Denny Klein - Fuel from Water - Is this a scam?

[calladus]

One of my co-workers send me information on a Denny Klein who has just applied for a patent on a water to fuel technology.

He says he's discovered a 'new property' of water (which I take as a buzzword for 'fraud'). He calls his discovery HHO (as apposed to H2O)

The problem is that I don't know near enough chemistry to figure out if this guy is talking out of his hat.

Anyone want to look at this guy's claims?

His patent application number is: 20060075683 and can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/np2hn from the USPTO search function located at:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html

There's a Wiki that contains a Fox News video at:
http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Hydrogen_Technology_Applications_Inc#Vid eo_Feature

And Klein's web site is at:
http://hytechapps.com/


I guess it's time to crack open my old Chemistry text book.

[ChristineR]

HOH is more correct way of writing it, as its actually a hydrogen atom bonded to a hydroxide ion. I like hydrogen hydroxide better than the more common "dihydron monoxide."

[Crossbow]

It sure sounds like a scam!

A few excerpts from their web site ...

When the H2O Model 1500 Aquygen™ Gas Generator is used as a gas welder, Aquygen™ Gas can weld, cut, braze, solder, metal clad and fuse materials such as ceramics, metals, cermets, glass, plastics and inter-metallic materials together, such as metal-to-metal, metal to glass, ferrous to non*ferrous, and dissimilar metals to each other, which is a true fusion process heretofore unavailable.

How one could weld metal to glass to plastic to cement is beyond me. I have never even heard of such a thing being theorized.

Our technology centers on the ability to generate a unique type of hydrogen/oxygen gas mixture (a "unique gas", which we call "Aquygen™" gas) on demand from a lightweight, compact machine that uses the water electrolysis process as its underlying technology basis.

This unique gas is infinitely stable until it comes in contact with a select target media. Then it sublimates, causing a molecular surface exchange of certain elements, reacting with such excitation as to cause temperatures of up to 10,000° F, the temperature of our Sun's surface, which is currently the limits of our ability to measure.

An infinitely stable gas? That sure is weird.

Also, their fuel is apparently nothing more than a special mix of hydrogen and oxygen; but I have no idea (nor does the web site spell out) how this mix can reach such high temperatures without the use of some very, very specialized equipment.

Finally, they are selling 'Licenses' so that one can become a dealer for their company. One often sees this trick on scam web sites.

[davefoc]

I also don't have any special insight into what they are talking about but if one wanted to make something sound like a scam, this sight might be a good source of ideas.

This from the site:
The ability to create this stable, unique gas on demand from a water electrochemical generator is of great strategic importance, especially because (1) it offers a workable energy level per pound of fuel that is ten-to-twelve times that of gasoline; (2) when combusted/ignited, it causes no hydrocarbon effluents such as NOX, nitrites, nitrates, etc., and (3) its by-product from combustion is pure, environmentally-friendly water.

According to several web sites burning hydrogen produces about three times as much energy as burning gasoline per equivalent mass. So the energy density (by mass) of their gas is about three times higher than pure hydrogen. The other claims are a little dodgy also. Burning hydrogen doesn't produce hydrocarbons because hydrogen doesn't contain carbon but burning hydrogen in the air does produce NOX (which I don't believe are classified as hydrocarbons). If their gas consisted of a mix of hydrogen and oxygen it wouldn't produce NOX when it was burned because the hydrogen was being burned in a pure oxygen environment. But if they were doing that then one would expect the energy density of their gas to be much lower.

So amongst the properties of their gas are:
1. burning it produces pure water
2. it has three times the energy density of pure hydrogen

So from this we can conclude that their gas isn't hydrogen or a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen because the energy density is so high and that their gas is hydrogen because burning it produces water.

[TobiasTheViking]

total woo
HHO == HOH == OHH == H2O

There is no difference

it is like saying:
I've found a new property of water (2*2*4), instead of combining it as usual water (2*2*4) we combine it like this (2*4*2) and thus get AMAZING NEW ABILITIES.

In case you haven't done math in some time 2*4*2 == 2*2*4.

Same difference.

Total woo.

[patnray]

This unique gas is infinitely stable until it comes in contact with a select target media. Then it sublimates, causing a molecular surface exchange of certain elements, reacting with such excitation as to cause temperatures of up to 10,000° F, the temperature of our Sun's surface, which is currently the limits of our ability to measure.[/I]
I'd be interested in knowing how a gas sublimates since sublimation is the process of changing directly from solid to gas without going through a liquid phase (like dry ice).

And we can surely measure temperatures hotter than the sun's surface...

[Alkatran]

And we can surely measure temperatures hotter than the sun's surface...

No kidding. Even if all our 'thermometers' maxed out at some value, we could just measure from further away and extrapolate the real value. GAH!

[Meffy]

I'd be interested in knowing how a gas sublimates since sublimation is the process of changing directly from solid to gas without going through a liquid phase (like dry ice).
Maybe this is a new kind of sublimation -- conversion into subtle matter. I'd have preferred sublime matter but I've never heard of any such thing.

Then again... *googles* Ah. I should've known. Every time I try to come up with an idea too far-fetched to have been thought of before, I fail. Sublime matter seems to be involved in spiritualism. :-S

Righty then, conversion into sublime matter it is.

(BTW, back in the days when football fields were made of real grass, turf was a kind of sublime matter.)

[anor277]

total woo
HHO == HOH == OHH == H2O

There is no difference

it is like saying:
I've found a new property of water (2*2*4), instead of combining it as usual water (2*2*4) we combine it like this (2*4*2) and thus get AMAZING NEW ABILITIES.

In case you haven't done math in some time 2*4*2 == 2*2*4.

Same difference.

Total woo.


As written H-H-O would be a distinct chemical entity from H-O-H, even if their chemical formulae are the same. Only problem is that the H-H-O molecule is unknown. If Denny Klein has isolated this species he will probably be hailed as the inorganic chemist of the century.

[Timothy]

One of my co-workers send me information on a Denny Klein who has just applied for a patent on a water to fuel technology.

Please remember that the existence of a patent application has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of any claim.

If I wanted to, I could pay the bucks and show you a similar patent application for my quantum-levitating-psychic-astrological-orb-generator-and-combination-wand-for-turning-lead-into-gold.

All an application means is that someone took the time and expense to file an application. It appears as if this patent application was filed to be able to try to fool the gullible using the fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Even a granted patent does not necessarily mean the device works. I've seen a patent for a perpetual motion machine, sufficiently cloaked in technical mumbo-jumbo. All it means was that the design, as stated, was original and did not infringe on a previous patent.

- Timothy

[LTC8K6]

Sounds like a recycling of the old Brown's Gas claims that never went anywhere.

[Oldpossum]

Compleate and utter woo......

Well maybe not compleatly, as there was once apon a time, a welding gas, known as Brown's Gas.
This gas was moderatly stable under normal operating conditions, but cylinders of this gas had an unfortunate tendency to wander into the realm of Exothermic instability, when their contents pressure fell below, iirc, 200 psi.

ie the cylinders had a nasty tendency to blow up, if close to empty.

Hence the very brief existance of the gas mixture for commercial applications, before it promptly disapeared back into obscurity.

Other than that minor defect, Brown's gas gave a very hot, clean flame, and was suitible to be used to weld/cut all sorts of material, and could even be used for welding/cutting ceramics/glass.
And you only had to invest in one cylinder, regulator, and hose!
So much more convenient to lug around that two seperate cylinders of oxygen and fuel!

And more to the point the only oxidation byproduct was.......












Water

Yes, Brown's Gas was a mix of 11% Hydrogen in Oxygen.:D

[Ririon]

A product, too good to be true, that will probably kill any costumer... How Dilbert-esque. :)

[calladus]

Please remember that the existence of a patent application has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of any claim.
- Timothy

As the holder of a couple of Engineering patents, and from doing a lot of patent research, I can attest to that.

The only hard & fast rule the USPO seems to have, is no perpetual motion machines. However, they don't seem to have a problem with perpetual energy machines.

Patent's don't mean that something works, they just give the holder exclusive rights to sell their device for a period of time. Whether they sell a wonderful product or snake oil is up to them.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

HOH is more correct way of writing it, as its actually a hydrogen atom bonded to a hydroxide ion. I like hydrogen hydroxide better than the more common "dihydron monoxide."
You're very blase about such a deadly chemical - see http://www.dhmo.org/.

Yuri

[pgwenthold]

As written H-H-O would be a distinct chemical entity from H-O-H, even if their chemical formulae are the same. Only problem is that the H-H-O molecule is unknown. If Denny Klein has isolated this species he will probably be hailed as the inorganic chemist of the century.

Define "isolated"?

I actually know of a way to study the isolated, gas-phase molecule (you can access it by photodetaching the oxygen anion-hydrogen cluster, although making that cluster requires pretty good cooling). Definately the isolated molecule. Definately not bulk material.

[pgwenthold]

Also, their fuel is apparently nothing more than a special mix of hydrogen and oxygen; but I have no idea (nor does the web site spell out) how this mix can reach such high temperatures without the use of some very, very specialized equipment.

It depends on the heat capacity of the material. If the material in question has a low heat capacity, then it wouldn't be too much of a challenge to get the temperature up. Burning hydrogen is extremely exothermic, and is also very rapid (a hydrogen/oxygen mixture explodes much more rapidly than pure hydrogen). Therefore, if you can direct the combustion, you can get pretty hot.

[davefoc]

Based on some reading on various Brown's gas sites I think I understand the claims a little bit better.

As was suggested the site referenced claims are so similar to Brown's gas claims as to make it seem very likely that this is what they are talking about although for their own purposes they seem to have changed some of the terminology in an attempt to hide that fact.

There seem to be three common basic claims for Brown's gas:
1. Browns's gas consists of a stoichiometric of monatomic oxygen and hydrogen.
2. The Brown's gas electrolysis process produces this mixture of monatomic oxygen and hydrogen whereas a normal electrolysis process produces mostly diatomic oxygen and diatomic hydrogen.
3. The mostly monatomic gas produces substantially more energy when it is burned because the oxygen doesn't need to break down into monatomic oxygen before combining with the hydrogen to make water.

I don't know enough ehemistry to be able to comment on the above claims. It does appear that it is possible to make a mixture of largely monatomic oxygen. Apparently NASA has developed a process for that because they have developed a device for cleaining old paintings with a jet of monatomic oxygen. The idea is that monatomic oxygen is super reactive and it combines rapidly with some substances so as to remove them from the painting. In one demonstration they showed a jet of monatomic oxygen being used to remove lipstick.

I couldn't find anything on the web that talked about the increased energy produced by a reactiion with monatomic oxygen as opposed to diatomic oxygen. I also didn't find anything that addressed the claims that monatomic oxygen was produced by the Brown's gas electrolysis process that wasn't some kind of Brown's gas site.

Wikipedia had a somwhat skeptical overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown%27s_gas

[rjh01]

I would have thought that as soon as two oxygen atoms meet they will react and form an oxygen molecule.

Also be very hard to get oxygen atoms.

[Meffy]

Yowsah, I'm surprised/puzzled too.

[Aepervius]

The only monoatomic gas which exists in stable state I know of, are rare gas.
This is a simple question of their surrounding outer sheel. IIRC, O is S2S2P4, which with another O will make a nice sigma and Pi bond, but will certainly not be unreactive in presence of unbonded other Oxygens. Imagine 2 radical together in a gas....

Imagining this is a ionic gas in stable condition is even worse. O2- and H+ won't stay really alone in a gas bottle if you do not make a plasma. They will recombinate.

Plus the claim is quite LAUGHABLE :
The new combustible gas is comprised of clusters of hydrogen and oxygen atoms structured according to a general formula H.sub.mO.sub.n wherein m and n have null or positive integer values with the exception that m and n can not be 0 at the same time, and wherein said combustible gas has a varying energy content depending on its use.
In other word the gas might as well be defined as a mixture of H2 (m=2, n=0) and O2 (m=0 and n=2) , with two O atomic clustered together (in an O2 molecule) and same for H clustered together in a molecule. There are no other gas configuration which are stable (even H2O would be quite liquid if I remmember correctly my phase diagram at high pressure and normal temperature).

In other word, since the claimant DID NOT WANT to say this is freakingly simple misture of H2 O2 molecule he came up with a verbiage which can muddle the meaning for a normal people (investor venture for example). Any true chemist recognize it for what it is. He make a lot of claim of structure with different weight (16,17 I bet he is doing mass spectroscopy which could explain it) but since I can't see any picture/figure especially NMR or infrared one I can't see how he came to the claim. Nonetheless having such structure in a gas at normal temp and high pressure without reaction would be quite surprising. ButI am ready to eat my hat if I am wrong, after all this is more than 15 years I did not do chemistery.

If the claim from this guy were ture he would get a nobel immediatly (for non valente bond at those PVT conditions), and the whole world would pill money in his arms. Funny how no scientific came with this new form of water combustile but he could.

Even if this guy came with a GREAT way to make a mixture of H2+O2 , YOU CANNOT GET MORE ENERGY RECOMBINING WATER THAN YOU DID SPLITTING IT. At best this is a zero gain (you put as much as you get) and you only us O2 and h2 for storage (which is the most interresting application). So if he has such a great way of splitting water, why hide it behind new structure which do not follow valence rules (SIC) ??? THis is a SCAM.

[davefoc]

It seems that the author of the site referenced in the opening post is probably full of crap. Exactly why he didn't mention the Brown's gas connection to his product isn't clear, but perhaps he felt that giving a new name to an old scam was a good idea.

But could there be anything to the Brown's gas claims?

It does appear to be possible to produce a stable stream of monatomic oxygen. From a NASA site: ... In this apparatus, monatomic oxygen is generated in a dc arc in a mixture of oxygen flowing at rate of 0.1 to 0.2 L/min and helium flowing at a rate of 4.3 L/min. The role of the helium is to inhibit the recombination of monatomic oxygen into diatomic oxygen.
from this site: http://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/June01/LEW16971.html

But in the NASA product it was necessary to surround the monatomic oxygen with helium. Could hydrogen serve the same purpose? I don't know but I couldn't find any confirming data for the idea.

And I did find this web site which seems to shoot down just about every aspect of the Brown's gas claims including its usefulness as a fuel for welding torches.

http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm

One interesting thing I noticed from the site was that somebody had tried to explain the anomalous characteristics of Brown's gas as being caused by hydrinos. It would seem to be better before writing a research paper to explain a parituclar effect that one actualy have a real effect to explain. But Mr.Ymamoto did not seem to be so constrained. He seems to have written a research paper to explain an effect which doesn't exist with a cause that doesn't exist. At least he had symetry going for him.

[Dilb]

[SIZE=2]It does appear to be possible to produce a stable stream of monatomic oxygen.


That's not stable, it just doesn't have time to recombine before it hits the painting. Trying to stop oxygen from reacting by using hydrogen would simply cause the hydrogen to burn.

The only stable monatomic gases are the noble gases, and even some of those can be made to react anyway, admittedly only with highly reactive elements. It's something like having a box full of magnets (->atoms) that you can shake around (->are moving with thermal energy). The magnets will automatically bond together, and there's no way to stop that over any reasonable length of time.

[Aepervius]

This is why in my own post I suppose we have a bottle of highly pressurised at stable temperature Gas. If you start having plasma, or latticed Ice, or what not other unstable condition, all bet are off. Hell, I should know because I studdied some strange compound in latticed dry ice using infrared specter, on what was at that time 15 years ago one out of 3 rare infrared long path spectrometer in the world (at least that is what the ad for labor in the university said...). And the previous year I had studied a way using gas of H2 and CH4 to get the temperature of a plasma and alpha constant, when we were fabricating diamond lens. Heck I even played with other more exotic element like sulfoxyde in latice.

You can do every kind of stuff in non stable condition. but as soon as you go back to a stable equilibrum in normal PST you are SOL. In other word this guy throw claim like "non valence bond" without explaining why in the hell electrolyse of water would suddenly start building new compound, and why those new compound are stable.

Verdict : SCAM.

[Aepervius]

They have for example what looks like water vapor spectra with gas. Orbital which are localised like thoroid. As a quantum physiker I can only both laugh myself dead, and at the same time give a lot of admiration. This really look like a scientific paper. And can certainly lead somebody to think this is real. But a give away is figure 14. The H2 molecules. They look like small sphere together, but in reality the electron density does not look like that : it would looke like a big lump in the middle of the 2 H (for e- density) (for those which want to google for reference : google fo sigma bond in molecular dihidrogen).

I have to bow down, those guy made a wonderful paper. scammer make relly a good job.

PS: the article is funny and full of far more "problem" I just choose one which spring to my eye when skip-reading.

[Oldpossum]

Now Brown's Gas supposedly being a mixture of Monoatomic Oxygen and hydrogen I had not heard of before, and as someone else has already pointed out, such a claim is compleate horse manure.
There is no way a monoatomic H or O is going to exist for more than a microsecond before combining with something in the environment, and if generated by electrolysis, this is most likely another H or O, to form the regular, stable diatomic gas.

The Brown's gas I have briefly (as humanly posssible) come in contact with was a mix of 11% H2 in O2, and was freaking dangerous stuff.
I go rid of it as soon as possible after a co-worker found a 7 m3 cylinder of it in an old lab, that someone long ago, had been using for some now forgotten experiment.

[nseidm1]

Without further X-ray analysis, the best explanation is that Brown's Gas consists of electrically expanded water. When water is electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen are produced, if the hydrogen and oxygen are allowed to recombine in the presence of conductive material it will form water and electricty, such is the operation of a fuel cell. Brown's Gas is the result of allowing hydrogen and oxygen to recombine while not in the presence of conductive material.

[Ririon]

Without further X-ray analysis, the best explanation is that Brown's Gas consists of electrically expanded water. When water is electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen are produced, if the hydrogen and oxygen are allowed to recombine in the presence of conductive material it will form water and electricty, such is the operation of a fuel cell. Brown's Gas is the result of allowing hydrogen and oxygen to recombine while not in the presence of conductive material.
Welcome, but I'm afraid: NO. Sorry.

[gfunkusarelius]

sorry if i have missed something obvious here, but i am just wondering, if this "fuel source" is totally bogus, what is this guy doing? is he a total fraud? is his "hybrid" car actually just a gas car with a coupl eof additions to make a layperson think "yep, its runnin on water." or is he just doing something that is easily explainable and not really useful? just curious because the news program was seriously scammed if he is just a trcikster.

[davefoc]

sorry if i have missed something obvious here, but i am just wondering, if this "fuel source" is totally bogus, what is this guy doing? is he a total fraud? is his "hybrid" car actually just a gas car with a coupl eof additions to make a layperson think "yep, its runnin on water." or is he just doing something that is easily explainable and not really useful? just curious because the news program was seriously scammed if he is just a trcikster.

I think there are several questions that are part of your overall question:

1. Are this guy's claims basically the same as the Brown's gas claims.

It seems so.

2. Is there any significant Brown's gas claims that are true:

Probably not. See the responses from several people in this thread plus some of the links including this one:
http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm

3. Is this guy committing knowing fraud or is he a dupe himself. I lean to knowing fraud. He didn't mention Brown's gas probably because he realized that those claims had been thoroughly debunked. His claims concerning his welding gear are easily tested and it seems unlikely that he would be unaware of the failure of those tests.

4. Is there any purpose for a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen?

A guy by the name of William A. Rhodes patented the concept eleven years before the Brown's gas patents. It does seem that a hydrogen/oxygen mixture can be used for welding, but I couldn't find anything on the net that sounded like a legitimate source that promoted Rhodes/Brown's gas mixtures for any welding purposes.

[nseidm1]

My statement was not a question. It is based on my research observations, and an interpretation of research done by a Dr. Anders Nillson at Stanford University that has recently been mentioned in an article written about his work published in the Wall Street Journal on Friday March 10th on the front page. My statement is one of many competing theories that all have potential to explain how the properties of Brown's Gas (HHO, Hydrogen Based Fuel) come to be. More research is required to determine how its properties come to be, but it is undeniable that Brown's Gas can be used as a carbon fuel enhancer, and a torch fuel. As a torch fuel Brown's Gas technologies have been used in industry for the past several decades, and now using Brown's Gas as a carbon fuel enhancer is starting to catch on as well.

[nseidm1]

Buy a Brown's Gas torch to find out why its impressive technology.
Put a Brown's Gas generator in a vehicle and tweak your air fuel mixture. See what happens to your MPG.

Dont look on the internet for what other people have done, do it for yourself.

[JamesM]

My statement was not a question. It is based on my research observations, and an interpretation of research done by a Dr. Anders Nillson at Stanford University Perhaps you could expand on what aspects of Nilsson's work you think provides support for the concept of 'electrically expanded water' - I just looked up his recent publications and I couldn't see anything relevant.

[DALAYNE]

It seems to me that there are some of you out there who want to write this off as a scam without thinking about what he is really doing. Previous posts have made the point that it appears to be Brown's gas, and that it has problems exploding when storage tanks are low. The process that makes it viable is that he is not storing the gas, but using it as it is produced, thereby removing the risks. I don't expect this to be the one great thing that helps us not be dependent on fossil fuel, but it certainly is a step in the right direction. I sincerely hope that he is successful and continues his research in this field.

[davefoc]

It seems to me that there are some of you out there who want to write this off as a scam without thinking about what he is really doing. Previous posts have made the point that it appears to be Brown's gas, and that it has problems exploding when storage tanks are low. The process that makes it viable is that he is not storing the gas, but using it as it is produced, thereby removing the risks. I don't expect this to be the one great thing that helps us not be dependent on fossil fuel, but it certainly is a step in the right direction. I sincerely hope that he is successful and continues his research in this field.
Hi DALAYNE and welcome to the forum,

Making Brown's gas on the fly instead of storing it seems not to be unigue to this guy's claims.

For instance:
http://www.energyoptions.com/tech/browns.html

I don't think anybody wants to write this off as a scam in the sense we wouldn't like to see evidence of a new physical phenomena or evidence of a process that can replace gasoline or evidence of a new useful invention like the welding machine described on the site.

However, there are numerous reasons to be skeptical of the claims from this web site. Among them:

1. Tie in to Brown's gas not mentioned and yet the claims and the approach are very similar. Why wouldn't this inventor credit those who have gone before?

2. The Brown's gas patent has been around since 1977 so there is nothing pariticularly new here and yet there are no devices based on Brown's gas except for the welding machines. But even the welding machines don't seem to have any significant industry useage or acceptance. Why not? The most likely explanation is that Brown's gas welders don't offer significant advantages over existing technology.

3. Claims of much larger than normal energy production or efficiency are relatively easy to verify by independent test labs. Where are the reports from independent test labs about this guy's claims of larger than normal energy production from the burning of his gas mixture?

4. A patent for a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen predates the Brown's gas claims and that patent holder, (Rhodes), doesn't believe there is anything to the claims for Brown's gas.

5. The nature of the guy's claims suggest devices with the potential to be extremely valuable. Why hasn't a major company picked up on the guy's claims and attempted to exploit them?

This is a site I came across promoting Brown's gas welding machines but it seems to have a comprehensive list of links to sites on the web that have to do with Brown's Gas:
http://www.eagle-research.com/Links/BG/bglink.html

[Ririon]

Buy a Brown's Gas torch to find out why its impressive technology.
Put a Brown's Gas generator in a vehicle and tweak your air fuel mixture. See what happens to your MPG.

Dont look on the internet for what other people have done, do it for yourself.
So... You electrolyze water in your car. That takes energy. And it is not 100 % efficient. Then you burn the hydrogen (and oxygen? :eek:) in your car engine. That is certainly not very efficient, so you will not be close to getting back the energy you just used to make the hydrogen and oxygen. Add to that the weight you have added to your car by installing the system.

This is dangerous, hurts your fuel efficiency and can damage your car engine. That is what I found out without using the internet. It has no positive side that I can see whatsoever and several negative sides even before we start talking about cost. What am I missing?

[macgyver]

Trying to improve efficiency is admirable in internal combustion engines, but I'm not sure how that's going to be accomplished without re-engineering the engine for this new HHO/carbon fuel mixture? Otherwise, how is this any different than say NO2 injection?

Perhaps if energy during braking was somehow captured and used to produce the gas?

I've read that one of the problems with Brown's gas is that it has a tendency to oxidize what it comes in contact with (not surprisingly). This makes it useless as a welding fuel because the resulting welds are brittle. I can only imagine a similar occurance within the combustion chamber as well, unless some form of modification is made (ceramics perhaps?).

I have a lot of suspicion around a simple "plug and play" approach....how do modern Oxygen sensors and air/fuel computers react to this new fuel mixture?

[ChristineR]

Mythbusters tried it, and the car wouldn't even run. Of course they may not have "tweaked" it right.

[Dilb]

My statement is one of many competing theories that all have potential to explain how the properties of Brown's Gas (HHO, Hydrogen Based Fuel) come to be.

The problem is that there's nothing to explain. It's a mixture of diatomic hydrogen and oxygen. Every property is perfectly understood within classical thermodynamics. Futhermore, your "theory" so grossly misunderstands fuel cells and basic chemistry that it's utterly rediculous.

The best explanation, which is usually presented to little children as a science demonstration of why oxygen is good for burning things, it that combining oxygen and hydrogen gives you an explosion.

[Hindmost]

This guy has been using techno-babble that would make Douglas Adams proud to try to fool people into buying his machine. Chemistry and thermodynamics will not support Brown's gas or Aquygen™ Gas claims. Water cannot be split into hydrogen and oxygen with electricity and then recombined into water without losing some energy in the process. Entropy still rules. And chemistry won't allow HHO to even form. I think he used to claim govt/oil company conspiracy to keep this away from the public. This has standard woo engraved in its claims. If you still believe in the claims, take a thermodynamics class and a basic chemistry class. Your money would be better spent.

glenn

[mlrosier]

First and foremost, look at this man...Stanley A. Meyer, may he rest in peace.... www(dot)waterfuelcell(dot)org/

Second, this one is indeed interesting...
hytechapps(dot)com

and

youtube(dot)com/watch?v=HF__Qlhtnws&search=water%20power

And finally....This....(You need to download and install RealPlayer to view this one. It's worth the extra few minutes of time though.)

www(dot)gigagone(dot)com/video/view(dot)php?video=6a6c1d04c6a09f09c9e4a7fba0a6378 4

(dot) = .

I feel these links are important, but I'm not going to make 15 posts on here so that I can share information.

[Ririon]

...
I feel these links are important, but I'm not going to make 15 posts on here so that I can share information.
Beside your feelings and some links, what is your contribution?

[davefoc]

Hello mlrosier and welcome to the forum,
I checked out your first link:
http://www.waterfuelcell.org/

and tried to find something of substance. I found this site:
http://www.wheels24.co.za/Wheels24/News/0,,1369-1372_1605834,00.html

This site seems to make claims about how they have discovered some way to power a car with a greatly reduced need for energy:

Developed by Nelspruit research and development company Ku-Shan Technologies, the device uses electricity from the car's battery to turn water into a gas known as hydroxy, or Brown's Gas.
This gas is then re-aligned using Ku-Shan's process - patents have been applied for - to make it suitable for use in an ordinary petrol engine.


The article concludes with this:De Beer said he was currently looking for investors to take the device to market.

OK, so what we have here seems to be the fairly routine claims of yet another inventer or set of inventers that they have discovered something of staggering value and all that is necessary is for a few investors to come forth with a few bucks and the world will be transformed and the investors will of course become staggeringly wealthy because they are lucky enough to get in on the ground floor of this opportunity.

Perhaps you might consider that it reduces their credibility a little that underlying their claim is Brown's gas which has been around since at least 1977 and as yet to become the basis for any significant products or even to be recognized by main stream science as something different than a routine stoichiometiric mix of hydrogen and oxygen. Or perhaps you don't think that. If you find their claims credible then perhaps you could explain to us why this particular group is different than all the other folks out their that have pitched bogus schemes for powering atuomobiles.

[Barbarossa]

A little knowledge of physics saves a lot of discussion: the second law of thermodynamics (notice that it's a "law" not a supposition) denies the possibility of any device producing more energy than is put into it. Just as a mathematician doesn't have to waste time examining a supposed proof that pi is equal to something other than 3.141592653..., a physicist doesn't have to examine a claim that amounts to a perpetual-motion machine.

[NobbyNobbs]

I'd be interested in knowing how a gas sublimates since sublimation is the process of changing directly from solid to gas without going through a liquid phase (like dry ice).

And we can surely measure temperatures hotter than the sun's surface...

"Sublimation" also refers to the reverse process...that of going from gas straight to solid. Though I don't know of any materials that do that under normal conditions, offhand.

Not that this helps the inventor any. He's still full of [rule8].

[Ririon]

"Sublimation" also refers to the reverse process...that of going from gas straight to solid. Though I don't know of any materials that do that under normal conditions, offhand.

Not that this helps the inventor any. He's still full of [rule8].
The reverse of sublimation is deposition. Not that it helps this scam in any way.

[rjh01]

Ignore this. Not relevant.

[willgorman]

Hello... I'm new to this forum, and I'm not a chemist or a physicist. I'm a true believer in the statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". On that note, If you were a scammer, would you:

A) Ignore previous research and rebrand Brown's Gas as your invention

or

B) Publish a scientific article about your invention and explain why it's not Brown's Gas

Here's the article, published in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy:

NOTE: I can't link to another site until I publish 15 messages, so Go to hytechapps_DOT_com and then /presentation/linked%20files/Hydro%20Tech/user%20added/Santilli,%20International%20Journal.pdf

or go to sciencedirect_DOT_com and search for "a new gaseous and combustible form of water"

Although I don't have the qualifications to debunk or credit this paper, at least they published. From reading the article, they seem to directly address why their invention is not Brown's Gas. This decreases my initial assumption that this is a scam. Your thoughts?

[davefoc]

willgorman,
welcome to the forum. I do intend to follow your links, although I was an electrical engineer and not a chemist so I am not sure I will have much to say about the article you have linked to.

I have noticed that there is an extraordinary number of posters in this thread that are new to the forum.

Could some of the new posters explain how this has happened?

Thanks,
Dave

ETA:
Here's your link so that it can be clicked on
http://hytechapps.com/presentation/linked%20files/Hydro%20Tech/user%20added/Santilli,%20International%20Journal.pdf

[JamesM]

Hmm, this Ruggero Maria Santilli seems like an interesting fellow. Can any physicists tell me, what are the reputations of journals like Bulletin of the American Physical Society, Physical Review D and Journal of Mathematical Physics? That's where he was publishing in the late 60s and 70s.

These days he appears to mainly publish his work in International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, where he is being ignored by the chemistry community - each paper gets between 0-5 citations, but they're nearly all self-citations.

I would have thought a big hitter like Journal of the American Chemical Society, not to mention Nature and Science (and the Nobel Prize committee) would be a little more interested if he really has discovered the 'hadronic chemistry', the 'magnecule' and the 'magnecular' HH bond.

[smarcy2]

I have read entries here and on other chat rooms. I am interested in his use in automobiles not welding. Here are a few observations and questions.


1. Most automobiles run their alternators all the time. That is they don't have a clutch to remove the load from the engine. This burns fuel, and the load is wasted. The car battery only needs a limited amount of electricity to recharge it. Many hybrid cars solve this by selectively running their alternator. They have a clutch engage/disengage mechanism of some sort (it only engages the alternator when the battery requires charging).

2. Rather than shut off the alternator, this new system makes use of this wasted electricity or load.

3. He does not store the HHO gas so there is no relative little increase in the danger of explosion. It is used on demand.

4. Some have suggested that simply shutting off the alternator would have the same effect as producing HHO. I am not sure if that is accurate. Would the two really be equivalent? You would have to calculate the load the alternator places upon the engine and the amount of gasoline it consumes. Shutting off the alternator would save gas but how much?

5. What are the relative efficiencies of his process? How much gas is produced based upon watts consumed? Is it really enhancing the performance of the engine to the point where the expense is justifiable? In other words, if the unit costs $7,000, and it currently does, what MPG would you need to get to make it worth your time. Okay, maybe with volume production he gets the price down to $1,000. I would still want to see how much gas I would be saving. What would my MPG be in order to earn it back? If it took ten years of driving, I don’t think it would be worth it.

6. Next you would have to compare that to amount of HHO produced by the same unit of electricity produced by the combustion of gasoline. According to the inventor, HHO is more reactive than simple H2 O2. If this were true, it would reduce the inefficiencies of the engine and thus yield better gas mileage. Even if he is simply producing hydrogen, how much is he producing given the amount of electricity his device consumes? Would it really be better than simply disengaging down the alternator?

7. Is he really saying that he’s creating more energy than he uses, or is he proposing that HHO is more reactive than standard H2 O2? It sounds as if his theories about HHO are dubious or misguided at best.

8. How is the device producing the HHO gas? Has he simply invented a better or more efficient method of electrolysis?

9. What volume of HHO gas is produced based upon his method of electrolysis? He must be producing something with his generator because he is selling the welding generators. I’m not saying welding with HHO is a good thing to do, but he is doing it. The video of his system working makes that clear. If they did not work, he would be shut down very fast.

[Ririon]

I have noticed that there is an extraordinary number of posters in this thread that are new to the forum.

Could some of the new posters explain how this has happened?

Ditto.

ETA: This thread was way down on the second page before smarcy2's bump. The postcount of a few of the other newbies here is still 1.

[davefoc]

I have read entries here and on other chat rooms. I am interested in his use in automobiles not welding. Here are a few observations and questions.


1. Most automobiles run their alternators all the time. That is they don't have a clutch to remove the load from the engine. This burns fuel, and the load is wasted. The car battery only needs a limited amount of electricity to recharge it. Many hybrid cars solve this by selectively running their alternator. They have a clutch engage/disengage mechanism of some sort (it only engages the alternator when the battery requires charging).

One thing to take into consideration here is that the voltage regulator actually varies the current flowing through the field coils of an alternator so that when power is not required from the alternator there is no current flowing through the field coils so that the alternator puts less of a load on the car system when it is not producing power. I looked around to try to quantify this but I didn't find anything on line that addressed this.


2. Rather than shut off the alternator, this new system makes use of this wasted electricity or load.


This sounds like regenerative braking which is used, AFAIK, in all hybrids. The issue here is would a system of generating power to electrolyse water and then burning the hydrogen to recover the braking energy be competitive in terms of cost, efficiency and reliability of storing the electrical output of the generator into batteries. It seems unlikely that generating electricity to electolyze water and then recoverning energy from burning the hydrogen or using it in a fuel cell will be as efficient as generating electricity and storing the power in batteries or super caps.


3. He does not store the HHO gas so there is no relative little increase in the danger of explosion. It is used on demand. This statement assumes that a special state of hydrogen and/or oxygen exists. So far the people that have chemistry knowledge that have replied to this thread are skeptical of that claim. In addition, nobody has provided evidence that this idea is accepted by main stream chemistry scientists.

In addition, some storage would appear to be required if the output is to be used as part of a regenerative braking strategy, since when the car is in the process of braking the gas produced must be stored for later use to power the car.

4. Some have suggested that simply shutting off the alternator would have the same effect as producing HHO. I am not sure if that is accurate. Would the two really be equivalent? You would have to calculate the load the alternator places upon the engine and the amount of gasoline it consumes. Shutting off the alternator would save gas but how much?

I am not sure that I understand this comment, but it appears that what you are getting at is that some have suggested that unless more power can be extracted from the gas than is used in producing it just shutting down the system except possibly where it could be used as part of a regenerative braking system to recover energy from braking would be the way to go. This seems obvious. The question of course is how much energy is used to produce the gas and how much energy can be recovered by either burning the gas or by using it in a fuel cell.

Wikipedia had this comment about the round trip efficiency of a electrolyzer/fuel cell system:

The overall efficiency (electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity) of such plants (known as round-trip efficiency) is between 30 and 50%, depending on conditions.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)]
from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell

5. What are the relative efficiencies of his process? How much gas is produced based upon watts consumed? Is it really enhancing the performance of the engine to the point where the expense is justifiable? In other words, if the unit costs $7,000, and it currently does, what MPG would you need to get to make it worth your time. Okay, maybe with volume production he gets the price down to $1,000. I would still want to see how much gas I would be saving. What would my MPG be in order to earn it back? If it took ten years of driving, I don’t think it would be worth it.

This is of course the main question. I think it is very unlikely that there is a net positive production of energy by a process that involves electrolyzing water and burning the resultant gas or using the resultant gas in a fuel cell. If somebody is making this claim it is wildly simple to prove. Just start the system running and supply it with nothing but water. I guarantee that anybody that did this would be on every news show in the world within a few days of the demonstration. So given that that hasn't happened I think there is every reason to believe that claims to that effect are bogus.

6. Next you would have to compare that to amount of HHO produced by the same unit of electricity produced by the combustion of gasoline. According to the inventor, HHO is more reactive than simple H2 O2. If this were true, it would reduce the inefficiencies of the engine and thus yield better gas mileage. Even if he is simply producing hydrogen, how much is he producing given the amount of electricity his device consumes? Would it really be better than simply disengaging down the alternator?

See above discussion if I understood what you meant here.

7. Is he really saying that he’s creating more energy than he uses, or is he proposing that HHO is more reactive than standard H2 O2? It sounds as if his theories about HHO are dubious or misguided at best.

I guess we agree completely on this. See above.

8. How is the device producing the HHO gas? Has he simply invented a better or more efficient method of electrolysis?


It would be a lot more credible if this was his claim.


9. What volume of HHO gas is produced based upon his method of electrolysis? He must be producing something with his generator because he is selling the welding generators. I’m not saying welding with HHO is a good thing to do, but he is doing it. The video of his system working makes that clear. If they did not work, he would be shut down very fast.

There seem to be several people marketing some kind of brown's gas related welders. In looking around the web I couldn't find any main stream welding industry acceptance or even reviews of any of them with the exception of a very negative review in one of the articles I linked to above. It seems that there is something of a cottage industry in promoting Brown's gas type claims, but given the existence of Brown's gas claims since at least 1977 and no significant inventions in that time that this is a cottage industry based around a scam.

[FFed]

Saw a news report on him. Needless to say I am skeptical of this myself.

Here is a news report from fox on him.

http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/BrownsGas/WaterFuel.wmv


Taken from
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/12/water_powered_cars_j.html

[alfaniner]

Steven Hyde: "Hey, did you guys ever hear about this car that runs on water! Yeah, it has fiberglas cooled engines and it runs on water, man!"

Fez: "So, it is a boat?"


(Ref: pilot episode of That '70's Show).

[Aepervius]

Hmm, this Ruggero Maria Santilli seems like an interesting fellow. Can any physicists tell me, what are the reputations of journals like Bulletin of the American Physical Society, Physical Review D and Journal of Mathematical Physics? That's where he was publishing in the late 60s and 70s.


Can't speak for 1st and 3rd but hys review D is quite well known. You will get a lot of quant. phys. old reference from there before they went over specialized journals.

And as I already reported above, the article is bunk about its naive "toroidal" electronic representation. No chemist/physicist in its right mind would use something like bohr model of atom to represent H2 as two spherical presence of e-. In reality they form a nice sigma-g bond which look like a potatoe in the middle of the bond and the two nucleon on either end. Difficult to describe without picture : See figure 14 page 12. This is the one which is completly bunk. It does not explain why h2 is bonding. It does not explain that the electron pair is in reality has a more density of presence in the middle and this is why there is a bonding. As he present H2 this in reality two undbound separated H with a bohr spherical model. Semi classical my [rule 8].

And THAT ALONE cast a great shadow of doubt on the article.

[davefoc]

There were some interesting comments in a forum that was linked to from a site ffed linked to:
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic10778.html

Particularly interesting to me were some comments from DoubtingLiz who purports to know Klein's brother through her boyfriend. Assuming what she says is true, it appears that Klein is actively seeking investors with a promise of financial rewards when the company goes public.

I won't quote the whole post because I think that might be beyond fair use, but a sample of what she writes is this:
The first flag for me was that people that are very close to this operation--and have invested thoustands of dollars in it--know next to nothing about the actual technology. The one reason my boyfriends father gives for why the "test vehicle" runs on some hydrogen/ mostly gasoline is because if they ran it completely on hydrogen it would be too hot and essentially "melt" the engine of the car... apparently the have to come up with a new metal now also? Does that even make any sense at all?
I have taken a little more time to respond to this thread because I thought the existence of so many new posters suggested the possibility that these people were potential investors that were doing a little internet research on the company they were considering investing in. It was my view because of the nature of the claims being put forth that it was very likely that Klein was, perhaps knowingly, working an investment scam and putting forth evidence that Klein's claims were probably bogus might discourage some possible investors. If Ms. DoubtingLiz is to be believed it appears that is exactly what is going on. Of course, I nor anybody else, can say with complete certainty that this is a scam, but I think that there is nothing that has been put forth so far that suggests this is anything other than a scam.

Another comment from the forum that I linked to made note of the idea that if Klein really can get more energy from water than he puts into it all he has to do is take the combustion product (water) and feed it back into the input of his device and he will have invented a perpetual motion machine. If this doesn't scare people away from putting their money into this, then I am afraid nothing will.

[AlSal]

I found two of Dennis Klein's patents on line at the US Patent office website: Just use the quick search by each of the patent numbers below. You will need to download an image reader from one of the sites suggested by the patent office to view the images on file with the patent.

Patent 6,689,259 for a Mixed Gas Generator February 10, 2004
Patent 6,866,756 Hydrogen generator for uses in a vehicle fuel system March 15, 2005.

The Mixed Gas Generator patent just discusses a hydrogen and oxygen gas, the abstract notes "Oxygen is formed in one part, hydrogen in the other and then combined to form a gas." Sounds like nothing more than simple hydrolysis, no mention of "sublimation" nor any of the more dramatic claims.


AlSal

[davefoc]

Here's a link to the second patent referenced above:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=6866756&OS=6866756&RS=6866756

There is a claim from the above patent:
The addition of a mixture of hydrogen gas (H.sub.2) and oxygen gas (O.sub.2) to the fuel system of an internal combustion engine is known to improve fuel efficiency and decrease the emission of undesired pollutants.

It is difficult to figure out what the unigue claim in a patent is and I am not qualified to this but it appears to me here that the unigue claim is to use a hydrolyser to make hydrogen to make the combustion of gasoline more efficient. There may be some claims in the patent that the particular hydrolyser described is part of the patented intellectual property of the patent.

The issue of whether ther is any particular value to this patent are now fairly straightforward. There don't seem to be any claims of phenomena unknown to science here.

The only issues, from a practical standpoint, are:

1. can using hydrogen or a hydrogen mixture in an internal combustion engine together with gasoline improve the efficiency of the engine?

2. If there is an efficiency improvent from the use of hydrogen, is it enough to overcome the energy loss from generating the gas.

3. If there is a net efficiency improvement does it justify the cost of the added equipment for the system?

[willgorman]

I have noticed that there is an extraordinary number of posters in this thread that are new to the forum.

Could some of the new posters explain how this has happened?

Thanks,
Dave


Dave,

Just to let you know, a friend of mine sent me a video about HHO, so I googled and this forum came up in the top results.

Will

[rjh01]

I googled too and found several people can get fuel from water. Results (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=water+fuel&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N)
Pity they may not work.

[davefoc]

I found this article about Brown's gas by Don Lancaster who has written articles on electronics for years.
http://tinaja.com/glib/muse120.pdf

The portion of the article on Brown's gas doesn't start until midway through the file. Stokegas is his word for a stoichiometric mix of hydrogen and oxygen. His point here is that the properties of stokegas and the properties of Brown's gas/Aquygen gas/etc are the same as for stokegas.

Claims that you can briefly place your hand near a stokegas flame do appear true. But do not try it! The reason is that despite the extreme temperature, there is not enough heat energy present to briefly do you any significant harm.
It is interesting that Klein has a patent on an idea that includes the notion of adding a small amount of hydrogen to the combustion mix of an internal combustion engine to improve efficiency.

There are at least two companies producing similar devices today. The idea of adding hydrogen to the combusion mix dates from at least as early as 1974. So I am not sure what the new and/or novel part of Klein's patent is with regard to this. Perhaps it is his particular design of the electrolyser.

The web sites for the two companes producing the devices are :
http://www.chechfi.ca/abcorp.htm
http://www.waterfuelconverters.com/

Adding small amounts of hydrogen to the combustion mix does seem to improve fuel economy, but to what degree seems unclear. I found claims of fuel economy improvements from 4.44% to 25% but I didn't find any actual test reports on line for the devices.

But how does Klein fit into any of this? Except for his March 15, 2005 patent he doesn't seem to be associated with this kind of device at all. I didn't find any claims for this kind of device on his web site.

Site for another company producing a similar device:
http://www.burnh2o.com/index.html

[demonologist]

I thought the reason we have not moved into a hydrogen economy is because it costs as much to produce the hydrogen as you get out of it. If all aquygen and other brown's gas gimmicks do is use hydrogen combined with gasoline to improve efficiency, this seems like a complete waste. Why combine it with gasoline when you can just run straight off of hydrogen if it were more easy to produce. That's the problem that must be worked on.

[davefoc]

I thought the reason we have not moved into a hydrogen economy is because it costs as much to produce the hydrogen as you get out of it. If all aquygen and other brown's gas gimmicks do is use hydrogen combined with gasoline to improve efficiency, this seems like a complete waste. Why combine it with gasoline when you can just run straight off of hydrogen if it were more easy to produce. That's the problem that must be worked on.
I think it is possible that adding small amounts of hydrogen to the air fuel mixture may improve efficiency and reduce emissions even when taking into account the energy required to produce the hydrogen.

In addition to the companies that I listed above that are selling devices using this idea there is at least one somewhat mainstream company working on the idea:
http://www.all4engineers.com/index.php;do=show/alloc=3/lng=en/id=2866/sid=d88f2593ef48d676956ec2040cfa1379
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/11/hydrogenenhance.html
The companies selling hydrogen injection systems right now all looked a bit dodgy to me, but they seemed downright credible compared to Klein.

[Roadtoad]

I'm still following links, but, yeah, this smells like a scam. If it's not, I'll admit to being wrong, but something just doesn't fit.

[fuelair]

Simple chemistry and physics rules here: you never get as much energy out as you put in. Find a way around that and make many mints - good luck trying. You may make a more efficient engine, you may get all the impurities out of the fuel, etc. You still have loss of energy (mostly as heat) (some light, some sound). The key is, can you design your engine and your fuel so that the cost to use it over a given distance moving a given mass is less than gasoline in a gasoline engine. That begins to look useful. (should add, with less - or at least no more -pollution)

[smarcy2]

Aquygen Gas has posted new data. It can be found hytechapps.com/aquygen/hhos


I wanted to perform some calculations to see if the system was financially feasible. In performing these calculations, I used the following constants: tank capacity 15 gallons, price per gallon $3, miles driven per year 14,040, increase in fuel economy 30%, cost per unit $6,995. Now I know in the real world many of these constants would change - especially price per gallon. However, for the purpose of my calculations they were necessary, and they serve to make a point. Since we do not know the systems durablity, we can only guess as to its depreciation schedule. However, assuming it lasts a very long time, it would take 13 years just to recoup your initial expenditure. :jaw-dropp

If the price per system were to decrease to $1,000, it would only take 2 years to recoup your expendature. However, that is quite a price jump and would require mass production with economies of scale. Perhaps one of the automobile manufacturers will offer it as an option. Who knows.

[davefoc]

smarcy2,
Klein is just one of several people that are that are claiming devices that improve fuel economy by injecting hydrogen (produced by electrolising water) into the fuel/air mix.

Klein continues to make claims that he has done something unique and perhaps he has but everything he does seems like something that somebody else is doing. Several of the companies that claim to be doing it have actual devices for sale, I haven't noticed that Klein does.

One reason to be wary of all of these companies is that none of these companies seem to have posted the results of a testing done in compliance with EPA protocols or the results of actual EPA testing. Without credible third party test results it is very hard to distinquish a promising idea from total crap. For me, Klein seems to be about the least credible of the various people making these kind of claims but I didn't find any of them highly credible.

Another reason to be skeptical is that none of the major car companies seem to be pursuing this technology. That seems mighty suspicious to me since the idea of hydrogen injection has been around for a long time and if there was much of an opportunity here I would have thought that they would have been pursuing it.

I didn't verify your calculation but the results seem plausible to me. One thing to note here though is that if there was a $7,000 device that produce a 30% improvement in fuel economy the market for it would still be huge even if it wasn't economically justified for most cars. Long haul trucking companies would snap up a device like that because the average truck drives so many more miles per year than the average car and gets so much worse mileage than the average car. In fact one of the companies that I linked to above was selling a hydrogen injection device aimed at trucks that they claimed was paying for itself despite the $14,000 price tag.

[aavera]

I got my hands on an uncorrected copy (aparently pre-release) of an article on HHO that supposedly appears in the latest International Journal of Hydrogen Energy called A new gaseous and combustible form of water
by Ruggero Maria Santilli. (The release version is available for $30 and I very much hope someone more qualified than me wants to dig into it. If you do, please let me know your thoughts.)

It describes in painful detail what HHO is. They also explain in excruciating detail the difference between HHO, H2O, H-O-H, etc. It is the magnetic bond and arrangement of the particles that make the difference, and somehow create the stability of the gas.

Not being from a chemestry background I don't know all the jargon, but I'll try to break it down here.

The hypothisis to explain the properties of this gas HHO is presented in 16 pages, most of which explain the rigorous scientific tests that this gas has undergone. They're way past 'does it exist'. They're trying to figure out what it is and why it's properties are so unique.

It specifically states that this is not Brown's Gas, as it is far more stable than Brown's Gas. It also introduces a new type of particle called a "magnecule". The concept as far as I can tell, very briefly, is that instead of valence bonds, the particle is using magnetic bonds (thus the term 'magnecule') of several atoms all lined up in a magnetic pattern where the "north" of one bonds to the "south" of the other. (I'm really not doing the article justice. It's way over my head.)

I won't lie...my physics and chemestry background is mainly from books from Barnes and Noble. I am in no position to validate, or invalidate the premise of the article. It is obvious from the article that a whole lot of scientific 'noodling' has been done with this gas with IR, etc. The article states clearly that this is only a hypothetical attempt to explain the unique properties of this gas. It also sounded like they want others to hammer on it to see if they can figure it out.

Any brainiacs out there ought to give it a shot.

:-)

[aavera]

I got my hands on an uncorrected copy (aparently pre-release) of an article on HHO that supposedly appears in the latest International Journal of Hydrogen Energy called "A new gaseous and combustible form of water
by Ruggero Maria Santilli." (The release version is available for $30 and I very much hope someone more qualified than me wants to dig into it. If you do, please let me know your thoughts.)

It describes in painful detail what HHO is. They also explain in excruciating detail the difference between HHO, H2O, H-O-H, etc. It is the magnetic bond and arrangement of the particles that make the difference, and somehow create the stability of the gas.

Not being from a chemestry background I don't know all the jargon, but I'll try to break it down here.

The hypothisis to explain the properties of this gas HHO is presented in 16 pages, most of which explain the rigorous scientific tests that this gas has undergone. They're way past 'does it exist'. They're trying to figure out what it is and why it's properties are so unique.

It specifically states that this is not Brown's Gas, as it is far more stable than Brown's Gas. It also introduces a new type of particle called a "magnecule". The concept as far as I can tell, very briefly, is that instead of valence bonds, the particle is using magnetic bonds (thus the term 'magnecule') of several atoms all lined up in a magnetic pattern where the "north" of one bonds to the "south" of the other. (I'm really not doing the article justice. It's way over my head.)

I won't lie...my physics and chemestry background is mainly from books from Barnes and Noble. I am in no position to validate, or invalidate the premise of the article. It is obvious from the article that a whole lot of scientific 'noodling' has been done with this gas with IR, etc. The article states clearly that this is only a hypothetical attempt to explain the unique properties of this gas. It also sounded like they want others to hammer on it to see if they can figure it out.

Any brainiacs out there ought to give it a shot.

:-)

[Luke]

The problem is that I don't know near enough chemistry to figure out if this guy is talking out of his hat.


I guess it's time to crack open my old Chemistry text book.


Don't bother with the old textbook... that's not his hat that he's talking out of.:D

[davefoc]

Hi Luke,
Welcome to the forum. If we had an award for best post by a newby, you'd be a lock for the award.

As to aavera's post:
Even if for some reason there was a form of water vapor unknown to mainstream science that produced more energy when it was ignited wouldn't more energy be needed to make it then plain old water vapor?

So is the claim that:
1. You can put more energy in to get more energy out with this new and wonderful water vapor so it might have some have some uses as a means of storing energy?

2. This new and wonderful water vapor makes hydrocarbon fuels burn more efficiently?

3. You can get more energy out than you put in with this new and wonderful water vapor?

My estimation:
1. very unlikely
2. apparently adding hydrogen can make burning gasoline slightly more efficient so not much of a new claim here.
3. impossible

[Luke]

Thats me.... professional smart-ass.;)

[Dilb]

Gah, stupid browser crashed on me.

I got my hands on an uncorrected copy (aparently pre-release) of an article on HHO that supposedly appears in the latest International Journal of Hydrogen Energy called "A new gaseous and combustible form of water
by Ruggero Maria Santilli." (The release version is available for $30 and I very much hope someone more qualified than me wants to dig into it. If you do, please let me know your thoughts.)

It describes in painful detail what HHO is. They also explain in excruciating detail the difference between HHO, H2O, H-O-H, etc. It is the magnetic bond and arrangement of the particles that make the difference, and somehow create the stability of the gas.

Not being from a chemestry background I don't know all the jargon, but I'll try to break it down here.

The hypothisis to explain the properties of this gas HHO is presented in 16 pages, most of which explain the rigorous scientific tests that this gas has undergone. They're way past 'does it exist'. They're trying to figure out what it is and why it's properties are so unique.

It specifically states that this is not Brown's Gas, as it is far more stable than Brown's Gas. It also introduces a new type of particle called a "magnecule". The concept as far as I can tell, very briefly, is that instead of valence bonds, the particle is using magnetic bonds (thus the term 'magnecule') of several atoms all lined up in a magnetic pattern where the "north" of one bonds to the "south" of the other. (I'm really not doing the article justice. It's way over my head.)

I won't lie...my physics and chemestry background is mainly from books from Barnes and Noble. I am in no position to validate, or invalidate the premise of the article. It is obvious from the article that a whole lot of scientific 'noodling' has been done with this gas with IR, etc. The article states clearly that this is only a hypothetical attempt to explain the unique properties of this gas. It also sounded like they want others to hammer on it to see if they can figure it out.

Any brainiacs out there ought to give it a shot.

:-)

Allright, I've got the article. A number of glaring concerns pop up:

On page 2, they report Their first remarkable feature
is the efficiency E of the electrolyzer for the production
of the gas, here simply defined as the ratio between
the volume of HHO gas produced and the number of
Watts needed for its production. In fact, the electrolyzers
rapidly convert water into 55 standard cubic feet (scf)
of HHO gas at 35 pounds per square inch (psi) via
the use of 5 kWh, namely, an efficiency that is at least
10 times the corresponding efficiency of conventional water evaporation, thus permitting low production costs.

Which after some conversions (though I hadn't encountered scf before), comes out to producing 0.78 kg of gas using 18 MJ. I'll point out that electrolyzers are ~50% efficient, and hydrogen combustion releases 13 MJ/kg. People doing the calculation will note I got a mass from a volume, which requires the average molar mass, reported a bit later on (with what I can only hope are typos) On June 30, 2003, Adsorption Research Laboratory
of Dublin, Ohi, measured the specific weight of the
HHO gas and released a signed statement on the resulting
value of 12.3 g/mol. The same laboratory repeated
the measurement on a different sample of the gas and
confirmed the result.
The released value of 12.3 g/mol is anomalous. In
fact, the conventional separation of water into H2 and
P2 produces a mixture of 2/3 HBN2 and 13
O2 that has
the specific weight (2 + 2 + 32)/3 = 11.3g/mol.

Everytime I divide 36 by 3, I get exactly 12, but what do I know. I did use 12 rather than 12.3, if you're wondering why my mass is slightly off.

They have pages of graphs of IR signatures and things, and graphs of bonds which, as best as I can interpret, are entirely wrong. The paper is available (http://hytechapps.com/aquygen/international_journal.pdf) from the company, and although this is an "uncorrected copy", the quotes above are directly from the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy.

The last thing I'll mention is from the beginning A second important feature is that the HHO gas does
not require oxygen for combustion since the gas con-
tains in its interior all oxygen needed for that scope, as it
is also the case for the Brown gas. By recalling that other
fuels (including hydrogen) require atmospheric oxygen
for their combustion, thus causing a serious environ-
mental problem known as oxygen depletion, the capability
to combust without any oxygen depletion (jointly
with its low production cost) render the gas particularly
important on environmental grounds.

Amazingly enough, I didn't know, and have been unable to find information, about atmospheric oxygen depletion being a problem. Oxygen depletion in lakes or other bodies of water, sure, but nothing about the decrease in atmospheric oxygen from combustion.

[Dilb]

Oh, and boiling water from 20 Celcius requires roughly 2.5 MJ/kg. Producing 55 scf of steam should take about 0.8 kWh, if my calculations are correct.

[MortFurd]

The problem is that I don't know near enough chemistry to figure out if this guy is talking out of his hat.

Anyone want to look at this guy's claims?


And Klein's web site is at:
http://hytechapps.com/



Talking out his a$$ is more like it.
Old hat. (http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-06/060906just.html#i3)

[Soapy Sam]

Did we ever get any explanation of why so many newbie posters appeared in this thread, most of whom, two months on, have not posted again?

[Roadtoad]

Nope, but it's fun to read some of what they say.

[gfunkusarelius]

Did we ever get any explanation of why so many newbie posters appeared in this thread, most of whom, two months on, have not posted again?

it's just speculation and i am assuming you are already conjecturing the answer, but from my experience on forums, it is typically because a person finds the forum when they see something linked on a blog or forum or article somewhere else and they get led to this site and throw their two cents in.
some of it might also be that they are new here and havent seen the debate before and once they see the opposition, they realize they are out of their knowledge base.

[Luke]

it's just speculation and i am assuming you are already conjecturing the answer, but from my experience on forums, it is typically because a person finds the forum when they see something linked on a blog or forum or article somewhere else and they get led to this site and throw their two cents in.
some of it might also be that they are new here and havent seen the debate before and once they see the opposition, they realize they are out of their knowledge base.

That's how I got here... linked from a discussion on the miraculous water fuel. But now that I've found a decent discussion forum, I don't think I'll be leaving. I'm going to stick around and see if I can hold my own against the existing knowledge base.:D

[victorian]

Buy a Brown's Gas torch to find out why its impressive technology.
Put a Brown's Gas generator in a vehicle and tweak your air fuel mixture. See what happens to your MPG.

Dont look on the internet for what other people have done, do it for yourself.

Hi Nseidm
you seem more open minded than most which is very welcome - The rest of you - armchair scientists should check out the Nov. Dec issue of Nexus magazine which has an excellent article on Browns Gas. wouldn't it be wonderful of some of the above got off their ass and went to see the technolgy - like going to Eagle Research in Oroville WA

[davefoc]

Hi Nseidm
you seem more open minded than most which is very welcome - The rest of you - armchair scientists should check out the Nov. Dec issue of Nexus magazine which has an excellent article on Browns Gas. wouldn't it be wonderful of some of the above got off their ass and went to see the technolgy - like going to Eagle Research in Oroville WA

As one of the armchair scientists that has commented in this thread, let me welcome you to the forum victorian.

Have you done some personal investigation that leads you to believe that either Klein or somebody else that touts something similar to Brown's gas has demonstrated significantly positive results?

I checked out the Nexus web site for articles on Brown's gas. I didn't find any articles there although perhaps the article is only in their print magazine They do link to Eagle Research (through the link labeled Brown's Gas) which seems to be mostly selling a variety of how-to books on improving gas mileage.

Perhaps you could provide a link to some article that you felt proves the value of some of these kind of products? Unfortunately, as a new member you aren't allowed to post links right away, but if you could provide enough information on the article(s) that you have in mind I could convert the information to a real link.

[Luke]

Hi Nseidm
you seem more open minded than most which is very welcome - The rest of you - armchair scientists should check out the Nov. Dec issue of Nexus magazine which has an excellent article on Browns Gas. wouldn't it be wonderful of some of the above got off their ASSES and went to see the technolgy - like going to Eagle Research in Oroville WA

There, fixed it for you. In addition to being an armchair scientist, I'm also an armchair grammarian.

[victorian]

As I mentioned - it in the Magazine - Nov - Dec issue so there should some in the stores. And I have no personal experience but my point is since there are so many apparently qualified people on this forum slamming the technology - why don't they go and see for themselves then we can know for sure - but no it's it's so much easier to go with the herd. Well Klein i s not some one is going with herd. He at least has invested time and money and actually sells products based on the technology.

[TjW]

I suppose you're right. Klein isn't going with the herd. What's the collective noun for conmen?

[The Don]

I suppose you're right. Klein isn't going with the herd. What's the collective noun for conmen?

Congress ?

[Mongrel]

I suppose you're right. Klein isn't going with the herd. What's the collective noun for conmen?

A Fleece....?

[Luke]

Victorian- you suggest that there isn't anyone here with the credentials to understand this subject in the way that you do. So, I am forced to ask; what are your credentials?

Certainly there are "armchair scientists" here (to use your term), but there are also highly trained, well respected scientists that visit this forum.

Full disclosure: I am neither highly trained, nor well respected.

It seems to me that the persons with the least training in Physics or Chemistry are the most likely to believe Klein's claims. Then, if anyone calls it the scam that it is- they are part of some vast government conspiracy to keep it off the market, or they just don't understand it properly. It couldn't possibly be that the people that actually understand and can debunk his claims know what they're talking about, could it?

It's the most recent converts that are most zealous and the ones to be feared.

[RenaissanceBiker]

"Sublimation" also refers to the reverse process...that of going from gas straight to solid. Though I don't know of any materials that do that under normal conditions, offhand.


Ice9.

/Vonnegut

[davefoc]

As I mentioned - it in the Magazine - Nov - Dec issue so there should some in the stores. And I have no personal experience but my point is since there are so many apparently qualified people on this forum slamming the technology - why don't they go and see for themselves then we can know for sure - but no it's it's so much easier to go with the herd. Well Klein i s not some one is going with herd. He at least has invested time and money and actually sells products based on the technology.

A small response to the above:

There have been roughly two kinds of posts critical of Klein's claims in this thread:
1. Posts by people that seem to have relevant training in chemistry that have expressed skepticism of the claims based on their understanding of the basic underlying science.
2. Posts that reference articles that are critical of his claims or other similar claims.

The net effect has been to make a good case, IMHO, that some of the claims are bogus and that Klein's claims don't seem to be particularly unique but that he seems to be one of the least credible in a mix of people that don't seem to be particularly credible.

Given this most of us in this thread have developed a fairly low opinion of Klein and his claims and would classify him as just one more conman. And given the large number of scammers in the world and the finite amount of time that all of us have in our lives most of us see no reason to investigate Klein anymore than any of the other of thousands of scammers out there.

That doesn't mean that we would not be open to admitting that we were wrong or that we wouldn't be interested in evidence that would contradict our conclusions.

You apparently feel that there is some reasonable chance that Klein is more than a common conman and that he might be on to something. This is fine, but the thing that would be most useful here is if you could describe the evidence that leads you to believe that Klein is more credible than all the other thousands of scammers making extraordinary claims without evidence.

[AgingYoung]

The overwhelming interest in this thread fascinates me. I’m sure it is setting traffic records.

Upthread there was a mention of measuring the surface of the sun and it was pointed out that we could measure that temp. We can’t. We can derive or calculate a temperature. It was mentioned that we could move instruments further from the sun (maybe at some distance where they wouldn’t melt) and extrapolate the temperature. That’s a technique of calculating a value and isn’t a direct measurement. There are measured quantities like distance. You can actually take a tape and measure distance. Then there are derived quantities like speed (mph). Then there are calculated quantities like the surface temperature of the sun. It’s probably splitting hairs but these are distinctions made in instrumentation.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

Upthread someone mentioned these two patents of Klein's filed in 2002. It's taken quite a while for all this fervor to foment.

United States Patent 6689259
Filing Date: 2002-09-18

The present invention is a device, which generates a hydrogen and oxygen gas, preferably used for welding. The hydrogen and oxygen gas is generated by an electrolyzing process. Electrolyte is pumped into the hydrogen-oxygen generator where the gas is separated from the electrolyte by applying a direct current voltage across the generator. Oxygen is formed in one part, hydrogen in the other and then combined to form the gas. As the gas is generated, pressure is built up. When the pressure reaches an operating pressure, the gas is pumped via the plumbing system into the electrolyte reservoir, through a filtering process, and stored in a gas reservoir that is connected to a supply line. In operation the supply line is attached to a torch.


United States Patent 6866756
Filing Date: 2002-10-22

The present invention discloses an electrolyzer for electrolyzing water into a gaseous mixture comprising hydrogen gas and oxygen gas. The electrolyzer is adapted to deliver this gaseous mixture to the fuel system of an internal combustion engine. The electrolyzer of the present invention comprises one or more supplemental electrode at least partially immersed in an aqueous electrolyte solution interposed between two principle electrodes. The gaseous mixture is generated by applying an electrical potential between the two principal electrodes. The electrolyzer further includes a gas reservoir region for collecting the generated gaseous mixture. The present invention further discloses a method of utilizing the electrolyzer in conjunction with the fuel system of an internal combustion engine to improve the efficiency of said internal combustion engine.


One thing mentioned in the prior art section is this (United States Patent 6689259)...
The patented invention differs from the present invention because the patented invention is a welding apparatus which generates hydrogen and oxygen in an electrolytic cell by electrical dissociation of water. The resultant gas which is in stoichiometric proportions is directed to a torch which has a pair of tungsten electrodes in the out put path of the gas. An arc is drawn between the electrodes causing the disassociation of the hydrogen and oxygen which produces a significantly hotter flame. The present invention is a device to generate electrolytically, gas needed for welding. The present invention lacks the feature of causing the gas to become disassociative.


I know that silver or platinum acts as catalyst for hydrogen peroxide and gets rather hot as it rapidily expands. I don't think tungsten is a catalyst. It would make for an interesting injection system to recombine H and O into hydrogen peroxide (80% or greater solution) then inject it into a modified engine with silver/platinum plated piston tops. You could not give the alternator a rest; constantly using it to produce the peroxide.

Gene

[JJM]

First, hydrogen is not a fuel in the classic sense of something we can harvest from nature. Hydrogen must be manufactured, and that entails a loss of energy. In the current matter, the electricity used to produce hydrogen is more energetic when used directly. That is the Second Law of thermodynamics. You are more likely to see God than see this Law violated.

Under some circumstances, it is more practical to generate hydrogen (and oxygen) on location rather than to bring it with you. To that extent, this product may be useful; but not at all revolutionary. Ignore the talk of tungsten and peroxide. What is being done is to convert water to hydrogen and oxygen, so it can be burned to produce water.

Most of the claims at Klein's site are ordinary (although, couched in astounding terms), ordinary, or irrational (the electrolysis does not produce "water" as a fuel).

I am a retired chemistry professor. I find it sad that so many of you are confused by this idiot (Klein). Pardon me if there were other rational responses, I could not bear to read the whole thread.

[davefoc]

Aging Young,
How much of this thread have you read?

Could you explain what the new art is in the patents that you referenced, in particular can you point out the claims that are different than the claims made in the Brown's gas patent which significantly precede them? There was also a patent that preceded the Brown's gas patent for a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen to be used in a welding device I believe.

So what is new that Klein claims to have invented? And where is the evidence that there is any potential benefit to what he has invented except a few anecdotes?

[AgingYoung]

Aging Young,
How much of this thread have you read?

My apologies. I didn't know there was going to be a test. I'll do better next time.

Gene

[trvlr2]

Oh crap! Am I gonna have to go over to this(Klein's) shop and look at this 'invention'? Will it make any difference to the woo? He's only about 5 miles away. I just haven't seen enough reason to go there.

[Luke]

Yeah, please go over there and take some pictures. Some first hand information would be valuable here. Too many references to magazine articles or net articles to have a coherent discussion.

[ponderingturtle]

The overwhelming interest in this thread fascinates me. I’m sure it is setting traffic records.

Upthread there was a mention of measuring the surface of the sun and it was pointed out that we could measure that temp. We can’t. We can derive or calculate a temperature. It was mentioned that we could move instruments further from the sun (maybe at some distance where they wouldn’t melt) and extrapolate the temperature. That’s a technique of calculating a value and isn’t a direct measurement. There are measured quantities like distance. You can actually take a tape and measure distance. Then there are derived quantities like speed (mph). Then there are calculated quantities like the surface temperature of the sun. It’s probably splitting hairs but these are distinctions made in instrumentation.

Gene

This is entirely wrong. We can measure the temperature directly, you look at the intensity of the various spectrum's of light and then you know, because the most intense frequency corresponds to a particular temperature. It is not extrapolated it is just as directly measured as putting a thermometer in something and measuring the expansion, or change in electrical resistance of the material to measure the temp.

[davefoc]

This is entirely wrong. We can measure the temperature directly, you look at the intensity of the various spectrum's of light and then you know, because the most intense frequency corresponds to a particular temperature. It is not extrapolated it is just as directly measured as putting a thermometer in something and measuring the expansion, or change in electrical resistance of the material to measure the temp.

I noticed that too. I thought perhaps what Aging Young's point was that one has to assume that the sun is a black body radiator and then one can infer the temperature of the sun based on radiation measurements and the formula for a black body radiator. But at some point it becomes something of a semantic issue. We can't measure the temperature of anything directly. If we put some sort of temperature sensing probe into the substance we want to measure the temperature of we determine the temperature based on assumptions about the characteristics of the probe.

[John Jackson]

The rest of you - armchair scientists should check out the Nov. Dec issue of Nexus magazine which has an excellent article on Browns Gas. wouldn't it be wonderful of some of the above got off their ass and went to see the technolgy - like going to Eagle Research in Oroville WA

The thing is, if you've studied Chemistry (noteably thermodynamics) you would realise that the claim cannot possibly be true without needing to get out of your armchair. ;)

[AgingYoung]

This is entirely wrong. We can measure the temperature directly, you look at the intensity of the various spectrum's of light and then you know, because the most intense frequency corresponds to a particular temperature. It is not extrapolated it is just as directly measured as putting a thermometer in something and measuring the expansion, or change in electrical resistance of the material to measure the temp.

What do you mean by 'intense' frequency? Are you saying short wavelength/higher freq? Frequency is a derived quantity (waves per unit of time); it's a calculated/derived quantity like speed.

Gene

[ponderingturtle]

What do you mean by 'intense' frequency? Are you saying short wavelength/higher freq? Frequency is a derived quantity (waves per unit of time); it's a calculated/derived quantity like speed.

Gene

Intensity means intensity, in simple terms it is how bright it is. You measure that across the spec tum and you know how hot it is by the black body radiation formula.

And everything it a calculated quantity, time is calculated based on the vibrations of various atoms. Space is calculated by how long it takes light to cross the distance. Temp is calculated by measuring the change in properties of some material or by looking at its black body radiation. Thermometers filled with mercury are no more direct than spectroscopy, as what you are actually measuring is the Kinetic Energy of the various atoms(linear there can be vibratory modes and such that hold KE but do not factor into temp, that is why water has such a high heat capacity it has a lot of degrees of freedom for its mass).

As for the whole thing working, well it will work but it is not going to make energy, anymore than having a dynamo run a motor that runs the dynamo will create energy. To think otherwise is to ignore some of the best tested theories in modern science. It would be rather like saying that I had a solid metal ball fall upward away from the earth. You do not need to look into the claim to call it BS, unless I have very good evidence to support my claim.

[AgingYoung]

Distance is based on a standard and can be directly measured against that standard.

When calculating temp based on cavity radiation you are measuring amount of radiation emitted in a given frequency range. hrtz is considered a derived quantity. It might be considered semantics to the layman but as I noted these distinctions happen in the vernacular of instrumentation.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

This might help clarify the point. There are some quantities that are based on standards and you can take an instrument that is calibrated to that standard and directly measure an unknown quantity. Temperature is based on a standard. If you were sick and we wanted to know what your temperature was, I could take a thermometer (calibrated to that standard) and directly measure your temperature.

Frequency is a quantity that is considered derived. A method to calculate frequency is to measure the time between two consecutive occurrences of the event (the period) and then compute the frequency f as the reciprocal of this time..

F=1/t

When you measure temperature using derived measurements you aren't directly measuring; you are calculating it. You can't take a thermometer and directly measure the temperature of the sun. As you know it's too hot.

Gene

[Dilb]

Distance is based on a standard and can be directly measured against that standard.
Gene

Not for the last 23 years it hasn't. The metre is based on the speed of light and the period of the ground state hyperfine transition of cesium atoms.

[Slimething]

This might help clarify the point. There are some quantities that are based on standards and you can take an instrument that is calibrated to that standard and directly measure an unknown quantity. Temperature is based on a standard. If you were sick and we wanted to know what your temperature was, I could take a thermometer (calibrated to that standard) and directly measure your temperature.

Frequency is a quantity that is considered derived. A method to calculate frequency is to measure the time between two consecutive occurrences of the event (the period) and then compute the frequency f as the reciprocal of this time..

http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php?F=1/t

When you measure temperature using derived measurements you aren't directly measuring; you are calculating it. You can't take a thermometer and directly measure the temperature of the sun. As you know it's too hot.

Gene

I don't agree with you but I think your point is moot regardless. What does it matter whether or not Sears sells a star thermometer that you can stick into a star and read a dial? What does that have to do with somebody hydrolyzing water just to recombine it later and claim that they have made more energy than was in the water to begin with? [I've been a chemist for longer than I can count on my fingies and toesies and I don't have to get off my chair to tell you it's hogwash.]

If you want to hold tight to your temperature argument, think about what you're actually measuring and why you do it a certain way. Temperature is our way to indicate the kinetic energy of a substance or mixture. Thermometers are only one of many devices that can be used to detect this phenomenon. Merely because thermometers have been used to measure body temperature for a long time is no reason to think that it's the only method available. Has anyone measured your temperature by using one of those ear thingies? Does it give the same temperature as an oral thermometer? (Say no and you'll be right.) I could use an infrared camera to tell you what your temperature was at any visible area of your body, too. Would you tell me that I was wrong because I wasn't using a thermometer? (Say no and you'll be right again.)

And, no, frequency is not a derived measure. It's an expression of a wave characteristic, directly measured. Hz is no more derived than if you said that your fevered brow has excited a thermal probe whose readings have been calibrated against a known standard and are given in degrees F or C.

[trvlr2]

Yeah, please go over there and take some pictures. Some first hand information would be valuable here. Too many references to magazine articles or net articles to have a coherent discussion.

MMMk...I will take the camera. I have a full plate now, maybe in a week? I can slide over there.

