Has anyone tried this?

[jonnybass]

 

LOL!!!

 

[danbouck]

 

LOL!!!

 

 

Nice

[camillj]

Water is a molecule of H2O, Hydrogen H2 releases energy when it is reacted with oxygen to form water (H2O). So the problem here is that it is a circular reaction.

 

2 H2O + Energy --> 2 H2 + O2

which then reacts to

2 H2 + O2 --> 2 H2O + Energy.

You neither gain nor lose energy through this reaction and that is even if it does occur so that pretty much is theoretical proof that this device is a scam.

 

 

Actually ... your argument is the EXACT reason why this beautifully simple and totally natural model is potentially viable ... the key (in not breaking any of the natural laws) is to remember that your Energy in line one must NOT be the same energy coming out from line two - or you accomplish nothing ... but if you accept there are LOTS of other natural forms of energy (like sunlight) which could be used to STORE potential energy which can later be released (as in line 2) - You have a fast and CLEAN way of creating almost limitless source of manageable power - especially (and this is for you Rich) ... if you notice that the H2O input is exactly the same as the H2O output - in other words you dont 'USE UP' ANY water at all ... how cool is that ... actually the real issue from a practical perspective ... is that the water coming out of the system is so much purer than the water going in .... you keep having to deal with residue on your electrodes

[Daplumma]

Thanks for that write up Artem.

 

My question to you is: If this is such a basic violation of the law of conservation of energy, why is the U.S. Military having this developed for their Hummers?

 

That's why I dug this thread up - to ask the nay-sayers this question. It seems to me that the U.S. Military physicists probably know more than I do, so I was just wondering why they feel that this technology is feasible when OFC scientists know otherwise.

Having been in the Navy I will try to anwer this so you will understand it.Just because the military does it does not make it economically efficient in any way shape or form.We had multi fueler trucks that ran on anything from cooking oil to diesel fuel and more.Cost to set one up was more than you would ever recoup from running french fry oil in the states but if you were low on fuel in Diego Garcia it was worth the extra bux for that multi fuel option to be able to run on home brew corn squeezings to complete your mission.I am sure if they can run stuff with a water mix the payback is not yet economically feasible at this point.I also know they spend more money on a hammer or toilet seat than you or I would ever.The reason they would develop this technology for the Hummer(I dont really believe they are) would be more for versatility of the Hummer and not for economy.

Joe

[oncogene]

Woh it's on tv/internet, it must be real!

 

Seriously, that video posted here.... please go watch it and listen carefully to what the guy said..... "... water..... water AND ELECTRICITY...". Hear the word "ELECTRICITY"?? doh, everyone knows that will work, of course.... it's just electrolysis of water. That video proves nothing.

 

US military using it? For 1, it only said they'r developing, nothing solid is made public yet. For 2, just becoz military is trying it, doen't mean it will work 100% for sure... for every idea/research/breakthru that makes it big, there'r probably a hundred others that never go beyond the laboratory stage. And 3, u don't even know what/how exactly the militia is developing.... for all we know, they can simply be storing the excess energy from the engine (considering engine is only 20-30% efficient) and use that to electrolyze water. And 4, as Daplumma said... military is not about efficiency nor economical there.

 

 

And then what's with these statements of "electrolysis requires less energy than the energy u get from burning hydrogen/oxygen"..... "HHO gas is different, it's not really breaking the bonds blah blah".... "hydrogen has potential energy... so it's a fuel". Where do ppl get these ideas from, seriously? People complain others are too stubborn to believe in these "new tech" yet claiming something that completely defy the very basic principle of physics while offering no proves whatsoever, other than it's on tv.

 

 

As for saying we can use solar/wind/geothermo/tidal/hydro/nuclear/bio-diesel/whatever-else to general hydrogen blah blah blah.... you guys are missing the point completely.

Yes, sure we can do those. But in either case, hydrogen is NOT a NEW energy SOURCE as of now. All we do is using hydrogen as a energy STORING/TRANSPORTING medium, it's simply transforming the energy we already have to another form. We are already using solar/wind/etc energies... but they are simply not enough, not cost-effective, not reliable, high cost, high maintainance & have limited use depending on geographical locations/weather. If all these solar/wind energy sources are enough, we'll already be using it in our everyday homes/offices... but it's NOT! So you guys think we can use these limited solar/wind energy sources, that aren't even enough as is, to generate hydrogen for the millions of cars on the road? As a matter of fact, using any electrical source of whatever we already have to generate hydrogen is useless. Look at the power blackouts we got during the heat of summer.... we dont' even have enough electricity as is.

 

 

 

Say, I have 2 slices of bread left while I got stranded in the wild, enough for me to survive for couple of days. Now I found another lost person with no food. What should I do to make enough food for both of us?

 

1) I take 1 of the 2 slices of bread, toast it on fire.... wohla... now I have bread AND toast..... i have more food, yeah? OF COURSE NOT, the toast is from the same bread slices I have, it's just in different form!

 

2) Try to go find another/NEW food source.... like... go catch a fish. Now that fish is a new food source (assuming u don't stupidly use the bread as bait...)

[John Bacon]

The thing that you aren't considering, is that they aren't completing a full electrolysis of water.... The products are not H2, O2 and Heat as you state.... The product is HHO. The O-H Bonds ARE NOT being broken, therefore loss of energy (heat) is not as significant of a factor. Its actually more of a displacement reaction.

 

If the bonds are not being broken wouldn't it still just be water?

 

When hydrogen burns it does so by combining with oxygen in an exothermic reaction. If the hydrogen in HHO is already bonded to the oxygen molecules ("O-H Bonds ARE NOT being broken", as quoted from your post); then what exactly happens when HHO burns?

 

Even if we accept that H2O somehow becomes HHO when electricity is applied to it; and we accept that HHO is somehow different then H20 even though they both consist of two hydrogen atoms bonded to one oxygen atom (remember, you said the bonds were not broken); why wouldn't the Law of Conservation of Energy apply to this reaction?