Why are you shouting at us?

I definitely agree with what you are trying to propose, but there is one problem, not enough people believe that the world can be independent from fossil fuels. There has to be more people like me and you, entrepreneurs, who can recognize the potential for change in today's industries and people's life styles. Regarding the safety factor of oxygen or hydrogen use in combustion engines and generators, I also don't understand the risk involved, but apparently running a hose from "just made" hydrogen or oxygen to a combustion engine is dangerous. Isn't it going to combust anyways? Controlling the gas should not be an issue, creating a fuel cell that will extract hydrogen like bacterial fuel cell would be a much bigger challenge compare to the actual installation of the cell. Other methods of extracting hydrogen, electrolysis, with use of stainless steel plates does seem somewhat hazardous to the environment, Cr is a dangerous chemical I believe. So I would agree with scientist and engineers on that one. Although, think revolutionary, think biofuel cells.

Peace \/

mktim

Why make CO2 emissions to atmosphere in a complicated way (using bacterial fuel cell, as I've read following the link http://www.npr.org/templates/common/image_enlargement.php?imageResId=16345218 ) instead of just "cleanly" burning fossil fuels (the simple / cheaper way)?

As seen in the bacterial fuel cell drawing, proton-generating bacteria breed to live, and the product of respiration is -guess what - CO2 (as shown in the schematic).

Should I adhere to the rather wide-spread opinion according to which all bio-fuel fuss is a hoax to mask the continuation of greenhouse CO2 generation?

The only CO2-free energy available on Earth is the capture of light/heat from the Sun or from deep Earth heat reservoirs! The life-based systems (as life on Earth is Carbon-based) leads to binding C with O and a waste of CO2.

I think I just found the solution to capture the CO2 produced bacteria here. Christopher Jones, a professor in the School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology has developed a new cost effective to capture CO2 using hyperbranched aluminosilica (HAS). By adding this filtration element to the biofuel cell will eliminate any CO2, wooalla!!! If there was one person who could make this work and share the knowledge, I think everyone else will eventually catch on to the technology and could convert their cars or what not to this environmentally friendly technology. Someone PLEASE do it in the name of life on earth..tears..

"One other thing.....

Keep the frigging oil cartels out of it!!! We have been raped enough already."

Amen brother

double_j_b, I'm giving you a GA.

There is an ongoing chicken-and-egg discussion about the hydrogen infrastructure and the hydrogen vehicle, which comes first. I've always felt the existing automobile infrastructure NEEDS to be adapted, with whatever alternative to fossil fuels gains in popularity. It would be an evolution of sorts. Recycling the existing automobile infrastructure is a much 'greener' solution than starting from scratch. It may be that new forms of non-corn-based ethanol will be the most practical.

Just a question; why ethanol over methanol? methanol would be easier to synthesise.

Just a comment: gasoline was at one time a cleaning solvent, purchased at the hardware store, by the 1 gallon glass jug. Infrastructure will develop with need.

For generations we heated our homes and cooked our food with wood, in some countries, muck and wood, in others animal waste and wood, straw and wood etc.Then we discovered that shale coal made a good fuel, then hard coal deposits provided unlimited fuel to do the above and then to provide heat for boilers needed to energize the industrial revolution. As we used more and more coal we contaminated the air to such a degree that action had to be taken to reduce the coal dust/ash pollution. Fuel oil became the next gold rush after coal. We did not just throw away all of our coal burning furnaces. That would have been logistically impossible. They were converted to use oil rather than coal.

[ skip now past the electrical revolution, as it retains many of the previous issues]

Today we look for alternative methods to power our vehicles, of all kinds. We know that diesel electric powers trains, ships and electrical generators. Natural gas will do the same. We cook and heat with LP gas and and Gasoline powers most of the cars in the world. We now are being forced economically and by our concerns for our environment to look for another way. Realistically we have to consider the automotive industries and the after market manufacturers. Further we must consider the impact that moving away from gasoline will have on the refining and distribution system. The automotive industry has great motivation to build transportation that requires Maintenance, repairs and planed replacement. The petroleum industries issues will not be address any more.

Replacing the hundreds of millions of cars and trucks on the road in even just a short time isn't possible. Converting even 50% of them to run on electricity cannot realistically be accomplished.

[ SO WHAT IS LEFT? ] We must find an alternate fuel that can be used in the automobiles that we have available today. There has been vehicles run on chicken manure (methane) and wood chips, also fuel gas that is released from the fuel source when the initial burn was incomplete. There are engines running on compressed natural gas, Bunker c oil, and many other carbon producing fuels.

Within the last 80 or more years there have been a multitude of efforts to split the water molecule into it's lesser parts, the 2 hydrogen and a single oxygen atom. Doing this can be accomplished thru several methods. There is no argument there.

The disagreements begin when one scientific opinion confronts and opposing scientific opinion. The single minded position always quotes Faraday's Law, the Laws of Thermodynamics and any thing else remotely similar. The opposite camp reviews the issue with an open mind. We have split the atom many times. and huge quantities of energy are released when that happens. As such the open minded group is determined to find the best electrolytes and the best power source to split the water molecule. In spite of the progress that has been documented the skeptoid group remains in denial.

This forum was started with the thought that splitting the water atom for use as an automotive fuel is inevitable. Therefore , what will be the safest chemicals to use in this effort. We do not want to create a problem like the one that we already have with gasoline and diesel. Until someone can point out something cleaner and or better and not just different I will ride with this blend. Distilled white vinegar and distilled water!

Toomuchfun

It wasn't all that long ago that a telegraph and Morse code was the second fastest form of communication on the planet. The fastest of course was speaking eyeball to eyeball. Today we can speak to someone else half way around the world, just as if they were eyeball to eyeball, and do this on a tiny telephone that is not connected to anything except a little battery. Computers the size of houses took several days to solve math problems that today are solved with a little gadget half the size of a post card in fractions of seconds. In all likely hood we have already developed the equipment needed to produce the oxy-hydrogen fuel gas that could be used to power the very same automobiles we drive today. We just haven't put two and two together yet. Many of us left the dark ages generations ago. Some are still there, some are stumbling through the middle ages. With all of the brilliant minds scattered across the world working to solve this riddle, how can any intelligent mind believe that it won't happen, and very soon at that. This stopped being an issue between differing scientific opinions long ago. Even if I privately didn't believe that this was possible, I wouldn't demonstrate to fellow engineers and scientists that I was so ignorant that I would blatantly state to these communities that it was impossible.

Tmf

By the way, Taganan came across as if he is an engineer. I found out last nite that he is just a student somewhere and from the quality of some of his posts, he has a lot to learn. Are you a student also. I ask because it seems that student types all have on their mind issues like Faraday's law, The laws of Thermodynamics. Incredibly You ALL start with the assumption that the original energy used to begin an electrolysis action starts with fossil fuel.

This is true with the Hydrogen welder/torch, and similar equipment. However, a oxy-hydrogen booster, such as those that are much more improved than what we see on youtube's bench top experiments. Completely looped systems start up the engine with the energy contained in the on board battery, that then powers up the alternator, that powers up the oxy-hydrogen booster. that provides the fuel gas to keep the engine running, and beat go's on until the circuit is broken. This system is being modified as this is written. Idle speed fuel is easiest to produce, and if all you want is to just improve fuel mileage performance, equipment and free plans to build this equipment is already are in the public domain. Constructing a unit that is suitable to provide the fuel gas needed for pulling loads, speeding up, climbing hills etc. is a little more complicated, but is do-able and is being perfected. About accommodating those who continue to make un-informed assumptions.I am out of time.

I am very much aware that there many ways to creat hydrogen using other methods like de-solving aluminum in draino. These methods are no better than the use of fossil fuels today. If you want to make an impression on society, and maybe your instructor, Don't just look for another way! LOOK FOR A BETTER WAY!

Tmf

Wow! I hoped they patented that engine that creates it's own fuel. Oh, wait, the patent office does not accept applications for perpetual motion devices, because they are impossible. Those skeptoids!

I've been waiting for this one, since you don't know anything about thermodynamics. Wouldn't it be easier to just have generators on all 4 wheels of an electric car? As the car moves, the generators supply enough electricity to power the motor, which turns the generator and the beat goes on.

This would be a lot easier than your scheme, as the generators would only have to be about 125% efficient to overcome drive train losses, if the motor were only 100% efficient. In running your ICE, the electrolysis device (sorry Booster) would have to be well over 500% efficient, because the engine is only 20% efficient, plus the drive train losses. You are working on the wrong impossible technology!

You say all this stuff, but you never, ever give any references or offer any proof whatsoever. You don't because you can't.

