"Convert your car to run on tap water"! "not fake!"
Discussion
I will not be sending any money, either. But this reminds me of an advert in one of the Sunday rags in the late 50's or early 60's. Twas a bolt on thingy that was supposed to do much the same thing; run an engine on water. I remember seeing the add on several occasions over a few months, then it just disappeared. What happened? I know not. Perhaps it was just a scam, then again, it could have been bought out by a petroleum company.
My bets with it being a scam, but then again, who knows?
My bets with it being a scam, but then again, who knows?
Ah, read it now, cheers... It's not the aluminium thing I was thinking of. It's sillier than that. The aluminium thing did at least have an energy source in it which was "hidden" from casual inspection. This thing is just an electrolysis vessel running at a power of a few tens of watts and they think that's going to provide enough hydrogen/oxygen mix to run a car - as it's produced, not storing it up for several days. They seem to think that running the electrolysis cell on pulsed rather than continuous current it will produce hundreds of times more gas than the same current running continuously. 
http://pigeon.dyndns.org/stuff/x/carp if anyone else is interested.
http://pigeon.dyndns.org/stuff/x/carp if anyone else is interested.
cymtriks said:
Probably not a genuine product but without proof you don't know for certain.
Some years ago I heard of the Griggs pump or Hydrosonic pump. Mr Griggs was a plumber who noticed that vibrating pipes were warmer than other pipes. He patented a water heater which was very simple. A metal stirer rotated inside a tank while water was pumped through the tank. It worked. He refined the design and started selling water heaters, boilers and even superheated steam generators capable of supplying industrial sites.
When he toted up the energy being put in to drive the electric motor and the energy in the steam comming out he noticed that the "pump" was more than 100% efficient. He was very excited about this and spread the word thinking that he'd made breakthrough in science.
He was rubbished by nearly every scientist he spoke to. It broke the 2nd law of thermodynamics so it MUST be nonsense. Of course they conveniently overlooked the inconvenient fact that the sacred 2nd law is based on the Helmholtz conjecture which hasn't been proven. However Griggs carried on selling his "pumps" with the data he'd got to show that they really did put more out than they took in.
Pretty soon he was being denounced by many scientists and engineers as a crank while at the same time being thanked by his customers for saving them a slice of their energy bill.
Some people were interested in his invention and, after years of study, someone made the link to cavitation (something that happens in rapidly stired fluids) and the very high pressures needed to cause very small ammounts of FUSION.
Yep. Griggs was right. His device really did work. He'd invented a very simple and very low efficiency fusion reactor, it was just good enough to turn warm water into steam and make an electric motor look a bit like a motor with a couple of batteries strapped on its side.
So the people who told him he was talking rubbish because his invention didn't tie up with their views on how the universe worked ended up being wrong for simple reason that the universe worked in the way it worked, not how folk theorised it worked.
That last bit is very important. A lot of people will tell you, even when evidence is right in front of them, that something cannot be true because it isn't what they think should be true.
The moral.
He might be right.
But I'm not going to send him my money just yet!
Some years ago I heard of the Griggs pump or Hydrosonic pump. Mr Griggs was a plumber who noticed that vibrating pipes were warmer than other pipes. He patented a water heater which was very simple. A metal stirer rotated inside a tank while water was pumped through the tank. It worked. He refined the design and started selling water heaters, boilers and even superheated steam generators capable of supplying industrial sites.
When he toted up the energy being put in to drive the electric motor and the energy in the steam comming out he noticed that the "pump" was more than 100% efficient. He was very excited about this and spread the word thinking that he'd made breakthrough in science.
He was rubbished by nearly every scientist he spoke to. It broke the 2nd law of thermodynamics so it MUST be nonsense. Of course they conveniently overlooked the inconvenient fact that the sacred 2nd law is based on the Helmholtz conjecture which hasn't been proven. However Griggs carried on selling his "pumps" with the data he'd got to show that they really did put more out than they took in.
Pretty soon he was being denounced by many scientists and engineers as a crank while at the same time being thanked by his customers for saving them a slice of their energy bill.
Some people were interested in his invention and, after years of study, someone made the link to cavitation (something that happens in rapidly stired fluids) and the very high pressures needed to cause very small ammounts of FUSION.
Yep. Griggs was right. His device really did work. He'd invented a very simple and very low efficiency fusion reactor, it was just good enough to turn warm water into steam and make an electric motor look a bit like a motor with a couple of batteries strapped on its side.
So the people who told him he was talking rubbish because his invention didn't tie up with their views on how the universe worked ended up being wrong for simple reason that the universe worked in the way it worked, not how folk theorised it worked.
That last bit is very important. A lot of people will tell you, even when evidence is right in front of them, that something cannot be true because it isn't what they think should be true.
The moral.
He might be right.
But I'm not going to send him my money just yet!
So how do they handle the raditation emissions then?
FunkyNige said:
Pigeon said:
Using water as a fuel requires nuclear techniques - fusion - which nobody has cracked yet, and if they did it'd still be a lot more complicated than bolting some magic doobrie onto an existing engine.
You don't need nuclear technology to separate Oxygen and Hydrogen from water, if you want to convert the H2 to energy you need fusion, if you just want to burn it you don't need any special technology.
Oxygen doesn't burn, it's an oxidiser (funnily enough).
Not true oxygen can burn with itself, depends on the molecular structure of the oxygen to begin with.
Hey, don't knock the hub dyno. I've got one, it's great. Doesn't have the horrendous drive losses of the friction-driven "bottle" type, so it isn't such a drag to operate.
WRT the Griggs device... I've had a look on Google, not having heard of this thing, and the websites mentioning it seem to fall into three categories:
1) Nutters that I wouldn't trust to give me the time of day with any accuracy, doing the usual thing of making a great song and dance over its supposed "free energy" properties but not actually making use of these properties, same as happens with any supposed "free energy" device.
2) People expressing honest puzzlement and making requests for further information and not getting it.
3) The website of the company actually making the things, where "free energy" claims are conspicuous by their absence.
WRT the Griggs device... I've had a look on Google, not having heard of this thing, and the websites mentioning it seem to fall into three categories:
1) Nutters that I wouldn't trust to give me the time of day with any accuracy, doing the usual thing of making a great song and dance over its supposed "free energy" properties but not actually making use of these properties, same as happens with any supposed "free energy" device.
2) People expressing honest puzzlement and making requests for further information and not getting it.
3) The website of the company actually making the things, where "free energy" claims are conspicuous by their absence.
cymtriks said:
Of course they conveniently overlooked the inconvenient fact that the sacred 2nd law is based on the Helmholtz conjecture which hasn't been proven.
That is not really correct. The 2nd law requires no conjecture when applied to matter. It is just a consequence of how objects bounce off each other. You can derive it from first principles of Newtonian mechanics. Smacking snooker balls around a table demonstartes the basic idea. If you hit the cue ball in order to break the pack, the cue ball starts with all the kinetic energy, and as it hits other balls and they hit each other, the kinetic energy gets ditributed over the table. That is an example of energy flowing from high concentration to a lower, less dense distribution. If you swept your arm across the table so that you set loads of balls in motion, it is stunningly unlikely that they would all happen to hit each other at just the right angles so that all their kinetic energy got transferred into the cue ball, leaving every other ball at rest (i.e. it is stunningly unlikely that you could un-break the pack by randomly swatting at a load of snooker balls). That is all the Second Law says.portas young said:
I remember a scientist came up with a successfully patented water engine design a few years ago, as far as I can recall, only to be payed off and have the design locked away out of sight in the vault a bit tout suite by the oil companies. Not at all what he had in mind! Remember the fuss at the time.
these threads make me laugh. theres always one! actually the scientist was a mate of my brothers girlfreind who used to worked at cern. no one's heard from him since and he's living in the carribean with a boat that runs on the water engine.
So if you were to make one of these things and store up the hydrogen / oxygen mix and then pump it into a seperate tank on the vehicle and run it through some gas injectors. then it would work.
However what would be the cost of making the hydrogen as opposed to buying the petrol?
Matt
However what would be the cost of making the hydrogen as opposed to buying the petrol?
Matt
Doesn`t hydrogen burn very hot and therefore the engine internals would have to be coated in ceramic..?
It does seem tantalisingly close however although not from e bay sharks...
HHO looks good ...
http://hytechapps.com/company/press
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc
It does seem tantalisingly close however although not from e bay sharks...
HHO looks good ...
http://hytechapps.com/company/press
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc
I don't think there are any major problems modifying petrol engines to run on hydrogen. The big problem is storing the fuel. Unlike butane or propane, you can't build a tank strong enough to keep room temperature hydrogen liquid. You have to use cryogenic storage, and all the associated gubbins to warm it up by the time it reaches the injection system. Ends up filling the boot. Also the consequences of ruptured, cryogenic fuel tanks full of hydrogen during a crash might tend to liven things up a bit.
I remember posting this thread a while back. Is it the same thing
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff