Water 4 Gas
RABBIT
When you look closely at such 100% water driven technology, one ends
up spending even more than using the usual fuel for powering vehicles.
So, the method I recommend for powering your car with water that will
save you cost of fuel is to make your own low-cost hybrid car that
will run on water and gas, thereby saving you huge costs you would
have spent using only gas.
In other words - Hydrogen-On-Demand system where you run your car on
Hydrogen WHEN you need it!
http://www.linkbrander.com/go/64168
Note that I am not saying you should build a car from scratch that
will run on water. Not at all. This instead is about constructing
simple devices that will enable your car to run on water as well as
gas. You don't have to alter your car make-up or get a new car. The
technology can work with almost any car or truck.
In simple words, this technology involves putting together home-made
devices that use a little electricity out of your car's battery to
separate water into a gas called HHO (2 Hydrogen + 1 Oxygen). HHO,
also known as Hydrogen*Oxygen™ or Hydroxy, burns beautifully and by so
doing provides TONS of energy.
And the most remarkable beauty is that this pound for pound HHO gas is
even much more potent than gasoline. In fact 3 times more potent than
gasoline.
By using such cars you effectively save money that would have been
spent on fuel for your car. It is estimated that this could save you
as much as $897.40 per year. If you are two, three or four drivers in
the family, this yearly savings increases dramatically. And what if
you have a fleet of 50 drivers in your company? Then your yearly
savings will multiply to $44,870.
http://www.linkbrander.com/go/64168
First things first... this isn't about running your car on 100% water.
Of course there are information available about running your car on
100% water but I don't recommend them because they are not only
complicated but seriously expensive and completely unpredictable.
To learn more about water for gas technology and how you too can build
your own water for gas powered car,
visit http://www.linkbrander.com/go/64168
for all the SECRETS of Water Car Technology
Nicik Name
"RABBIT" <gete...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5f74ead2-ff61-4334...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
http://www.linkbrander.com/go/64168
visit http://www.linkbrander.com/go/64168
Some form of a Joe Cell?
Lou
"Nicik Name" <orb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:T42dnc0ccJOcL8TV...@earthlink.com...
> In simple words, this technology involves putting together home-made
> devices that use a little electricity out of your car's battery to
> separate water into a gas called HHO (2 Hydrogen + 1 Oxygen). HHO,
> also known as Hydrogen*Oxygen™ or Hydroxy, burns beautifully and by so
> doing provides TONS of energy.
Burning this stuff can provide no more energy than that supplied by the
battery to break down the water. And the battery in turn is charged by the
car's engine, which is powered by gasoline. And because no process is 100%
efficient, what you can get out at the end is less than you put in at the
beginning.
In short, this is a losing proposition.
max
wrote:
not to mention that HHO is about the definition of explosive gas.
Frankly, anyone STUPID enough to screw around with this system under the
foolish belief it's going to save them gas is likely to have a bad
accident.
Even better is the fact that a hydrogen flame radiates in the UV, not
the visible spectrum. You can't see a hydrogen flame. (look at the space
shuttle main engines (not the SRBs) sometime) Great way to get hurt or
sunburned or blown up. Stoichiometric Hydrogen/oxygen (H2O) is
literally the reference for fuel-air explosive gas mixtures.
.max
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
Bob
"max" :>> "Nicik Name" :
>> > In simple words, this technology involves putting together home-made
>> > devices that use a little electricity out of your car's battery to
>> > separate water into a gas called HHO (2 Hydrogen + 1 Oxygen). HHO,
>> > doing provides TONS of energy.
>>
>> Burning this stuff can provide no more energy than that supplied by the
>> battery to break down the water. And the battery in turn is charged by
>> the
>> car's engine, which is powered by gasoline. And because no process is
>> 100%
>> efficient, what you can get out at the end is less than you put in at the
>> beginning.
>>
>> In short, this is a losing proposition.
>
> not to mention that HHO is about the definition of explosive gas.
> Frankly, anyone STUPID enough to screw around with this system under the
> foolish belief it's going to save them gas is likely to have a bad
> accident.
>
> Even better is the fact that a hydrogen flame radiates in the UV, not
> the visible spectrum. You can't see a hydrogen flame. (look at the space
> shuttle main engines (not the SRBs) sometime) Great way to get hurt or
> sunburned or blown up. Stoichiometric Hydrogen/oxygen (H2O) is
> literally the reference for fuel-air explosive gas mixtures.
>
HHO increases mileage simply because an automobile is only about 20-30%
efficient.
If you guys had actually looked on the net at the thousands of people
who've already done this modification (getting 20-50% more mileage), would
you still be advertising your ignorance so blatantly?
Besides modifying the antiquated, inefficient internal combustion engine,
HHO is being used to power efficient welding torches. The flame is very hot,
but the unique property of the flame is such that the torch head stays cool.
There are many web sites providing free information along with their kits.
Simple searches turn up many hits. If you're not handy with tools, and pay
someone to do simple things like change the oil, well.. you pay for your
ignorance and incompetence. But that can change. The more you do, the more
you can do.
I drive barely 100 miles per week. But may soon try this modification just
for fun. The problems may be: the vehicle's computer may not be "smart"
enough to adjust to the correct air/fuel mix. And there will be more
condensation precipitate, perhaps corroding valves and such faster.
Seems like a hybrid electric with regenerative braking is really the way to
go.
A youtube search on "HHO":
<http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hho&search_type=&aq=f>
Google search on "HHO":
<http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS254&q=hho>
max
"Bob" <m...@trix.net> wrote:
Your next assignment is to make a logical connection between the
elements of the sentence above.
This is like saying Nutrasweet is sweet bacause Lawry's is so salty...
First of all, any expansion engine, regardless of fuel type, combustion
type, or expansion type is going to be about the same, give or take.
It's called the Carnot efficiency, and there's a hard limit on it.
Doesn't matter if you've got a nuclear power plant, or a jet engine or a
gasoline/diesel/hydrogen engine. ULtimately you have to get the energy
out of your system through mechanical means, and there an inviolate
thermodynamic limit to how much of that energy you can harness.
Now, as regards chemical energy. Big Deal. Chemical fuels have varying
amounts of energy in them. But, except for fossil hydrocarbons and
biofuel, we have to put the energy into those fuels in the first place
to make them into fuels. water is not a fuel. Water is ash. It is the
lowest possible energy, most worn-out endpoint for Hydrogen and Oxygen
by them selves. You can get even more energy out of water using
reactive materials such as reactive metals, but the byproducts are scary
and you have to put a great deal of energy into making the reactive
metals, so you still lose.
HH0 in and of itself is a great energy _STORAGE_ medium. Just like a
spring is a great mechanical energy storage device. But a spring is not
fuel. It takes power to wind a spring. So, too, does it take power to
rip up water into HHO.
If you want to do it with electricity from your house, feel free --
you've invented a more dangerous version of the plug-in electric hybrid;
maybe it will save you money over plain old gas, i am unintersted in
running the math, but i'm skeptical you'll save any money, although i
suppose it might be possible, since energy costs are tared out
diferently between gasoline/diesel and electricity.
But if yo try to manufacture HHO from power onboard your car, with power
coming from your gasoline tank... well... you be sure to take a few
tankfuls of data before you start fucking around so you can come back
and show us all how much better mileage you get. Because to get better
mileage from an HH0 onboard system, your hydrogen liberation would have
to be more than 100% efficient and it ain't gonna happen. Of course,
make sure to measure all your other engine parameters too. But
especially miles/gallon over a few tanks.
And if your water cracker is more than 100% efficient, you, sir, will be
going to Stockholm and claiming your nobel prize for overturning the
First Law of Thermodynamics and single handedly solving all of
humanity's energy problems for all time. We'll have rocket ships to
Alpha Centauri in 50 years, traveling at .9c because of you. Cities
floating among the clouds just like in Star Wars.
So go for it.
> If you guys had actually looked on the net at the thousands of people
> who've already done this modification (getting 20-50% more mileage), would
> you still be advertising your ignorance so blatantly?
> Besides modifying the antiquated, inefficient internal combustion engine,
> HHO is being used to power efficient welding torches. The flame is very hot,
> but the unique property of the flame is such that the torch head stays cool.
sigh. bang. head. on. wall.
>
> There are many web sites providing free information along with their kits.
> Simple searches turn up many hits. If you're not handy with tools, and pay
> someone to do simple things like change the oil, well.. you pay for your
> ignorance and incompetence. But that can change. The more you do, the more
> you can do.
There are also a great many websites proving that we never landed on the
moon, that BigFoot is the daughter of the Loch Ness Monster, that
growing marijuana is the key to world hunger, Barack Obama is the
AntiChrist, George Bush is the Anti Christ, HIllary is The Anti Christ,
Atlantis is actually in the Carribean next to the bermuda triangle and
frogs live in blenders singing songs.
Just because some throbbing forehead moron with a web cam took pictures
of his engine compartment and some copper tubing does not mean his POS
is working as claimed.
>
> I drive barely 100 miles per week. But may soon try this modification just
> for fun. The problems may be: the vehicle's computer may not be "smart"
> enough to adjust to the correct air/fuel mix. And there will be more
> condensation precipitate, perhaps corroding valves and such faster.
So try your stunt with a lawnmower first before you trash your car. If
you can't make it work with a lawnmower that should be a warning sign
Bob
"max" :
> "Bob" wrote:
>> ...
>> HHO increases mileage simply because an automobile is only about 20-30%
>> efficient.
>
> Your next assignment is to make a logical connection between the
> elements of the sentence above.
Your next assignment is to quit acting like a pedantic grade school
teacher who doesn't know anything outside his limited range of experience.
> This is like saying Nutrasweet is sweet bacause Lawry's is so salty...
You probably were serious about this statement, but I found it Really funny.
>...
(Remaining pomposity snipped)
max
"Bob" <m...@trix.net> wrote:
ah, the barking dog retreat.
of course, i'd be happy to go toe to toe with you on experience in any
germane field.
I'll go first. Hows about hydrogen? look up 15' bubble chamber,
hydrogen, cryogenic.
<http://www.google.com/search?q=15+foot+bubble+chamber+hydrogen>
My baby. worked on it plenty. Full of liquid hydrogen. This system
required several giant compressors, explosion proof everything, UV flame
detectors, and blow-out walls. Prominently displayed near the control
room was a chart of calculated worst-case overpressures should it ever
blow.
now about that grade school pedantry...
max
> "max" :
> > "Bob" wrote:
> >> ...
> >> HHO increases mileage simply because an automobile is only about 20-30%
> >> efficient.
> >
> > Your next assignment is to make a logical connection between the
> > elements of the sentence above.
>
> Your next assignment is to quit acting like a pedantic grade school
> teacher who doesn't know anything outside his limited range of experience.
gosh, i almost forgot, because it was so long ago. Almost 3 decades ...
see, i've _actually_ done the experiment. I used to use my very own
highly enriched U235 reactor to split water and fed the resultant gases
into a pair of diesel engines. Did it myself, regularly. Even wrote
down the data.
Yep, i got about 3% more power out of the diesels. Sad to say, but that
3% gain was grossly outpaced by the reactor power necessary for
hydrolysis.
So... my "limited" experience is exactly congruous with the topic at
hand. I've run hydrocarbon ICE's on an HHO boost. I know _exactly_ what
happens.
.max
Bob
"max" :
> "Bob" wrote:
>
>> "max" :
>> > "Bob" wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >> HHO increases mileage simply because an automobile is only about
>> >> 20-30%
>> >> efficient.
>> >
>> > Your next assignment is to make a logical connection between the
>> > elements of the sentence above.
