H2O > HHO gas. Why do we still need petrol??

POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Monday, June 12, 2006 21:42
VIEWED: 6005
PAGE 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

CALHOUN

Sunday, June 11, 2006 9:26 AM

This is pretty damned amazing.. He uses water to power lots of things and claims to travel 100miles on 4 ounces of water. What do you think?

http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/2602.html

PHOENIXROSE

Sunday, June 11, 2006 9:39 AM

There's all kinds of efficient alternates to petrol. Like Firefly, however, they just don't get the marketing they deserve.

Plus, buying new things or altering what you have can be expensive. This is another road block, I think. Sudden change is rare and difficult and gradual change when it comes to something like this is... inefficient. I guess that would be the best way to put it. It just doesn't take off the way it should.

***********

CALHOUN

Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:01 AM

If this is to be believed (100 miles on 4 ounces of water) the only exhaust byproduct being water vapour, then this must be heralded as a momentous breakthru and turning point in civilization!! The end of a need for fossil fuels! The end of the 100 rich ass Arabs strangle hold on the worlds economy! We can finally start to reverse global warming..

If this is for real then IT IS HUGE!

PHOENIXROSE

Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:04 AM

Right, huge. So was the Veggie Van and the recycling center that can turn garbage into high-quality oil. And fuel cells and wind power and any number of breakthroughs that aren't "cost-effective" because they (gasp!) cost money initially.
I'm sorry, I'm being cynical, aren't I?

***********

CALHOUN

Sunday, June 11, 2006 11:26 AM

No.. Really..

This is basically free energy we are talking about here! Do you really see the significance? It cant be real..

PHOENIXROSE

Sunday, June 11, 2006 11:37 AM

Yes, I really see the significance. Most of what I listed above was basically "free energy" too, with the exception of fuel cells. Turning waste into energy is actually, IMO, better than just free energy. But it still costs money to alter engines and the like so it works, so that's not free. And the recycling center mentioned also costs money to get up and running, so it's not free. And if this is real, it would also cost money to alter things, and it isn't free either.
I'm telling you: Marketing. Just not getting it. Not getting the funding it needs. Not getting government sancions (well, in the UK it tends to more)
Here in Colorado there is a man living in the high, cold, Rockies who built a self-sustaining jungle environment in his house. His heating bill is $5 a month. How many people do you think are following his example?
Same state, the Veggie Van; guy altered his van so it could run on veggie oil. He goes to resaurants and cleans out their fryers and has FREE FUEL from waste. Plus, from what he says, it makes his car smell like french fries all the time. Again, how many other people are doing this? No one, because it all costs money. I can't afford to do it on my own; without government funding, very few people can.
Yes, I definitely see the significance.

***********

CRUITHNE3753

Sunday, June 11, 2006 11:50 AM

Well this is basically hydrogen fuel, except this idiot keeps it mixed with oxygen (HHO gas), which is unstable and can't be stored for any real length of time, and would be highly explosive under pressure. It also still takes electrical energy to produce it. Hydrogen by itself would be safer, since after all there's plenty of oxygen in the air to burn with, but still has storage problems as it is extremely bulky even when liquified - look at the Shuttle tank!

It's still not free energy though either, as you need electricity to electrolyse the water.

And if that flame was truly "hotter than the surface of the Sun" as they say in the clip, it would be so blindingly bright you'd need a welder's mask to be able to look at it without melting your eyeballs, or indeed your face at that distance...

CALHOUN

Sunday, June 11, 2006 11:51 AM

Burning oils and most gasses even veggie oil still has the down side of producing harmful emissions whereas fracturing water to produce and combust hydrogen only produces water as an emission.

I think the real stumbling blocks here are the governments and BIG businesses of the world who make fortunes from the fossil fuel infrastructure. If fossil fuels were suddenly to become obsolete then world economies would suffer immensly. It seems to me that the Arabs controlling most of the oil in the world would stop at pretty much nothing to make these sorts of technologies "go away" and considering the amounts of money governments would stand to lose I dont think they would really like to see the end of fossil fuels either.. Thats why I dont think we will really see these technologies emerge until every last drop of oil is gone..

CALHOUN

Sunday, June 11, 2006 11:53 AM

I await the scientific types of browncoats responses.. Citizen?

CALHOUN

Sunday, June 11, 2006 12:04 PM

Stanley Meyer http://www.waterfuelcell.org/ I believe is the founder of this technology. Hydrogen on demand, no need for storage tanks and he purports to fracturing water with his patented method of electrolosis using much less electricity (milliamps as oppposed to the amps normally required). This is what makes it unique compared to conventional electrolosis which takes more energy in the form of electricity than is released in the form of hydrogen. These guys reckon and seem to have proven to be able to make more energy in the form of hydrogen than used making it(electricity).

This in my eyes makes it free energy..

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE