More snake oil?

[Pedro_The_Swift]

At one stage for work I was catching a large passenger cat to a Sandy Island everyday,, The owners decided to spend around Ten thousand dollars (on each of 5 boats) to add "Fuel Ionisation"

apparently diesel fuel flows better when all the little molecules are facing the same direction.


Your Thoughts?

[rick130]

can anyone say 'Polariser' ?! :D

There's lots and lots of stuff claiming to do things like that, but I've never seen any credible data to back it up.

You'd really need engines on a test bed so that conditions are controlled and do back to back multiple tests. I wouldn't believe before and after fuel consumption figures in the real world, far too many variables involved.

Let's just say sceptical until proven otherwise. ;)

[Bigbjorn]

Phineas T. Barnum has another win!!

[cookiesa]

At one stage for work I was catching a large passenger cat to a Sandy Island everyday,, The owners decided to spend around Ten thousand dollars (on each of 5 boats) to add "Fuel Ionisation"

apparently diesel fuel flows better when all the little molecules are facing the same direction.


Your Thoughts?

Your paying too much for your ferry fares!

[CraigE]

Some of these things can offer some anecdotal benefits, but not normally enough to warrant the cost. Recently some of the physical laws we have come to take as Gospel have been challenged with interesting results, so who knows in the future.
As for the Polariser at the end of the day (many years after the dispute) Holden engineers did admit it did have an unexplained benefit of the engine running smoother, but not enough to warrant mass production or a significant effect and could not explain why. I have several articles on this floating around in boxes (magazines) somewhwere. The issue of the Polariser had nothing what so ever to do with the product, but GM wanting to take back the racing division and specialty vehicle that they never imagined would be so successful. I actually had a friend who had a HDT vehicle with this fitted and it was strange but it just seemed to idle better and run smoother. May also be our imagination and blind loyalty to Brocky.;)
Everything on this rock is related to magnetic fields, tide actions and gravity and this is scientific fact. We have just not learnt to harness it.
Having said that there are a lot of con men out there that will sell us sparks in a can. At the end of the day we need to decide for ouselves, but it would be nice to see some objective testing of said products.
Look at Kinetic suspensions, they were originaly ridiculed, the Rotax engine, Orbital engine, Pro Ma Oil additives (this is basically what castrol Magnatec is), use of lpg and there are many many more. The way particles and ions flow and react is a very interesting science.

[Dougal]

can anyone say 'Polariser' ?! :D

They work great on non-polar fluids don't they?:p

[Searover]

Where's Brocky when you need him?

[CraigE]

[quote=Searover;670719]Where's Brocky when you need him?[/quote
Just about to have a psychic chat with him, hang on I will let you know what he says.:eek::eek::eek:;)

[rick130]

[quote=Searover;670719]Where's Brocky when you need him?[/quote
Just about to have a psychic chat with him, hang on I will let you know what he says.:eek::eek::eek:;)


:lol2: I thought that when I wrote 'polariser' but wasn't game to type it :D

[rick130]

They work great on non-polar fluids don't they?:p


damn, why didn't I think of that ?? :confused:

I can make an ester out of dead dinosaur juice with it !

[Searover]

OOPs should have read you post CraigE, but agree with all said. It's not all black and white, however they are damn fine (AFL) colours.

[Dougal]

Some of these things can offer some anecdotal benefits, but not normally enough to warrant the cost. Recently some of the physical laws we have come to take as Gospel have been challenged with interesting results, so who knows in the future.

IMO it's very simple.
If these devices worked, it'd be very easy to prove they worked and at minimal cost to the makers of such devices. Postive results would be everywhere if they existed.
So they either ran those tests and the results didn't fit with the marketing claims (i.e. they didn't work) or there is a massive conspiracy misleading us all.

You choose.:)

[Peter_OZ]

didn't the Cylons use one of those on Battlestar Galactica? :p

[CraigE]

IMO it's very simple.
If these devices worked, it'd be very easy to prove they worked and at minimal cost to the makers of such devices. Postive results would be everywhere if they existed.
So they either ran those tests and the results didn't fit with the marketing claims (i.e. they didn't work) or there is a massive conspiracy misleading us all.

