Hydrogen for hybrid conversions

karenhornby said:

reminds me of the 99.999% of people who said Christopher columbus would fall off the edge of the earth

Click to expand...

Hate to further confuse you with facts on that matter. In 1492, the population of Spain/Iberia was **broken link removed**. Using your number as cited, 0.001% is just 55 people. Where did Columbus find all of his sailors and supporters?

In fact, the Flat Earth story is just an elementary school myth. See these links, for example:

http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Columbus had done considerable study on the subject of sailing around the world, and other explorers had shown its feasibility. In other words, Columbus was not just throwing words out for reaction. He was in effect a scientist-explorer. Queen Isabella was no fool. She would not have funded him on a lark.

Your proposal in contrast is not new science, but rather represents a return to mysticism more appropriate for the Dark Ages.

John

Trivia time Some of you may be interested to know that an ancient Greek by the name of Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth with some precision around 240 B.C, Long before Columbus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
I guess no one read his papers ( or was it papyrus) after that time.

I guess no one read his papers ( or was it papyrus) after that time.

Click to expand...

I saw a TV documentary recently, showing a reconstruction on how he did it.!

It wasnt papyrus, I loaned him my PDA.. α..Ω

Sounds like everyone here should take a chill pill and not take EVERYTHING so seriously
I was stating my views and NOT trying to say what might or might NOT be scientific fact, sure I might get a few things wrong but like I said I havent worked on these ideas yet, they are nothing but ideas.
go back and read the changes I made to this post!
especially those of you who seem to make a habbit of laughing at others thoughts just because we arent "scientists" with many degrees and god knows what else
yes I'm talking about those of you who wrote and laughed at the "star trek" jibe!
https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/hydrogen-for-hybrid-conversions.40324/#post329086

Another example I havent quoted because there are TOO many
40 years ago if anyone told you that you could buy a 3AH rechargable battery in AA size (also known as LR6 FR6 R6 or MIGNON sizes) you would have been not only laughed at but ridiculed for being so "stupid"
now if you then told them they wouldnt just be 3AH but RECHARGABLE with none of the memory loss problems of NiCad then you'd probably have been committed into an insane asylum (possibly even 20 yrs ago also)


Now folks, like I said above
take a chill pill
relax
this is meant to be a fun place for EVERYONE whether they are scientific genius's or people throwing "insane" ideas into the group for discussion
and stop taking everything so seriously.

Columbus and easy believism

jpanhalt said:

Hate to further confuse you with facts on that matter. In 1492, the population of Spain/Iberia was **broken link removed**. Using your number as cited, 0.001% is just 55 people. Where did Columbus find all of his sailors and supporters?

In fact, the Flat Earth story is just an elementary school myth. See these links, for example:

http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Columbus had done considerable study on the subject of sailing around the world, and other explorers had shown its feasibility. In other words, Columbus was not just throwing words out for reaction. He was in effect a scientist-explorer. Queen Isabella was no fool. She would not have funded him on a lark.

Your proposal in contrast is not new science, but rather represents a return to mysticism more appropriate for the Dark Ages.



John

Click to expand...

Although his ability to sail may not be questionable his desires were always met with his discoveries to equal what his thoughts or beliefs were.

http://latinamericanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/columbus_in_the_garden_of_eden

When he became a christian his desire was to prove the existance of the garden of eden and that it could be found. And he actually believed he had found it until the day he died. Easy believism was the cause.

It wasn't until the reformation of the Church people were able to read and interpret exactly how many inaccuracy's their were to the bible as well as the discovery's of more text and their implications which led to the dark age's and cover up. It's funny we have one today it's stands only to separate and irritate everyone somehow.

But science was able to finally take root and there was some degree of argument to such myths coming out of the naysayers finally we have the Critic who emerges to quantify and skeptify those elusions of myth. Science has both lent credibility and also taken some of the most sacred believes that are a constant dilution to what should be a simple belief.

If you want to believe in a Creator do so. But everything else in Scripture is conjecture and must be compared to over time to allow common misconceptions to die away an awkward death. Because we are finding that even the garden of eden story itself belongs to an ancient sumerian text predating the bible by 1000 yrs. The story of Gilgamesh

**broken link removed**

The creation story has become a myth in and of itself bound by adoption of almost all cultures in one way or another.

