Has any one done this to a Turbo buick.

The entire global warming thing is a massive lie. Al Gore, starting a LONG time ago, came up with the idea of convincing the u.s. that the world is going to end if you dont vote for him as president. It was a completely new concept. No more " I'll lower taxes", or "I'm going to end corruption in government"...now its "we have 100 years left on earth before we all fry in ultraviolet radiation...the world as we know it is going to end"...."but dont worry. Vote for me and I'll save humanity!"
That "an inconvenient truth" show was really compelling until I watched it the 2nd time. There are so many flat out lies through that whole thing it sickens me. Showing melting icebergs and not telling the audience that one picture was taken in winter and the other in summer, and showing charts that say the earth is warming up at an un-natural rate and all that crap. Its all BS. The earth has been on a warming trend for the past 10,000 years. We just havent been documenting weather long enough to measure it. But there is plenty of evidence in ice cores and sea floor cores to measure weather condition for the past 50,000 years. The earth has been on a warming trend, and 1000 years ago, it was pretty hot. Then a mini ice age came in the middle ages. It rained in europe for 3 years straight! Then things warmed up again. Then they cooled again. Then warmed again. But when you look at a graph of the past 1000 years, its an obvious warming trend. The ice caps use to extend halfway down the united states. New york was under a couple thousand feet of glacial ice. Within the next 100 years or so, the ice caps will probably be mostly gone. This isnt from pollution. Its the temperature cycle that started when north and south america became joined a very long time ago. The oceanic currents completely changed and started a freezing trend. Contrary to what some people say, there is plenty of evidence of major water erosion around the world caused by MASSIVE flooding. There was so much ice at the caps melting, that the world probably saw FAR more rainfall than we see today.
The sea level is much higher than it used to be. A large part of ancient civilized egypt is under water now. It will continue to rise. The caps will finish melting very soon, the sea level will rise even more, then the precipitation levels will increase ALOT, given the abundance of water. A freezing trend will follow. The ice caps will come back and they will grow until half of north america is covered in ice again.
Its the circle of life.
Hakoona matada mother****ers!!
 
Forget the global warming debate. Those selling cars that run on water are selling snake oil.

Take a physics class people.

A 12 volt battery CANNOT make enough hydrogen to power any type of vehicle beyond a small go kart maybe 15 miles. Period.

Converting hydrogen from water then burning it in an internal combustion engine is HORRIBLY inefficient. Way more inefficient than running the car off the same 12 volt battery.

GM is developing Fuel Cells for the sole reason that actually burning Hydrogen requires so much storage space, range is about 1/10 that of gasoline for the same storage capacity (even at high gas pressure or storing liquid H2 at 4 degrees kelvin) that when you burn it, you can't go anywhere. A fuel cell uses the H2 more efficiently, so you can go farther with the same amount.

If you want a greenhouse Nightmare scenario, start releasing large amounts of H2 into the atmosphere. The compounds it will make in the upper atmosphere will make CO2 from coal plants look good, and say goodbye to the ozone layer.

WOOHOO, lets all jump on the hydrogen bandwagon!!!! Who's with me!!!!
 
Take a physics class people.

A 12 volt battery CANNOT make enough hydrogen to power any type of vehicle beyond a small go kart maybe 15 miles. Period.

Converting hydrogen from water then burning it in an internal combustion engine is HORRIBLY inefficient. Way more inefficient than running the car off the same 12 volt battery.

GM is developing Fuel Cells for the sole reason that actually burning Hydrogen requires so much storage space, range is about 1/10 that of gasoline for the same storage capacity (even at high gas pressure or storing liquid H2 at 4 degrees kelvin) that when you burn it, you can't go anywhere. A fuel cell uses the H2 more efficiently, so you can go farther with the same amount.

If you want a greenhouse Nightmare scenario, start releasing large amounts of H2 into the atmosphere. The compounds it will make in the upper atmosphere will make CO2 from coal plants look good, and say goodbye to the ozone layer.

WOOHOO, lets all jump on the hydrogen bandwagon!!!! Who's with me!!!!

Not arguing with you here, but you might want to take a second look at some of your claims.

First, Physics was my minor

Second, if you actually look at how they are breaking the hydrogen and oxygen, you will notice that theory would suggest that they are not using voltage for any other reason than to align the atoms in a favorable arrangement so they can resonate them at their natural frequency and to cause the resonating with the VPMs. The splitting is from this resonating, thus the low heat emissions and the very low usage of energy. You are right, 12 volts is not enough energy to split the H2 from the O, but it may be enough energy to resonate the compound at its natural frequency... ;)

Third, yes, converting hydrogen from water usually is ineffecient due to the amount of energy that is used to perform conventional electrolysis, but what this thread is about is the idea of converting hydrogen from water, and through my short research on the subject, this is done by using a small amount of energy and resonance. Think about a suspension bridge and an earthquake. Yes an earthquake is alot of energy, but not until you hit the natural frequency of the bridge, does it then practically explode. Maybe the natural resonance of water requires a low amount of energy and the splitting IS possible? Now I dont have my physics books right in front of me, but I believe that Hydrogen does have more combustible power than gasoline, and at a lower temp. Meaning less waste... Its the combustion force that pushes the piston down that really make our cars move, the heat is acually wasted energy...

Next, the concept has the storage being in water form, then only converting when its needed. Should work... Storage space would be the last concern after actually getting a car to run on water.

Burning Hydrogen is much more effecient that burning gas. In a closed environment such as a combustion chamber with only the balanced 2H2 and 2O present, complete combustion will occur. I believe wastes will be almost zero, or water vapor...

Now I have not tested this, and plan to do so in the near future, and let me express that I am not and never have been one of those people that have ever been caught up on conspiracy theories, or hooplah, or just plain nonsense, but I truly do believe that this could work.... I plan on buying some crappy foreign 4 cylinder and either getting it to run on water or turning it into a small Hindenburg :eek: ....
 
Not arguing with you here, but you might want to take a second look at some of your claims.

First, Physics was my minor

Second, if you actually look at how they are breaking the hydrogen and oxygen, you will notice that theory would suggest that they are not using voltage for any other reason than to align the atoms in a favorable arrangement so they can resonate them at their natural frequency and to cause the resonating with the VPMs. The splitting is from this resonating, thus the low heat emissions and the very low usage of energy. You are right, 12 volts is not enough energy to split the H2 from the O, but it may be enough energy to resonate the compound at its natural frequency... ;)

Snake oil

Electrolysis is electrolysis

Third, yes, converting hydrogen from water usually is ineffecient due to the amount of energy that is used to perform conventional electrolysis, but what this thread is about is the idea of converting hydrogen from water, and through my short research on the subject, this is done by using a small amount of energy and resonance. Think about a suspension bridge and an earthquake. Yes an earthquake is alot of energy, but not until you hit the natural frequency of the bridge, does it then practically explode. Maybe the natural resonance of water requires a low amount of energy and the splitting IS possible? Now I dont have my physics books right in front of me, but I believe that Hydrogen does have more combustible power than gasoline, and at a lower temp. Meaning less waste... Its the combustion force that pushes the piston down that really make our cars move, the heat is acually wasted energy...

Double snake oil, for the reason, see above.

Next, the concept has the storage being in water form, then only converting when its needed. Should work... Storage space would be the last concern after actually getting a car to run on water.

Communism Should work, too.

Water is not an ENERGY SOURCE. An ENERGY SOURCE will be required to convert the Water to Hydrogen. An ENERGY SOURCE that could be used to more efficiently run the vehicle, skipping the inefficient "Lets all make Hydrogen for no reason" step.

Burning Hydrogen is much more effecient that burning gas. In a closed environment such as a combustion chamber with only the balanced 2H2 and 2O present, complete combustion will occur. I believe wastes will be almost zero, or water vapor...

On an atom to atom basis sure its more efficient. But there are millions of more atoms in a gallon of gasoline than there are in a gallon of 14.7 psig Gaseous hydrogen. A ninja is more efficient than a nuke for killing someone, but the nuke gets the job done, too.

Now I have not tested this, and plan to do so in the near future, and let me express that I am not and never have been one of those people that have ever been caught up on conspiracy theories, or hooplah, or just plain nonsense, but I truly do believe that this could work.... I plan on buying some crappy foreign 4 cylinder and either getting it to run on water or turning it into a small Hindenburg :eek: ....

I wish you luck in all your endeavours.
 
Well today I am going to the Depot and picking up all of this stuff Hydrogen Booster to start playing with it on my own I am also going to try and get it working on a small pressure washer I have at home.
One of my many expected problems jumps at me right away
And that is that my Pressure washer burns a Gasoline +oil mixture and I have to figure out how to feed it oil and Hydro at the same time.
 
One of my many expected problems jumps at me right away
And that is that my Pressure washer burns a Gasoline +oil mixture and I have to figure out how to feed it oil and Hydro at the same time.
Why make things complicated right out of the box, why not just go buy a used Briggs&Stratton motor or lawn mower that doesn't require the oil mixture, couldn't cost you more than $25-$50 for an old beat up running mower.
 
Why make things complicated right out of the box, why not just go buy a used Briggs&Stratton motor or lawn mower that doesn't require the oil mixture, couldn't cost you more than $25-$50 for an old beat up running mower.

didn't think of it
Good idea
 
to be clear. this setup dosnt power the car by the hydrogen and oxygen. It uses gasoline and it just injects the hydrogen/oxygen it into the intake. On my tests... at work and home. It does nothing.
Tried all combinations. Used just the oxygen. Also used just the hydrogen.
Did nothing. Test it out on your own though
 
to be clear. this setup dosnt power the car by the hydrogen and oxygen. It uses gasoline and it just injects the hydrogen/oxygen it into the intake. On my tests... at work and home. It does nothing.
Tried all combinations. Used just the oxygen. Also used just the hydrogen.
Did nothing. Test it out on your own though

you messed up my day i was looking forward to playing with a new toy. but i will still try it.
 
