Could you please tell me what element on the periodic table is represented by the symbol in your avatar? Mind you, that's a fairly standard high school level science question....
... have you done anything with it? I mean other than doing math and fun things like that...
Do you mean "fun things" like earn a Bachelors degree in mechanical engineering and graduate degrees in material science and biomedical engineering and 15 years in aerospace R&D and 10 years as Director of R&D for the company I'm presently with? How about 6 published U.S. patents and 26 published foreign patents? Maybe it's serving on the engineering curriculum advisory boards for 2 universities and one for the National Science Foundation? Perhaps you mean serving 4 years on the Board of Directors for the Florida Medical Device Manufacturers Association, or speaking at MIT, Stanford and U.C. Berkley on technology transition and management? Maybe you mean working with Los Alamos National Laboratories on new gas generating propellant compounds? You mean "fun things" like that?? Nah, I haven't done anything since high school math and science class....and you're right, I don't believe you.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 11-07-2009).]
Perhaps I am. It's admittedly a "heavy handed" way of illustrating the appalling lack of very basic science knowledge I mentioned previously, and you'll note that I have yet to receive an answer to that simple question. My point, more properly put, is that it is exceedingly easy for scam artists such as the "HHO" crooks to fool people that have less than a basic grasp of elementary science.
Actually, you can run a car on water. This man has done it. He is developing a Humvee for the military that can run both on water and gasoline. This has been verified. Here is the video.
pretty amazing stuff. This guy is the real deal, and has proved it.
I've met Denny Klein, and I've seen his videos and that local news piece. Denny's "operation" is just a few miles from my office. Denny Klein of full of crap. As with all of the "HHO" scammers, Denny's chief function is looking for gullible INVESTORS to scam. That "amazing" torch shown in the video you reference is nothing but a commercially produced oxy hydrogen torch that anyone can buy. Get one for yourself here: http://www.tiptemp.com/Product.aspx?ProductID=1369 or here: http://store.sra-solder.com/product.php/6019/4 They've been in commercial use for over 50 years! At risk of you calling me a "condescending ass" again, I would plead with you to PLEASE educate yourself before proclaiming someone "the real deal".
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 11-07-2009).]
Do you mean "fun things" like earn a Bachelors degree in mechanical engineering and graduate degrees in material science and biomedical engineering and 15 years in aerospace R&D and 10 years as Director of R&D for the company I'm presently with? How about 6 published U.S. patents and 26 published foreign patents? Maybe it's serving on the engineering curriculum advisory boards for 2 universities and one for the National Science Foundation? Perhaps you mean serving 4 years on the Board of Directors for the Florida Medical Device Manufacturers Association, or speaking at MIT, Stanford and U.C. Berkley on technology transition and management? Maybe you mean working with Los Alamos National Laboratories on new gas generating propellant compounds? You mean "fun things" like that?? Nah, I haven't done anything since high school math and science class....and you're right, I don't believe you.
"The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them." - Albert Einstein, US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955) You dont have to be such a smug ass. This quote sums you up perfectly. You know what? 60 years ago scientist believed it was physically impossible to break the sound barrier. You should know this from your background. Then the idea came to get swept wings from studying the V ripples from the back of a ship in the water. Conventional thinking was broken, and new heights were achieved. History is full of examples such as this. Your education on such things is only as good as we as man understand the issue. You remind me of those arrogant doctors who for years ridiculed Acupuncture. Today, acupuncture is recognized as a legitimate practice, and has proven to have effects.
Like the medical field, Science is constantly changing, and in some cases "common knowledge" is being proven wrong. Our supposed understanding of what is possible with physics is hardly the final say. We are infants in truly understanding the universe in which we live. Einsteins theory of quantum physics is still hard for scientist of today to grasp.
This man found by accident that salt water can be ignited when exposed to certain radio waves. Scientist say their "baffled". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhqMeF6SSlM
For you to talk with such arrogance, and speak as if your all knowing does not reflect well on your character. Are you educated? I'm sure. Do you have an understanding of such elements better then most? I'm sure. Does this mean something as you understand it is the final say, and things you think are impossible can not be achieved? Don't be so sure, Science has a poor track record of being on the right side of things when they claim absolute fact. Not too long ago, the Atom was thought to be the smallest thing in the world....until they successfully split one.
Now for my own quote, "closed minds leave no open doors".
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 11-07-2009).]
"The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them." - Albert Einstein, US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955) You dont have to be such a smug ass. This quote sums you up perfectly. You know what? 60 years ago scientist believed it was physically impossible to break the sound barrier. You should know this from your background. Then the idea came to get swept wings from studying the V ripples from the back of a ship in the water. Conventional thinking was broken, and new heights were achieved. History is full of examples such as this. Your education on such things is only as good as we as man understand the issue. You remind me of those arrogant doctors who for years ridiculed Acupuncture. Today, acupuncture is recognized as a legitimate practice, and has proven to have effects.
Like the medical field, Science is constantly changing, and in some cases "common knowledge" is being proven wrong. Our supposed understanding of what is possible with physics is hardly the final say. We are infants in truly understanding the universe in which we live. Einsteins theory of quantum physics is still hard for scientist of today to grasp.
This man found by accident that salt water can be ignited when exposed to certain radio waves. Scientist say their "baffled". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhqMeF6SSlM
For you to talk with such arrogance, and speak as if your all knowing does not reflect well on your character. Are you educated? I'm sure. Do you have an understanding of such elements better then most? I'm sure. Does this mean something as you understand it is the final say, and things you think are impossible can not be achieved? Don't be so sure, Science has a poor track record of being on the right side of things when they claim absolute fact. Not too long ago, the Atom was thought to be the smallest thing in the world....until they successfully split one.
Now for my own quote, "closed minds leave no open doors".
If you wish to believe in "water fuels", by all means please do so. Perhaps we could also reintroduce astrology, alchemy and frenology to science academia.....
Allow me to offer you one of my quotes as well:
"If you are willing believe anything, you'll fall for almost everything."
...and a quote that I believe is from fellow PFF member Marvin McInnis:
"Simple incompetence is generally a far more sinister force than malicious intent"
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 11-07-2009).]
IP: Logged
01:59 AM
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
60 years ago scientist believed it was physically impossible to break the sound barrier. ... Then the idea came to get swept wings ....
History does not support your first assertion, but are you claiming that a blunt body or an aircraft with straight wings cannot exceed the speed of sound? They can, and do. Swept wings are just more efficient (i.e. have lower drag) at transonic and supersonic speeds. Even supersonic biplanes are possible, but you will never see one simply because they're not practical.
quote
Einsteins theory of quantum physics is still hard for scientist of today to grasp.
Quantum theory may be counter-intuitive, but it's certainly not "hard for scientist of today to grasp." The math does tend to get a little tricky, though, what with all the infinities popping up here and there.
quote
This man found by accident that salt water can be ignited when exposed to certain radio waves. Scientist say their "baffled".
"This man" is wrong; he's either a fool or a charlatan. And any scientist who is "baffled" by the demonstration needs to repeat freshman physics. Dissociation of water by applying an AC electromagnetic field at or near the resonant frequency of the water molecules has been known for more than a century. Questions: How much energy does it take to generate those "certain radio waves?" How much energy do they transport into the water?
quote
Does this mean ... things you think are impossible can not be achieved? ... Science has a poor track record of being on the right side of things when they claim absolute fact.
The fundamental principles of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics are well known and highly reliable. Of course there is uncertainty in new areas of investigation; if there was no uncertainty there would be no need for research and experimentation, but the fundamental principles still hold.
Einstein's quantum theory of light, his special theory of relativity, and his general theory of relativity were all indeed revolutionary, but they did not change the world of everyday human experience one bit. A baseball thrown by a human pitcher or hit by a bat still moved in exactly the same way as before, in accordance with Newton's still-correct observations more than two centuries earlier. Only baseballs moving at near the speed of light (> 0.99 c) would exhibit significant relativistic effects.
quote
Originally posted by randye:
... it is exceedingly easy for scam artists such as the "HHO" crooks to fool people that have less than a basic grasp of elementary science.
If you wish to believe in "water fuels", by all means please do so. Perhaps we could also reintroduce alchemy and frenology to academia.....
I'm not saying I believe in anything. I'm just making a point about your dogmatic mentality. I do believe the man that stumbled on a way to ignite salt water. That has been validated, and his machine is being studied in a medical facility right now. This is something many scientist would have said was impossible, but he found out about it. So there you go. Its healthy to be skeptical, but to not the point where you mind is lineaire in its approach to concepts.
I still find it humorous when scientist speak of the big bang. So.....where did the element of hydrogen and matter its self come from in the first place? Lets say the Big bang is true, how do you explain where the necessary compounds originated from? You cant. You would have to conclude that they always have been, there was no beginning, because something cannot come from nothing. Of course, that goes against conventional scientific thinking. So now, science would have to say matter and elements such as hydrogen have always been, problem is that contradicts much of science theory.
Things like this cant be explained, you should think about that.
I never claimed anything as far as a blunt object not being able to break the sound barrier. I was explaining what the belief was back then. They did not believe it could safely be done if achieved. Swept wings changed that. Your putting words in my mouth I never said. based of the fact I simply used this as an example of narrow thinking, and how out of the box thinking found a solution not thought possible, does in fact support my point.
Perhaps I am. It's admittedly a "heavy handed" way of illustrating the appalling lack of very basic science knowledge I mentioned previously, and you'll note that I have yet to receive an answer to that simple question. My point, more properly put, is that it is exceedingly easy for scam artists such as the "HHO" crooks to fool people that have less than a basic grasp of elementary science.
why don't you tell me the answer to your question since your so smart, teach me somethin?
I've met Denny Klein, and I've seen his videos and that local news piece. Denny's "operation" is just a few miles from my office. Denny Klein of full of crap. As with all of the "HHO" scammers, Denny's chief function is looking for gullible INVESTORS to scam. That "amazing" torch shown in the video you reference is nothing but a commercially produced oxy hydrogen torch that anyone can buy. Get one for yourself here: http://www.tiptemp.com/Product.aspx?ProductID=1369 or here: http://store.sra-solder.com/product.php/6019/4 They've been in commercial use for over 50 years! At risk of you calling me a "condescending ass" again, I would plead with you to PLEASE educate yourself before proclaiming someone "the real deal".
I guess the military is just as gullible as I. With all do respect though, you may be right. But think about this. A news report claims he has all these contracts. could be garbage, but at the same time Im supposed to just listen to a guy on a fiero forum tell me its not legit? Its kind of a push. I would not call this stuff common knowledge. Maybe for people in your field of work yes, but not the average person. That would be like me saying you all are incompetent because you have no understanding of the proper methods to handle law enforcement situations, and how the law applies in the field.
I posted the articles because I thought they were interesting. I defended AJ because he was not deserving of being spoken down to in such a way. You were belittling him when he had done nothing in return to deserve such practice. With all that education, perhaps you could of taken a course on civil manners. Being more educated in a topic over others does not entitle you to speak down to them. Rather, use your knowledge to educate and share, but do it with a positive overtone.
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 11-07-2009).]
I never claimed anything as far as a blunt object not being able to break the sound barrier. I was explaining what the belief was back then. They did not believe it could safely be done if achieved. Swept wings changed that.
Bullets and artillery projectiles had been going supersonic for more than a century before wings did. There was certainly no question in the 1940s that supersonic flight was possible.
You do bring up a good point about safety, but sweeping the wings didn't have anything to do with that. As a wing ... any wing, swept or not ... goes supersonic, the center of lift abruptly moves aft, from ~25% of chord to ~50% of chord. Since the center of gravity does not change, this produces a huge nose-down pitching moment ... the so-called "Mach tuck." Both Mach tuck and control reversal due to airframe flexing had occasionally been encountered by advanced fighters such as the P-51 during and after WW-II, often with disastrous results. Given enough power available, it was almost a foregone conclusion that a real-world airplane could exceed the speed of sound. But it was a real engineering challenge to figure out how to maintain positive aircraft stability and control during the transition from subsonic to supersonic flight, and then slowing back to subsonic.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 11-07-2009).]
Bullets and artillery projectiles had been going supersonic for more than a century before wings did. There was certainly no question in the 1940s that supersonic flight was possible.
You do bring up a good point about safety, but sweeping the wings didn't have anything to do with that. As a wing ... any wing, swept or not ... goes supersonic, the center of lift abruptly moves from ~25% of chord to ~50% of chord, which produces a huge nose-down pitching moment ... the so-called "Mach tuck." Both Mach tuck and control reversal due to airframe flexing had occasionally been encountered by advanced fighters such as the P-51 during and after WW-II, often with disastrous results. It was a real engineering challenge to figure out how to maintain positive aircraft stability during the transition from subsonic to supersonic flight, and then slowing back to subsonic.
My point was based around humans safely achieving this goal. I should have been more clear.
...and yet all it apparently took was a YouTube video for you to proclaim Denny Klein "legit" and "the real deal" ?
Knowledge is the foundation of skepticism.
perhaps I was premature in that statement, but I do consider Fox news a rather creditable news network. many may not, but I do. I took into account the fact they reported he has contracts with a automaker, and the govt. After hearing that, I assumed there had to be some legitimacy for that to even be the case. If the news report was wrong on that, then I would be way more cautious about the whole thing.
"Knowledge is the foundation of skepticism". Remember one thing. It's all relative to the quality of the knowledge. Christopher Columbus was ridiculed by people skeptical of his theory of the world being spherical. After all, that was the common "knowledge" at the time. Outside of the box thinking forever changed that knowledge.
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 11-07-2009).]
perhaps I was premature in that statement, but I do consider Fox news a rather creditable news network. many may not, but I do. I took into account the fact they reported he has contracts with a automaker, and the govt. After hearing that, I assumed there had to be some legitimacy for that to even be the case. If the news report was wrong on that, then I would be way more cautious about the whole thing.
"Knowledge is the foundation of skepticism". Not so sure about that one, superstition can breed just as much skepticism, and there is no knowledge attached.
Stanley A. Meyer also claimed to have contracts with auto makers and the military as have nearly all the others that have gone before and since Stanley. It's a common theme with "HHO" scam artists and meant to accomplish precisely what it did with you....believe they are legitimate. The news media are more than gullible with stories like Stanley Meyers' or Denny Klein's. They're more than happy to sell sensational stories about fuel from water, cold fusion and finding the "missing link" with little, or no, regard to even the most rudimentary science facts and an apparent "amnesia" for all the similar, if not identical, stories previously reported that also came to naught or eventually exposed as scams.
Superstition simply breeds irrational fear or belief, unsupported by verifiable evidence. Skepticism has a much richer philosophical and rhetorical foundation: The word skepticism can characterize a position on a single claim, but in scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mind-set. Skepticism is an approach to accepting, rejecting, or suspending judgment on new information that requires the new information to be well supported by argument or evidence.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 11-07-2009).]
IP: Logged
03:48 AM
darkhorizon Member
Posts: 12279 From: Flint Michigan Registered: Jan 2006
I know the part owner of the largest electronics shop in town, and he gets all sorts of customers in there buying parts to make electrolysis machines for their cars. They all seem to have some luck with it.
I wouldnt look at it in terms of energy in and energy out... I think of it more along the lines of "we only get 25% of the energy from gas to the wheels", and that the "browns gas" whatever helps increase efficiencies in some form.
IP: Logged
09:10 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
I guess no one was interested in my urine hydrogen cell find.
Guess I missed that one--sounds like a pizzy deal tho. I'll have to go back and re-read the thread after I'm done planting the magic beans I bought really really cheap yesterday. The seller said he was broke down just around the corner and only needed a few bucks worth of gas to get to a new job he just started, and would sell me the beans cheap. But first, I gotta go install The Tornado Air Diffuser on top of my throttle body. Gotta hedge my bet in case Exxon folds up.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-07-2009).]
IP: Logged
10:03 AM
PFF
System Bot
TiredGXP Member
Posts: 712 From: A cold, miserable place Registered: Jan 2008
Stanley A. Meyer also claimed to have contracts with auto makers and the military as have nearly all the others that have gone before and since Stanley. It's a common theme with "HHO" scam artists and meant to accomplish precisely what it did with you....believe they are legitimate. The news media are more than gullible with stories like Stanley Meyers' or Denny Klein's. They're more than happy to sell sensational stories about fuel from water, cold fusion and finding the "missing link" with little, or no, regard to even the most rudimentary science facts and an apparent "amnesia" for all the similar, if not identical, stories previously reported that also came to naught or eventually exposed as scams.
Superstition simply breeds irrational fear or belief, unsupported by verifiable evidence. Skepticism has a much richer philosophical and rhetorical foundation: The word skepticism can characterize a position on a single claim, but in scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mind-set. Skepticism is an approach to accepting, rejecting, or suspending judgment on new information that requires the new information to be well supported by argument or evidence.
"Knowledge is the foundation of skepticism". Remember one thing. It's all relative to the quality of the knowledge. Christopher Columbus was ridiculed by people skeptical of his theory of the world being spherical. After all, that was the common "knowledge" at the time. Outside of the box thinking forever changed that knowledge.
I didnt know that about Stanley Myer. Had I known about the contract claims etc. I wouldn't have even given it thought on area.
I have heard of people using set ups to make hydrogen that is injected with fuel into the cylinder. Making a something like a 70/30 mix, or something of the like. Supposedly alot of people, as stated above, are having sucess with this, and their increasing the MPG of their cars substantially. Don't know if its true though.
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 11-07-2009).]
"Knowledge is the foundation of skepticism". Remember one thing. It's all relative to the quality of the knowledge. Christopher Columbus was ridiculed by people skeptical of his theory of the world being spherical. After all, that was the common "knowledge" at the time. Outside of the box thinking forever changed that knowledge.
I didnt know that about Stanley Myer. Had I known about the contract claims etc. I wouldn't have even given it thought on area.
I have heard of people using set ups to make hydrogen that is injected with fuel into the cylinder. Making a something like a 70/30 mix, or something of the like. Supposedly alot of people, as stated above, are having sucess with this, and their increasing the MPG of their cars substantially. Don't know if its true though.
Thank you for your reminder Nick, however I make my living by "thinking outside the box". In fact much of my work is so far removed from "the box" that we forget there was ever a "box" to begin with.
"I have heard of people using set ups to make hydrogen that is injected with fuel into the cylinder. Making a something like a 70/30 mix, or something of the like. Supposedly alot of people, as stated above, are having sucess with this, and their increasing the MPG of their cars substantially. Don't know if its true though."
It isn't.
Please refer to my earlier post where I offered the basic energy requirements for a 40% advantage. Additionally, while there is little if any research on the specific area of this "HHO" or "Brown's Gas" additive to petroleum motor fuels, I would be remiss by not cautioning those that are determined to persist in trying it to be aware of something called hydrogen embrittlement corrosion: http://www.corrosion-doctor...IC/embrittlement.htm The materials of most vehicle engines were not engineered specifically with long term exposure to elemental hydrogen in mind.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 11-07-2009).]
Guess I missed that one--sounds like a pizzy deal tho. I'll have to go back and re-read the thread after I'm done planting the magic beans I bought really really cheap yesterday. The seller said he was broke down just around the corner and only needed a few bucks worth of gas to get to a new job he just started, and would sell me the beans cheap. But first, I gotta go install The Tornado Air Diffuser on top of my throttle body. Gotta hedge my bet in case Exxon folds up.
You might want to also install those rare earth magnets around your fuel lines too. I hear they "energize" the fuel in a mysterious way. By the way Don, you'll get more "gas" from *eating* those "magic beans". Some rubber tubing a small plastic funnel and some duct tape and you're on your way to bio-methane power for your car! Your mileage may vary according to diet, but Tex-Mex fare should undoubtedly yield some fairly "high performance"
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 11-07-2009).]
Instead, however, you can partially run your vehicle on water. This is done through basic electrolysis. Water is electrolyzed with an electrical current from the car's battery or alternator and the H2O turns into HHO gas. This HHO gas is then pushed or pulled into the car's intake system where it will burn along with the gasoline inside the cylinders.
The alternator charges the battery. The alternator is powered by the engine. So you're taking power from the engine to run an alternator to charge a battery which creates a gas through electrolysis that's put into the engine to partially power it. There are losses at each of those steps. This process can never be as efficient as just using the power to run the engine, with less drain from the alternator. If this gas was only generated while the car was idling, when it is doing nothing useful but keeping itself running, and then burned to help accelerate the car to a cruising speed later on, that would be an efficient use of the technology. Anything else would be a net loss.
From the fyi website: The alternator charges the battery. The alternator is powered by the engine. So you're taking power from the engine to run an alternator to charge a battery which creates a gas through electrolysis that's put into the engine to partially power it. There are losses at each of those steps. This process can never be as efficient as just using the power to run the engine, with less drain from the alternator. If this gas was only generated while the car was idling, when it is doing nothing useful but keeping itself running, and then burned to help accelerate the car to a cruising speed later on, that would be an efficient use of the technology. Anything else would be a net loss.
Even at idle, it's still a loss. The alternator only puts out as much usefull current and voltage as it's internal regulator "tells" it to. For the electrolysis to take place, current has to flow. That current flow has come from somewhere. Leave your engine at idle. Check voltage & current with a good VOM. Now, turn on the smallest of possible loads--a tiny light bulb. Re-check your current and voltage. Work was done--work requires energy--more energy than if zero work was done. There is no free energy. No free ride.
