Free Energy
05-27-2006, 09:10 AM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: tacos
Posts: 9,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 2000 Elantra
back in(i think) the late 80s a guy built a hemi that got a tad more hp than stock, retained emissions, and got 95mpg....
the oil companies paid him ALOT to keep his mouth shut and he took it and ran
so yes i think it is possible to do this hell i bet there are ways out there that allow us to get 150+mpg if they can do it with a v8 hemi we can have it on our 4 bangers oil companies would rather pay off someone to shut the hell up so they dont lose billions in the process
and while these inventions sound far fetched we are due for some innovation....
the oil companies paid him ALOT to keep his mouth shut and he took it and ran
so yes i think it is possible to do this hell i bet there are ways out there that allow us to get 150+mpg if they can do it with a v8 hemi we can have it on our 4 bangers oil companies would rather pay off someone to shut the hell up so they dont lose billions in the process
and while these inventions sound far fetched we are due for some innovation....
05-27-2006, 12:45 PM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I call scam. He never proved it works a single time. If the Saudis offered him money and he had contracts with NASA and the govt, he wouldn't have had investors suing him to get their paltry few thousand back. And there was ZERO evidence that it was only consuming the half amp of power he claimed, as he never allowed anyone to measuer power input.
05-27-2006, 01:18 PM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 5,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 97 Tib
Someday there will be a machine which can operate and do this at 100% effeciency, which would in turn give us "free" energy through splitting h2o apart. I don't believe that this technology is out of our grasp, energy is usually lost due to heat (or friction), so you look at this process and decide when is there friction or when is the temperature increasing, and limit it. The only problem is, that even if you make this process operate at 90% effeciency, it still is a waste of time, because it won't be free energy which is the goal. Anyone who's taken a chem class has probably heard of the crappy acronym, TINSTAAFL...lmao.gif I guess this is just a classic example.
05-27-2006, 01:49 PM
#25
Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^^ That would be awesome if it were possible, but since all motion creates friciton it never can be. The molecules have to move and bond which results in friction, and there is no way to stop that lose of energy. You can't just lower the temperature to keep it from losing energy, even if you could by lowering the temp you would be expending more energy to "conserve" the original energy. So its basically a slippery slope where the amount of energy you put in will always be more than what you get out.
05-27-2006, 02:33 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Los Lunas, New Mexico, USA.
Posts: 34,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 2001 Hyundai Tiburon, 2004 Kia Sorento, 2010 Kia Soul
QUOTE (x2stpsfrmnowhere @ May 27 2006, 05:47 AM)
This is a great idea, that will never work. Lemme explain. Here's the equation for this reaction
2(h2o)=2(h2)+o2. Meaning to form 2 mols of hydrogen and 1 mol of oxygen 2 mols of water must by broken apart using an electric current. The energy required to break a H-O bond is 460.548Kj. So the energy required to break the 4 H-O bonds in the 2 water mols is 1842.192Kj. The energy required to bond H-H is 431.24Kj, and to bond O=O is 485.669Kj. So the bonding of 2(H-H)=862.48Kj, and the bonding of 1(O=O) is 485.669, for a grand total of 1348.149Kj of energy released in the bonding of the H's and O's. So you've consumed 1842.192Kj to break water apart and released 1348.149Kj when bonding the H's and O's. Now we know by the law of conservation of energy that the energy we put in must equal the energy we get out. Obviously 1842.192 is not equal to 1348.149. The difference in energy is stored in the bonds of the newly formed H-H and O=O. So theoretically when we combust the H-H and O=O we will release that energy and have not used any energy hence the idea of free energy. But since these things NEVER will work at 100% effeciency you will not get this energy back. Some of it is lost due to friction and motion. Therefore everytime you break the water apart, and combust the products to reform water you will lose a portion of the energy. In the end your putting in more energy than your getting out. This man is a pure dreamer. Had he gone to college and taken an introductory chemical engineering course he would have learned there is no such thing as free energy, never has been, and never will be. It still looks great on paper though.
