Daneil
New member
- 123
- 0
- 0
- Location
- Norfolk Virginia
-
Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!
Water 4 Gas
- Thread starter Daneil
- Start date
rmgill
Active member
- 2,479
- 14
- 38
- Location
- Decatur, Ga
It's bumpf. Water is at the LOW point of the energy cycle. Not the high point. You have to put Energy INTO it to get it out. Water injection might work, to a point, but you're not burning the water, you're using the water to cool the air mixture, it can sort of work. It's better in a turbine powered engine.
Daneil
New member
- 123
- 0
- 0
- Location
- Norfolk Virginia
That's what I figured.
littlebob
New member
- 1,548
- 26
- 0
- Location
- Baton Rouge LA
A guy I know has made his own homebrew version and is using it on his Chevy Avalnche. He says he is getting 20-40% better milage using his device. He is pumping the hydrogen into his airbox and is trying to set it up to use some type of manifold system like the nitrous systems use. I just breezed through what was on the link, but think this is the sam idea, creating hydrogen with battery power as in charging a battery
littlebob
littlebob
papercu
Active member
- 2,930
- 31
- 38
- Location
- Baxley, Ga.
water
Yoiu can see them on youtube just search “hydrogen car” and the link below shows BMW has started production on some. Wayne
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/11/20/029311.html
Yoiu can see them on youtube just search “hydrogen car” and the link below shows BMW has started production on some. Wayne
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/11/20/029311.html
amanco
New member
- 301
- 3
- 0
- Location
- Marion, oHIo
RE: water
The way I understood it from some research that I have done is the Hydrogen that is created does in fact burn but more important is the pure oxygen that is created that acts as an oxidizer and more thoroughly burns the gasoline. To get any efficiency you have to fool the O2 sensors/computer to lean out the mixture. This is where the fuel savings comes in. The amount of hydrogen created is not really enough to make a big difference in mileage or savings.
The way I understood it from some research that I have done is the Hydrogen that is created does in fact burn but more important is the pure oxygen that is created that acts as an oxidizer and more thoroughly burns the gasoline. To get any efficiency you have to fool the O2 sensors/computer to lean out the mixture. This is where the fuel savings comes in. The amount of hydrogen created is not really enough to make a big difference in mileage or savings.
reuben
New member
- 67
- 0
- 0
- Location
- Spencer TN
RE: water
have to sonic split it at 42.8kHz then mix with air and run direct in a gas engine, here's some info on a 1930's patent for a water carb, notice he was creating AC with a motor driven switch to run the thing. http://keelynet.com/energy/garrett.htm (danger notice, if ya work on it don't tell anyone, lots of people have been assanated over oil replacement technology, all the work that is supposedly being done toward that goal by industry and universities is fake, free energy has already been invented and purty much perfected privatly, but if the inventors try to take it to market they get hit with serious threats of long tem jail or death if they don't hush up and quit what their doing, and many who refused to quit have been eliminated) [my neighbor was one who got hit by the opposition when he had an old wrecker truck getting 70 mpg steady, but he backed off]
The fella who went the furthest with it befor getting hit by the assains claimed water has enough energy in it for 1 gallon to equal 44,000-108,000 barrols of oil and he was working toward the goal of extracting that much usable work out of it, but he was taken out in '97 the same day he obtained a sizable grant for a research facility.
In actual practical life he was running a gas engine with a 2% hydrogen to air mix from split water. using DC it does take more energy to split water than ya get out of it, using AC it does not, with 42.8kHz being the most efficent frequency, to run an engine ya don't need to seperate the H from the O, just route it immediatly into the engine and figger out how to meter it, but if ya want it seperate just run the AC off center so it's like DC with an AC waveform and catch them seperate on either side of a divider.
I'm one of those rare kids who spent only 1 year in grade school and never went back to school, (officially at least) I got my primary edjewkayshun in homeschool and out of a big public libary, and never finished, never will, still at it, at an age when everyone else is halfway through life.
I've heard it's quite rare for a man to have both electronic and mechanics training and skills, I kind of wound up with both, unintentionally and unofficially, having been overinterested in electronics as a teen, especially radio, and got the advanced ham radio license, and then worked with a neighbor in my 20's who was an ex professional mechanic doing shade tree work for loggers and farmers. has come in handy in building a hybred electric car from junkyard parts.
I also have obtained a good bit of general knowlege in several other fields, such as soil fertility management, horse training, natural healing, and religion. I have ended up with way too many interests and skills so that I can't seem to spend enough time on anyone of them to actually make a go at it, so I'm still pluggin away at runnin a saw mill now and then, and sellin a few trees now and then for a little spare $$. But then, dollars arn't the most important thing in life, it's down the list a ways, which is one reason I'm tryin to figger out how to drive a truck on nothin, I know it's posible, just gotta come up with the right combination.
Oh, by the way, I took the GED when I was 18 and was given a scoolership for top grade, but I refused the schoolership and didn't even go back to get my diploma. guess I should have, but then, I havn't needed it anyway and likely never will. If I ever get one of these projects finished I'll be the employer of several in a backwoods gormet food growin system. (I hope) we already have the knowlege and the refrigerated truck, just need to finish the greenhouse. Did ya know? plants grow from the electricity given off by soil minerals reacting against each other, kind of like soil electrolisis in reverse.
wondered off topic big time 
have to sonic split it at 42.8kHz then mix with air and run direct in a gas engine, here's some info on a 1930's patent for a water carb, notice he was creating AC with a motor driven switch to run the thing. http://keelynet.com/energy/garrett.htm (danger notice, if ya work on it don't tell anyone, lots of people have been assanated over oil replacement technology, all the work that is supposedly being done toward that goal by industry and universities is fake, free energy has already been invented and purty much perfected privatly, but if the inventors try to take it to market they get hit with serious threats of long tem jail or death if they don't hush up and quit what their doing, and many who refused to quit have been eliminated) [my neighbor was one who got hit by the opposition when he had an old wrecker truck getting 70 mpg steady, but he backed off]
The fella who went the furthest with it befor getting hit by the assains claimed water has enough energy in it for 1 gallon to equal 44,000-108,000 barrols of oil and he was working toward the goal of extracting that much usable work out of it, but he was taken out in '97 the same day he obtained a sizable grant for a research facility.
In actual practical life he was running a gas engine with a 2% hydrogen to air mix from split water. using DC it does take more energy to split water than ya get out of it, using AC it does not, with 42.8kHz being the most efficent frequency, to run an engine ya don't need to seperate the H from the O, just route it immediatly into the engine and figger out how to meter it, but if ya want it seperate just run the AC off center so it's like DC with an AC waveform and catch them seperate on either side of a divider.
I'm one of those rare kids who spent only 1 year in grade school and never went back to school, (officially at least) I got my primary edjewkayshun in homeschool and out of a big public libary, and never finished, never will, still at it, at an age when everyone else is halfway through life.
I've heard it's quite rare for a man to have both electronic and mechanics training and skills, I kind of wound up with both, unintentionally and unofficially, having been overinterested in electronics as a teen, especially radio, and got the advanced ham radio license, and then worked with a neighbor in my 20's who was an ex professional mechanic doing shade tree work for loggers and farmers. has come in handy in building a hybred electric car from junkyard parts.
I also have obtained a good bit of general knowlege in several other fields, such as soil fertility management, horse training, natural healing, and religion. I have ended up with way too many interests and skills so that I can't seem to spend enough time on anyone of them to actually make a go at it, so I'm still pluggin away at runnin a saw mill now and then, and sellin a few trees now and then for a little spare $$. But then, dollars arn't the most important thing in life, it's down the list a ways, which is one reason I'm tryin to figger out how to drive a truck on nothin, I know it's posible, just gotta come up with the right combination.
Oh, by the way, I took the GED when I was 18 and was given a scoolership for top grade, but I refused the schoolership and didn't even go back to get my diploma. guess I should have, but then, I havn't needed it anyway and likely never will. If I ever get one of these projects finished I'll be the employer of several in a backwoods gormet food growin system. (I hope) we already have the knowlege and the refrigerated truck, just need to finish the greenhouse. Did ya know? plants grow from the electricity given off by soil minerals reacting against each other, kind of like soil electrolisis in reverse.
wondered off topic big time 
JasonS
Well-known member
- 1,650
- 144
- 63
- Location
- Eastern SD
Interesting analysis of Brown's gas and other pseudoscience. Read them carefully until you understand what he is saying.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse120.pdf
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/bashpseu.pdf
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse151.pdf
Some of my favorite excerpts:
The usual causes of pseudoscience fantasies include…
• labwork so mesmerizingly awful that it is not even
wrong. This one gets them nearly every time.
• no t having even the faintest clue as to what a true
scientific experiment, correct measurement, decent
documentation, and realistic interpretation is.
• A failure to think cyclically or to look at whole
systems. The "power stroke" from repelling magnets
is obvious, but the extra energy it took to get the
magnets there in the first place might not be.
• A lack of appreciation for engineering economics.
Economics that must take into account efficiencies,
alternatives, infrastructure, and total costs.
• Dragging along unreleated excess baggage. In the
way of paranoia, odd religions, conspiracies, obtuse
verbosity, suppression fears, or nonstandard terms.
• Giving vastly more credibility to a Keelynet file or
an anonymous newsgroup post than a mainstream
textbook or a properly peer reviewed article in a
respected scientific journal.
• The failure to thoroughly research what has gone
before and then to carefully build upon it.
• Extreme hubris that fails to recognize the lifetime
commitments that untold thousands of scientists
and engineers have made. Like it or not, at least
some of these people are rocket scientists. They are
a lot smarter than you are.
And, of course…
• Sleeping through all those Physics 101 lectures. Or
skipping the course entirely.
But please do NOT call Hydrogen a fuel. Hydrogen is only an energy
transport media. It is incapable of delivering net on-the-books BTU's
of energy. Just as with a flywheel or lead acid, you'll first have to fill
hydrogen with energy before you can empty it.
Naturally, no non-nuclear means is known to make terrestrial hydrogen
that does not consume considerably more energy than it delivers. Thus,
terrestrial hydrogen is a "pollution amplifier" that INCREASES the
pollution of the underlying fundamental energy source.
It is utterly ludicrous to claim that terrestrial hydrogen is in any way,
shape, or form "nonpolluting".
Note that commercial hydrogen is nearly always produced through the
reformation of methane. But the methane really has to want to reform.
Please also note that because of the staggering loss of exergy, use of
electrolysis for bulk hydrogen apps is a really, really dumb thing to do.
It is the equivalent of exchanging two US dollars for one Mexican peso.
Please also note that there is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline
than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen.
Even after all these years, hydrogen is still number one on the charts.
Here are the arguments against the hydrogen economy:
1. Terrestral hydrogen is ONLY an energy
carrier or transfer media and NOT a
substance capable of delivering net NEW
BTU's to the on-the-books economy.
2. Terrestral hydrogen creation is inefficient
as considerably more energy of usually
much higher quality has to be input than
is eventually returnable.
3. No large terrestral source of hydrogen gas
is known. Water, of course, is a hydrogen
sink and, by fundamental chemical energitics,
is the worst possible feedstock.
4. The CONTAINED energy density of terrestral
hydrogen by weight is a lot LESS than gasoline.
And drops dramatically as the tank is emptied.
The energy density of hydrogen gas by volume
is a ludicrous joke.
5. Virtually all bulk hydrogen is produced by methane
reformation. And thus is EXTREMELY hydrocarbon
dependent.
6. Hydrogen has the widest explosive range known,
the least spark energy required for ignition, and
has no known colorants or odorants. Its flame is
often invisible or nearly so.
7. There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline
than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen.
8. No effective vehicle compatible means of hydrogen
storage is known that is remotely as cheap, safe,
dense, and convenient as carbon bonded hydrides.
9. No infrastructure exists for gaseous hydrogen
distribution. Pipelines in particular raise major
density and embrittlement issues.
10. Electrolysis from high value sources such as
grid, wind, or pv is totally useless as a hydrogen
source because of the staggering loss of exergy.
There ALWAYS will be more intelligent things
to do with the electricity.
11. Improper burning of hydrogen produces highly
polluting nitrous oxides.
12. Terrestrial hydrogen is basically a POLLUTION
AMPLIFIER that INCREASES the pollution of
its underlying sources. It is utterly ludicrous to
claim that hydrogen is in any manner, way,
shape, or form "nonpolluting".
13. Hydrogen rots most metals through embrittlement.
14. "Carbon Neutral" solutions would appear better
than "Carbon Free" because (A) A significant
measure of the energy of most fuels is in its carbon
fraction, (B) Carbon appears to be essential for
convenient and safe room temperature liquids,
and (C) Reformation is not required or else
is simpler, cheaper, and wastes less energy.
15. An optimal hydrogen storage solution exists by
carbon bonding as in heptane or iso-octane. Both
of these room temperature liquids ain't broke.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse120.pdf
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/bashpseu.pdf
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse151.pdf
Some of my favorite excerpts:
The usual causes of pseudoscience fantasies include…
• labwork so mesmerizingly awful that it is not even
wrong. This one gets them nearly every time.
