PDA

View Full Version : Solution to the Energy Crisis (serious)

Fly
06-02-2006, 10:48 PM
Check this out. http://www.wcbp.net/movies/waterfuel.wmv

Is this for real? Why isn't this all over the news? How come I haven't heard anything about it before? Also, can someone better explain how this works?
Fly
06-02-2006, 11:57 PM
Am I missing something? How does this thread have no replies?
Borodog
06-03-2006, 12:02 AM
If you want a flurry of replies, post in OOT.
pzhon
06-03-2006, 12:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]

Is this for real? Why isn't this all over the news? How come I haven't heard anything about it before? Also, can someone better explain how this works?

[/ QUOTE ]
past thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=58 09336&Searchpage=1&Main=5809336&Words=HHO&topic=&S earch=true#Post5809336)

[ QUOTE ]
Am I missing something? How does this thread have no replies?

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you should wait more than 69 minutes.
Fly
06-03-2006, 12:48 AM
Thanks for the link pzhon. However, I'm still not sure what the verdict on this thing is?
hmkpoker
06-03-2006, 02:03 AM
Here's the catch-

[ QUOTE ]
Take water and electricity and break it down through our unique electrolysis process...

[/ QUOTE ]

H2O isn't the energy source. HHO is. First, you have to spend energy creating the HHO gas, and that energy has to come from somewhere.

This is the same fallacy presented in The Matrix: humans convert energy, but they don't actually produce it. You can't get something for nothing.
scotchnrocks
06-03-2006, 02:17 AM
What hmkpoker said.

If the source of the electricity and the HHO engine combined is more efficient than a gasoline engine and gasoline conversion processes there would be savings in energy consumption, probably marginal though if any at all. However, electricity can be produced all kinds of ways using coal, wind, waves, etc. so there would be no reliance on gasoline.
Copernicus
06-03-2006, 08:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
What hmkpoker said.

If the source of the electricity and the HHO engine combined is more efficient than a gasoline engine and gasoline conversion processes there would be savings in energy consumption, probably marginal though if any at all. However, electricity can be produced all kinds of ways using coal, wind, waves, etc. so there would be no reliance on gasoline.

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on whether HHO is stable enough to be produced in advance and stored, or has to be produced and used immediately. If so then the finding a practical source of that energy leaves you where we are now.

As far as the earlier statement that we can only convert energy, not create it, I would classify nuclear power as creating energy in the controlled creation of energy out of mass.
soko
06-03-2006, 09:27 PM
There are 100 miracle energy solutions out there and none of them are real. The chance that this one just happens to be the REAL miracle energy solution is about zero.
baumer
06-05-2006, 04:46 AM
energy...? mass...?

what's the diff?
jws43yale
06-10-2006, 12:35 AM
Well said above. This sounds like many other "miracle" energy sources that when examined closer are actually a negative energy process.

For example, if the electrolysis of a gallon of water takes the equivalent of 10 gallons of gasoline, it must be 10 times as efficient to even break even.

A HHO gas that was specially designed for welding does not seem likely to have a low energy cost of production, thus more than likely, you burn more energy to create it then you get by combusting it.