To say your an alien in some ways both lends credibility to an ongoing battle science would not do anything but agree. Your chemical makeup and mass itself has become mutated together into all things on this planet.

We are star dust flung from the farthest reaches of our known Universe undisputed.

Even then you would have never fully convinced Columbus of any truth outside of his own beliefs if contrary to his contemporary's.

So to be completely honest based on history it's very hard not to be ambiguous on both sides of the line.

kv

Edit: Deuterium and cold fusion next generation. 30% more than the energy to Create.

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

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

This also was a myth but now more methods are being developed to maybe conceive a real possibility.

Now folks, like I said above
take a chill pill
relax
this is meant to be a fun place for EVERYONE whether they are scientific genius's or people throwing "insane" ideas into the group for discussion
and stop taking everything so seriously.

Click to expand...

hi Karen,
Dont let the doubting thomas's spook you, hold the dream..

Now folks, like I said above
take a chill pill
relax
this is meant to be a fun place for EVERYONE whether they are scientific genius's or people throwing "insane" ideas into the group for discussion
and stop taking everything so seriously.

Click to expand...

I neither laughed nor scorned you, rather I simply pointed out flaws in your presentation of an idea. This should have been considered constructive in helping you decide on how to proceed with your idea.

Merriam-Webster’s defines the term forum as;

A public meeting place for open discussion c: a medium (as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas.

When one enters into a forum discussion and proposes an idea, concept, or the like, then it should be expected that a discussion of said idea will ensue. Whether the discussion supports or refutes an idea will be based on the validity of the proposed idea and its merit to withstand refutation. Once the idea is refuted with valid claims, the ball is then back into your court to counter the refuters claim. This repeats with multiple iterations, point, and counter-point. This is how a forum works.

I guess what I am trying to say is that you should not get overly sensitive to criticism as it is the nature of a forum. Sometimes the input you receive from others will help spark (pun intended) ideas and to find solutions.

Again, like I said before, my input was not meant to discourage you, rather to add things to your think-tank, and to assist you into seeing some of the pitfalls. Well, I hope you keep pursuing your quest in making this a better world, but do so with the expectations that there will be hurdles along the way. Good luck and peace

Damn you guys are funny.

That's why I love this forum.

P.S. I'll stick with fuel from garbage for now.

killivolt said:

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.

I don't know kv

Click to expand...

If you ask me, the problem is the "people in the know".
Every time they bring something useful to light, they rip the guts out of everyone else.
So I think a real solution, that brings something positive to everyone, will come from grass-root level. Just like those guys in the videos doing what they are, experimenting.
They are not highly qualified, white collared blokes. Normal people, sharing what tit-bits they found with others, hoping something bigger can come of it.
(Please read tit-bits in the appropriate context)

arrie said:

If you ask me, the problem is the "people in the know".
Every time they bring something useful to light, they rip the guts out of everyone else.
So I think a real solution, that brings something positive to everyone, will come from grass-root level. Just like those guys in the videos doing what they are, experimenting.
They are not highly qualified, white collared blokes. Normal people, sharing what tit-bits they found with others, hoping something bigger can come of it.
(Please read tit-bits in the appropriate context)

Click to expand...

I think you meant "tidbits".

Tit-bits. Sounds slightly. . .er. . .never mind.


Torben

Electric_EyE said:

The energy we burn from the refining of our lowest octane gasoline is WAY more than separating water molecules into its parts.

Click to expand...

Really? How do you figure that? But before you answer…

1. We don’t “refine” low octane gasoline.
   • We refine crude oil into various fuels and chemicals like gasoline and diesel.
   • Gasoline as we get it from the pump is blended.
2. Octane is a measure of volatility with e.g. 92 octane being less volatile than e.g. 87.
   • The higher octane is obtained by adding things like ethanol to the blend.
3. You’re comparing apples to oranges, and you’re wrong.
   • The energy cost to turn water into fuel is more than the energy value of the fuel itself!

How much energy goes into refining fuel? How much more energy goes into digging deeper and deeper for carbon based fuel.

Click to expand...

Not a whole heck of a lot compared to the reward. Especially compared to HHO, which actually costs upwards of 1½× as much energy to produce as it contains.

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...

Click to expand...

Forgetting something, aren’t you? It’s going to take a @#$%ton of energy to create HHO in the quantities you’re thinking of. That energy has to come from a power plant somewhere. And power plants don’t just conjure electricity out of nowhere. In most cases, they get it from fuel.

