Comparing Fuels for Harmful Side Effects

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

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

where, then, DO you propose to get the energy to extract the H₂ ?

"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?

Acetic acid (vinegar) is a very poor electrolyte. It is a weak acid, and has a rather small dissociation constant. Oops, sorry for all the fancy science talk. It does not conduct electricity as well as other more common electrolytes such as KOH, NaOH, H2SO4 etc. It does not make sense to dilute distilled vinegar with distilled water, as the acetic acid content of vinegar is only 5%, but I am just a stupid chemist.

I know you are afraid of using the more common electrolytes, because of all the explosions you have had. You could try sodium sulfate, also known as Glauber's salt.

Did you know that if you use a chloride based electrolyte, that you will also produce Cl2? Did you know that mixtures of H2 and Cl2 will explode when exposed to light? Perhaps you found out the hard way

Electrolysis is the most expensive method of making hydrogen. Only 4% of the world's production of H2 is from electrolysis for this reason. Then, you want to use it as a fuel for an ICE. IC engines are typically about 20% efficient. Electrolysis is typically 70% efficient, at best. With the inefficiency of turning any fuel to electricity, the total inefficiency of electrolysis is about 25%. So, using H2 or oxygas, or HHO or whatever you call it would result in a total efficiency of about 5%. Sorry to use facts and math and all, I know you don't approve, but that is what us "skeptoids" do.

Oh wait, you don't believe in Faraday's law, so maybe you can get 500% efficiency from electrolysis. But to show this, you would actually have to collect some data, and do some calculations.

Measuring the current, time and volume of gas collected and calculating efficiency (based on that stupid Faraday's law) must be way to hard for you. In fact, I have never, ever seen any of you enlightened folks present any data or efficiencies.

If you think that Faraday's law is wrong, it is really, really easy to show it. Just hook you gismo up, make the measurements, and show that you get more gas than described by Faraday. It is that easy! A child of 12 could do the experiment and calculate the results.

But, you guys never do. I wonder why. When I have asked you for data in a previous thread you said "I have nothing to prove". Exactly. If you can't handle setting up the experiment, or have trouble with the math, I would be glad to help you. Maybe you don't understand the term "efficiency". It's a really, really important thing to understand when talking about energy issues.

I also see that you don't believe in thermodynamics, but I'll leave that to another post. Again, it is really easy to prove science wrong, but you do have to present data.

Tad

Again you muscle your way into a forum that has nothing to do with your hatred for persons who are willing to spend their own funds to find away from the world being held hostage by OPEC. . BIG PETROL. and the Get Rich Now Crowd on Wall Street.

This Forum is about COMPARING FUELS FOR HARMFUL SIDE EFFECTS

If you want to impress someone---"ANYONE" show us that you have some knowledge about the various substances that we inexperienced morons are testing to create Oxy-Hydrogen.

PLEASE, BEFORE YOU BEGIN! understand that we have already discovered that using an electrolyte that is very strong will cause amperage run away. This will cause extreme heat and boil away the electrolyte before we can capture the fuel gas. Give us credit for having discovered that it only requires 1.23 volts dc and minimal amperage to produce the fuel gas. Also maybe ask your instructor why daisy chaining a group 6 of cells together will produce the maximum amount of fuel gas for the energy input. That adding more cells does not provide for the same rate of return. If you cannot answer these kinds of questions, why not find a forum that caters to your assinine attitude.

TMF

This forum was started with the thought that splitting the water atom for use as an automotive fuel is inevitable.

I assume you know there is no water atom?

There are many scientists working on improving the efficiency of electrolysis, despite the fact electrolysis is an expensive source of hydrogen right now. If you simply want to buy some hydrogen to run something, chances are that is has been reformed from methane. Today, running a car on hydrogen, obtained as it is today, is environmentally unwise, both consuming more resources and generating more CO2 than the alternatives would.

Most advocates of using H2 for transportation see nuclear power as being the most reasonable source for the electricity used to split water. Many people, however don't see nuclear energy as a panacea.

I think the choice of electrolyte is non-critical as compared to the choice of energy source to run the reaction. All sorts of electrolytes work just fine, and they are not used up in the reaction, so there are not pressing disposal concerns. There are huge differences in possible energy sources: coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, etc.

There are a few people who think that generating H2 on board a vehicle makes sense. For any such scheme to work however, the hydrogen has to be generated with an energy balance of far over unity. One would hope that those in the over-unity crowd would open up a chemistry text or a physics text.

It should be patently obvious that a reversible chemical reaction cannot give off energy when run in both directions: like any such reaction, the energy input to run the reaction in one direction is released when the reaction runs in the opposite direction. Also like any such reaction in the real world, there are losses. Even if the reactions could be made 90% efficient in both directions (were not close to that yet) we'd be operating with a net energy loss of 19%: You start with 100 watts of electricity and get 81 watts out. But this is only in the dream world, where 90% efficiency prevails: in the real world, 37.5% efficient is about the best that can be done from electricity to H2 through a fuel cell and back to electricity. (Using an internal combustion engine instead of a fuel cell makes this proposition seem very nearly obscene in profligate energy waste.)

The Stanley Meyers and other scammers of this world claim to have not only created perpetual motion machines (H2 generators that create enough H2 to self sustain the reaction) but perpetual motions machines that also put off enough extra energy in the form of H2 to run an internal combustion engine. Elsewhere, I describe a car that could be built to bilk investors, so such schemes can be made to appear to work (until the battery running the electrolysis dies).

But in any case, if your question is what electrolyte to use, I'd say sure, use vinegar, if that's working well for you. More important for the sake of the environment is to look at your energy source. No matter the source, does it make sense to operate at the 37.5% efficiency of electrolysis and fuel cell (or even worse, the 15% efficiency of off board electrolysis and ICE)? Given that you have the electricity to run the electrolysis, would it not make far more sense to charge batteries at 90% efficiency?

Ohmigod.

I should have read some more of Toomuchfun's posts here before replying. I didn't realize, until reading a few more posts, that he is not only unacquainted with basic (middle school level) chemistry and physics (which is excusable), but belligerent as well (which is not excusable). Calling Tad*, "assinine" and an "idiot" is simply abusive, and without cause. It is particularly offensive, because Tad made considerable effort to explain the basic chemistry and physics that apply to Stanley Meyer's and similar frauds.

Although I have held the title "Principal Scientist" I am not a practicing scientist in any formal sense. However, I have had some excellent teachers in chemistry, chemical engineering, and physics, and work frequently in these and related areas. I've spent thousands of hours in the development of an energy-efficient prototype commuter vehicle, because I have in intense interest in reducing human abuse of the environment in every reasonable way we can. So, being involved in science, engineering, and environmental issues, I hate to see someone like Tad, who knows his stuff, be treated 1. as if he does not, and 2. abusively. Likewise, I hate to see the others who have pointed out some of the more egregious flaws in Toomuchfun's logic similarly be treated abusively. Further, I see that even students are ridiculed by Toomuchfun, criticised for being aware of basic physics.

This thread has not been "too much fun" at all. Fortunately, this sort of abuse is rare here at CR4.

On 5/09 at 10:06 PM toomuch wrote: Sidevalveguru----Toomuchfun---- here for the last time that I will respond to any comment concerning this subject from any one. Oddly enough, he responded in this thread later, and also later responded to me, about the same subject in another thread. Go figure.

I'll ask CR4 to review this thread.

* (who clearly has a good grasp of the issues, and who quite correctly wrote that an onboard H2 generator would have to operate at 500% efficiency to make the scam viable)

"main stream usage" - well we can thank the modern vehicle producers. Their product only lasts 5 to 10 yrs max (sometimes less). So swinging into a change would only take a few years to become mainstream.

But I will still have to wait 5 years to buy a used one. :-)

Wouldn't it be cheery, if even tho the modern ICE would have a bit shorter life span, running on a predominately oxy-hydrogen fuel mixture with just enough gasoline of diesel mixed in to help prevent rust and other such damage. Don't cha know that this idea would give the automotive industry time to develop engines that could run on the oxy-hydrogen alone. And even tho the petroleum industry will also have to adjust, they would have a little time to get it done.

Toomuchfun

With a little more testing by the multitude of interested wannabee's we might find that something a bit more presentable than a jelly jar will be an example of reliable performance. I would expect that to obtain worth while performance one would need to construct a booster with several compartments, each with it's own assembled packet of electrodes. Daisy chaining the cells together has shown to produce a greater volume of fuel gas with lower voltage and fewer amps. Who knows, we might be able to actually get 70 plus mpg on the interstate with an example like this. This would be something worth while to add to your car, even if it costs you a little more than a tank of gasoline.

Toomuchfun

"One other thing.....

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

I fully agree with the sentiment. But, I think you will have to agree, if we have been raped, it is only because we have willingly enslaved ourselves. Until we develop the political will to pay the price for breaking that bondage, nothing will change. Oil is just too cheap to be replaced without making significant sacrifices.

Bill Morrow

Oil is just too cheap to be replaced without making significant sacrifices.

Sad but true

i also agree w/ the sentiment.

BUT, will "Big Oil" fight this if they do not get 'their cut'?

Would the be less apt, if they did?

Thanks for the vote of confidence gentlemen.

The plain truth of the matter is; not a lot of people can afford to go out and buy a new greener vehicle. I know i am not in that position and neither is anyone that I know of in my family.

I have been trying to devise a way to make a conversion though but to date nothing has presented itself as being the solution.

Keep on trying! You may not be rewarded with immediate success, but look at the things you eliminate along the way. If you didn't believe that there was a way you would not have began the effort in the first place. Keep informed. Review the activities of others who have gone before you. Where you think you can make a constructive improvement, try it! There has been so much effort put into trying to make away around this energy crisis, It will succeed. The odds are always long, but someone always wins the lottery.

I am in basic agreement. I think it is great that folks are experimenting. There is always the possibility that somewhere, someone will come up with improvements to current technology or discover something new. However, there are so many folks out there making such outrageous claims, that if someone does come up with something, they will be lumped in with the crackpots, and probably ignored.

I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement. I have looked at the various stuff out there: HHO, Brown's Gas, Klein's gas, Stanley Meyer, Joe's Cell etc. All I have seen are bizarre claims, with no proof. They all look like various methods of doing conventional electrolysis, which is already pretty well understood. Everybody says that they are making more gas than with conventional electrolysis, can run a car on it etc. They all claim to be doing stuff that violates the laws of physics, which have been validated over hundreds of years.

What really strikes me though, is that I have found absolutely no data that would support this. None. Zero. Every site that I have been to talks about creating large amounts of gas, at low current. That's it. With all the thousands of folks out there experimenting, I would have thought I would have come across someone who actually measures their results. If anybody can point me to some data, I'd be grateful.

To me, it is very strange. Some of these folks seem fairly talented, making complicated circuits etc., but not one scientific measurement. They think that the laws of physics do not apply, but offer absolutely no proof that they have achieved anything that has not been done for hundreds of years.

Stranger still, is the fact that making the measurements is much simpler than making the bizarre devices. All you have to do is turn on the device, monitor and record the current over a measured period of time, measure the volume of gas collected. That's it! They could revolutionize physics by this very simple test, if their claims are true.

Come on guys, show us that science is wrong. Show us your data.

Tad

It appears as though the backyard constructors approach this watergas with a RELIGIOUS FERVOR. If questioned, a cry of heretic reverberates.

Hydrogen makes a pretty fair fuel, no contest here.

Trying to manufacture it on the vehicle, is too bulky/heavy to be practical.

Storage? Low pressure tanks= huge. High pressure= $$ + risky.

Still think a synfuel is best interim solution; as long as ICE is prime mover

Aardvark

Back to the original tag!:

Petro-fuel: CO₂ emission, dependancy on unfriendly entities, spillage.

Current ethanol: Burn FOOD, you gotta be kidding!

Methanol: Formaldehyde formation, if overrich

Electric: energy density

Hydrogen: STORAGE (it's the volume, NOT the combustibility)

Sidevalveguru----Toomuchfun---- here for the last time that I will respond to any comment concerning this subject from any one.

Your first comment Back to original tag. There has been several subjects that have been brought light. Every one has ended with hostile emotions between the participating parties. I have found that some of the parties are nothing less than shit disturbers that are not engineers nor scientists. They are students. Nuff Said about the quality, or lack there of, "of some people.

This particular subject was suggested by me because I recognize the danger involved for folks who are attempting to find away around the run away gasoline prices.

The methods being attempted today do not require the storage of hydrogen. It is Hydrogen and oxygen mixed and it is created on demand If you cannot comprehend what I have just stated stop reading now. The subject is over your head. Don't waste any more of your life.

I have found that a mixture of as little as 5% alcohol in two gallons of distilled water when electrolyzed by as little as 12 volts and less than 10 amps of energy can cause an explosion that can cause pain and suffering beyond the imagination of the average person. I can testify that I have felt that pain. A friend has lost the hearing in his left ear for life. This is not something to joke about. There is no room in this subject for bullshit artists. They know who they are.

I proposed that the scientists and engineers provide anyone and everyone with information that might save someones site or hearing. All I have received for my request is ignorant individuals demanding answers to ignorant questions If they want the answers they demand they should invest their dollars and build something to test with. As for my last comment regarding their stupidity, They can go scratch their ass!

toomuchfun

I am NOT a proponent of perpetual motion.

Toomuchfun has a point though. While I disagree that electrolysis is the answer, if people are JUST GOING to experiment with it, perhaps guys like TAD, who oh so OBVIOUSLY know what they are talking about, can tell the experimenters what is really unsafe to play with, and why......

Then again, if you do not believe in the laws of thermodynamics, and you DO believe that perpetual motion is possible, perhaps evolution NEEDS you to blow yourself up....It may strengthen the gene pool :)

How can we guess what next epiphany will be, following an attack of lagers?

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/223841/Re-Claimed-over-unity-generator

The comparison of the 'end use' fuel is simple.

Just look at the Hydrogen/Carbon ratio and contaminent levels, (primarily Sulfur and Nitrogen).

The problem is that unless you consider the whole 'production thru user` picture, you don't have a true picture of the impact. (That's why the Hydrogen falicy is so prevalent.)

Unfortunately this takes more education than even many professionals have.

Talk about it, but be sure you take a wide view, or it's bootless.

What none have mentioned to date: One of the major factors in why the co$t of fuel (petro) hurts so much is the Exchange Rate!

Our perpetual need to send our currency elsewhere has de-valued it so much, that while we feel abused, the folks selling it to us are wondering: 'what's the fuss'?

(this includes USD in Iraq; but that's another forum thread)