IP: Logged
05:33 PM
CheshireGrin Member
Posts: 693 From: Windsor,Ontario,Canada Registered: Oct 2006
"always keep an open mind.. just not so open that your brains fall out"
I agree that many of the cornerstones of science now were "radicals" who faced much opposition from their scientific peers. These people who changed science had genuine contributions which needed to change the minds of the scientific community. Granted genuine is taken in the respect of forwarding knowledge and this can even be applied to things that do not work. Every failure can be used as a stepping stone to success. (eq the many failures of the lightbulb )
Im simply trying to say that all scientific discoveries have met with vehement opposition if they were to change the standards by which we live. Often times these "nay-sayers" can be people with vested interests in the current method or they are people who are looking to uphold the method in which science is meant to be conducted- through the scientific method. There are many theroies in physics that simply cannot be proven or disproven ( see string theory) simply because they make no new predictions outside of the current theory. This does not mean either theory is in correct. The scientific community as a whole needs to be skeptical. That is essential for what we do. If , for example a miss calculation provided data which proved that water could suddenly gather up from the ocean and rain on the land ( as per 2nd law of thermodynamics not impossible but we would simply need an infinite # of copies of our universe which we could moniter for something like 90 billon years ) but away from ridiculous occurences....
In short there is energy contained within bonds between atoms in molecules; This energy needs to be either input or released as per the laws of thermodynamics. Yes matter does have associated energy but no car should ever require that much energy for propulsion. So basically it comes down to the energy stored within the bonds of the molecules and how easy it is to release this energy per energy put in. ( see activation energies)
"always keep an open mind.. just not so open that your brains fall out"
. So basically it comes down to the energy stored within the bonds of the molecules and how easy it is to release this energy per energy put in. ( see activation energies)
Ryan (Undergraduate physics)
"how easy=the amt of introduced energy required to release that stored energy.
I'd like that 20 minutes of my life back please. Nowhere on any page of that website is even a shred of quantifiable evidence or data offered. It's chock-full of lots of anecdotal statements, and that's about all.
I'd like that 20 minutes of my life back please. Nowhere on any page of that website is even a shred of quantifiable evidence or data offered. It's chock-full of lots of anecdotal statements, and that's about all.
Nope--you missed it's purpose. Keep clicking the hyperlinks embedded in the text and they ALL end up taking ya here.
Tryin' to sell smoke and mirrors. Just one more scam among thousands.
IP: Logged
06:01 PM
kwagner Member
Posts: 4258 From: Pittsburgh, PA Registered: Apr 2005
Even at idle, it's still a loss. The alternator only puts out as much usefull current and voltage as it's internal regulator "tells" it to. For the electrolysis to take place, current has to flow. That current flow has come from somewhere. Leave your engine at idle. Check voltage & current with a good VOM. Now, turn on the smallest of possible loads--a tiny light bulb. Re-check your current and voltage. Work was done--work requires energy--more energy than if zero work was done. There is no free energy. No free ride.
I know it's always a loss, I guess I wasn't clear enough. I was saying the only time I could see such a device as possibly being useful would be to store energy while the car is stopped (ie at a red light). Like hybrids, there is a total net loss of efficiency (using the engine to charge batteries), but because each type of stored energy can be used when it's more efficient to do so, the vehicle as a whole during driving can have a net gain of efficiency in the right driving conditions. In the case of electrolysis, I'd think the amount you could generate while idling would be so small as to be negligible.
[This message has been edited by kwagner (edited 11-07-2009).]
I'd like that 20 minutes of my life back please. Nowhere on any page of that website is even a shred of quantifiable evidence or data offered. It's chock-full of lots of anecdotal statements, and that's about all.
Nick--they just talk round in round in circles--tellin you nothing of any substance. Promising this-that, without ever explaining anything in any kind of detail.
IP: Logged
06:39 PM
kwagner Member
Posts: 4258 From: Pittsburgh, PA Registered: Apr 2005
Think of it this way. If it's possible to get energy amount A by expending energy amount B, and A is greater than B, you've just found a source of unlimited energy! Why power a car with it when you could run a generator and be rich?
Think of it this way. If it's possible to get energy amount A by expending energy amount B, and A is greater than B, you've just found a source of unlimited energy! Why power a car with it when you could run a generator and be rich?
According to this news story here, these guys are only boosting the efficiency of their gasoline, giving them greater MPG.
