Alternative Powerplants.

For you non believers go to http://www.water4gas.com

It looks hokey but the blueprints are for real and the science works. We out one on my dads Jeep and it is getting better gas mileage and is burning cleaner.
It only cost us about 40 bucks to build.


It works and any one who says it doesn't know what they are talking about. I thought it was fake but know I am eating my words...

 

No, Not even close. A hydrogen bomb is a fusion reaction. It has nothing to do with combustion.

 

I dunno, guys,I get a little, well, skeptical when people start quoting scripture to prove their theories. I think I've had enough of this topic. It's on the CHR forum, too, by the way.

 

Yeah no kidding. This COE guy clearly got taken by someone on this, and is having a hard time coming to grips with it. I just want to make sure no one else does...

 

i installed a flux capacitor in my shoe box,i can get it up to 88mph but i am not generating the 1.21 jigger watts needed to get back to 1950 ,to score me a pristine merc,anyone have some plans of this or a tech post that can help me.thanks

 

With ya Bort on this. Oxidizing of H-C molecules, adding "improvers" to the combustion process always seems to get a little murky. There are few (can't name one!) places where I've seen 2H2O use as a primary fuel. It's already in a lowest-energy-configuration, so apart from using it to prevent detonation (ie: GM's Turbo-fluid of the early sixties) it appears to support these types of claims. If you want to burn the Hydrogen, then by all means spend the energy to split the water molecule. Then measure what the toll is, as the H is encouraged to combust back to oxidized state. Newton and Carnot are helpful here to winnow out the claims. I believe the fractional losses cut into any gains.

 

Isn't that what happened to the Heidenberg?

"Oh the humanity!!!"

 

Please, do us a favor and define "better gas mileage" and "burns cleaner"

I'm certain you did some very objective and repeatable tests and didn't just "feel" like it made a difference...

 

you mean fission.

 

i am hesitant to make this post becausei can't remember the publication. mother earth news maybe?
i recall reading about a guy who built a tank to produce hydrogen to be introduced into the intake stream much like NO2. they claimed to be using vinegar and a reactant to produce the hydrogen by chemical reaction.
if this is possible, even if you have to use electricity to excite the reaction, why would the very combustable hydrogen not help to increase the combustion of gasoline in the cylinder of an engine? i assume there would need to be more oxygen present also?

 

No, I mean Fusion. Look it up, I just did.

 

Sure, there are tons of chemical reactions that release hydrogen.

And yes, you could burn it as a fuel in an IC engine.

At the end of the day, it will be cheaper to burn gasoline

 

Can't occur without fission, sorry.

 

I read this hole thread and its funny as hell . This has been tested and retested by the greatest mines of ower time and they have yet to make it work . I dont think the fng has figured it out in his truck . But it is funny

 

Fission triggers the fusion reaction. If you don't have a fusion reaction, it's not a hydrogen bomb and just a regular atom bomb.

Saying a hydrogen bomb is a fission reaction is like saying a fission bomb is a high-explosive detonation.

One is used to trigger the main event, but it is not the defining event itself.

 

my cats breath smells like cat food

 

I had the plans for my prototype warp drive using dilithium crystals on my PC but the hard drive crashed.

 

I was taught to call the fission reaction (and the HE pop as well for that matter) 'initiating energy'. Like if you are trying to light a fire, a match is kinda handy to get the process started (yeah there are other ways, but they all add energy to initiate the process).

 

the intent of the article was not to use it as a replacement for gasoline but as an additive to make the gasoline more efficient and last longer in between fill ups.

assuming this works, the only way it would be cost effective is if the cost of reactants is cheaper than the amount of gasoline need to cover the additional milage gained using the reactants.
the article i read said it was.
if that is true then there is no arguement, just reluctance to accept the technology. if it is not cheaper then there is need for more research. thats all i was getting at.
i was wondering about the combustion process of gasoline hydrogen and oxygen in the same chamber and wondering if additional oxygen would needto be introduced to support the combustion of the additional hydrogen fuel?

 

Yes, you cannot combust a fuel without an oxidizer.

And the reactants won't be cheap enough to make it cost effective.

 

A simple gas mileage test was done. Miles driven by gallons used. Before the cell and again after. Same conditions same type fuel.

Before the cell the car was getting 26mpg in town and 35mpg on the highway.
After the cell was installed the car is getting 378mpg in town and 48mpg on the highway.

A friend built a cell and had his car emissions tested before and after. The car barely passed the test before. After the cell was installed it passed with flying colors.

That was enough for me.

It works I don't know how but I have seen it with my own 2 eyes. If you don't believe it then fine. If so, great.

 

NotPete, I take it the 378 MPG is a fat fingered typo? I have that dificulty myself from time to time (well okay, I have to fix almost every post, what model did they use for keyboards anyways a 4 YO balerina or what?).

If you have details about your setup, please PM me as I am curious.

 

I "know" 48FordCOE from the Ford Trucks site; whatever you think of his typing or his science knowledge, he is a superb fabricator and bodyman and has created some unbelievably cool trucks.

 

If these things only cost $100 to build, instead of a $28 book, shouldn't he be selling us Hcells for.... I don't know... $1000 If they work, sounds fair to me. I'm just a "simple" Hot Rodder. Don't know nuttin bout Hydrogen...... I need more gas!!!! Oh, and Cheaper would be nice! Someone tell Santa for me. He stopped taking my requests a few years ago.

 

48fodcoe - Intersesting tactic....limited info, start a shit storm that is kinda fun to read, drop in few more details in the end, and then finish with a hard sell, for 22.00. Will they throw in a fuel atomizer, or Neodymium magnet, or Tornado intake vortex thingamajig to bump the mileage up another 400%?

IMHO, If this technology really was viable, or even remotely close to being viable the oils mongers would be all over it to diversify their fuel portfolio and capitalize upon it, not to suppress it.

 

But the accumulation of hydrogen in an enclosed area in the presence of a stray spark WILL ruin your day.....quite effectively I might add.

-Bigchief.

 

Okay, there are threads on using water, soda, and electricity to strip rust off of our parts. This gives off hydrogen as a by product. So make a parts stripping tank and put it in your trunk, and pipe the fumes into the engine. That way you get the rust off of your parts, and free fuel.

 

Praxair supplies the H2 and the refueling stations for GM (and others)....Praxair is not developing fuel cells. The fuel cells for GM are being developed where I work at the General Motors fuel cell research and development facility in Honeye Falls, NY.

-Bigchief.

 

So, I was right. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

God you are a fucking moron. These threads always bring them out.

The fission reaction in a hydrogen bomb is merely the fuse. The Fusion is where all the exciting stuff happens...

Alright - I am officially done with this thread .

Fun while it lasted..