help with some issues !

[james67]

having a time finding anyone who can answer my issues i posted couple times on here

small light weight low rpm generator alternator that can produce over 60 amps

help with heating an HHO with little current.

[RustyLugNut]

having a time finding anyone who can answer my issues i posted couple times on here

small light weight low rpm generator alternator that can produce over 60 amps

help with heating an HHO with little current.

Generators with rare earth permanent magnets and extra windings can produce good current at "low RPM". There are aftermarket alternators that can approach 60 amps at 7-800 rpm idle speeds. None of them I would call "small or light weight". Windings are needed to produce those amps.

And amperes are needed to heat anything electrically. The power drop across a device is P=I*I*R. You need more current the more heat you intend to produce. And make your HHO generator inefficient so as to increase its resistance (R).

[james67]

Generators with rare earth permanent magnets and extra windings can produce good current at "low RPM". There are aftermarket alternators that can approach 60 amps at 7-800 rpm idle speeds. None of them I would call "small or light weight". Windings are needed to produce those amps.

And amperes are needed to heat anything electrically. The power drop across a device is P=I*I*R. You need more current the more heat you intend to produce. And make your HHO generator inefficient so as to increase its resistance (R).

ok thanks
but i need to make a hot hho cell but not just using current .. so i can only guess how, like distance of plates.. adding more potassium hydroxide .. using j masons jar generators .... i dont really know

[RustyLugNut]

ok thanks
but i need to make a hot hho cell but not just using current .. so i can only guess how, like distance of plates.. adding more potassium hydroxide .. using j masons jar generators .... i dont really know

. . . most people on these forums manipulate the variables of plates, spacing, electrolyte strength , etc. to REDUCE current and heating of their systems.

If you don't want to use current to heat your system, the ONLY choice is to use EXTERNAL heating. My E-generators use separate tubular cells. I run engine coolant between them to heat them up to 80 degrees centigrade.

May we ask what you are attempting to achieve with your HOT HHO generator?

[james67]

. . . most people on these forums manipulate the variables of plates, spacing, electrolyte strength , etc. to REDUCE current and heating of their systems.

If you don't want to use current to heat your system, the ONLY choice is to use EXTERNAL heating. My E-generators use separate tubular cells. I run engine coolant between them to heat them up to 80 degrees centigrade.

May we ask what you are attempting to achieve with your HOT HHO generator?

a boiler for heating water & making hydrogen .. and i do need current

[RustyLugNut]

a boiler for heating water & making hydrogen .. and i do need current

Or some other process?

I have already told you you will get some steam production from a warm electrolysis generator under partial vacuum along with HHO production.

If you want to really boil the electrolyte at standard pressure, you will really need to crank up the amps and insulate your cells so as to minimize heat loss. You will get HHO and a prodigious amount of steam. You will probably damage your cell as corrosion will increase in proportion to your current and heat index. You will also transfer a large amount of electrolyte out with your steam.

It is far better to produce an efficient electrolysis cell to generate your HHO and have a parallel steam generator. If you want to place it in a car, you have lots of hot exhaust to use as a heat source for your steam. If you have an industrial system, you can use wall power or natural gas to create your steam. If not, look into the piezo "cold fog" generators people are using to create "cold vapor".

I cannot continue to help you with the minimal amount of information you put forth.

[james67]

Or some other process?

I have already told you you will get some steam production from a warm electrolysis generator under partial vacuum along with HHO production.

If you want to really boil the electrolyte at standard pressure, you will really need to crank up the amps and insulate your cells so as to minimize heat loss. You will get HHO and a prodigious amount of steam. You will probably damage your cell as corrosion will increase in proportion to your current and heat index. You will also transfer a large amount of electrolyte out with your steam.

It is far better to produce an efficient electrolysis cell to generate your HHO and have a parallel steam generator. If you want to place it in a car, you have lots of hot exhaust to use as a heat source for your steam. If you have an industrial system, you can use wall power or natural gas to create your steam. If not, look into the piezo "cold fog" generators people are using to create "cold vapor".

