...and if the economy doesn't collapse, this technology will be used to power homes while hopefully being a source of hydrogen for your fuel cell cars to run on. Power your home with solar while producing hydrogen. Awesome.
The Retrocon
Hope for America, Ron Paul for President in 2008!
And its free with no strings attached. Free for the ones who can move their figure and click a mouse. But you will find so many that do not want to take the time to become educated and free They'll keep saying "You can't do that! I've learned in physic 101 it's impossible, just a scam so don't try!"
"Educated Sheeples are the Oil companies best friends!"
I did a page search on the comments, and none of you seem to be mentioning the word CATALYST.
Students in science labs have been taking apart water using an electrical current for many, many years. The problem has been that the process is very inefficient.
The new process uses a new (patented) catalyst to release oxygen with almost 100% efficiency. This means that water can be taken apart and the resulting gasses later burned or used in a fuel cell with minimal loss of energy in the cycle. This makes using hydrogen and oxygen production, storage and use a viable means of storing significant amounts of energy. Think of it as a substitute for a storage battery.
The reference in the headline and article is misleading. The process does not use sunlight to produce hydrogen and oxygen. It uses the electricity produced by photovoltaic cells to take apart water, only more efficiently than we have seen in the past.
I googled some keywords and found a much better article which more clearly explains what they are doing Find it here:
This article was written for persons with a high-school level of science education, and, while incomplete, gives a much clearer idea of the system. The MIT article seems to have been dumbed down so much as to be confusing.
Note that this process has NOTHING TO DO with the claimed high frequency excited production of HHO being touted by the "run your car on water" people. I have not seen anyone yet who has subjected those claims to rigorous scientific testing. It would be wonderful if true, so if you know of real proof of gas output vs energy input I'd really like to see it. Of course I could try to build a test system but if it didn't perform to expectations the promoters would say I built it wrong. What they should do is perform more rigorous tests if they expect to be believed.
really, all you HHO loving people, shut up about it on this website! The educated base on here knows water is not an energy source. We also know that hydrogen is not an energy source, only a way to transport energy.
STOP BELIEVING EVERY STUPID THING A SCAMMER TELLS YOU!
Have you noticed that the only people using HHO are people with no scientific or chemistry background? It is not some conspiracy by the oil companies. Really, it is not.
A way to become more free from the slavery of oil? Wow, I'm in the wrong revolution it seems... Liberty? and now we can't share things because we are not educated! Wow! Help me out here all the smart people, what college did Tesla get his degree from?
Doctorates at MIT who are more highly educated then you seem to think its worth pursuing??!!! as far as being "educated" some of the book smartest people I know are also the dumbest! I have 2 friends who scored 35/35 on there act tests and yet they make less money then I do and it makes them mad.. so who is smarter??
If it offers some advantage over existing technologies, they will patent it and maybe make a bunch of money. If they can figure a way to turn it into a weapon, they will receive a government grant and will make a bunch of money (just kidding), The discovery is interesting, maybe even significant, but I would be more impressed with a breakthrough in fuel cell technology. Generating hydrogen from water is nothing new. A low cost, long lasting fuel cell to actually use that hydrogen would be. Hydrogen is very tricky to store, you know. All those teeeny tiny H2 molecules are cosmic escape artists.
I'm glad that the Anti-HHO crowd wasn't around when humankind was discovering the uses of fire.
We'd still be eating cold food in a dwelling with no heat probably and riding horses as our primary mode of transportation. Since using fire for cooking, heating our homes and in internal combustion engines would be out of the question.
Really? Water is not a source of hydrogen (through the endothermic chemical reaction of electrolysis) which can be used as an energy source in an exothermic chemical reaction, like that in an internal combustion engine?
Wow. I thought it was. I thought 70% of the Earth is covered with this compound of hydrogen and oxygen known as water and that we have a nuclear reactor in our sky known as the Sun that IS a free energy source.
Sorry to "scam" everyone. I guess I'm not regurgitating your talking points properly.
the difference that you are looking for is that gasoline continues it's reaction (rapid oxidation) without a continued supply of heat. It is simple really, gasoline is a form of energy (created by millions of years of sunlight making petroleum) and water is not. To turn water into hydrogen requires the same amount of energy put into it as you will get out of the combustion. And since combustion engines are not very efficient, you will actually lose energy in the process. You need a continuous supply of energy to have the water react. That is not the same with gasoline.
Do you see what I mean? I am not trying to be mean, just set you straight on the truth. You should learn to accept that you may not be right about everything.
It looks to me like like the difference between water as "fuel" and gasoline as "fuel" is that the former is an endothermic chemical reaction and the latter is an exothermic chemical reaction.
Perhaps "energy source" would be better phraseology for water as "fuel".
An endothermic reaction absorbs heat. It can't be an energy source. It requires more energy than it provides.
An exothermic reaction produces heat. Lets go back to your example of needing spark plugs to keep a gasoline engine running. The battery provides the initial energy to turn over the engine and fire the spark plugs. Each time they fire they ignite the gasoline, which provides sufficient energy to both move the car and drive the alternator, charging the battery and providing the energy for the next spark. You get more energy out of the gasoline than it takes to initiate the reaction.
Since the splitting of water into hydrogen and oxygen is, as you say, endothermic, it does not provide more energy than it takes to split the water. Therefore, there is no energy left to move the car.
Both of them release energy as heat when they combine with oxygen. Each produces byproducts of combustion when they burn.
Gasoline produces a laundry list of hydrocarbon emissions along with CO and CO2, and I'm sure lots of other nasty stuff.
Hydrogen produces water.
Saying you can use water as fuel is like saying that you could capture all of the byproducts of burning gasoline, somehow reconstitute them into gasoline, burn the new gasoline and achieve a net energy gain by doing so.
I do not in any way dispute the fact that you can use electricity to get hydrogen from water. However, you will never get more energy out of burning that hydrogen than you put into retrieving it from the water. You must provide energy from an outside source to produce the hydrogen.
This does not mean there is no use for hydrogen as fuel. The MIT article about using the hydrogen as storage for solar energy is one good use. There is also technology being developed to use bacteria in sewage treatment plants to produce hydrogen for fuel. Hydrogen is a fantastic fuel, but unfortunately, water is not.
You need three thing, fuel, ignition (heat) and Oxygen. Just heat and fuel is not enough. Charles Nelson Pouge proved that in the thirties with his vapor carb. He used exhaust gases to super heat gas to make a vapor then dry it for burning. 26.5 miles per pint of gas..., ,They said it was not safe, "it will blow up! " .Not with out all three!
Gasoline is not "fuel" without heat energy. Ok, we can also say that gasoline is not "fuel" without oxygen (or other oxidizer). And, we can say that gasoline is not "fuel" without heat energy and oxygen (or other oxidizer).
1. combustible matter used to maintain fire, as coal, wood, oil, or gas, in order to create heat or power.
2. something that gives nourishment; food.
3. an energy source for engines, power plants, or reactors: Kerosene is used as jet engine fuel.
Definitions 1 and 3 are relevant. A substance does not have to be burning to be fuel, but it has to be able to burn. Hydrogen and gasoline both meet that requirement. Water does not.
Lets look at gas. Let's say for the sake of argument that all the energy required to drill, pump, and refine oil comes from oil based fuel. The only reason why oil is a good fuel source is because it takes a very small amount of oil based fuel to get it out of the ground and refine it. Not sure how much it is, but it probably takes less than 1 barrel of oil converted to fuel and used in this process to drill, pump, refine, and transport 100 barrels of gas to the local BP station. In this manner, oil is a great fuel source. It has stored the energy from the carbon based life forms in the sea quite well.
Water has no stored energy in it. At least none that we have figured out and none for the sake of this argument. It requires more energy to split the H2O molecule than the energy emitted by hydrogen combustion. This is the simple law of thermal dynamics. What makes this process works is the free energy from the sun is used to split H2O. This makes it cheaper than drilling, pumping, refining, and transporting gasoline.
That is it in a nutshell.
The only problem is storage. How much will it cost to store the hydrogen, when the sun is not shinning. If there is a cheap and efficient way to do this, then this model will work. If the storage is relatively expensive, it will not fly.
just add sodium. The problem is (as always) ya GATA obtain unreacted sodium (from sodium chloride for example). More energy goes into refining the sodium than you get back; same problem with electrolysis. Actually electrolysis is probably the process used to obtain sodium (the metal). Electrolysis works with other compounds beside water, you know.
CaC2 + 2H2O → Ca(OH)2 + C2H2
produces acetylene whch can be burned (can it!). Again the problem is the energy needed to produce CaC2. If CaC2 existed in nature in abundance and could be easily produced it could have served as the base for an fuel infrastructure. Your car would run on water, kinda....(like that Jap car). Unfortunately that's not the way things are.
Because I think its important. If you've ever seen "who killed the electric car" the patent for the battery in the first commercially leased electric automobile was sold to GM and GM has sat on the patent ever since.
This water as fuel technology is not new-its been around probably since the 1800's just like ethanol to fill your gas tank (bet you didn't know prohibition was to give Rockefeller Oil a leg up in the auto fueling industry). However, I bet this MIT professor is going to "patent" it and make the technology unavailabe for mass production.
Over the past two months I've seen dozens of ads for water based fuel and I think the NWO is trying to put a plug on the leaking of information. I imagine if this professor patents the technology then we won't see anyone mass producing these cars.
That is why awareness and education are important. Ask questions. Investigate, scrutinize, demand answers.Acquire the information. Acquire the knowledge. Be the media.
You.
Not an "expert." Not the government. Not the "mainstream" media.
You.
More intellectual curiosity. More free, rational and critical thinking. More scientific inquiry. Not less.
Patrick Henry will always say it best:
"This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. "
0-60 in two seconds! Screw the extra gas milage. VarOOOOOOOm! And when I'm not using it, I just let it idle and tap that wasted energy from the alternator to power my entire house!
into your ass, I am sure all your wasted energy on trying to discredit this would be ample to power all your household appliances and best of all you cold save gas by using your own!
He's waiting to get his job back at the Oil Company, he has to discredit this, if people are free from big oil he won't get his big bucks job back! Have some companion for him and the other oil men!
20 mb ebook Free. pdf of many build your own H2o "on demand" units. It take a few minutes for the page to load, then save.
On page 383, see the "Smack boost"
HYDROMAN
whichever gadget it is it is always touted as "carbon free". Carbon is a nessesary element in all life as we know it. Carbon is natural it is not made by man or the Devil -----------people need to get over this foolish bullshit!
My Uncle is also an Engineer and Dean at MIT. He has sort of rolled his eyes at me before about HHO. But I will say it is not propaganda or conspiracy. Sometimes when you have been educated in a certain way. It makes certainties way harder for them to believe. It is like blind intellectualism.
Sort of funny actually. Scientists are usually trying discover new things.
I'm not an MIT alumnus, but am a fan of hydrogen fuel. If the stuff is dangerous, it may even cure road rage, if stored on vehicle...take care of the second amendment at the same time.
Please note: For the entire world to know before Nov 4, 2008: John McCain proclaimed more than once in 2007 that he and senior "Republic"?an Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa drink a glass of ethanol every morning for breakfast". Google it if you don't believe me, but now McCain says he is against ethanol subsidies! This is called talking out of both sides of mouth.
Also see whtt.org
If you haven't already...please condemn your congressman if he/she voted to override Bush's for show veto in June, 2008, for the second time. The bill was H.R. 2419. Ethanol subsidies equal fraud, embezzlement, and they help starve the world.
If your HHO unit can produce 1.7 liters of uncompressed hydrogen per minute, and HHO is 2/3 hydrogen(fuel), that is producing about 12 BTUs/min of power.
12 BTUs/min = about 210 watts of power
In the common HHO generators of today, it is taking 20 amps of 12v power to make this 1.7 liters of HHO per minute.
20 amps x 12v = 240 watts
So, there is a net loss of 30 watts in this HHO conversion, which is about 12.5% loss, or 87.5% efficiency in creating the fuel.
If they just stored the electricity in batteries, then they'd have more of the power available to use from the solar panels.
Maybe they're planning to use this for home heating, which electricity is not really very efficient at.
This topic was just on CNBC.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
yep I saw it there too! as
yep I saw it there too!
as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD
This is happening...
...and if the economy doesn't collapse, this technology will be used to power homes while hopefully being a source of hydrogen for your fuel cell cars to run on. Power your home with solar while producing hydrogen. Awesome.
The Retrocon
Hope for America, Ron Paul for President in 2008!
I am going to make this whole debate very simple.
Who here wants people to have an ability to produce their own energy without oil?
Simple yet profound question.
Do you naysayers want people to have energy away from the strangle hold of oil to where they can have true freedom not having to pay for oil products?
Do you want the average human to be energy independent and free yes or no?
I have drawn the line in the sand.
I do I do I do!
and here is the best way to do it!
It's FREE but takes a while to load, ebook with a lot of info...
FREE FREE FREE
http://www.free-energy-in...
A smart download for dumb people, A dumb download for smart people!
(Self proclaimed smart people say its dumb cause it proves them wrong!)
Check out page 383! good place to build from.
wow, that is quite a book!
Very interesting read. Someone spent a lot of time compiling all of that great information in one place.
Thanks!
Yes they did! Another Freedom Revolution!
And its free with no strings attached. Free for the ones who can move their figure and click a mouse. But you will find so many that do not want to take the time to become educated and free They'll keep saying "You can't do that! I've learned in physic 101 it's impossible, just a scam so don't try!"
"Educated Sheeples are the Oil companies best friends!"
Magic Word: Catalyst
OK guys, I think I can help.
I did a page search on the comments, and none of you seem to be mentioning the word CATALYST.
Students in science labs have been taking apart water using an electrical current for many, many years. The problem has been that the process is very inefficient.
The new process uses a new (patented) catalyst to release oxygen with almost 100% efficiency. This means that water can be taken apart and the resulting gasses later burned or used in a fuel cell with minimal loss of energy in the cycle. This makes using hydrogen and oxygen production, storage and use a viable means of storing significant amounts of energy. Think of it as a substitute for a storage battery.
The reference in the headline and article is misleading. The process does not use sunlight to produce hydrogen and oxygen. It uses the electricity produced by photovoltaic cells to take apart water, only more efficiently than we have seen in the past.
I googled some keywords and found a much better article which more clearly explains what they are doing Find it here:
http://tinyurl.com/55awdp
This article was written for persons with a high-school level of science education, and, while incomplete, gives a much clearer idea of the system. The MIT article seems to have been dumbed down so much as to be confusing.
Note that this process has NOTHING TO DO with the claimed high frequency excited production of HHO being touted by the "run your car on water" people. I have not seen anyone yet who has subjected those claims to rigorous scientific testing. It would be wonderful if true, so if you know of real proof of gas output vs energy input I'd really like to see it. Of course I could try to build a test system but if it didn't perform to expectations the promoters would say I built it wrong. What they should do is perform more rigorous tests if they expect to be believed.
I just want to be clear my
I just want to be clear my comment was not directed at the poster of this topic. HHO from solar is an actually good idea.
really, all you HHO loving
really, all you HHO loving people, shut up about it on this website! The educated base on here knows water is not an energy source. We also know that hydrogen is not an energy source, only a way to transport energy.
STOP BELIEVING EVERY STUPID THING A SCAMMER TELLS YOU!
Have you noticed that the only people using HHO are people with no scientific or chemistry background? It is not some conspiracy by the oil companies. Really, it is not.
"shut up about it on this web site"?
A way to become more free from the slavery of oil? Wow, I'm in the wrong revolution it seems... Liberty? and now we can't share things because we are not educated! Wow! Help me out here all the smart people, what college did Tesla get his degree from?
Hey all you dumb hho people go for a free lesson...
http://www.panaceaunivers...
get the facts, hook up with people who know and share, FREE!
By the way, after you start saving money from not buying as much gas, send dailypaul a donation! and the cfl!
thanks! from a dummy, ME!
sniffle,sniffle...
All you HHO people need to leave, BRITTANY ALONE TOO!!!!
