Make a Hydrogen Booster For Your Car; Runs on Water

This is interesting:
www.thinkgeek.com...

A water powered clock.

People told Edison that his electric light idea would never work.
Sure, there are ideas that may never work as well as hoped,
but science has to update its rules from time to time as well.
Every atom and collective object has some resonant frequency.
Microwave ovens cause water molecules to rotate, creating heat
from the water dipoles. The chosen frequency causes that effect.
Sine waves are a pure single frequency by definition. If you
take all odd harmonics and sum them together you get a square
wave. Other shapes of waves (Triangle, sawtooth etc) are just
combinations of even/odd harmonics of the fundamental frequency.
I have read, that some people have used various frequency
combinations to help the electrolysis be more efficient, I am not
able to prove one way or another, however the idea is interesting.
Most likely, the fundamental sine frequency mentioned is 600HZ
summed with 15KZ sine wave. I recall reading someone was using
42KHZ, or some other frequency, but perhaps even 3 sines combined.
Radio signals are tuned-in using a form of resonance of LC circuits.
If the frequency idea is any better than just DC, of the same overall
power, I do not know. Until someone has experimented and proven
difinitively one way or another, we won't know. Even then, someone
will argue with the results. You would likely need 2 or 3 sine wave
generators that you could tune the frequency with some resolution.
Then a summing buffer, then a power amplifier capable of the
frequency range. Not that hard to do, just may cost a few $$ for
the equipment. Of coarse a container of water, electrodes and wire.
Probably throw in a lot of patience as well. You would also need some
way to measure the amount of hydrogen produced. Can't help you there.

Have you guys seen this, it's interesting and I guess it takes curent engines and runs it on 100% water.
www.youtube.com...

Also what do you guys think of this
www.youtube.com...

www.envbike.com...


[edit on 26-12-2007 by magestyk7]

Originally posted by magestyk7
Have you guys seen this, it's interesting and I guess it takes curent engines and runs it on 100% water.
www.youtube.com...

Scam, just like Meyer and Klein.

Also what do you guys think of this
www.youtube.com...

www.envbike.com...

Neat.

Runs on hydrogen, not water.

Greetings furnace man, your contribution on the right frequency is one of the most outstanding I have come across in the short time I have been surfing this site.
Please go into more detail, a man called John Kanzius from Florida has recently stumbled across another method of doing it and I think he might need some support in order to get it out there. The only thing to do is share your water related research with the whole world, don't try to hang on to it for personal gain, you will be amply rewarded in due time.

reply to post by magestyk7


This is Steve Ryan's site: www.biosmeanslife.com...

An interesting quote on the site is:

“According to aerodynamic laws, the bumblebee cannot fly. Its body weight is not the right proportion to its wingspan. Ignoring these laws, the bee flies anyway.”
- M. Sainte-Lague

reply to post by Luther777

A good explanation of that urban legend can be found from here and as always, the truth is stranger than fiction.

And my 2 euro cents to the boosters - in todays world it really doesn't matter if they use more power than what you get out, if at the end the net result is lower emissions. For example, catalytic converters help with emissions but actually reduce the power you can get out from the engine. That increase in fuel consumption is offset by the lower emissions and thus it's preferred (and in most places even mandatory) to have a catalytic converter.

So if someone could make a reasonably efficient hydrogen 'booster' which would reduce emissions and not have too much of an impact towards fuel economy, it would be adopted.

Originally posted by starstuck
Please go into more detail, a man called John Kanzius from Florida has recently stumbled across another method of doing it and I think he might need some support in order to get it out there.

There was a fairly long thread about Kanzius' machine not too long ago. What makes you say he needs help getting it out, I thought he was working with a University or 2? Do you know him personally?

reply to post by MurderSmurf


What evidence do you have to label Meyer and Klein as scams?

Not familiar with Klein, but Meyer's work looks interesting. Problem with these guys is they are just far too damn secretive, and the patent game is clearly a dead end. Anyway, Meyer is now dead himself isn't he, so I guess it will be posthumously that he'll be vindicated or finally nailed as a scam. But please share your insights, as it is always helpful to eliminate the FE contenders from my research list.

edit for grammar

[edit on 28-12-2007 by RogerT]

Originally posted by RogerT
reply to post by MurderSmurf

 

What evidence do you have to label Meyer and Klein as scams?