I cannot continue to help you with the minimal amount of information you put forth.

not to worry i liked yuor ideas and noted them !
there's just couple more questions in my mind about certain things like possibility of non back emf generators/alternators available and the type of hho generator to best suite this idea .. for example coiled wire cells over the plates.
I would not put steam in a cars combustion engine unless it was modified for it.. i would however put water mist or vapor with air input.

[RustyLugNut]

not to worry i liked yuor ideas and noted them !
there's just couple more questions in my mind about certain things like possibility of non back emf generators/alternators available and the type of hho generator to best suite this idea .. for example coiled wire cells over the plates.
I would not put steam in a cars combustion engine unless it was modified for it.. i would however put water mist or vapor with air input.

All internal combustion engines run on steam as a partial by-product.

It sounds like you are trying to create a system that spins the alternator then the power is sent to the electrolysis generator. What do you do with the HHO? Run the engine to power the alternator!

Nah, that doesn't ever work out.

[james67]

All internal combustion engines run on steam as a partial by-product.

It sounds like you are trying to create a system that spins the alternator then the power is sent to the electrolysis generator. What do you do with the HHO? Run the engine to power the alternator!

Nah, that doesn't ever work out.

There will be no engine but i can say that it should be self running, except for addition of the water.

[RustyLugNut]

There will be no engine but i can say that it should be self running, except for addition of the water.

It is the Holy Grail to produce power from nothing.

[james67]

It is the Holy Grail to produce power from nothing.

well there is no holy grail but there is free enery !

[RustyLugNut]

well there is no holy grail but there is free enery !

And you missed it.

They say . . . you say . . . we all say . . . whatever we want . . . it's the internet.

[Madsceintist]

Depends on how you look at it, really.

Free can be arranged to conform to ones opinion. Wind, solar and hydro could be considered free, after the initial investment is put forth. However, wind and water are provided to this planet free to us, to use as we find necessary, in its natural state of coarse! We can harness whatever is available, but we must work with the restraints of limits due to demand of more than what is provided.

Now when we want more than what is given naturally, then we get into the not so free anymore aspect. Everything has its cost, one way or the other. Wear and tear. Or the need for many things involved to get little for a lot.

Is "free" energy available, YES. But who's willing to except as little that is given for free, when you can get so much more for something that is not.

Now if you willing to put forth time, money, and not worry that you will have to keep putting money out to keep up the maintenance on the equipment that we all are working on, then you can get what seems to be free energy until something breaks or wears out! Then that costs money, which becomes not free!

The HOLY GRAIL isn't very big, is it ??

[james67]

Depends on how you look at it, really.

Free can be arranged to conform to ones opinion. Wind, solar and hydro could be considered free, after the initial investment is put forth. However, wind and water are provided to this planet free to us, to use as we find necessary, in its natural state of coarse! We can harness whatever is available, but we must work with the restraints of limits due to demand of more than what is provided.

Now when we want more than what is given naturally, then we get into the not so free anymore aspect. Everything has its cost, one way or the other. Wear and tear. Or the need for many things involved to get little for a lot.

Is "free" energy available, YES. But who's willing to except as little that is given for free, when you can get so much more for something that is not.

Now if you willing to put forth time, money, and not worry that you will have to keep putting money out to keep up the maintenance on the equipment that we all are working on, then you can get what seems to be free energy until something breaks or wears out! Then that costs money, which becomes not free!

The HOLY GRAIL isn't very big, is it ??

holy grail is a myth
free energy isnt..
ie -magnets & water reverse collapsing electrical field !

[Madsceintist]

To a degree I was being sarcastic.:rolleyes: as to the Holy Grail !

[RustyLugNut]

holy grail is a myth
free energy isnt..
ie -magnets & water reverse collapsing electrical field !

I've never seen free energy at work. I have seen people fool themselves and others into thinking they see free energy.

Until there is definite proof, it will always be seen as a myth.

The proof lies with you.

Since you can't do a concrete proof on an internet forum because anything could be suspect . . . and since you can't prove it in the physical realm because nature is against you . . . you prove it in your mind . . . you have faith that Free Energy exists!

[james67]

SO are you paid to be here and rebuke free energy and such like it?
hard question to answer im sure.

There's loads of free energy, people are trying to fool others into believing there isn't.

[RustyLugNut]

SO are you paid to be here and rebuke free energy and such like it?
hard question to answer im sure.

There's loads of free energy, people are trying to fool others into believing there isn't.

Name one source of free energy that is in use in nature and by man? Go ahead. I'm waiting.

This is an open forum. You get to spread your brand of lies. I'll spread my gospel of real energy.

Free energy proponents say all they want. But they can't produce real productive energy sources. Never have, and more than likely never will. So they attack the people who oppose them instead of attacking the nature that opposes them.

So, go ahead and attack ME! It doesn't change anything. Nature still wins.

[Madsceintist]

:eek: Have I misread something here ???


Free energy that WE all can and do harness!
Just to start with..............
Hydro;
Any heavy stream or river that has a constant flow of a NATURAL design, creates an avenue for free energy for us to harness and use. AND is !
Wind;
Though it isn't as efficient as water a flowin', it is however also an avenue for free energy to be harnessed. AND is!
Solar;
Yet it does take materials and man power to accommodate the needed solar transformers to use this option, it is still an avenue for the "FREE" energy of nature for us to harness for use as we need or desire. AND is !



Not to step into another war of intellect. Which we all have the gut feeling that will come time and time again. But what nature doesn't provide for us, we will make or find a way to make in time. As of today, we as people(human beings) have came a remarkable way in a short period of time considering that there are still and always have been other people to restrain the advancement of technologies that would further man kind.

I am truly amused to see so many people argue on some points that have no need to further argue, but whatever..............................

1 up for nature :cool:

2 up for mankind

[RustyLugNut]

:eek: Have I misread something here ???


Free energy that WE all can and do harness!
Just to start with..............
Hydro;
Any heavy stream or river that has a constant flow of a NATURAL design, creates an avenue for free energy for us to harness and use. AND is !
Wind;
Though it isn't as efficient as water a flowin', it is however also an avenue for free energy to be harnessed. AND is!
Solar;
Yet it does take materials and man power to accommodate the needed solar transformers to use this option, it is still an avenue for the "FREE" energy of nature for us to harness for use as we need or desire. AND is !



Not to step into another war of intellect. Which we all have the gut feeling that will come time and time again. But what nature doesn't provide for us, we will make or find a way to make in time. As of today, we as people(human beings) have came a remarkable way in a short period of time considering that there are still and always have been other people to restrain the advancement of technologies that would further man kind.

I am truly amused to see so many people argue on some points that have no need to further argue, but whatever..............................

1 up for nature :cool:

2 up for mankind

Hydro is stored energy - mass at a higher gravitational potential. How did it get that potential? Solar distillation and precipitation.

Where does solar energy come from? A fusion reaction - which is slowly running out of fuel.

What we are talking about is the use of energy carriers. You cannot create more energy than you put in. This is what the over unity people profess to have. Nature doesn't have it. Neither does man.

[Madsceintist]

Hydro is stored energy - mass at a higher gravitational potential. How did it get that potential? Solar distillation and precipitation.

Where does solar energy come from? A fusion reaction - which is slowly running out of fuel.

What we are talking about is the use of energy carriers. You cannot create more energy than you put in. This is what the over unity people profess to have. Nature doesn't have it. Neither does man.


Since I must be uneducated, I will humor this one more step with the question; What about the big bang theory?

This brings into question, of stored energy, how much is still around us that we have yet to unlock.
Also the fact that even the high and mighty 'scientists' and 'scholars', seem to change their facts on evolution and things of matter, every so often. As in the fact that "cold fusion isn't possible", but then that was found to be NOT true! Ooooppps .... Must have missed that one some how. Or as I like to see it, it hadn't been discovered yet so therefor, it like many other things are possible, even when some cries that its not.

[RustyLugNut]

Since I must be uneducated, I will humor this one more step with the question; What about the big bang theory?

This brings into question, of stored energy, how much is still around us that we have yet to unlock.
Also the fact that even the high and mighty 'scientists' and 'scholars', seem to change their facts on evolution and things of matter, every so often. As in the fact that "cold fusion isn't possible", but then that was found to be NOT true! Ooooppps .... Must have missed that one some how. Or as I like to see it, it hadn't been discovered yet so therefor, it like many other things are possible, even when some cries that its not.

New theories must follow the ones that precede it. They extend them and sometimes supplant. But as we move forward, it does mean there is more to work with. Unlocked energy as you put it will still follow what came before.

Scholars change theories. It is part of science. Evidence builds forward and so does the theories that surround them and at some point they become theorems and principles. But it doesn't mean you discard what came before. Newtonian physics works for the macro world but not always for the nuclear world and the quantum world. But it still works.

None of the energy streams you have mentioned break the paraphrased rule of "energy out cannot exceed the energy input". None of them. Not even the nuclear reactions which follow Einsteins mass/energy relationship.

And the big bang theory is a theory. Conservation of Energy and Entropy/Enthalpy are FACT.

And to "humor" in the ways of Aristotle is to imply superiority.

[Madsceintist]

Yep............ off the path of for sure.

You asked to name one 'free energy' source that is used by man and nature, so that led us here. My mistake.

So where would you lead the conversation with a statement that water is both an energy source and a carrier? This only leads to much debate but has valid foundation.
Just curious.....

Peace.........

[RustyLugNut]

Yep............ off the path of for sure.

You asked to name one 'free energy' source that is used by man and nature, so that led us here. My mistake.

So where would you lead the conversation with a statement that water is both an energy source and a carrier? This only leads to much debate but has valid foundation.
Just curious.....

Peace.........

. . . that is a theory. Until something better comes along. That is your CONTINUED mistake! You do not have a clear and concise understanding of the words you use.

But, you are mixing up theories and theorems. Notice the difference? Theories will change. Theorems and their principles are working facts we can build with. The theory of relativity is under some change and attack given certain peculiarities but components of it are rock certain and we can use them with no doubt - E=mc*c still gives us the description for energy mass transfer.

And you are mixing up energy streams vs energy source. Except for gravitational potential which was created at the big bang, most of the energy we have around us is either nuclear or stored nuclear energy at it's root who's elements were created at the big bang. Even the geothermal heat below us is nuclear. Only tidal energy potential is not nuclear, being of gravitational nature along with kinetic differential potentials. All the energy that ever is, was or will be, was created at the big bang. Entropy dictates that concentrated energy will become more diffuse after use and at some distant future, all this will collapse back into one concentrated point of mass/energy only to be distributed once more in another cycle of the big bang. That is THEORY based on working theorems and principles. The working theorems and principles don't change, the theory will.

Solar energy is the biggest source of energy for life and stored energy forms. As I mentioned, solar causes hydro energy, direct solar and also most of our fossil energy in the form of stored hydrocarbons that once were living organisms. Other than a small percent of abiotic oil which is more than likely geological in nature. Our hydrocarbon reserves were created over eons and are finite.

Take away the sun and you have no life on this earth and no hydro or wind power or fossil fuels. They carry the sun's energy.

Take away the energy that splits the water in your water energy system and you have water. Nothing else. The ash of oxidation.

Free energy proponents do what capitalistic economies sometimes do and perform creative accounting to initiate the production of $101 dollars from an input of $100. That is just inflation until the GNP catches up.

Your electrolysis to split water to power an ICE to run a generator to power the electrolysis cell is a closed loop system that can run like the big bang - if it were truly closed loop and all your inefficiencies did not detract from your energy pile and defuse it out into the surroundings outside your closed loop. Since you are extracting work to a point OUTSIDE your loop, even at a 100% efficiency, your system will run down. You must have an input into your loop of at least the equivalent to the energy your are extracting.

All over unity machines must work on this natural principle. Their seeming over unity is just some inventor not doing his energy accounting correctly. If it does extract energy from the "ether" or "zero point", it will still follow the rules of energy that have come before.

So far, all I have seen is THEORIES from the over unity camp. No solid theorems and principles have come out - principles that you can build with with factual certainty like Newton and Einstein's principles to name a few. That is why you do not see an over unit generator in every home and business. You must circumvent the natural laws in THIS universe to get them to work. I don't see that happening. Or you must tap the energy from someplace outside the loop - some other dimension for example - for it to work. OU (over unity) proponents have not shown this to be possible, how much more, practical.