[AgingYoung]

Not for the last 23 years it hasn't. The metre is based on the speed of light and the period of the ground state hyperfine transition of cesium atoms.

Dilb,

More specifically...


The meter (m) is the Si unit of length and is defined as the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during the time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.[ 3 ] This replaces the two previous definitions of the meter: the original adopted by CGPM in 1889 based on a platinum-iridium prototype bar, and a definition adopted in 1960 based on a krypton*86 radiation from an electrical discharge lamp. In each case, the change in definition achieved not only an increase in accuracy, but also progress toward the goal of using fundamental physical quantities as standards, in particular, the quantum mechanical characteristics of atomic systems.


That is how the standard is defined. Reference is NIST site of SI base unit for length. Temperature on the Kelvin scale is also an SI (Système International d’Unités) base unit; temperature on the Celsius scale is derived from the base standard, the Kelvin scale.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

I don't agree with you but I think your point is moot regardless. ...
No argument here. Someone mentioned directly measuring the sun's surface temperature upthread and I commented.

And, no, frequency is not a derived measure. It's an expression of a wave characteristic, directly measured. Hz is no more derived than if you said that your fevered brow has excited a thermal probe whose readings have been calibrated against a known standard and are given in degrees F or C.

You're wrong but I do support your right to be so.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

And we can surely measure temperatures hotter than the sun's surface...

This is the post I was responding to. Although we can approximate with calculations intense temperatures (i.e. the core temp of the sun) we can't directly measure them. We 'know' them based on calculations.

I do agree it's a moot point and also it's a minor distinction. The distinction though is directly measuring the height of a tree vs. using trig to approximate the height.

Gene

[ponderingturtle]

Distance is based on a standard and can be directly measured against that standard.

Not very accurately. Especialy between reference frames.

When calculating temp based on cavity radiation you are measuring amount of radiation emitted in a given frequency range. hrtz is considered a derived quantity. It might be considered semantics to the layman but as I noted these distinctions happen in the vernacular of instrumentation.

Gene

Of course it is semantics, but then again measureing it with a probe is no more of a dirrect measurement than measureing its light. That is where your arguement makes no sense at all.

[ponderingturtle]

This might help clarify the point. There are some quantities that are based on standards and you can take an instrument that is calibrated to that standard and directly measure an unknown quantity. Temperature is based on a standard. If you were sick and we wanted to know what your temperature was, I could take a thermometer (calibrated to that standard) and directly measure your temperature.

But you are not, you are makeing assumptions based on the properties of the material the thermometer is made of and how they change with temp. That is not a dirrect measurement but an indirrect one. You are really measureing the expansion of the mecury or what ever property is being used.


When you measure temperature using derived measurements you aren't directly measuring; you are calculating it. You can't take a thermometer and directly measure the temperature of the sun. As you know it's too hot.

Gene

ANd thermometers do not give dirrect measurements of temp ever anyway.

[ponderingturtle]

No argument here. Someone mentioned directly measuring the sun's surface temperature upthread and I commented.



You're wrong but I do support your right to be so.

Gene

What is so special about the way mercury expands when heated that makes it a direct measurement? Do thermistors give direct measurements? What about thermocouples?

[ponderingturtle]

This is the post I was responding to. Although we can approximate with calculations intense temperatures (i.e. the core temp of the sun) we can't directly measure them. We 'know' them based on calculations.

That holds for all measurements of temperature, what we are measuring it the expansion of mercury or the change in electrical properties of some material, nothing about temp directly.


By the way you are insisting on definition temperature is always a derived measurement. Now maybe you mean it is not as accurately measured but that is a different argument.

[Dilb]

That is how the standard is defined. Reference is NIST site of SI base unit for length. Temperature on the Kelvin scale is also an SI (Système International d’Unités) base unit; temperature on the Celsius scale is derived from the base standard, the Kelvin scale.

Gene

Now you seem to be mixing units with measurements. Yes there are base units, and then there are derived units, but this has nothing to do with measurement, and everything to do with math.

On the other hand, to get this standard meter, first requires measuring a frequency, then measuring a velocity, then converting that velocity into a distance. If these "calculations" that you are so worried about keep you from 'measuring' temperature, then they certainly keep you from 'measuring' distance.

[AgingYoung]

Now you seem to be mixing units with measurements. Yes there are base units, and then there are derived units, but this has nothing to do with measurement, and everything to do with math.

On the other hand, to get this standard meter, first requires measuring a frequency, then measuring a velocity, then converting that velocity into a distance. If these "calculations" that you are so worried about keep you from 'measuring' temperature, then they certainly keep you from 'measuring' distance.

It really isn't as much a worry as it is about what's being sensed. Standards are set by SI that define base units. There are about 6 7 of them. All other measurements are derived from those base units. For instance speed is the ratio of the base units distance to time; it's derived.

To the point of what is being sensed and temperature readings: if you are using a thermocouple it's sensing temperature change. You're directly reading temperature. If you're sensing light firstly you're sensing a derived unit (freq) then inferring temperature. You are not directly sensing temperature.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

What is so special about the way mercury expands when heated that makes it a direct measurement? Do thermistors give direct measurements? What about thermocouples?

It's not a question of what is special and what isn't. The point is what is being sensed. Yes, thermistors and thermocouples sense temperature change.

Gene

[ponderingturtle]

It's not a question of what is special and what isn't. The point is what is being sensed. Yes, thermistors and thermocouples sense temperature change.

Gene

But is it direct or indirect? Is it calculated from how the material behaves or is it a real direct measurement of the KE of the atoms in the material?

The same thing is being sensed in all cases, and that is properties that depend on temperature. In claiming there is a difference between a measurement using a probe and one using black body radiation, then you have to make the probe have a substantive difference from the other. As all are made by measuring other qualities that vary with the temp, why is one direct and one indirect?

[AgingYoung]

In claiming there is a difference between a measurement using a probe and one using black body radiation, then you have to make the probe have a substantive difference from the other.
There is indeed a difference. That difference is, 'what is being sensed.' This point is fundamental to the field of instrumentation and process control. Basics in any discipline are established so that people within it can be on the same page when discussing the details. Usually someone not interested or versed in a particular discipline looks at things differently. That's a common occurrence.

To answer your question if you're directly sensing the variable you want to measure it is a direct reading. If you're sensing a variable (i.e. freq) that is a function of temperature then inferring temperature from that, it isn't a direct measurement of the variable you're attempting to sense.

Gene

[ponderingturtle]

There is indeed a difference. That difference is, 'what is being sensed.' This point is fundamental to the field of instrumentation and process control. Basics in any discipline are established so that people within it can be on the same page when discussing the details. Usually someone not interested or versed in a particular discipline looks at things differently. That's a common occurrence.

To answer your question if you're directly sensing the variable you want to measure it is a direct reading. If you're sensing a variable (i.e. freq) that is a function of temperature then inferring temperature from that, it isn't a direct measurement of the variable you're attempting to sense.

Gene

So there is no way to dirrectly measure temperature, then it does not matter what you do, you can never measure temp dirrectly, so your whole statement still makes no sense.

A probe thermometer infers the temperature reading from senseing a different variable after all(the volume of mercury, the resistance of the thermister, the voltage of a thermocouple and so on) Just as indirrect as measureing the temp from a black body spectrum.

[Dilb]

It's not a question of what is special and what isn't. The point is what is being sensed. Yes, thermistors and thermocouples sense temperature change.

Gene

But they don't. They change resistance, and a measurement of resistance can determine temperature.
Edit- Oops, thermistors change resistance, thermocouples generate a voltage.

Similarily, mercury doesn't measure temperature, mercury changes in volume and the difference is measured is observed. An observation is done be detecting the change of intensities and wavelengths from the vacuum to the mercury (assuming you're looking at it), and that finally is converted to a temperature.

[AgingYoung]

But they don't. They change resistance, and a measurement of resistance can determine temperature.
Edit- Oops, thermistors change resistance, thermocouples generate a voltage.

Similarily, mercury doesn't measure temperature, mercury changes in volume and the difference is measured is observed. An observation is done be detecting the change of intensities and wavelengths from the vacuum to the mercury (assuming you're looking at it), and that finally is converted to a temperature.

It might be hard to follow but I'll give it one last shot. In a thermister the change in resistance is a function of temperature. The instrument varies as a function of the variable you are sensing. Mercury in a thermometer expands and contracts as a direct function of temperature.

When you're measuring a variable that is a function (i.e. freq) of the actual variable you want to measure (i.e. temp) you aren't directly measuring it. That's the case when first measuring frequency then inferring what temperature is. Temperature isn't the first variable that's causing the change in your instrument; it's not a direct measurement.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

....A probe thermometer infers the temperature reading ...

I said, 'final' but this is the final 'final'. A probe doesn't infer anything. What actually takes place is the instrument varies as a direct function of the variable then you read some sort of calibrated display.

Gene

[Folly]

It might be hard to follow but I'll give it one last shot. In a thermister the change in resistance is a function of temperature. The instrument varies as a function of the variable you are sensing. Mercury in a thermometer expands and contracts as a direct function of temperature.

When you're measuring a variable that is a function (i.e. freq) of the actual variable you want to measure (i.e. temp) you aren't directly measuring it. That's the case when first measuring frequency then inferring what temperature is. Temperature isn't the first variable that's causing the change in your instrument; it's not a direct measurement.

Gene

You are seriously trying to argue that using a mercury thermometer is some sort of "direct measurement" a spectrographic measurement does not qualify for?

mercury thermometer:
subject temperature
------------
-> glass temperature
-> mercury temperature
-> mercury expands/contracts
-> mercury column gets longer or shorter

thermocouple:
subject temperature
------------
-> probe temperature
-> voltage

spectrographic measurement:
subject temperature
-> black body radiation
------------
-> CCD
-> voltage

I've put lines in where I am assuming your argument comes from. I read your comments as saying that because the first thing above the line is a temperature, it's a direct measurement. This ignores the issue of considering the property of heat conduction somehow being considered a more fundamental property of temperature than black body radiation. This also ignores the fact conduction actually affects the subject temperature (BBR does too, but this continues regardless of measurement.) Finally, it ignores all the internal steps. The sensor is not a magic black box that gets to be ignored: that thermometer is measuring a length from a volume from a temperature from a temperature from a temperature.

[Slimething]

To answer your question if you're directly sensing the variable you want to measure it is a direct reading. If you're sensing a variable (i.e. freq) that is a function of temperature then inferring temperature from that, it isn't a direct measurement of the variable you're attempting to sense.

Gene

I got it now. You're playing word games but you can't even keep your terminology straight. The word you should be using is "unit" instead of "measure". Frenquency is a direct measure whether you like it or not. The units thereof are derived units. See? I looked it up on http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html once I saw your pedantic argument that measurements not classified as direct by IS were derived. Not so. You're talking units, not measurements. Small difference just like between a tricycle and a Bentley.

This is a typical ruse foisted by people who don't really have a point to make. Proud of yourself?

[ponderingturtle]

It might be hard to follow but I'll give it one last shot. In a thermister the change in resistance is a function of temperature. The instrument varies as a function of the variable you are sensing. Mercury in a thermometer expands and contracts as a direct function of temperature.

THe light emited by it varies as a function of the temp

When you're measuring a variable that is a function (i.e. freq) of the actual variable you want to measure (i.e. temp) you aren't directly measuring it. That's the case when first measuring frequency then inferring what temperature is. Temperature isn't the first variable that's causing the change in your instrument; it's not a direct measurement.

Gene

You are measureing a variable that is a function of of the actual variable you want to measure in all methods. By your logic there is no way to dirrectly measure temperature, only infer it from some other measurement(such as the resistance of a material or the volume of mecury)

[ponderingturtle]

I said, 'final' but this is the final 'final'. A probe doesn't infer anything. What actually takes place is the instrument varies as a direct function of the variable then you read some sort of calibrated display.

Gene

It infers just as much as an infared thermometer does when it measures something. In both cases you are measureing one thing and inferring what you actualy want from it. What makes volume so special instead of frequency?

[AgingYoung]

I got it now. You're playing word games but you can't even keep your terminology straight. The word you should be using is "unit" instead of "measure". Frenquency is a direct measure whether you like it or not. The units thereof are derived units. See? I looked it up on http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html once I saw your pedantic argument that measurements not classified as direct by IS were derived. Not so. You're talking units, not measurements. Small difference just like between a tricycle and a Bentley.

This is a typical ruse foisted by people who don't really have a point to make. Proud of yourself?

From the NIST site

Other quantities, called derived quantities, are defined in terms of the seven base quantities via a system of quantity equations. The SI derived units for these derived quantities are obtained from these equations and the seven SI base units. Examples of such SI derived units are given in Table 2, where it should be noted that the symbol 1 for quantities of dimension 1 such as mass fraction is generally omitted.

What I said..

This might help clarify the point. There are some quantities that are based on standards and you can take an instrument that is calibrated to that standard and directly measure an unknown quantity. Temperature is based on a standard. If you were sick and we wanted to know what your temperature was, I could take a thermometer (calibrated to that standard) and directly measure your temperature.

Frequency is a quantity that is considered derived. A method to calculate frequency is to measure the time between two consecutive occurrences of the event (the period) and then compute the frequency f as the reciprocal of this time..

F=1/t

When you measure temperature using derived measurements you aren't directly measuring; you are calculating it. You can't take a thermometer and directly measure the temperature of the sun. As you know it's too hot.

Gene

your response was...
.....
And, no, frequency is not a derived measure. It's an expression of a wave characteristic, directly measured. Hz is no more derived than if you said that your fevered brow has excited a thermal probe whose readings have been calibrated against a known standard and are given in degrees F or C.

It seems where I said 'quantity' you read 'measure'.

I think what might have been misleading (in what I posted) was the idea in red. Since temperature is a base unit any measurement of it using derived quantities is what is called an inferred measurement; not a direct one. This is not my opinion. It's a matter of fact in instrumentation.

If you have a point along these lines I'll read it but I think this thread has been derailed enough. I've been researching HHO gas and have some ideas.

Gene

[Slimething]

I think what might have been misleading (in what I posted) was the idea in red. Since temperature is a base unit any measurement of it using derived quantities is what is called an inferred measurement; not a direct one. This is not my opinion. It's a matter of fact in instrumentation.

If you have a point along these lines I'll read it but I think this thread has been derailed enough. I've been researching HHO gas and have some ideas.

Gene

You have a lot to learn about natural phenomena and how me measure them. No, units are not the same as measures. Get that into your head. Units are the arbitrary scalars into which we divide the continuum of possible values. The measure (quantity) is still the same.

Let me give you an example as you're all gung-ho about basic SI units being primary measures with everything else secondary or what have you. A flask of pure water at STP boiling away in a flask. You would say that the flask is at 373 K and that would be a primary measure because you could stick your sainted thermometer in it and SI happens to say that kelvins are the primary measure of temperature. So, if I measured the temperature with a well-calibrated IR spectrogram that is not a direct measure because the spectrograph is not a thermometer and a thermometer is what Mommy used to measure your fevers so you're compfortable with it but not other thermometric devices? Are you serious?

You stated in an earlier reply that

To the point of what is being sensed and temperature readings: if you are using a thermocouple it's sensing temperature change.

But you didn't go far enough because it's sensing the temperature change as a voltage drop, not as kelvins. So, what's the diff between my measuring temperature with a thermometer or a photometer coupled with a diffraction grating? They are both measuring the same phenomenon, only using different physical characteristics. I can measure the intensity of gamma rays with film, a Geiger counter or a spectrophometer. All would be direct measurements of the intensity but using different physical characteristics thereof.

Semantics isa fool's game and you seem especially skilled at it. Your argument that no one can measure a star's temperature because they can't use a thermometer is delusional, at best. Give me a scientific argument for what you're really trying to sell me (overunity) or play your games with other people of your level of understanding. Your studying non-existent molecules (HHO) is right in line with your understanding of physical measurements.

[AgingYoung]

You have a lot to learn about natural phenomena and how me measure them. ...

That took a pretty big person to admit they were wrong and apologize, Slimething. Least I could do is accept it and move on.

Gene

[Slimething]

That took a pretty big person to admit they were wrong and apologize, Slimething. Least I could do is accept it and move on.

Gene

Do you ever post anything of substance? Please make your next post a proton NMR scan of H-H-O. Now, that would just about clinch it for me. And I wouldn't argue whether it was a primary, secondary, ternary (and so on) measurement.

You would have taught me that we can't measure anything except temperature and the length of whatever we just happen to have a ruler for and that heretofore unknown molecules exist just because someone says they do in a patent application.:eek:

Otherwise, it's time for you to adjust your tin foil hat and get back to your "research".

[ponderingturtle]

From the NIST site



What I said..



your response was...


It seems where I said 'quantity' you read 'measure'.

I think what might have been misleading (in what I posted) was the idea in red. Since temperature is a base unit any measurement of it using derived quantities is what is called an inferred measurement; not a direct one. This is not my opinion. It's a matter of fact in instrumentation.

If you have a point along these lines I'll read it but I think this thread has been derailed enough. I've been researching HHO gas and have some ideas.

Gene


There is nothing special about dirived vs fundamental units, if you defined temp in terms of eV of KE that the atoms had on average would it go from being a dirived unit to a fundamental one?

What is is that there are a certain number of things that you can define seperately and if you want the units to work easily with fewer constants of conversion you define other units in terms of them. But there is nothing makeing one unit more fundamental than the therers.

For example you can view all speeds as its fraction of the speed of light and then speed is a fundamental unit and used to dirive other units.

[ponderingturtle]

That took a pretty big person to admit they were wrong and apologize, Slimething. Least I could do is accept it and move on.

Gene

Ah going for the typo and ignoreing the substance of why you are wrong in his post. Clearly the mark of someone who knows they are beaten.

[AgingYoung]

There is nothing special about dirived vs fundamental units, if you defined temp in terms of eV of KE that the atoms had on average would it go from being a dirived unit to a fundamental one?

That maybe is the confusion you have. There is how you would like to look at things and the way you think it should or could be then there's the way an entire industry considers them. Your opinions are different from the industry.

Gene

eta: no matter what you or anyone thinks freq isn't a base unit as defined by SI; it's a derived quantity. Maybe you could change that.

[AgingYoung]

Do you ever post anything of substance? Please make your next post a proton NMR scan of H-H-O.

Could you accurately read it if I did? And if you could accurately read it could you accurately type your answer? Some big if's there. You're not doing too well so far.

Your best bet is to keep posting so the point I made of you accusing me of using 'measure' when I should have been using 'unit' gets buried. I think you know that though.

Gene

[Slimething]

Could you accurately read it if I did?

There are many tallented scientists that peruse these forums. If I can't, maybe one of them can explain it to me, or they could understand it and reply straight back to you. No need though, I can read NMR output, especially one as simple (yet impossible) as one that H-H-O would generate. But you won't post one. You can't.

At this point, I'd even accept a drawing of the Lewis structure of the molecule from you. Maybe if you did this basic stuff before embarrassing yourself on public forums, your life would be far easier.

Agree? Good. Post the Lewis structure then explain to me how a hydrogen atom accepts four electrons in a stable conformation. Go ahead. It would be all the rage. You could publish this and your name would be mentioned in the same breath as Bohr. And, heck with Randi's prize, the Nobel awaits you and that carries grander moneys still!

So, Gene, I won't respond until you've done this. You can insult me all you want. I've had this treatment many times before from frustrating the likes of you. As a matter of fact, I revel in it!

Post the proton NMR or a Lewis structure with an explanation of hydrogen's heretofore unknown accomodation of four (count 'em, four!!!) electrons or go away.

Better still, just go away.

[AgingYoung]

ponderingturtle,

I think the key aspect of all this confusion is you've mistaken me for someone that needs to be persuaded of your views concerning base units and derived quantities or direct and inferred measurements. The thrust of your points have been concerning SI terms and how they’re defined. Now even if you could persuade me that your opinions should supercede what an entire industry uses I couldn't change a thing.

If you're really sincere about your convictions and you want to change things you might attend one of the General Conferences of CGPM. Mostly it's a meeting where governments, economies and observers set the standards that the scientific community uses. They would be the ones to make your case to.

Gene

[ponderingturtle]

That maybe is the confusion you have. There is how you would like to look at things and the way you think it should or could be then there's the way an entire industry considers them. Your opinions are different from the industry.

Gene

eta: no matter what you or anyone thinks freq isn't a base unit as defined by SI; it's a derived quantity. Maybe you could change that.

And SI definitions is not relevent here. As for frequency/wave length/energy per quanta, is as much as intrinsic quanity as anything else.

Unit system is not relevent to this discussion

[ponderingturtle]

ponderingturtle,

I think the key aspect of all this confusion is you've mistaken me for someone that needs to be persuaded of your views concerning base units and derived quantities or direct and inferred measurements. The thrust of your points have been concerning SI terms and how they’re defined. Now even if you could persuade me that your opinions should supercede what an entire industry uses I couldn't change a thing.

I don't care how a unit is defined, I am asking how it matters in measureing the expansion of mercury is a more dirrect measurement of the average kinetic energy, than the black body spectrum that is generated by it

What my confusion was that you had a rational coherent explanation for your idea that measureing indirrect measurements vs dirrect measurements

If you're really sincere about your convictions and you want to change things you might attend one of the General Conferences of CGPM. Mostly it's a meeting where governments, economies and observers set the standards that the scientific community uses. They would be the ones to make your case to.

Gene

How a unit is defined is not relevent to how it is being measured, we are talking about measurements not definitions, you where the one who brought up definitions of units.

THere are all kinds of unit systems, and in science you use the one that is most convient to your aplication, in some of those energy and the temp that it reflects are much more fundamental units

[AgingYoung]

How a unit is defined is not relevent to how it is being measured, we are talking about measurements not definitions, you where the one who brought up definitions of units.
before that you mentioned...
There is nothing special about dirived vs fundamental units, if you defined temp in terms of eV of KE that the atoms had on average would it go from being a dirived unit to a fundamental one?

What is is that there are a certain number of things that you can define seperately and if you want the units to work easily with fewer constants of conversion you define other units in terms of them. But there is nothing makeing one unit more fundamental than the therers.

For example you can view all speeds as its fraction of the speed of light and then speed is a fundamental unit and used to dirive other units.(???)

As to direct vs. inferred measurements it's a matter of how the industry considers them. As I said earlier it's not my opinion you're asking me to defend; it's a matter of standards and fundamentals in instrumentation. All this discussion isn't going to change how an industry thinks of things.

Gene

[Dilb]

It might be hard to follow but I'll give it one last shot. In a thermister the change in resistance is a function of temperature. The instrument varies as a function of the variable you are sensing. Mercury in a thermometer expands and contracts as a direct function of temperature.

When you're measuring a variable that is a function (i.e. freq) of the actual variable you want to measure (i.e. temp) you aren't directly measuring it. That's the case when first measuring frequency then inferring what temperature is. Temperature isn't the first variable that's causing the change in your instrument; it's not a direct measurement.

Gene

No, that's quite wrong.

The only reasonable way I can imagine you might define a "direct" measurement is a measurement of the defining equation of a variable. For example, in thermodynamics temperature is defined to be

T = dQ/dS

This is the formal defining equation of temperature, although this allows for things like negative temperature. The version that is more commenly thought of is

Average energy per degree of freedom = 1/2 k*T

This is a nicer way to think of a thermal temperature, where atoms are moving faster as temperature increases.

Now if you want to measure temperature, there are lots of ways to do it, mostly thanks to the thermal temperature. All sorts of properties change with thermal temperature, like the density (when mercury expands) or the conductivity (in metals or semiconductors) or the emitted radiation. All of these are secondary features, however, and in principle they could all be faked.

Your mercury might be compressed to such a degree that it shrinks. Your thermistor might be exposed to a radioactive source, causing a sudden increase in carrier populations. Your blackbody might be illuminated by a lamp. All of these do not affect the truth of your measurement, which is still a perfectly good measurement, but it does destroy the relationship between the property you wanted (T) and what you measured. Furthermore, you can't measure new temperatures (higher or lower than ever before) by these relations, because you can't entirely justify extending your equation to those levels. Blackbody radiation is actually significantly better than expansion or changes in conductivity, because blackbody radiation can be derived purely from theory, while other methods are generally empirical.

However, it is possible to measure Q and S. From that, T is defined. As I understand things this is how temperatures in the <1K region are measured. The measured values give you the definition of temperature, and if I were going to call anything a 'direct' measurement, I'd say it's a measurement of the properties that define a new property.

Standards are an entirely different matter, however. Measuring Q and S is really quite difficult. For this reason, bodies like NIST (I don't understand why you keep calling it an industry, considering it's all supported by governments) define temperature by the gas thermometer, with absolute zero and the triple point of water taken as a reference points. However, gas thermometers are rarely practical, which is why standards exist for all sorts of other ways. In particular, standards for radiance temperature exist (http://ts.nist.gov/MeasurementServices/Calibrations/Radiance_temperature.cfm).

There are some quantities that are based on standards and you can take an instrument that is calibrated to that standard and directly measure an unknown quantity.

So yes we have measured the temperature of the sun. Please, learn what you're talking about.

[AgingYoung]

No, that's quite wrong.

The only reasonable way I can imagine you might define a "direct" measurement is a measurement of the defining equation of a variable.



Here is a description of distance or ozone vertical profile inferred with spectrometry...

The ozone vertical profile is inferred from measurements from 255 nm through 306 nm, wavelengths which do not penetrate to the ground. The ozone cross section is higher at the shorter wavelengths and penetrations is less - 288 nm penetrates to about 38 km, while 255 nm penetrates only to 50 km. Thus, a wavelength scan is equivalent to an altitude scan. The profile inversion uses an optical statistical method [Rodgers, 1976] to obtain ozone profiles from the measured radiances and from a priori information. For details see Bhartia et al. [1996]. The profile inversion is done in 12 Umkehr layers (~5 km thick layers) although the actual vertical resolution of the SBUV instrument is approximately 8 km in the upper stratosphere and drops significantly in the lower stratosphere as a result of broader low-level contribution functions and multiple scattering contamination. The data in the lowest layers mostly reflect the difference between total column ozone and profile amounts above ~25 km and provide no real information about the altitude dependence of ozone in the lower stratosphere and troposphere.

The variable being measured is distance yet it's not being directly measured.

Here is a description of infrared radiometer

By detecting the infrared radiation given off by an object, it is possible to determine its average radiation temperature. By measuring the infrared radiation emitted by the local sky above a radiometer, we are, in effect, measuring the radiation temperature of the sky. Depending on the discipline, this method of indirect temperature measurement is referred to as non-contact thermometry or pyrometry.

Here's a description of a spectropyrometer

Our patented alexandrite effect spectropyrometer measure high to ultrahigh temperature measurement from 1000 K up to 100,000 K. The spectropyrometer measures the relative spectral power distribution of a radiating body in the UV-VIS-IR wavelength range, integrates the relative spectral power distribution in the whole wavelength range, and determines the temperature using the patented method. The spectropyrometer can measure any type of radiating bodies: blackbody, graybody, plasma, electric arc, etc.

Spectral power distribution is measured and temperature is inferred from that.


.... For this reason, bodies like NIST (I don't understand why you keep calling it an industry, considering it's all supported by governments) define temperature by ...etc.

You'd have to directly quote me where I called nist an industry before I'd believe that. Instrumentation is the industry.

standards for radiance temperature exist (http://ts.nist.gov/MeasurementServices/Calibrations/Radiance_temperature.cfm).
So yes we have measured the temperature of the sun. Please, learn what you're talking about.

nist has a course on spectroradiometry. Here is the course description:

The course will cover the fundamentals of spectroradiometry with classroom lectures and three afternoons of hands-on laboratory experiments. Instructors for the course will be radiometric experts from the Optical Technology Division. The course contents include lectures on fundamentals of radiometry, radiometric properties of sources and detectors, understanding spectroradiometric techniques, reflectance properties of materials, handling and determination of measurement uncertainties and an overview of the calibration services and the implementation of the quality system at the NIST. The laboratory sessions will include measurements of spectral radiance and spectral irradiance sources using spectroradiometers and discussions of uncertainties.

Spectroradiometry measures frequency. I've never said that temperature couldn’t be inferred from spectroradiometry; quite the opposite.

So yes we have measured the temperature of the sun. Please, learn what you're talking about.

You'd have to directly quote me where I said we can't measure the sun's temperature. We just can't make what is termed a direct measurement. We do it indirectly or thru inferrence.

Please, learn what you're talking about.
no comment

I think the first quote I posted of yours in this thread reads better like this...


The only reasonable way I can imagine you might define a "direct" measurement is a measurement of the defining equation of a variable.

No, that's quite wrong.


Gene

[AgingYoung]

I was looking around and found this course description.

Duration: 6 hours (includes 1 test)

Audience: This program is an excellent entry-level course for engineers, technicians, and operators as well as for the multicraft training needs of process and manufacturing facilities. This lesson is designed for participants familiar with basic mathematical operations including algebra.

What Students Learn: This comprehensive INVOLVE® interactive multimedia training program was produced in association with the Instrument Society of America (ISA). This four lesson program trains participants in the principles of process control and measurement.

This lesson presents the basic principles of pressure measurement and applications of direct and inferred pressure measurement methods. Various pressure instruments are presented including manometers, mechanical pressure sensors, and transducers.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, Dilb, but it just doesn't agree with an entire industry (instrumentation).

Gene

[ponderingturtle]

before that you mentioned...


As to direct vs. inferred measurements it's a matter of how the industry considers them. As I said earlier it's not my opinion you're asking me to defend; it's a matter of standards and fundamentals in instrumentation. All this discussion isn't going to change how an industry thinks of things.

Gene

What does industry have to do with the science being discussed here?

I have never come across that idea of inferred vs dirrect and with temp can not see how it can be supported, as you are always looking at some other quality of something that varies with temp dependance.

[Almo]

It might be hard to follow but I'll give it one last shot. In a thermister the change in resistance is a function of temperature. The instrument varies as a function of the variable you are sensing. Mercury in a thermometer expands and contracts as a direct function of temperature.

When you're measuring a variable that is a function (i.e. freq) of the actual variable you want to measure (i.e. temp) you aren't directly measuring it. That's the case when first measuring frequency then inferring what temperature is. Temperature isn't the first variable that's causing the change in your instrument; it's not a direct measurement.

Gene

What you measure in the mercury thermometer is the volume. Not the temperature. You infer the temperature from the volume.

[Folly]

What you measure in the mercury thermometer is the volume. Not the temperature. You infer the temperature from the volume.

It's even less direct than that. As I noted above, you're measuring the length and inferring the volume from that.

[AgingYoung]

I have never come across that idea of inferred vs dirrect...
So you just did. If you took a class you'd come across it again.
What does industry have to do with the science being discussed here?
The industry of instrumentation is a fundamental tool to most all industries and is as useful to science as mathematics is. Indeed some mathematical ideas could never get the answers they do if instruments wouldn't provide the values. There are concepts that are accepted by people in the industry that must not be intuitively obvious. It must be too technical. If you're really interested maybe you should take a class.

Gene

[Folly]

The industry of instrumentation is a fundamental tool to most all industries and is as useful to science as mathematics is. Indeed some mathematical ideas could never get the answers they do if instruments wouldn't provide the values.

Examples, please?

There are concepts that are accepted by people in the industry that must not be intuitively obvious. It must be too technical. If you're really interested maybe you should take a class.

Perhaps you should take some courses instead, AgingYoung. When measuring physical properties, it's pretty much all indirect.

From http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.cfm?Section=Article_Index1&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=9464

All temperature measurements are indirect. That is to say, the measurement is the measurement of volumetric expansion (liquid-filled thermometer), dimensional change (bimetallic thermometer), electromotive force (thermocouple), resistance (resistance temperature detector, or RTD), radiated energy (radiation thermometer), or some other characteristic of a material that varies predictably and reproducibly with temperature.

[ponderingturtle]

So you just did. If you took a class you'd come across it again.

The industry of instrumentation is a fundamental tool to most all industries and is as useful to science as mathematics is. Indeed some mathematical ideas could never get the answers they do if instruments wouldn't provide the values. There are concepts that are accepted by people in the industry that must not be intuitively obvious. It must be too technical. If you're really interested maybe you should take a class.

Gene

You have still failed to say how eletrical function of a semiconductor or expansion of a metal are so much more dirrect than black body radiation.

Everything to measure temperature is indirrect.

[davefoc]

This entire digression in this thread has been unfortunate.
1. It has nothing to do with the topic.
2. At best it is about a minor semantic issue.

AgingYoung seems to have a definition of direct and indirect temperature measurement in mind that he says is a recognized distinction somewhere. The distinction appears to be the difference between having a measuring device touch the material in question versus a measuring device not touch the material in question.

At one point it appears that AgingYoung may have thought this distinction was more important than it is, but now it has been explained several different ways that in fact all temperature measurement involves the measurement of some other characteristic than temperature and inferring the temperature based on a theory about how the measurement system varies with temperature.

I am not sure that AgingYoung disputes what has been said about this or not, but at this point does it matter? It is hard to imagine that if AgingYoung doesn't understand or agree with the basic idea of what has been said here that he will change his mind on this. Conversely, it might have been nice if those who had disagreed with AgingYoung could have worked a little harder to acknowledge that touching something and not touching something is a rational distinction that somebody might make between different measuring techniques, even though the distinction is not as significant as it might seem.

[AgingYoung]

davefoc,
This entire digression in this thread has been unfortunate.
1. It has nothing to do with the topic.
2. At best it is about a minor semantic issue.
I agree and have asked for this derail to be moved to a seperate topic.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

Perhaps you should take some courses instead, AgingYoung. When measuring physical properties, it's pretty much all indirect.

From http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.cfm?Section=Article_Index1&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=9464

Thanks for that very educational link and the partial quote you cited, Folly.

I indeed learned (again) what I've been saying all along by reading the rest of the quote...


However, in industrial process measurement and control, the concept of direct and indirect temperature measurement has a different meaning. A direct measurement is a measurement of the temperature of the product itself. An indirect measurement is a measurement of some other temperature from which one can infer the product temperature.

An example of direct temperature measurement occurs when, as in roasting meat or making candy, it is possible to insert a thermometer directly into the product; insertion or immersion thermometers are often used.

One uses an indirect measurement in baking bread because one controls the oven air temperature. It is not practical to insert a thermometer into the bread because the action adversely affects the quality of the bread.

Thanks for posting a link providing that clarification, Folly.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

I might add that example clarifies direct and indirect measuring of temperature in a process but still the variable being measured is temperature. When we are attempting to know the temperature of the sun we aren't measuring temperature; we're measuring frequency (among other things) and inferring temperature from that. There is a slight distinction between 'indirect' and 'inferred' temperature measurements.

Hopefully if this part of the thread gets moved and anyone would like to further discuss this some discussion might happen.

The only value I can see in a discussion of instrumentation in this thread is for analysis of the process claimed in the op. Since this discussion is in an endless loop I think it would be best if it were moved to its own thread.

Gene

[thinkoftheirony]

Hey, I hate to perpetuate the trend of new posters giving their 2 here, but I've developed a large interest in this "HHO" and Brown's Gas topic in the last few days and have looked over many sources, so I hope you don't mind me attempting to put some new ideas on the table. Coincidentally, his ideas (or the ideas of everyone else who has experimented with Brown's Gas) revolve around the same principles discussed in of two of my classes this semester, Organic Chemistry and Physics E/M, so I'm interested in it this.

They've never really claimed that HHO is a source of free energy, or that we are tapping Hydrogen and Oxygen's unseen energy source, so that really isn't the significance of it. Reacting this gas as a flame of sorts heats up different materials differently, and I believe this claim because a similar effect called magnetic induction + Joule heating is observed and understood in the world. If this "HHO flame" were really a source of huge, high-frequency magnetic waves, then this effect of heating up oxygen only slightly and metals a whole lot is completely understandable. The common motif of Klein's rambling is magnetism in molecules, so it really is possible.

Below is a long rant of my thoughts regarding the whole thing, which most people probably don't want to read. It's pretty much summarized by what I've said above.

I wanted to first state that, based off of what I have read, I do not believe that Klein's explanation (the patent) conveys a thorough explanation of his findings (though I'm not sure if you're supposed to solve Schrodinger's equation or anything in a patent) and I therefore somewhat doubt that he has a comprehensive understanding of what is going on. In addition, Klein's company makes no claim that the production of HHO is a source of infinite energy or that it will solve the need for renewable energy - most of it goes into the extremely abnormal characteristics of it's "combustion", which is what really intrigued me.

I agree that you are putting in as much or more energy than you are getting back, but this fact does not eliminate the possibility that the gas's properties are as Klein claims.

If you peruse the patent, the concept of magnetism's importance are repeated over and over again, and I believe that this has the best explanation of what is going on. The reason I don't believe it's BS, that the flame's can "adjust" it's heat based on the material it is in contact with, is because a very similar effect is already well understood as magnetic induction and Joule heating. If you want to know about this, check out induction cookers.

Magnetic induction heats up conductive materials much more than non-conductive things, just like this "HHO flame". In short, if you pass a magnetic field through tungsten and vary it at a high enough frequency and a high enough amplitude, it will sublimate just like with this "HHO flame". Basically, you will make the electrons move around it in eddy currents that, because of internal resistance, will heat up the tungsten.

While the flame mimics the effects of magnetic induction, it doesn't mean that it is the same. I, however, am convinced that the variable heating is a result of induced currents losing energy to heat.

I mean, this can be easily tested if someone just connected a low-resistance coil to an oscilloscope and measured the voltage/emf induced by being very far from the flame and gradually moving closer (there should be significant current even far away from the flame if this is true). In addition, if this is merely an effect of induction, HHO should heat up copper faster than it heats up Tungsten

I have a hard time understanding how Klein's description of the molecule and it's "magnetic" bonds would contribute to this. He speaks of toroidal motion of the electrons (toroidal solenoids) but I don't really see the significance of this.

Every time I pursue an understanding of what this HHO bonding is exactly, I just dig myself deeper. Right now, I'm looking into how toroidal solenoids created by the electrons produce attraction - anapoles. I haven't found any article that clearly articulates the importance of anapoles (without me having to pay for the article - d'oh). Anyways, please let me know what you think of this.

EDIT: I wanted to add a statement that I thought better summarized what I'm trying to say - perhaps the "flame" is not itself a source of heat (or is a very small source of heat) but is instead a source of magnetic waves of huge frequency and magnitude. (This of course does not say that it creates more energy than it takes to create, I'm trying to propose an explanation for the unique welding properties of the gas.)

[AgingYoung]

thinkoftheirony,

Excellent rant. I agree the explanation by physicist Ruggero Maria Santilli and Denny Klein might fall short of what is actually happening with Aquygen™.

This claim from their site:
An Aquygen™ flame in open air burns at only 259° F, but applied to a substrate it can produce temperatures of over 10,000° F depending on the target media.
is astounding. There are other claims in the patent that go beyond this one.

Gene

[Almo]

It's even less direct than that. As I noted above, you're measuring the length and inferring the volume from that.

Oh yeah. :) Sorry, got to page 2 and a half or something and just HAD to pitch in.

[davefoc]

There are two possibly legitimate claims underlying some of this at least:

1. Welding using a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and hydrogen may be a useful process for some things.

2. Adding small amounts of hydrogen to the fuel mixture may improve efficiency (get more useful energy out of the same amount of fuel).

The idea for claim 1 has been around for a very long time. There are even a few companies making welders that use the idea. The idea doesn't seem to have much practical benefit. It doesn't seem to have been adopted by any mainstream welding manufacturer's and the few independent sources that I could find that had looked at it didn't seem to think much of the idea.

I can't see where Klein is adding anything new here on this. Even though he claims that he has invented something different than Brown's gas the claims seem pretty much like the Brown's gas claims of new or unknown science that don't seem to be backed up by any mainstream physicists or chemists.

The idea for claim 2 has been around for a very long time also. There are a number of companies pursuing this idea and even some that are selling devices that claim to improve mileage by using the principle. It is not clear that there is in fact enough benefit from the idea to actually justify its implementation. No mainstream automobile manufacturers are known to be pursuing it and I don't know of any EPA approved testing that actually verifies that the devices for sale do improve mileage.

Here again, I don't see where Klein has added anything unique to this claim. He seems to be less far along and less credible than some of the others that I and others linked to previously that are pursuing the idea.

[AgingYoung]

I can't see where Klein is adding anything new here on this. Even though he claims that he has invented something different than Brown's gas the claims seem pretty much like the Brown's gas claims of new or unknown science that don't seem to be backed up by any mainstream physicists or chemists.

This question is to anyone that has experience welding/cutting with Brown's gas. Does it behave like Aquygen™ is claimed to, with a varying energy release depending on what material it is being used with.

The application puts it this way:
[0012] The second important feature of the HHO gas is that it exhibits a "widely varying energy content" in British Thermal Units (BTU), ranging from a relatively cold flame in open air, to large releases of thermal energy depending on its use. This is a direct evidence of fundamental novelty in the chemical structure of the HHO gas.

When looking at the patent application I found this:
1.-8. (canceled)
9. A bond between a fossil fuel and a combustible gas, said combustible gas being composed of clusters of hydrogen and oxygen atoms with a toroidal polarization of their orbitals and consequential magnetic field along the symmetry axis of said toroidal polarizations, said bond originating from the induced magnetic polarization of at least some of the atomic orbitals of said fuel and the consequential attraction between opposing magnetic polarities wherein said combustible gas has a varying energy content depending on its use and said bonded fossil fuel and combustible gas has a varying energy content depending on its use.

but when looking at the pdf file of the application I saw this:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6897457c91a11ea27.jpg

Gene

[Slimething]

Coincidentally, his ideas (or the ideas of everyone else who has experimented with Brown's Gas) revolve around the same principles discussed in of two of my classes this semester, Organic Chemistry and Physics E/M, so I'm interested in it this.

The MO of hucksters involves making impossible things seem likely.

Reacting this gas as a flame of sorts heats up different materials differently, and I believe this claim because a similar effect called magnetic induction + Joule heating is observed and understood in the world. If this "HHO flame" were really a source of huge, high-frequency magnetic waves, then this effect of heating up oxygen only slightly and metals a whole lot is completely understandable.

The reaction of hydrogen and oxygen to produce water involves neither induction nor Joules heating. The HHO flame cannot be the source of an immense magnetic field or, perhaps, we've seen our first proof of actual magic occurring.

Every time I pursue an understanding of what this HHO bonding is exactly, I just dig myself deeper.

It's easy to spend a lot of time and money trying to prove that magic doesn't really exist. It's much akin to trying to prove that deities don't exist. Take my advice and make the proponents of this kind of crap live up to their obligation to prove that their proposed phenomena exist. At the moment, I can't even get the basics out of them, namely an NMR trace or a Lewis dot structure of HHO with an explanation of how hydrogen can host four electrons and be stable.

Save your bread, save your sanity and wait until one of these savants brings forth the science or the machine.

[AgingYoung]

Save your bread, save your sanity and wait until one of these savants brings forth the science or the machine.

You could review the patent and build your own generator or go directly to Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc. and Lease, rent, or buy the H2O 1500 Aquygen™ Gas Generator. They have brought forth the machine.

In some of the video at the site there are artisans working with glass that claim to be using the machine. The machine is available for testing.

Gene

[Folly]

This will be my last post on the irritatingly long derail about measurement. I have started a new thread for AgingYoung to continue expanding on his unusual ideas about direct measurement: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70332.

Sorry for continuing the derail for so long: I should have made a new thread sooner. Back to talking about impossible gasses!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Please do continue the measurement discussion in Folly's new thread.

~~ Paul

[Slimething]

You could review the patent and build your own generator

and get sued out of my mind...

or go directly to Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc. and Lease, rent, or buy the H2O 1500 Aquygen™ Gas Generator. They have brought forth the machine.

Well, I'm happy to find that out. I thought we were just talking about a patent application but, as they've brought out a machine, I imagine that someone somewhere is studying the operating principle. So, I went to these guys' website and found absolutely no science behind their claims so that was a waste of time. They alluded to some "current research" and I found that one and only one study has been done. The abstract of said study and it was less than impressive, only parroting the claims that Klein has made. The author was someone named "Santilli" and when I ran a search on him, he turned out to be a physicist who himself holds several patents on overunity devices. Quaintly, he uses the molecular structure HxH-O to describe your favorite gas and argues that it is a complex of H2O, OH (radical or ion not specified), and H2O2 with magnetic properties heretofore unknown. Santilli wants $30 for the full paper but I think I'll hold on to that for the moment, thank you.

Interestingly, he reports that HHO is odorless so I imagine it's stable enough in the atmosphere to run all kinds of tests on it. I imagine he's also going to have to dodge a few questions from government regulators as to how he got approval to do human testing on this molecule. (Gene, maybe you can help him by putting up your stultifying argument that this was not a direct measurement!!! ):jaw-dropp But, let's not get sidetracked again.

Gene, you still have a chance at that Nobel! This guy Santilli has discovered radically new bonding phenomena but sure is taking his time to get the details published. All we would need are the measurements of the magnetic flux that comes from nowhere, an expression of bonding energies and orbital diagrams. Nothing that would compromise his invention, in other words.

In some of the video at the site there are artisans working with glass that claim to be using the machine. The machine is available for testing.

Gee, no kidding? Their video shows people actually making component for the machine? Wow! And it's been on TV, to boot! As Homer Simpon says, "TV doesn't lie!"

[AgingYoung]

I found this description of Brown's Gas:

Imagine Magazine (1988)
"New Alchemy --- Water Into Fire"
by Paul White
In one instant the flame can be the temperature of a candle, and you can wave your finger through it. Then, it will melt and split granite or fuse metal pipes to house bricks. Brown’s gas can reach 6000 degrees, the hottest known temperature. Tungsten, the most heat-resistant metal which melts at 3600 degrees, changes directly from a solid to a dark gas under the welder.

It seems that Brown's gas and Aquygen™ have that same property. If anyone has used Brown's gas it would be good if you could substantiate that.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

and get sued out of my mind...

Small change.

Patent infringement
Defenses

The single most common defense to patent infringement is a counter-attack on the patent itself, i.e., the validity of the patent and the allegedly infringed claims. Even if the patent is valid, the plaintiff must still prove that every element of at least one claim was infringed and that such infringement caused some sort of damage. In case of a medical procedure patent issued after 1996, a U.S. infringer may also raise a statutory safe harbor defense to infringement.

Research for "purely philosophical" inquiry is not an infringement, but research directed to commercial purposes is - unless the research is directed toward obtaining approval of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for introduction of a generic version of a patented drug (see Research exemption and Hatch-Waxman Act).

Gene

[davefoc]

It seems that Brown's gas and Aquygen™ have that same property. If anyone has used Brown's gas it would be good if you could substantiate that.


http://tinaja.com/glib/muse120.pdf
This article that I linked to earlier has a section on what the author calls stoke gas, or a stoichiometric mix of hydrogen and oxygen.

The relevant information is a few pages down in the article. Here is a quote from the article:

Stokegas burns with an extremely hot but remarkably low energy flame. The degrees are there but the BTU’s are not. Ferinstance, gasoline offers 9000 watt hours of energy per liter. Stokegas at normal temperature and pressure delivers only 2.4 watt hours per liter.

...

Claims that you can briefly place your hand near a stokegas flame do appear true. But do not try it! The reason is that despite the extreme temperature, there is not enough heat energy present to briefly do you any significant harm.

A claim that stokegas "adjusts" its temperature to suit the task at hand is apparently rotten labwork. Infrared thermometers are based on emissivity and there is darn little to emiss. The correct method to make an accurate reading is to place an object in the flame and heat it. Then measure the object’s emitted radiation.

Even then, interpretation can get rather tricky.

...Randi also referred to Klein's claims in one of his columns:

http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-06/060906just.html#i3

A reader sent this comment in:
I was directed to your site a few days ago regarding the "water torch." I’m not sure what the patent office is up to these days, but I own an old Henes Water Welder made in the '60s which is a nice little electrolyzer-based oxy-hydrogen torch, great for jewelry work, making tiny thermocouples, etc. No great mystery there. Henes used to publish a photo ad showing a fine wire thermocouple being fused inside the tip of a filter tip cigarette without burning the paper. The torch tip was something like a #30 hypodermic syringe needle, so the flame diameter was very small and with careful control of gas pressure and good aim, you could concentrate all the heat in a very small region.All of this conjecture would be moot however if someone could supply an article from a reputable publication that covers welding that had tested Klein's welder and found that it would be useful in the welding industry. I did find an article on the web written by an individual who claimed welding experience who said as, I recall, that the welder was not of any value for general welding applications. The energy content of the flame was just too low for most applications.

So far, absolutely nothing has been put forward to provide evidence that Klein is anything but a common scammer. If there is anything like that out there nobody contributing to this thread seems to have found it.

[Dilb]

You'd have to directly quote me where I said we can't measure the sun's temperature. We just can't make what is termed a direct measurement. We do it indirectly or thru inferrence.

In post 91 you said
Upthread there was a mention of measuring the surface of the sun and it was pointed out that we could measure that temp. We can’t. We can derive or calculate a temperature.

[thinkoftheirony]

The reaction of hydrogen and oxygen to produce water involves neither induction nor Joules heating. The HHO flame cannot be the source of an immense magnetic field or, perhaps, we've seen our first proof of actual magic occurring.

Well, to try to explain the HHO flame, we would have to first assume that it is not the traditional combustion of hydrogen in the presence of oxygen.
(Actually, while it's true that the combustion reaction itself of hydrogen and oxygen does not require induction, burning hydrogen will have magnetic effects, and create an induction effect + joule heating [however small]. Hydrogen is diamagnetic and oxygen is paramagnetic. Assuming it is done in a magnetic field, the reaction of the two to yield water, a diamagnetic molecule, will have a net reduction of the overall magnetic field. This effect, of course, drops to zero as the random motion approaches infinity and the magnetic field approaches zero, which is true enough in the real world to not have a noticeable yield and imply that I am also making a pedantic argument.)
I can't explain it at this point, but it would have to be some sort of crazy magnetic concoction that links the H and O together as described in the patent.

