# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  Water instead of Gasoline

## TheEvilDetector

If we can make civilian and military vehicles run on water or hydrogen (either from water or directly), why are we wasting lives and money in middle east?

Qualifier: When I say run on water, I mean use electrical energy obtained from a source such as solar panel, to break water down into H2 and O2 and then use H2 to either burn in Hydrogen ICE or recombine in a FUEL CELL with O2 and generate electricity that way or hybrids of either of the two with standard ICE systems.

Essentially free: Sun providing light free of charge. Water can be obtained free of charge. The only costs are some periodical costs which are applicable to regular ICE too (moving parts lubricants, worn parts etc) and install once-off charges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMBni0sDBww
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9_VYn_CGtU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt1uN38EcoQ
*Listen carefully to what the guy says roughly halfway through the third video in the list, starting at around the 6:20 mark.

-- 

Oil Companies don't want to become irrelevant and the government loves the oil tax.
Conflict of interest? I think so.

-- 

This is only half the story.

The point is that TECHNOLOGY EXISTS TODAY TO TAKE YOUR HOUSE AND YOUR CAR COMPLETELY OFF THE ENERGY GRID.

The only thing you would need is access to sun and/or wind and water (purity is a good thing).

-- 

Ask yourself would MSM, Oil, Govt, Coal and Nuclear Industries want every citizen to have such systems?

-- 

We already know that the war on terror a massive fraud (why hasn't Al-Qaeda been crushed? Why has it actually grown? Where are the WOMD? etc etc etc).
In fact the entire presence in middle east is completely unnecessary because we do not need their oil.

Domestic oil would be more than sufficient.

A much smaller amount of oil is needed to make plastics.

A lot of plastics can actually be made from organic sources thus reducing dependence on oil even further.

-- 

In basic terms, his house (guy in 3rd video) uses sun's energy (solar panels) to split water into hydrogen and oxygen (electrolysis). He keeps the hydrogen in tanks.

He then fills up his car hydrogen tank and uses that hydrogen to charge his car's battery by recombining the hydrogen with oxygen (fuel cell).

So, he basically just takes the light of the sun and uses it to power his house and car (using the hydrogen and oxygen from water in the process).

----------


## Hook

Uh, it takes energy to turn water into H2, which has to come ultimately from the Sun or from Nuclear.  If you have electricity to perform electrolysis, it would be more efficient to charge a battery than to go through the wasteful process of cracking H2O and then combusting it in an engine.

----------


## Hook

Hydrogen is one of the worst energy storage mechanisms of all, as far as energy/volume is concerned.

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> Hydrogen is one of the worst energy storage mechanisms of all, as far as energy/volume is concerned.


Thanks for the vote of confidence. The fact that it is free energy has obviously been lost on you. Continue to pay for petrol and grid electricity supply by all means.

You also probably did not quite catch him saying that he can get about 300 miles from 1 tank and the charge in the battery.

300 miles at a cost of $0.00. That's not good enough I suppose.

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> Uh, it takes energy to turn water into H2, which has to come ultimately from the Sun or from Nuclear.  If you have electricity to perform electrolysis, it would be more efficient to charge a battery than to go through the wasteful process of cracking H2O and then combusting it in an engine.


So you are more qualified than the man who has the know-how to build all of this in his house and his car? 

Well, if so, I am sure you can do better.

----------


## Mesogen

I watched the third video. That's all fine and good. I'd love to have a solar house and a plug in car. Problem is, right now, it would cost a LOT to solar up your house, like 10s of thousands of dollars. You can buy a gasoline hybrid and rig it to be a plug in. The rigging can cost $2-4k. 

In about 5 years the cost of solar is going to come WAY down. I'll wait until then to start pricing panels.

Also check out the movie "Who killed the electric car" In it there is a woman with solar panels on her house. She plugs in her car and drives it on solar. She parked it at a solar parking lot and charged it there. This is doable and should be done. But it costs $ and some people don't want you to do it because they would lose big $$.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7Mpe7XfODk

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> I watched the third video. That's all fine and good. I'd love to have a solar house and a plug in car. Problem is, right now, it would cost a LOT to solar up your house, like 10s of thousands of dollars. You can buy a gasoline hybrid and rig it to be a plug in. The rigging can cost $2-4k. 
> 
> In about 5 years the cost of solar is going to come WAY down. I'll wait until then to start pricing panels.
> 
> Also check out the movie "Who killed the electric car" In it there is a woman with solar panels on her house. She plugs in her car and drives it on solar. She parked it at a solar parking lot and charged it there. This is doable and should be done. But it costs $ and some people don't want you to do it because they would lose big $$.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7Mpe7XfODk


If the government officials and big oil were not a bunch of corrupt greedy psychotic bastard individuals, you would see this technology in mass production and at a tiny cost. There is nothing extraordinary there. It is just that it is NOT in the interest of the oil companies and the government to lose massive oil sales.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

All the government needs to do is leave it to the free market and not worry about it.

----------


## Darren McFillintheBlank

..

----------


## Hook

> So you are more qualified than the man who has the know-how to build all of this in his house and his car? 
> 
> Well, if so, I am sure you can do better.


No, I can't do better because I can't break the laws of thermodynamics any more than he can.  I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but this perpetual motion scam has been going on for hundreds of years.  As much as people want a free lunch to be true, it ain't gonna happen.  Read about Joe Newman and his "free" energy machine to get an idea about how far supposed inventors will go with self deception.
I know you won't belive any of this because you want to belive that our only problem is evil oil companies.  That would make it poetic, but not true.  I would suggest that you read some introduction to physics, esp. thermodynamics.
Again, hydrogen isn't a source of energy, it is a carrier.  Ultimately, all energy we use has to come from the Sun or from nuclear.
Go ahead and start flaming away now.

----------


## PennCustom4RP

> I watched the third video. That's all fine and good. I'd love to have a solar house and a plug in car. *Problem is, right now, it would cost a LOT to solar up your house, like 10s of thousands of dollars.* You can buy a gasoline hybrid and rig it to be a plug in. The rigging can cost $2-4k. 
> 
> In about 5 years the cost of solar is going to come WAY down. I'll wait until then to start pricing panels.
> 
> .
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7Mpe7XfODk


No lie here, as it is for most alternative energy sources. I have done extensive research on off-grid living, wind, water, solar power, and none of it cheap, not to mention local regs prohibiting such things from aesthetic or building code standpoint. All you need is one neighbor bitching that you're 'spoiling their view' and you have every permit/code enforcer knocking on your door. Municipalities want you to be 'green' but put up roadblocks preventing this. Another major issue is that houses built today in cities or suburban sub-developments are so entirely dependent on the grid, just by the way they are built, its nearly impossible to retrofit to an off grid system cost effectively. Much easier with an old house(still costly), or build that way from the start.
Move to the country, buy an old house and then maybe.
For now its conservation, efficiency, insulation, recycle, etc etc.

----------


## Hook

Nanosolar (www.nanosolar.com) is coming out with a process that will likely drastically lower prices of solar cells eventually.  Of course that means we would get power from the Sun, like i said before.  Once you get the energy though, it is much more efficent to store it in Lithium Ion or Nickel Metal Hydride batteries than to crack H2O into hydrogen.  Just the electrolysis process wastes like 30% of the energy into heat.  Batteries have a much better storage efficency, and are more energy dense.

----------


## Revolution9

For the naysayers.. Ths fellow has been driving a Cadillac with a 454 using a water cracking system since the early 80's.

found at
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/water.html

FUEL FOR FREE--Hydrogen Generator: (What TV Doesn't Tell You)

DUDE, First off, this ain't no bogus "gimme your money, $#@! off' bull$#@!; this energy device actually works! I am the madman behind the heavy metal band "Rampage," but long before my musical success, I was mechanically inclined, and the possibility of feasibly running a car on fuel extracted from water intrigued me to no end. After reading all the information I could find on the subject of hydrogen generators, I built my first actual unit in 1983, mounting it in the trunk of a 1979 Cadillac Coupe de Ville. You don't have to worry about gas mileage, because gross vehicle weight is of no concern when the fuel you're using is free! I constructed my system from the best of all the other systems I read about, then went even further to also use the strongest materials, and cleanest layout possible within reason. All the titanium nuts and bolts were scored from an aircraft salvage supply; they're cheaper used, and since they'll never wear out, that's a way to save some big bucks. Certain head and exhaust system modifications have to be made to expect trouble-free extended use. For one, the combustion of hydrogen results in the rebonding of the previously-separated hydrogen and oxygen molecules, making the engine's exhaust water vapor steam, and nothing else, meaning absolutely no pollution at all! Most auto makers use cast-iron exhaust manifolds and steel valves. The combined effects of heat and moisture (moisture not being present in the combustion of petroleum based fuels) cause extremely rapid corrosion of the system. Part of the fix is to install stainless steel valves, and an exhaust system constructed entirely out of stainless steel. Racing shops sell stainless steel valves, stainless steel "turbo" mufflers that all work fine. Since hydrogen does not contain lead as some gasoline does, if you're not using a late-model, no-lead engine, the heads will have to be reworked to include valve seats not needing the lubrication lead provides. As for building this device to sell as a completed system, that's a dead issue. In 1983, I contacted the Department of Energy to show them my car actually worked; I was confronted by two very belligerent "agents of tyrannical oppression," who told me if I tried to sell prebuilt units, I'd have a lot of "problems." I asked why, demanding a $#@!in' explanation, and was told very bluntly, and not in a very nice tone: "Do you have any idea what a device like this available to the public would do to the economy?" It all boils down to big money; oil company revenues, and gasoline taxes. The world oil supply is very regulated, and profitable to make as scarce as possible to keep prices high. How can they stop or control rain? "They" can't, and since water is free, "they" can't make any money off it. This technology is so simple, that anyone with over half a brain, and knowledgeable in auto mechanics can build one of these units. I've included comprehensive, no bull$#@!, drafted design layouts, parts lists, maintenance tips, and a whole lot of engine modification concepts to make construction, part fabrication, and implementation as easy as reasonably possible. The unit I built works as great as I claim it to, but I offer only the printed information on how to build your own, and I take no personal responsibility for damage of any kind caused to your vehicle, or self by your own stupidity if you just happen to be some kind of airhead that can't read plain $#@!in' English, or comprehend technical instructions no matter how simple they are explained. I have only applied my unit to a carburetted engine; I have never attempted an application to a fuel injected engine, nor do I make any such claim that an application of that type is easily performed, if possible at all. EVERY CUBIC FOOT OF WATER CONTAINS ABOUT 1,376 CUBIC FEET OF HYDROGEN GAS AND 680 CUBIC FEET OF OXYGEN. 

rest at link

----------


## Hook

Yes it is possible, but it is very inefficent.  The best storage density currently is with liIon batteries.

----------


## Revolution9

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6945732.stm

Paper batteries folks.. you stack the paper to get higher voltage. Can be formed for any shape.

Paper battery offers future power


Flexible paper batteries could meet the energy demands of the next generation of gadgets, says a team of researchers. They have produced a sample slightly larger than a postage stamp that can release about 2.3 volts, enough to illuminate a small light.

But the ambition is to produce reams of paper that could one day power a car.

Professor Robert Linhardt, of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, said the paper battery was a glimpse into the future of power storage.

The team behind the versatile paper, which stores energy like a conventional battery, says it can also double as a capacitor capable of releasing sudden energy bursts for high-power applications.

While a conventional battery contains a number of separate components, the paper battery integrates all of the battery components in a single structure, making it more energy efficient.

more at link...

Best Regards
Randy

----------


## Thom1776

The amount of electrical energy that it takes to separate oxygen from hydrogen in a water molecule has nothing to do with the energy produced from combusting that same oxygen and hydrogen. It's apples and oranges, so thermodynamics doesn't apply here. An alternator and battery supply all the electricity you need to dissociate H from O and then power an internal combustion engine.

People have been and still are driving automobiles using water instead of gasoline.

Oil, or any other "pay as you go" energy source, is one of the biggest scams that the ruling elite uses to enslave us.

Anyone who tells you that there is no free lunch is either one of "them" or has been completely brainwashed to think that way. The best thing to do is to not even argue with them. Just ignore them and proceed with what you think is possible. These people are very narrow-minded and negative and just waste your time.  

There are alternatives. They just don't want you to know about them.

I am very active in alternative energy research and experimentation. I am also an advocate of Freedom and Liberty. I am on this forum for the latter and to help Ron Paul become President.

Anyone interested in alternative and free energy should actively seek out that information from other sources on the internet.

----------


## Hook

I've got a sure-thing perpetual motion device.  Within a year it will put all the big energy companies out of business!  I'll sell you the plans so you can help the process for the low price of $1000.00!!  You could make it back in just days with the energy you can sell.

----------


## Hook

BTW, thermodynamics do take part, because electrolysis wastes energy in the form of heat.  Also the combustion of H and O in the engine has everything to do with thermodynamics because it is a heat engine.  Auto engines get about 25% efficency at best.  Electric motors get over 90% conversion efficency.  You would be much better off just with batteries and electric motors

----------


## Hook

Hydrogen sucks in every way!  It is nearly impossible to store because it is so small it leaks right through metal.  It has piss-poor energy storage density.  It takes huge amounts of wasted energy to crack H2O.  Just stick with electric motors, batteries or supercapacitors, and solar cells.

----------


## Mesogen

> One good thing about hydrogen fuel is that it can be used for high energy output. You could potentially run an airplane or rocket on hydrogen, but not on electricity. It would make sense to use electric power to extract hydrogen for high output applications.


He he, rockets have been running on hydrogen for a long time. That big red tank on the shuttle? Tank full of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. 

All that ice falling off the Saturn V rockets is because of the extremely cold liquid hydrogen in its tanks. 

And to the people talking about the water splitting car. I wonder what you would get more power out of, the car running straight off the battery, or the car running off hydrogen after being split from water by the battery? 

The ultimate power source for that kind of car (the coup de ville) is a battery. But does splitting the water and then burning the hydrogen give more power than just running the car off the battery? Maybe it's more efficient? {shrug}

----------


## Mesogen

> Hydrogen sucks in every way!  It is nearly impossible to store because it is so small it leaks right through metal.  It has piss-poor energy storage density.  It takes huge amounts of wasted energy to crack H2O.  Just stick with electric motors, batteries or supercapacitors, and solar cells.


Oh, but it's a PERFECT replacement for gasoline. That's why our govt is spending billions funding research into the "hydrogen economy." Big energy companies need some commodity that is difficult to get but you need to buy day after day. It's no good to just sell you a set of solar panels or a windmill that will last a lifetime. It's no good to replace batteries once every five years. They must have something that they control and that they can keep flowing continuously. That's the WHOLE point with hydrogen as fuel. 

But then they'd get screwed when people started buying their own water splitters and hydrogen compressors.

Anyway, hydrogen is an expensive waste of time.

----------


## Hook

No, the conversion is far less efficient.  You loose 30% in electrolysis, 75% in engine combustion.  0.7 x 0.25 = 18% conversion efficiency.  Terrible when you compare to ~90% electric motor conversion efficiency.
Rockets use Liquid hydrogen and oxygen because that combination has the highest energy per MASS of any combustion process.  But since it is so light, it has some of the lowest energy per VOLUME.  Getting into space requires as low of mass as possible, so that is the one case where it makes sense.

----------


## Hook

Government is spending money on hydrogen because government=moronic.  Which is why we all support Paul to reduce it.

----------


## Revolution9

> I've got a sure-thing perpetual motion device.  Within a year it will put all the big energy companies out of business!  I'll sell you the plans so you can help the process for the low price of $1000.00!!  You could make it back in just days with the energy you can sell.


The guy in the article I posted has been driving for two decades on water using an internal combustion engine, a negative pressure carburateur and a cracking tank using one extra battery for initial charge and the alternator once going for continued cracking. Yer smart alec line above went out of business years and years ago. Get an update on your knowledge..google is there just awaiting your input.

Best Regards
Randy

----------


## Hook

I'll keep betting on the laws of Thermodynamics.  Feel free to bet on whatever you want.

----------


## Revolution9

> I'll keep betting on the laws of Thermodynamics.  Feel free to bet on whatever you want.


That's fine in a closed system..but the logic breaks down totally when I have a lake full of fuel and an engine to combust it with. According to your logic gasoline engines should obey the damned law and not work. Got any better material you wanna try out?

Best Regards
Randy

----------


## Darren McFillintheBlank

..

----------


## Darren McFillintheBlank

..

----------


## WannaBfree

Hook isn't being a naysayer. From what I've researched there isn't much "net energy gain" with hydrogen. It might be ok small scale using solar. But from what I've researched it's not "the answer" to our energy problems. 

There has already been someone who has come up with free energy (from the ether) - Nikola Tesla. He was labeled a kook and was ruined. Free energy is bad business.

Stanley Meyer, who invented the engine that ran on tap water, died under mysterious circumstances (poisoning). Rudolf Diesel, who designed an engine to run on vegetable oils, was found face-down in a river. Big Oil doesn't like competition, baby. That's why they buy up all the alternative energy technology, to let it collect dust.

Personally, we drive a car that runs on used vegetable oil that I get free from restaurants  I try my best not to feed the big corporations.

----------


## Revolution9

> OK, I'm going into "you people" mode:
> 
> Some of you people really blow my mind. Why don't you get one of those new fangled free energy cars for yourself? Why is it always, "some guy on the Internet has been doing it for 20 years...? Why is it always "the guy on the Internet says the government threatened him" not to sell the technology?
> 
> If the Department of Energy told this guy that "if (he) tried to sell prebuilt units, (he'd) have a lot of "problems," then why doesn't he just forget about selling this technology as a car and build his own power plant? He would quickly become the richest man in the world.
> 
> Think about it, people! This guy says he's smarter than Issac Newton and everybody at NASA, but he can't figure out a way to make a buck on the worlds only free energy source?
> 
> If nothing else, he could just go give the plans to somebody like Castro, who would not only go on to lead The Peoples' Energy Revolution but who would also give the inventor a lifetime supply of banana daquaris.


Ther vuy from the metal band Rampage has been driving it. The LA Times did a story on it. There are people doing this right now. Here is a home generator.
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/other_hfsystems.html


There is also a nitrogen hydride system being perfected in Australia. I will have a look around for t..

Best Regards
Randy

----------


## Mesogen

> *"Whether or not Toyota wanted to continue production, it was unlikely to be able to do so, because the EV-95 battery was no longer available. Chevron had inherited control of the worldwide patent rights for the NiMH EV-95 battery when it merged with Texaco, which had purchased them from General Motors. Chevron's unit won a $30,000,000 settlement from Toyota and Panasonic, and the production line for the large NiMH batteries was closed down and dismantled. Only smaller NiMH batteries incapable of powering an electric vehicle or plugging in are currently allowed by Chevron-Texaco."*


Yes, but isn't that the free market at work? Hell, patents are in the constitution. 

I'll tell you this much: Ron Paul would do nothing about this. Who could?

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> Yes, but isn't that the free market at work? Hell, patents are in the constitution. 
> 
> I'll tell you this much: Ron Paul would do nothing about this. Who could?


I didn't say the action was illegal in that specific instance.

----------


## Ninja Homer

I'm done posting on this thread.  I do believe that a free energy source will come about eventually, but there's no convincing some people until they can see it with their own eyes, and see that things are possible beyond the textbooks they learned from.

The best bet for free energy devices to make it to the public is to get oil special interest groups out of Washington (and I think everybody here would agree that would be a very good thing), and the best bet to get that done at this time is to get Ron Paul elected.  That's all I'm going to focus on here.  If I spend any time on free energy, it will be in learning how to do it myself from one of the many sites that are already dedicated to it.

The only thing I would suggest to people who don't believe free energy is possible is to keep an open mind to it.  E=MC².  Everything *is* energy.  There is no shortage of it and there never will be, as the universe is expanding.  Free energy doesn't really mean getting energy out of nowhere; it means getting energy from sources that are so vast that there is no foreseeable future of them ever running out.

----------


## Mesogen

> I didn't say the action was illegal in that specific instance.


Almost should be though. 

Kinda $#@!ty of Chevron eh? But they are looking out for #1.

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> Almost should be though. 
> 
> Kinda $#@!ty of Chevron eh? But they are looking out for #1.


It seems to me that EV technology could have gone mainstream on several occasions  beforehand and yet it did not and it seems to me this was a result of the big oil/auto companies making a conscious effort to suppress it.

----------


## Man from La Mancha

> I'm done posting on this thread.  I do believe that a free energy source will come about eventually, but there's no convincing some people until they can see it with their own eyes, and see that things are possible beyond the textbooks they learned from.
> 
> The best bet for free energy devices to make it to the public is to get oil special interest groups out of Washington (and I think everybody here would agree that would be a very good thing), and the best bet to get that done at this time is to get Ron Paul elected.  That's all I'm going to focus on here.  If I spend any time on free energy, it will be in learning how to do it myself from one of the many sites that are already dedicated to it.
> 
> The only thing I would suggest to people who don't believe free energy is possible is to keep an open mind to it.  E=MC².  Everything *is* energy.  There is no shortage of it and there never will be, as the universe is expanding.  Free energy doesn't really mean getting energy out of nowhere; it means getting energy from sources that are so vast that there is no foreseeable future of them ever running out.


I agree with you energy has to to be the least of our problems, it's just another scare tactic to keep people on edge. Here is little something else:



There are dozens of way to produce hydrogen cheaply. I've read from complex molecules that crank out hydrogen from water when they absorb sunlight to mutant algae that also produce hydrogen from water cheaply.

The mutant algae I'm referring to are especially interesting. They were engineered to manufacture (if I recall correctly) 100.000 times more hydrogen then they naturally did before being engineered. In order to become cost-efficient, this number would have to be increased another hundred-fold.

Once science manages to use easy-to-grow algae to produce hydrogen, hydrogen production can be expanded exponentially at virtually no cost.

This is why I believe that hydrogen will eventually be free once the hydrogen economy is in place.

.

----------


## BenIsForRon

> I agree with you energy has to to be the least of our problems, it's just another scare tactic to keep people on edge. Here is little something else:


Energy is our biggest problem.  People are just afraid to admit this because they think the only solution is a big government solution.  However, a truly free market would actually be the best way to deal with it, with no federal involvement.  As energy becomes more expensive, people will find ways to live their lives using less energy, by conservation and economic localization.

Look over these sites if you think I'm wrong.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html
http://www.theoildrum.com/

----------


## Mesogen

"Excess" Nighttime Grid Energy Could Power More Than 70% Of Electric Vehicles




> According to a recent U.S. Department of Energy study, there is so much excess energy on the U.S. grid nightly that if every light-duty car and truck in America today used plug-in hybrid technology, 73 percent of them could be plugged in and “fueled” without constructing a single new power plant. So much for the myth that electric vehicles will cause more emissions.


It's not all roses though. The comments section raises some good points.

----------


## Electric Church

We also have to deal with corruption within the oil industry itself: they suppress new technologies that reduce consumption and dependency on fossil fuels and they create artificial scarcity for profits.

----------


## Electric Church

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x59MptHscxY

----------


## Ninja Homer

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x59MptHscxY


This reminded me of an old Wired article:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/craven.html

----------


## Electric Church

> This reminded me of an old Wired article:
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/craven.html


Nice article. Investing into something like this instead of war for oil would do a tremendous amount of good:  provide poor countries (including developed countries) with unlimited cheap energy and fresh water for drinking and irrigation.

Not too hopeful about the fact that the pentagon has it's tentacles into this project. Definitely another invention the proponents of big oil are not excited about.

----------


## Mesogen

Sorry for dredging up this old thread, but check it out.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/09/07/e....ap/index.html

Why isn't this man dead yet?




> An Austin-based startup called EEStor promised "technologies for replacement of electrochemical batteries," meaning a motorist could plug in a car for five minutes and drive 500 miles roundtrip between Dallas and Houston without gasoline.


It's basically an ultracapacitor. People have been working on these for a long time. Nice to see it near commercialization.

But it looks like they don't have a working model. (How'd they get a patent then?)

----------


## Mesogen

Woops. Didn't think it through. 

Yeah, that's some hefty current to charge that thing in 5 minutes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com...729437#1729456

----------


## CurtisLow

*Don't know if anyone seen this?* 


Radio Frequencies Help Burn Salt Water

By David Templeton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Tue, 11 Sep 2007, 11:41AM
Email this Page IM this Story Bookmark this Story Add to your Del.icio.us account Digg this Story

ERIE, Pa. - An Erie cancer researcher has found a way to burn salt water, a novel invention that is being touted by one chemist as the "most remarkable" water science discovery in a century.

John Kanzius happened upon the discovery accidentally when he tried to desalinate seawater with a radio-frequency generator he developed to treat cancer. He discovered that as long as the salt water was exposed to the radio frequencies, it would burn.

The discovery has scientists excited by the prospect of using salt water, the most abundant resource on earth, as a fuel.

Rustum Roy, a Penn State University chemist, has held demonstrations at his State College lab to confirm his own observations.

The radio frequencies act to weaken the bonds between the elements that make up salt water, releasing the hydrogen, Roy said. Once ignited, the hydrogen will burn as long as it is exposed to the frequencies, he said.

The discovery is "the most remarkable in water science in 100 years," Roy said.

"This is the most abundant element in the world. It is everywhere," Roy said. "Seeing it burn gives me the chills."

Roy will meet this week with officials from the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense to try to obtain research funding.

The scientists want to find out whether the energy output from the burning hydrogen — which reached a heat of more than 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit — would be enough to power a car or other heavy machinery.

"We will get our ideas together and check this out and see where it leads," Roy said. "The potential is huge."


http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1570

----------


## Electric Church

> *"Roy will meet this week with officials from the Department of Defense* to try to obtain research funding."


Well that's about the last we'll hear from Roy and his invention

----------


## CurtisLow



----------


## rp4prez

It's called the Petrodollar 






> If we can make civilian and military vehicles run on water or hydrogen (either from water or directly), why are we wasting lives and money in middle east?
> 
> Qualifier: When I say run on water, I mean use electrical energy obtained from a source such as solar panel, to break water down into H2 and O2 and then use H2 to either burn in Hydrogen ICE or recombine in a FUEL CELL with O2 and generate electricity that way or hybrids of either of the two with standard ICE systems.
> 
> Essentially free: Sun providing light free of charge. Water can be obtained free of charge. The only costs are some periodical costs which are applicable to regular ICE too (moving parts lubricants, worn parts etc) and install once-off charges.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMBni0sDBww
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9_VYn_CGtU
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt1uN38EcoQ
> ...

----------


## Electric Church

Hey, I found that salt water video right here:

http://www.rustumroy.com/May42007WKYCCleveland.wmv

I guess this should just about end the debate about alternative fuels and our dependency on big oil

----------


## Man from La Mancha

The people in the  lab at APV Polymer Co. in Akron, the top engineers were amazed it worked. Another inventor that doesn't realize he should of told what frequencies the salt water conversion works at and pulses at because now no one will ever know. When are these inventors ever going to learn unless freely given out the knowledge, it will die.

.

----------


## pyrazole2

> Hey, I found that salt water video right here:
> 
> http://www.rustumroy.com/May42007WKYCCleveland.wmv
> 
> I guess this should just about end the debate about alternative fuels and our dependency on big oil


Right...

We did this experiment in High School, it's been around since they discovered microwave coils, and it pops up every year or so (many ways of making a plasma).  Here's how we did it about 20 years ago:  take a microwave coil from an ordinary microwave, supply it with as many amps as it's rated for (usually about 4-5x what the microwave transformer gives it).  Put it back in the microwave, make a hole for introduction of a flame, salt water goes in.  Press start.  Introduce the flame above the salt water and remove the flame source.  Sit back and watch it burn.  You've just created an RF plasma which has about 20% conversion efficiency.  Those RF waves aren't free, you know, someone had to harness energy to produce electricity....and now you've just turned 20% of that back into heat.  You're going the wrong way, boys!

John Kanzius is also claiming that this 'machine' will cure cancer.  Um, cancer AND free energy, sure, sure.  He could be a little more suble with his insanity.  And Rustim Roy, the emeritus professor from Penn State.  I heard him talk last year at the ASME conference...he's strings of thought are completely incoherent at this point, it's pretty widely thought that he's mentally incapacitated.  Great man, though, did some great stuff in Mat Sc.

There are so many problems with that video, I can't believe you put that forth as evidence.  It's so obvious, even you all should realize it.

Good work, but something that's been readily available for 50 years.  It's no secret, so what did the big oil companies do again?

----------


## Electric Church

> *We did this experiment in High School*, it's been around since they discovered microwave coils, and it pops up every year or so


Do you really expect people to believe that? There are a lot of proposed alternative energy solutions other than oil that have been presented on this forum and you seemed to have attempted to discredited and ridicule every one of them. So do you really expect me to say pyrazole2 is correct and all the inventions that have been presented here are crap done in high school?

Let’s put it this way, after reviewing all the information that is available yours seems to be the info that is the least credible. I recognize pro-oil propaganda when I see it.

----------


## Man from La Mancha

[QUOTE=pyrazole2;183959]Right...

We did this experiment in High School, it's been around since they discovered microwave coils, and it pops up every year or so (many ways of making a plasma).  Here's how we did it about 20 years ago:  take a microwave coil from an ordinary microwave, supply it with as many amps as it's rated for (usually about 4-5x what the microwave transformer gives it).  Put it back in the microwave, make a hole for introduction of a flame, salt water goes in.  Press start.  Introduce the flame above the salt water and remove the flame source.  Sit back and watch it burn.  You've just created an RF plasma which has about 20% conversion efficiency.  Those RF waves aren't free, you know, someone had to harness energy to produce electricity....and now you've just turned 20% of that back into heat.  You're going the wrong way, boys!
QUOTE]
Very interesting, unless he found a particular pulse that would create a cascading harmonic effect in the water to break it down more completely, it won't mean anything. I always say till I can buy it it doesn't mean anything.

.

----------


## hard@work



----------


## pyrazole2

> Do you really expect people to believe that?


Here's the basic experiment, taken much farther, and considered as an energy storage medium:  http://www.ece.unm.edu/cp3/Publications/4720-01.pdf
There's a couple of pages (#2, #3, just electrical equations regarding the RF source, no big deal, ok to skip) 
Other microwave plasma fun?  Be careful!  http://amasci.com/weird/microexp.html
Ever tried to microwave a grape?




> There are a lot of proposed alternative energy solutions other than oil that have been presented on this forum and you seemed to have attempted to discredited and ridicule every one of them.


You're about as tactful as Bill O.  I have not discredited every one of them, and I didn't intend to ridicule them (some were just so out there, though).  I distinctly remember supporting solar harvesting, and believe that the USA is way behind (evidence:  http://www.pvresources.com/en/top50pv.php).  Fusion (as in, fusing atoms, not fission, breaking them apart, which is what we term 'nuclear plant') was something I brought up, but wasn't given much attention, again the US is way behind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak
http://www.scienceinschool.org/2006/issue1/fusion
http://www.fusion.org.uk/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4629239.stm
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2...6-05-24-04.asp
Bottom line of all this:  France will have a 500MW fusion reactor by 2015.  This is about half of what a typical fission reactor produces.  It's a research reactor, so it's likely that what they learn there could make future fission reactors much bigger, 2-5x the size of a fission plant.  You don't have all the U, Pt disposal issues with fusion as you do with fission.




> So do you really expect me to say pyrazole2 is correct and all the inventions that have been presented here are crap done in high school?


People that know me, do look to me for advice, because I'm smart, and I've received a good education.  I'm not always right, but these are things that I looked at on a daily basis, 12h+ a day, for going on 20 years.  Since you don't know me, of course you shouldn't _assume_ I'm correct - you should take a look into things, get enough education to understand the concepts, do your own research, come to your own conclusion.  You haven't done anything past reading what the media, bloggers, or pundits have to say.  The ultimate research would be to re-create the experiment.  I'll tell you why you'll have trouble doing that.  These 'free energy' guys always seem to hold back a detail or frequency or something.  Why don't they publish everything?  Millions of other scientists do every day.

Most of what has been presented here are just a myriad of ways of electrolyzing water.  You have to quit looking at energy conversion, we need energy direct from natural, self-replenishing sources (sun, waves, tides, ocean currents, dams, geothermal, wind, plasma, nuclear - which kind of falls under geothermal, really).  And hopefully the government will have nothing to do with it.  Case in point...ethanol.  We lose about 30% of energy converting corn to ethanol, the energy in being the heat you have to use to distill it.  Bad move, but it does help reduce pollution in congested areas.  However, you increase pollution at the ethanol plant, so we're just putting the pollution elsewhere and it's costing us 30% of the energy we put in.  Also to note:  we've created a shortage of ammonia, used for fertilizer for all that corn, now nearly all food and anything derived from a whole lot of chemical processes will increase in price exponentially.  




> Lets put it this way, after reviewing all the information that is available yours seems to be the info that is the least credible. I recognize pro-oil propaganda when I see it.


Again with the 'pro-oil' bs.  Honestly, I'm pro-money.  I don't want to spend one more cent on energy than I have to...the fact that everyone wants to pour money into unproven ideas when we have great ones already on the shelf, is beyond me.  Why would anyone buy into unproven alternative energy when the price tag is higher than the original?  And honestly, I don't like some of these pseudoscientists because they often rip people off in the name of science, which, as a scientist, does me a discredit.  

Let's go after something that we know will be a return on investment.  This is what would and will happen when the market is freed up.  What happens to big-oil if all the oil is gone, or if they can't supply it?  Don't you think that they just might develop an energy alternative so they can keep selling a product or technology?  They'd be stupid not to.

Least credible?  I'm one of many here who can show you the mathematical *proof* of the thermodynamic laws.  It's something a lot of non-scientists don't grasp:  A scientific law isn't like the immigration laws...these can't be broken.  There's always an explanation for phenomena that _seem
_ to violate them.  Where's that explanation?...you or someone else should be explaining how these moonbat theories fit into the universe's natural laws.  Strange things only happen in movies, not in reality.  Everything is explainable.

----------


## Hook

Themodynamic laws can be broken in the sense that you can occasionally win money at blackjack.  Just that in the long run you always loose.
Fusion is the energy source of the future and always will be   It is a complete looser.
People need to concentrate on solar, which is ultimately the only sustainable energy source available.

----------