So, please explain to me the magical power of water that allows you to reach outside the loop and create an excess of useable power? Please use natural LAWS to build your theories. That way, maybe you can eventually work towards principles that become working theorems. Otherwise, your words are little more than the hocus pocus mumbo jumbo the witch doctor in the village I grew up in used to create his "magic".

[james67]

the waves are free energy in the sea.. gravity. and magnets and magnetism olar, wind, natural earth conductivity, radio waves, off the top of my head.

[RustyLugNut]

the waves are free energy in the sea.. gravity. and magnets and magnetism olar, wind, natural earth conductivity, radio waves, off the top of my head.

Magnetism is the only anomaly. Workable and well understood except to why it works the way it does. To a degree, so is gravity.

The rest are not "free". They come from somewhere. I answered this in my post above.

It still doesn't answer the question of how OU devices extract energy into their working envelope. Please understand THAT or else all we get is a religio/political discussion which will get us nowhere.

[james67]

Magnetism is the only anomaly. Workable and well understood except to why it works the way it does. To a degree, so is gravity.

The rest are not "free". They come from somewhere. I answered this in my post above.

It still doesn't answer the question of how OU devices extract energy into their working envelope. Please understand THAT or else all we get is a religio/political discussion which will get us nowhere.

really? how much do you pay for sunshine or win or those other things?
personally i get them free

[RustyLugNut]

really? how much do you pay for sunshine or win or those other things?
personally i get them free

Your use of "free" is economical and is not always "free" even in that sense.

It is obvious to the reader that you still do not understand an energy "source" and an energy "carrier". This is why OU supporters get in trouble. Lack of understanding.

[Madsceintist]

Look there is NO way that you, I, or anyone else will satisfy Rusty or his type, here or elsewhere. Unless of coarse you are from his village and you are the real deal so to speak when it comes to one proving the "magic" that he seeks us to prove !
He wants us to be the teacher and explain to him that quantum physics apply to everything, including waking up in the morning. The fact is that things do wind down, as in wear down, wear out, cease to work over a period of time. Yes as we know and understand, everything has to have some sort of energy input ! NO doubt. His view or vision on the point at hand is of his learning of his teachers and his beliefs of the scientific realm, which also tends to change their beliefs and findings.

Rusty's arguments go untouched by this simple basis of his bombardment of those on here(which some do need it), that even gasoline has the same problem as he argues HHO does! I.E.;

Rusty says if you take away a part of the system that runs HHO, that you will run out of your energy to power the system.
Well if you run out of or take away gasoline, you will run out of what is needed to run your system that charges and runs your gasoline ran system just the same. NO ????????

He keeps expressing the closed loop system !!! YES ?????


Nothing that I can recall that we as people use for fuels or energy supplies, have a truly closed loop system. All that I know of need to be refueled in some way, even nuclear power plants!

[james67]

Look there is NO way that you, I, or anyone else will satisfy Rusty or his type, here or elsewhere. Unless of coarse you are from his village and you are the real deal so to speak when it comes to one proving the "magic" that he seeks us to prove !
He wants us to be the teacher and explain to him that quantum physics apply to everything, including waking up in the morning. The fact is that things do wind down, as in wear down, wear out, cease to work over a period of time. Yes as we know and understand, everything has to have some sort of energy input ! NO doubt. His view or vision on the point at hand is of his learning of his teachers and his beliefs of the scientific realm, which also tends to change their beliefs and findings.

Rusty's arguments go untouched by this simple basis of his bombardment of those on here(which some do need it), that even gasoline has the same problem as he argues HHO does! I.E.;

Rusty says if you take away a part of the system that runs HHO, that you will run out of your energy to power the system.
Well if you run out of or take away gasoline, you will run out of what is needed to run your system that charges and runs your gasoline ran system just the same. NO ????????

He keeps expressing the closed loop system !!! YES ?????


Nothing that I can recall that we as people use for fuels or energy supplies, have a truly closed loop system. All that I know of need to be refueled in some way, even nuclear power plants!


closed loop as in a perpetual motion.. a bad word for these folks
interesting extreme used to dispel the idea of long lasting free energy, kinda of tactical ploy.. howbeit claims are made over the years for a self sustaining machine, i cant guarantee these things but neither can i dismiss them, because some payed off big energy types dismiss the very notion.
but when one tests these things and try to tell others, they them-self are put under the gun.

