I am almost positive this is a repost of a repost of a repost. I also am pretty sure it is a hoax/scam. Looking for proof as we speak, but alas, search sucks.
SlickSnake
Diamond Member
- May 29, 2007
- 5,235
- 2
- 0
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
The buck fifty was when you could transport it via the phone lines.
Now there is the high speed internet tax for shipping.
This thread has encouraged me to go back to developing my latest invention, instant water. Just put a packet of the stuff in a quart pitcher, fill with water, and voila... you get a quart of water. 
Then, I'll go back to another invention I'm developing, the macrowave. It instantly freezes anything. This one's easy. All you have to do is turn the plug over on a microwave oven.
Then, I'll go back to working on the ultimate invention, the real time generator. Whenever you're running short of time for a project or some homework assignment, it'll be like Jay Leno said when he was doing Fritos ads... "We'll make more!"
So far, the closest I've come on that one is a related device, the down time generator.
Then, I'll go back to another invention I'm developing, the macrowave. It instantly freezes anything. This one's easy. All you have to do is turn the plug over on a microwave oven.
Then, I'll go back to working on the ultimate invention, the real time generator. Whenever you're running short of time for a project or some homework assignment, it'll be like Jay Leno said when he was doing Fritos ads... "We'll make more!"
So far, the closest I've come on that one is a related device, the down time generator.
Cogman
Lifer
- Sep 19, 2000
- 10,286
- 145
- 106
Ahh, run a car on water. To bad it violates a few fundamental laws of the universe.
Look up Hess's law and the first law of thermal Dynamics. and if you still don't believe me, move this to the Highly Technical forum and watch the ridicule fly (not that it hasn't here).
It is just funny that some people would actually believe this and go on the "It only hasn't happened 'cause the man is keep'n us down!" theory to back up why it hasn't taken off.
Look up Hess's law and the first law of thermal Dynamics. and if you still don't believe me, move this to the Highly Technical forum and watch the ridicule fly (not that it hasn't here).
It is just funny that some people would actually believe this and go on the "It only hasn't happened 'cause the man is keep'n us down!" theory to back up why it hasn't taken off.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,783
- 6,340
- 126
Originally posted by: Harvey
This thread has encouraged me to go back to developing my latest invention, instant water. Just put a packet of the stuff in a quart pitcher, fill with water, and voila... you get a quart of water.
Then, I'll go back to another invention I'm developing, the macrowave. It instantly freezes anything. This one's easy. All you have to do is turn the plug over on a microwave oven.
Then, I'll go back to working on the ultimate invention, the real time generator. Whenever you're running short of time for a project or some homework assignment, it'll be like Jay Leno said when he was doing Fritos ads... "We'll make more!"
So far, the closest I've come on that one is a related device, the down time generator.
My ultimate Invention would be the Microwave Time Machine. It's really just a counter-top Time Machine you place your Microwave into. Put something into the Microwave, say Popcorn, punch in the time(2 minutes), then the Time Machine transports the Microwave back in time 2 Minutes an BING!, popcorn is done as soon as you push the Start button!!
Although considerable scorn has been showered over this device, not unreasonably given the pseudo-scientific gibberish such as 'atomic hydrogen' and 'HHO' and the implausible mileage claims, there is some genuine science here.
Hydrogen gas, even in small amounts, acts as a potent octane booster when mixed with a gas-air mixture in a conventional gas engine as well as improving ignition and producing a more even burn. Modern gas engines are pretty good already, but there is room for a few per cent improvement with hydrogen. As you would expect, as there is genuine scientific evidence that his works, the big companies are all over this trying to develop a workable system.
The problem with the device shown is that it generates H2 using electrolysis (which is relatively inefficient), powered by the alternator which is powered by the very inefficient engine. It costs you about 5x as much in gas to produce the hydrogen as the hydrogen actually replaces - so unless you are getting a big octane boost, or burn enhancement, you've got a very complex system which provides very little benefit. Don't forget you then have the additional problems of having a water tank and the user remembering to regularly refill with distilled water.
All the practical systems that are being worked on by the major auto companies, instead use sort sort of catalytic converter to convert gas directly into hydrogen. The result - much more efficient generation of hydrogen, no need for seperate water tank or risk that the tank would be filled incorrectly, and less load on the already heavily taxed modern car electrical system.
While there is some science here, it still doesn't detract from the fact that the website linked is nonsense, if not a deliberate fraud.
Hydrogen gas, even in small amounts, acts as a potent octane booster when mixed with a gas-air mixture in a conventional gas engine as well as improving ignition and producing a more even burn. Modern gas engines are pretty good already, but there is room for a few per cent improvement with hydrogen. As you would expect, as there is genuine scientific evidence that his works, the big companies are all over this trying to develop a workable system.
The problem with the device shown is that it generates H2 using electrolysis (which is relatively inefficient), powered by the alternator which is powered by the very inefficient engine. It costs you about 5x as much in gas to produce the hydrogen as the hydrogen actually replaces - so unless you are getting a big octane boost, or burn enhancement, you've got a very complex system which provides very little benefit. Don't forget you then have the additional problems of having a water tank and the user remembering to regularly refill with distilled water.
All the practical systems that are being worked on by the major auto companies, instead use sort sort of catalytic converter to convert gas directly into hydrogen. The result - much more efficient generation of hydrogen, no need for seperate water tank or risk that the tank would be filled incorrectly, and less load on the already heavily taxed modern car electrical system.
While there is some science here, it still doesn't detract from the fact that the website linked is nonsense, if not a deliberate fraud.
Cogman
Lifer
- Sep 19, 2000
- 10,286
- 145
- 106
Might I again point out Hess's law. Which basically states that no mater how many steps you take, to take one reaction to another will always require the same amount of energy (or emit an equal amount of energy when reversed). So the energy needed to Break apart H2O will be exactly the same as the energy produced when H2 is recombined with O2. Meaning, in an absolutely perfect combustion system where all energy goes back into making H2, no energy would be gained.
That in-itself would disprove the ability to just fill your tank with water and drive off. Last I read Combustion engines where about 30% efficient in making energy, the rest is lost to heat. Alternators run somewhere in the same range in converting kinetic energy to electrical.
So what you have here is a system that would be no better then an electric car, in fact, far worse. All its power would come from the car battery and then the added process of breaking apart the H2O would only serve to reduce the efficiency of the engine.
The only way that H2 From water is feasible as a source of energy is if it is used purely as a method of transporting energy, and thats the case where a much more powerful reactor is creating the H2 (nuclear plant). Even then, we would be better off with an energy grid that could handle higher power transfers and much more powerful rapid charging batteries then using H2 as a energy carrier.
I know they get H2 from somewhere other then water, Im just not fluent enough to know what that source is. But water is really a bad source of H2.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter