why all "water car/hydrogen generators" are scams

[Jason]

um actually if you pay attention to the post I linked to an article about a gm hydrogen cell vehicle that got near 40mpg..sooo I'm not sure how you can say that that article disproved the theory behind hydrogen powering vehicles.

Hydrogen fuel cells do NOT burn hydrogen. They generate electricity through a chemical reaction involving hydrogen.

 

[Evan]

It does not create energy but it does convert energy from one form to another.
that is not violating physics and is acceptable.

But converting energy in a closed system from one form to another yields no net energy. The amount of energy is the same, before and after.

 

[phatcap]

No I do not because one there is simply not enough of a demand for them due to the reasons I mentioned before AND also because the people who know what they're doing are smart enough to make them themselves, work all the bugs out of them, and not pay double for someone else to make it. And no you didn't say that but what you did say is that because its not in a store it must not work at all..hmm..sounds pretty critically biased to me. hahaahaaaaa do you even watch the news, "they don't have that much control over the free market" hahahaaaaa. Shame on me..what am I supposed to be offended by that?

no, i did not say if its not in a store it doesn't work. and i meant they obviously don't have the control to stop people from making these and scamming people.

 

[BeefStew42791]

ok guys, I must take a moment and correct a statement. I was pondering this very argument over tonight and I realized that any time something explodes or combusts or even a simple wood fire there needs to be oxygen. Why? Because during the fire, whether instantaneous or prolonged, the matter being burned must become oxidized for it to accomplish anything. This is why the big fiery explosions from star wars and stuff are a violation of the laws of physics since there is no oxygen or even any air in space for that matter. Therefore one could argue that the hydrogen and oxygen molecules would combine to make water vapor as the hydrogen is oxidized. BUT this is not just hydrogen and oxygen here (unless the car is completely run on hydrogen). When you have a gasoline/HHO fuel source not only do you have the hydrogen vapors as a combustible gas you also have the liquid form of gasoline that combusts with oxygen being the reactor needed to set the gases ablaze in the compression of the piston. AFTER the combustion not just the hydrogen oxidizes but also the other exhaust gases do as well. Therefore this is all simply a part of the "natural" processes of an internal combustion engine. This does not violate the laws of physics in any way however because it is not as if water is just being poured into the engine. The building blocks of water (hydrogen and oxygen) have already been split apart so you do not have water going into the engine, but two gases, hydrogen, and oxygen.

 

[BeefStew42791]

Three atoms. H2O, two hydrogen atoms bond to one oxygen atom to copmplete the outer shells of all three atoms through electron sharing.

yes your right, my bad.

 

[BeefStew42791]

Damn, and I thought I was argumentative.

Here's what we'll do to try and settle this one way or the other. I have at my disposal a Ford escape with V-6, auto. I'll build one of these things and see what happens. First order of business is to get some accurate MPG data, highway and city over the course of a few weeks. Then make a couple controlled road tests on a long stretch of interstate, filling up before and after, setting the cruise at 65 and making then trip. Then install the thing and make the same trip, same gas pump, same MPH. Then keep MPG data for a few more weeks and report the data. If it works, fine. If it doesn't fine. But will everybody be satisfied with the results? Probably not. But I am honest enough to report whatever the data shows. And there WILL be written accounts. Deal?

make sure if you do this you watch EVERY angle. You must watch the o2 sensor as this will throw the whole reading of the computer off due to the added oxygen (air) amount. Also and I know it might sound dumb but do very thorough tests when building it, idk what design you plan on yousing but make sure the thing can carry current before you even test it. An easy way to do this is to have a spare housing without the top cap and you hook up some smaller jumper cables to the unit and power it on. Also be sure to use baking soda otherwise its pretty pointless as it can't split fast enough. But yea other then that this is pretty foolproof.

 

[BeefStew42791]

But converting energy in a closed system from one form to another yields no net energy. The amount of energy is the same, before and after.

There always is 0 net energy in any function. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Very simple. The fact that there is no net energy really doesn't make a difference because there is no net energy with gasoline either. You simply convert the kinetic energy stored in the gasoline molecules by the process of combustion to co2. Same thing with hydrogen except no co2.

 

[BeefStew42791]

no, i did not say if its not in a store it doesn't work. and i meant they obviously don't have the control to stop people from making these and scamming people.

Ah but what base do you have to say EVERY one of these is a scam? I will not deny the fact that this world is full of crooks BUT as proven with the good results of the ones who did put in an honest effort into these generators obviously is proof enough that they work. To say something is impossible AFTER its been done is pretty senseless to me.

 

[MAKG]

So, let me get this straight.

To prove that all product claiming to violate the laws of physics are scams, I have to test every one? Wow, you must be a scammer's dream.

At least you figured out part of combustion. It wasn't a miscommunication. It was a mistake, exclusively on your part.

And you clearly didn't understand the dictionary definitions you stole, since cations and anions and all that ARE tracking the electrons, as are all the other bits of obfuscation you threw in. And defining a catalyst as something that participates in catalysis is actually funny, because you seem to think that's valid. No, it does not count if you "define" a word as another form of the same word.

You can baffle some people by throwing out a bunch of more-or-less random technical terms you don't understand, but it really doesn't work when you try it on someone who actually understands it.

You don't have to watch the O2 sensors to test this. The Popular Mechanics article you quoted did something far better -- monitoring the injector pulse width. It's a simple, very good idea. Though it's not as controlled as one might like (the article alluded to this, but one would really like to put the thing on a chassis dyno so you can keep the load on the engine rigorously constant while measuring the instantaneous fuel consumption). An even better approach would be to control the switch with a random number generator, and try to discern from the data when it was on.

You see, one really is far better suited to comment on viability when one understands the systems.

And I just gotta ask -- what year in high school are you in?

FYI, NO ONE laughed at Newton. Don't make up history. He was, at a very early age, by far the most important and authoritative scientist in Europe at the time.

And Galileo was taken seriously enough in his time for the Pope to excommunicate him and sentence him to house arrest. Hardly laughing.

Einstein similarly had an extremely important post in the forerunner of the Max Planck Institut (then Kaiser Wilhelms Institut) in Berlin, until the Nazis drove him out. He had two startlingly important papers published in Phys.Rev. in the same issue in 1905. One was the first major Relativity paper. The other was the first viable explanation of photoelectricity -- which won him the Nobel Prize in physics. Once again, hardly laughing. He basically founded modern physics in one month.

As for the atomic bomb stuff, you do realize there were THREE bombs built by the Manhattan Project at the same time, and they were all substantially different from one another, right? "Fat Man" was one of them.

 

[rboyer]

OMG WTF?!?!? How many threads are there going to be on here to discuss this one single topic? The fact of the matter is that it DOESN'T WORK. You can make yourself believe that it will work if that floats your boat but it's not making your wallet any fatter. If you want to get better fuel mileage you have a few options:

1. Buy a motorcycle. If you need to carry stuff with you then get some saddle bags. If you can't balance yourself well for some reason then buy a trike, you'll still get over 50mpg.

2. Find a good source of junkyard gas. If you get it cheap enough you can use a damn F600 with a dump bed full of gravel as your daily driver.

3. Don't buy into scams which claim to give you better fuel mileage. The money you spent on the stupid kit plus the money you will spend on maintaining your charging system more frequently will fill your tank a few extra times a year.

4. You can put together some cheesy "Hydrogen Conversion" kits and scam a bunch of people every once in a while so that it pays the entire costs of your fuel expenses.

 

[Evan]

There always is 0 net energy in any function. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Very simple. The fact that there is no net energy really doesn't make a difference because there is no net energy with gasoline either. You simply convert the kinetic energy stored in the gasoline molecules by the process of combustion to co2. Same thing with hydrogen except no co2.

When you introduce gasoline into a closed ICE system you are adding useable energy to that system.

When you introduce water into the system, that can't be consumed by an ICE. So you need to use energy to break down the water in order to be able to use it. This energy is not needed in order to burn gas, and that's what makes gas and water totally different in this case.

For every gallon of water you use, one gallon is coming out the tail pipe. So if your system works, I could build a car that would use 1 gallon off gas, have a gallon come out the tail pipe, and still produce energy.

 

[BeefStew42791]

To prove that all product claiming to violate the laws of physics are scams, I have to test every one? Wow, you must be a scammer's dream.

And you clearly didn't understand the dictionary definitions you stole, since cations and anions and all that ARE tracking the electrons, as are all the other bits of obfuscation you threw in. And defining a catalyst as something that participates in catalysis is actually funny, because you seem to think that's valid. No, it does not count if you "define" a word as another form of the same word.

You can baffle some people by throwing out a bunch of more-or-less random technical terms you don't understand, but it really doesn't work when you try it on someone who actually understands it.

You don't have to watch the O2 sensors to test this. The Popular Mechanics article you quoted did something far better -- monitoring the injector pulse width. It's a simple, very good idea. Though it's not as controlled as one might like (the article alluded to this, but one would really like to put the thing on a chassis dyno so you can keep the load on the engine rigorously constant while measuring the instantaneous fuel consumption). An even better approach would be to control the switch with a random number generator, and try to discern from the data when it was on.

You see, one really is far better suited to comment on viability when one understands the systems.

And I just gotta ask -- what year in high school are you in?

FYI, NO ONE laughed at Newton. Don't make up history. He was, at a very early age, by far the most important and authoritative scientist in Europe at the time.

And Galileo was taken seriously enough in his time for the Pope to excommunicate him and sentence him to house arrest. Hardly laughing.

Einstein similarly had an extremely important post in the forerunner of the Max Planck Institut (then Kaiser Wilhelms Institut) in Berlin, until the Nazis drove him out. He had two startlingly important papers published in Phys.Rev. in the same issue in 1905. One was the first major Relativity paper. The other was the first viable explanation of photoelectricity -- which won him the Nobel Prize in physics. Once again, hardly laughing. He basically founded modern physics in one month.

To prove that a single product that YOU claim violate the laws of physics yes must be tested. So far I have seen no such testing from you or even an example of what physical law this violates. You've just repeated the same thing over and over again with no evidence supporting it. And just denying every factual response I bring up is hardly "evidence" especially since you give even no other viewpoint.

FYI you clearly don't understand the purpose of quotations. The fact that I quoted it means I didn't "steal" it as you say. I told you what the dictionary said, period end of discussion. If you won't even accept THAT then obviously you are the one who needs to reexamine your argument. And no, they are not "tracking" the electrons. They are the varying results of a change in the electron level of a substance. Furthermore if you took half the time to read my post instead of just spouting off you would see that that was not what I defined a catalyst as. I also included what a catalyst does in the process of catalysis. I hardly view that as another form of the same word.

Oh and you understand it? FYI how are people supposed to monitor the injector pulse with modern day equipment. That guy had money as no object. Yes the normal average joe would need to address the o2 sensor due to the fact that it would give a false read out of the required fuel level to the computer. and AGAIN I was not the one who quoted that article. READ THE POSTS.

I wholeheartedly agree. Which is why you really should research not all this "violates the laws of physics" mumbo jumbo but the actual design and use of a hydrogen generator as has been used by thousands of americans. When you can prove to me that what I helped design, witnessed with my own eyes, AND TESTED was all a dream and never happened then you might have a leg to stand on. You cannot prove that however because you have not taken the time to understand how a generator like this works. If you did the "laws of physics" would not be an issue.

And I hardly believe that a persons education level has any relativity in this discussion. What I will till you is that I have seen and witnessed this very "scam" you talk about and I can assure you the results are real and when its done right and not just slapped together it does work.

Fine, I'll accept that. But you trying to say that the pope excommunicating galileo and him being sentenced to house arrest is "taking him seriously" is down right laughable. I hardly believe that qualifies as him being taken seriously. They viewed him as a criminal for the things he said, which is why he was excomminucated.

Ok, thats nice. What does that have to do with the issue at hand? Nothing, that has nothing to do with proving the process of hydrogen being used as a fuel right or wrong.

 

[BeefStew42791]

When you introduce gasoline into a closed ICE system you are adding useable energy to that system.

When you introduce water into the system, that can't be consumed by an ICE. So you need to use energy to break down the water in order to be able to use it. This energy is not needed in order to burn gas, and that's what makes gas and water totally different in this case.

For every gallon of water you use, one gallon is coming out the tail pipe. So if your system works, I could build a car that would use 1 gallon off gas, have a gallon come out the tail pipe, and still produce energy.

Again, no "water" in its liquid state is being introduced into the system or being burned as gasoline is. You are taking hydrogen gas and oxygen gas and combining them with your regular fuel to make DAH DAH DAH a hybrid form of fuel. And yes your right no additional energy is required to burn the gas BUT think about how much energy is required to MAKE the gas. My uncle's system alone as an example can split water molecules with just 30 amps of electricity. When someone can make gasoline with only 30 amps of electricity then it will be an even match. That stuff you put in your gas tank doesn't just come out of the ground like that, it takes a LOT more then then 30 amps of electricity to make even one gallon of gas.

And I apologize but I fail to see the purpose of that last statement. Again, energy is not created, or produced as you said. The energy that you say comes from gas is what forces the piston back down which starts the whole line of events that consist of turning your tires. Even if you replace gasoline with a sufficient amount of hydrogen the same amount of force is still converted from the combustion of the hydrogen.

 

[Evan]

Again, no "water" in its liquid state is being introduced into the system or being burned as gasoline is.

Yes, it is water that's being introduced into the system because you're getting that Hydrogen from water. So you have to subtract the energy required to extract the Hydrogen from the water from your final output. And due to the fact that it's not a perfect system, that output is less.

Are you selling these kits or something? You must have a vested interest in these things, and less than an 8th grade education. I don't think you even really know what a system is from an energy standpoint.

 

[BeefStew42791]

No there is no water going into the engine. There's no way you can say there is. There is hydrogen and oxygen. Its like you've taken the processes from a hydrogen processing plant or something and shrunk them into a more compact use. As for it not being a perfect system, no your right. BUT no system made my man on this earth has ever been perfect. Your gasoline engine is even more imperfect then using hydrogen. Gasoline engines are only ever 20-30% efficient from the factory, I say that because people have modded them and all and would probably argue they get more. But hydrogen when it is used as a fuel is 50-70% efficient. So saying its not a perfect system is really quite retarded because if you are ever looking for a perfect system you'll be waiting a long time. And really you don't have to subtract any energy. Your alternator is already rechargine your battery and doing enough work that to add this unit there would be no additional effort required. Your energy is already there, being wasted.

And actually no, I'm not selling anything. I just love it when people try to use their "knowledge", when they haven't even researched the system let alone test it and see it work, to say that something that has been done is impossible. And I really don't think you know what your talking about. Something that has been done cannot possibly be proved to be impossible.