why all "water car/hydrogen generators" are scams

[superdave1984]

Just because there is no written account of who invented the wheel doesn't make me wrong. It was clearly invented before any kind of educational system was developed. Therefore the inventor was uneducated. So, by the context of your question I am 1-1. Care to continue this discussion or will you simply revert to your established pattern of self-righteous condescension?

 

[MAKG]

Bullpoop. No one was taught anything?

You know absolutely nothing about the conditions under which the wheel was invented. Nor which culture invented it, where, or when. You are imposing YOUR reality on conditions you know nothing about. Also known as "talking out of your ass."

That people did not function as designers or engineers in prehistoric times is truly silly.

 

[superdave1984]

Look, here's the exact quote.

Name ONE invention made by an uneducated redneck, without the assistance of someone more educated

Websters defines educated this way

1: having an education; especially : having an education beyond the average <educated speakers>2 a: giving evidence of training or practice : skilled <educated hands> b: befitting one that is educated <educated taste> c: based on some knowledge of fact <an educated guess>

So without evidence of training or practice, logic tells us that prehistoric beings were not educated. And since no educational system existed either, they were, by definition, uneducated. But since you insist on debating this I offer you George Crum, an uneducated black man who invented the potato chip. I give you George Eastman who invented rolls of film. He never finished high school and while he did not invent the camera, he did perfect it. There are hundreds more, but you are not worth any more of my time since you are too ignorant and naive to think that something that seems impossible may actually be. While I do not debate your knowledge of physics and chemistry, hell you could be a professor of each for all I know, your complete and total inflexibility on topics and ideas you deem "stupid" is reason enough for me to conclude that you sir are simply a person who takes his own view of things and anyone who disagrees is deemed also to be stupid and not worthy of any actual work on your part to prove your own claims. You claim that these gadgets are scams, yet you don't have the slightest inclination to find out for yourself. Splitting the atom was once thought impossible as was space travel, flight, radio transmission, etc. Get over yourself. Until these gadgets are proven to be false then the possibility exists that they may in fact work as claimed. Until they are proven to be working and do as claimed the possibility also exists that they are bogus. Until it is proven scientifically either way, there is only opinion and theory. You are entitled to yours as I am entitled to mine. I honestly don't know if it works or not and I am holding judgment until I see some actual scientific testing. If someone has a link to some real, scientific tests for these devices I would be happy to read more on the subject.

 

[MAKG]

You conveniently forgot the part about "without the assistance of someone more educated."

Eastman did not work alone. This is well documented through his COMPANY. It took four years AFTER the founding of his company for the development of celluloid film. You mean to say he had no one with a rudimentary education working for him?

Education does not necessarily have to be formal. But it MUST be systematic and careful, or nothing happens.

And in what sense is a potato chip a useful device? The world would be just fine without ever having had any potato chips.

"Until proven to be false, the possibility exists".... Hmm. It HAS been proven to be false, but you understand the basics far too poorly to understand that.

Now, leave off the Google "research," since you've made it obvious you can search and misunderstand information off the web. You've taken an impossible and blatantly wrong argument, and have gone in circles trying to avoid "proving" it (since it's impossible). And you call me "full of myself?" I've at least understood the processes at hand, and attempted to explain them to you as far as the medium allows. To really understand it, you will simply HAVE to crack a textbook.

Now, going along the "you can't say it's impossible" track is what one commonly refers to as "weasel words." You can't prove much of anything beyond a doubt. Two counterexamples are (1) it's not impossible for all the air molecules in the room you are in to spontaneously leave the room for the next five minutes, and (2) it's not impossible (to you) that you've hallucinated my existence. But I wouldn't lose any sleep over either of those.

 

[superdave1984]

As I said before I have no idea about these gadgets. I would like to see it done firsthand and see results either way. If it works, it's a result. If it doesn't it's also a result. Let me ask you these questions which simply require a yes or no answer.
1. Can hydrogen be released by the methods described in these gadgets?
2. If you add hydrogen gas to the air/gasoline mixture of a vehicle, is it possible that the computer will adjust that mixture to compensate?
3. If the computer decides that there is too much fuel because of the hydrogen, adjusts the mixture and restricts the amount of gasoline in that mixture, wouldn't you get more miles per gallon of gasoline?
4. Is it also possible the computer will read the mixture as lean due to the added gas and increase the gasoline in the mixture to compensate?

 

[MAKG]

1. Can hydrogen be released by the methods described in these gadgets?

Yes, in very small quantities. But there is no NET release as the starting and ending points are the same (you make the hydrogen, then you burn it).

2. If you add hydrogen gas to the air/gasoline mixture of a vehicle, is it possible that the computer will adjust that mixture to compensate?

There is nothing to change. It comes with exactly the oxygen it needs to burn. But if it didn't somehow, yes the computer would compensate within wide bounds and lean the mixture.

3. If the computer decides that there is too much fuel because of the hydrogen, adjusts the mixture and restricts the amount of gasoline in that mixture, wouldn't you get more miles per gallon of gasoline?

No. The energy lives in the gasoline. You burn less gasoline, you get less energy. Which means you go fewer miles. It makes NO DIFFERENCE to mileage.

4. Is it also possible the computer will read the mixture as lean due to the added gas and increase the gasoline in the mixture to compensate?

No. See #2. There is no adaptation necessary.

The part you keep ignoring is that you start with water and you end with water. This means there is no gain possible, even in principle.

 

[superdave1984]

No. The energy lives in the gasoline. You burn less gasoline, you get less energy. Which means you go fewer miles. It makes NO DIFFERENCE to mileage.

What about the energy from the burning of the hydrogen? Will that not compensate for any reduction in gasoline? I will probably spend $30 and a few hours making one just to see what the end result will be. I think it will be an interesting experiment either way. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

[MAKG]

What about the energy from the burning of the hydrogen? Will that not compensate for any reduction in gasoline? I will probably spend $30 and a few hours making one just to see what the end result will be. I think it will be an interesting experiment either way. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

No. The energy from burning the hydrogen is EXACTLY (well, a little less) than the energy taken off the crankshaft to make it.

Before you go here, look up something called "confirmation bias." I've criticized people here before for flawed methodology related to that, and you will just add to the noise if you don't deal with it. That is, you will fail to determine anything (though you might seriously fool yourself).

You would do well to understand just where your energy is coming from. You're burning more fuel to make the hydrogen than you have any hope of recovering, even in principle. Any other result is Nobel-Prize caliber (having overturned 400 years of classical physics), so plan your methodology accordingly. That you don't seem to understand this argues very much against your result having any meaning at all; you will have to establish credibility.

 

[Evan]

When I was about 5, I had the idea of making a perpetual-motion go-cart.

It worked by having an electric motor drive an alternator. The alternator would in turn power the motor. Then you could tap that driveline mechanically in order to drive the go-cart.

Nobody, including my grandpa who is a Physicist and Electrical Engineer could convince me that my idea wouldn't work.

It would be almost a decade later before I understood the laws of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, etc. I needed a conceptual understanding of classical physics in order to see why my idea wouldn't work.

There is no such thing as free energy, even in nuclear fission and fusion. Energy is always conserved. The net energy in a closed system is always the SAME. You can only add energy by introducing it, like filling your car with gas.

Splitting 2 Oxygen atoms and a Hydrogen apart and then recombining them yields no net energy even in a perfect system.

 

[baddad457]

I was just watching a program that discussed nuclear fusion. They say it's possible, but yet no one's been able to do it. I guess in MAKG's universe, all the billions of dollars and man hours spent in trying to achieve this are also wasted

 

[Evan]

I was just watching a program that discussed nuclear fusion. They say it's possible, but yet no one's been able to do it. I guess in MAKG's universe, all the billions of dollars and man hours spent in trying to achieve this are also wasted

I didn't mean to imply fusion is impossible. I'm saying the energy obtained from fusion is not free, and it's conserved.

Of course it's possible. We've already done it. Have you ever heard of a hydrogen bomb?

The challenge lies in controlled fusion.

 

[baddad457]

I didn't mean to imply fusion is impossible. I'm saying the energy obtained from fusion is not free, and it's conserved.

Of course it's possible. We've already done it. Have you ever heard of a hydrogen bomb?

The challenge lies in controlled fusion.

That was FISSION. Fission/Fusion, they're two different things.

 

[Evan]

That was FISSION. Fission/Fusion, they're two different things.

No, a hydrogen bomb relies on FUSION to do its work. The fusion reaction is triggered by a fission reaction.

Did you really think I didn't know the difference between the two?

 

[Jason]

No, a hydrogen bomb relies on FUSION to do its work. The fusion reaction is triggered by a fission reaction.

Did you really think I didn't know the difference between the two?

Nuclear bombs use fission, or the splitting apart of atoms nuclei.. Fusion is what the sun uses.

An easy to read page for you all.
http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter13.html

 

[Evan]

Nuclear bombs use fission, or the splitting apart of atoms. Fusion is what the sun uses.

Ahhhh!

A hydrogen bomb uses nuclear FUSION to produce its energy.

The fusion reaction is triggered by a fission reaction.

Weaker nuclear bombs like the Fat Man rely on nuclear fission. The real early ones didn't even have plutonium and were surprisingly simple. They relied on a chemical explosion to shoot a uranium rod into a cluster of uranium "washers", resulting in critical mass.