because really nasty percipitate forms. If there is any nitrogen in solution, NH2(OH) is a real possibility during an electrolysis reaction.

The 35 amu peak? I don't know, maybe HOHOH-? Golly gee, another by product of electrolysis. Will the wonders never cease?

Why don't you do yourself a favor and read up on hydrogen combustion, then re-read the claims of the "miracle" gas, Aquygen.


 
  by: Dedolito     05/27/2006 04:59 PM     
  I'm just waiting  
 
...until they bring a Mr. Fusion and slap it on the back of my car like the the Doc's DeLorean on "Back to the Future." We've got enough garbage on this earth, burying it in the ground, and polluting just about everything else around us. I say we burn it!
 
  by: BeyondtheTech     06/01/2006 04:05 PM     
  reality check  
 
HHO Gas is something scientists once thought was impossible. Splitting up Oxygen and Hydrogen is something everyone knows we can do. THAT'S NOT IT. HHO Gas is still water! He's burning water! Nothing splits! The molecule changes shape a little, but nothing splits! No splitting! Not even a little. This is UNIQUE.
 
  by: beanny007   07/15/2006 01:00 AM     
  Missed the point...?  
 
Hi Guys,

I'm new to this bulletin but it would seem that one of the key elements of what the proponents of HHO (or whatever you want to call the result of electrolysis of water using the battery in a car) is that they don't claim you can run your car on water (at least the sites I have visited) but rather improve combustion of the existing fuel/air mixture.

Now to me (yes, holding a degree and postgraduate qualifications... for those who are arrogant enough to put down the likes of Einstein who didn't even finish schooling, i.e. a drop-out), the core technological advantages claimed have not even been noticed by the scientists amongst you, let alone discussed.

What they claim is that only very small amounts of HHO are produced and fed into the normal engine combustion fuel/air mixture. What they claim is that the presence of increased hydrogen and oxygen into the fuel burn improves the fuel burn efficiency. Hence, they're not claiming you get more energy output from HHO than the electrical input (and heat loss) but rather this HHO assists the efficiency of the fuel burn of the gas/air mixture normally present in the combustion chamber and thus provides more energy output than the electricity used up to produce the very small amounts of HHO. We all know the internal combustion engine is very inefficient... so the claimed gain is about complimenting the fuel burn efficiency, which is a different scenario than merely energy input = energy output, less wasted heat, etc.

Also, they claim that the added water vapour helps to keep running temperatures lower...

I'm not an engineer and I don't claim to be a scientist. However, I am very surprised that the scientists in this forum have not looked at all the claims available on multiple sites. The claims being argued by the self-professed scientists amongst you have failed to pick up on what the key claims are for this supposed new technology.

I'm not commenting on whether this works or not. However, given the claims that I picked up in reading the information available on multiple websites, it appears that the key claim of improving EXISTING fuel burn in a car of gasoline with the presence of HHO seems potentially viable for boosting rather than replacing gasoline burned in the internal combustion engine.

Any comments? I am seriously interested in the opinions of those who are scientists among you as to whether this could potentially improve fuel burn and thus be a viable technology (and I don't mean this condescendingly - we're all interested in discussing this subject out of the perusal of knowledge and advancement... or at least I am).

However, please stop putting people down. We all have a valid part to play and Einstein was a dropout who wasn't taken seriously at first.
 
  by: skybeater   08/15/2008 07:04 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com