Open-Source Specs Posted for 200% Efficient Water Fuel Cell!

reply to post by MajorDisaster


The company is going to either keep giving out press releases and asking for investors year after year, or it's going to dissappear one day. I'll bet good money they never go to market with a finished product. You might say that the government or big oil got to them, but I'd say it's probably because they don't really have anything. Feel free to flaunt this statement in my face whenever they start up full scale production and strike it rich.


reply to post by Another_You


No, but the end product of an atomic explosion isn't an identical atomic bomb to the one that created it, for you to trigger again at your leisure.

You burn Hydrogen and oxygen? You get water. The exact same amount of water, in fact. You'll need some damn good data before you can start saying that there's extra energy pulled out of some obscure orifice of the universe, especially if you want to give it a name, like the zero-point-energy field or ether.

Mostly, on this topic, I see a bunch of venture capitalists looking for investors, a bunch of youtube videos promising them oon, a bunch of shady websites, and a bunch of unreviewed journal submissions.

reply to post by mdiinican


Your saying the the engine will consume more gas if you put hydrogen in it but you dont say why.

Injecting HHO gas trough the intake duct inject 2 things, Hydrogen and Oxygen, The hydrogen wwill make the engine a bit more powerful depending on the quantity so is the oxygen since the more there is oxygen the more the engine will inject gasoline.

In modern engines there is an oxygen sensor in the exhaust, that oxygen sensor works like this, if there is too much oxygen in the exhaust well its a sign that the engine might be running too lean since there is not enough fuel to make it all burn. If there is not enough oxygen the engine is running rich so for both reasons the oxygen sensor can tell the ECM to put more gasoline or less.

So, i you inject hydrogen and oxygen in the engine there is more oxygen that it is supposed to si the engine will put more gasoline at the same time thus resulting in no gain of efficiency.

What peoples did is create an EFIE if i remember well witch is a small circuit you put in between the oxygen sensor and the ecm with like a ''dimmer'' to play with the signal the ECM will receive. and with the proper tool you can adjust the signal back to normal or put it a little bit ''lower'' if i might say it like this ( beacause this sensor emit an alternative voltage signal between 1 and -1 volt) so the engine will think its running too rich thus injecting less fuel.

There is other tools you can use to play with the Airflow sensor situated in the air duct and the air temperature sensor. So finaly by injecting HHO gaz in the engine you make it run richer, but by adjusting all the sensors signal you can make it run leaner so the HHO will compensate and NOW you can save up to 50% dependently on the model.

A more simple solution is to use a vehicule that has been made before 1995 witch is OBD1 so there is less systemsthat manage the fuel consumption ( you just unplug the oxygen sensor and it will run in ''safe mode'' relying on basic data that has been stored in the system).
Or simpler than that! you buy a cheap old small carburated engine car and you just turn the screw to make it run leaner. The more you put hydrogen in the more you turn the screw and then you can save up to 50% again in gasoline.

edit: If i must add putting HHO in your engine will ''clean'' it in some ways, it cleanses the valves spark plug etc... so by running cleaner your engine will save more...

As simple as that

[edit on 27-11-2009 by nazo102]

reply to post by nazo102


No, I'm saying that if you ran the car completely off of hydrogen, created by electrolysis, using electricity from the mains, if the process isn't spectacularly efficient, then you'll probably end up indirectly burning more fuel than if you just ran it on gas.

Of course, in that case most of that fuel will be coal or natural gas, not gasoline. And a fair portion of the energy will come from hydroelectric dams and nuclear plants. Throwing in all the other renewable energy sources, about 30% of our electricity doesn't come from burning stuff.

From my very rough calculations, it's pretty close assuming 100% efficient electrolysis. Battery operated cars have it a bit easier, because electric motors are much more efficient.

As for trickling a little bit of hydrogen and oxygen in with the fuel/air mix on a normal car to improve efficiency, I've heard of it, but at a glance, I'm having difficulty finding studies that don't look like they were carried out or funded by people trying to sell HHO generators.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by mdiinican]

Originally posted by mdiinican
reply to post by nazo102

 

As for trickling a little bit of hydrogen and oxygen in with the fuel/air mix on a normal car to improve efficiency, I've heard of it, but at a glance, I'm having difficulty finding studies that don't look like they were carried out or funded by people trying to sell HHO generators.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by mdiinican]

k, well i though that you were talking about efficiency while mixing it with fuel in the car. Its true that if you create it from the main power your just kinda transferring your fuel consumption to another place

and as a mechanic, id say that you dont need high scholarship to determine that it will work in improving efficiency, its like, lets not use HHO but propane...
if you take a gasoline car, put a propane inlet in the intake, your car is gonna run richer and you adjust it so it will run leaner but you compensate the lean condition with propane, so in fact your using less fuel but your car is running the same as before. its the same with HHO, your car run lean but you compensate the lean condition with HHO. so your car run the same as before even maybe a bit more powerful but your using less fuel.

I know that there could be some scam about it but its not about the principle! the scam could be the price of the thing or the hole lot of gadget that they could try to sell you aside from the main components. its true that you can break somethings too in your engine but its just if you put too much of it... the same thing as if your putting too much fuel in your cylinder before starting it or ether. Because now what we are starting to see is some peoples trying to say that HHO is a scam and then the others are trying to say that the petrol companies that are making billions of dollar each year are a scam.

Its really not too hard to see witch one is right and witch one is wrong. Im not trying to sell anything but to stop peoples trying to debunk this lol... ( ok.. for the 200% efficiency by the way this is wrong) but its exactly because of people like this that are claiming flase numbers that the hydrogen is still not well welcomed.

# the first combustion engine ever was running on hydrogen imagine that!

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by grey580

 

Send in the Physics Police!

I'm sure the thread is about to be flooded with them, yes...but if I understand what they're claiming, no thermodynamic laws are being violated at all. They're simply using water as fuel. The "200% efficiency" is not counting the fact that the system must be fed water.

It's no more a free energy device than a campfire is.

What people don't seem to understand is that water is hydrogen and oxygen "ash". You can't keep a campfire burning by feeding it more ash. You need to put energy in to split up water in to hydrogen and oxygen then you get energy out by burning it but it's ALWAYS LESS!

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
reply to post by chiron613

 

Here again, let's wait until a few of our resident tinkerers have had a chance to try it out before we pass final judgment on it, OK?

I do think that the "200% Efficient" title is a bit semantically challenged - by definition you can't have a system that's more than 100% efficient.

But, you can power a car by consuming gasoline, you can power a power grid by consuming coal - so why wouldn't you be able to power a generator by consuming water? Hydrogen contains a tremendous amount of energy

Also, the fact that they're willing to open-source it instead of asking for money speaks volumes!

You can EASILY power a generator consuming water. You just need to put in more energy than you make. You see, water does not burn under normal circumstances. Hydrogen can contain a lot of energy, depending on it's form. Unfortunately, hydrogen in water has less energy available than hydrogen gas does. So you need to pump energy in - that's produced by the generator burning the Brown's gas you're making right? (hint: browns gas is HHO, which is H2 and O2 unseparated after electrolysis) Here's a neat fact - pure H2 gas essentially does not exist naturally on this planet's surface... because it reacts at standard temperature and pressure with oxygen to form (mostly) water. This is why HHO systems in cars are used 'on demand.' But really, keeping them separate after electrolysis is easy and you don't lose so much of your gas back to water before combustion. However, electrolysis separation has been extensively tested for overunity uses and it fails because at 100% efficiency (unattainable) your net energy gain is ZERO. The HHO fraud is manifest from the name change. H2 and O2 from water won't do it, ever, but HHO from water will!!! (hint2: HHO is Brown's gas, which is H2 and O2 allowed to mix instead of being separated after electrolysis.)

But all that free energy from the alternator!!! Ok, you got me there, when you're rolling downhill you get some free energy to do the elecrolysis... I'm sure others have addressed why your alternator isn't providing free energy all the time the engine is on... I mean it's always spinning and creating a voltage isn't it?? lol... I'm tired.

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
Okay, the typical "Perpetual Motion Machine!" and "Laws of Thermodynamics!" objections were totally expected.

Now what I want to know is, will anyone volunteer to actually try to build one from the specs and see if it works?

How about HE builds one, then gets the JREF to test it, if it works as he claims he gets 1 million dollars

www.randi.org...

of course he will not do that, as he knows it will not work as he claims!

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
For all those who were saying that water isn't a viable fuel source, I really hate to do this, but,

www.blacklightpower.com...

And a year later nothing at all has happened... as we knew

This is his website and what he's selling is a very traditional unit drawing 50-60 amps?

www.hybridtech-energy.com...

When he puts the other unit on the market that will be great. I like the basic design.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by j2000

 

I noticed that too.

The key behind Stanely M.'s design was the pulse modulation in increasing steps.

Since they haven't mentioned any modulation, I think they are just running straight electricity without modulation.

If they ARE using some type of modulation, that means they don't have 100% efficiency because those modulators lose energy via heat, and are not 100% efficient.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by ALLis0NE]

Youre confusing the efficiency of electricity at converting water into gas with the efficiency of the process as a whole. For example say a water cell provides 300% efficiency, but 100% of that is heat. If you dont recover the heat somehow then youre still at 200%. The process of electrolysis isnt the device.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
For all those who were saying that water isn't a viable fuel source, I really hate to do this, but,

www.blacklightpower.com...

And a year later nothing at all has happened... as we knew

Huh? BLP are now on their sixth commercial deal, I wouldn't call that "nothing".

Just for the record. Some posters are confused and claiming "Brown's Gas" or HHO doesn't exist, or that it is the same as H2 and O2 or H2O vapor. All of this is false.

I dont' believe that HHO is a significant part of this experiment, or that it holds any magical overunity powers, but it does exist, and is a normal byproduct of electrolysis and other chemical reactions involving water.

It is exactly what it says it is. HHO. Not H2O or H2 or O2. It is dissociated H gas and O gas that is not in the form of H2 or O2 or H2O. It makes up a very small percentage of the product, and it is quickly used up in secondary reactions forming the typical H2 O2 and H2O, but it does briefly exist as "Brown's Gas."

Just an FYI for those not in the Chemical fields. Like I said, the point is rather moot, because I don't think any Chemists believe that this is significant for any reason, and it certainly is not creating magical energy production, but stop arguing whether it exists or not, or what it actually is. It is what it is, it is HHO.....briefly!

Originally posted by MajorDisaster

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
For all those who were saying that water isn't a viable fuel source, I really hate to do this, but,

www.blacklightpower.com...

And a year later nothing at all has happened... as we knew

Huh? BLP are now on their sixth commercial deal, I wouldn't call that "nothing".

So care to show us one of these operating plants? Or even where one has been decided to be built? show us anything other than a claim from a snake oil salesman? How about a peer reviewed journal? anything at all?

nope! - nothing

looks okay, but how can you get out more than you put in? Anybody know a physicist?

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by MajorDisaster

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
For all those who were saying that water isn't a viable fuel source, I really hate to do this, but,

www.blacklightpower.com...

And a year later nothing at all has happened... as we knew

Huh? BLP are now on their sixth commercial deal, I wouldn't call that "nothing".

So care to show us one of these operating plants? Or even where one has been decided to be built? show us anything other than a claim from a snake oil salesman? How about a peer reviewed journal? anything at all?

nope! - nothing

Because as we all know if something isn't 'peer reviewed in a journal' its complete hogwash. Right?

reply to post by angrysniper


True, but anyone wishing to be taken seriously gets peer reviewed, so there's no doubt about their claims. The only people who don't want to be peer reviewed are those peddling hogwash.