2(h2o)=2(h2)+o2. Meaning to form 2 mols of hydrogen and 1 mol of oxygen 2 mols of water must by broken apart using an electric current. The energy required to break a H-O bond is 460.548Kj. So the energy required to break the 4 H-O bonds in the 2 water mols is 1842.192Kj. The energy required to bond H-H is 431.24Kj, and to bond O=O is 485.669Kj. So the bonding of 2(H-H)=862.48Kj, and the bonding of 1(O=O) is 485.669, for a grand total of 1348.149Kj of energy released in the bonding of the H's and O's. So you've consumed 1842.192Kj to break water apart and released 1348.149Kj when bonding the H's and O's. Now we know by the law of conservation of energy that the energy we put in must equal the energy we get out. Obviously 1842.192 is not equal to 1348.149. The difference in energy is stored in the bonds of the newly formed H-H and O=O. So theoretically when we combust the H-H and O=O we will release that energy and have not used any energy hence the idea of free energy. But since these things NEVER will work at 100% effeciency you will not get this energy back. Some of it is lost due to friction and motion. Therefore everytime you break the water apart, and combust the products to reform water you will lose a portion of the energy. In the end your putting in more energy than your getting out. This man is a pure dreamer. Had he gone to college and taken an introductory chemical engineering course he would have learned there is no such thing as free energy, never has been, and never will be. It still looks great on paper though.
Sorry, but all you naysayers are wrong. The one listed that I commented on on the first page, WORKS. He's running it on his car right now. The device in the garage produces HHO, and he's running it on his car right now.
Watch it again, look further into it, but fact is, it WORKS.
I could care less how much electricity it takes to make the gas, but according to these folks, it costs about 70 Cents to make one tank of the fuel. That's not a lot of electricity.
I can see allready, this one is gonna get out of hand again.
Conspiracy Theorists.
05-27-2006, 03:32 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^ I don't think anyone is disputing that one Redz, that guy is simply using electrolysis, not magically creating energy. And hho has been around for many decades.
There is no way it will be $.70 to make a tank of fuel. It's likely your electric bill will cost you more than if you simply bought gas at $3 a gallon.
Ultimately, we're going to have to ditch the IC engine entirely, which is itself extremely inefficient.
There is no way it will be $.70 to make a tank of fuel. It's likely your electric bill will cost you more than if you simply bought gas at $3 a gallon.
Ultimately, we're going to have to ditch the IC engine entirely, which is itself extremely inefficient.
05-27-2006, 03:42 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Los Lunas, New Mexico, USA.
Posts: 34,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 2001 Hyundai Tiburon, 2004 Kia Sorento, 2010 Kia Soul
That's the thing, it's not the standard "Splitting water" experiment, and yes, that's exactly how much they said it cost to make it.
Also, if you watch the video, you'll find that they are building a kit for the Hummers for the US Army, to demo for the military.
Also, if you watch the video, you'll find that they are building a kit for the Hummers for the US Army, to demo for the military.
05-27-2006, 03:55 PM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 11,992
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: Hyundai Tiburon FX
i definitely believe hitmen ran him down if he was killed... probably international hitmen. you never know. i'm wondering why nobody ever heard of him and why his name was never mentioned on any news. cnn? fox? nothing... the newssources might have been paid not to spill it either.
05-27-2006, 10:14 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if they claim $.70 to fill a tank then that one's a scam too. First off it would take days to make that much fuel, if not weeks. It's not a fast process. And second, electrolysis machines use more power than they create, and your home power is burning fuel somewhere else; you're being charged appropriately for it. The kilowatt hours you get billed for will end up costing more by the time you burn your homebrewed fuel than if you had bought regular gas.
It would be incredible if could power our cars on water. But it ain't gonna happen.
It would be incredible if could power our cars on water. But it ain't gonna happen.