You choose.:)
I will disagree there. Not all products are as claimed and there are a lot of con artists trying to sell you junk, but there are genuine people that try to improve and better products. I personally know a couple of inventors that have invented some great products but did not have the money to market them so either sold the patents for peanuts or were forced into submission until the patents ran out and then were scooped up by multinationals. My Uncle was one of these and should have been a multi millionaire with the products he invented that are now produced by conglomerates. Just for a national advertising campaign he was quoted $7million, $500k to get it on Burkes Backyard. As a battler in the 60's/70's/80's he was never going to be able to raise the funds to get some of these things off the ground and everyone just wanted to rip his ideas off and did. There is one product that is widely used and promoted as European and should have made him ridiculously rich, but all he got was 10000 pound for the patent in the end after trying for several years to get an investment partner. My Aunty still has several of the prototypes. He died on the pension.Also heard of exhaust recirculation to aid emmissions and fuel consumption, pretty much standard now days, not in the 60s when it was done to an FJ and then an EK:(
I also know a guy that invented an engine that ran on water / Hydrogen (TAFE engineer) and was bought out by one of the main oil companies for $10million in the mid 80's. Good money yes but the technology has been shelved and patents upkept. I actually saw the prototype when I was about 18, not sure of the specifics but my cousin was as it was his instructor. He retired happy and wealthy.
There are more.
A cynical attitude to new products is not ideal, but neither is absolute faith in what someone says or is spruiking.
Sorry but there are many big companies and persons with agendas that do not match the common good and is in their interest for product to fail.
I could write all night on this subject.
I like to keep an open mind, but not buy snake oil either.
Have another lok in 20 years and I guarantee some of the products you see being rubished now will be accepted as the norm. Australia is one of the worst countries in the world for fostering new and innovative products in the 21st century.
:):)

[Dougal]

I will disagree there. Not all products are as claimed and there are a lot of con artists trying to sell you junk, but there are genuine people that try to improve and better products. I personally know a couple of inventors that have invented some great products but did not have the money to market them so either sold the patents for peanuts or were forced into submission until the patents ran out and then were scooped up by multinationals. My Uncle was one of these and should have been a multi millionaire with the products he invented that are now produced by conglomerates. Just for a national advertising campaign he was quoted $7million, $500k to get it on Burkes Backyard. As a battler in the 60's/70's/80's he was never going to be able to raise the funds to get some of these things off the ground and everyone just wanted to rip his ideas off and did. There is one product that is widely used and promoted as European and should have made him ridiculously rich, but all he got was 10000 pound for the patent in the end after trying for several years to get an investment partner. My Aunty still has several of the prototypes. He died on the pension.Also heard of exhaust recirculation to aid emmissions and fuel consumption, pretty much standard now days, not in the 60s when it was done to an FJ and then an EK:(
I also know a guy that invented an engine that ran on water / Hydrogen (TAFE engineer) and was bought out by one of the main oil companies for $10million in the mid 80's. Good money yes but the technology has been shelved and patents upkept. I actually saw the prototype when I was about 18, not sure of the specifics but my cousin was as it was his instructor. He retired happy and wealthy.
There are more.
A cynical attitude to new products is not ideal, but neither is absolute faith in what someone says or is spruiking.
Sorry but there are many big companies and persons with agendas that do not match the common good and is in their interest for product to fail.
I could write all night on this subject.
I like to keep an open mind, but not buy snake oil either.
Have another lok in 20 years and I guarantee some of the products you see being rubished now will be accepted as the norm. Australia is one of the worst countries in the world for fostering new and innovative products in the 21st century.
:):)

Can you say "sucker"?

Engines that run on hydrogen are no problem. You could tune almost any spark ignition engine to do it.
But engines that run on water are bull****, if you believe that then you my friend are an advertisers greatest friend.:)
First law of thermodynamics sunshine. It hasn't been broken yet and in 20 years it still won't be.

Pony up and tell us what your uncle "invented". BTW there's a massive gulf between invention and taking a product to market to make money. People who don't understand this always think they're getting ripped off. Smart people license designs and make a killing.

[CraigE]

Can you say "sucker"?

Engines that run on hydrogen are no problem. You could tune almost any spark ignition engine to do it.
But engines that run on water are bull****, if you believe that then you my friend are an advertisers greatest friend.:)
First law of thermodynamics sunshine. It hasn't been broken yet and in 20 years it still won't be.

Pony up and tell us what your uncle "invented". BTW there's a massive gulf between invention and taking a product to market to make money. People who don't understand this always think they're getting ripped off. Smart people license designs and make a killing.
The engine that ran on water is obviously a little more complicated than just that and as I was 18 at the time and had little mechanical knowledge and did not understand it completely (but water makes hydrogen), but it worked and the gentleman retired a millionaire after being bought out. The story made national headlines in the early 80's. MM funny that people did not believe engines could run on hydrogen a short time ago or there could be a horseless carriage. I suppose you doubt the research into compressed air engines that is taking palce at the momment.
As far as my Uncle goes I have to be careful what I say as there are patents and copyright on some of this stuff, but one is one of the most used water filters in the world, another is a basic gardening tool, exhaust recirculation and others and at this point I could not give a stuff wether you believe me or not, I know the truth after seeing some of this first hand and seeing theoriginal patent doccuments.
I am far from gullible and something needs to be proven to work before I would endorse it. I believe we need to to give people the opportunity to prove their products and just beacause someone says yay or neigh on TV does not make it so.
There are loads of inventions that have never made it into production regardless of wether they work or not or are a great invention. If you are naive enough to believe that multi nationals do not paoch ideas or patents then my friend you need a trip to China and Taiwan.
I am not bitter that my Uncle did not make money form it and neither was he. I did not stand to benefit from it at all.
You could line up 100 scientists to back your claims and point of view as could I or you could line up a thousand and I 1, that does not always make the 1000 scientists right, just paid for their opinion.
I in no way condone snake oil salesman, but we should give people a fair shot to prove their claims.
And yes there is a massive gap between invention and getting it to market. Most inventors are not good businessmen and need help and business partners not parasites.
Look at the international patent laws, if a company finds a product they want and know the inventor can not get it to market they just wait until the patent lapses or if they look like being able to market it buy them out (which can be good). It is a vicious game.
I think it is time to put this to bed and agree to disagree.

