Hydrogen for hybrid conversions

Status
Not open for further replies.
karenhornby said:
What runs through my mind, is how do you produce plasma, and would plasma split/explode a water droplet in a confined metal cylinder?
Click to expand...

I do not see it happening. If it did, I question if an internal combustion engine would be the most efficient way to go.

Water is burned (oxidized) hydrogen. It takes at least as much energy to unburn as you get back from burning it.

I understand that you want to make hydrogen using heat and then burn it. A paper Production of Head During Plasma Electrolysis in Liquid was published in 2000 in Japan, it claims to have achieved over unity. It may not seem to be what you are looking at but it may be where you will end up. (I am not endorsing cold fusion).
 
Last edited:
What cold fusion did produce was a lot of unused, surplus equipment for others to use at the University of Utah after Pons was debunked. John
 
Last edited:
That was Production of Heat ... not Head.

As I said, I am not a supporter of cold fusion.

The amount of energy used to break the bond may very with the method used, but it will never be less then what you get back from burning.
 
I've not done enough research on cold fusion, but I don't believe in getting something for nothing or perpetual motion machines. But it is fascinating to watch. I think the guy in the video said he was using around 120V. That low voltage wouldn't arc through air, but a water mist would add the resistance needed to complete the circuit.
 
Hi guys.

Again, I do not think what these guys are doing is exactly bordering cold fusion.
We've over-complicated things...... again.

mikebits, it seems these guys are using zero or near zero resistance plugs, plus the source for creating the spark is not nearly what standard cars would generate, but much more. Somewhere, in one of the multitude of documents, there was mention of several thousand volts, with positive to positive flow only happening if the one rail runs low voltage and the other runs something much higher.
Again, this is an interesting principle, and again, I feel one would have to test it to believe it. I still believe somewhere a ground plane would be required, but so said one of the fundy(very proficient at certain field) guys who kept referring to some Meyer chap, forgot his name.

I'm not saying everything these guys advocate is above par, but there are a lot of merit in there, and do you know what, no-one wants to make a wad of money with the "discovery", but rather wants more people to get involved to get to a proper solution.
Two clear problems exist: the "spark plug" keeps burning away (even the nails/bolts).
The inverted used in some experiments does not seem to last.
Now that by itself should say something about the spark/current induced in the circuit.
I'll go through it again in detail in few days time, when I have more time. But as Karen said, I'm not completely chucking it out.
 
Let me make a trivial point clear. Cold fusion is a thermodynamic possibility. Exploding/burning water from 220VAC or in an IC engine with a "special" spark plug is not. I wouldn't give a second thought to betting on the former over the latter.
John
 
Last edited:
reminds me of the 99.999% of people who said the earth was flat and that Christopher columbus would fall off the edge of the earth

HOWEVER

This is NOT FACT, It's called sarcasm

I was referring to the fact that although I might say something I have pointed out MANY times that these are MY views and are NOT scientific fact, although the fact they are my views is no reason to be scorred at, laughed at, or made fun of and the example above was simply to show that what people believe to be true isnt always the case forever.


For example
Take Star Trek seeing someone in a post after this mentioned "dilithium crystals"
yes you may laugh

but if you look at it, and the various spin off's from it, how many things that were PURE fiction when it was written are actually scientific fact?
Are we not now exploring space in space ships
and space craft that are able to re-enter the atmosphere
are we not communicating with small hand held devices that back when star trek was written and first went on screen was just pure fiction and laughable? there are MANY more examples, including folding space theory and many others

So who's to say what I say is in principle SOUNDS POSSIBLE might not in actual fact be possible someday?
 
Last edited:
Although Karen, if it is a fly-by-night flop, we have to also recognise it as that, but experimenting have never been bad.
The problem is time, if I want to experiment with everything out there, I'll have trouble just getting through my day productively.
So I tell you what, why don't you replicate what those guys are doing, but within a combustion chamber, if you have success, I'll try the same here.
I'll in the mean time keep myself occupied with a sustainable solution to turn garbage into fuel as well.
That way, productivity is up, and we'll save the planet together.
 
arrie said:
Hi guys.

Again, I do not think what these guys are doing is exactly bordering cold fusion.
We've over-complicated things...... again.
Click to expand...
The basic laws of science tend to complicate things. It is far simplier to ignore them.

Where you expect the extra (gained) energy to come from?
 
Where does he extra energy come from when burning fuel.
Are the energy gained from combusting gasoline more that the total energy put in, or are we just paying more for fuel because the guys in the middle east are actually putting more energy in than what we get out.
The point being:
If what these guys are doing can possibly work, how will we know the efficiency if someone does not do it properly to test it.
As previously stated, I'm still suspect of the whole process, but there are interesting results to it.
 
elieve me if I had a petrol car I could experiment on, and a gragae or large shed to work in I'd be trying some of those ideas out more so for my own benefit to see if there was any possibility of it working or not.

Like I said all along I have no idea if it will or Might work or not, I just like the theory ( probably because I'm not a scientist and have no scientific background and therefore am not limited to waht was ground into me during training)

One thing I would like to point out is this ever increasing reference to over-unity
I NEVER once said or hinted at over unity, i was simply pointing out the possibility of another way to POSSIBLY get energy out of water,
I do not suggest or even say this would be an over unity machine, if the might one day exist, they dont at the moment and wont for many years or centuries yet.
What I was suggestting was instead of converting to hydrogen/oxygen and having to find massive storage, why not use it's natural storage medium (water) and break it down/use) "on the fly" i.e. use it as needed without first using excessive amounts of power to break it down then massive storage only to recombine at some stage.

I know this probably wont work, but to me the possibility it might is interesting and exciting.
 
3v0 said:
The basic laws of science tend to complicate things. It is far simpler to ignore them.
{snip}
Click to expand...

Like someone posted earlier, if this possible, splitting water with a minuscule amount of power, then we would have a tremendous hydrogen explosion every time lightning struck during a rainstorm!
 
As Karen stated, the whole object here is to use H, but without the complications of keeping it somewhere. The scientific method of breaking H2O and using the H is quite a mission, and you would probably need more energy that getting energy.
If there exist an alternative, cheaper method, one should look for it.
But, there is another way:

Methanol - CH3-OH
Ethanol - CH3-CH2-OH

I count a lot of H's over there.
And it's easier to store these, given the care used when handling methanol.
 

Because it would have to be over unity to work. The energy you get from buring hydrogen is energy you used to create it from water. You just loose a bit each time you transform it.
 
The energy we burn from the refining of our lowest octane gasoline is WAY more than separating water molecules into its parts. How much energy goes into refining fuel? How much more energy goes into digging deeper and deeper for carbon based fuel. Carbon is the weakest link. Just goes poof and stinks like ****+sulfur. Now, to get a flammable HHO gas, you spend way less energy to get it. Our equivalent gasoline refineries if it were to be made on demand would be the ultimate waste. Sucking it, refining it, then finally filtering and burning it. Why is there so much resistance to this simple technology of making HHO?... Oh yeah it is made on demand... Or is it? We need a chem + electrical + finance/investor major...
 
Last edited:
What you seem to be forgetting is the energy needed to mine the critical catalyst, dilithium. Without dilithium, it takes much more energy to get HHO than burning HHO produces.

John
 
oh yeah. Dilithium, like the dilithium crystals that was Scotty's responsibility on the Enterprise for the main power generator for the warp drive. Now that is funny. I wish I could laugh as much when I fill my little puny gas tank on my 1997 Geo Metro 5-speed and it costs 30+$ to do it. used to be closer to the low 20$. MFR's control our oil prices. America will grow out of it's dependance sooner than later. And it will be tax free
 
Last edited:
It seems clear that you have not really thought this through based on the numbers that you are giving. You do know that the spark voltage is from 40KV to 100KV and 2 amps as you suggest would be a something like 80KW. You do realize this is just an enormous amount of power, far beyond anything you could put in an automobile.

I think it is great that you show much interest in this sort of thing, but I would suggest that before you press the I believe button, you work a few numbers out, understand the process and chemistry involved.

But remember, laws have been rewritten with new discoveries so hang in there. What I mean to say is, I do not wish to discourage you
 
Last edited:

Unfortunately I happen to be one of those late 70's early 80's believers that thought we were going to fix some of the worlds energy problems and that it would come ?

Guess what we are still talking Methane and diesel mixes.

Now it's HHO ?

You know what....... nobody gave a damn once the oil prices dropped and suddenly all the people with books and printing go away just like they did then.

Out the door right along with those high prices. And suddenly we all fall asleep go back out to pasture to forget again.

So, the world is once again being extorted and the same circle will repeat. It's not until people in the know begin to look at the needs of the world instead of big money and profit.

Once again the world needs a new resource it just might be all of the above to make it happen.

Maybe with a stroke of luck and the internet.

I don't know kv
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Is this generator thing for real?
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
94K
Nigel Goodwin
RF energy harvesters. Any working schematics for one?
Replies
1
Views
9K
JimB
L
hydrogen power
2
Replies
29
Views
12K
cobra1
C
K
NEEDs a ckt diagram for 10Amps battery charger with automatic cuttoff circuitry.
Replies
6
Views
9K
4pyros
  • Locked
Some simple truths about hydrogen and HHO
4 5 6
Replies
107
Views
128K
JimB
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…