Doctorates at MIT who are
Doctorates at MIT who are more highly educated then you seem to think its worth pursuing??!!! as far as being "educated" some of the book smartest people I know are also the dumbest! I have 2 friends who scored 35/35 on there act tests and yet they make less money then I do and it makes them mad.. so who is smarter??
as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD
They have discovered a different method of electrolysis
If it offers some advantage over existing technologies, they will patent it and maybe make a bunch of money. If they can figure a way to turn it into a weapon, they will receive a government grant and will make a bunch of money (just kidding), The discovery is interesting, maybe even significant, but I would be more impressed with a breakthrough in fuel cell technology. Generating hydrogen from water is nothing new. A low cost, long lasting fuel cell to actually use that hydrogen would be. Hydrogen is very tricky to store, you know. All those teeeny tiny H2 molecules are cosmic escape artists.
I'm glad that the Anti-HHO crowd wasn't around
I'm glad that the Anti-HHO crowd wasn't around when humankind was discovering the uses of fire.
We'd still be eating cold food in a dwelling with no heat probably and riding horses as our primary mode of transportation. Since using fire for cooking, heating our homes and in internal combustion engines would be out of the question.
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
I'd call that an energy source, in fact I'd call it "fuel"
Really? Water is not a source of hydrogen (through the endothermic chemical reaction of electrolysis) which can be used as an energy source in an exothermic chemical reaction, like that in an internal combustion engine?
Wow. I thought it was. I thought 70% of the Earth is covered with this compound of hydrogen and oxygen known as water and that we have a nuclear reactor in our sky known as the Sun that IS a free energy source.
Sorry to "scam" everyone. I guess I'm not regurgitating your talking points properly.
Looks like MIT is trying to scam people too!
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
Don't get lost in semantics
Gasoline is not "fuel" without heat energy.
Water is not "fuel" without electricity.
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
the difference that you are
the difference that you are looking for is that gasoline continues it's reaction (rapid oxidation) without a continued supply of heat. It is simple really, gasoline is a form of energy (created by millions of years of sunlight making petroleum) and water is not. To turn water into hydrogen requires the same amount of energy put into it as you will get out of the combustion. And since combustion engines are not very efficient, you will actually lose energy in the process. You need a continuous supply of energy to have the water react. That is not the same with gasoline.
Do you see what I mean? I am not trying to be mean, just set you straight on the truth. You should learn to accept that you may not be right about everything.
Is he not right because you don't know?
google "Bob Boyce" and learn....never mind, you know everything!
Still buried in semantics...
It looks to me like like the difference between water as "fuel" and gasoline as "fuel" is that the former is an endothermic chemical reaction and the latter is an exothermic chemical reaction.
Perhaps "energy source" would be better phraseology for water as "fuel".
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
You've got it but you don't get it
An endothermic reaction absorbs heat. It can't be an energy source. It requires more energy than it provides.
An exothermic reaction produces heat. Lets go back to your example of needing spark plugs to keep a gasoline engine running. The battery provides the initial energy to turn over the engine and fire the spark plugs. Each time they fire they ignite the gasoline, which provides sufficient energy to both move the car and drive the alternator, charging the battery and providing the energy for the next spark. You get more energy out of the gasoline than it takes to initiate the reaction.
Since the splitting of water into hydrogen and oxygen is, as you say, endothermic, it does not provide more energy than it takes to split the water. Therefore, there is no energy left to move the car.
Here is the real secret
be sharper than a marble, download the book and learn!
its free
http://www.free-energy-in...
Look at it this way
Gasoline is a fuel
Hydrogen is a fuel
Both of them release energy as heat when they combine with oxygen. Each produces byproducts of combustion when they burn.
Gasoline produces a laundry list of hydrocarbon emissions along with CO and CO2, and I'm sure lots of other nasty stuff.
Hydrogen produces water.
Saying you can use water as fuel is like saying that you could capture all of the byproducts of burning gasoline, somehow reconstitute them into gasoline, burn the new gasoline and achieve a net energy gain by doing so.
I do not in any way dispute the fact that you can use electricity to get hydrogen from water. However, you will never get more energy out of burning that hydrogen than you put into retrieving it from the water. You must provide energy from an outside source to produce the hydrogen.
This does not mean there is no use for hydrogen as fuel. The MIT article about using the hydrogen as storage for solar energy is one good use. There is also technology being developed to use bacteria in sewage treatment plants to produce hydrogen for fuel. Hydrogen is a fantastic fuel, but unfortunately, water is not.
You cannot refute this FACT:
Gasoline is not "fuel" without heat energy.
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
I can
You need three thing, fuel, ignition (heat) and Oxygen. Just heat and fuel is not enough. Charles Nelson Pouge proved that in the thirties with his vapor carb. He used exhaust gases to super heat gas to make a vapor then dry it for burning. 26.5 miles per pint of gas..., ,They said it was not safe, "it will blow up! " .Not with out all three!
http://www.rexresearch.co...
Yes, I know, the news said he was a crook!
That does not refute the FACT
Gasoline is not "fuel" without heat energy. Ok, we can also say that gasoline is not "fuel" without oxygen (or other oxidizer). And, we can say that gasoline is not "fuel" without heat energy and oxygen (or other oxidizer).
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
Actually, I can
From dictionary.com definition of Fuel:
1. combustible matter used to maintain fire, as coal, wood, oil, or gas, in order to create heat or power.
2. something that gives nourishment; food.
3. an energy source for engines, power plants, or reactors: Kerosene is used as jet engine fuel.
Definitions 1 and 3 are relevant. A substance does not have to be burning to be fuel, but it has to be able to burn. Hydrogen and gasoline both meet that requirement. Water does not.
Not even a nice try..
LOL. That is not a refutation.
What is the definition of "combustible"?
How is gasoline an energy source in an engine?
I already did my homework on this. You cannot refute it.
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
If you do not understand what I just posted,
there is no further point to this discussion.
Wrong again
No, you cannot understand that gasoline is not "fuel" without heat energy.
If you want to pretend that you can use gasoline as "fuel" without heat energy, then that's your problem.
Go ahead, show me an instance of using gasoline as "fuel" without heat energy. PROVE ME WRONG.
Go ahead, run your car without spark or glow plugs and see how far you'll drive.
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
Not sure if I want to get into the middle of this but I will ...
try my best.
Lets look at gas. Let's say for the sake of argument that all the energy required to drill, pump, and refine oil comes from oil based fuel. The only reason why oil is a good fuel source is because it takes a very small amount of oil based fuel to get it out of the ground and refine it. Not sure how much it is, but it probably takes less than 1 barrel of oil converted to fuel and used in this process to drill, pump, refine, and transport 100 barrels of gas to the local BP station. In this manner, oil is a great fuel source. It has stored the energy from the carbon based life forms in the sea quite well.
Water has no stored energy in it. At least none that we have figured out and none for the sake of this argument. It requires more energy to split the H2O molecule than the energy emitted by hydrogen combustion. This is the simple law of thermal dynamics. What makes this process works is the free energy from the sun is used to split H2O. This makes it cheaper than drilling, pumping, refining, and transporting gasoline.
That is it in a nutshell.
The only problem is storage. How much will it cost to store the hydrogen, when the sun is not shinning. If there is a cheap and efficient way to do this, then this model will work. If the storage is relatively expensive, it will not fly.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
Oh yeah forgot one other thing.
As I stated earlier in the thread, the cost of the PVC has to be factored in as well.
I have tried to simplify, but it is a sound arguement.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
Of course water can be a source of fuel
just add sodium. The problem is (as always) ya GATA obtain unreacted sodium (from sodium chloride for example). More energy goes into refining the sodium than you get back; same problem with electrolysis. Actually electrolysis is probably the process used to obtain sodium (the metal). Electrolysis works with other compounds beside water, you know.
...or water with calcium carbide
CaC2 + 2H2O → Ca(OH)2 + C2H2
produces acetylene whch can be burned (can it!). Again the problem is the energy needed to produce CaC2. If CaC2 existed in nature in abundance and could be easily produced it could have served as the base for an fuel infrastructure. Your car would run on water, kinda....(like that Jap car). Unfortunately that's not the way things are.
I'm going to repost my thought from the bottom
Because I think its important. If you've ever seen "who killed the electric car" the patent for the battery in the first commercially leased electric automobile was sold to GM and GM has sat on the patent ever since.
This water as fuel technology is not new-its been around probably since the 1800's just like ethanol to fill your gas tank (bet you didn't know prohibition was to give Rockefeller Oil a leg up in the auto fueling industry). However, I bet this MIT professor is going to "patent" it and make the technology unavailabe for mass production.
Over the past two months I've seen dozens of ads for water based fuel and I think the NWO is trying to put a plug on the leaking of information. I imagine if this professor patents the technology then we won't see anyone mass producing these cars.
Hold Everything to a Higher Standard
That is why awareness and education are important. Ask questions. Investigate, scrutinize, demand answers.Acquire the information. Acquire the knowledge. Be the media.
You.
Not an "expert." Not the government. Not the "mainstream" media.
You.
More intellectual curiosity. More free, rational and critical thinking. More scientific inquiry. Not less.
Patrick Henry will always say it best:
"This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. "
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
If your uncle were a mathematician
he'd roll his eyes if you tried to tell him 2 + 2 = 5 too. Some of them overeducated types just can't seem to grasp the new reality.....
Ignorance is not strength
Water + Electricity = Hydrogen and Oxygen
Can we agree on that?
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
winston
I must assume your "Check engine" light went out and you now have "grasped the new reality"!
Mine did.
I was surprised as all hell when it did.
Yep. It went out. It doubled my milage, but better than that
0-60 in two seconds! Screw the extra gas milage. VarOOOOOOOm! And when I'm not using it, I just let it idle and tap that wasted energy from the alternator to power my entire house!
Gosh you could just plug your house
into your ass, I am sure all your wasted energy on trying to discredit this would be ample to power all your household appliances and best of all you cold save gas by using your own!
Go easy on the guy!
He's waiting to get his job back at the Oil Company, he has to discredit this, if people are free from big oil he won't get his big bucks job back! Have some companion for him and the other oil men!
"Buy more oil and less water!
Start Now
20 mb ebook Free. pdf of many build your own H2o "on demand" units. It take a few minutes for the page to load, then save.
On page 383, see the "Smack boost"
A free book for all who want to be free..
http://www.free-energy-in...
A MUST READ for forge!
Give this link to the MIT guys...
Free Education
One more place to get a free education on h2o.
http://www.panaceaunivers...
One click away from freedom...
(My only profit is knowing I helped someone see the light)
why is it everytime I read one of these stories I see that
HYDROMAN
whichever gadget it is it is always touted as "carbon free". Carbon is a nessesary element in all life as we know it. Carbon is natural it is not made by man or the Devil -----------people need to get over this foolish bullshit!
My Uncle is also an Engineer
My Uncle is also an Engineer and Dean at MIT. He has sort of rolled his eyes at me before about HHO. But I will say it is not propaganda or conspiracy. Sometimes when you have been educated in a certain way. It makes certainties way harder for them to believe. It is like blind intellectualism.
Sort of funny actually. Scientists are usually trying discover new things.
Gosh...
You brought some disinfo chumps outta the wood work today.
Good job.
Better Than Insane Politicians From Breakfast Ethanol!
I'm not an MIT alumnus, but am a fan of hydrogen fuel. If the stuff is dangerous, it may even cure road rage, if stored on vehicle...take care of the second amendment at the same time.
Please note: For the entire world to know before Nov 4, 2008: John McCain proclaimed more than once in 2007 that he and senior "Republic"?an Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa drink a glass of ethanol every morning for breakfast". Google it if you don't believe me, but now McCain says he is against ethanol subsidies! This is called talking out of both sides of mouth.
Also see whtt.org
If you haven't already...please condemn your congressman if he/she voted to override Bush's for show veto in June, 2008, for the second time. The bill was H.R. 2419. Ethanol subsidies equal fraud, embezzlement, and they help starve the world.
I really don't see the point in this.
If your HHO unit can produce 1.7 liters of uncompressed hydrogen per minute, and HHO is 2/3 hydrogen(fuel), that is producing about 12 BTUs/min of power.
12 BTUs/min = about 210 watts of power
In the common HHO generators of today, it is taking 20 amps of 12v power to make this 1.7 liters of HHO per minute.
20 amps x 12v = 240 watts
So, there is a net loss of 30 watts in this HHO conversion, which is about 12.5% loss, or 87.5% efficiency in creating the fuel.
If they just stored the electricity in batteries, then they'd have more of the power available to use from the solar panels.
Maybe they're planning to use this for home heating, which electricity is not really very efficient at.