26 thoughts on “What happened to this invention?”

  1. You will obey the laws of thermodynamics.
    For those of you out there who do not understand this law it is simple. Energy in equals energy out. This is a scam because the energy used to break the two hydrogen atoms from the oxygen atom is the same amount of energy released when they come back together. This means to create HHO gas you need to somehow break apart the H20, and this costs energy, in this case electricity. So his car may run on HHO but it’s not for free, and probably not even efficient.
    If it sounds too good to be true it probably is.

  2. @Buckwheat
    in an ideal world, you’re right.

    in this world you’re still right, but there are some omissions. nothing i’m about to say rebuts the core of your argument, though conclusions drawn from my remarks may disagree with the conclusion inferred from your statement.

    1. energy in is actually greater than energy out. unfortunately. the efficiency of a system is calculated from the ratio of how much energy we get out after putting a known amount of energy in. “entropy just ain’t what it used to be”.

    2. the efficiency of breaking up water just to turn around and oxidize the hydrogen again is based mostly on what source of energy you use to do the breaking up of that water. no large scale deployments have been done and so no real measurements of the efficiency can be calculated since we just haven’t selected a particular process. but trust in the fact that we’ll lose some energy as heat at least. still, it looks like generating hydrogen can be done pretty efficiently.

    3. you neglect that the energy released when we burn gasoline was also stored, in a manner analogous to how it is stored when you split H20. we didn’t do that work, but it happened. on top of this stored energy, we also have to expend energy to transform the raw fossil fuels into usable forms such as gasoline. for this reason fossil fuels are very inefficient, although they APPEAR to be efficient because we weren’t around when the energy was stored in the first place. if i generated hydrogen over billions of years, you’d think hydrogen was miraculously efficient by the same rationale.

    4. the issue with fossil fuels is really that releasing the stored energy within also release a lot of other chemicals we don’t really want to bring back into our world in the concentrations that were present back before when the energy was stored. earth was not always a hospitable place, and all the materials that made it inhospitable are still here somewhere, just in different forms (trapped in fossil fuels for instance).

    5. if we use a renewable source of energy to generate our hydrogen, then hydrogen power becomes is a strong candidate for our future ‘environmentally responsible’ portable power storage.

    fossil fuels and hydrogen do the same thing: they store energy as a fluid that can be transported and used to power our vehicles. viewing the timeline of the energy source from a large enough window, fossil fuels suffer the same problems as hydrogen regarding the laws of thermodynamics. there is no reason not to view the timeline from a large window (a small enough window makes the hydrogen appear to come for free just as a small window makes the fossil fuels appear to come for free).

    fossil fuels may have incredible advantages in power density though. so it’s not as simple as my points make it seem. on the power density side i don’t know enough to make a proper comparison between hydrogen and fossil but i wouldn’t be surprised if fossil fuel power densities were an order of magnitude larger than hydrogen. still, all that energy was stored at some point in time – it’s not free. so why shouldn’t WE store the energy we are bound to use? if you get 10x more energy from fossil fuels, then we need to become 10x more efficient, use 10x more hydrogen, or reduce our use of some power hungry toys by 10x.

    overall we are a very wasteful species. if we’re gonna use power so liberally, we ought to at least use a form of it that doesn’t inherently require that we release the toxins that have taken millenia to capture and store away safely. sure, you COULD produce hydrogen using fossil fuel based power, and sure that might be a good idea to get the ball rolling, but in the long run that’s just as bad as burning the crap in our cars.

  3. What is going on with the Youtube links associated with the article. Most of them refer to another inventor who also developed a water powered engine. They all say that he was murdered, but don’t give any info. WTF…I’m starting to feel like Mel Gibson.

  4. The best renewable resource to replace gasoline would be a liquid given off by a plant. Engineering a plant that takes in CO2 and sunlight and excretes a fuel that can be used in fuel cells. It would be a battery for sunlight. Yes, it would not be 100% efficient, energy would be required by the plant to grow, but hey, The Sun if free and we seem to have an abundance of CO2.

  5. Why can’t someone make use of lightning to separate H2O? Not directly for car use of course, but really why not channel free electricity from lightning to do the work?

  6. 100 miles on 4 ounces of water? Not likely.

    This is a fraud, plain and simple. And they didn’t quite explain how it melts steel but doesn’t burn his finger.

    Fraud, fraud, fraud. I feel like I’ve been Rick Roll’d

  7. Fraud.

    While possible to extract energy from water, it would take a HUGE amount of energy – electricity – to do so. So the efficiency would be quite low, far worse than burning gasoline.

    Solar energy really isn’t efficient, either, as the cost to make solar cells is still more than they will return in their (not very long) lifetime.

    But keep on lookin’, boys and girls, we need an answer! Well, not badly, as ethanol (NOT from corn! Idiots!) is rather easy, and geopressurized natural gas deposits are HUGE – though not easy to mine. Did you know about the scandal? The head of the US geologic service published the monthly journel, saying that there was 1,000 years worth of energy there. He said that the figures actually said 10,000 years, but he chopped a zero off. He was fired immediately, and ALL copies were recalled and replaced. . . Huh. Black helicopters.

  8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water

    During the height of the gas prices, my brother bought one of those kits everyone was selling to run you vehicle partially off of that HHO. It basically just had a tube going to the air intake. At first he swore his gas usage was down, but then about 6 months later i asked him about it and he had taken it out. If it did anything, i’m pretty sure it just leaned out his fuel mix.

    Now a cutting torch that generated the HHO sounds kind of neat. It might not be efficient, but it means I just plug it in and don’t need to bother with the oxygen and Acetylene. but apparently, this too has been done already, and I just didn’t know it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxy-fuel_welding_and_cutting#Hydrogen

  9. also about the torch tip not being hot. That’s not really anything magic either, you’ve got cool gasses going through the nozzle and the flame starts slightly away from the end. Think about it, cutting torches are metal, and are used to cut metal, if they got just as hot they’d melt.

  10. I just realized that I recognize that inventor. He sold me the Brooklyn Bridge about five years ago.

  11. Wow Bitflung. How impressive it is that you understand your chemical processes so well.
    I apologize. I was given the very short answer to this question, which is that this is a really stupid invention (not an invention)
    To rebut your argument about global warming garbage I will give you the following argument.
    Gasoline is the safest most efficient way to get people and goods from point a to point b. There is no viable alternative right now. Fossil fuel has a very high energy to weight ratio making it extremely usable in all forms of transportation. I understand that the energy was stored in it a long time ago… Duh. I also understand that we spew mostly CO2 (harmless gas) into the atmosphere when we do it.
    Currently there is only one viable option to produce continuous electricity enough to power our grid other than fossil fuels, and that is Nuclear energy. Wind and solar do not have a chance for very simple reasons. It takes as much energy to forma solar cell as it produces in its lifetime (almost). Wind energy is good but not everywhere and can be dangerous. It will never be enough to meet our needs.
    Hydrogen as a fuel is extremely volatile. I would not want to be in a hydrogen car in an accident… Boom.
    I do not poopoo every idea out there, just the dumb ones like this one. Yes we have a limited source of fossil fuels. We have about 100 years left of it right now. If we can’t find a better solution by then we deserve to perish.

    By the way don’t even try with Global warming argument. Not proven science and extremely bad science from what I have seen.

    Yes we are wasteful. We could be much better. That is only part of the problem though. We will have to look to better ways to generate and store energy to get off of fossil fuels.

    Thanks for the thought though.

  12. Gotta love how the idiot reporter threw in “The power of atomic hydrogen”, implying there is nuclear fusion or fission going on. Couldn’t be further from the truth. The whole thing is a simple electro-chemical reaction powered by electricity from elsewhere (probably a coal or oil fueled power plant).

Comments are closed.