• no t having even the faintest clue as to what a true
scientific experiment, correct measurement, decent
documentation, and realistic interpretation is.
• A failure to think cyclically or to look at whole
systems. The "power stroke" from repelling magnets
is obvious, but the extra energy it took to get the
magnets there in the first place might not be.
• A lack of appreciation for engineering economics.
Economics that must take into account efficiencies,
alternatives, infrastructure, and total costs.
• Dragging along unreleated excess baggage. In the
way of paranoia, odd religions, conspiracies, obtuse
verbosity, suppression fears, or nonstandard terms.
• Giving vastly more credibility to a Keelynet file or
an anonymous newsgroup post than a mainstream
textbook or a properly peer reviewed article in a
respected scientific journal.
• The failure to thoroughly research what has gone
before and then to carefully build upon it.
• Extreme hubris that fails to recognize the lifetime
commitments that untold thousands of scientists
and engineers have made. Like it or not, at least
some of these people are rocket scientists. They are
a lot smarter than you are.
And, of course…
• Sleeping through all those Physics 101 lectures. Or
skipping the course entirely.
But please do NOT call Hydrogen a fuel. Hydrogen is only an energy
transport media. It is incapable of delivering net on-the-books BTU's
of energy. Just as with a flywheel or lead acid, you'll first have to fill
hydrogen with energy before you can empty it.
Naturally, no non-nuclear means is known to make terrestrial hydrogen
that does not consume considerably more energy than it delivers. Thus,
terrestrial hydrogen is a "pollution amplifier" that INCREASES the
pollution of the underlying fundamental energy source.
It is utterly ludicrous to claim that terrestrial hydrogen is in any way,
shape, or form "nonpolluting".
Note that commercial hydrogen is nearly always produced through the
reformation of methane. But the methane really has to want to reform.
Please also note that because of the staggering loss of exergy, use of
electrolysis for bulk hydrogen apps is a really, really dumb thing to do.
It is the equivalent of exchanging two US dollars for one Mexican peso.
Please also note that there is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline
than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen.
Even after all these years, hydrogen is still number one on the charts.
Here are the arguments against the hydrogen economy:
1. Terrestral hydrogen is ONLY an energy
carrier or transfer media and NOT a
substance capable of delivering net NEW
BTU's to the on-the-books economy.
2. Terrestral hydrogen creation is inefficient
as considerably more energy of usually
much higher quality has to be input than
is eventually returnable.
3. No large terrestral source of hydrogen gas
is known. Water, of course, is a hydrogen
sink and, by fundamental chemical energitics,
is the worst possible feedstock.
4. The CONTAINED energy density of terrestral
hydrogen by weight is a lot LESS than gasoline.
And drops dramatically as the tank is emptied.
The energy density of hydrogen gas by volume
is a ludicrous joke.
5. Virtually all bulk hydrogen is produced by methane
reformation. And thus is EXTREMELY hydrocarbon
dependent.
6. Hydrogen has the widest explosive range known,
the least spark energy required for ignition, and
has no known colorants or odorants. Its flame is
often invisible or nearly so.
7. There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline
than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen.
8. No effective vehicle compatible means of hydrogen
storage is known that is remotely as cheap, safe,
dense, and convenient as carbon bonded hydrides.
9. No infrastructure exists for gaseous hydrogen
distribution. Pipelines in particular raise major
density and embrittlement issues.
10. Electrolysis from high value sources such as
grid, wind, or pv is totally useless as a hydrogen
source because of the staggering loss of exergy.
There ALWAYS will be more intelligent things
to do with the electricity.
11. Improper burning of hydrogen produces highly
polluting nitrous oxides.
12. Terrestrial hydrogen is basically a POLLUTION
AMPLIFIER that INCREASES the pollution of
its underlying sources. It is utterly ludicrous to
claim that hydrogen is in any manner, way,
shape, or form "nonpolluting".
13. Hydrogen rots most metals through embrittlement.
14. "Carbon Neutral" solutions would appear better
than "Carbon Free" because (A) A significant
measure of the energy of most fuels is in its carbon
fraction, (B) Carbon appears to be essential for
convenient and safe room temperature liquids,
and (C) Reformation is not required or else
is simpler, cheaper, and wastes less energy.
15. An optimal hydrogen storage solution exists by
carbon bonding as in heptane or iso-octane. Both
of these room temperature liquids ain't broke.
- 6,983
- 2,518
- 113
- Location
- Montevideo/Uruguay
Regarding hydrogen injection to enhance internal combustion, I found this:
(wondering that it never saw general application in the car/truck building industry...
)
(wondering that it never saw general application in the car/truck building industry...
)
tamangel
New member
- 1,406
- 19
- 0
- Location
- Nor Cal Coast
one more article:
Genepax Water Car: Too Good to be True? Yeah
by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 06.17.08
CARS & TRANSPORTATION
Water-Powered Cars
Like clockwork, every time oil prices shoot up journalists scramble for stories about energy, and a few water-powered cars and perpetual motion machines always make it through.
How this Water Car Probably Works
One thing that helps fuel the conspiracy rumors surrounding water cars is that the media run these segments where they show "water cars" actually driving around, and it all seems to work, and then we never hear about them again. People figure that Big Oil (or the Illuminati, whatever) is suppressing the technology. The reality is more mundane: It is actually possible to make a car look like it runs on water without breaking the first law of thermodynamics. The way it's usually done is with metal hydrides. These react with water to produce hydrogen, which is then used to power the car. But since these hydrides will deplete with time, they need to be replaced and so they are actually the fuel, not the water. And you can be sure that more energy will go into producing them than will be taken out, making them an energy carrier, just like a battery.
Water Cars Create False Hopes and Real Apathy
There is a real danger in widely reporting these stories without debunking them, or at least being cautious to say that the "water car" is probably not doing what it claims it does until rigorous proof of the contrary.
The danger is that it creates false hopes, which then turn into real apathy. Either people believe that there's a solution to all our energy problems "coming real soon now", and so there's no need to worry and make efforts. And the people who've been around longer end up disillusioned and frustrated because they've been promised "water cars" for decades and it never comes, so they think that there's a big worldwide conspiracy against it (and somehow none of the dozens of "inventors" and "engineers" who worked on these projects were able to put the technical information on the internet).
The Bottom Line on Water Cars
As Carl Sagan used to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The next time you hear about a water car, remember that and don't get your hopes up too quickly.
Mike
*************
“Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.”
James Harvey Robinson
Genepax Water Car: Too Good to be True? Yeah
by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 06.17.08
CARS & TRANSPORTATION
Water-Powered Cars
Like clockwork, every time oil prices shoot up journalists scramble for stories about energy, and a few water-powered cars and perpetual motion machines always make it through.
How this Water Car Probably Works
One thing that helps fuel the conspiracy rumors surrounding water cars is that the media run these segments where they show "water cars" actually driving around, and it all seems to work, and then we never hear about them again. People figure that Big Oil (or the Illuminati, whatever) is suppressing the technology. The reality is more mundane: It is actually possible to make a car look like it runs on water without breaking the first law of thermodynamics. The way it's usually done is with metal hydrides. These react with water to produce hydrogen, which is then used to power the car. But since these hydrides will deplete with time, they need to be replaced and so they are actually the fuel, not the water. And you can be sure that more energy will go into producing them than will be taken out, making them an energy carrier, just like a battery.
Water Cars Create False Hopes and Real Apathy
There is a real danger in widely reporting these stories without debunking them, or at least being cautious to say that the "water car" is probably not doing what it claims it does until rigorous proof of the contrary.
The danger is that it creates false hopes, which then turn into real apathy. Either people believe that there's a solution to all our energy problems "coming real soon now", and so there's no need to worry and make efforts. And the people who've been around longer end up disillusioned and frustrated because they've been promised "water cars" for decades and it never comes, so they think that there's a big worldwide conspiracy against it (and somehow none of the dozens of "inventors" and "engineers" who worked on these projects were able to put the technical information on the internet).
The Bottom Line on Water Cars
As Carl Sagan used to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The next time you hear about a water car, remember that and don't get your hopes up too quickly.
Mike
*************
“Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.”
James Harvey Robinson
colomil
New member
- 147
- 0
- 0
- Location
- colorado springs,co
The water4gas.com site is a huge hoax. As a mechanical engineer, I have a keen eye for things that break the laws of physics, chemistry, and themodynamics and this contraption breaks all three (perpetual motion, unbalanced chemical equations, 2nd law of thermo). I ran through al kinds of calculations on this device if installed on a modern 2.0 liter engine and the math just does not support anything they are claiming (20% + improved MPG). In simplest terms, it would generate .0002 liters of hydrogen per combustion cycle while using 10 amps for electrolysis. In other words, the water4gas contraption actualy drains the system of energy.