In previous posts, it has been stated that such a molecule is not possible, which brings me to another point I wanted to bring up. By any stretch of valence bond or molecular orbital theory, the molecule that he describes is not possible. However, molecular orbital theory (the overall best molecular model) is admittedly a large approximation of the Schrodinger equation. In this approximation, a large number of magnetic effects from spin-spin coupling, spin-orbital coupling, etc. are assumed to have no part in the total energy calculation. If magnetic effects were more prominent (via google: toroidal electron-orbital magnetic dipoles [sorry, I'm not trying to jargon this to death but that's what it is] have the largest effect when the nucleus is small and has a large proton:neutron ratio i.e. Hydrogen) then it completely compromises our idea of what a molecule is classically supposed to be. Basically, if it is a magnetic molecule, then disregard any idea of what is a valence-bonding molecule.

At this point, I just wanted to say that I DO have skepticism to this whole thing. I am assuming that everything I learn about Klein's fantastic invention from YouTube and Google is the truth, but I'm trying to say that there are explanations for what is observed. I'm arguing that "it's possible" because I merely want to present a fair analysis of the other side.


It's easy to spend a lot of time and money trying to prove that magic doesn't really exist. It's much akin to trying to prove that deities don't exist. Take my advice and make the proponents of this kind of crap live up to their obligation to prove that their proposed phenomena exist. At the moment, I can't even get the basics out of them, namely an NMR trace or a Lewis dot structure of HHO with an explanation of how hydrogen can host four electrons and be stable.


He hasn't done NMR of it yet, but I would presume it would get some really crazy results (there's actually mass and UV up somewhere on the interweb). Once again assuming it is a "magnecule", NMR results would bring up some really skewed data. He claims the overall gas is a mix of HHO in arbitrarilly long polymer-esque chains, H2, O2, and H2O, and if the magnetic fields of these random chains affect the net field randomly for each nucleus, it'll be a big mess.

I just wanted to re-iterate that I am not strongly for either side - I have lots of skepticism but I'm just playing devil's advocate.

[AgingYoung]

Irony,

Have you read the application (20060075683)?

Gene

[thinkoftheirony]

AgingYoung: I've glazed over it and read #67-121 in a little bit more depth. He goes into detail about the molecule and why the molecule exists, but speaks little of how it has the properties he claims it does.

[Dilb]

Irony,

Have you read the application (20060075683)?

Gene

From the patent application, under DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
[0009] The first remarkable feature of the special electrolyzers of this invention are their efficiencies. For example, with the use of only 4 Kwh, an electrolyzer rapidly converts water into 55 standard cubic feet (scf) of HHO gas at 35 pounds per square inch (psi). By using the average daily cost of electricity at the rate of $0.08/Kwh, the above efficiency implies the direct cost of the HHO gas of $0.007/scf. It then follows that the HHO gas is cost competitive with respect to existing fuels.

Which is blatently wrong, though the use of scf/kWh makes is harder to tell. This is exactly the same claim I analyzed earlier in this thread (post 74), except he's now dropped the energy needed to 4 kWh. This is a reasonable amount of energy to use to electrolyze water into ordinary hydrogen and oxygen. In regards to price, it costs essentially the same as natural gas, slightly cheaper since he's dropped the energy needed by 20% for no reason. Natural gas, however, gives you only 4 times the energy, so it's not competitive at all.

Claim 10 is simply wrong. Evaportaing that much water would take nowhere near that much energy.
Claims 12 and 13 seem to directly violate the first law of thermodynamics, although they may simple be poorly worded.

None of these claims are new, so there isn't much to discuss.

[AgingYoung]

Irony,

The patent has gone thru different revisions. For instance the pdf copy I've seen lists items 1-8 that were later cancelled. I'm not curious enough to study the patent and it's different states. If anyone doesn't have access to the first 8 items and would like me to post them just ask. The US patent appears to be filed in Europe (http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US2001038087&F=8&QPN=US2001038087) also.


Dave,

Here (http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm) is an article by someone that spent quite a bit of resources in the '90's (?) looking at Brown's gas. He explains why he thinks it's an impractical welding/cutting gas. One point he mentions is the weight of the machine. The need for a heavy duty power supply further decreases its portability. The caveat is the letter is from an anonymous former researcher. It's pretty abusive also.

There could be a difference between Brown's gas and Aquygen™ but right now I'm not seeing it. I'm at the point with this that I'd have to see something drastic. Everyone comes to their conclusions as they do and in their own time. If there are any lurkers reading and have something positive to say about Klein and Aquygen™ by all means speak up.

I would have to think more about the idea of using Aquygen™ in a car. I don't know how the results they claim at their site could be explained. Anyone with any ideas? I think if there were anything to the idea automakers would be looking into it; maybe some type of hybrid. There is no patent on electrolysis.

Gene

[davefoc]

That is the link I'd seen before. It appears that it was written concerning Brown's gas rather than Klein's gas and I was wrong about that. Of course I am of the view that they are just two different names for the same BS, so I wasn't all that wrong.

The link has an interesting section where somebody does calculations about the energy required to produce Brown's gas and explains in a quantified way why this scheme is BS.

I noticed one interesting thing when I was looking at some of the advertising videos for the welder. They were showing the welder being used to sweat copper pipes and contrasting it with acetylene welding for this purpose. This is the process by which copper pipes are soldered together.

A hand held propane (or mapp gas) torch or a torch connected to a small acetylene tank are standard tools for soldering copper pipe. I don't know who they thought they were BS'ing with this little piece of crap but I just can't imagine a plumber lugging one of their machines around to solder with when the existing tools that don't require an electrical hookup are much smaller and work great and are almost certainly much cheaper than the cost of their machine.

[Slimething]

A hand held propane (or mapp gas) torch or a torch connected to a small acetylene tank are standard tools for soldering copper pipe. I don't know who they thought they were BS'ing with this little piece of crap but I just can't imagine a plumber lugging one of their machines around to solder with when the existing tools that don't require an electrical hookup are much smaller and work great and are almost certainly much cheaper than the cost of their machine.

My favorite HHO Moment is in the Fox News clip where Klein demonstrates how his new toy cuts through anything, specifically a brick. Minutes later, he holds the flame against a metal surface to demonstrate that at least some of the oxidation products condense into water droplets.

Maybe I can get rich selling bottles of universal solvent.

[Schneibster]

Every BS artiste out there has a scheme for getting SOMETHING for free: free money is a popular one, and there are fifty million commercials and web sites about how to get free money. Free energy is another one. And remember, every single one is as plausible as the artiste can make it. When you remember that YOU are the source of THEIR free money, it all starts to get very much clearer, very fast. It's a simple principle: TANSTAAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Feel free to consider it my "HHO torch." :D

[AgingYoung]

From 1990 to 2000, sales in the U.S. bottled water market increased from 2,238 million gallons to 5,033 million gallons, and sales in 2000 reached $5,696 million.

The universal solvent can cost more than gas.

Gene

[Captain Moose]

Wow! I must congratulate this forum.. The first thread over 3 pages I have ever read completely! Much brain food here.. ;)

I recall an idea that popped into my head when I was a kid after seeing Electrolysis at work that ran along the same lines. I also hit the Entropy barrier, but decided to cheat..
Instead of trying to recover energy in electric form to power the electrolysis (for on demand production of "fuel") I resolved to use solar power.
Solar panels are extremely inefficient as far as I'm aware, but still could be practical?
I have had some thoughts on improving output (although not efficiency) of solar panels, but as with most simple ideas they've usually been thought of (and discounted) before.

Nope, I've not tried this at home.. I'm an armchair scientist too, because I can't afford the lab..

[anor277]

........

In previous posts, it has been stated that such a molecule is not possible, which brings me to another point I wanted to bring up. By any stretch of valence bond or molecular orbital theory, the molecule that he describes is not possible. However, molecular orbital theory (the overall best molecular model) is admittedly a large approximation of the Schrodinger equation. In this approximation, a large number of magnetic effects from spin-spin coupling, spin-orbital coupling, etc. are assumed to have no part in the total energy calculation. If magnetic effects were more prominent (via google: toroidal electron-orbital magnetic dipoles [sorry, I'm not trying to jargon this to death but that's what it is] have the largest effect when the nucleus is small and has a large proton:neutron ratio i.e. Hydrogen) then it completely compromises our idea of what a molecule is classically supposed to be. Basically, if it is a magnetic molecule, then disregard any idea of what is a valence-bonding molecule.





.....................
I just wanted to re-iterate that I am not strongly for either side - I have lots of skepticism but I'm just playing devil's advocate.

The molecule is unlikely not because it contravenes theory (it doesn't - a molecular orbital approach, not that I've done one, would be perfectly adequate to model such a species; a Lewis dot formulation of H+H(-)=O:: is even simpler but of course bizarre) but because it contravenes experiment. Chemistry is driven by experiment, not by theory. In the present instance, as far as I know, nowhere have the properties of the molecule been enumerated; what is its boiling point, freezing point, how was it made, what is its IR/Raman spectrum? Any of these experiments on a pure substance as simple as HHO would be quite definitive. In the absence of any such information, anyone is perfectly justified in dismissing the claim out of hand.

[The Don]

....Instead of trying to recover energy in electric form to power the electrolysis (for on demand production of "fuel") I resolved to use solar power.
Solar panels are extremely inefficient as far as I'm aware, but still could be practical?
Fossil fuels are incredibly energy dense (lots of energy per unit mass) which is whythey're used so much to generate electicity.

On some thread somewhere I did a back of a fag (as in cigarette) packet calculation to work out the area of solar panels required to generate the energy requried by a petrol station. I can't find the calculation, but it was a considerable acreage

[Luke]

..
Instead of trying to recover energy in electric form to power the electrolysis (for on demand production of "fuel") I resolved to use solar power.
Solar panels are extremely inefficient as far as I'm aware, but still could be practical?
I have had some thoughts on improving output (although not efficiency) of solar panels, but as with most simple ideas they've usually been thought of (and discounted) before.

Nope, I've not tried this at home.. I'm an armchair scientist too, because I can't afford the lab..

I went to a talk by the Director of the National Renewable Energy Lab over at Notre Dame a couple of months ago and he said that the current cutting edge technology in PhotoVoltaic cells allows efficiency rates of up to 43%!!! This is hugely better than the previous best in the 15-25% range.

Just thought I'd share. Luke

[pgwenthold]

The molecule is unlikely not because it contravenes theory (it doesn't - a molecular orbital approach, not that I've done one, would be perfectly adequate to model such a species; a Lewis dot formulation of H+H(-)=O:: is even simpler but of course bizarre) but because it contravenes experiment. Chemistry is driven by experiment, not by theory. In the present instance, as far as I know, nowhere have the properties of the molecule been enumerated; what is its boiling point, freezing point, how was it made, what is its IR/Raman spectrum? Any of these experiments on a pure substance as simple as HHO would be quite definitive. In the absence of any such information, anyone is perfectly justified in dismissing the claim out of hand.

Be careful here. There are a lot of subtle things you have implied that do not necessarily hold. For example, you do not need to know a boiling point or freezing point for something to exist. Especially something like HHO, which is, in fact, going to be gaseous at room temp, undoubtedly (it's not water!), and will be gaseous under Denny Klein's conditions. Moreover, who cares about it being formed as a pure substance? In this system, it doesn't need to be pure or liquid, just exist in adequate concentrations (who knows what is adequate?) to effectively store the isomerization energy. Unfortunately for Denny Klein, it probably doesn't.

I just did a density functional calculation that predicts HHO to exist as a stable minimum. It is a triplet state, and basically a complex between H and OH radicals. In fact, it is the lowest energy structure on the triplet surface. I don't have a good prediction of the binding energy, but I would not expect it to be large (my estimate: 2 kcal/mol - calc'd value 0.2 kcal/mol at 298K)

Thus, the objection to "HHO" as a product is that it will not be bound _at room temperature_. It certainly could exist (as an old friend used to say, "in intergalactic space at 0 K"), but not under the conditions of this process.

If the binding energy is as weak as the calculations say, then it would be very tough to make HHO even at very low temps, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is someone out there with the ability to do it if they wanted.

FWIW, there were a lot of claims about the detection of the triplet state of water in the early 70s, but these were fleeting and tough to interpret. Early theoretical studies predicted it to be unbound, but see my DFT results above - predicting it to be weakly bound at 298K (and bound by 2.1 kcal/mol at 0 K). I don't think the original claims of the detection of triplet water are right, but formation of HHO is possible under the right conditions.

[JamesM]

I just did a density functional calculation that predicts HHO to exist as a stable minimum.

Out of curiosity, what are the details of the calculation? Has the functional been calibrated on radicals?

[pgwenthold]

Out of curiosity, what are the details of the calculation? Has the functional been calibrated on radicals?


It was B3LYP

It's not great for dispersive interactions, but still better than a lot of theory out there (far better than MCSCF, which is the theory paper I saw that predicted it to be unbound). In general, it does pretty well with triplet states, in my experience using it. In fact, to a large extent, I would trust it more for open-shell states than I would for singlet states, unless the singlet is overwhelmingly single-reference.

[Slimething]

The molecule is unlikely not because it contravenes theory (it doesn't - a molecular orbital approach, not that I've done one, would be perfectly adequate to model such a species; a Lewis dot formulation of H+H(-)=O:: is even simpler but of course bizarre) ...

anor, a Lewis dot of this molecule is not simple. You'd have to rob from Peter (H) to pay Paul (O). You could not give the two hydrogen atoms a stable two-electron bond without depriving oxygen of the doublet it requires. That was my point.

Of course, pgwenthold has gone to the trouble of modeling this species and found it possible but thermodynamically unfavorable. Water is very complex and such species as (H+)x (OH-)y already exist but they are not magical in their decomposition into energy.

What the bunkum artists here are trying to sell is water. Plain, old water. If you want to invest, go right ahead.

[Roadtoad]

You know, I got a "D" in High School chemistry. And even I could follow this discussion.

I keep thinking if my old HS chem teacher were more interested in teaching, rather than being a big shot/bad@$$, I might have done better in class. I certainly would have been able to avoid a lot of wasted time reading up on the BS claims of certain "entreprenuers", including the guy who had a piece of brass pipe with a series of plates with crescents cut into them, which supposedly helped the gas in your fuel tank burn better once it hit the carb. (He really got pissed off with me when I dared to ask how the hell this would help, when it's still got to go through a long length of aluminum tubing before it hits the carb, and any "oxygenation" effect would have long been lost.)

[pgwenthold]

anor, a Lewis dot of this molecule is not simple. You'd have to rob from Peter (H) to pay Paul (O). You could not give the two hydrogen atoms a stable two-electron bond without depriving oxygen of the doublet it requires. That was my point.


Yeah, but so what? Lewis representations are pretty handy guides for predicting common structures, but tell you nothing about how instable the less-good structure will be, if at all. Clearly HHO is going to be less good than HOH, but that is all the Lewis approach can tell you.

Consider, for example, the structures of nitriles. By Lewis guidelines, we would predict the RCN form to be the best, because it lacks formal charge separation. Indeed, that is true. However, isonitriles, with structures RNC, are fairly common.

I don't see that even Denny Klein is claiming that HHO is a stable substance that can be isolated in pure form, just that it is formed as in intermediate. When it comes to reactive intermediates, Lewis theory isn't very useful.

[thinkoftheirony]

HHO doesn't work with valence bonding, end of story - no need to calculate theoretical boiling points, bond distances, electron maps, electric dipoles, molecule energy, NMR readouts, or solve Schrodinger's equation to prove it.

[pgwenthold]

HHO doesn't work with valence bonding, end of story -


I don't know what that means.

I can certainly provide a valence bond description of HHO. It suggests that HHO is pretty unstable, but then, we knew that. The only question is, how unstable?

To learn that, you do things like solve the Schroedinger equation.

[Captain Moose]

According to a well respected writer, Schroedingers cat was neither dead nor alive, but in a state of "being pissed off" being stuck in this box & went back to last Tuesday and had lunch again. lol How about if to the cat as an observer Schroedinger ceased to exist, so would his experiment, etc.. *giggle*

To my amazement (and with the help of Wikipedia) my brain isn't melting trying to keep up.
I know this may not be relevent, but I like to take in all information relevent or otherwise:
Although very low, water is diamagnetic. Peroxide is even more so.
Would it be possible to use this property to augment the process?

Also, with regard to solar systems, would the use of lenses or possibly "reverse laser" to focus more light onto each cell make much difference?

(Please forgive my ingorance, it is not intentional)

[Slimething]

Yeah, but so what? Lewis representations are pretty handy guides for predicting common structures, but tell you nothing about how instable the less-good structure will be, if at all. Clearly HHO is going to be less good than HOH, but that is all the Lewis approach can tell you.

I don't see that even Denny Klein is claiming that HHO is a stable substance that can be isolated in pure form, just that it is formed as in intermediate. When it comes to reactive intermediates, Lewis theory isn't very useful.

I can see where your objections are coming. You think that the claim of stability of HHO was not made but, indeed, it has been. Earlier in this overlong thread. As a matter of fact, someone has given an "odor" for it. You look it up. I'm tired of this subject.

[thinkoftheirony]

Yes, this is indeed an overlong thread with very little progress in dispute. I just wanted to add another thought into this quagmire: Klein has some ridiculous model of a molecule formed by magnetic attraction which he has done very little to nothing to prove, so of course we have a right to be skeptical until he provides some empirical evidence. However, if you were to argue to him "Hey, this isn't possible according to valence bonding", he would reply "it isn't valence bonding, they're magnetic bonds - GG."

I mentioned previously that magnetic attraction in HHO is plausible, but I'm going to have to go back on what I said - it's definitely not enough in any realistic case to make molecules.

[Stephen]

I would not give this guy the time of day, let alone any money. Google: Brown's Gas. This stuff is not new. Nor does it save any money. This is more of that one ignorant person taking advantage of a bunch of other ignorant people kind of stuff. Google/wayback will allow you to see his older websites. His newest one has been shut down. Guess why.

[tprofessor@hotmail]

For those skeptics who doubt the 'new fuel' as outlined on the video clips and also this forum, I wish to point out that the technology and the theory are sound.
The gas does burn and can be used for welding and a whole gamut of other uses. The gas is the problem, due to it's nature it has to be generated on-site and is not safe to store...... However, I am looking at designing some equipment that uses a similar gas (HHO, Browns Gas, Rhodes Gas or any of the other names it has been called over the years. I think that it has some commercial applications, but maybe not as the 'fuel of the future'

Please keep this forum going, I believe that one of these 'crazy' ideas will prove to be sustainable!

[Freethinker]

Please keep this forum going, I believe that one of these 'crazy' ideas will prove to be sustainable!

And Randi has a million dollars that says they won't.

[Dilb]

For those skeptics who doubt the 'new fuel' as outlined on the video clips and also this forum, I wish to point out that the technology and the theory are sound.

No they aren't. The correct theory proven theory is that he's electrolyzing water to produce H2 and O2. Klein's actual numbers confirm this theory. Producing hydrogen from water is not remotely new, and a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen has very few good properties. The best is probably that you can explode a balloon full of the stuff, while a balloon of pure H2 will merely burn.

[Roadtoad]

For those skeptics who doubt the 'new fuel' as outlined on the video clips and also this forum, I wish to point out that the technology and the theory are sound.
The gas does burn and can be used for welding and a whole gamut of other uses. The gas is the problem, due to it's nature it has to be generated on-site and is not safe to store...... However, I am looking at designing some equipment that uses a similar gas (HHO, Browns Gas, Rhodes Gas or any of the other names it has been called over the years. I think that it has some commercial applications, but maybe not as the 'fuel of the future'

Please keep this forum going, I believe that one of these 'crazy' ideas will prove to be sustainable!

Sure, maybe one of these "crazy" ideas might work, but not this one. The more I read about it, the more appalled I'm becoming that anyone would have even considered it.

[robinson]

Water is a good source of H2 and O2, which can be burned or combined in a fuel cell. It isn't a source of energy, but if you have energy to electrolyze water, it is a perfect fuel. You don't gain any energy from doing this, but you can run a space station (solar power, H2 and O2 fuel), or launch a Space Shuttle with it. Best bang for a buck, and lowest weight of any fuel.

But you need to keep them separated until used. The Water Torch is used for jewelry making, but it is not good for most metals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen

This is nothing new.

[XYNG]

i'AM NEW HERE FOUND THIS FORM BY TYPEING IN INFORMATION ON THE INSANE POSSIBILITY That one day all of us from all over the world will not have to depend on GAS & OIL to fuel not only our cars, but Heat our homes etc as well.

In fact many years ago , I remember Viewing a TV Series called
( ONE STEP BEYOND ) most all there Episodes are based on Factual info NOT!!, Science Fiction Documentation. to make a long story short , they showed a Episode called ( where are they now- Parts # 2 and parts 3.) they show this inventor a Mr. Charles Elton turning plain drinking water, into Pure Hydrogen Fuel to run your car on. all TRUE!! and yet here we are in 2008 and we all still need to pay $4.00 or so a gallon for Gas, due to BIG oil Greed etc.

Now please:

Go to the following web site, Scroll down till you see part #1 click it and watch this TV 5 Minute or so Episode, then click on Part #2 and see what he does next to prove to the US Government & TOP US Scientist's his Invention is 100% all true, keep in mind this happen in 1917, and yet BIG OIL has some how managed to surpress this Hydrogen Fuel from water for the past 90 years or so as of now. Enjoy this Video, then look at a Inventor who just received a US Patent for this same type of Technology just last year in 2006-2007.

Where are they now TV Movie---
liketelevision


Now please view the following U-Tube Video, this is not a scam:

In 2007 this person just officially received a US Patent for this same Idea:

mobilemag . com/ content /100/354/C8115/

[robinson]

This isn't going to end well ....

[Psiload]

i'AM NEW HERE FOUND THIS FORM BY TYPEING IN INFORMATION ON THE INSANE POSSIBILITY That one day all of us from all over the world will not have to depend on GAS & OIL to fuel not only our cars, but Heat our homes etc as well.

In fact many years ago , I remember Viewing a TV Series called
( ONE STEP BEYOND ) most all there Episodes are based on Factual info NOT!!, Science Fiction Documentation. to make a long story short , they showed a Episode called ( where are they now- Parts # 2 and parts 3.) they show this inventor a Mr. Charles Elton turning plain drinking water, into Pure Hydrogen Fuel to run your car on. all TRUE!! and yet here we are in 2008 and we all still need to pay $4.00 or so a gallon for Gas, due to BIG oil Greed etc.

Now please:

Go to the following web site, Scroll down till you see part #1 click it and watch this TV 5 Minute or so Episode, then click on Part #2 and see what he does next to prove to the US Government & TOP US Scientist's his Invention is 100% all true, keep in mind this happen in 1917, and yet BIG OIL has some how managed to surpress this Hydrogen Fuel from water for the past 90 years or so as of now. Enjoy this Video, then look at a Inventor who just received a US Patent for this same type of Technology just last year in 2006-2007.

Where are they now TV Movie---
liketelevision


Now please view the following U-Tube Video, this is not a scam:

In 2007 this person just officially received a US Patent for this same Idea:

mobilemag . com/ content /100/354/C8115/

No.

[dudalb]

I have decided that the advent of You Tube has in some strange way caused the amount of stupidity in the world to greatly increase.

[shadron]

i'AM NEW HERE FOUND THIS FORM BY TYPEING IN INFORMATION ON THE INSANE POSSIBILITY That one day all of us from all over the world will not have to depend on GAS & OIL to fuel not only our cars, but Heat our homes etc as well.

Yup, just a seeker after the rainbow, is what he is. You bet your bottom dollar.

[Roadtoad]

Yup, just a seeker after the rainbow, is what he is. You bet your bottom dollar.

"Believer, thy name is 'schmuck.'"

[godofpie]

No.
Well said Alex.

[arthwollipot]

In 2007 this person just officially received a US Patent for this same Idea...Just because a patent was issued does not mean that the device actually works. The literature is full of patents granted for free-energy machines. The patent simply means that no-one's thought of it before. They don't even require working prototypes any more!

A patented device can still be used as the basis for a scam. If the device doesn't work, which it doesn't, then soliciting funds for its development and/or marketing is a scam, regardless of its patent status.

[robinson]

YouTube is like anything else, it is what you make of it.

-piMEZ2WcQU

[Psiload]

Well said Alex.

Thanks, me droogy.

[XYNG]

Excellant point about Hydrogen fuel in Liquid form , it should be able to also be changed into a solid form.
Sublimation" also refers to the reverse process...that of going from gas straight to solid.

It just so happens way back in 1917 a Inventor named Charles Elton shown this Same Solid Pill that turn's plain water when droped in a gas tank of a car into a Liquid that desolved these same eliments of Hydrogen into Liquid form that then was able to start a car. this was shown many years ago in one of the TV show's of one Step Beyond Episodes. Called ( Where are they ) see part #2 & part #3.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i'AM NEW HERE FOUND THIS FORM BY TYPEING IN INFORMATION ON THE INSANE POSSIBILITY That one day all of us from all over the world will not have to depend on GAS & OIL to fuel not only our cars, but Heat our homes etc as well.

