Motorbike runs on water from a polluted river.

a reply to: MysterX

It would be messy, creating a sludge that would need to be removed often, but using the chemical method alone could power vehicles or gen sets...the only thing to calculate would be the relative financial costs between gasoline / diesel and the price of the powdered metals and the catalysts used...if the difference was negligible, there'd not be much point in doing it...unless yo really hated fossil fuels i suppose.

a reply to: Bedlam
i tend to agree with you, but let us consider the casimir effect...two polished aluminum plates are pushed to gether by the apparent vacuum energy of space, i.e., the continuous flux of virtual particles. a tiny amount of work is being done over a very short distance. this effect is real and measurable. Now suppose that the plates in the catalytic generator are tuned to a frequency that exists in the vacuum energy field....so the plates act as a receiver, like the casimir plates, not as anode and cathode in electrolysis. this is pure speculation on my part, but is what i would use to guide a lab experiment to see if it works....

a reply to: Bedlam

A car battery can be trickle charged at a low cost (or a bank of multiple 12v batteries / super capacitors). It can also be charged using green energy methods, wind or solar etc..using the HHO generator and a green charging source is cheap and required very little modification of the actual vehicle.

If he was to use the batteries directly, it would require significant modification of the bike or intended vehicle, basically stripping out the ICE and replacing it with expensive electric motors and associated apparatus.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Bedlam

Technically you can produce on demand H from water, without a single volt of electricity or single amp of current...so i'm not sure where you get your ideas from bedlam.

Perhaps you will reread what I posted...no mention of electricity. Let's review: "No catalysis, resonance, quantum, field, vibration, frequency or other sciency terms will get that hydrogen loose from the water with less energy than that in the chemical bonds.

The result is that you can't unburn it with less energy than the energy you get back from burning it. "

I'm looking. Nope...don't see it.

Hydrogen can be obtained easily, simply and cheaply via chemical reaction...

Yep. And you do so by having a redox reaction that strips the hydrogen from the water. By exerting enough energy on the bond to break it. Where does that energy come from? Well, you put it into the reaction in the form of a refined metal. That aluminum you're dumping into the lye didn't turn itself into a metal, you know. And THAT'S where the energy comes from, if you're using a chemical reaction to create hydrogen. It's still not "free".

Not a single battery was required, just powdered cheap and easily available metals and a chemical catalyst.

However, that "easily available metal" contributed the energy input, and that only because someone at the Alcoa plant refined the aluminum from the oxide. And there's not really a 'catalyst' present there. In essence, you're burning metallic aluminum to aluminum hydroxide, using the oxygen from the water.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: MysterX

...the only thing to calculate would be the relative financial costs between gasoline / diesel and the price of the powdered metals and the catalysts used...

The only thing to calculate would be how much electricity it took to refine the aluminum, which is generally quite a bit, vs what you're going to get back by reacting the refined metal with lye and running the resulting hydrogen through a fuel cell.

I can tell you without having to look at the numbers that you're going to be better off just keeping the electrical power and cutting out the metal refinery/chemical reaction/fuel cell intermediate steps.

originally posted by: darkstar57
a reply to: Bedlam
i tend to agree with you, but let us consider the casimir effect...two polished aluminum plates are pushed to gether by the apparent vacuum energy of space, i.e., the continuous flux of virtual particles. a tiny amount of work is being done over a very short distance. this effect is real and measurable.

...and totally irrelevant here. The plates in a Casimir demo are angstroms apart, and if they're not, it doesn't happen. That's because the Casimir effect depends on excluding virtual particle modes between the plates. More than a few nm separation, no force. Next, the Casimir effect produces an attractive force between the plates. It does NOT produce magic free energy that can be siphoned off for use otherwise. And once the plates are crushed together by the force, re-separating them for reuse requires as much energy to separate them as you would get from the Casimir force on the next cycle, so it's a 'one shot' thing.

In effect, you can't appeal to the Casimir effect or virtual particles in a hydrolyzer, it just doesn't apply.

originally posted by: MysterX

If he was to use the batteries directly, it would require significant modification of the bike or intended vehicle, basically stripping out the ICE and replacing it with expensive electric motors and associated apparatus.

If he's running it from a fuel cell, it's already converted to electric.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: darkstar57
the catalytic reaction explains why more hydrogen is created than explained by electrolysis.
My point of view is I am going to look for tricks like hidden gas tanks until i see the lab results up close.

No catalysis, resonance, quantum, field, vibration, frequency or other sciency terms will get that hydrogen loose from the water with less energy than that in the chemical bonds.

The result is that you can't unburn it with less energy than the energy you get back from burning it.

Your right but your not taking into account after you separate the hydrogen its potential energy exceeds the energy needed to free it from its bonds.

what i thought when i read it he uses the car battery for electrolysis and uses the hydrogen i separates as fuel wouldnt be hard at all he has 12 volts to play with. not sure i see an advantage to this set up rather than a fuel cell to create electricity. Because hes using electricity to make fuel to burn. Which means hed do better just using electricity to to power the bike. But it work though highly inefficient.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Because hes using electricity to make fuel to burn. Which means hed do better just using electricity to to power the bike. But it work though highly inefficient.