Now I dont have my physics books right in front of me, but I believe that Hydrogen does have more combustible power than gasoline, and at a lower temp. Meaning less waste... Its the combustion force that pushes the piston down that really make our cars move, the heat is acually wasted energy...
Hydrogen burns at over 3000 degrees F.
And because of the extremely high temperatures, theres ALOT of Nox produced, and the hydrogen freaks tend to ignore this fact and keep telling everyone that the only by-product is water.
Energy by weight, hydrogen has much more potential. Energy by volume, gasoline has FAR more potential.
I understand resonance. But this guy's claim that he's using resonance to pull this off, is a lie. The physics professor who was scheduled to be a witness with this guy's machine, who was going to qualify this guy's claims....was blown off. There were other experts who had researched his claims, and it turned out to be fraud. It was ruled in court that he lied and made nothing revolutionary.
 
its fun to play with. il get the plans at work and pm you them. now i just fill balloons with it and freak people out by lighting them over a candle.
 
YouTube - Saltwater Burns - John Kanzius

Water can be converted to hydrogen and oxygen without electrolysis ;) .

Radio waves are breaking the bonds... Resonance :rolleyes: ....

The amount on wattage used to make the radio waves is more energy than you would ever get from burning the Hydrogen... Physics :rolleyes:

A Microwave resonates water molecules to make food hot. Making the molecules hot means that waste heat is generated by the process, so it would not be as efficient as straight electrolysis, which doesn't generate much waste heat.

If it made more hydrogen than it used it would be the greatest invention in the world. But since it is even as efficient as electrolysis....

Let's make hydrogen from a 12 volt battery:

A car battery has about 2KWH of usable energy in it. This means that asuming 100% efficiency, the Hydogren produced by a car battery could generate 2.7 HP for 1 hour, before it was out of juice (or out of hydrogen). You might be able to get an extra 20 minutes or a couple more HP or so by draining the battery to the point it would be damaged, but if you want to do this more than once, 2.7HP for 1 Hour is all you will get.

Such is the storage capacity of a modern car battery.

Yes its enough to make a nice sized explosion, but it's not something I'm going to waste my time messing with, but 'yall can go ahead and report back to us.
 
"Fish" carb'r = 100+ mph for auto==MYTH!
GM bought the "fISH" patent for mega XX$$==BIGGER MYTH!!
E85= fuel of the future==MYTH!
Yeah, right & Al Gore invented the internet--duh!

Let's get a grasp on basic physics & let the pipe-dreams slide-on-by & get back to "basics",,,

You'll save much more by driving 60 rather than 65mph--& keeping your car in tune--& keeping your foot out of it (admittedly no fun though & I WILL NOT NECESSARILY COMPLY W/ SAME thought!!!).
 
E85= fuel of the future==MYTH!

That's true, there is no future about it, its happening today. There is already a cellulosic ethanol (look into what cellulosic ethanol is) plant going up in Georgia and that is just the tip of the iceberg. When you see that virtually everything growing in your yard can efficiently be turned into fuel you'll be singing a different tune. A more accurate description is that E85 is a fuel of the past making a reappearance. The Model T was designed to be run on gasoline OR ethanol.. imagine that. A flex fuel vehicle in 1908.

Brazil is 100% energy independent because of ethanol production. Most of their cars run on it already. We are way behind the curve.
 
The amount on wattage used to make the radio waves is more energy than you would ever get from burning the Hydrogen... Physics :rolleyes:

Ummm... Yes, this we know :rolleyes: .

I never said that that was an efficient process, but in some of these posts people were saying that resonating the water molecule would not produce any splits or hydrogen. That video contradicts that.

There are many things in physics that were completely crazy until someone discovered them or proved them. Do a youtube search on water cells, you will see a lot peolpe generating Hydrogen and Oxygen from very simple setups with only 12V batteries. Now, yes, we dont know how much of these gases they really are producing, but there is always improvements in any system that can be made to make it more efficient, and I believe with a little time that I may be able to figure it out, and maybe be able to run an internal combustion engine off of it.

If you have never tried this experiement, and I am assuming that your answer to this is no, then why such a negative outlook on it. Also, what is your experience in a real lab, doing real tests? Things may not look good on paper, until you actually test them... ;)
 
Brazil is 100% energy independent because of ethanol production. Most of their cars run on it already. We are way behind the curve.

Brazil is 100% energy independent MOSTLY because they are an economically small country that has huge reserves of oil. Even without ethanol they could be 100% energy independent.

The US actually makes a lot more ethanol than Brazil does, just as we have more nuclear power than france and more Wind turbines than germany.

Everyone always uses other countries as an example of "why we should do something" when we already do more than the countries used as the example.
 
Top