[RustyLugNut]

closed loop as in a perpetual motion.. a bad word for these folks
interesting extreme used to dispel the idea of long lasting free energy, kinda of tactical ploy.. howbeit claims are made over the years for a self sustaining machine, i cant guarantee these things but neither can i dismiss them, because some payed off big energy types dismiss the very notion.
but when one tests these things and try to tell others, they them-self are put under the gun.

Otherwise, you would be rich as Midas.

And yes, you have to prove the system. Just because people say it is, doesn't make it so. And people have been saying so for a long time with NOTHING to show in any practical way.

And MadS still pretends he is a Scientist (note spelling).

He doesn't understand what closed loop means in this discussion. In essence, he compares HHO to gasoline. In either case, enclose your car with an imaginary bubble and if you have a perfect system, it will continue to run indefinitely. With HHO all you have to do is gather the condensed exhaust (H2O) and recycle it back into your generator and keep on chugging along! Gasoline needs air (oxygen) to oxidize, so our exhaust in a perfect combustion will be water and CO2. Recycle those exhaust gasses back into your engine and keep chugging along! Except, neither of those cases work as stated in the real world because of losses that are unavoidable or because we are extracting work OUT of the bubble. At which point, you will need more than perpetual motion, you will need over unity energy production.

For some reason, all of the proponents of OU seem to think it is the establishment who must prove their invention. It is only logical that the OU device must be proved to the establishment.

So have at it. Explain it. Build it. Prove it. Don't just say it.

[Madsceintist]

At no point have I claimed to be a "scientist", NOTE spelling !!!
It is a user name, LUG head !
So, in this imaginary bubble you pronounce, gasoline would run forever ???
"I" do not believe that to be so !!!
Your lacking what I said to accommodate your view.

As with gasoline you have to keep adding gasoline to keep the engine running...

As with water you have to keep adding water to keep the engine running...
And don't take this simple statement to the outer limits by saying "I" say you can run an engine directly on water. That would be the same as me saying that you can run a gasoline engine off of the trees and grass and dead animals before they are processed. GET IT !!!

The combination of HHO, water and the other needed processed inputs are what are required. You will eventually run out of your fuel as with gasoline, or any other fuel. You can by design-structure lesson the amount of refueling as by reclaiming some of your loss. I can't recall saying that you can reclaim 100% of the loss at any point.

Rusty;
You have said that water is an ash of "combustion" and the ash of "oxidation". I'm not the physicist here, but I believe your WRONG !
The ash of combustion would be what ever solids are formed from carbons in the fuels or the air(not only oxygen) that are detonated. Also the ash of oxidation would be the left over minerals(solids) of what ever was oxidized by the oxygen, as oxygen is the oxidizer !

[myoldyourgold]

Lets forget OU. Unless the definition is changed or some radical change in the laws of nature, ( not going to happen in my opinion but might be possible )so at the moment there is no such thing. There is renewable energy and energy that is hard to measure that can be harvested to look like OU. Like magnetism, gravity, and vibration ( molecules are not stationary). How to apply this to making more HHO for a given amp is what we should be working on.

Mad, Rusty might be thinking about this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2220044/Pioneering-British-firm-produces-petrol-air-breakthrough-solve-worlds-energy-crisis.html#ixzz29ko1KRTw

THE PROCESS

Air is blown into a tower filled with a mist of sodium hydroxide solution. The carbon dioxide in the air reacts with some of the sodium hydroxide to form sodium carbonate.

This sodium carbonate is then electrolyzed to release the carbon dioxide, which is collected and stored. Pioneering British firm produces 'petrol from air' in breakthrough that could solve the world's energy crisis..

A dehumidifier condenses water out of the same air passed into the tower, with this condensed water then passed into an electrolyzer where it is split into hydrogen and oxygen. The carbon dioxide and hydrogen are reacted together to make a hydrocarbon mixture, with reaction conditions varied depending on the kind of fuel required.

The product can then be mixed with the same additives used in current fuels to ease starting, burn cleanly and avoid corrosion problems. Otherwise it can be blended directly with gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel. An interesting study.