Why is there so much resistance? Because it’s silly. HHO isn’t a fuel, it’s an energy carrier. And there are more effective ways of carrying energy than HHO, so why bother?

What i think many fail to appreciate is that economics drives progress in this area. If there is no economic incentive to develop alternative energy sources, few will do it and, generally, govt won't support it. When the price of energy gets high, there are all sorts of activities going on. When it falls, there is little incentive. Human nature.

I think it is really sad that people think the high price of gas is due to conspiracy when a more rational explanation can be found in the laws of supply and demand.

As to "believe" vs "know", my 7th grade English teacher had a saying that I think is appropriate here: "An open mind is a good thing but some need to be closed for repair."

ArrowHead said:

HHO isn’t a fuel, it’s an energy carrier.

Click to expand...

How do you figure that HHO is not a fuel? It runs lawnmowers, in countless video's I've seen. Define 'energy carrier'.

Electric_EyE said:

How do you figure that HHO is not a fuel? It runs lawnmowers, in countless video's I've seen. Define 'energy carrier'.

Click to expand...

Hydrogen is a fuel. No one is disputing that. But as been said over and over and over here. You have to use energy to make the hydrogen from water. You end up with fuel, but more energy was used to make the fuel then it will deliver.

Sort of like this, for each $1.50 you give me I will give you $1 back. Not good for you, but I like it

Poor Flicka
EDIT:

philba said:

Why is there so much resistance? Because it’s silly. HHO isn’t a fuel, it’s an energy carrier. And there are more effective ways of carrying energy than HHO, so why bother?

Click to expand...

Fuel or energy carrier. The core idea is that HHO which has to be made from water is not a energy source. So it makes sense to classify it as a energy carrier much like a battery. It is a place/way/method/to store energy but is not the source of the energy. You could say the same for fossil fuel except that the energy was stored for us by nature a long time ago.

OK, well I see it like I put $1.50 worth of gas on my car which ain't a whole hell of alot these days. I fill up the water canister at 1.25? a gallon, supplement the gasoline and increase the gas mileage. What am I missing here?

What's started to bother me abit is actually when HHO burns it is actually imploding. Still releasing energy through gas expansion which is good enough to push a piston down, but a slight loss from the implosion effect. Wish I had a high speed camera when I was lighting up my HHO balloon. Are those little molecules so desparate to get back together as a little drop of water.

Electric_EyE said:

OK, well I see it like I put $1.50 worth of gas on my car which ain't a whole hell of alot these days. I fill up the water canister at 1.25? a gallon, supplement the gasoline and increase the gas mileage. What am I missing here?

Click to expand...

If you loaded up with HHO you might be able to see some improvements. However, if you load up with water, then you must get the energy to convert it from water to HHO from the engine. More energy will be drawn from the engine for that conversion than is regained from the addition of HHO to the fuel. Net effect: mileage goes down.


Torben

The Cat.

Torben said:

Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.

Click to expand...

I think Obedience to Nature.

Fear killed the cat.

Ignorance is a lame duck. Quack !

kv

killivolt said:

I think Obedience to Nature.

Fear killed the cat.

Ignorance is a lame duck. Quack !

kv

Click to expand...

hehe. The phrase "curiosity killed the cat" discourages curiosity by implying that it's dangerous. I think curiosity is a fine thing, but just jumping in head first is a good way to hit your head on the rocks just below the water that you didn't know were there.


Torben

Electric_EyE said:

OK, well I see it like I put $1.50 worth of gas on my car which ain't a whole hell of alot these days. I fill up the water canister at 1.25? a gallon, supplement the gasoline and increase the gas mileage. What am I missing here?

Click to expand...

Lets say a car will travel 30 miles on one gallon of gas. We are going to modify it to run on 100% HHO.

Use the engine to drive a generator capable of converting the entire output of the engine to electricity.

Use all the electricity to convert water to HH0.

Drive the car with a 2nd engine that burns you HH0.

Your 100% HH0 driven car will only travel 20 miles on that same gallon of gas. A loss of 33% just like in my money example.

Yes I am ignoring the weight of the 2nd engine and the HH0 generation system. They will make the numbers worse.

The idea is flawed because there is no energy that we can release from the water. We can only put energy in and get it back with some lost along the way.

What about this do you not understand.