That's the point.

The reason for inserting the electrolysis/fuel cell step in the middle is to provide the mystery quantum/field/resonance/pseudoscience insertion point.

If you just said "I'm running the electric motorcycle from a car battery - but it's a MYSTERIOUS car battery", people would snort. However, put in an arcane sciency setup in the middle, and you've got a crack for the quantum woo to creep in.

a reply to: cuckooold

1 - its utter bollox

2 - its utter bollox

not much more you can say really

a reply to: Bedlam
I appreciate hearing from someone who can describe the casimir effect. now let us expand that understanding a bit. suppose that the frequency appropriate to the casimir effect is extremely high...and to lower it , the plates are moved farther apart, say a few millimeters. casimir effect disappears because the virtual particles and their frequency are now on both sides of both plates. but what if a lower frequency is injected into the space...but diodes block the usual cancellation of the virtrual particles and their frequency...and diodes were an intrinsic part of the water powered car circuit diagram, though the frequency was unknown. the power to disassociate h20 is now tricked out of the quantum flux. keep in mind that the casimir effect shows real work, though done over nanometers. and only once. now suppose you have a "gate" that harnesses the casimir effect, then releases it, than repeats... that gate would be a mechanical "diode"
i am not ready to build a water powered anything, until i understand this.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: cuckooold

1 - its utter bollox

2 - its utter bollox

not much more you can say really

It's an enema on wheels.

originally posted by: darkstar57
a reply to: Bedlam
I appreciate hearing from someone who can describe the casimir effect. now let us expand that understanding a bit. suppose that the frequency appropriate to the casimir effect is extremely high...and to lower it , the plates are moved farther apart, say a few millimeters.

You get more than a few microns apart, the force drops to zero.

casimir effect disappears because the virtual particles and their frequency are now on both sides of both plates. but what if a lower frequency is injected into the space...but diodes block the usual cancellation of the virtrual particles and their frequency...and diodes were an intrinsic part of the water powered car circuit diagram, though the frequency was unknown.

Injecting a "lower frequency" into the space does nothing to,for,or with the virtual particles. Diodes would not block "the usual cancellation of the virtual particles and their frequency". So, again, the Casimir effect is a non-sequitur.

i am not ready to build a water powered anything, until i understand this.

Water's not going to power anything, as a chemical reaction, because it's the ash of hydrogen and oxygen. It's BEEN burned. Sticking a lot of bafflegab steps in the middle and saying "Lo! Quantum happens here in step 2, along with fields, frequencies and resonances!" won't unburn that water for you.

a reply to: Bedlam

Your right the casimir effect would be irrelevant. Looking up electrolysis efficiency rate claimed in the paper by our scientists i mentioned earlier we have a basis for potential energy. They claim they can produce 3 ml / min consuming approximately 1 volt. so to make a liter of hydrogen would take (1000/3) 333 minutes (333.33 / 60) or 5.56 hours. or to make the math simple 5.56 watt hours to make 1 liter of hydrogen. This is strictly hydrogen and disposing of the oxygen. An energy expenditure of 1 watt hhour represents 3600 joules. 3600 joules multiplied by 5.56 equals 20016 joules to produce a liter of hydrogen. So there is the amount of energy you have to play with to drive your vehicle and produce electrolysis. Im to lazy to look up fuel cells but it gives you guys a starting point. Is it possible yes major universities all over the planet our working on it. i did think of one possibility to find information NASA used 3 hydrogen fuel cells to power the shuttle electrical systems. Im sure with some research someone could find out how much energy those produced and at least you would have a base line. Because we can only assume they have gotten more efficient since the shuttle days.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Bedlam

Your right the casimir effect would be irrelevant. Looking up electrolysis efficiency rate claimed in the paper by our scientists i mentioned earlier we have a basis for potential energy. They claim they can produce 3 ml / min consuming approximately 1 volt.

You don't consume Volts, actually. You need an energy term here. You also can't calculate the Watt-hours required by taking a 3ml/min conversion rate and hand-waving to assume a time of 5.56 hours means it was Watt-hours. Unless in there somewhere, they also tell you it's 1 Volt at 1 Amp, which seems unlikely.

Because we can only assume they have gotten more efficient since the shuttle days.

If you have 100% efficiency in electrolysis, and 100% efficiency in your fuel cell, then at best you haven't lost anything. But you won't have any gain. So there's really no point in inserting an electrolysis/fuel cell intermediate step. Other, of course, than to provide a hand-waving step where a claim of "free energy" can rear its ugly head.

a reply to: Bedlam

Your making an incorrect assumption you assume we get the same amount of energy breaking a hydrogen bond that we get from a hydrogen molecule science tells us that doesnt have to be the case. Now if you were arguing the creation of hydrogen atome directly you would be correct. It would always take as much energy to create a hydrogen atom as it would to destroy it. But where not making hydrogen atoms we are freeing them from a bond. And this is how batteies are made this process does produce energy. The question is does it produce more then it costs at this time id probably say no. though universities all over . the world are making huge strides to this end. As for your assumption it cant be done the energy is there if we can harness it.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Bedlam

Your making an incorrect assumption you assume we get the same amount of energy breaking a hydrogen bond that we get from a hydrogen molecule science tells us that doesnt have to be the case.

If you're taking water apart and putting it back together again as in electrolysis and a fuel cell, you're damned sure going to have the same energy coming apart and going back together. And then there's all the losses. But you're not going to form water from hydrogen and oxygen with gain over breaking the same molecule's bonds.

Now if you were arguing the creation of hydrogen atome directly you would be correct. It would always take as much energy to create a hydrogen atom as it would to destroy it. But where not making hydrogen atoms we are freeing them from a bond. And this is how batteies are made this process does produce energy.

Good lord, no. There's a certain amount of energy in a hydrogen-oxygen bond. You get the same back making it as breaking it. There is no asymmetry. Batteries store electrochemical energy. And they don't return more than they're charged with, either.

The question is does it produce more then it costs at this time id probably say no. though universities all over . the world are making huge strides to this end. As for your assumption it cant be done the energy is there if we can harness it.

The energy is where, exactly?

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Bedlam

Your making an incorrect assumption you assume we get the same amount of energy breaking a hydrogen bond that we get from a hydrogen molecule science tells us that doesnt have to be the case.

If you're taking water apart and putting it back together again as in electrolysis and a fuel cell, you're damned sure going to have the same energy coming apart and going back together. And then there's all the losses. But you're not going to form water from hydrogen and oxygen with gain over breaking the same molecule's bonds.

Now if you were arguing the creation of hydrogen atome directly you would be correct. It would always take as much energy to create a hydrogen atom as it would to destroy it. But where not making hydrogen atoms we are freeing them from a bond. And this is how batteies are made this process does produce energy.

Good lord, no. There's a certain amount of energy in a hydrogen-oxygen bond. You get the same back making it as breaking it. There is no asymmetry. Batteries store electrochemical energy. And they don't return more than they're charged with, either.

The question is does it produce more then it costs at this time id probably say no. though universities all over . the world are making huge strides to this end. As for your assumption it cant be done the energy is there if we can harness it.

The energy is where, exactly?

Fuel cells aren't trying to create water that would mean we would get zero energy. A byproduct is extra water. But the energy is from electrons in a chemical reaction. We need the electrons to travel from point a to b. Energy is from us causing electrons to move and movement is energy. Why would you think hydrogen fuel cells just turns out hydrogen and oxygen back into water that's just stupid we would not generate electricity if that was the case.I would just use protons and create hydrogen. Protons is ionized hydrogen.



In a fuel cell a chemical reaction strips the hydrogen molecules of their electrons and the atoms become ionized to form H+. The electrons travel through wires to provide a current to do work. The oxygen enters at the cathode, usually from the air. The oxygen picks up the electrons that have completed their circuit. The oxygen then combines with the ionized hydrogen atoms (H+), and water (H2O) is formed as the waste product which exits the fuel cell. The key to how much energy you get from a fuel cell depends on how much energy you have to use to free out electron. And we know do rent materials give us different amounts. As I said the energy is there just become how much we can capture. If we could get every electron to travel through our wire than yes there would be enough energy to break water molecules bonds.

Problem is we haven't been able to be that efficient. And you keep trying to compare the two breaking down water molecules and stripping then of electrons is two different processes I think this is where your confusion comes in.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Fuel cells aren't trying to create water that would mean we would get zero energy. A byproduct is extra water. But the energy is from electrons in a chemical reaction.

The energy is that of forming hydrogen-oxygen bonds, same as burning it, but you get it a bit more efficiently in the form of electric energy. You get exactly the same energy back out of it, minus losses, as you get from electrolyzing the water. A hydrogen-oxygen bond has x amount of energy to it, and it doesn't really matter if you're making one or breaking one.

The upshot of that is, there isn't any net profit in terms of energy production. You can store energy that way, if you can tolerate the losses. But you're not going to electrolyze it, run it through a fuel cell and come up with a net gain.

I think this is where your confusion comes in.

I'm not confused at all. The energy that's produced by a fuel cell is from a redox reaction where the cell forms hydrogen-oxygen bonds and transfers some percentage of that bond creation energy to an outside system in the form of an electric current. There's no other energy coming from one. You can't get a net energy yield from electrolyzing water and running the reactants through a fuel cell no matter what you do with the electrons.

I'm sort of hoping I'm misunderstanding your position on this one, because it's pretty basic physics. You're never going to get ahead by taking a car battery, making hydrogen with it, and running the gases through a fuel cell. It's always going to be a net loss, and even if you had 100% efficient electrolyzers and fuel cells, which you can't, at the very best it's going to be a wash.

a reply to: Bedlam

Your right you won't. The bike thing is stupid but I haven't ruled out hydrogen fuel cells yet where making great advances on both sides of the equatuon. As I said earlier right now no not possible but slot of colleges are working on it and some are really close. If you look at the math it's possible because the energy is their just not the efficiency needed.