American inventor Anthony Brown claims to have discovered a way to shut down a car's fuel injection system forcing them to run mostly on water.
Brown told reporters: "I get 100 miles to the ounce on water. I can run any water, distilled water, drinking water, tap water" adding, “Right now it's using a little bit of gas. If anything it's getting a fuel vapor.”
The inventor claims the system will be perfected within the next few months and that profits would be donated to missionaries around the world.
the hell would you want to give any profits to missionaries? The whole idea of missionary work is so wrong on so many levels that it is just frightning!
... and so is anyone who believes there's even a chance he's telling the truth.
This con has been around for decades. The "inventor" introduces a completely superfluous part to a regular car and says it's what's providing the power when the tank is full or regular unleaded petroleum. They pretend it's only there to kick-start the process, or provide some other nonsense explanation that regular petrol is required. They file no patents. They never send their engine for independent testing that any decent technical college can perform.
And they ask for money. Sometimes in very sophisticated ways, with above board companies (in appearance and in a technical legal sense), offering shares, future profits, and in this case humanitarian benefits.
But they never produce the results. Constantly "months away" or "soon" or "when it's ready" until the investors get mad and they flee with their ill gotten gains.
And people fall for it every damn time. And newspapers give these scum, these people feeding on the hope and greed of the gullible, free advertising by reporting this utter nonsense as news.
So I take it back. This dude is smart, in a manipulative evil way. People who believe him are not.
Anyone who's vaguely familiar with high school chemistry and has even an abstract idea of how a motor works knows this.
But hope and greed often overrides knowledge.
I hate humanity. Including you, whomever is reading this. And me. But especially Anthony Brown. Argh!
Ever thought that these inventors inventions were hushed by the greedy people of the world..
We may not have a lot of fresh water in oz atm, least not in Adelaide but we have a lot of recycled water. I think its a brilliantly efficient idea. Almost as good and Dr Emmett Brown's idea to use garbage in his time machine!
He's just separating the Oxygen and Hydrogen. You'd never get enough oxygen/hydrogen to power a car from an ounce of water. Not to mention, it takes more energy to separate the two than it produces.
Please see the title and initial sentence of my previous comment and derive from it your relative position on the provided sliding scale ranging from dude to idiot.
Hushed up, eh? Wow, and they seem so good at hushing things up. That whole global warming thing, they've hushed that up really well. Saddam, for example, being in control of a huge oil deposit, was excellent at hushing his activities up. I know absolutely nothing bad about Iran and the UAE myself, thanks to a vast amount of hushing. I personally haven't heard that maybe there's aliens in Roswell or that JFK was shot by someone other than LHO thanks to the US's amazing ability to hush things right up.
It's amazing how easy it is for something you'd imagine would spread like wildfire should the knowledge of how some bum in his garage could create free fuel leak to his friends or colleagues be hushed up by those nasty oily bad men.
Of course conspiracy theories trump actual science every time.
has been all over the internet and different shows for ages now. The amount of electrolysis that needs to happen to make this work is not impossible, but cannot be just an easy "convert" to a regular engine. When you start looking at how much energy it would take to do this, you will find it is cheaper to run a car via electricity or batteries.
Then if water vapor ends up in the combustion chamber, well, anyone who has ever had a blown head gasket will know what that outcome is. Not just milky "mayo" like oil, but a seized engine.
Then comes the part of how environmentally friendly it is to make that much power. It has been found that most electric cars actually makes more greenhouse gas from the power being made in a power plant than running a small petrol or diesel compact.
It would be great if this is true, but then again, we will have to wait until we see the proof I guess.
The amount of hydrogen created by the mentioned amount of water makes his claim absolutely ridiculous. More over, the energy to break the atomic makeup of H2O requires more energy to break than to create.
So basicly, you cannot obtain more energy from H2O than it requires to make H2O, which is not a lot. While you you can indeed make lots of energy with H2, because it requires lots of energy to make H2. IT REQUIRES ENERGY TO MAKE H2, so, etheir you get a H2 tank and power you car, or you use, like here, a damn to power your battery, far more efficient. I'm not even sure you could move a car with such a small amount of water created H2.
On an other topic, whats all that fuss about water shortage? Were losing 50% of the tap water because the aqueduc here is too old, maybe you are running ;) the same problems in your cities?