>>
>> Your next assignment is to quit acting like a pedantic grade school
>> teacher who doesn't know anything outside his limited range of
>> experience.
>
> gosh, i almost forgot, because it was so long ago. Almost 3 decades ...
>
> see, i've _actually_ done the experiment. I used to use my very own
> highly enriched U235 reactor to split water and fed the resultant gases
> into a pair of diesel engines. Did it myself, regularly. Even wrote
> down the data.
Your very own reactor? You get that thing on Ebay, or what?
You sound like a bureaucratic clerk with mad scientist aspirations.
> Yep, i got about 3% more power out of the diesels. Sad to say, but that
> 3% gain was grossly outpaced by the reactor power necessary for
> hydrolysis.
>
> So... my "limited" experience is exactly congruous with the topic at
> hand. I've run hydrocarbon ICE's on an HHO boost. I know _exactly_ what
> happens.
>
"exactly congruous"? Hardly.
There's a bit of difference between using a nuclear reactor to generate HHO
to augment diesel engines, and making a small modification to use the waste
energy generated by an auto engine. If you took some time to look at the
large number of experiences of people who've done this, perhaps you could
comment in a meaningful way. As it is, you still sound pedantic.
The parts required to do this fairly simple modification cost less than a
few hundred. People claim 20-50% better mileage. But after looking at a good
bit of real-world anecdotes about it, I can think of a number of reasons why
it's not economically feasible. And they have nothing to do with hydrogen
flames, UV detectors, blow-out walls, or nuclear reactors.
max
"Bob" <m...@trix.net> wrote:
> "max" :
> > "Bob" wrote:
> >
> >> "max" :
> >> > "Bob" wrote:
> >> >> ...
> >> >> HHO increases mileage simply because an automobile is only about
> >> >> 20-30%
> >> >> efficient.
> >> >
> >> > Your next assignment is to make a logical connection between the
> >> > elements of the sentence above.
> >>
> >> Your next assignment is to quit acting like a pedantic grade school
> >> teacher who doesn't know anything outside his limited range of
> >> experience.
> >
> > gosh, i almost forgot, because it was so long ago. Almost 3 decades ...
> >
> > see, i've _actually_ done the experiment. I used to use my very own
> > highly enriched U235 reactor to split water and fed the resultant gases
> > into a pair of diesel engines. Did it myself, regularly. Even wrote
> > down the data.
>
> Your very own reactor? You get that thing on Ebay, or what?
> You sound like a bureaucratic clerk with mad scientist aspirations.
aspire hell, i do it for the money. and the chicks.
>
>
> > Yep, i got about 3% more power out of the diesels. Sad to say, but that
> > 3% gain was grossly outpaced by the reactor power necessary for
> > hydrolysis.
> >
> > So... my "limited" experience is exactly congruous with the topic at
> > hand. I've run hydrocarbon ICE's on an HHO boost. I know _exactly_ what
> > happens.
> >
>
> "exactly congruous"? Hardly.
>
> There's a bit of difference between using a nuclear reactor to generate HHO
> to augment diesel engines, and making a small modification to use the waste
> energy generated by an auto engine.
no, there isn't. Energy is energy and it always flows downhill.
> If you took some time to look at the
> large number of experiences of people who've done this, perhaps you could
> comment in a meaningful way.
No. I've seen these cockamamie water-for-gas schemes since first i got
my first vax account in 1985 and wasted my time reading news on a mail
to uucp gateway. I am not going to read the 2000th version of the same
dipshit claims that have been soundly debunked (or, in my case,
disproven as simple matter of course) for decades.
Maybe you can pull out the infinite-magnet generator next?
>As it is, you still sound pedantic.
That's probably because i'm sick and tired of the old brown's
gas/HH0/make hydrogen with your cigarette lighter nonsense. Of people
who rub their two brain cells together and suddenly discover a secrit
method to double their >whatever< with a couple tubing connectors and a
Mr. Coffee.
> The parts required to do this fairly simple modification cost less than a
> few hundred. People claim 20-50% better mileage. But after looking at a good
> bit of real-world anecdotes about it, I can think of a number of reasons why
> it's not economically feasible. And they have nothing to do with hydrogen
> flames, UV detectors, blow-out walls, or nuclear reactors.
The point of all this is that i do have a fairly extensive experience
with a number of engineering disciplines directly related to the
generation, use and transformation of energy.
And one of the things i have a very acute sense of the risks associated
with playing around with things you don't understand. Energy sources
have a tendency to teach lessons to the needful.
You want to start fucking around with stoichiometric mixtures of
hydrogen and oxygen, feel free. My two thesis are: A, you're wasting
your time and B, if you're stupid enough not to know A, then you're
probably not smart enough to avoid injury. I've seen hydrogen
explosions. You haven't.
sorry it was so hard for you to keep up, but you got there eventually,
even if you don't know why. congratulations!
Bob
"max" <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:betatron-124FE9...@news.ftupet.com...
Energy flows downhill? Well, let's use your quaint image to illustrate what
these guys claim. Since less than 20% of the energy "flow" from a car's
engine gets to the wheel, "they say" that some excess is used to fractionate
a small amount of water into HHO, which is sent to the carbuerator.
As a putative scientist, you should know there are few (if any) actual
facts in science. Scientists just use the best theories which fit their
observations. To dismiss any "weird" claim without considering the
information, isn't very professional.
Sorry? Really?
Your pedantic, dismissive attitude may impress the chicks. But you admit to
not having kept up with what people are doing nowadays. So you actually do
not know what you're talking about when it comes to this modification done
on an automobile engine.
max
"Bob" <m...@trix.net> wrote:
> As a putative scientist, you should know there are few (if any) actual
> facts in science
no wonder you can't understand me.
Lou
> In article <ESC6k.2868$ul.2255@trndny08>, "Lou" <lpo...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> > "Nicik Name" <orb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:T42dnc0ccJOcL8TV...@earthlink.com...
> > > In simple words, this technology involves putting together home-made
> > > devices that use a little electricity out of your car's battery to
> > > separate water into a gas called HHO (2 Hydrogen + 1 Oxygen). HHO,
> > > also known as Hydrogen*Oxygen™ or Hydroxy, burns beautifully and by so
> > > doing provides TONS of energy.
> >
> > Burning this stuff can provide no more energy than that supplied by the
> > battery to break down the water. And the battery in turn is charged by
the
> > car's engine, which is powered by gasoline. And because no process is
100%
> > efficient, what you can get out at the end is less than you put in at
the
> > beginning.
> >
> > In short, this is a losing proposition.
>
> not to mention that HHO is about the definition of explosive gas.
> Frankly, anyone STUPID enough to screw around with this system under the
> foolish belief it's going to save them gas is likely to have a bad
> accident.
Gasoline can be pretty explosive too. I think that making hydrogen as you
need it is probably overall safer than carrying around 80-100 pounds of
gasoline.
> Even better is the fact that a hydrogen flame radiates in the UV, not
> the visible spectrum. You can't see a hydrogen flame. (look at the space
> shuttle main engines (not the SRBs) sometime) Great way to get hurt or
> sunburned or blown up. Stoichiometric Hydrogen/oxygen (H2O) is
> literally the reference for fuel-air explosive gas mixtures.
So what? In an automobile engine, the burning mixture of fuel and air takes
place in a closed container, surrounded by metal. It's not an exposes
flame, and the emission spectrum is irrelevant.
max
wrote:
> So what? In an automobile engine, the burning mixture of fuel and air takes
> place in a closed container, surrounded by metal. It's not an exposes
> flame, and the emission spectrum is irrelevant.
i understand that. fully. completely. in excruciating detail.
My main point is that it is a stupid goddamned idea. My secondary point
about the dangers is simply that anyone dumb enough to try it is
probably too dumb not to hurt themselves.
Common sense is only helpful when the hazards are commonplace.