By the way, feel free to use my generator idea. I thought it up when I was 8 years old. I think I had learned enough science by the time I was 10 to know it was impossible.

Tad

Are we talking about the same Stanley Meyer that was convicted of "gross and egregious fraud" in 1996, and ordered to repay his investors?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer

Tad

Stanley Meyers, After being threatened many times by agents believed to be employed by Big Petroleum and Govt. Walked out of a dining establishment in Ohio after having a late afternoon meal with his wife and exclaimed "I have been poisoned" and fell dead in the parking lot. The C.C. determined that he died from other causes.

"Who knows", but it occurred in 1985. If you care to look, you can find all 19 patents in the public domain free of charge. Google up Stanley Meyers Patents. I have all 19 in my computer. Stanley had a way with words!

As you invested a lot of time responding to my posts to day, maybe you could also find the time to Google up Pure Energy Systems. com Bob Boyce free hho plans. Bob did not attempt to patent his work, he has simply made them available to the public. I down loaded all 43 pages.

My comprehension of their work looks at the things that certainly seem to work. However I look much deeper into the subject. You can only get as much fuel gas as your system is it able to put out under even the best of circumstances. Electrode surfaces that are not flooded with electrolyte do not produce fuel gas. If you are not getting enough production from your booster and you have done everything correctly, then you need to add another 6 cell booster to your system. As I mentioned earlier after 6 cells the production begins to fall off. Mechanics can sometimes prevail where engineering and science does not. Frankly I am not sure that most boosters can meet the needs of both normal motion and excelleration. I have a general feeling that a second booster and a small canister of compressed fuel gas will be necessary to meet that requirement

Tmf

Why are you here?

Try any 1 of these forums & see if you get a better recption?

http://www.eng-tips.com/

http://www.chemicalforums.com/

http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php

You & some of your buds showed up a couple of months ago spoiling for a fight or praise.

How can we help you?

You don't seem to have need for any technical advice.

Asking for verification, documentation is not heresy!!!

If you want to discuss scam artists from the 80's, don't expect a warm welcome. If the patents were worth anything, 20 years have passed, no financial obligation! You should be well on your way to your 1st billion.

Just because something works doesn't make it a good idea

Is the juice worth the squeeze?

Once again

Why are you here?

Frankly Sir.

I selected this site for a forum because it is the correct site to discuss the subject of the forum. I have selected other sites for other discussions as those sites were all correct for those subjects.

Unfortunately there seems to be a group of individuals who are hell bent on forcing the forum along a different path. To prove their point they demand worn out information that they simply adjust to suit their desire to prove their point. They always site the Law Of Thermodynamics. And they absolutely do apply. But they always manage to leave out critical information, such as the effects of pulsing high voltage, or ultra high sound waves and even the effects of such things as microwaves. Too Bad for the forum, as the intended issue gets blown away.

But, As you have not challenged those others, who may have a big financial stake in preventing this technology from becoming wide spread, why are you angry at only me because I refuse to be chastised by these people, I pose this question to you!

Do you believe that pointing out the dangers of using substances that can cause injury to an un-informed public is a wrong? And what about the hazmat possibilities that could become wide spread as the use of some of these substances proliferate the industry? Unfortunately for the DEGREED INDIVIDUALS there is an interested public who also follows these forums looking for information that will help them to make an intelligent decision and hopefully not get scammed. Are you interested in discussing the harmful side effects of adding a piece of equipment to your automobile that utilizes these agressive chemicals? If so, why not suggest an additive that you believe might be more suitable for this purpose?

As I have been researching this issue for a number of years, I have a great deal of knowledge on the subject. Like many Degreed Scientists and Engineers, "I" believe that at least some form of what is loosely called the JOE CELL will become the transitional technology for weaning the public away from petroleum products for transportation.

However I must say that I am troubled when I see someone advertising a fragile glass canning jar as a container to retain high explosives. Maybe that doesn't interest you.

Remember this! I have nothing to sell. I am not promoting anyones product. I am not an installer of this equipment for any one and will not become one. I have no plans to sell. I am not developing any complimentary equipment for use with these Boosters. Accordingly MY RESEARCH INDICATES THAT AT LEAST SOME SUCCESS COULD BE HAD THROUGH THE PROPER INSTALLATION OF SOME EQUIPMENT DEVELOPED BY REFINING THIS TECHNOLOGY.

Toomuchfun

Garth

First I don't know any of those people that you called my BUDS!

And I don't have to roll over for Skeptoids. I have been a participating member of CR4 for a while now.

And I refuse to be bullied by persons who may or may not be Degreed Scientists or Engineers.

I take it personal when folks like you make the kind of statement you just have. I don't know who died and left you in charge. I assumed that this forum is the property of CR4. If the forum managers would prefer that I go else where, I SHALL!

Tmf

I never asked you to leave!

If this is the proper forum, what have you learned?

Please elaborate on this technology.

Hooking the cells in series so each individual cell has less voltage, is that your innovation? Adding an electrolyte probably does increase the efficency, tell us how much?

Picking fights & railing against the powers that be, won't further your cause.

Here's where you reply & tell me I don't understand.

This is a friendly notice! So that you do not stand by awaiting my immediate response. I wish to inform you that I must leave for a few hours. I must pick up records from two Doctors and I need a haircut. Mean while why don't you check the several previous forums that involved the Oxy-hydrogen issues. You will find that I did not begin confrontations. nor did I pick fights. I don't particularly give a damb what the TADS and Taganumums and other persons who have never actually introduced themselves as Scientists or Engineers think about my posts. I have absolutely nothing to gain by misleading those who care to involve themselves with this forum. My testing methods may or may not meet your standards. Ask me if I care.

I will respond to your requests by the numbers when I return.

Mean while, would you care to provide us dummies with some sort of analogy regarding the many harsh chemicals that are being suggested as electrolytes. Can you suggest at what tempreatures we could expect the various electrolite blends to explode. Wouldn't this kind of information be of more value to the unsuspecting individual who is struggling to find a way to improve his fuel mileage so he may continue to drive to work so he can provide food and shelter to his family. It is not my place to tell anyone else what to do. Nor is it yours. However offering a little well meaning advice that might somehow prevent someone from suffering a blinding explosion is alright in my catalog of well meaning intentions.

Tmf

Toomuchfun - No, I am not JUST A STUDENT. I have enough years to recognize when a proposition such as Aquygen or HHO is not sensible. I am not an expert in every field as you apparently claim to be, but I can think. As are the others here you dismiss as "students", because they dare to disagree on this point. That I am "just a student somewhere" is a baseless lie. And "from the quality of some of his posts, he has a lot to learn.", as do we all, since no one ever knows enough about everything. Apparently you think you know everything there is to know, but have you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express?

You further insult anyone with scientific training, who knows the rules of electricity and chemistry as "student types all have on their mind issues like Faraday's law, The laws of Thermodynamics" As if those mean nothing because you really want your ideas to work no matter what science says and anyone who says otherwise is a "student", part of the conspiracy.

I learned a long time ago that it is impossible to win an argument with some one who REFUSES TO COMPREHEND A VITAL POINT.

I have no intentions of using any of your precious fossil fuel to produce electrical energy for the purpose of creating Oxy-hydrogen as a fuel gas. It isn't necessary. I have no desire to mix a powerful chemical and metals that will be reduced to an ash to create oxy-hydrogen either. This would likely create hazmat issues. It isn't necessary either. When I examine an electrical car such as those being demonstrated for the future market , I see issues with costly replacement batteries, likely maintenance issues. and NO RELIEF FROM THE FOSSIL FUEL ISSUE. I ALSO SEE MINIMAL DISTANCE TRAVEL. Not a viable way around the problem. Many folks looking for something to sell are attempting to create a market for cells powered by bacterium. Others are trying to develop bacterium that improves on mother nature's ability to sour liquids that have plant materials soaking in them.

All of these above ideas will likely be more costly than the prices that we pay to OPEC now. YOU waste your breath, time and money. Leave the heavy lifting to those believe that answer lies in working with one of the least expensive most abundant things on earth. Without it life as we know it does not exist.

Toomuchfun

"scientists have discovered an aluminum-gallium alloy that apparently can break water down into H₂ and O₂ with minimal energy consumption"

Can you provide a reference, preferably web address, describing research of this process?

OK, I found a good reference here: http://www.whatsnextnetwork.com/technology/index.php/2007/05/18/aluminum_alloy_extracts_hydrogen_from_wa for the process you described. It says that at the current price of aluminum the process is not cost competitive with $3 gasoline. Any idea at what price it does become competitive?

Bill Morrow

P.S., How do you shorten a url to the word "here" and it still is able to connect to the web page?