I think you can use some of this in our process but involves messing with the EGR. (not legal even when the exhaust is cleaner !) I did a couple years of testing in this field and learned a number of things that even though my idea was not for this but to defeat the computer. Using some of that data I think there are more gains available by manipulating the EGR based on engine demand but not as currently done. When I get back I am going to go over all the data and see if I can come up with something with this in mind to test and prove.

[RustyLugNut]

At no point have I claimed to be a "scientist", NOTE spelling !!!
It is a user name, LUG head !
So, in this imaginary bubble you pronounce, gasoline would run forever ???
"I" do not believe that to be so !!!
Your lacking what I said to accommodate your view.

As with gasoline you have to keep adding gasoline to keep the engine running...

As with water you have to keep adding water to keep the engine running...
And don't take this simple statement to the outer limits by saying "I" say you can run an engine directly on water. That would be the same as me saying that you can run a gasoline engine off of the trees and grass and dead animals before they are processed. GET IT !!!

The combination of HHO, water and the other needed processed inputs are what are required. You will eventually run out of your fuel as with gasoline, or any other fuel. You can by design-structure lesson the amount of refueling as by reclaiming some of your loss. I can't recall saying that you can reclaim 100% of the loss at any point.

Rusty;
You have said that water is an ash of "combustion" and the ash of "oxidation". I'm not the physicist here, but I believe your WRONG !
The ash of combustion would be what ever solids are formed from carbons in the fuels or the air(not only oxygen) that are detonated. Also the ash of oxidation would be the left over minerals(solids) of what ever was oxidized by the oxygen, as oxygen is the oxidizer !

Please look up energy levels. "Ash" is a term not just for solids. It is a general term for elemental energy states that will not produce anymore energy within a reaction. It is also true for nuclear. It doesn't matter if it is a solid, gas or liquid. Water fits this description of ash. So does CO2. You think you are arguing against ME? You are arguing against nature and science. I am just restating what is common knowledge.

The parallel "bubble" mind experiments where to illustrate the absurdity of OU.
If you are able to grasp the complexities of your HHO system, you should be able to wrap you mind around mental exercises.

Oh, and by the way, I have a friend up at UC Berkley who has a modern computer controlled version of the age old gassifiers found in various places around the globe. He powers a gasoline engined Honda with it. Leaves, paper, coal etc. can be used to power his car. It drives pretty nice when he gets going. So, you can drive your car without gasoline or diesel. Just put in the "stuff" that makes up gasoline or diesel.

[RustyLugNut]

Lets forget OU. Unless the definition is changed or some radical change in the laws of nature, ( not going to happen in my opinion but might be possible )so at the moment there is no such thing. There is renewable energy and energy that is hard to measure that can be harvested to look like OU. Like magnetism, gravity, and vibration ( molecules are not stationary). How to apply this to making more HHO for a given amp is what we should be working on.

Mad, Rusty might be thinking about this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2220044/Pioneering-British-firm-produces-petrol-air-breakthrough-solve-worlds-energy-crisis.html#ixzz29ko1KRTw

THE PROCESS

Air is blown into a tower filled with a mist of sodium hydroxide solution. The carbon dioxide in the air reacts with some of the sodium hydroxide to form sodium carbonate.

This sodium carbonate is then electrolyzed to release the carbon dioxide, which is collected and stored. Pioneering British firm produces 'petrol from air' in breakthrough that could solve the world's energy crisis..

A dehumidifier condenses water out of the same air passed into the tower, with this condensed water then passed into an electrolyzer where it is split into hydrogen and oxygen. The carbon dioxide and hydrogen are reacted together to make a hydrocarbon mixture, with reaction conditions varied depending on the kind of fuel required.

The product can then be mixed with the same additives used in current fuels to ease starting, burn cleanly and avoid corrosion problems. Otherwise it can be blended directly with gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel. An interesting study.

I think you can use some of this in our process but involves messing with the EGR. (not legal even when the exhaust is cleaner !) I did a couple years of testing in this field and learned a number of things that even though my idea was not for this but to defeat the computer. Using some of that data I think there are more gains available by manipulating the EGR based on engine demand but not as currently done. When I get back I am going to go over all the data and see if I can come up with something with this in mind to test and prove.

It is a good link but you can find their work reported in trade magazines for the last decade or two.

The problem is twofold. It needs tremendous electrical input to run. They eventually plan to use excess renewable energy that would otherwise be wasted.

You also need a concentrated CO2 source to be economical by any measure. The CO2 in the air is too sparse. They are looking at industrial exhausts as a possible source.

Scaling this down to something that runs on a car will be more than problematical. The CO2 is there for the taking from the exhaust stream of the ICE but you will still need prodigious amounts of electricity for your electrolysis.

[Madsceintist]

"" This discussion is going nowhere.""


Could not have said it any better !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[myoldyourgold]

Scaling this down to something that runs on a car will be more than problematical. The CO2 is there for the taking from the exhaust stream of the ICE but you will still need prodigious amounts of electricity for your electrolysis.

This is not my idea but yours. Have no intention of doing anything like it. My point was to learn from then. How I use what I learn is yet to be tested and so will not be discussing it until it is. Any slight improvement that is not cost prohibitive is worth investigating.

[RustyLugNut]

This is not my idea but yours. Have no intention of doing anything like it. My point was to learn from then. How I use what I learn is yet to be tested and so will not be discussing it until it is. Any slight improvement that is not cost prohibitive is worth investigating.

You implied something of the sort might be going on with the HHO setups that some people on here are running. I gave my opinion. That is all.

Good luck with your research.

[RustyLugNut]

"" This discussion is going nowhere.""


Could not have said it any better !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

. . . but you didn't . . .

[Madsceintist]

. . . but you didn't . . .

Better................

You Rusty have less use on here then anyone. Your more like the drugs that cause death, then the disease that the drug was for(if you can understand that)! So this thread went from a valid question to your typical bashing of the users.
I have an experiment for you Rusty, See if you can survive as bait on a whaling vessel !

[RustyLugNut]

Better................

You Rusty have less use on here then anyone. Your more like the drugs that cause death, then the disease that the drug was for(if you can understand that)! So this thread went from a valid question to your typical bashing of the users.
I have an experiment for you Rusty, See if you can survive as bait on a whaling vessel !

Your posts are there for all to see. When you fail to grasp the subject matter you simply devolve into fractured logic, fractured sentences, fractured spelling and personal attacks. I simply challenge the validity of "free energy" in a forceful but logical manner. You take it as a personal attack. That is your and others problem - the inability to debate.

Many people view my posts with favor. Of course they are people who like science and engineering. I have PMs and emails that show that there is a thinking population of readers on this forum. Many are as equally capable, if not more so than I am, in their respective fields and it is refreshing to engage in challenging discourse with them.

I have benefited from this forum not just because of the work I have picked up from readers who want some real fabrication and engineering,but because I have had my learning expanded and catalyzed by some of the ideas put out in various threads.

You may not think I have value on this forum, but many others see differently.

My last post to you was double edged. A fork in the road, and as a form of applause for not continuing in such a boorish way. It also could be seen as a dig in the ribs for not coming up with some witty comeback. You saw it as an affront. I am sorry you did. But take it any way you want. The problem of the internet.

And the parallel of the whaling vessel . . . it is illogical . . . whales are hunted and not baited.

[james67]

Otherwise, you would be rich as Midas.

or as dead as him !

closed loop is no argument.. it doesn't matter
some here having hard time with simple words like.. FREE ENERGY
wood- water -waves are all free energy
they can try to wist it anyway they like, point will remain the same !

[RustyLugNut]

or as dead as him !

closed loop is no argument.. it doesn't matter
some here having hard time with simple words like.. FREE ENERGY
wood- water -waves are all free energy
they can try to wist it anyway they like, point will remain the same !

People are using the term very loosely and consequently we run into trouble right from the beginning. Proper discussions need a basis in language and understanding or there can be no discussion.

Closed loop is a concept needed in this discussion because it defines the use of "free energy" in the over unity sense vs the examples you gave which is harvesting of energy.

And people with good energy ideas do not go dead and missing. I keep touch with people I worked with during the AXP ( Automotive X Prize) and we all have vehicles that travel more than 100 miles on a single gallon of gas or diesel - and we are not dead. To be exact, we are attracting government grants and private investment.