Chemist and Engineers: Real or Snake Oil? Water Powered Car - Page 2

red-beard · red-beard's Garage

Unless it's really H2+O2 or really 2xH2+O2 as an uncombusted gas.

If it were truely HHO, or 3 separate ions, it would be extremely unstable...

EXTREMELY!!!!

snowman · 08:45 PM

Yeh, we do need SOLUTIONS. This is NOT a SOLUTION, it is a con job. How do you say CON JOB in a nice way??? Well its a con job.

There are NO alternative fuels.

Alternative fuels are the ultimate con job as there are NONE.

I can hear all the eco crap now. Your part of the problem, you don't beleive in alternative fuels, Your mind is closed. Well Yes it is Closed. Why?? Because there IS NO ALTENATIVE FUEL!!!

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

They claim that HHO is a gas that violates valence rules in its structure. You *can* get some odd things at very high (or very low) temp and pressure, but these are not those conditions. The electrolysis of water produces H2 gas and O2 gas. Period. No other bull***** "hypervalent" species. H2 and O2 are perfectly stable, as is H2O. They do NOT readily interconvert unless you provide energy (spark) and/or a catalyst (like Pt). You cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics. dG is dG. The conversion of 2H2 and O2 to 2H2O is exothermic...hence the reason that fuel cells work. And the reason to run it backwards (electrolysis) you have to provide energy (current). For any reaction you have to provide *some* energy even if it is exothermic as dG+ (supposed to be a double dagger, activation energy) isn't zero...you have to get over the hump. Catalysts like Pt only lower the activation barrier...they do not change dG (free energy of the system).

trekkor · 05-31-2006, 10:15 PM

Didn't the last guy that developed water power suddenly disapear.

And BIG OIL stayed BIG?

Like 30 years or more ago?

KT

1fastredsc · 06-01-2006, 04:52 AM

I think this car produces the HHO based on zero point energy theory, which seems to be popping up alot lately. Anyone educated in the newtonian physics will tell you the same thing, takes energy to make energy. This concept breaks that rule, so like many others who were educated by physics, it makes no sense to me.

cstreit · cstreit's Garage

I'm not sure I understand how a flame that he claims burns around 280 degrees can heat something up to over 9000 degrees...

"Won't someone please think about the childr... er... Physics"

trekkor · 06-01-2006, 06:38 AM

Remember folks, just about everything we use on a daily basis without thought, was also *impossible* about 100 years ago.

We're moving fast...

KT

snowman · 06-01-2006, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by trekkor
Remember folks, just about everything we use on a daily basis without thought, was also *impossible* about 100 years ago.

We're moving fast...

KT

You are wrong. Nothing that was impossible 100 years ago has been done today. Its still impossible. Almost everything we have today was thought possible 100 or even 300 years ago. Not probable, but possible. Most all advances are HOW to make something work, nothing to do with what is or is not possible.

Nano technology will change the way a lot of things work, but all fo the laws of Physics still apply. Nano tech will allow things to be done that have not been thought of before, but violating the laws of Physics will not be one of them. The most basic concepts, like conservation of energy have been known for a very long time. No basic law of physics has ever been proven wrong.

Con men love people who are uninformed. They still get by selling perpetual motion machines to the ignorant, gullible people who are moving to fast to slow down and learn something.

trekkor · 06-01-2006, 05:39 PM

Maybe i wasn't clear.

Most of the things that we have and enjoy today, if you we're able to tell someone about it 100 years ago, would have *thought* it was impossible.

Flight, modern cars, electricity, communication, space travel, laser surgery , NASCAR

.

Seriously, we've seen some amazing tech.

KT

snowman · 08:08 PM

No intelligent person would have thought anything we have today was IMPOSSIBLE 100 years ago. Maybe the person on the street, but not any educated person.

There is a big difference between discussing the IMPOSSIBLE and what may or may not happen. Many educated men may have thought that man could not learn to fly, but no educated man thought it impossible. What you are talking about, in terms of energy IS IMPOSSIBLE and any educated person will stand behind that statement. We do know a lot more than we did 100 years ago. We have added a large number of things to the IMPOSSIBLE list and only a few to the possible. And none of the new possible violates any of the old Impossible ones.

We have a fuel, oil, that is so plentiful that all you have to do is to poke a hole in the ground and you get a lot of it, for almost nothing. Water is almost as expensive. There is currently over 500 years of oil based fuel available. Yes we do have to be concerned, but a crisis??? NO way.

M.D. Holloway · 06-01-2006, 08:06 PM

100 years ago, the head of the US Patent office stated that "Everything has been invented, there is nothing new to develop". There are many scientists and engineers back then and even today that refuse to believe certain breakthroughs have been made even after they have been proven wrong.

Still, this guy is full of shyt.

snowman · 08:12 PM

Totally bogus argument.

Some idiot clerk in the patent office makes an off the wall statement and you base your analysis on this???

Tell me that Newton, Maxwell, Einstein or someone of some importance made such a statement.

M.D. Holloway · 06-01-2006, 08:46 PM

The guy was actually the commissioner of the United States Patent Office, Charles Duell, back in 1899. Here are a few more gems...

"That’s an amazing invention, but who would ever want to use one of them?" ... President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, after Alexander Graham Bell demonstrated the telephone to him at the White House.

"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom," ... Robert Milken, Nobel Prize winner in physics, 1923

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible," ... Lord Kelvin, President Royal Society, 1895

"Who the hell wants to watch movies with sound?" president of Warner Brothers Studios, Harry Warner, sometime around 1918.

Ya, I guess these guys are bogus as well?

M.D. Holloway · 06-01-2006, 08:56 PM

Schooled...

trekkor · 06-01-2006, 09:03 PM

Thank you...

KT

snowman · 06-01-2006, 09:05 PM

BS

Only one is quoted as impossible and he as a minor figure in science.

M.D. Holloway · 06-01-2006, 09:11 PM

Snow, just face it, you got schooled. Be a dude and just suck it up and stop being such a puss!

trekkor · 09:55 PM

You are killing me...

People years ago *just thought* these things were impossible.

"I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!" -Mugatu

KT

IROC · IROC's Garage

I have to agree with Snowman. Trekkor's original statement that most of what we use today was "impossible" 100 years ago is just plain wrong. There is a big difference between "impossible" and not having the technology to do what we know is possible.

Maybe I see your point - are you trying to say that the average citizen is essentially ignorant of science and technology? I'd agree with that.

You see that every day right here on PPOT.

Mike

pmajka · 06-02-2006, 04:16 AM

THis cant be totally bogus...there is a guy up in canada who is makeing a unit that electrolisizes (sp) water in to Hydogen and oxygen, and injects it in to a motor . the fuel burns more efficiently and produces a cooler exhaust and less emissions.

It is being tested in Fleet vehicles. there are no storage tanks as the unit makes hydrogen on the fly. and only small amounts. but 20% fuel savings. uses the alternator for its small electric draw.