I'm just going to approach this with the same cautious optimism as I have for the previous 34 inventions. Although I have measured a inclination towards caution with a reciprocal decline of optimism.
As the above comments state, you can't get more energy out of an H2O combination than it takes to crack Hydrogen out of water. But cracking hydrogen efficiently takes pure H2O, not drinking water, not the crud that you get out of your tap. So if it is a given that a fuel cell and a hydrogen cracker can never achieve a balance, and that the inventor is claiming to run on fuel that hydrogen crackers can not use, and he specifically sites an internal combustion engine, it is likely that his solution is NOT a hydrogen cracker and fuel cell.
So what could it be? Simple: Steam. He is using a traditional fuel injected engine, shutting down the fuel injector and instead he is squirting water into the cylinder instead of fuel. The air in the cylinder is heated by the compression, the water instantly boils and expands. The expansion of the water vapor pushes the piston down just as a combustion would.
1l of water @1bar = .001 Cubic Meters 1l of steam @1bar = 1.7 Cubic Meters 1l of steam @9.5bar = .2 Cubic Meters
The bright side, this is a proven technology. Steam engines are nothing new, and their power has been shown to be quite impressive. The down sides though, gas/Diesel ICE's are not designed to run on steam. Not only would the compression be a bit odd, but any blow by would result in water in the lubrication system.
But this would explain how he was running a fuel injected internal combustion engine "mostly" on 'dirty' water. He would still need to start (and likely stop) the engine on gas, and if the cylinder temps got too low he would have to switch to gas again. With a water separator in the lubrication system, better control of cylinder temperatures, coupled with a decent plumbing system, a computerized control system, and a whole lot more knowledge about steam, it is entirely possible.
for example: "Many of these claims violate the Law of conservation of energy."
and
"The HHO trademark is associated with an unproven state of matter called magnegases, and a discredited theory about magnecules,[12] which is the basis for a number of fraudulent claims, and third party water-fuelled car scam attempts."
Just googled Anthony Brown, this is the same old HHO stuff that still hasn't been proven, and so far as I have heard he is _still_ working on his patent application.
I find it baffling that anyone believes this perpetual motion machine scam. But there are those that see a car driving that the inventor claims is running on water and it's acutally running on gas and the engine is being destroyed by the injection of water vapor. But a fool and his money are soon seperated and the fraudster lives off the proceeds for a while until he finds another investor or scam to perpetrate. The water driven engine will perpetually be 'perfected within a few months' for eternity. Be sure to invest the kid's college money and mortgage payment in this scam. You will regret it the rest of your life.
About chemistry or the combustible engine, I'm just hopeful that someone creates an alternative fuel source soon. If it's made of water, methane, corn, I don't really care.
I think we are in new territory. Hydrolisis (I speeeel that rite ? LOL) is possible, but maybe not economical as far as auto's is concerend. Kina like tube tvs where for such a long time, until solid state came about. The tubeies was not that relieable, solid state is. Time will tell.
There is no reason to doubt an engine that runs on water, we have had them for decades....They are called Steam Engines. Only problem is that while they run on water, you have to jump the little hurdle of heating the water, without burning other fuel.
If you believe that mechanical energy originates in the heat, try running a steam engine without a compressible liquid, let us know how far you get. The heat provides "radiated" energy, the water provides the catalyst to convert the radiated energy into mechanical energy.
Hydrolysis is already being used on cars. They use that to get the hydrogen at the hydrogen fueling stations out in CA. The transformers was just a-humming when they was a doing thier newz piece. The individual being interviewed said it was about 400 volts they use to do the splitting. At any rate, there is no reason to believe that it could not be done economically on a vehicle. As far as steam, there has to be a way of making a steam car efficiently as well, I would think. How about the stirling engine?? Any thoughts on that one ?
Sure. It'd work. All you have to have is a small portable 400v source of electricity. but voltage is meerly electrical pressure. it doesn't speak towards the current necessary. A typical car battery is 12 volts and 4 amps. That's only 48 watts for a pretty limited time and that's not enough to fill a good sized party baloon full of H2.
Whenever energy in any form is converted from one type to another there is a loss of energy. Even a simple transfer of AC to DC electricity or vice versa can rarely be done at better than 85% in a compact system.
