Dood, if I knew the answers, I'd be the one making it. You're asking about secrets.
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
Burning_Monkey has a point there. Call me pessimist, but I just don't believe that scientists who have been developing nuclear fusion for years, wouldn't have thought of that before. Will I say it... hmm.. no.. yes...better not... ok, I will!!! On that Fox26 video they tell that us government has started to develop that technic for...of course...military vehicles!!! Come on!!! Why is it always first thing in their mind? There might be a solution to world's energy problems but fuckers want a watergoing HMMV to get cheaper wars.
Last edited by PekkaA (2006-06-08 16:07:53)
What's the saying, again? Oh yeah: Never con an honest John.
The point is that the machine seperates the water and then reforms it, uses it for combustion, and voi la, byproduct.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Brown's Gas. But the reaction and/or it's byproducts aren't the issue. It's extracting the relevant components from water which is.King_County_Downy wrote:
And water is the byproduct of this reaction....again, watch the videos.
EDIT: So if water is the byproduct, then how can it be the original material?
EDIT: That would make it a perpetual motion device, wouldn't it?
EDIT: I'm going to literally piss my self laughing if it does turn out to be a fraud and the US government really did give him a contract to build hummers using it
Well thanks for letting everyone know Nuttah, my name is John. And I'm honest.
The other point is to get off fossil fuels.
This the shit, I'm telling joo. Open your botlles of beer and drink with me. LOL!!!
This the shit, I'm telling joo. Open your botlles of beer and drink with me. LOL!!!
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
Yes, this stuff does indeed sound like the shit. I just want to know where the statement was made--where, someone here claims--that "it's a fuel additive".
THAT THERE CHEF'S PRETTY FUCKING AMAZING!!!King_County_Downy wrote:
And what exactly do the Swedes do that's so amazing?Sh1fty2k5 wrote:
2 good 2 be true. Too bad all yanks will screw it up
Actually if you Google hydrogen engines you will find that people have been making internal combustion engines run on water since the late 50's early 60's.
Making it work is easy, making it economical is the trick.
Making it work is easy, making it economical is the trick.
So explain...I don't really know much about the ordeal. O_o'.
water is 2 (H)ydrogen atoms and 1 (0)xygen atom (H20), they charge it and break up the ionic bond between the atoms and then you have hydrogen (the fuel) and oxygen (the ...well...oxidant), the problem I see is the amount of BTU's you can get per the amount of energy spent breaking up the water molecules, which can be significant, what makes me skeptical of this site is the lack of figures and formulas, I am...."in the industry" for lack of a better term (I produce synthetic natural gas for the USAF) and would be interested as to in the efficiency of there product
for the younger readers out there that may not know, the "Hindenburg" was filled with Hydrogen
for the younger readers out there that may not know, the "Hindenburg" was filled with Hydrogen
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-06-08 21:07:24)
Man, what's with all the bogus "alternative" energy sources all of a sudden? If there's no net energy gain, it's not a friggin' energy source! End of story! I blame The Matrix.
BTW, the bond between the hydrogen and oxygen in water is covalent, not ionic.
BTW, the bond between the hydrogen and oxygen in water is covalent, not ionic.
maybe its the oil giant suppressing these up and coming technologies so they can gain until everything dries up.
Hydrogen from water can be used as an energy carrier, but water can't be used as a fuel. As Burning_Monkey said, this process would use more energy than it generates, and would require energy input from other sources to work. The efficiency of going from water to hydrogen/oxygen and back to water is less than 100% as dictated by thermo.
heres the simple truth
He will go down in history, and join the ranks of edison
HE WILL SINGLEHANDEDLY CHANGE AND POSSIBLY SAVE THE FUTURE OF MANKIND!
Religious people should say THANK GOD
Evolutionists should say ITS ABOUT TIME
I say NUFF SAID
He will go down in history, and join the ranks of edison
HE WILL SINGLEHANDEDLY CHANGE AND POSSIBLY SAVE THE FUTURE OF MANKIND!
Religious people should say THANK GOD
Evolutionists should say ITS ABOUT TIME
I say NUFF SAID
is it a covalent bond? Hell it's been years, I can't remember
edit: oh someone told me it's something called a polar H bond, with a twist of lymon
edit: oh someone told me it's something called a polar H bond, with a twist of lymon
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-06-08 21:34:51)
Hi Man.senor_fulff wrote:
Yup i once had a scandanavian housemate at uni..... her and her chums were deliciouschittydog wrote:
Massage. Also, they make some pretty hot chicks over there too.King_County_Downy wrote:
And what exactly do the Swedes do that's so amazing?
I swear there is a factory in scandanavia somewhere that produces hot, dirty, large-breasted, tight-arsed girls....
AND... I want to visit in a willie wonka-style tour!!!
These girls you can just come and have.. if you can. I prefer latinos anyway, or from someother continent.. cuz some of this great looking girls are quite stupid, hence why they look good? LOL!
Good Luck.
I say he was smart to patent his ideas, other scientists have developt sumthing like this then large oil companies bought the patent! its all about marketing, later in the future they might make us pay 5 dollars for a gallon of water...
Technically, (and the emphasis is on that word) you can make fuel from water. IF you managed to break apart the water (which is a lot harder than it sounds), you have a fuel (hydrogen) and an oxidant (oxygen). Just get yourself an ECE and you're good to go.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
well the most expansive way to do that is to make a magniusium fire at 5000 degrees C... add water and the fire gets larger... but extracting the hydrogen is the hard partSpark wrote:
Technically, (and the emphasis is on that word) you can make fuel from water. IF you managed to break apart the water (which is a lot harder than it sounds), you have a fuel (hydrogen) and an oxidant (oxygen). Just get yourself an ECE and you're good to go.
That's what I meant. You'd sooner blow yourself up than extract the two.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Well, plain water has been used as a fuel additive in race cars for years.Xietsu wrote:
Yes, this stuff does indeed sound like the shit. I just want to know where the statement was made--where, someone here claims--that "it's a fuel additive".
the separation has been made with electricity, I don't see the huge fuss about it, for once we have something that people won't be afraid to use
Where the hell did the term 'yanks' come from, and should I be offended? -.-
Taken from that website...Xietsu wrote:
Yes, this stuff does indeed sound like the shit. I just want to know where the statement was made--where, someone here claims--that "it's a fuel additive".
"For vehicle manufacturers, power suppliers, and anyone who burns large quantities of petroleum-based or natural gas fuels, Aquygen™ is a fuel additive that can significantly increase energy production and efficiency while decreasing polluting emissions. Unlike other alternative energy sources, Aquygen™ is an evolutionary technology that requires minimal modifications to existing systems to produce tremendous benefits."
It's all a load of bollox...
It's nothing new, and it's nothing useful. What happens when you visit Aquygen on wikipedia? You end up on the page about Brown's Gas. Together with the reason why it isn't practical to run cars from.
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-06-09 03:44:36)