In fact many years ago , I remember Viewing a TV Series called
( ONE STEP BEYOND ) most all there Episodes are based on Factual info NOT!!, Science Fiction Documentation. to make a long story short , they showed a Episode called ( where are they now- Parts # 2 and parts 3.) they show this inventor a Mr. Charles Elton turning plain drinking water, into Pure Hydrogen Fuel to run your car on. all TRUE!! and yet here we are in 2008 and we all still need to pay $4.00 or so a gallon for Gas, due to BIG oil Greed etc.

Now please:

Go to the following web site, Scroll down till you see part #1 click it and watch this TV 5 Minute or so Episode, then click on Part #2 and see what he does next to prove to the US Government & TOP US Scientist's his Invention is 100% all true, keep in mind this happen in 1917, and yet BIG OIL has some how managed to surpress this Hydrogen Fuel from water for the past 90 years or so as of now. Enjoy this Video, then look at a Inventor who just received a US Patent for this same type of Technology just last year in 2006-2007.

Where are they now TV Movie---
liketelevision


Now please view the following U-Tube Video, this is not a scam:

In 2007 this person just officially received a US Patent for this same Idea:

mobilemag . com/ content /100/354/C8115/

[XYNG]

Honest question to anyone that knows anything about this hydrogen Generator Technology, Turning plain water into pure Hydrogen Liquid Fuel to run a car with.
Would it also be very possible to change this Hydrogen fuel in this Liquid form then change it ( Sublimation" ) into a solid form like a PILL. ????? is this IMPOSSIBLE???

Excellant point about Hydrogen fuel in Liquid form , it should be able to also be changed into a solid form.
Sublimation" also refers to the reverse process...that of going from gas straight to solid.

It just so happens way back in 1917 a Inventor named Charles Elton shown this Same Solid Pill that turn's plain water when droped in a gas tank of a car into a Liquid that desolved these same eliments of Hydrogen into Liquid form that then was able to start a car. this was shown many years ago in one of the TV show's of one Step Beyond Episodes. Called ( Where are they ) see part #2 & part #3.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i'AM NEW HERE FOUND THIS FORM BY TYPEING IN INFORMATION ON THE INSANE POSSIBILITY That one day all of us from all over the world will not have to depend on GAS & OIL to fuel not only our cars, but Heat our homes etc as well.

In fact many years ago , I remember Viewing a TV Series called
( ONE STEP BEYOND ) most all there Episodes are based on Factual info NOT!!, Science Fiction Documentation. to make a long story short , they showed a Episode called ( where are they now- Parts # 2 and parts 3.) they show this inventor a Mr. Charles Elton turning plain drinking water, into Pure Hydrogen Fuel to run your car on. all TRUE!! and yet here we are in 2008 and we all still need to pay $4.00 or so a gallon for Gas, due to BIG oil Greed etc.

Now please:

Go to the following web site, Scroll down till you see part #1 click it and watch this TV 5 Minute or so Episode, then click on Part #2 and see what he does next to prove to the US Government & TOP US Scientist's his Invention is 100% all true, keep in mind this happen in 1917, and yet BIG OIL has some how managed to surpress this Hydrogen Fuel from water for the past 90 years or so as of now. Enjoy this Video, then look at a Inventor who just received a US Patent for this same type of Technology just last year in 2006-2007.

Where are they now TV Movie---

liketelevision . com ---go to this web site.

Type in where are they now- from one step beyond TV Show, you can view this video at this web site for FREE. Interesting to say the least!!


Now please view the following U-Tube Video, this is not a scam:

In 2007 this person just officially received a US Patent for this same Idea:

mobilemag . com/ content /100/354/C8115/

[XYNG]

Honest question to anyone that knows anything about this hydrogen Generator Technology, Turning plain water into pure Hydrogen Liquid Fuel to run a car with.
Would it also be very possible to change this Hydrogen fuel in this Liquid form then change it ( Sublimation" ) into a solid form like a PILL. ????? is this IMPOSSIBLE???

Excellant point about Hydrogen fuel in Liquid form , it should be able to also be changed into a solid form.
Sublimation" also refers to the reverse process...that of going from gas straight to solid.

It just so happens way back in 1917 a Inventor named Charles Elton shown this Same Solid Pill that turn's plain water when droped in a gas tank of a car into a Liquid that desolved these same eliments of Hydrogen into Liquid form that then was able to start a car. this was shown many years ago in one of the TV show's of one Step Beyond Episodes. Called ( Where are they ) see part #2 & part #3.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i'AM NEW HERE FOUND THIS FORM BY TYPEING IN INFORMATION ON THE INSANE POSSIBILITY That one day all of us from all over the world will not have to depend on GAS & OIL to fuel not only our cars, but Heat our homes etc as well.

In fact many years ago , I remember Viewing a TV Series called
( ONE STEP BEYOND ) most all there Episodes are based on Factual info NOT!!, Science Fiction Documentation. to make a long story short , they showed a Episode called ( where are they now- Parts # 2 and parts 3.) they show this inventor a Mr. Charles Elton turning plain drinking water, into Pure Hydrogen Fuel to run your car on. all TRUE!! and yet here we are in 2008 and we all still need to pay $4.00 or so a gallon for Gas, due to BIG oil Greed etc.

Now please:

Go to the following web site, Scroll down till you see part #1 click it and watch this TV 5 Minute or so Episode, then click on Part #2 and see what he does next to prove to the US Government & TOP US Scientist's his Invention is 100% all true, keep in mind this happen in 1917, and yet BIG OIL has some how managed to surpress this Hydrogen Fuel from water for the past 90 years or so as of now. Enjoy this Video, then look at a Inventor who just received a US Patent for this same type of Technology just last year in 2006-2007.

Where are they now TV Movie---

liketelevision . com ---go to this web site.

Type in where are they now- from one step beyond TV Show, you can view this video at this web site for FREE. Interesting to say the least!!


Now please view the following U-Tube Video, this is not a scam:

In 2007 this person just officially received a US Patent for this same Idea:

mobilemag . com/ content /100/354/C8115/

[XYNG]

sorry about the Duplicate posts Computer ERROR,

[TjW]

Any solid pill or powder which, placed in water, generates a gas that will run a car is likely to be calcium carbide. When water is added, it yields acetylene gas.
You can run a car on acetylene, but it doesn't help your engine life much. This technique has been used to scam the gullible since the early 1900's.

[Kilgore Trout]

Having searched this (rather old) thread with a joke in mind and finding it untold, I am undeterred, though I have found the aforementioned thread may be in a state of derail. Bearing that in mind, I must ask the question (re: the OP) :

Is the water this fuel is generated from stored in a Klein bottle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_bottle)?

Cue: rimshot.

[davefoc]

i'AM NEW HERE FOUND THIS FORM BY TYPEING IN INFORMATION ON THE INSANE POSSIBILITY That one day all of us from all over the world will not have to depend on GAS & OIL to fuel not only our cars, but Heat our homes etc as well.

In fact many years ago , I remember Viewing a TV Series called
( ONE STEP BEYOND ) most all there Episodes are based on Factual info NOT!!, Science Fiction Documentation. to make a long story short , they showed a Episode called ( where are they now- Parts # 2 and parts 3.) they show this inventor a Mr. Charles Elton turning plain drinking water, into Pure Hydrogen Fuel to run your car on. all TRUE!! and yet here we are in 2008 and we all still need to pay $4.00 or so a gallon for Gas, due to BIG oil Greed etc.

Now please:

Go to the following web site, Scroll down till you see part #1 click it and watch this TV 5 Minute or so Episode, then click on Part #2 and see what he does next to prove to the US Government & TOP US Scientist's his Invention is 100% all true, keep in mind this happen in 1917, and yet BIG OIL has some how managed to surpress this Hydrogen Fuel from water for the past 90 years or so as of now. Enjoy this Video, then look at a Inventor who just received a US Patent for this same type of Technology just last year in 2006-2007.

Where are they now TV Movie---
liketelevision


Now please view the following U-Tube Video, this is not a scam:

In 2007 this person just officially received a US Patent for this same Idea:

mobilemag . com/ content /100/354/C8115/

:)

[arthwollipot]

i'AM NEW HERE FOUND THIS FORM BY TYPEING IN INFORMATION ON THE INSANE POSSIBILITY That one day all of us from all over the world will not have to depend on GAS & OIL to fuel not only our cars, but Heat our homes etc as well.

In fact many years ago , I remember Viewing a TV Series called
( ONE STEP BEYOND ) most all there Episodes are based on Factual info NOT!!, Science Fiction Documentation. to make a long story short , they showed a Episode called ( where are they now- Parts # 2 and parts 3.) they show this inventor a Mr. Charles Elton turning plain drinking water, into Pure Hydrogen Fuel to run your car on. all TRUE!! and yet here we are in 2008 and we all still need to pay $4.00 or so a gallon for Gas, due to BIG oil Greed etc.

Now please:

Go to the following web site, Scroll down till you see part #1 click it and watch this TV 5 Minute or so Episode, then click on Part #2 and see what he does next to prove to the US Government & TOP US Scientist's his Invention is 100% all true, keep in mind this happen in 1917, and yet BIG OIL has some how managed to surpress this Hydrogen Fuel from water for the past 90 years or so as of now. Enjoy this Video, then look at a Inventor who just received a US Patent for this same type of Technology just last year in 2006-2007.

Where are they now TV Movie---
liketelevision


Now please view the following U-Tube Video, this is not a scam:

In 2007 this person just officially received a US Patent for this same Idea:

mobilemag . com/ content /100/354/C8115/Yeah. Can you, like, not append this to every single post you make?

[davefoc]

XYNG,
Welcome to the forum.

The ideas in your first post are common enough. Even among the political elite in this country rolling out the idea of a hydrogen based energy system is fairly common.

Unfortunately a lot of the hydrogen economy/hydrogen as fuel ideas are promoted without realistic discussions of the problems involved. But scammers like Klein take this to a different level and promote hydrogen as fuel ideas based on pure BS. This thread provides many links to articles that give the evidence for this. If you are interested in this issue you might consider going back and reading through some of the links.

The idea that oil companies are involved in some giant conspiracy to hold back hydrogen as competition to fossil fuels might at first seem a reasonable one. Oil companies are involved in massive lobbying in the US to gain various advantages. It is probable that the US has even based foreign policy on what is in the interest of oil companies. But the oil companies have no need to conspire against hydrogen fuel ideas, the laws of physics are quite sufficient for that purpose.

This is not to say that hydrogen may not at some point in the future be part of the overall energy supply of the country, but there are serious problems involved that will be overcome, if they are, by real scientists and engineers. People that roll out old scams and promote them with the help of gullible TV reporters are just extracting money from the gullible and wasting people's time.

[XYNG]

See if you can view the following video, it seems more amd more companies are also trying to get Patients for this Hydrogen Generator technology.

youtube. com /watch?v=gTgjdtqusOg

[davefoc]

XYNG,
I wasted a few minutes of life looking at the video you linked to.

If you are really interested in this subject please read this thread. Then if you find something that is new to this thread, or something that you'd like to discuss I am sure there are people here who would enjoy discussing it with you.

Besides looking at that piece of fluff video that you linked to I also took a quick look at the Hypower fuel web site.

OK, they're one of the companies selling or developing hydrogen injection devices. Hydrogen injection has been discussed extensively in this thread. It is an old idea. Based on the reading I did, I was one that thought it was conceivable that hydrogen injection might be of some limited benefit, although the fact that it has yet to reach any significant market penetration is not a positive sign that it is of much use given how many years its been around.

They kept referring to something that sounded a lot like rhodes/Brown/Klein gas in the video. This has also been discussed extensively in this thread. From an earlier post by davefoc:
...

1. Are this guy's [referring to Klein] claims basically the same as the Brown's gas claims.

It seems so.

2. Is there any significant Brown's gas claims that are true:

Probably not. See the responses from several people in this thread plus some of the links including this one:
http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm

3. Is this guy committing knowing fraud or is he a dupe himself. I lean to knowing fraud. He didn't mention Brown's gas probably because he realized that those claims had been thoroughly debunked. His claims concerning his welding gear are easily tested and it seems unlikely that he would be unaware of the failure of those tests.

4. Is there any purpose for a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen?

A guy by the name of William A. Rhodes patented the concept eleven years before the Brown's gas patents. It does seem that a hydrogen/oxygen mixture can be used for welding, but I couldn't find anything on the net that sounded like a legitimate source that promoted Rhodes/Brown's gas mixtures for any welding purposes. *


* After I wrote that I became aware that a jewelers torch was available (at least at one time) that ran off the output of a hydrolysis generator.

[robinson]

Brown's Gas, HHO, oxyhydrogen, the output of hydrolysis of water, whatever it is called, burns quite well. It produces water and heat when burned. You can run your car on it, add it to the fuel stream of a gasoline engine or diesel engine, or use it as a torch.

It also makes a big bang, evidenced by the youtube videos of crazy kids blowing stuff up with it.

Unlike hydrogen, which requires atmospheric oxygen to burn, an HHO mixture burns all at once. It is very dangerous.

Oxyhydrogen used to be used for lighting, cooking, and to melt platinum, (jewelry torch). It isn't used much, because it is DANGEROUS. Nobody with a clue doubts it burns, or that you can make it from water, using electricity.

Claims that you can get more energy by burning it than it takes to make it, violate the Laws of Physics.

[robinson]

Whoops. I better clarify that.

You can run your car on it,

Yes, but you don't get to do this for free. You have to use energy to make it first, (or harvest it, if you get the hydrogen from Propane and the oxygen from bauxite or something)

The engine running on HHO can not produce enough energy to run the gas generator and do work. I don't think it can even generate enough energy to make enough gas to make more gas.

But if you generate the gas from another source of energy, you can certainly run a car or anything else on it. You can also do this with just the hydrogen from water of course.
(The oxygen comes from the atmosphere in that case)

The scam would be saying you don't need any gas or diesel fuel to run your car. That it runs ONLY on the HHO gas, which is being produced by the engine. While that would be really cool, it violates the Laws of Physics.

[Hindmost]

This should get multiple ig nobel awards...

There is no such molecule as HHO.

Why is it that the most simple laws of thermodynamics are not understood. Spliting water takes more energy than you get back when hydrogen and oxygen are burned.

I agree dudalb, youtube and much of the internet is dumbing down the sheeple.

glenn

[davefoc]

To clarify something that I said a little.

The idea behind hydrogen injection is that adding a small amount of hydrogen to the air fuel mix in an internal combustion engine can improve the efficiency of the combustion so that more energy is recovered from principal fuel.

It seems that there is at least some truth in this idea. Whether it is of practical benefit, especially for improving the efficiency of modern efficient engines is a different question and I haven't seen reliable test data that would answer it.

But, many times mixed in with claims about hydrogen injection are claims about newly discovered gas states, super efficient electrolysis, huge mileage improvements and other similar implausible sounding crapola. So far there has not been the tiniest shred of reliable evidence for any of that stuff put forward in this thread.

Robinson's post was exactly right. You don't get more energy out than you put in and all the people who make that claim are scammers.

[robinson]

Ignoring the scammers for a moment, (OK I ignore them all the time, but you know..), HHO is not the "correct" way to say it, but writing out "a gas mixture of two hydrogen atoms for every oxygen atom" is a pain.

Another thing you can do with HHO is launch a Space Shuttle. Yes, that is what is used for the main engines on a Space Shuttle. That big external tank is HH and O and when you burn them mixed together, it generates a lot of power.

If it wasn't so dangerous it would be the ideal fuel for about everything.

Clean, the most bang for the weight, and easy to make.

Can you increase your gas mileage using it in a car? Of course. It has been done for a long time. It allows you to lean out an engine without destroying it.

Why don't car makers use it?

Well, you could ask the same question about any of the fuel saving methods for making a car run on less fuel. Car makers don't use the well known methods, why would they use something so exotic?

[Hindmost]

Ignoring the scammers for a moment, (OK I ignore them all the time, but you know..), HHO is not the "correct" way to say it, but writing out "a gas mixture of two hydrogen atoms for every oxygen atom" is a pain.

Another thing you can do with HHO is launch a Space Shuttle. Yes, that is what is used for the main engines on a Space Shuttle. That big external tank is HH and O and when you burn them mixed together, it generates a lot of power.

If it wasn't so dangerous it would be the ideal fuel for about everything.

Clean, the most bang for the weight, and easy to make.

Can you increase your gas mileage using it in a car? Of course. It has been done for a long time. It allows you to lean out an engine without destroying it.

Why don't car makers use it?

Well, you could ask the same question about any of the fuel saving methods for making a car run on less fuel. Car makers don't use the well known methods, why would they use something so exotic?

Hydrogen and oxygen are both diatomic. The external tank is actually two tanks and one is liquid H2 and the other liquid O2.

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

glenn

[davefoc]

Why don't car makers use it?

Well, you could ask the same question about any of the fuel saving methods for making a car run on less fuel. Car makers don't use the well known methods, why would they use something so exotic?

I'm not quite sure what your point here is robinson. If it was that car makers won't add fuel saving paraphernalia because they are lazy I tend to disagree. If your claim is that the car company engineers have determined that the gain from hydrogen injection is too small with their particular engine technology to justify the added expense and complexity of a hydrogen injection system I suspect you're right. The EPA test many alleged gas saving gizmos and didn't find any that worked. The car companies don't sell their cars with those gizmos because they don't think they work either.

[XYNG]

Can someone please tell me if?? Orbo is the new Free-Energy technology from Steorn , is for real?? or just another Fake power source Technology, like some of you are trying to say Denny Kleins Hydrogen Generator is nothing but a FAKE & Fraud. Thanks for any honest replys, good or bad.

Steorn Claim's :

Orbo produces free, clean and constant energy - that is our claim. By free we mean that the energy produced is done so without recourse to external source. By clean we mean that during operation the technology produces no emissions. By constant we mean that with the exception of mechanical failure the technology will continue to operate indefinitely.

The sum of these claims for our Orbo technology is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy, perhaps the most fundamental of scientific principles. The principle of the conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created or destroyed, it can only change form.

Because of the revolutionary nature of our claim, not only to the world of science but to the world in general, Steorn issued a challenge to the scientific community in August 2006 to test our technology and report their findings. The process of validation that has resulted from this challenge is currently underway, with results expected by the end of 2007

steorn . com

[Hindmost]

Can someone please tell me if?? Orbo is the new Free-Energy technology from Steorn , is for real?? or just another Fake power source Technology, like some of you are trying to say Denny Kleins Hydrogen Generator is nothing but a FAKE & Fraud. Thanks for any honest replys, good or bad.

Steorn Claim's :

Orbo produces free, clean and constant energy - that is our claim. By free we mean that the energy produced is done so without recourse to external source. By clean we mean that during operation the technology produces no emissions. By constant we mean that with the exception of mechanical failure the technology will continue to operate indefinitely.

The sum of these claims for our Orbo technology is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy, perhaps the most fundamental of scientific principles. The principle of the conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created or destroyed, it can only change form.

Because of the revolutionary nature of our claim, not only to the world of science but to the world in general, Steorn issued a challenge to the scientific community in August 2006 to test our technology and report their findings. The process of validation that has resulted from this challenge is currently underway, with results expected by the end of 2007

steorn . com

The laws of physics have never been violated when it comes to energy. The laws of thermodynamics essentially state that you can't get more energy out of a system than you put in. The first law: energy can't be created or destroyed, but can change form-however, the total energy will always remain constant. The second law essentially states that the system can't break even since there will be lossed due to friction and other heat losses. (try finding any machine that doesn't have friction)

Any free energy machine violates the first and second laws as it would have to create energy. Looking at this with a simple demonstration...take a tennis ball and bounce it...eventually it stops. The energy you give it by lifting it was from the chemical processes in your muscles. That energy went into the floor and sound and deforming the ball and heat when dropping it. For the tennis ball to be a free energy machine, the ball would have to bounce higher than it was originally dropped from...forever. Anyone that is selling you a free energy machine is selling you the equivalent of a ball bouncing forever.

This is one of the issues with a proposed hydrogen economy...since there is almost no free hydrogen on earth, it would have to be produced with electrolysis of water...and the first law of thermo applies...it takes energy to split the hydrogen from the oxygen and the energy you get back will always be less than you put into the process. (currently hydrogen is stripped from methane and the energy you get from the hydrogen is less than the original methane.)

And again, there is no molecule that is HHO.

welcome to the forum.

glenn

[XYNG]

I'am trying to understanding the Law's of Physisist, etc, I have read somewhere , That , for every action their must be a equal & similar Reation, is this true??
If this is the case, which I'am sure it is , then of course no one on this earth can really build & operate & run a so called continuous Motion type Machine, Car or otherwise.

BUT!! if everything above according to Pysisist's is all correct, how does , how can say a Nuclear SUB or even AirCraft carrier 1/2 mile long or so can run, and run, and run without ever haveing to refueling it for 30 to 45 years or more.???

I'am just asking these questions to try and understand how all this Turning water into pure Hydrogen fuel to say Heat a home or run a Business ,etc no even run & operate less a car with still could save us Homeowners money by useing this new Hydrogen Generator type Technology, then haveing to pay upwards of $4.00 to soon to be $5.00 just for 1 gallon of gas to run your car with.
Bottom line, is it still possible to at the very least ??? , very possible ?? as well as Economical to put together this Hygrogen type car to run on just plain 100% water for of it's fuel. then to contunue to Pay EXXON OIL etc
$4.00 to $5.00 just for 1 gallion of gas. etc. this also goes for Heating a home with this type Technology, instead of paying very high Electis as well as Natural Gas prices as of now.
Thanks again to anyone that can give me a 100% honest reply, good or bad to my above queations.

[TjW]

No.

[robinson]

It is possible to use solar energy to split water, store the hydrogen and use it for both home and car. People have been doing this for a long time.

[robinson]

BUT!! if everything above according to Pysisist's is all correct, how does , how can say a Nuclear SUB or even AirCraft carrier 1/2 mile long or so can run, and run, and run without ever haveing to refueling it for 30 to 45 years or more.???


They do have to refuel. The reason they can run for so long is that nuclear fuel is very concentrated. But they don't run for 30 years without refueling.

If I am in error on this, somebody will be along to correct that answer. :wackywink:

[Olowkow]

Nuclear subs running on "highly enriched uranium" need no refueling during their entire service life....30 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion

Many run on "uranium" which need frequent refueling.

Nuclear power is extremely efficient, but unfortunately can be dangerous, especially politically.

[davefoc]

I'am trying to understanding the Law's of Physisist, etc,

I've been trying to understand the laws of physics much of my life. I have made only the smallest progress so far, but I wish you well on your attempts.


I have read somewhere , That , for every action their must be a equal & similar Reation, is this true??
This is one way of stating the law of the conservation of momentum. It is also another way of stating that force is proportional to the product of the mass and acceleration (F=ma).

One way to think about this is to do a thought experiment. Imagine yourself floating in space. If you want to change the direction or speed that you are floating you can only do it in a way that momentum is conserved. No amount of wiggling or squirming is going to do anything to modify the velocity of your center of gravity.

But suppose you brought a brick along with you on your little float through space. If you throw that brick your body will be propelled in the opposite direction that the brick was thrown in. After you have thrown the brick the total of your momentum and the brick's will be the same as before the brick was thrown. That means any momentum change in the system must sum to zero. Or Vy (your velocity) * mY (mass of you) is equal and opposite to the VB (the brick's velocity) *mB (mass of brick).

Let's suppose you weigh 200 pounds and the brick weighs 2 pounds. Vy * mY = - VB * mB or Vy = -(VB * mB)/mY or Vy = - (-50 * 2)/200 or Vy = .5 miles per hour.

Now another way of looking at this same situation is to note that as you threw the brick the brick was pushing back on you as it resisted a change in its velocity and when the interaction was over the effect of the force on you was to propel you one way at .5 mph and the brick the opposite way at 50 mph. In other words your goal to push on the brick hard enough so that it would be accelerated to 50 mph resulted in an equal and opposite force on you that propelled you to .5 mph.


If this is the case, which I'am sure it is , then of course no one on this earth can really build & operate & run a so called continuous Motion type Machine, Car or otherwise.I suppose there might be a sort of tie in behind the law of conservation of momentum and the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine, but more clearly what is going on there is what hindmost was talking about. Friction exists between the moving parts of any mechanical device which generate heat as the parts move with respect to each other. This results in the generation of heat and the energy for that must come from somewhere. If the machine stayed in motion without an energy source to provide the energy lost through the generation of heat the law of the conservation of energy would have been violated.


BUT!! if everything above according to Pysisist's is all correct, how does , how can say a Nuclear SUB or even AirCraft carrier 1/2 mile long or so can run, and run, and run without ever haveing to refueling it for 30 to 45 years or more.???What you are talking about here is not a violation of any principals of physics. Energy from matter can be produced chemically or through nuclear reaction. Chemical reactions can produce enormous amounts of energy, but the energy produced as a result of nuclear reactions is vastly greater. Nuclear powered carriers take advantage of this by using nuclear reactors as a source of power so they can run a really long time without refueling. This is what the E = M * C ^2 equation is all about. The E represents the total energy that can be retrieved from something of mass M if it was completely converted to energy. Nuclear reactions initiated by humans actually still leave a lot of energy on the table because only a small percentage of the matter (something like 5% I think) is converted to energy. The matter needs to fall into a black hole for a complete conversion to happen (I think).

I'am just asking these questions to try and understand how all this Turning water into pure Hydrogen fuel to say Heat a home or run a Business ,etc no even run & operate less a car with still could save us Homeowners money by useing this new Hydrogen Generator type Technology, then haveing to pay upwards of $4.00 to soon to be $5.00 just for 1 gallon of gas to run your car with.
Bottom line, is it still possible to at the very least ??? , very possible ?? as well as Economical to put together this Hygrogen type car to run on just plain 100% water for of it's fuel. then to contunue to Pay EXXON OIL etc
$4.00 to $5.00 just for 1 gallion of gas. etc. this also goes for Heating a home with this type Technology, instead of paying very high Electis as well as Natural Gas prices as of now.
Thanks again to anyone that can give me a 100% honest reply, good or bad to my above queations.The issue of whether hydrogen will ever be a significant part of the energy supply is complicated. There are many ideas out there and billions of dollars are being devoted to researching them. I am not remotely an expert on this subject but here is some information.

1. You have to get the hydrogen from some place so no matter what hydrogen scheme is being discussed the efficiency of the production method needs to be considered.

2. Hydrogen is not volumetrically energy dense (not much energy per given volume) compared to other energy sources so its use in situations where tanks are needed like in cars is problematic if the intent is to use pressured hydrogen gas.

3. A potential benefit of hydrogen is that it can be used in fuel cells which are much more efficient than internal combustion engines.

4. Hydrogen can be very dangerous. It leaks out of containers that are leak proof for other gases and a hydrogen flame is nearly invisible.

5. There are lots of schemes to store hydrogen in other than simple compressed form. All of them involve an energy loss as the hydrogen is converted from one state to another.

6. There is much less energy loss per joule of transmitted energy to transfer hydrogen gas through pipes than electricity through wires.

7. One idea that has been put forward is to use liquid hydrogen in pipes to cool long distance electrical conductors. The idea is to make long distance power lines into super conductors and at the same time transfer hydrogen over long distances. It sounds a little crazy but Scientific American thought it was a good enough idea to publish an article about it.

8. Almost certainly, other alternative energy sources will be more important than hydrogen for the foreseeable future (at least for the future that I foresee). The first thing to note is that conservation is the low hanging fruit of reducing energy consumption. Better house insulation, attic fans and other ideas can produce huge energy savings. I drive a car that routinely gets more than thirty miles per gallon and its twenty years old. It's not all that small and yet the great majority of Americans drive cars that are less fuel efficient.

Besides conservation, windmills, geothermal, photovoltaic, other solar and nuclear all seem to offer some hope. Energy from plants is probably over rated but it seems like there are some opportunities there also (ethanol from corn is a complete scam and appears to have no value except to the few that are in position to benefit from the huge government subsidies).

But for right now, the price of energy is likely to keep going up and various hydrogen scammers are not going to change that or as TjW said:
No.ETA: One interesting opportunity for hydrogen is as a fuel for airliners. It's small volumetric energy density is still a problem but its very high mass energy density (energy per pound) is very high and weight is a big deal for airplanes.

[arthwollipot]

Very good explanation, davefoc. Well done.

[Hindmost]

I'am trying to understanding the Law's of Physisist, etc, I have read somewhere , That , for every action their must be a equal & similar Reation, is this true??
If this is the case, which I'am sure it is , then of course no one on this earth can really build & operate & run a so called continuous Motion type Machine, Car or otherwise.

BUT!! if everything above according to Pysisist's is all correct, how does , how can say a Nuclear SUB or even AirCraft carrier 1/2 mile long or so can run, and run, and run without ever haveing to refueling it for 30 to 45 years or more.???

I'am just asking these questions to try and understand how all this Turning water into pure Hydrogen fuel to say Heat a home or run a Business ,etc no even run & operate less a car with still could save us Homeowners money by useing this new Hydrogen Generator type Technology, then haveing to pay upwards of $4.00 to soon to be $5.00 just for 1 gallon of gas to run your car with.
Bottom line, is it still possible to at the very least ??? , very possible ?? as well as Economical to put together this Hygrogen type car to run on just plain 100% water for of it's fuel. then to contunue to Pay EXXON OIL etc
$4.00 to $5.00 just for 1 gallion of gas. etc. this also goes for Heating a home with this type Technology, instead of paying very high Electis as well as Natural Gas prices as of now.
Thanks again to anyone that can give me a 100% honest reply, good or bad to my above queations.


Davefoc provided an excellent response...I just wanted to add some extra stuff about nuclear reactors.

A reasonable rule of thumb is that nuclear fission reactions release millions of times more energy that chemical reactions. Einstein's famous formula http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php? E=mC^2 really indicates the conversion factor from mass to energy as they are aspects of the same thing. http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php? C^2 is a very big number as C is http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php? 3 x 10^8 , So you can see how a small amount of mass can be converted to a large amount of energy. (The bombs used in Japan during WWII converted just a few grams of mass to energy). Einstein's formula applies to chemical reactions as well...however, the change in mass that occurs in a chemical reaction--even very large explosions--is too small to measure.

With nuclear subs, the reactors have very high uranium fuel loads and can last the life of the boat as the uranium stores a lot of energy in a very small space. The hull of the ship typically wears out first due to the stresses of diving.

Just for comparison, in a commercial nuclear plant, the reactor is about the size of a bedroom and can supply electricity for 1-2 million people for 18 months before requiring to reload fuel. An equivalent coal plant would have to burn about 150 tons of coal an hour...add that up over 18 months.

glenn

[shadron]

Ignoring the scammers for a moment, (OK I ignore them all the time, but you know..), HHO is not the "correct" way to say it, but writing out "a gas mixture of two hydrogen atoms for every oxygen atom" is a pain.

Another thing you can do with HHO is launch a Space Shuttle. Yes, that is what is used for the main engines on a Space Shuttle. That big external tank is HH and O and when you burn them mixed together, it generates a lot of power.

Actually, it has tanks of liquid H2 and O2, as the single atoms are unstable and spontaneously join into pairs, releasing a small amount of energy. In fact, that same small amount of the energy has to be supplied to split the pairs before they can combust. Practically speaking, you can mix together H2 and O2 gas, and the mixture will just sit there, until something gives some corner of the mixture that little oomph it needs to start. When it does, a chain reaction takes care of the rest, violently. H2 and O2 are not "hypergolic", they don't spontaneously combust when mixed, as H and O would be.

[XYNG]

to DaveFOC, I was very pleased to read your honest Subjunctive Analysys opinions & answers, to my personal questions as to the Laws of Physics as well as Science in general, in reguards to the possible future potential to all of us one day soon, useing new clean air alternative energy fuels, to take the place one day soon,?? I pray, Ha, ha. of say fossil oil & Gas Fuels, that all of us have no choice ( at least for now ) , but to depend on , and continue to use daily, to do such things as heat our homes with, Run our Business's with, as well as of course, Operate & run our automobiles with as of now.
we all know the need as well as ut-most importance to find , other much more Energy Efficient means to do all the above, in a much more Economical Energy & clean Air Efficient manner.

My lasting Question is not only for you DaveFoc , but to all here that read this Science & Technology message board is not will they one day invent & Patient much more Economical as well as Energy Efficient products, for us to start to use them, instaed of Oil & Gas energy etc, but just as important WHEN. !!!
I also want to Thank everyone on this Form message board for all your thoughts, opinions and facts to back up whatever you post, very Educational at least for me, and am very happy I found this Technology form.

[XYNG]

AMUSEING some of you think you know me, now lets see - what did you just call me??, oh yes !!, ( just a seeker after the Rrainbow I am, and nothing more) . AMUSEING!!, some of you here think you know it all, and only YOU know all their is to know about Science, Technology and possible NEW Inventions, Ideas, as well as patents, that have already been Proven to be safe as well as very Economically Practical as well as even approved by the US Government to use, in Fact, not only possible , but actually do work, and in fact in the process as we speak , of Being Built as of now, 2008 and will be able to be sold to the world for the very first time in it's History., very soon now. IMO

If people like me just listen to people like a few of you here think, & that seem to be very , very closed minded , with NO real Vision of the future, and just thought like a few of you here seem to think, Closed Minded, IMO, man would of NEVER even been able to learn to fly 90 years ago or more by now, and would still be trying to invent the Wheel just to get around. ha, ha. , But thank god for Visionary's like, Thomas Edison , Gates with Microsoft, and I can go on, and on, but by now you now got my drift.

We shall see very, very soon now if my questions are all BS, with no real merit to back up what I post here, or I'am I just a dreamer attitude with no real facts, already proven as well as just Patented such as this state of the art Hydrogen Generator Technologies etc.

but I do , and must respect everyone that posts here opinions, no matter if I 100% agree with them or not, Bottom line is ,we are all here living on this earth, trying to live out our lives as Comfortable and as Economical withing our own financial means as possible.
So my personal Motto is, and always will be: Quote- ( I do not envy the Rich, but i certainly also, do NOT Envy the Poor either ).
Peace to all with Vision & Patience.
Time will tell if?? I'am just a dreamer trying to find a Rainbow, or did I already find it, and just wanted to share it with you on this Message board.

[TjW]

AMUSEING some of you think you know me, now lets see - what did you just call me??, oh yes !!, ( just a seeker after the Rrainbow I am, and nothing more) . AMUSEING!!, some of you here think you know it all, and only YOU know all their is to know about Science, Technology and possible NEW Inventions, Ideas, as well as patents, that have already been Proven to be safe as well as very Economically Practical as well as even approved by the US Government to use, in Fact, not only possible , but actually do work, and in fact in the process as we speak , of Being Built as of now, 2008 and will be able to be sold to the world for the very first time in it's History., very soon now. IMO

You are mistaken. The people here do not think they know everything about science and technology. However, many of them know the basics. Some of the regular posters here do science professionally.

If people like me just listen to people like a few of you here think, & that seem to be very , very closed minded , with NO real Vision of the future, and just thought like a few of you here seem to think, Closed Minded, IMO, man would of NEVER even been able to learn to fly 90 years ago or more by now, and would still be trying to invent the Wheel just to get around. ha, ha. , But thank god for Visionary's like, Thomas Edison , Gates with Microsoft, and I can go on, and on, but by now you now got my drift.

Nope, no capitalized Visions of the future, here. Just a pretty good idea of what is likely to work. Evidence to the contrary might change my mind, but uninformed opinion won't.


We shall see very, very soon now if my questions are all BS, with no real merit to back up what I post here, or I'am I just a dreamer attitude with no real facts, already proven as well as just Patented such as this state of the art Hydrogen Generator Technologies etc.

Asking questions isn't necessarily BS. Refusing to listen to factual answers because they don't fit your preconceptions is.
If you have any relevant facts, you haven't posted them.
The mere existence of a patent does not show that the patented device works or is practical. Therefore it is not relevant to whether such a device works. However, arguing that the existence of a patent implies that the device works could be taken in one of two ways:
Either the person making the claim is ignorant about patents, or the person making the claim hopes to convince those who are ignorant about patents.


but I do , and must respect everyone that posts here opinions, no matter if I 100% agree with them or not, Bottom line is ,we are all here living on this earth, trying to live out our lives as Comfortable and as Economical withing our own financial means as possible.
So my personal Motto is, and always will be: Quote- ( I do not envy the Rich, but i certainly also, do NOT Envy the Poor either ).
Peace to all with Vision & Patience.
Time will tell if?? I'am just a dreamer trying to find a Rainbow, or did I already find it, and just wanted to share it with you on this Message board.[QUOTE=XYNG;3399303]

Of course, if I were an uncharitable soul, I might interpret a series of posts featuring words like "XYNG" and "economical" and "financial" and "rich" as being either an attempt to generate "buzz" for a penny stock company named Xynergy Corporation, or the result of such an attempt on a naive person. Judging by hits on Google, it would appear that there is a pump-and-dump scheme for this stock currently in progress.

[XYNG]

TJW, I respect any and all peoples Opinions here, Positive and or Negitive about any, and all Subjects mention.

But this message board is about Science, Physics and any and ALL possible, Ideas, Opinions as well as past as well as YES evenas of now, future Idea's, of possible interest to us all, WorldWide, not just here in the U.S.

You posted the following to me:
saying I Refuse to listen to factual answers because they do not as you say do not fit my preconceptions .

Not totally true, This is the reason I ask questions here , to in fact try and get real Answers GOOD or Yes BAD about new and possibley first of it's kind in the World Technology's, that could very well Revolutionize the Energy & Fosil fuel dependency we all , up to now at least, have no choice but to continue to depend on. in other words we have no Choice or other options, just keep EXXON OIL Happy & Rich with their as of now $100 BILLION Dollars a Year in Profits, off the backs of us Hard working people.

One last thing for you, as well as all here to at least PONDER, IF?? this Hydrogen Generator device , I have already spoken about in other posts, is just another SCAM, FRAUD, or PUMP & Dump scheme to make a fast buck with etc, and will Never work, no less one day soon be a total new Option for us to at least look into, then why in the World is even the US Army as we speak, has already invested in this New Hydrogen Fuel Technoloy and is now working with Mr. Klein the Patient holder to build a US Army Hummer that will do just as his Patent Promises, that he can and will make a Car, Truck etc run on just plain Water, and have to use OIL or gas to operate it whatsoever.??

Thats why I do not and will not listen to some here that continue to say it can not ,and will not ever work, I beleive in the US Government much more then anyone posting on this message board, that such a Technology does not only exist, but the Inventor as well as the US Army are already building it.

But again, I respect everyones opinions here, but this does not mean i must accept your opinions over the US Army, who BTW has already approved it for saftey as well as Energy Efficient to opeRATE AS WELL TO boot.

NOW LETS GO NJ Giants--hA, hA i LIVE IN N.J. THATS WHY.!!!

[Olowkow]

The First Law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; rather, the amount of energy lost in a steady state process cannot be greater than the amount of energy gained.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics


Simple. No exceptions, except for hoaxers.

[TjW]

TJW, I respect any and all peoples Opinions here, Positive and or Negitive about any, and all Subjects mention.

But this message board is about Science, Physics and any and ALL possible, Ideas, Opinions as well as past as well as YES evenas of now, future Idea's, of possible interest to us all, WorldWide, not just here in the U.S.

You posted the following to me:
saying I Refuse to listen to factual answers because they do not as you say do not fit my preconceptions .

No. I said that doing that was BS. Are you admitting that you're refusing to listen to factual answers?


Not totally true, This is the reason I ask questions here , to in fact try and get real Answers GOOD or Yes BAD about new and possibley first of it's kind in the World Technology's, that could very well Revolutionize the Energy & Fosil fuel dependency we all , up to now at least, have no choice but to continue to depend on. in other words we have no Choice or other options, just keep EXXON OIL Happy & Rich with their as of now $100 BILLION Dollars a Year in Profits, off the backs of us Hard working people.

So you have had answers. Some are merely amused by your demonstrated ignorance. Others have given factual answers as to why water is not a fuel. (Hint: thermodynamics)

One last thing for you, as well as all here to at least PONDER, IF?? this Hydrogen Generator device , I have already spoken about in other posts, is just another SCAM, FRAUD, or PUMP & Dump scheme to make a fast buck with etc, and will Never work, no less one day soon be a total new Option for us to at least look into, then why in the World is even the US Army as we speak, has already invested in this New Hydrogen Fuel Technoloy and is now working with Mr. Klein the Patient holder to build a US Army Hummer that will do just as his Patent Promises, that he can and will make a Car, Truck etc run on just plain Water, and have to use OIL or gas to operate it whatsoever.??

I haven't seen any evidence that it has. Have you? Even assuming it had, that wouldn't affect whether or not such a device could work. The U.S. Navy was recently conned by a company selling dowsing rods. That's not good, but it doesn't mean that dowsing works, either.

Thats why I do not and will not listen to some here that continue to say it can not ,and will not ever work, I beleive in the US Government much more then anyone posting on this message board, that such a Technology does not only exist, but the Inventor as well as the US Army are already building it.

So your contention is that the military cannot be conned? You are using a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority". You might try looking it up on Wikipedia.


But again, I respect everyones opinions here, but this does not mean i must accept your opinions over the US Army, who BTW has already approved it for saftey as well as Energy Efficient to opeRATE AS WELL TO boot.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

NOW LETS GO NJ Giants--hA, hA i LIVE IN N.J. THATS WHY.!!!

[Hindmost]

TJW, I respect any and all peoples Opinions here, Positive and or Negitive about any, and all Subjects mention.

But this message board is about Science, Physics and any and ALL possible, Ideas, Opinions as well as past as well as YES evenas of now, future Idea's, of possible interest to us all, WorldWide, not just here in the U.S.

You posted the following to me:
saying I Refuse to listen to factual answers because they do not as you say do not fit my preconceptions .

Not totally true, This is the reason I ask questions here , to in fact try and get real Answers GOOD or Yes BAD about new and possibley first of it's kind in the World Technology's, that could very well Revolutionize the Energy & Fosil fuel dependency we all , up to now at least, have no choice but to continue to depend on. in other words we have no Choice or other options, just keep EXXON OIL Happy & Rich with their as of now $100 BILLION Dollars a Year in Profits, off the backs of us Hard working people.

One last thing for you, as well as all here to at least PONDER, IF?? this Hydrogen Generator device , I have already spoken about in other posts, is just another SCAM, FRAUD, or PUMP & Dump scheme to make a fast buck with etc, and will Never work, no less one day soon be a total new Option for us to at least look into, then why in the World is even the US Army as we speak, has already invested in this New Hydrogen Fuel Technoloy and is now working with Mr. Klein the Patient holder to build a US Army Hummer that will do just as his Patent Promises, that he can and will make a Car, Truck etc run on just plain Water, and have to use OIL or gas to operate it whatsoever.??

Thats why I do not and will not listen to some here that continue to say it can not ,and will not ever work, I beleive in the US Government much more then anyone posting on this message board, that such a Technology does not only exist, but the Inventor as well as the US Army are already building it.

But again, I respect everyones opinions here, but this does not mean i must accept your opinions over the US Army, who BTW has already approved it for saftey as well as Energy Efficient to opeRATE AS WELL TO boot.

NOW LETS GO NJ Giants--hA, hA i LIVE IN N.J. THATS WHY.!!!

Just wanted to let you know... a patent really doesn't mean much. A patent doesn't mean the government approves of the design or that the patent will work. It just means that the design is reasonably unique. However, it doesn't guarantee anything except that it gives the applicant exclusive rights over the design for a period of time.

The majority of patents don't make money or are ever developed into a product. There is actually a patent for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in the US. Unfortunately, the US govt has issued patents for perpetual motion machines. This was due to lack of time to review properly or to stop the applicant from litigiousness.

glenn

FYI: Exxon made about 40 billion dollars in profit with 400 billion dollars in sales last year...a 10% margin. This is considered a reasonable profit for a large cap company in the US. You might want to take a look at this tread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102623

[XYNG]

This XYNG Hydrogen Generator is either a total outright Scam as well as Fraud, or?? could it really work the Way the Inventor says it can??.
I would personally have to see it for myself . in person to totally beleive it does work, BUT?? Is it totally impossible that it does , just might work as promised.??
xynergyusa com put together then cut-past & Click onto their web site and see for yourself, it does look good. IMO

we all shall see soon enough, one way or the other, thats for sure, will keep you all informed GOOD or BAD about this XYNG .
If nothing else, even I must admit their new just up XYNG web site does look good, but they will need a H ll of a lot more then just a great looking web site to sell to the Public, this Hydrogen Generator to, in the very near future so says their Press Releases.

Xynergy Corporation is committed to changing the landscape of power generation in business, and plans to unveil several energy saving, alternative power sources for use in many retail and small business applications. With its hydrogen splitting technology, Xynergy intends on becoming the leader in green, economically friendly energy production with a special eye on small businesses like restaurants, offices, gas stations, bakeries, small factories and other retail business

[arthwollipot]

This XYNG Hydrogen Generator is either a total outright Scam as well as Fraud, or?? could it really work the Way the Inventor says it can??.I haven't closely examined the claims, but as a general rule, if something looks too good to be true, then it probably is.

If this were true, it would revolutionise the power generation industry, break the world's dependence on coal and oil, and stop global warming in its tracks, overnight.

Does it sound too good to be true?

[davefoc]

OK, I went looking for some information about xyng xyenergy.

I found out that according to one site that it makes cosmetics and greeting cards.

According to a press release it's going into the restaurant business using its hydrogen splitting technology.

Almost everything of possible substance on its own site is marked, "coming soon".

Some how, somebody has managed to get a lot of stock market sites to post minimal information about the stock.

There appears to be exactly zero credible information about what is going on, other than the cumulative effect of all the non-sense making it look like a scam.

So how does the poster, XYNG, fit into all this? Is he a dupe that is desperately hoping that the money he has invested in this apparent scam is not completely lost? Is he hyping this thing, imagining that by putting some posts out there that people will become enthused about this scam so he can make some money off a stock run up? Does XYNG have any relation to xynergy or any of its founders?

Who knows. Would XYNG care to share the truth about his situation with us? If XYNG thought by posting about xynergy on this forum he was going to boost their stock, I suspect he could not have been more mistaken. The gullible investors that a company like xynergy are seeking probably are not the ones likely to do internet research and even if they did happen on this thread I don't think they'd find anything in it that would inspire them to invest in what looks like one more routine energy from water scam.

ETA: I logged into schwab to see if they had anything to say about the company.

It has a market cap of $11,000. Yes that's right. Not 11 million or some such. $11,000 (eleven thousand dollars). The stock dropped .001 cents today to close at .006 cents. Yes that's right the stock is worth less than one cents a share and falling. On October 19, 2007 it hit a peak at $2.00 a share. And to think the stock took that $0.001 hit despite the announcement that their super duper hydrogen splitting technology was going to be unveiled this fall. I guess announcements about future unveilings of super duper hydrogen splitting technology just weren't enough to inspire the stock market.

[robinson]

Hydrogen and oxygen are both diatomic. The external tank is actually two tanks and one is liquid H2 and the other liquid O2.

I know, I just assumed everybody did. My bad. But what most don't know, is ...

Actually, it has tanks of liquid H2 and O2, as the single atoms are unstable and spontaneously join into pairs, releasing a small amount of energy.

No, that isn't true at all.

In fact, that same small amount of the energy has to be supplied to split the pairs before they can combust.

Yes, and on the Shuttle, both the H2 and O2 is preburned, to sperate the molecules before they go to the engines.

Practically speaking, you can mix together H2 and O2 gas, and the mixture will just sit there, until something gives some corner of the mixture that little oomph it needs to start. When it does, a chain reaction takes care of the rest, violently. H2 and O2 are not "hypergolic", they don't spontaneously combust when mixed, as H and O would be.

Again, H and O do not combine without a spark or flame first. Which is a good thing, as electrolysis of water would be very dangerous.

Because H2 and O2 have to become HH and O first, the preburning achieves the maximum combustion in the Shuttles engines.

[ellindsey]

No, that isn't true at all.
Yes, it is. Monatomic hydrogen is highly unstable and will recombine into H2 spontaneously, giving off a large amount of energy in the process. The reaction is so energetic that there's been some research into using monatomic hydrogen as a rocket fuel, if we could only find some way to keep the hydrogen from recombining prematurely. The same is true for oxygen, although the energy per mass isn't as high as for hydrogen.

Yes, and on the Shuttle, both the H2 and O2 is preburned, to sperate the molecules before they go to the engines.

That isn't what the preburners are for. The preburners on the SSME burn the hydrogen with a small amount of the oxygen to generate hot gas used to spin turbines which power the fuel and oxidizer pumps. Most of the oxygen bypasses the preburners entirely, going straight from the oxygen turbopump to the main combustion chamber.

[TjW]

Again, H and O do not combine without a spark or flame first. Which is a good thing, as electrolysis of water would be very dangerous.

True, but hydrogen requires very little ignition energy. Leaking hydrogen has been known to ignite simply from the static electricity it generates.
Electrolysis properly done shouldn't be dangerous. The hydrogen collects at one electrode and the oxygen at the other. "Brown's Gas" generators (the stoichometric mixture of both gases) could be very dangerous, if the generation rate is high enough, or you're stupid enough to collect large amounts of it.

Because H2 and O2 have to become HH and O first, the preburning achieves the maximum combustion in the Shuttles engines.
No, this is just wrong.

[davefoc]

Things took a turn for the worse for XYNG stock today.

The stock dropped another $.002 today to end the day at $.004. The market cap dropped from $11k to $7k.

What is amazing is that 19,165,815 shares traded. There are only 1.85 million outstanding shares.

Based on a little more reading about the company it sounds like they bought the hydrogen splitting technology from an unnamed inventor but I haven't found any information about what it is. Maybe XYNG could supply some information about what the technology purports to do? Maybe XYNG could supply some information about the inventor of this hydrogen splitting technology?