Taking an existing power source in the form of batteries or regular petroleum and using them to perform hydrolysis on water results in a certain amount of hydrogen and oxygen. Utilising those elements to create energy will result in less energy than you would have had simply from the batteries themselves connected to an electric motor.
On top of that you'd have to carry within the vehicle a lot more components. Instead of just batteries and an electric motor you'd need batteries, a hydrolysis device that can produce hydrogen at a fast enough rate to power the car, a store of water, and a hydrogen powered motor. My guess would be it'd add at least another 100kg of weight to push around (including the water).
The hydrolysis reaction is not self sustaining. You cannot use the hydrogen produced to keep the reaction going because as mentioned it takes more power to produce the hydrogen than burning it generates.
If it was self sustaining any schmo could hook up a hydrolysis device to a tank of water, kick start it with a minimal amount of power, then produce infinite power over time without ever refilling the water tank since when hydrogen burns it produces... water. It'd be a self contained infinite power source of greater than 100% efficiency.
This cannot be done with a chemical reaction like hydrolysis or burning (burning is part of a chemical reaction). In fact both are rather inefficient. You'd lose around 80-95% of the energy in normal situations.
Hydrogen is only a practical fuel when it's generated using a mass produced power (like electricity power stations).
If you want to waste your money on scams and rubbish, go buy one of those 'success guaranteed with women' books - at those MIGHT give you the fake self-confidence enough to do something positive with your life.
Unsurprisingly they never show a video clip of someone filling up their proven-empty vehicle with water and then just driving along...
You can do better when you have a 0 kelvin temperature. Of course, the energy you need to provide this most likely wont compensate the gain, depending on the quantity of transfer, substracting the heat generated by the transfer makes it again always at a lost.
Everyone, water injection has been around for 20+ years. READ and Understand before you POST! In addition, HONDA DOES have a Water based Prototype that is supposed to be available to the public soon (I would not hold my breath on that one - Well USA anyway). A friend of mine invented a Petro Based Car that got 100+ miles to the gallon, however GM purchased that design for 2.5 million US dollars. Now do you see ANYTHING like that available to the public! :(
Like that half of this is bull and the other half shit as a vollie fire fighter we train with various fire suppression equipment. When dealing with a hydrocarbon or cooking fat fire the instructor shows how not to extinguish the fire - with water. When the water hits the oil/fat etc there is some sort of chemical reaction, the hydrogen and oxygen separate and the small and controllable fire literally explodes giving off an enormous amount of heat(and spreads the fire). Could this be the theory behind this claim?
I haven't commented on water injection as I don't know anything about making H2O combustable in it's stable form. I've only commented on steam engines and the idea that you can seperate H2O from water, re-combine it and have enough energy left over to power a vehicle. But as I said in my first post on this subject...
"I'm just going to approach this with the same cautious optimism as I have for the previous 34 inventions. Although I have measured a inclination towards caution with a reciprocal decline of optimism."
Yup, everyone has a friend with no name. Nobody has a patent. Everyone sells multi-billion dollar technology for $2.5M and GM has all the incentive in the world to suppress 100mpg technology so they can continue to get their butts kicked in the US marketplace by the Japanese and Korean auto manufacturers.
Signed up to the site just seconds before posting that vague nonsense, eh?
Yes, water injection (which is actually a combination of distilled water and ethanol) has been around some time. It is used in concert with regular fuel to increase power and efficiency in very high powered cars like dragsters to keep the engine cooler which expending massive quantities of regular fuel to accelerate quickly.
You can certainly perform these types of modifications on cars but the water injection (really distilled water/ethanol) does not increase efficiency. It lowers temperatures to allow MORE fuel to be burned quicker.
It's also commonly used in aircraft.
It's a high powered engine thing only, used for cooling. Not for fuel.
That's the beauty of a scam, folks. They take something real and then talk about something close to what's real and say it's too complex for you to understand.
Yeah, I know there is no 100% energy exchange....but the things that we thought was not practical yesterday, today they are..........there was no such thing as a personal computer when I was growing up, but now there is. Time and technology changes things. Maybe someday it will be, and someday it may not. Time will tell.
Some day? Sure. Oil isn't going to last forever and we will indeed be using a different power source in the future. My money's on a combination of infrastructure based nuclear & renewable power and electric cars.