[damienb]

CraigE - give me the patent numbers, or his name, and I will look it up. As a scientist/engineer (yeah, one of a 1000), I can tell you that to make an engine run on water, you need to make hydrogen first, by putting in energy in some form (light, electricity or chemical). Newer methods like algae make this more efficient. As someone on the inside (and an inventor), good inventions are often not exploited, but it's generally corporate incompetence that causes it, not some grand conspiracy.

& global warming is real too :)

/Damien

[abaddonxi]

I'd call steam water.

But that's just being picky.

:D

Cheers
Simon

[Dougal]

The engine that ran on water is obviously a little more complicated than just that and as I was 18 at the time and had little mechanical knowledge and did not understand it completely (but water makes hydrogen).


I'm afraid the world (except for the conmen) are in disagreement with you over this one and always will be.
Water does not make hydrogen, water is in fact burn't hydrogen. Trying to run an engine on water will be as successful as setting fire to ashes.

I am an engineer and I often come across people with little technical knowledge spouting off with claims which are physically impossible. In most cases a good grasp of high school physics will show you exactly why these things are doomed to fail.

Some examples.
The 100mpg carburettor.
The 200mpg carburettor.
Magnets around fuel lines.
Fuel catalysts.
Hiclones.
HHO.
Engines that run on water.
Efficiency greater than 100%.
Perpetual motion machines.
etc.

First law of thermodynamics:
You can never win, you can only break even.

Second law of thermodynamics:
You can only break even at absolute zero.

Third law of thermodynamics:
You cannot get to absolute zero.

These laws have never been broken. Many who have claimed to have broken them have been exposed as frauds, the rest, simply mistaken.

[Dougal]

I'd call steam water.

But that's just being picky.

:D

Cheers
Simon

Steam engines run on coal.;) Water is just the transport medium.

[vnx205]

....... Water does not make hydrogen, water is in fact burnt hydrogen. Trying to run an engine on water will be as successful as setting fire to ashes.
.........
I am an engineer and I often come across people with little technical knowledge spouting off with claims which are physically impossible. ................


The illustration that I like that demonstrates how people with a limited knowledge of science can make serious mistakes also involves water.
It is usually used to point out the stupidity of getting upset because something used in ice cream is also found in paint stripper.

Consider this:
Hydrogen is flammable.
Oxygen supports burning.
Yet put the two together and you have the substance that is most commonly used to fight fires - water.

[VladTepes]

Pedro those things work REALLY WELL but NOT AS GOOD AS my patented 'gullibility polariser' which I can sell you for the bargain-basement price of $39-95* :D





*per instalment. Monthly instalments over 5 years.

[CraigE]

I'm afraid the world (except for the conmen) are in disagreement with you over this one and always will be.
Water does not make hydrogen, water is in fact burn't hydrogen. Trying to run an engine on water will be as successful as setting fire to ashes.

I am an engineer and I often come across people with little technical knowledge spouting off with claims which are physically impossible. In most cases a good grasp of high school physics will show you exactly why these things are doomed to fail.

Some examples.
The 100mpg carburettor.
The 200mpg carburettor.
Magnets around fuel lines.
Fuel catalysts.
Hiclones.
HHO.
Engines that run on water.
Efficiency greater than 100%.
Perpetual motion machines.
etc.

First law of thermodynamics:
You can never win, you can only break even.

Second law of thermodynamics:
You can only break even at absolute zero.

Third law of thermodynamics:
You cannot get to absolute zero.

These laws have never been broken. Many who have claimed to have broken them have been exposed as frauds, the rest, simply mistaken.
Fair point about the hydrogen and I am the first to admit I do not know the technicalities of how this engine supposedlly ran all i remember is it was based on the use of water and only ever saw it exhibited the once and that was 20 plus years ago. If I knew his name I would gladly give it to you. There must have been something in it as he was bought out.I can still remember this being on TV and in the paper. Was he a con man? Well if he was he was a good one.
As said an invention is only part of the scenario being able to market it is another.
The rule of physics are neither fast or absolute and there is a lot of discussion around these laws being rethought and possiblly disproved.
Was my Uncle a bad businessman, probablly, was he a good inventor, maybe.
Do we give inventors credit for inventions, not often.
As an engineer I understand you only think inside the box (Myers Briggs have proven this with personality profilling) but there are many more who think outside the box and more often than not they will be wrong, but every now and then one comes along that turns everything on its head. I am not saying for a minute believe everyones invention, but we should be prepared to look outside the norm.

[CraigE]

Steam engines run on coal.;) Water is just the transport medium.
Um there is something wrong with that statement. The coal is burnt to heat the water to create steam to create pressure/energy.;)

[CraigE]

OK I am gonna wave the white flag as I think this discussion has reached a point where it is becoming silly and we have missed the point.
Yes there are physical restarint and barriers as to what can be achieved and what can not. These are not hard and fast for all and some move and alter. Only history will show what changes and what does not, what is proven, disproven and proven again.
The whole discussion was originally around wether something worked or was snake oil and I appologise to the original poster. My opinion on this is it did not always have to have an apparent reason for working, although if it did work eventually science would discover why. There is a lot we still do not understand.
The second point was really around if inventors are given credit for inventions to which I do not believe they always are and there are many people out there who want to con us or rip our ideas off.
Basically what I am saying is we should all give someone a fair chance to prove their product works or have it disproved, but should not discard it out of hand as it does not conform with our way of thinking.
I have absolutely no time for people who want to con or rip another off, but there are those who are thinking laterally for alternative solutions and some believe their results even if they are flawed.
Do I believe a engine could run on water alone? Well no. If one can it would obviously be a lot more complex than just filling with water and in the end I do not know how the example worked (otherwise I would be rich or commited).
Any way enough dribble, lets get back to talking Rovers and come up with some other drivel that we can argue about and when I get home on Wed we should all sit down and have a bourbon or 6.

[Pedro_The_Swift]

Pm me when you get home Craig--
mmmmm bourbon

your place or mine?
:D



I think this thread and the "Paranormal" one are similar in many ways, sometimes theres a fine line between gullability and good salesmanship.

If you THINK your hiclone works,, it was good salesmanship.

[rick130]

<snip>


I think this thread and the "Paranormal" one are similar in many ways, sometimes theres a fine line between gullability and good salesmanship.
<snip>


was just thinking the same thing :D

'tis a funny thing, working in the fields I have you trust your instruments, gauges, stop watches, data, etc, but in life I'm actually happiest when I've gone with the my instincts, the intangible.....

Go figure.....

[abaddonxi]

Steam engines run on coal.;) Water is just the transport medium.

You could say the same of a Prius or a Hydrogen car.

Cheers
Simon

[Dougal]

The rule of physics are neither fast or absolute and there is a lot of discussion around these laws being rethought and possiblly disproved.


The laws of thermodynamics are fast and absolute. They have not been broken ever.



As an engineer I understand you only think inside the box (Myers Briggs have proven this with personality profilling) but there are many more who think outside the box and more often than not they will be wrong, but every now and then one comes along that turns everything on its head. I am not saying for a minute believe everyones invention, but we should be prepared to look outside the norm.

*cough*absolutebull*****cough*.

The "inside the box argument" is simply this.
People who have no idea of the limitataions of natural laws, materials and components get ****ed when their half baked ideas are rubbished by those more enlightened. They then label their thinking as "outside the box" to appear more trendy and feel superiour to the people they just lost an argument with.

[Dougal]

You could say the same of a Prius or a Hydrogen car.

Cheers
Simon

Prius runs on petrol. That's it's only energy source.
Hydrogen cars run on hydrogen which is often produced using electricity. Which is often produced by burning coal or oil in a powerplant somewhere.

Also known as "pollution relocation".:)

[cookiesa]

Prius runs on petrol.

Ummm actually it runs on electricity. And the petrol engine is not the only source of power generation it uses

[cookiesa]

I believe that the only outstanding theory of a famous scientist is that of relativity (sp?)

Just because we have not been able to (yet) travel fast enough to prove/disprove this theory does that mean he is wrong??

This theory also helps explain the phenomenum (sp?... Incis when are we getting spell check???) that astrologists have seen in relation to black holes.

By the way for those who don't know the scientist is Albert Einstein

[VladTepes]

Re the Prius:


Ummm actually it runs on electricity. And the petrol engine is not the only source of power generation it uses

Sure if the minute amount of power that is fed back into the sytem while braking etc is counted. It runs on petrol BUT does get reasonably good economy (as long as you dont talk about diesels in the same sentence!)

Let alone the massive environmental cost of manufacturing and later disposing of, all those batteries in the darn thing.

The REAL issue is - it's a PRIUS for gawd's sake ! Who give a **** ?

[cookiesa]

I don't disagree with you... the whole concept is really flawed. The same vehicle less all the battery and motor weight fitted with the a new generation diesel would no doubt be more fuel efficient and more recyclable.

[mark2]

Priced a set of new batteries for a Prius lately:eek::eek:


Even the electricity generated by regenerative braking still came from the original energy source - petrol.

[Dougal]

Ummm actually it runs on electricity. And the petrol engine is not the only source of power generation it uses

:D
How do you think the electricity gets into the battery?
Oh wait, it's from recovering kinetic energy, which was created by the petrol engine.

:BigThumb:

The prius is not a plug-in hybrid.

[Dougal]

I don't disagree with you... the whole concept is really flawed. The same vehicle less all the battery and motor weight fitted with the a new generation diesel would no doubt be more fuel efficient and more recyclable.

Yes, but not as marketable to dumb celebrities.:)

[Blknight.aus]

I'd call steam water.

ID call it the gaseous form of water.....

[QUOTE=Dougal;671910]Steam engines run on coal.;) Water is just the transport medium.

they also run on any other energy source that can heat water past its boiling point at various pressures


Um there is something wrong with that statement. The coal is burnt to heat the water to create steam to create pressure/energy.;)

Theres nothing wrong with that statement, you need outside energy to heat the water so all your doing is changing the energy from one medium to the next which isnt really all that effecient as everytime engergy changes mediums you loose some to entropy (which is typically identifiable as heat or light or sound).

on the prius front........

there are several prius's that have been hacked to allow external charging so its achievable... all you need now is a windmill and an alternator to charge it or a biiiiiig set of solar panels so you can trickle charge off of moonlight. (or become nocturnal so it can charge during the day)

Ive seen at one of those royal show type affairs an engine running on water, aparently.......

in reality what it was running on was a battery. Battery voltage was used to crack water (via inverters to make it semi effecient into its component elements of hydrogen and oxygen this was then plumbed back into the carby to be drawn into the engine and burnt. Looked good, untill you looked closely and watched for more than 20 minutes or so. the engine was started and run up to a fair clip on petrol (and that took a while as apparently the engine had been tuned for hydrogen) then turned over to the new hydrogen system.

It ran, right up untill the battery went flat and had to be taken off the engine for charging. to make it interestng the engine had no cooling system so that you could see the whole engine and know that nothing sus was going on. for safety the flywheel was housed in a big metal shield to prevent people from putting their hands on it...

what was actually happening...

the engine had a temp cut out on the head so when it overheated it shut down removing the need to expose the fact that once the battery went flat the engine would stop. inside the flywheel housing was a gargantuan flywheel which had to weigh at least 150kg which to my way of thinking would store a fair wack of energy once run up to speed on the petrol side of business and then when it was up to speed it was switched over to the hydrogen.

when the engine shut down an small brake was automatically applied to the flywheel to make it stop like a normal engine that had run out of fuel at speed.

but if you only watched it once maybe a second time later in the day to prove it was repeatable it looked the goods.

[procrastination inc]

I believe that the only outstanding theory of a famous scientist is that of relativity (sp?)

Just because we have not been able to (yet) travel fast enough to prove/disprove this theory does that mean he is wrong??

This theory also helps explain the phenomenum (sp?... Incis when are we getting spell check???) that astrologists have seen in relation to black holes.

By the way for those who don't know the scientist is Albert Einstein


The General Theory of Relativity has stood up very well to all practical testing.

It has real applications too. Your GPS uses lorenz transformations on the satellite signals to compensate fro relativistic effects.

If you want to get down and dirty with this type of physics in laymans language, try posting a question here:

The Self Service Science Forum (http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/)

[procrastination inc]

(sp?... Incis when are we getting spell check???) ....


use Mozilla Firefox as your web browser. Built in spellchecker

[abaddonxi]

Oops, sorry, thought a Prius was a plug in. Goes to show how interested I am in things other than Land Rovers.

Cheers
Simon

[CraigE]

The laws of thermodynamics are fast and absolute. They have not been broken ever.



*cough*absolutebull*****cough*.

The "inside the box argument" is simply this.
People who have no idea of the limitataions of natural laws, materials and components get ****ed when their half baked ideas are rubbished by those more enlightened. They then label their thinking as "outside the box" to appear more trendy and feel superiour to the people they just lost an argument with.
Well whatever. You are obviously right and everyone else that has a differing opinion is wrong. There would never be any progress if we lived in your little confined world. The Myers Briggs assessment is the most trusted personality profiling test in the world. Is it always 100% correct?no. Is anything? no. Except obviously you.:2up:
Also do a bit of a search on how to make hydrogen after your statement that you can not make hydrogen from water. Hydrogen gas can easily be made by using salt water or water and baking soda, a battery and stainless steel. In this process you can also obtain power to run a small motor or lighting circuit. Basic chemistry. Not enough to be useful, but makes it none the less. You actually had me doubting my own memory of this science experiment from high school, but I did look it up again.
Electrolysis of Aqueous Solutions (http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/jcesoft/CCA/CCA1/R1MAIN/CD1R1520.HTM)
Am I wrong about things sometimes? Often! Do I care? No. That is how we learn, I have got things wrong many times before I have gotten them right, but I will have a go and learn and push boundries that people say exist. If we all stayed commited to boundries written by someone as a theory we would never evolve. There may be some absolutes but not all.
If you are such a great authority as an engineer prove to me and the rest of the world beyond reasonable doubt that God does or does not exist. All our religious leaders are snake oil salesmen??? (I do think they are but thats another issue). Explain concisely what happens where the universe ends. There is so much we do not know or understand. There are answer to most of these we just need to find them.

[procrastination inc]

craig you seem to be arguing that because all is not 100% known that anything out side the box is possible.

But, in some fields, very much is known to a very high degree of certainty.

This particular case of using water as fuel is one.

The energy that produces the heat and pressure that drives the mechanism of an internal combustion engine comes from the chemistry of combustion.

Chemistry is mostly about electron transfer and bond energies.

H2 and O2 have high bond energies H2O has low bond energy. Bond energy given up as heat and light in combustion

2 H2(g) + O2(g) = 2 H2O(l) + 572 kJ

To get H2 out of water you need to add energy water is not a fuel

[CraigE]

[quote=procrastination inc;673382]craig you seem to be arguing that because all is not 100% known that anything out side the box is possible.

But, in some fields, very much is known to a very high degree of certainty.

This particular case of using water as fuel is one.

The energy that produces the heat and pressure that drives the mechanism of an internal combustion engine comes from the chemistry of combustion.

Chemistry is mostly about electron transfer and bond energies.

H2 and O2 have high bond energies H2O has low bond energy. Bond energy given up as heat and light in combustion

Yeah, fair point but I have never said once water was a fuel, Hydrogen would be the fuel I assume, nor at the time that I even remotely understood the process this guy used and is probablly a damn site more complex. I do remember a lot of batteries being used. There is no doubt that you need electricity to start with to make hydrogen this way. However the statement (and it was made) that you can not make hydrogen from water is incorrect as you can split the hydrogen and oxygen easily. Of course other resources are needed and wether you could do it commercially is another issue on its own. Commercially made hydrogen obviously uses a different method.
There is quite a bit of amateur science going on in the states to use hydrogen boost methods to feed hydrogen into a vehicles carburettor. Interesting reading, but wether it actually works is debatable.
My whole point to this thread is that we should not dismiss things out of hand. We all think differently and have different opinions, does this make any of us wrong? Not entirely.
Look at lpg and diesel technology, if we had mentioned that 5 years ago it would have been dismissed out of hand.
And no I am not arguing that anything outside the box is possible (please go back and read my posts carefully), but a lot of things may be possible that we have not considered or closed our minds to. If we work on the concept that all is bound by laws of physics etc we are then saying that some of the worlds best scientists are crackpots. Obviously there are boundaries and limitations but we should keep pushing them.
Cheers
CraigE:):)

[Dougal]

However the statement (and it was made) that you can not make hydrogen from water is incorrect

No-one in this thread has made that comment.
Making hydrogen from water is very easy, very slow and requires far more energy than you ever get back.
The reasons for that are the bond energies that Procrastination mentioned a few posts up.

ALL the "amateur science" going on in the states regarding hydrogen generators in vehicles is a crock. The amount of hydrogen produced will be about two bubbles in every cubic metre of air the engine digests. The effect on combustion is zero.
Check out the HHO threads on youtube, they're all bollocks too. But the comments on them are hilarious.

Just remember, big oil is keeping the man down:D



My whole point to this thread is that we should not dismiss things out of hand. We all think differently and have different opinions, does this make any of us wrong? Not entirely.


The point of this thread is snake oil. To me it equates to fraud and these devices and schemes should be shot down clearly and openly, exposed for what they are to prevent innocent people from being fleeced.



Look at lpg and diesel technology, if we had mentioned that 5 years ago it would have been dismissed out of hand.


LPG fumigation of diesel engines is not new, it's been around for a long long time. The only reason for the resurgence is the growing hot-rod diesel market and the rising cost of fuel.
LPG fumigation is simply extra fuel, there is no catalytic action despite what many kit makers are claiming. But there can be a lot of detonation and engine damage, the kit makers leave that out of their claims too.



If we work on the concept that all is bound by laws of physics etc we are then saying that some of the worlds best scientists are crackpots.


Who are these world best scientists who work outside the laws of physics? Sound like something the bush administration would employ.



Obviously there are boundaries and limitations but we should keep pushing them.
Cheers
CraigE:):)

There I agree. But pushing the boundaries and limitations involves getting closer to the limitations.

[procrastination inc]

There I agree. But pushing the boundaries and limitations involves getting closer to the limitations.....


or busting through if those limitations are merely our understanding of reality
OS:Bill Williams' Joe Cell - PESWiki (http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Bill_Williams%27_Joe_Cell)














yes, I am taking the **** :twisted:

[Dougal]

or busting through if those limitations are merely our understanding of reality
OS:Bill Williams' Joe Cell - PESWiki (http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Bill_Williams%27_Joe_Cell)

yes, I am taking the **** :twisted:

That's a very different reality.:D
Check out the links at the top of that page.

[rick130]

the Polarizer lives !


......It allegedly feeds off Orgone energy.......

[CraigE]

I'm afraid the world (except for the conmen) are in disagreement with you over this one and always will be.
Water does not make hydrogen, water is in fact burn't hydrogen. Trying to run an engine on water will be as successful as setting fire to ashes.

I am an engineer and I often come across people with little technical knowledge spouting off with claims which are physically impossible. In most cases a good grasp of high school physics will show you exactly why these things are doomed to fail.

Some examples.
The 100mpg carburettor.
The 200mpg carburettor.
Magnets around fuel lines.
Fuel catalysts.
Hiclones.
HHO.
Engines that run on water.
Efficiency greater than 100%.
Perpetual motion machines.
etc.

First law of thermodynamics:
You can never win, you can only break even.

Second law of thermodynamics:
You can only break even at absolute zero.

Third law of thermodynamics:
You cannot get to absolute zero.

These laws have never been broken. Many who have claimed to have broken them have been exposed as frauds, the rest, simply mistaken.
Dougal,
I do think you should read your above quote especially the part where you state "water does not make hydrogen"
I am in fact quite a sceptical person and something needs top be proven to me it will work before I will accept it. However I am not confined by certain explanations, there is stuff that works and we do not know why at this point in time.
I actually spoke to a fellow who was on site last night and was also aware of this so called method in Kalgoorlie and believed it did have something to do with hydrogen, but same as me 20 plus years ago does not recall the detail. At the end of the day it had absolutely nothing to do with this particular example, but more to do with wether we believe that some products can operate without a solid engineering reason and I believe that on occassion it is possible, not normal, but possible.
I am not going to change your way of thinking nor you mine and I do not want to as without different thinking and reasoning methods we would never move on. I really think it is time to put this post to bed and move on. As interesting as it has been this will be my last post on this matter. You are more than welcome to have the final say.
Cheers
CraigE
:D:D:D:D
Edit : Yes I agree whole heartedly that if someone is exposed as a fraud or making unsubstantiated claims then they should be exposed and have the full extent of the law thrust upon them.
History also does show that many inventors were thought of as frauds and crackpot before they made their breakthroughs. As far as those working towards a goal that does not involve fraud or selling snake oil but proving or disproving a theory we should assist them to a conclusion that is tangeable.

[dannydisco1]

hi guys
not sure if everyone is aware of this but hydrogen fuelled engines have been getting around for a while, without the need for onboard production of the hydrogen, they can be filled at hydrogen pumping stations just like our petrol stations.
and as of about a month ago this includes some modified toyota prius`
all sounds great, if you live in iceland, hydroden production on a large scale is much easier when you have endless hydro and geothermal energy..reason for this is because using current metthods burning oil or coal to produce the hydrogen, actually produces more pollution than running the engine on oil to start with,

another small point about physics laws, as we learn more we are finding flaws in conventional physics laws, when studying quantum physics we find even the great albert einsteins theory of reletivity has been found to be innaccurate, notwrong, but not precise enough.. the pointis we humans with our feble brains have no real understanding of mothernature..

[Dougal]

hi guys
not sure if everyone is aware of this but hydrogen fuelled engines have been getting around for a while, without the need for onboard production of the hydrogen, they can be filled at hydrogen pumping stations just like our petrol stations.
and as of about a month ago this includes some modified toyota prius`
all sounds great, if you live in iceland, hydroden production on a large scale is much easier when you have endless hydro and geothermal energy..reason for this is because using current metthods burning oil or coal to produce the hydrogen, actually produces more pollution than running the engine on oil to start with,

Hydrogen is a gimmick which is almost entirely useless.
The energy density is terrible, at legal transport pressures a litre of hydrogen contains 1.6 MJ/litre, petrol contains 22 times as much.
Bottling the hydrogen genie - The Industrial Physicist (http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-1/p20.html)

Then remember you're generating electricity at probably 50% efficiency, throw in line losses of 40%, generate hydrogen with an electrolysis, compress it, pump it, transport it then burn it in a spark ignition engine which only makes 30% efficiency at best.

Along with the Prius it's a feel-good concept which is already beaten by current technology. Get a diesel polo or lupo (almost 40% efficient) and run it on biodiesel.
Take one of Scanias ethanol powered diesel buses (50% efficient).
Even driving an electric forklift to work is a better idea than burning hydrogen in a spark engine.

[procrastination inc]

Hydrogen is a gimmick which is almost entirely useless.

\

If the power to create H2 comes from an source that produces no CO2 (nuclear)
and some high density storage mechanism becomes available (I remember reading about some metal matrix that could store H2 at mildly elevated pressures many times more densly than free gas) H2 has a future. But internal combustion is a joke. Fuel cells and electric drive is heaps more efficient.

