• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Water Fuel

C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Not too quick. Unless he has a new process, it supposedly takes more energy to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water than you get when you burn the hydrogen.

There were recent media reports of someone getting the hydrogen and oxygen to separate using radio waves. The report was something to the effect that you could seem to get water to burn by focusing radio frequency energy on the water. Of course it would have to have been the liberated hydrogen just above the surface of the water that was burning.
 
ConditionThree

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
imported post

You want to mass produce what? A horseless carriage? Now why would anyone want something like that? And spend so much money no less? What do you feed it? Gasoline? Now what is wrong with a perfectly good horse and some alfalfa and oats?



Man, I love the naysayers. History is often too kind to them.

Check this out. BMW is road testing a hydrogen/gasoline flexfuel sedan.

http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2006/11/72100

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070919/FREE/70919005/1024/FREE

Now by no means, is this perfect- But at the same time its not a fraud or some effort to dupe the mouthbreathing-believe-everything-you-read types.
 
F

FogRider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
1,412
Location
Centennial, Colorado, USA
imported post

ConditionThree wrote:
You want to mass produce what? A horseless carriage? Now why would anyone want something like that? And spend so much money no less? What do you feed it? Gasoline? Now what is wrong with a perfectly good horse and some alfalfa and oats?



Man, I love the naysayers. History is often too kind to them.

Check this out. BMW is road testing a hydrogen/gasoline flexfuel sedan.

http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2006/11/72100

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070919/FREE/70919005/1024/FREE

Now by no means, is this perfect- But at the same time its not a fraud or some effort to dupe the mouthbreathing-believe-everything-you-read types.
Click to expand...
Not trying to say we don't need something else besides gasoline, or that hydrogen will never work. I am just surrounded by people that pick up every new fad and tout it as the cure for all our ails, and it gets old. Every couple of years someone discovers hydrogen burns, and claims it will fix all our problems in the next few months.
Didn't mean to snap on anyone.
 
T

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
SNIP TANSTAAFL.
Click to expand...
Iraquoiscurse word?
Click to expand...


You need to read more Robert Heinlein, a liberty activist such as you. And google is your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL


EDIT: And you can call me a "naysayer", but the fact is you lose energy by first splitting water into H2 and O2 and then combining the two back together in a fuel cell or by burning it. It's a law of thermodynamics, and Mother Nature grants no exceptions. Gasoline, on the other hand, yields more energy than it took to pump the oil and refine it, which is why we still use it. Also, in terms of energy density (ie. joules per square meter) gasoline is hard to beat. Uranium is much better, but nuclear fission autos are a bit too dangerous.
 
Kelly J

Kelly J

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
493
Location
Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
imported post

FogRider wrote:
Kelly J wrote:
http://s101.photobucket.com/albums/m55/cobra44_2006/?action=view&current=WaterFuel.flv



Why is it that we have not heard more about this fuel source?
Click to expand...

Because there is no magic fuel that will replace petroleum. There is no conspiracy here, move along.
Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused here, one no one is talking about a Magic Fuel, and there are, other fuels, than Petroleum, and who said anything about a Conspiracy, of any kind.

I merely asked a question, of why we have not heard any more about this process, and I guess I am of the old school, that thinks that there are people that try to invent things, like the Write Brothers, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, A. G. Bell, just to mention a few, also I might add the fact that Leonardo Da Vinci painted a diving bell, Air Plane, a helicopter, a Submarine, and a space ship long before they became fact to the every day person, but your right I will just move on to see if I can find someone that thinks outside the box.
 
Kelly J

Kelly J

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
493
Location
Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
imported post

People I'm not trying to start a Pi**in' contest here, and no, you are correct, this has nothing at all to do with open carry, but then, nor do a lot of other subjects, posted here.



Counting on page one only there are 23 post that have nothing to do with open carry!
 
F

FogRider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
1,412
Location
Centennial, Colorado, USA
imported post

Kelly J wrote:

I'm a bit confused here, one no one is talking about a Magic Fuel, and there are, other fuels, than Petroleum, and who said anything about a Conspiracy, of any kind.

I merely asked a question, of why we have not heard any more about this process, and I guess I am of the old school, that thinks that there are people that try to invent things, like the Write Brothers, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, A. G. Bell, just to mention a few, also I might add the fact that Leonardo Da Vinci painted a diving bell, Air Plane, a helicopter, a Submarine, and a space ship long before they became fact to the every day person, but your right I will just move on to see if I can find someone that thinks outside the box.
Click to expand...
"We" have heard about this process. Many times. Usually by someone referring to it as some sort of "miracle fuel source". I realy didn't mean to offend, I just tabbed over from a Fark.com gun discussion, and replied with the same annoyed attitude I had over there.
 
Kelly J

Kelly J

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
493
Location
Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
imported post

FogRider wrote:
Kelly J wrote:

I'm a bit confused here, one no one is talking about a Magic Fuel, and there are, other fuels, than Petroleum, and who said anything about a Conspiracy, of any kind.

I merely asked a question, of why we have not heard any more about this process, and I guess I am of the old school, that thinks that there are people that try to invent things, like the Write Brothers, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, A. G. Bell, just to mention a few, also I might add the fact that Leonardo Da Vinci painted a diving bell, Air Plane, a helicopter, a Submarine, and a space ship long before they became fact to the every day person, but your right I will just move on to see if I can find someone that thinks outside the box.
Click to expand...
"We" have heard about this process. Many times. Usually by someone referring to it as some sort of "miracle fuel source". I realy didn't mean to offend, I just tabbed over from a Fark.com gun discussion, and replied with the same annoyed attitude I had over there.
Click to expand...
I can understand that, but it just hit wrong, I asked what I thought was a inquiring question, and it sounded like I was asking to sleep with someones wife, from some of the responces. Civility goes a long way!
 
F

FogRider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
1,412
Location
Centennial, Colorado, USA
imported post

Kelly J wrote:
FogRider wrote:
Kelly J wrote:

I'm a bit confused here, one no one is talking about a Magic Fuel, and there are, other fuels, than Petroleum, and who said anything about a Conspiracy, of any kind.

I merely asked a question, of why we have not heard any more about this process, and I guess I am of the old school, that thinks that there are people that try to invent things, like the Write Brothers, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, A. G. Bell, just to mention a few, also I might add the fact that Leonardo Da Vinci painted a diving bell, Air Plane, a helicopter, a Submarine, and a space ship long before they became fact to the every day person, but your right I will just move on to see if I can find someone that thinks outside the box.
Click to expand...
"We" have heard about this process. Many times. Usually by someone referring to it as some sort of "miracle fuel source". I realy didn't mean to offend, I just tabbed over from a Fark.com gun discussion, and replied with the same annoyed attitude I had over there.
Click to expand...
I can understand that, but it just hit wrong, I asked what I thought was a inquiring question, and it sounded like I was asking to sleep with someones wife, from some of the responces. Civility goes a long way!
Click to expand...
Yeah. It does. The snarkyness wasn't deliberate, just reflex. We cool brah? :cool:
 
C

Comp-tech

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
934
Location
, Alabama, USA
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
Citizen wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
SNIP TANSTAAFL.
Click to expand...
Iraquoiscurse word?
Click to expand...


You need to read more Robert Heinlein, a liberty activist such as you. And google is your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL


EDIT: And you can call me a "naysayer", but the fact is you lose energy by first splitting water into H2 and O2 and then combining the two back together in a fuel cell or by burning it. It's a law of thermodynamics, and Mother Nature grants no exceptions. Gasoline, on the other hand, yields more energy than it took to pump the oil and refine it, which is why we still use it. Also, in terms of energy density (ie. joules per square meter) gasoline is hard to beat. Uranium is much better, but nuclear fission autos are a bit too dangerous.
Click to expand...
All "laws" had to be discovered at some point....are you POSITIVE that no new laws may be found?....or new understanding of some of the laws we "know" today.......it was thought that the Earth was the center of the universe for many years....guess what happened when someone questioned that idea.....hmmmm

We use gasoline because of $...nothing else.....Please do some research....hydrogen is MUCH higher in energy output than gasoline could ever be...even if we "used" all that went through our IC engines.
There are technologies that would be far better to use.....

http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html .....in his last prototype, this guy burned water in his vehicle WITHOUT converting it into hydrogen first....he died mysteriously just as production facilities were "in the works"

Nikola Tesla....why was all his research/knowledge confiscated by the government?........
maybe this had something to do with it..... http://waterpoweredcar.com/teslascar.html
I encourage you to research Tesla and his work.....I guarantee it will raise questions in your mind.

Here are a few other things that might have you asking questions.... http://www.panaceauniversity.org/
 
F

FogRider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
1,412
Location
Centennial, Colorado, USA
imported post

http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html .....in his last prototype, this guy burned water in his vehicle WITHOUT converting it into hydrogen first....he died mysteriously just as production facilities were "in the works"
Click to expand...
Link is broke. Government must be covering it up. Ok, I googled and found that article. So he built a hydrogen car, big whoop, been done. The concept is actually pretty simple. Getting fuel efficiently is the problem. I don't care how efficiently the car runs, if it costs me $50/Gal. to get the fuel. That and hydrogen is hard to store.
Nikola Tesla....why was all his research/knowledge confiscated by the government?........
Click to expand...
Sooo, how do we have his research?
http://waterpoweredcar.com/teslascar.html I encourage you to research Tesla and his work.....I guarantee it will raise questions in your mind.
Click to expand...
Ahem...
63733d1164785768-us-baby-murdered-microwave-morbo.jpg

ELECTRICITY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!

The only question that I have is why people beleive some of this stuff. Tessla had some good ideas, but he also made up A LOT of crap. For instance, transmitting large amounts of electricity through the air. Look at high-tension power lines some time. Thats a huge amount of voltage running through them, but they cant even arc to the ground, a relatively short distance.


By the way, heal the ozone? Flying saucer tech? Top notch site that is.
 
C

Comp-tech

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
934
Location
, Alabama, USA
imported post

FogRider wrote:
http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html .....in his last prototype, this guy burned water in his vehicle WITHOUT converting it into hydrogen first....he died mysteriously just as production facilities were "in the works"
Click to expand...
Link is broke. Government must be covering it up. Ok, I googled and found that article. So he built a hydrogen car, big whoop, been done. The concept is actually pretty simple. Getting fuel efficiently is the problem. I don't care how efficiently the car runs, if it costs me $50/Gal. to get the fuel. That and hydrogen is hard to store.

Back out the "%C2%A0" after .html....not sure why the added characters are there.......
If you had actually taken the time to READ, you would have understood that Mr. Meyers system CREATED the hydrogen onboard as he drove, "on the go", as it were. His system converted water into fuel AS IT RAN....it was NOT STORED. 100 mpg using WATER.
Nikola Tesla....why was all his research/knowledge confiscated by the government?........
Click to expand...
Sooo, how do we have his research?

Good question....maybe read the patents? There is a great deal of his research/patents available.
The bigger problem is understanding the technology with our limited intelect.
http://waterpoweredcar.com/teslascar.html I encourage you to research Tesla and his work.....I guarantee it will raise questions in your mind.
Click to expand...

The only question that I have is why people beleive some of this stuff. Tessla had some good ideas, but he also made up A LOT of crap. For instance, transmitting large amounts of electricity through the air. Look at high-tension power lines some time. Thats a huge amount of voltage running through them, but they cant even arc to the ground, a relatively short distance.

I challenge you to PROVE that he "made up" anything. Transmitting electricity is a COMMON occurance...ever hear of microwaves?, radio?, radar?
True, electricity can't be transmitted at the frequency that we commonly use (60hz) but Tesla WAS transmitting electricity at extremely HF ranges and made several PUBLIC displays while doing so.

By the way, heal the ozone? Flying saucer tech? Top notch site that is.

Research "lifters".....very simple electric devices that defy gravity....I've built a couple and have been amazed.
Click to expand...
 
I

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
Citizen wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
SNIP TANSTAAFL.
Click to expand...
Iraquoiscurse word?
Click to expand...


You need to read more Robert Heinlein, a liberty activist such as you. And google is your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL


EDIT: And you can call me a "naysayer", but the fact is you lose energy by first splitting water into H2 and O2 and then combining the two back together in a fuel cell or by burning it. It's a law of thermodynamics, and Mother Nature grants no exceptions. Gasoline, on the other hand, yields more energy than it took to pump the oil and refine it, which is why we still use it. Also, in terms of energy density (ie. joules per square meter) gasoline is hard to beat. Uranium is much better, but nuclear fission autos are a bit too dangerous.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is why for current hydrogen cars, the main source of hydrogen is... *drum roll* fossil fuels!

If anyone wants a solution, it's a two-fold approach: electric cars and nuclear power. The electric car half is now the easy one, as batteries now have the size and capacity to provide decent power over a decent range, comparable or exceeding gasoline vehicles. However, to get that electric in a plug-in capacity, one is deriving power from fossil fuel power plants, which make up the vast majority of power sources in the US. Nuclear power is the answer: clean, cheap, and safe. But everyone's so irrationally scared of it (ah! an open carry analogy!) that I doubt any more nulcear power plants will ever be built in this country before we collapse economically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top