Now I could absolutely be wrong on that, it might be the discovery of cold fusion (unlikely but possible, also highly prone to scamming so only pay attention once they start mass producing), it might be a dramatic increase in the efficiency of solar cells, I don't know.
What it won't be, however, is the scam that's been around since the internal combustion engine was invented. It won't be water into fuel and you can't turn lead into gold.
Personal computers slowly developed over time from behemoth vacuum tube monsters to the EEE PC. These water-->fuel guys are claiming they just did the PC equivalent of 80 years research, development, testing, and worldwide application involving millions of people in their garage over night.
This bloke hasn't said in any detail exactly how this thing is working, so we can only speculate on the mechanisms.
But a quick search on engineering village and scifinder shows no publication record for Anthony Brown with water. So no other physicist or engineer has looked at this thing either, or if they have they don't want to be associated with it.
You want a publication record with peer review to convince investors that you have something worth investing in. So, no publication record = no commercial interest = no one who has looked at this thing believes this blokes claims.
Although going straight to the media with an incredulous claim is a good way to suck someone in.
(To head off an argument: I know there is a time when you don't publish when you have a patent in the works and you are trying to avoid prior disclosure so you can claim the novelty of the idea. But I thought that since this guy has already rung the local media then this probably wasn't applicable in this case.)
"Like most alternative fuel cars, the prototype is actually a hybrid. It runs on a gas and Aquygen mixture. Whenever you're ready, you flip the switch and the Aquygen kicks in."
A hybrid model, eh? So there's a regular engine and a full tank of fuel in there. But the amazing Brown's Gas pushes efficiency well beyond what the motor was designed for!
/palmface
Oh, but I strongly suggest you purchase Denny Klein's Aquygen Generator that uses just water and electricity to produce Aquygen gas! Only $7K! http://hytechapps.com/...
And from your article of 2 years age it also states the first cars running entirely on this amazing gas should be ready within 2 years.
Hmm.
Well, they're in concert with this guy, since his is only months away?
Where do I send my money to ? LOL. Seriously, I kina think it be an idea for all of us readers to look for alternatives, if ya haven't already. I dunno bout the water, but I have been looking into making my own electric vehicle. Since most running for me is around 50 mile round trip, I could save a lot of gas money if I had my own electric built. Of course on the flip side, I don't want to spend 10 grand to save 5 grand......sheez....
Ok, I am bad once I start to thinking bout something to really start diggin round trying to find out NFO bout it. And here are some linx 1st off: 1)Hydrogen powered remote controlled cars (toys) http://www.hydrogenchallenge.com.au 2)Students put together a simple hydrogen generator http://www.state-journal.com/... Once again, I can see the science as far as H20, and I guess we all can, as far as stretching the mind, that it SHOULD be possible. That being said, the gen that the students made is simple and low cost, so what the heck, ima gonna try it. Another thing, sometimes we all overlook the obviously simple. Here are two more links. 1) This is a solar dish/cooker/heater/etc http://cockeyed.com/... 2) This is a solar heater/cooker/smelter using a simple easy to find device
Hydrogen power is real. 100% real. What isn't real is water fuel.
Hydrogen cells are real. Hydrogen can be used to power vehicles in their entirety (as with the remote car) and for a while was expected to take over from batteries but their efficiency and practicality of introducing a new power source and their economic viability hasn't reached a cost effective point yet, and may never do so.
Dan Rutter, someone fairly famous these days in the Aussie technical community with a hefty 20 year journalistic background in electronics and electrical devices was hoping as much 5 years ago: http://www.dansdata.com/...
He normally slams down scams commonly over at http://www.dansdata.com and http://dansdata.blogsome.com (search for "firepower" if you want an example, a "fuel additive" that was supposed to increase engine efficiency that he's been debunking for a year or two. The company producing them just went bust owing other businesses millions).
Sidetracked again. Hydrogen fuel = real. But you cannot produce it within the car itself in any efficient manner, only externally from a hydrogen generator utilising normal power grid power.
That second link to the tech college students is likely accurate: "Because of traffic conditions, Wheatley hasn't been able to accurately gauge how much gas the fuel cells save, but he said it definitely costs less money. A Ford F150 normally gets about 15 miles per gallon." and "He said their current setup saves approximately a half-mile per gallon of gasoline".
That's a whopping efficiency improvement of ~3.5%, measured only under observation not with any lab testing. Personally I just checked the pressure of my tires, finding them only 75% full and filling them to their recommended capcity, my onboard fuel counting doo-dad showed around a 10% efficiency increase in a long drove down to my sisters place 180km away and back. So 3.5% on observation only data from a hydrogen cell that's produced through normal electrolysis to charge a hydrogen cell before installing it into the car sounds like it just might be real (and pointless). The electrolysis produces H2 and O2 gasses, not HHO as the article and tech students assume, HHO is a magical mystical nonsense gas that's never been observed by anyone, ever.
Focusing sunlight is a fairly normal and common thing, as a kid I set many tree leafs alight with a magnifying glass, not sure why you brought it up?
Strong evidence suggests it's likely that ghosts prevent it, with help from the bogey monster.
They use a gas produced by burning the souls of wicked children to summon Krampus, the German incubus goat-devil sidekick of Santa, to beat them with switches and if they still refuse to disown their invention he stores them in barrel on his back, makes the trip below and throws the water power inventors into the firey pits of hell.
I have proof of this, and will be releasing it in a few months, up to two years. I am willing to receive investments from individuals and companies, but I will be donating 90% of the profit from this evidence to charity.
Why not build a generator? Someone smart enough to invest water power and convert a regular vehicle engine of 100+ horsepower (even most small cars are, pick-ups like the F150 are over 250) should have no trouble building a household generator that runs on water.
Since there's about a 3:4 kilowatt:horsepower ratio it should be relatively simple to create a free-standing engine that'd run an entire house.
So why don't they ever do it? Why is it always car conversions? Why don't they just use their self-sustaining water-converting generator to sell the Hydrogen it generates? Why don't they contact a university and extrapolate it to a full blown city-supplying power generator?
Always the car conversion...
I suppose those nasty nuclear power conglomerates prevent the other options...
I just brought that up, because we normally don't think of the sun as being an instant "burner". Yeah I did the burn thing to with a magnifier as a kid. I am glad there are people working on it, and maybe a legit solution will be found. And the point about the hydrogen home generator is a good point to. Why don't they make one ? or two and sell em ? Why not a huge one near the ocean, and supply all our energy ? Ehh......and the old addage comes to mind......if it sounds to good to be true, it usually is.
Funny how the media still falls for a gag like that every time. All a publicity freak has to do is make some outrageous claim like this and he's guaranteed to see his name up in lights.
I didn't say it was, you dipstick, try reading for a change. I said it was a catalyst, not a source. The mechanical energy is imparted by the mixture of the heat and the catalyst. The heat itself is not the course of the mechanical energy. The reaction of the heat and the catalyst is the source.
She has such nice boobs, millions believe anything she says!
A hydrogen powered car is possible.
It is a little more environment friendly than standard car engines, but is less efficient in terms of energy conversion/consumption ratio.
Would it not be more practical to simply carry hydrogen and oxygen tanks and use them rather than try to create the gasses from water carried onboard?
1 single gallon of water weighs over 8.3 pounds or almost 3.8 kg.
But if a car with hydrogen and oxygen tanks in it crashed - KA-BOOM - H-BOMB on the highway!
But a 'water-powered' car is absurd they way they define it.
As stated above by another astute observer, it will be perpetually 'ready in a few more months' for the next 1000 years or until the concept itself beco mes obsolete, whichever comes first.
The news item doesn't give enough info. Brown liquid? Is he just running steam into the cylinders?
Here are my results from using a hydrogen generator in s Diesel vehicle - <http://peswiki.com/... chett%27s_Mileage_Results_from_Hydroxy_Boost_A ddition>
The news item doesn't give enough info. Brown liquid? Is he just running steam into the cylinders?
Here are my results from using a hydrogen generator in a Diesel vehicle - Go to http://peswiki.com/... Search on Pritchett Click on the "Report:Robert Pritchett's Mileage Results from Hydroxy Boost Addition"
hi there, I use water to fuel a car as a supplement to gasoline. In fact, very little water is needed,only one quart of water provides over 1800 gallons of HHO gas which can literally last for months and significantly increase your car fuel efficiently, improve emissions quality, and save money. I found the way through this site http://www.runcarsonwater.us i really recommend it to everybody, it's a nice ebook where you can find the instructions on how to do it! take a look.