[dannydisco1]

Hydrogen is a gimmick which is almost entirely useless.
The energy density is terrible, at legal transport pressures a litre of hydrogen contains 1.6 MJ/litre, petrol contains 22 times as much.
Bottling the hydrogen genie - The Industrial Physicist (http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-1/p20.html)

Then remember you're generating electricity at probably 50% efficiency, throw in line losses of 40%, generate hydrogen with an electrolysis, compress it, pump it, transport it then burn it in a spark ignition engine which only makes 30% efficiency at best.

Along with the Prius it's a feel-good concept which is already beaten by current technology. Get a diesel polo or lupo (almost 40% efficient) and run it on biodiesel.
Take one of Scanias ethanol powered diesel buses (50% efficient).
Even driving an electric forklift to work is a better idea than burning hydrogen in a spark engine.

all minor details that science will overcome..if someone pays them to..

i personally am not a fan of alternate energies, (so i am not asking for an argument dougal), i like powerful fuels, and for the record i dont mind a bit of global warming either..

[procrastination inc]

the pointis we humans with our feble brains have no real understanding of mothernature..
Reply With Quote

define:
real
understanding

I think our ability to consciously manipulate nature in very large and small ways is proof of a real understanding. It isn't complete, sure, but it is real

[dannydisco1]

the pointis we humans with our feble brains have no real understanding of mothernature..
Reply With Quote

define:
real
understanding

I think our ability to consciously manipulate nature in very large and small ways is proof of a real understanding. It isn't complete, sure, but it is real

i define real understanding to be complete..

we do of course have knowledge gained from experience and experimentation, yet we all have different opinions..how can an understanding of something lead to so many different conclusions..
take weather for example, if we understood how it worked, we might be able to predict it.

i believe that on mass humans are indesicive, easily led and quite stupid really..
i cannot think of any large way that we conciously manipulate nature.

[procrastination inc]

i cannot think of any large way that we conciously manipulate nature....


if by manipulate nature you mean manipulate the environment as a whole, the I agree.

But all of our technology is about make stuff happen that doesn't happen naturally

look at a photo of earth from space at night and you'll see who large our manipulation is.

[Dougal]

we do of course have knowledge gained from experience and experimentation, yet we all have different opinions..how can an understanding of something lead to so many different conclusions..

In most situations it's because you have two people with very different levels of knowledge and understanding.

For example, try to find two scientists or engineers who don't agree that magnets around fuel lines are snake oil.

Another example is political, the bush administration and global warming is an excellent example of that.

[dannydisco1]

opinions vary, that is the beauty(downfall)of the human mind..

[dannydisco1]

In most situations it's because you have two people with very different levels of knowledge and understanding.

For example, try to find two scientists or engineers who don't agree that magnets around fuel lines are snake oil.

Another example is political, the bush administration and global warming is an excellent example of that.

i dont get what you mean, about the bush administration ? is the bush administration the higher or lower level of knowledge or understanding ??
do you think global warming is a result of mans influence ??
i personally havent seen the evidence..and i can certainly find 2 scientists that will disagree all day and night.

a good experiment or survey will always give you the result you are looking for..
i have read a study by leading mathematicians that concluded, god creating life was the most feasible explanation for the beginning of life on earth..

[Dougal]

i dont get what you mean, about the bush administration ? is the bush administration the higher or lower level of knowledge or understanding ??
do you think global warming is a result of mans influence ??
i personally havent seen the evidence..and i can certainly find 2 scientists that will disagree all day and night.


The bush administration is full of people with a massive investment in the oil industry. Hence their opinions are always biased towards the best financial outcome for them, the truth does not get in the way.
It is quite similar to the tobacco industry, you cannot expect their opinions to match the medical establishments because it is not in their financial interests.
In a similar manner their religious beliefs direct their judgement. "Intelligent Design" anyone? Don't let dinosaur fossils spoil the story.



a good experiment or survey will always give you the result you are looking for..
i have read a study by leading mathematicians that concluded, god creating life was the most feasible explanation for the beginning of life on earth..

A good experiment gives you an unbiased outcome. Surveys are not experiments.
I don't expect someone who doesn't start a sentence with capitals to appreciate the pathways of global warming.

[procrastination inc]

ouch dougal...

I'm just to lazy to reach for the shift key....

you might like this place

The Self Service Science Forum (http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/)

[dannydisco1]

I don't expect someone who doesn't start a sentence with capitals to appreciate the pathways of global warming.

now i have always been civil here, my punctuation is irrelevant, but i will point out, you really should use correct grammer if you plan to make comment about puntuation.

but that comment obvioulsy makes disscussion with you unfriendly and unproductive.

[Dougal]

ouch dougal...

I'm just to lazy to reach for the shift key....

you might like this place

The Self Service Science Forum (http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/)

Probably a bit harsh.
There's some funny stuff on that site.
Are horses more intelligent than hamsters?:D

[procrastination inc]

It's a very cool (in an awfully geeky way) site

been hanging there for 7 years met many of the regulars in real life.