Well, I could start with high school Chemistry.

In a perfect process, it takes 285kJ of energy per mole to dissociate liquid water into a mole of hydrogen and a half-mole of water. 285kJ/mol is also what you get when you recombine the two. This is, of course in a perfect environment, which does not exist. So even in a perfect world, you only get as much energy back from the H2O → 2(H2) + O2 → H2O process as you put into it.

And of course the real world is far from perfect, so you’ll be wasting some energy. (I have heard, that the best electrolysis processes out there are about 80% efficient, meaning that you would have to spend 356kJ for every 285kJ you get back.)

Long story short, the net effect of a “hydrogen booster” on your car would be to waste electricity, producing a load on your alternator, which in turn produces extra load on your engine, which will reduce your gas mileage rather than increase it.

I hear people like to read the MPG from their car’s computer using ScanGauge and similar devices, to experiment with fuel-saving techniques.
The readouts these tech toys give are notoriously inaccurate, and the effects of most techniques (including the “hydrogen booster”) are so small as to be masked by a handful of other variables anyway.

Meyer is now dead himself isn't he, so I guess it will be posthumously that he'll be vindicated or finally nailed as a scam.

He was nailed as a scam years ago by those in the know who cared. The problem is, conspiracy theories tend to pop up around these crazy failed-basement-inventor types, especially when they die. And hanging around a forum like this, you ought to know how tenacious conspiracy theories can be.

But please share your insights, as it is always helpful to eliminate the FE contenders from my research list.

And so I have. Thanks for reading.

Originally posted by MurderSmurf

Originally posted by RogerT
reply to post by MurderSmurf

 

What evidence do you have to label Meyer and Klein as scams?

Well, I could start with high school Chemistry.

In a perfect process, it takes 285kJ of energy per mole to dissociate liquid water into a mole of hydrogen and a half-mole of water. 285kJ/mol is also what you get when you recombine the two. This is, of course in a perfect environment, which does not exist. So even in a perfect world, you only get as much energy back from the H2O → 2(H2) + O2 → H2O process as you put into it.

And of course the real world is far from perfect, so you’ll be wasting some energy. (I have heard, that the best electrolysis processes out there are about 80% efficient, meaning that you would have to spend 356kJ for every 285kJ you get back.)

Long story short, the net effect of a “hydrogen booster” on your car would be to waste electricity, producing a load on your alternator, which in turn produces extra load on your engine, which will reduce your gas mileage rather than increase it.

So you are saying because you can't produce 100% efficiency with the conversion it is a scam? The typical gas engine in the U.S. averages 20%...I guess gas engines must be a scam too? And you are talking about wasting energy lol, look at the gas engine, most of the fuel goes out the tail pipe!

The energy it takes to electrolyse water has nothing to do with whether water can be turned into hydrogen and used as a fuel-source..Does it honestly? I'm not talking about efficiency here, but simply can it be done, and can a engine use hydrogen or alternative sources to turn a rotor? If we can electrolyse water using water batteries, solar, wind, etc, how much energy are you personally inputting into the system?

www.youtube.com...

You could run your engines off garbage if you so wanted.
bingofuel.online.fr...
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 30-12-2007 by Freezer]

Originally posted by Freezer
So you are saying because you can't produce 100% efficiency with the conversion it is a scam?

That’s right – I’m saying that because you can’t produce 100% efficiency in the real world, and a hydrogen booster would require more than 100% efficiency to work as advertised, it’s a scam.

The typical gas engine in the U.S. averages 20%...I guess gas engines must be a scam too?

Uh, no. Why would they be? 20% is LESS than 100%.

And you are talking about wasting energy lol, look at the gas engine, most of the fuel goes out the tail pipe!

No. Less than 5% of the fuel goes out the tailpipe.

Only about 20% of the energy from gasoline combustion ends up powering the car. The rest is wasted as heat.

(You’re confusing mechanical efficiency with efficiency of combustion.)

The energy it takes to electrolyse water has nothing to do with whether water can be turned into hydrogen and used as a fuel-source..Does it honestly?

True, it doesn’t.

I know that hydrogen is a fuel, and I know that water can be dissociated into oxygen and hydrogen.

The reason that a “hydrogen booster” on a car won’t do its job is because of the plain fact that you’re losing more energy than you’re gaining.

I'm not talking about efficiency here, but simply can it be done, and can a engine use hydrogen or alternative sources to turn a rotor? If we can electrolyse water using water batteries, solar, wind, etc, how much energy are you personally inputting into the system?

Sure… none. But now we’re not talking about hydrogen boosters anymore. Now we’re talking about hydrogen as a fuel. Which I don’t dispute.

www.youtube.com...

Yeah, it’s a neat little toy based on a neat concept.

But practically speaking, it would run better straight off of the battery or solar panel. Here hydrogen is just a means of converting / storing potential energy. Think of the hydrogen tank like a capacitor or rechargeable battery.

bingofuel.online.fr...

Interesting.

www.youtube.com...

GEET? “Invented” by Paul Pantone, the fraud artist and convicted felon?

Like I said, in modern engines, less than 5% of the gasoline goes unburned. Heating it can not possibly yield any more than a 5% increase in efficiency.

[edit on 31-12-2007 by MurderSmurf]

Originally posted by MurderSmurf

Originally posted by RogerT
reply to post by MurderSmurf

 

What evidence do you have to label Meyer and Klein as scams?

Well, I could start with high school Chemistry.

In a perfect process, it takes 285kJ of energy per mole to dissociate liquid water into a mole of hydrogen and a half-mole of water. 285kJ/mol is also what you get when you recombine the two. This is, of course in a perfect environment, which does not exist. So even in a perfect world, you only get as much energy back from the H2O → 2(H2) + O2 → H2O process as you put into it.

Are you sure your memory of high school Chemistry is accurate?

According to Puharic:

The basic cycle of using water for fuel is described in the following two equations, familiar to every high school student of Chemistry:

H2O Electrolysis + 249.68 Btu Delta G ==> H2 + (1/2)O2 per mole of water (1 mole = 18 gms.). (1)

This means that it requires 249.688 Btu of energy (from electricity) to break water by electrocal fission into the gases hydrogen and oxygen.

H2 and (1/2)O2 === catalyst ===> H2O - Delta H 302.375 Btu per mole of water. (2)

This means that 302.375 Btu of energy (heat or electricity) will be released when the gases, hydrogen and oxygen, combine. The end product (the exhaust) from this reaction is water. Note that more energy (under ideal conditions) is released from combining the gases than is used to free them from water. It is know that under ideal conditions it is possible to get some 20% more energy out of reaction (2) above, then it takes to produce the gases of reaction (1) above.

Let's clear this one up before we go on to discuss efficiencies.

you seem to be much more up on your chemistry than me, so do you agree with Puharic that it's theoretically possible to get more out of the combustion than it takes to dissociate the mols.?

Yes, I agree that it is theoretically possible to get more energy from one side of the process than you used on the other side – under ideal conditions.

Do you think the ideal conditions for one side are the same as for the other?

[edit on 1-1-2008 by MurderSmurf]

Personally I've no idea, I'm just a beginner in this field.

Good for you that you are big enough to reverse your original position on this though

According to Puharic (and others) there's around a 20% bonus to be had. He claimed to have developed a 90+% efficiency using resonance and harmonics or something like that, so that would suggest overunity was achieved. If that's the case, and we can recreate that on a grass roots level, then the way energy is made available in the world can be revolutionised, IMO for the better of the masses.

I mean we are talking end of poverty and hunger for starters.

I think that's worth pursuing.

Guys like Puharic don't seem to be wackos looking to make a quick buck from the gullible, but rather serious scientists, perhaps with a touch of genius.

I'll give their work the benefit of the doubt.

Apparently, Meyer may well have copied or adapted Puharic, and Keeley came up with similar stuff 100 years previous, that Puharic didn't even know about until after his own discoveries.

I find it all very exciting

Originally posted by Furnace_Man
Water can actually be taken apart with very little energy. It all has to do with resonating at the right frequency.
Hit it with a 600 hz audio tone on a roughly 15 khz carrier wave and you pretty much have it licked. All except for the fine tuning. This all will happen with just milliamps of current. Waaaaay less than you get out of it in the end. It's very very efficient, I'm just too poor to make it happen very fast. But I'm working on it. Which is more than most people can say.

Furnace_Man, how much of an improvement would this bring if you were to do the electrolysis with just DC electricity? From one of the Meyer videos I think he claims it was a 1700% improvement. Do they mean it uses 1/17th of the energy compared to DC or do they get 1700% over unity?

Originally posted by Furnace_Man

Are you saying that following the Puharich work, you have succeeded in building a system that electolyses water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, and that the burning of the resultant gases produces more energy than that which was used in the electrolysis process?

Quite simply, Yes.

I know it would be easy to measure the power going in, but how did you measure the energy output? How do you know your system is over unity?

reply to post by Luther777

The thing that I find strange about Meyer's electrolysis machine in this video is what is also brought up the the scam video. Meyer's plugs in a motor to run an alternator (generator). Why would you do that? Why not just use a 12V DC source or a battery?

If he is using the same electric motor and alternator on the buggy, where does the 110V power come from? Why not mount the alternator on the buggy's engine like an ordinary alternator? That looks fishy. The only thing I can imagine is that he modified the alternator to generate something other than 12V DC, but he should still be able to mount it on the engine.

This seems hard to believe, but is interesting.

reply to post by RogerT

I’m not sure if you understand me.

I haven’t changed my position.

My position was and still is that water is not a fuel, and will never be, because it takes more energy to turn it into a fuel than you get back from said fuel. So this “hydrogen booster” crap is just that – crap.

BUT, if you take care of the turning-water-into-hydrogen part of the equation at home, then you can use hydrogen to power a car. Then, you just have the minor consideration of where to take the energy from to power this process, and the major consideration of how you’re going to store enough hydrogen to drive a car any reasonable distance.

My position was, and still is, that you can never run a car on water as a stand-alone system.

Originally posted by MurderSmurf
reply to post by RogerT

 

I’m not sure if you understand me.

I haven’t changed my position.

OK, yes I have misunderstood you.

First you write: "So even in a perfect world, you only get as much energy back from the H2O → 2(H2) + O2 → H2O process as you put into it.", then you write "Yes, I agree that it is theoretically possible to get more energy from one side of the process than you used on the other side – under ideal conditions."

You can see how that would make someone think you had changed your position on at least a part of the issue, especially as that was the reasoning you gave to label Meyer (and presumably the ideas behind this thread) as a scam.

Now, if we can agree that one again, perhaps we can continue looking at the other assumptions you are making. Is it possible these are also based on inaccurate information that you could be pursuaded to change your position on, if I can supply you with an alternative view from an authoritative source?

[edit on 2-1-2008 by RogerT]

Originally posted by RogerT

Originally posted by MurderSmurf
reply to post by RogerT

 

I’m not sure if you understand me.

I haven’t changed my position.

OK, yes I have misunderstood you.

First you write: "So even in a perfect world, you only get as much energy back from the H2O → 2(H2) + O2 → H2O process as you put into it.", then you write "Yes, I agree that it is theoretically possible to get more energy from one side of the process than you used on the other side – under ideal conditions."

You can see how that would make someone think you had changed your position on at least a part of the issue, especially as that was the reasoning you gave to label Meyer (and presumably the ideas behind this thread) as a scam.

I can see how you conveniently disregarded, misunderstood, or just plain ignored:

Originally posted by MurderSmurf
Do you think the ideal conditions for one side are the same as for the other?

Originally posted by RogerT
Now, if we can agree that one again

We didn’t agree to begin with.

You can’t have two totally different sets of conditions for the same variables existing at exactly the same time and place.

Honestly, I don’t know why you think that suddenly if you make things a little too difficult for yourself to understand, suddenly you can get energy to come out of nowhere.

perhaps we can continue looking at the other assumptions you are making. Is it possible these are also based on inaccurate information that you could be pursuaded to change your position on, if I can supply you with an alternative view from an authoritative source?

An authoritative source would be a welcome change.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by MurderSmurf]