Fweethawt Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 http://hytechapps.com/applications/index.html I saw a video on this stuff that's available at Squizzle.com (I can't access it now), showing how the flame of a torch using this stuff can burn through rock, and yet the flame can be touched by hand. He also traveled a hundred miles in his car using only 4 ounces of water. He was invited to the white house to give a demonstration and his invention is currently being used to develope a source of fuel for the military. Yeah, fuck the public! Let's get this stuff going for the military first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 I'm fascinated nonetheless Yeah, fuck the public, of course. Heaven forbid the oil companies' profits are endangered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted May 13, 2006 Author Share Posted May 13, 2006 I did some searchin' and found a link to the video that was sent to me via e-mail. http://www.squizzle.com/movieview.asp?id=6648 I don't know if you have to register in order to watch it or anything, but it's pretty darn amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nirrti Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Most new technology is first utilized by the military before it's modified for civilian use. That we've experienced such a accelerated development of new technology, in fact, is due to World War II. Most of the time, the military, unlike private corporatons, has the funding necessary to produce a workable version of a new invention. Afterwards, corporations buy it up and market it for general use. That's why we've practically gone from hang gliders to super sonic jets in a period of less than 50 years. As for any fuel that'll eventually replace oil, the fact that we have men in office whos profits are connected to that industry being a monopoly, I'd be suprised if they don't buy out whoever comes up with an alternative.........so that it's never used at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nope, just watched it - fantastic And the news reporter said they are also in negotiations with an American car company, so it's not strictly the military/government that wants in on it I like what I see. I'm feeling optimistic, which isn't normal for me. It's going to suck to be Exxon real soon, I do hope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjacksonRIAB Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 You know what else the military has? Transparent aluminum. http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123012131 Yes, not Star Trek stuff. I have to say though, this reminds me of the Brown's gas scandal that took place quite a while back. I do not believe it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted May 13, 2006 Author Share Posted May 13, 2006 I do not believe it Some people don't believe that The Rapture is going to happen, either. But that doesn't make it any less true. Okay, you can stop staring at your monitor like this ---> now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjacksonRIAB Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 I do not believe it Some people don't believe that The Rapture is going to happen, either. But that doesn't make it any less true. Okay, you can stop staring at your monitor like this ---> now. It's a trick -get some cheese. You will never reach the Rapture. You will die in the graveyard before you get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted May 13, 2006 Author Share Posted May 13, 2006 It's a trick -get some cheese. You will never reach the Rapture. You will die in the graveyard before you get it. Does that mean that if I stay out of graveyards, I'll live forever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjacksonRIAB Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 It's a trick -get some cheese. You will never reach the Rapture. You will die in the graveyard before you get it. Does that mean that if I stay out of graveyards, I'll live forever? You will live forever regardless -as does all comedy gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Um.....people........ NO!!!!! Same basic concept as hydrogen fuel cell technology. This does not overcome Newton's second law of thermodynamics. The energy ultimately comes from the fossil fuels and nuclear power needed to produce the 220v needed to POWER THE THING!!!! You can do this at home. Just take a spare power cord, strip the end that doesn't plug in so you have bare copper wire, plug it in, and immerse the bare copper ends in weak salt water solution. You'll see bubbles...hydrogen and oxygen gas are magically produced!! Really, don't do this. Please. Chances are most of you meatheads will just end up electrocuting yourselves. I mean 'meathead' in the most affectionate sense only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 I have my doubts. I don't think you can get a net gain of energy from this process, but it might be a way to take pollution out of transportation and cut back on global warming a mite. HHO I'm going to read the paper. It is only 7168 words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Um.....people........ NO!!!!! Same basic concept as hydrogen fuel cell technology. This does not overcome Newton's second law of thermodynamics. The energy ultimately comes from the fossil fuels and nuclear power needed to produce the 220v needed to POWER THE THING!!!! I am not the scientific type, but why won't this work. He made his car work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 On one hand, I believe his car ran on a mixture of water and gas, so it wasn't wholly water-fueled. On the other, it's still a hell of an innovation. I'd rather be able to use half as much gas as I do now than be wholly reliant on gas. Halfway to the goal of gasless cars is better than no progress at all. Cars now require more than just gasoline to run, anyway. They already need electricity (from their batteries) and they will still need lubricants based on fossil fuels to keep the parts moving smoothly. But Aquygen seems very promising, and we've got to start somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Please allow me to explain. This runs by a process known as hydrolysis, or something similar. Hydro means water, and lysismeans the splitting apart of. The splitting apart of water. The process of splitting apart water molecules requires an input of energy. 2H2O + 2e- = 2H2 + O2 This demonstrates the direct input of electrical energy (e-) by adding two electrons forms the basic constituents of water, hydrogen and oxygen gas. The final products are in perfect proportion to combust and reform into water, and an output of energy. The resulting chain of energy transformation is as follows: Coal/Gas/Oil/Nuclear/Hydroelectric/Wind energy >> electrical energy >> chemeical energy when water is hydrolysed into hydrogen and oxygen >> Aquygen heat energy, internal combustion engine or jet engine mechanical energy, etc. Every energy tranformation loses energy due to inefficiency, which can be measured in each energy transformation. No matter how efficient the Aquygen technology is, the net efficiency cannot possibly be more efficient than the 220v electrical power supply that powers it. Sure, hydrogen (plus the oxygen needed to combust it) is an almost perfect fuel (save for its volatility vis a vis The Hindenburg), and produces no pollution, but the energy to make that hydrogen comes from someplace, and that someplace is the place of non-renewable, politically touchy resources that are responsible for nearly all the world's pollution. If we had more wind or hydroelectric energy production, yeah, this would be great, but seeing as most electircal energy is produced by the consumption of fossil fuels, this technology, in essence, is just a way of making a chemical energy capacitor in the form of hydrogen and oxygen gas, a way of storing energy inefficiently produced from fossils fuels. And an added step in inefficiency. Think of hydroelectric hydrogen stations, producing hydrogen gas where ever there's flowing water, day and night. Solar powered hydrogen stations, using the sun's energy almost directly to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water. Anything imaginable could run off this fuel, and the only byproduct would be water. No greenhouse gases, no soot, no acid rain components. Great technology if you implement it as an entire scheme, not just a plug-in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 It is definitely going to hinge on electricity and other factors... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oberon Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 This site has a nice succinct explanation of many of the problems inherent in Hydrogen systems. http://stevereuland.blogspot.com/2006/04/w...-is-stupid.html ... Speaking of fossil fuels, for the foreseeable future, that's where most of the hydrogen would be coming from. There are basically two methods of making hydrogen. The first is to reform fossil fuels, the idea being that, rather than burning hydrocarbons directly, you extract the hydrogen out and dump the resulting CO2 (which incidentally will go where all of our carbon currently goes -- into the atmosphere. Global warming is yet another problem that hydrogen promises to exacerbate rather than solve.) The problem with this is that you lose a large chunk of the energy. Using methane (CH4), aka natural gas, you lose about 30% of the energy by converting it to hydrogen. Since methane is the most hydrogen-rich fuel, the losses would be far greater if you were to use oil or coal. What exactly is to be gained by this? Natural gas can be burned to make electricity with efficiencies approaching that of hydrogen fuel cells. Converting it to hydrogen first would result in a net loss of energy. Even better, the gas can be burned directly for cooking or heating, which makes a lot more sense than converting it first into electricity. The other method of making hydrogen is electrolysis. You stick two electrodes in water, run an electric current between them, and the water will be "cracked" into molecular hydrogen and oxygen. Obviously, you can't do this without a source of electricity. So you are basically using electricity to make hydrogen, which will then be used to make electricity. In the process, you lose somewhere between 40% and 60% of the energy, depending on your set-up. Why even bother? Just use the electricity directly and cut out the middle-man. Hydrogen does have an advantage in that it can be used as a method of storing electricity. But there are already lots of storage options (e.g. batteries, flywheels, pumping water uphill) that are far more efficient and less expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjacksonRIAB Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Basically, there are only a few reasons you would want to use Water + Electricity as a fuel source. First, water does not require high pressures for storage like hydrogen does - it is a compact fuel, it contains a natural oxidizer, it and electricity are generally safe. But you'd need a battery, or a dual-fuel system. Gasoline is one of the most powerful fuels for a given mass. Hydrogen can achieve that level of power, but only at a much higher pressure. It doesn't have to come from econut places. We could create hydrogen using nuclear power. Unfortunately people are so stigmatized by nuclear energy that our research in that area is going down the tubes. I am confident that there is a source of nuclear energy that decays rapidly enough for our uses. Put wind turbines and solar panels up; dam up rivers, and people will REALLY complain. We need more efficient solar panels for one. Nanotech already has some promising prospects, but they have yet to become marketable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts