1507 The Water Fuel Car - A Little History And A Suggestion
2022 ж. 10 Сәу.
285 077 Рет қаралды
Don't forget to check out our other channel found here / @tntomnibus
If you want to have a look at those special videos become a member and join by clicking this link / @thinkingandtinkering
Don't forget that you can buy my books and materials for your own experiments including our conductive inks at secure.workingink.co.uk/worki... - and for the many who have asked, yes, you can also donate to further our work, again through the shop.
Nice video. As an inventor in this field, I can confirm that water is not a fuel in it's normal states. To produce energy from water it needs to be decomposed or as you mentioned propelled. The energy consumed to perform electrolysis compared to the energy produced is predicted (Faraday Laws ). Applying those laws proves these devices don't work. Devices like GEET may work as its not connected to a external power source, however, they never explained it simply. My invention is a hybrid cross between a EGR and a water decomposing vapour system. It simply generates static electricity from redirected exhaust gas to produce intermediate electrostatic discharges to predominately provide a power source to boost electrolysis. A small ( under 6 watts ) external power source is used to run the electronics and to electrically charge the electrodes. Cooling, treating exhaust gas and flowing it through silicone tubing increases the generation of static electricity. The process also produces new water for filtering the gas and produces acid electrolyte solution. Only exhaust gas is used as the working medium. Overall this process produces combustible and combustion supporting substances above the Faraday predicted outcome. The moist gaseous mixture is then fumigated into the engine as demanded by the engine. It's a real device being tested and used on some vehicles here in Australia and UK and France by real engineers, including an electromechanical engineer who works for Tesla.
sounds wild, wishing you the best of luck/skill in ur endeavor
@@tdtrecordsmusic Thanks mate.
how do you account for the fact that a combustion engine can't be more than 30% efficient?
Your invention doesn't sound like it can work because there is no possible way to generate enough static electricity to complete water decomposition in an efficient manner. It takes a relatively enormous amount of electricity to complete electrolysis. You might as well get an electric car. It skips the whole water breakdown thing and applies energy directly to the drivetrain.
@nat9909 true static electricity won't work as there's no current flow, hence that's why it static. my invention generates current flow from the static electricity the device generates.
Love these balanced, condensed history lessons Rob. Nicely done. The amount of work that must go into these relatively short presentations is not lost on me.
You can find a video of Stan Meyer there was nothing to sue for, he wasn't asking for money he was offering the system free to the world. He was also talking about using hho and water to explode the water inside the cylinders. The way he describes it sounds almost like automotive companies have actually used his technology to make gas and diesel fueled cars more efficient, but they kept the gasoline concept. Exploding water inside a cylinder and then exhausting the cylinder at a certain point so you don't blow the crank in half seems possible if you can launch tomatoes than in a tight environment like a cylinder I would think that raising the arc of a spark plug would actually make this a possibility without changing much of existing infrastructure.
I remember watching that program in the eighties and then just by chance in the nineties hearing he got arrested but couldn't remember why. That's cleared that mystery up! Always thought they just wanted the idea 'forgotten'. I would love to know how many patents oil companies hold for alternative fuels that are just 'forgotten'.
thousands mate - I can assure you it is thousands
@@ThinkingandTinkering Stanley was under attack by them. They were trying to honey pot him but he knew their techniques. If you ate going to trash this man who didn't sell out please provide all the information. Putting inventors through the court system is standard practice. shame on you...
@@ActivateMission2ThisTimeline i was going to say... Stan is the one person in this lineup who was actually smart enough to do what he did. I've seen much of his work actually replicated. (It's very rare because it's pretty complicated and takes years of studying Stan's work to pull it off). The guy actually had so much there that it was incredible. He is on KZhead. The monopolar pulses at water capacitor "capacitance-resonance" are real. Water acts as a resistor at lower frequencies but above a certain frequency, water acts as a nonlinear capacitor. Water also has between ~60-200 unexplained phenomenon according to scientists. MUCH is to be discovered about water. I'm also very interested in cavitation and this is the one water powered car I haven't heard of yet! Please also research HARLOW MAYNE and his "H2 Flex" car. It's a very practical and I do believe "working" idea. Incredible technology awaits us, if we are ready to discover it.
@@ThinkingandTinkering If you’re going to make claims, it is incumbent upon you to offer evidence. It’s also considered an indicator of integrity to include context, and not dishonour a man’s reputation by failing to tell the whole story. It is well documented that entitles ran operations against Stanley Meyer. However, when Stanley Meyer died, whatever killed him, only Stanley Meyer the man died, not his car. If there was no conspiracy or foul play, and the government or other agencies were not involved, why did no one examine his invention and prove that it didn’t work? It would be incredibly simple to do. Indeed, it would even be relatively simple to ENSURE it did not work. However, no one did. And Where is it now? We are left to ask one simple rational, logical critical question, the most important question of all: Qui Bono? Who Benefits? That is of course a rhetorical question. Then, in respect to the many legal cases you quoted, we could ask who runs the legal system? Who has the money and influence to bring these legal cases? And last but not least, who stands to lose if some ordinary guy comes up with a revolutionary technology that’s capable of putting multiple multi trillion dollar multinational corporations out of business overnight? More rhetorical questions. So, don’t be naive. And please don’t point to tech pioneers such as Gates, Bezos, Musk, Brin, Page, Suckerberg etc as examples. We all know that not one of them got where they are without military industrial complex and intelligence funding, training and support. Even Tim Berners-Lee and Steve Jobs had connections. And an IBM subsidiary was heavily involved in the N@z*s final $0£ût10n. That phrase is censored by GooTube algorithms) Rockefeller’s Standard Oil supplied them too, whilst Prescott Bush (father of GHW and grandfather of GW) financed them. So this begs the question, if committing war crimes guarantees massive commercial success over decades, and high office in the USA (head of CIA, governor, POTUS x2), then what else is possible? Do your own research and prove me wrong.
@@G58 "Dancing Israelis"
Charles Parsons invented the steam Turbine here in Birr. He went on to demonstrate the steam turbine in the Turbinia. He ran into problems with the propellers where cavitation ocurred. He solved this by trial and error in the design of the propellers. The Turbinia is on display in Newcastle.
sonoluminescence is vary interesting it creates a lot of heat thet burns in the the prop blades, the navy did a lot of work on this also. seems to be a lot of energy being released.
@@DANTHETUBEMAN Yes, cavitation is extremely energetic and is a problem in many mechanical possess. The boat propeller is a common example. The worn edges and all the pitting you see on a propeller is only in small part attributed to particle abrasion and corrosion, most of the damage is from cavitation. Also, have you ever seen someone explode the bottom out of a glass bottle, by holding the neck and striking down on the top with the other hand? This trick works by inducing cavitation in the fluid at the bottom of the bottle. The resulting mess is a good demonstration of the energy cavitation releases.
@@mrgoodman6620 the bottle is a water hammer effect, why we put air risers in plumbing lines.
@@DANTHETUBEMAN Water hammer is fluid compression, cavitation is fluid stretch to molecular separation.
@@mrgoodman6620 cavitation erosion is both, the bubbles are formed and compressed over the foil and burn the propeller , we did a lot of work on this in the navy in the 40's,
Robert, I loved this vid. I've looked at this subject in the past and even remember my older brother tinkering with the carburetor on his Dodge Dart trying to get it to run on water in the late 70's. I love being exposed to technology and inventions ... OFF THE BEATEN PATH. More of these please.
Thank you for pointing out the high voltage cavitation concept. It might be one of my near future projects.
But in that case the water still isn't fuel, it's just a work medium, like in the steam engine, correct? The source of the force would be the high voltage electricity or the mechanical impulse.
@@johnsmithe4656 No, the spark (aka "high voltage electricity") is the same as in an ICE - the spark activates the fuel, in this case, water. Mechanical impulse getting the water to explode (or implode, as in cavitation) - a high-voltage discharge, perhaps concentrated by a magnetron... Worth consideration and experimentation.
@@johnsmithe4656 yes, I see your point- but by the same token, can we not call dry steam the working medium of coal combustion? Water is indeed the medium of work- but I would argue it is simultaneously due to its violent cavitation implosion makes the water a working fluid being a compressive piston. Electronic-initiated cavitation in an enclosed cylinder would certainly act as working fluid, identical to the induction cycle subsequent to atmosphere-fuel explosion air in a cylinder.
@@retromodernart4426 The arc being plasma would instantly flash water to dry steam then the energy derived from the implosion- so I would argue the water is the "working fluid".
In the eighties I ran a moped called ‘Running Gag’ that combined an espresso machine and a carburetor. Top speed was 110 mph on 1/3 unleaded fuel, 1/3 doppio espresso and 1/3 of pinard blanc. Then I crashed into the Second Law of Thermodynamics…
Hydraulic lock? LOL
There is an episode of the Simpsons where Homer tells Lisa, "In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics". In general that does seem a motto to live by.
maybe... but maybe not... Could really slow down big breakthroughs..
@@aphleesegurtra2820 Nope. There are no "big breakthroughs" in the future.
A tank circuit can free up hydrogen from water at vary low amps, the technology just needs to be developed to stabilize the water fuel cell.
Also a water injection cycle can cool the cyclender and add a steam stroke to a four stroke engine.
@@UncleKennysPlace in the beginning we used rocks to lit a fire, remember?
I agree. I followed HH0 for years. Built my own generator. Hooked it to a riding mower I bought back in 1993. This was about 10 years ago. Did it improve my fuel economy No . But it did stop the old engine from smoking. That mower is still running today. I gave it to my Grandson. Thank you for sharing Sir.
Really Nice !!.. to have "different energies" developpers that keeps their head on the shoulders !!
I really appreciate your research on this. I'm impressed.
Except that Stan Meyer was real.
Hello Robert, you never cease to amaze and continually earn the label, The Dread Mad Scientist Robert. When I was a kid, maybe 12 yo I read a books of “Ripleys’s Believe it or Not”s. There was one drawing I have always remembered of a cylinder with a tight fitting piston. The mating surfaces in the supposed apparatus were so close the piston would “stand” in the cylinder only very slowly sinking as air would slowly slowly leak between the cylinder and the piston. The “Believe it or Not” bit was that if you put an inch (2.5 cm) of water into the cylinder and the placed the piston in the cylinder and whacked the piston top with a perfect blow from sledge hammer (of unspecified weight) the water would turn to ice. Then if you would whack the piston again with the sledge hammer you would cause an explosion that would rival the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki together. I have always allowed myself to be agnostic on that device Ripley described. The ice conversion always seemed harder to believe than the explosion caused by water. I think intuitively I knew, because of occasionally tinkering with gasoline engines and reading about diesel engines that compression (pressure) could cause heat. And heat is usually always a concomitant factor with explosions. Maybe now I will be a little less agnostic.
The basics of refrigeration, compression and expansion. As you compress water, the heat comes out. It wouldn't suddenly turn into ice without great force, and the heat would still have to move away and you would be limited by the conduction of heat away from the water.
On the subject of conspiracies by big oil companies, I can tell you that I used to know someone who worked for a big and well known oil company that rhymes rather fittingly with hell. And his job was to find, research and stop any invention that reduced oil consumption. The last thing he told me about was a device that improved oil boiler efficiency by 15% which shows that even small improvements were of interest. He told me that he would try to buy the rights at a market value, then try big cash incentives and failing that, the men in black would visit and one way or another, the device would not go to market… If you research the alkaline battery charger that two Germans invented, you will see that they sold the patent to Duracell for 3.6 million Euros, believing that they would offer it to the world and save millions of batteries going to landfill. Obviously that was exactly what Duracell didn’t want so they shelved it, the brothers took them to court and lost. Luckily I have an early production model and can assure you it works, I used a battery for a year, flattening it and charging it every day, ironically it was a AAA Duracell. If you look on the internet, you will find lots of pages saying it doesn’t work. I can only assume they were disinformation sponsored by Duracell. I have a friend who got the patent info from the Stanley Meyer device and built one, he claimed it worked and gave me the patent info. I naively lent it to an engineer I went to school with, who worked for a wind turbine manufacturer, It got “lost” and he claimed he had never had in the first place. Now if you try and retrieve that patent, it comes back as restricted for reasons of national security. One might start to believe it really does work.
Someone must have mad a copy of such patent info. Where on the web is a good place to distribute? I guess if someone someday rediscovers this info, that the person would be wise not to hold on to it for personal gain, but spread it far and widely and then focus on making money in the new market that such devices would offer if enough people get the hold of such technology.
You are fooling yourself. Ordinary carbon zinc batteries can be recharged a bit but never to the original capacity. That is why nickel cadmium and nickel metal hydride, and now lithium batteries came along. Anyway, these batteries were developed in academia without much input from battery companies. The descriptions of these things were freely available in peer reviewed scientific journals.
for about a minute in the early 80s i believe it was radio shack that sold alkaline battery chargers and they did indeed work remarkably well. they were a slow controlled charge however certain battery construction designs would get hot and could bulge and leak. the circuitry of the charger was specific for alkaline batteries only. What i was told is that this was pretty much market tested but there were some failures due to people mixing types of batteries that were not intended to be charged in this manner. so i think that the liabilities risk from misuse was determined to be too high. but I most certainly do Remember the inital attemps to manufacture them. Also i Remember all the warnings and emphasis to use only a certain specific battery formulation. and I do believe that duracell were the recommendation. Energizer did batts. a little diferent and they would usually heat up fast and become damaged.
Stan Meyer was a con man. Simple. If he could easily produce hydrogen- oil companies would immediately adopt it for creating and selling hydrogen- instead of the costly and inefficient cracking of methane. If there were any energy saving systems- oil companies would use them to maximise profits as their costs of production would plummet so bigger profit margins. Oil and gas are not cheap to access- neither is the cleaning nor refinement. I do agree oil companies like all monopolies engage in price controls, collusion and a lot of criminal activity. Maybe they kill people who expose their secrets- I don;t know. But Stan Meyers was around long enough to leave copies of his patents to other people, far far away from the long arm of the USA. Any of them could have given his plans to Cuba or Soviet Union. Imagine the billions USSR would pay to collapse the US energy driven economy- then use his water car as a propaganda tool to convince people democracy was (is) flawed and Soviet Science and Scientific Communism was the way forward. It costs armies huge amounts of lost inputs and lost bodies for the frontline to shift around fuels. If an enemy military could have water-based fuels- imagine the massive logistics advantage they would have over enemies- they would need a tiny logistics chain simply for lubricants- and all former fuel logistics could be frontline soldiers- money saved and more cannon fodder- you think any sane military would skip that chance? Secondly you have to believe the nonsense humans are warming the planet in an interglacial period. In the 1970s the scare of the news was a new Ice Age and we'd have to put soot on the poles so the ice would melt. Greenland was once green enough to support animal farming. We had a miniature ice age in Middle Ages. Humans have been burning coal for a tiny fraction of human existence- at most 1000 years vs the tens of thousands of years of massive forest fires, massive volcanic activity. It's just nonsensical. Third what are the names of these two Germans who invented the alkaline battery charger? Why didn't Duracell wipe out lead acid batteries- because these are 100% recyclable- you just need to recast the lead baffles and refill with cheap acid- away you go new battery- cheaper than an off the shelf battery.
@@DOCTOR_SONGWhat makes the difference for whether alkaline batteries can be safely recharged or not has more to do with the physical construction of the cell than the electrochemistry going on inside: Both zinc-carbon and alkaline cells use metallic zinc as the negative electrode, and that zinc metal is consumed as the cell is discharged. Some cheaper cells use only that zinc metal as the outer casing of the cell, and these are the cells that you probably shouldn't try to recharge using any of the chargers designed to recharge alkaline or zinc-carbon cells. Why? Because as the cell is discharged, that zinc casing gets progressively thinner as the zinc is consumed from the inside, which is why those cells can often leak when they are discharged all the way to empty - the zinc consumption is not always evenly spread out, so heavy discharge can eat all the way through the zinc casing, making extremely weak spots or even holes in the casing. The charging process (which should re-form metallic zinc, again on the inside of the casing) is not going to close up the holes, because there has to be some zinc present for the electrolytic reaction to deposit more zinc metal onto. Also, the re-forming of zinc metal during charging is not going to be completely evenly spread out across the entire inner surface either. If the first use of the cell has made weak spots, the recharging process will add zinc to those weak spots, but even when charging is complete, those weak spots will not be restored to their full original thickness, so the next discharge can then create holes where those weak spots are, even if the first discharge didn't make any holes. So it's not that the recharging chemistry isn't going to work for every cell, it's just that repeated charge/discharge cycles on cheaper cells which only have zinc casings is highly likely to make holes in the casing after a few cycles, causing the cells to leak, which isn't particularly safe. However, higher quality zinc-carbon or alkaline cells use a steel casing. The chemistry going on inside is still the same - there is still a layer of zinc metal which is consumed when the cell is discharged and then re-formed when the cell is recharged. The difference is that even if a cell is heavily discharged and the zinc metal is completely consumed in some places, this will not make holes in the cell - it still has that outer steel casing so is far less likely to leak. Because of this, these higher quality cells can safely be recharged many times. It is easy enough to tell the difference between the cheaper and higher quality cells: If they stick to a magnet, then they have the steel outer casing. This test can even be done without opening the packaging new cells are sold in, so you can just take a magnet with you and test any new cells before you buy them.
I did water injection on an Austin 1100 back in 1977 at college. Increased mpg a lot. Easy to do, needs no pressurised injectors but only natural aspiration.
SIMPLE & EASEY IS GOOOOD. = GREAT. Would this be also applicable application to a old diesels using basic pump design.?
Hi Paul. I suppose it could work on old system diesel engines...🤔 They only have basic injection to intake manifold usually. Some inject into heads I think. But this water system needs to be between the inlet ports and the air cleaner. So into the intake manifold, as close to the manifold to cylinder head joint is ok. Diesel operate on higher compression pressures and ratios than petrol engines, so this will hump up that pressure. Maybe when the engine reaches operating temperature would be the best time to turn it on. The fun thing to do is just get stuck in and try things out. But, KEEP DETAILED NOTES, DIAGRAM AND PICS\VIDS.... BEST TRY ON AN OLD MOTOR....NOT YOUR NEW MERCEDES S500...🥴
Yeah...all that is required is a main jet fitted into the carburetor base and a windscreen washer pump and resevoir hooked up to it...and a switch on the dashboard...ive been in a car fitted out with this setup...it works REALY well...
You were deluding yourself.
Mate you have covered so many questions I've had within the first 3 minutes. Now to continue :)
Whoo, glad you made that distinction about hydrogen-fueled cars. Would've really put a damper on my research
Make sure that any research you are doing hasn't already been done, or isn't related to making your own hydrogen on -the-go.
Any more info regarding your own research? Sounds interesting. Hydrogen fuelled cars, as we all know, can work. It's the hydrogen production and storage that are the problems I believe. 👍
Using electricity to make hydrogen... Would be more efficient to simply use the electricity.
Thanks for the video Rob! It didn't come across as a debunking vid, Just history and good information as always.
for once
Well articulated lecture Rob and most informative. TY. When I was a young man, I was privileged to meet Prof. Yull Brown of HHO fame. I toured his workshop and was fortunate to have had a ride in his HHO modified Toyota. The year was 1974, and Prof Brown was listing his company 'Water Fuel Holdings' on the stock exchange...and in that lies another story of intrigue, much like the Stanley Meyers saga/ conspiracy. At very least his name is now synonymous with HHO/ Browns gas. BTW, I was particularly impressed with his electrolysis unit that utilised a huge surface area in a compact way.
Thanks for the information: "had a ride in his HHO modified Toyota" great!, so it is possible. It was a pure HHO or it was mixed with gasoline? What happened with Water Fuel Holdings HHO car? Did you get access to HHO generation schematics and its car adaptation? Thanks for any additional information.
@@astursistemas I was a young teenager at the time and was wide eyed and bushy tailed as opposed to curious about technicalities. I do recall him saying that he was working on containment of the HHO in metal hydrides as having high pressure gas tanks was not a good option. It was 100% HHO.
Lol, HHO is nonsense. And today's HHO B.S. claims are practically indistinguishable from Yull Brown's nonsense and Meyers.
@@astursistemas No it's not possible and has been debunked for decades. Brown was a crank and so was Meyers.
@@astursistemas ofc its fking possible so many people have burned hydrogen in their converted cars its just not the "free" energy source people like to rave about you can burn just about anything in most engines with the right conversion i can burn gas from wood to power a engine it doesn't mean its a good idea or free energy we have buses that run hydrogen to make electricity to run off everywhere in lots of major cities
Great video, easly understood at the end with high frequency currents and converting to search for a water engine. Nano diamond and radioactive waste is promising to be a great success with forever power.
Back in 1996, I was working at an auto shop. There were two college kids that brought in their ford taurus for alignment.the body was twisted slightly. They explained that they were part of Geek Group and showed me this unit bolted in the trunk which they called an "Adhesion reactor" and explained that unit twisted the car at dragstrip. They left when I couldn't straighten car and never saw them again
They shouldve reversed their machine and used that force to straighten it out lol
The very last suggestion caught my attention. Cavitation is powerful.
ur words regarding cavitation remind me of an experimenter, whom is similar to you as he makes contraptions endlessly. Russ with RWG research is what I remember. One year he got lost on some research about a contraption in which u discharge HV and pressure simultaneously to produce enough bang to make a cylinder do work. He did get it to pop. Trouble was it was not predictable. He got lost trying to figure out how to make it work on command rather than sometimes. I appreciate his honesty and that he published his progress often :) Dunno if he is making vids anymore. After 15 or 20 years of solid work, day after day, he was starting to slow... As happens to many of us considering how many flippin decades it takes to arrive at breakthroughs
I actually have experience working on water reactor technology; It works on the premise that atomic material has 3 things that relate to one another. Charge, spin and mass have an affect on one another. The greater the charge an atom has the higher amount of spin it has therefore affecting it's weight, thermal energy and locking. The high voltage AC current has to resonate in order to properly destabilize the molecular bond. For a more efficient reaction You can do this with multiple fase currents as well. You can also pull off electrolysis at a surprisingly low amplitude if you bump up the voltage coefficient. Finally HHO is fed into any internal combustion engine whilst the exhaust is routed back into the fuel generator tank. My current design has an uptime of 874 days so far and has a few passive generators built in like a solor bank and a jumping circuit for quick startup. Eventually the process for making higher surface area non-tarnishing components will be for the most part shared around with one another. Hopefully it will be fairly soon with the modern metal plating technologies that are already implemented on circuit boards. I have faith that one day people will stop gatekeeping something quantum in nature like thought and work with and along side one another.
You are right,I know all about Stan Mayer and his work,the trick to optimizing a HHO generator is to match the low amp high voltage frequency to the vessel being used ,(harmonic) it makes the water bubble like crazy,must also use a 4 coil particle accelerator on outlet tube,electro magnetic,must use stainless tubes inside vessel 1/2” inside 3/4 18” tall 1/2” spacing,remove a/c pump install one or two UNRESISTED alternators for current (do not touch)run three vessels,more than enough gas needed,hydrogen is off the negative terminal,CAUTION a by product is chlorine it will clean sensors and catalytic converters like new,must use titanium valves or stock ones will tap cause of oxygen intake, must use DC current in vessels ,enjoy,happy motoring and no SMOKING
@@chickenmaster7069 No just no.
@@chickenmaster7069 Yes I've read about this too on a forum many years ago - from my understanding the concentric stainless steel tubes used in the electrolysis chamber are tuned to be in phase with the high voltage frequency - I do not recall how he worked it all out, whether it was the overall impedance in ohms of the cathode/anode, or the audio frequency of the tube.
@@rusticraver82 the tube,everything in this world has a resonance to it ,its the hertz,matched to the resonance of the vessel and another little trick is to use distilled water with baking soda,one tea spoon per gallon,adds to the reaction
Take a spoon and hit the vessel and record,match the hertz
I would have to drive a water powered car 5000 miles across the USA and back by myself filling up only from rivers and garden hoses before I become a believer.🤣🤣🤣🤣
You mean someone thought of my pressurized vessel that when full shuts off the electric to the tungsten welder tip burning the graphite under water idea again? What's that they burn the gas in that car and discharging water out it's tailpipe? My I'm so glad they achieved the subject. I've been waiting to release my concept for decades NOW. Shew thanks for listening
Just watched tech revolution yt pg called China just shocked the entire ev industry by revealing this battery. It looked like wafers rather than tootsie roll. Your version tried to make with different roof flashing. Love your work bro press on.
No industry was shocked, no animals were harmed, YT is fill of BS.
An engine working on water only, is like a perpetual motion engine: Creating energy out of basically nothing, so it can run forever. According to some, not too well understood theories, that is.
sun+air=Winds -> Perpetual Motion
@@ermaphillips5733 nope, not in any physical sense. Sun is finite, and winds are derived from the sun as well. The sun is subject to thermodynamic decay, or entropy, even if timescales are enormous.
look up bob lazar he uses solar and wind energy to hydrolyse water and stores hydrogen in his car for powering the car
@@fidelcatsro6948 Yes that is the only true example today of running your car on water, but electrolysis happening outside of the vehicle, and compression of hydrogen is not for the DIY'ers
@@ermaphillips5733 The Sun is Nuclear powerd. So it's not Perpetual motion.
My understanding is that Stan Meyer claimed his car ran on hydrogen as a result of splitting water. The problem that arisers is that it takes more energy to split the water than you can get from burning the gases (which he failed to mention). Ships propellors certainly do not use cavitation for propulsion. Cavitation is the enemy of propellors and also pump impellors and can destroy them in a very short time.
sonoluminescence created the heat the burns the propellers.
look again, Stanley Meyers used high voltage low amp pulsed electricity, not brute force DC electrolysis. so the hydrogen being released in his fuel cell video is vary efficient.
@@DANTHETUBEMAN Not true. If you use high voltage in an electrolysis cell, most of your energy input will be wasted as heat. The voltage must be matched to the potential required to dissociate water molecules.
@@rogerphelps9939 you have to use pulse electricity, in a tuned resonant circuit, look up the Stanley Myers patent equipment, it sounds like you can understand it. you are right brute force DC does not work and just gets hot with higher voltage
Thank you very much Robert for a very full ,and comprehensible, explanation food for thought, me thinks.
Absolutely excellent presentation and video.
There's the EZ water stuff also 👏 Nice review, thanks!
oh very good point mate - thanks for adding that
Cool and informative video, Robert,to me it looks like you could pressurized the water to move the piston up and down.
Water cannot be compressed
@@lagunafishing but; it can be pressurized, if it couldn't your sink and bathtub would only dribble.
Thank you for explaining what happened to all those “inventors”. Really helped open my eyes to how vulnerable i am/was to scams being propagated via media platforms.
Cavitation and high voltage is exactly how Stan Meyers 2nd device worked. His first device used high voltage but was a cell type invention. His 2nd version was much smaller and able to be fitted on any car. They were weeks away from going into production. Moral of the story, don't try to solve a problem that steps on the toes of big industry and govt. or you'll be remembered as a quack or conman.
Well, except for the fact that every new technology since the industrial revolution has stepped on some other industry's toes. You think steam train manufacturers were happy about internal combustion engines? You think candle-makers were happy with electric lighting? All of those technologies were still adopted, for one simple reason which differentiates them from urban legends and quackery ; they actually worked.
This was really interesting I didn't know about this High voltage/Cavitation phenomenon
Hewlett Packard Bubble Jet Printers!
How to stop a over unity technology. Honey Pot, illegal loans, drug connections, litigation to make inventors bankrupt and threats, all else fails, end them. Stanley would not give up his electronic details and they went with litigation, then they ended him.
@@UncleKennysPlace trippy!!!
Ever seen 'Chain Reaction' with Keanna Reeves?
Dan Danforth electronic circuit - Visited seminar of Meyer- Water Fuel Cell, and when back to Sri Lanka, he built his own bench top version of resonance cell with high voltage stress to make EFFICIENT HYDROGEN GAS . He used similar flyback effect of inductor coil to get the minimum 1500 volts, during the switching off time. Oscillator operates pass transistor to operate on /off forming low and high volts in water cell. Water capacitor forms holding charge, then Voltage stress pops molecules apart for volumes of bubbles. See full design schematic circuit and write up on Internet - " molecular dissociation of water". ( several - foot high cells in parallel at about 142 kilohertz frequency)
What would happen if you would use a audio amplifier and play a sound of the right frequency with speaker out connected to the cell plates?
High efficiency hydrogen generation is done with either AC vibrations at 600 cycles and upper harmonics, "Pucharich Patent ) or pulsing DC at minimum 1500 v, about 1khz , narrow concentric pipes (Stan Meyer Water Fuel Cell company + Patents, or John W. Keely's tuning forks tests done in late 1800's with 620htz and 3rds upper harmonics applied to steel ball chamber with water. - He got so good at it, that the steel chamber had left over oily substance heavy water dissolved out as residue. (1/ 5000 molecules of tap water is heavy water and that group of frequencies did not apply to that molecule). Narrow plates in water is called a water capacitor with it's own self resonant frequency. Once that is established, there is a monitoring circuit that can be added to allow water in to keep up exact level so that same frequency settings match so efficiency does not go down. Most of the above is called overunity, except for straight DC common , low efficiency electrolysis that is in every text book. One guy years ago put 12v dual heater fan Perm Magnet motors running backwards, with fan blades on car front grille with wind generated electricity going to standard type electrolysis cell in trunk with tubing going back to engine. he got 25% increase in gas mileage. The term HHO only applies to pulsing DC cell with exact specialized power supply that forms 3 separated IONS only which has the higher energy content. H+ H+ O- sometimes called Browns Gas, (not regular electrolysis.) According to Keely, the disruption of water molecule is done with inharmonic vibrations mixture, and at that time he was using thermopiles junctions of differing metal wires as Silver, Platinum and Gold. The nodes generated the upper harmonics that traveled down the ratio wires. Applying audio amplifier with adjustable frequency to adjustable stainless plates distance in water cell should produce hydrogen gas at slightly higher volume. The Hydrostar hydrogen generating circuit by Chambers is a spinoff of the Meyer circuit with wire coil magnetic field vibration of upper flowing ions from water to higher energy levels,. -Xogen company Canada. The same Technician worked for Meyer. Years ago over in Australia, water cells applied to car engine compartment had manifold vacuum applied to standard electrolysis which increased efficiency. They also experimented in "the outback" with self running engine- generators that used pumped in air to water cell. The 78% nitrogen forms Nitrogen hydroxide (a fuel) which adds to the hydrogen content for self running engine, as no power wires way out in the country. The Australian soldiers from WW2 found this information from the Germans after occupied German motor pool jeeps conversions.
Hi, Having studied Mr Meyer I think it clear from examining the injectors that fed a mix of 3 inputs into the shaft of a special sparkplug. A long shaft in the centre surrounded by a tube into which the injectors fired re-cycled exhaust, Browns gas from the resonant bubbler, and aerosl water. These all separately controlled and timed around the ignition spark between the central rod and the tube encasing it. This involved a plasma and the splitting of the injected water and browns gas explosion. I believe the bubbler was fed a pulsed DC frequency producing resonance in the tubul;ar anode/cathode tubes giving the excitation you observed in the water battery leading to greater efficiency in gas production. Not being in a position to created a test myself, I can't prove it but that's how I read Stans Car exploits. Love your work mate, all the best, Chris
"Lesa in this house we will obey the laws of thermodynamics!!" -Homer Simpson
lol
Stanley Myers had a electrolysis fuel injector, zapping the water at high frequency liberating the water at low amps,,, vary smart man.
Yes it was a modified 1934 sparkplug
@@chickenmaster7069 making the gas in the cylinder is probably 5he safest way to do it.
@@DANTHETUBEMAN NO …..hydrogen leaks are dangerous
@@chickenmaster7069 I can't see how there can be a leak when the hydrogen is created at the fuel injector.
@@DANTHETUBEMAN ment with vessels
How to make a water powered car: Get a car Remove existing drive train Put a paddle wheel on back and connect to tires Power the paddle wheel by a water fall Now get a lot of people to push the water fall behind the car as it moves
Hi. Very informative video Robert. I believe I have seen some ideas of using a magnetron from a microwave to replace the spark plug, and an aircraft landing strobe circuit to pulse the magnetron on a petrol engine with modified timing. But that would be a steam engine. If someone could pioneer the high energy spark and cavitation system, it seems that would work the best and quite likely require relatively minor modifications to existing combustion engines. Anyways, thanks for your video.
In order for something to be a fuel, it must have energy as part of its make up. Water does not. It is basically energy inert. What the Browns gas design does is, it inserts energy into the 'water' to split the oxygen from the hydrogen in the process of splitting the water atom. Then by mixing hydrogen with the gasoline vapors, causes a much higher burn in the supplied gasoline. The result is a reduced amount of energy in the exhaust, and an increased amount to the wheels to the ground. I did a Browns gas build on my old pick up and increased my mileage by 9 to 12 MPG. Not much for one truck however I did it with a mayonnaise jar and stainless steel bolts for electrodes. However, if you were to introduce this very basic design into all gasoline engines, the profit losses for Big Oil would be a very serious hit to their stock holders. They claim to research increased mileage, but it is only a show to deflect curiosity from their dirty back room dealings. We are far from being held back any more. We are well on our way to a fully renewable future. In time, fossil fuels will be held in the same light as wooden sailing ships. A simple curiosity. However, as the facts about oil and the dynamics of a bell curve clearly explain, oil reserves will certainly reduce faster as consumption increases. The faster you eat the apples, the faster the basket becomes empty.
Water for fuel in reguard to HHO, is a misnomer as you point out. it's hydrogen gass (fuel) that is being oxidized. Even then, most often it's generated in relatively small quantities compared to the primary fuel. And I'd argue, where it's used in small quantities, it's primary purpose is less about adding more fuel, and more about increasing the speed of the flame front at ignition. I'd say, the only idea worth merit is a little hydrogen helps more fully burn the primary fuel early in the power stroke were it can deliver more power than latter in the power stroke. I worked with a company testing their HHO systems on metro transit buses that ran diesel. Despite seeing encouraging real world results in diesel fuel per mile, plate deterioration and continued maintenance made it not commercially viable. Sadly the whole field is littered with scammers who will try to make a quick buck, and many others that dont actually understand.
Increasing flame speed (and thus cylinder pressure, temperature, and thus power) is easy. So easy, that we re-circulate exhaust gases to keep the temps and pressures _down._ This is because high temps cause more oxides of nitrogen, and also can cause detonation.
Water is the result of a reaction that has already happened, the energy has already been released. To reverse the reaction you need to put energy in, because of losses this isn't efficient. The only way is to use "free" energy, to reverse the reaction and get usable components for a fuel.
Very much informative indeed, only time will tell as you say it is possible depending on the approach.
I live in Iowa, USA . In the mid1980s a farmer died at 86 , he went to a one room school (which only went to 6th grade -12yrs old). In the 1930s when the gov’t was trying bring electricity to rural America the farmer’s father declined. They always generated electricity using the windmill, that pumps well-water. The farm ran on DC current, and stored it in car batteries. With his basic education he figured out how to modify his Ford pickup trucks to run on hydrogen. Henry Ford II visited him & while looking over the engine said “I thought we bought up all of these up.” It makes me shake my head when all these engineers with advanced degrees say how difficult it is to bring hydrogen power to autos when an Iowa farmer with just a basic education did cheaply and easily for more than 50 years.
That was really interesting. I hadn't actually thought about water being used in that way as a fuel. Like you said, always thought you'd have to burn it, but that exploding water thing looked very interesting. Well done again. Love this channel!
*👆👆⬆️Thanks for watching please endeavor to message right away the digit above on WhatsApp Only⚠️🙏.I will love to hear your thoughts on it and for more enlightenment❤️🆙
I pursued the cavitation route with a supplementary reaction for use in modified jet engines as stationary gas generators (matter of fact I have the prototype and its successor collecting dust behind me in my office) and as you might imagine, there were and still are some problems to overcome, mostly material engineering at this stage. It's actually what led me to my side project of making graphene additives for composite parts and a few other things, but chiefly the reaction causes brutal metal embrittlement. In my process, it's doubly as bad as a piston engine, as you have the cavitation process and the further combustion phase down the line, exceptionally high temperatures that I've yet to find any aerospace alloy that can cope (hence the departure into ceramics and composites), and the lack of transferable manufacturing processes outside of prototyping capacity, even with all the advances in additive manufacturing. Eventually I'll get all my ducks lined up, but every time I make some serious headway, I stumble into a new material application that grabs my interest. There's been several years where I should have pursued one linear direction, though I must admit that getting 'Stan Meyered' is a high concern. Funnily enough, 30 or 40 years ago, the idea of all these magical inventions like the automotive grade 100mpg carburetor being bought and shelved by the oil companies seemed like a distant myth. Now its far more practical to ruin someone's reputation than to ever anticipate Big Oil coming like Daddy Warbucks to your door to buy your miracle product.
I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that you can suppress the implementation of a miracle device or process by merely ruining an inventors reputation?
@William Hada It's certainly been done before, especially in markets where the established standard would be at threat of losing dominance, or more directly, billions/trillions in profit of their bottom line. Imagine if Elon Musk tried to do Tesla again without the financial backing of having heavily profited from his role with PayPay. Just another dreamer situation.
@@C-M-E I believe that the reputation of an inventor hinges on the validity of his invention, not the other way around as you suggest. A good invention will stand on its own merit and not in the long run be effected by public opinion of the inventors character. There really was no suppression of Elon Musk's ideas. The huge sums of money he needed to get his ideas implemented was the biggest obstacle to him and made it difficult to find investors. He was just lucky to be rich enough able to back himself.
@@William_Hada Believe me, I wish it were enough these days to just have a good idea, but without some financial standing or a platform that you've garnered some kind of following, you will have a difficult time at best getting your idea noticed by the right people. They'll be plenty of those beating down your door saying you're a fool and it'll never work, who will also go to the ends of the earth to attempt to disprove you as your idea threatens their way of thinking, which will come not only from industry but also the scientific community and public at large. End note, I'm not saying it can't be done, but look at the risks from all sides before letting your butterfly into the world teeming with spiders and webs.
@@C-M-E I agree, you can even have a patent granted and without the finance, go nowhere at all. A real shame , as there must be lots of advancements that never see the light of day just because of the costs to enter the market.
There's also Blue Energy/Osmotic power, which involves using salinity gradients to generate electricity. Currently it's used for mixing river and sea water, and seems infeasible for something as small as a car(the theoretical specific energy is less than 1% of a Lion battery, and actual charging efficiency is around 60%), but certainly if size is no issue you could use a salt water tank or pool as a battery/generator. There's a new version with apparently 1000 times the power output, but that's scaled off a single nano-wire device made in a lab and presumably making an actual usable size device is currently impossible. I find it especially interesting because one method, where you charge and discharge a supercapacitor while varying the salt concentration of the solution, seems both doable to diy, and is in essence the same thing as capacitive and triboelectric generators. It's also very similar to ionic semiconductors, which might be a potential future of computation, both in low cost of manufacturing and the fact that biological systems also run on ion exchange membranes so they could be interfaced with or even powered by biological systems.
Isn't that how Captain Nemo powered the Nautilus?
Sounds like a load of sht. How do salinity gradients create electrical energy?
I remember another device that was for heating. it was a pipe with a tight-fitting roller inside that had cavities and would cause cavitation of water flowing through the pipe when rotated and cause heating of the water. the one problem you would have to overcome is that cavitation like this destroys the metal around it. This implosion is very powerful though.
Yes. Saw that video myself. They used it to create steam for generators etc. It was more efficient than traditional heating apparently.
How exciting. Best history of H20 as fuel of some sort or another, and the only history that I've heard. When you started talking of cavitation devices, my mind went directly to how that could be used to drive a turbine. I'm not talking about anything small like a car engine, but for driving generators, large pumps, drills or any other ground based equipment. Timing 4,6,8 of those devices could give a nearly enough continuous pressure to drive a turbine. Oh what a vibration reducing project that could be! Nor would they be very useful in the north or south poles.
The problem with running a car on hydrogen has always been that you can't produce enough on demand. BUT, there have been advances in catalyst materials which could possibly solve this.. One demonstration that I've seen that I can't quite explain is using an average out of the car catalytic converter to instantly break hydrogen peroxide into it's respective gasses... Albeit using a bit higher concentration of hydrogen peroxide than what we usually find off the shelves in the pharmacy.. -- Another possible avenue is to hydrolize or break a liquid that has a higher hydrogen content to yield more gas.. IE: Alcohol can be produced from plant fiber and I believe it has 16 molecules of hydrogen VS water's 2.. Though the idea of passing an electric current through a flammable liquid doesn't sit well with me.. So, a non-flammable liquid with a higher Hydrogen content? Sugar water. I have no way to test this, but the hydrogen yield should be MUCH greater than water alone.
low volts in oil create gas offset.
@@ashyslashy5818 -- say 40v DC @ 2 amps?
@@davidr1050 no a welder with 2 carbon rods arcing the gas off is pure FUEL.
You forget that Adele allegedly "Set fire to the rain" Although no one yet has reproduced this, I'm wondering if this was a fraudulent claim.
She's being investigated by the CIA, FBI, SEC, and MIT as we speak.
In other words: Top. Men. 🤠
Water Hammer / Cavitation is curious to me. I remember seeing an old 1800's invention claim that was an engine run off of water hammer creating the bump to drive a pump, all you had to do was to pull a vacuum on the system. I think the whole universe has a heartbeat, and this machine runs on the heartbeat like life.
The theory you speak of is used on farms to pump water even up hill with out outside power
@@robinrussell3705 Yes, I have seen those videos on ram pumps, but I believe you need running water for those to work. What I saw was a totally closed loop little machine. you filled it with water, closed it up and pulled a vacuum thru a one way valve and it would run. It has a power take off rod off the side of it that could spin an electrical generator.
That is nonsensical. What fluid does the universe use to pump red blood cells around its body and organs?
1993 Stan Meyer speech. Look it up. This was a truly honorable man and a true patriot! Defamation is one of the favorite tools of Big Oil against the use any free fuel source.
Works so well Elon Musk just laughed.
What brown gas bubblers are good for is nocking carbon build up off of the valves and pistons in your petrol engine.
Ah those were certainly interesting days of trying to find REAL numbers in all the scams. It started me down the path of investigating so many other things though like, cavitation water heating, electro-dialysis, electro flocculation, microfluidic water filtration. Water technology is quite fascinating. I wonder if you can make micro cavitation motor that would not damage the rotor as badly if coated in a graphene layer to create a lot more surface area.
Ultrasonics! And yes the rest you mentioned is doable diy, the problem is the mess salt makes in the system. An alkaline is commonly used in electrolysis but salt is needed to help capacitance in a very technical multichamber setup with individual balanced electrodes in each cell. The output is HHO and needs further processing for fuel cells but can be compressed and run through an aftermarket LPG auto gas mixer to run a petrol or diesel engine. The diesel needs a 16% original fuel load for ignition, and that is the reason burning hydrogen is only possible in a diesel!! A petrol engine, unless specifically designed and constructed at a high cost, will not run long on hydrogen. Carbon emitting fuels have anti-corrosive properties that are so much more vital and complex in maintaining engine and exhaust condition and functionality than people realize. Also water contamination of engine oil is a factor that need additional systems and maintenance on any engine burning hydrogen as a significant part of the fuel load.
What about the Kirlian photography to photography your aura?
I'm Not a mechanic or engineer but my understanding is an internal combustion engine can run on pretty much any kind fuel; methanol, hydrogen, petrol, etc.. whatever. You just have to atomize the fuel to get it down in the chamber and provide some spark and air too ignite it for the combustion process.
e=mc² informs us that Mass 'm' has energy. Water is Mass. It has Energy. At some stage in its formation it absorbed energy (as did gasoline). We should start drilling for water.
these aren't scams they are threats to the controllers of this realm
Damn ! There I was , thinking how Rob will explain the process of making conversion to our petrol/diesel cars and we would be all happy forever ... :)
Try super low voltage electrolysis plates,many is series with micro tolerances between them(easier said than done).Increase the surface area by scuffing with the finest wet and dry.Then one last thing add graphene to the electrolyte,a little at a time until it works,not too much or you will have a short-circuit. Start with the lowest voltage and work up until it works(bubbles).
@@0987654321mnbvcxzmor Thanks for the info , but my comment was attempt of a joke :) I know how to make "dry cell" or "wet cell" , but I live in a country , where car modifications are almost forbidden (there are ways , but too complicated and expensive). However , HHO can (in some cases and if set properly) improve engine operation and lower the consumption of fuel , but , for sure , it can not be the only energy source for a IC car engine to run , as like with petrol/diesel fuel (or LNG , Methane mods). That being said , I do encourage people experimenting with small engines (lawnmowers , small generators) , because there could be a gain , at a relatively small cost and it all can be reversible if failed.
I remember coming across some of those peoples ideas over the years. But never under estimate the power of the oil tyrants and what they can do or supress.
Nice one Robert excellent coverage of the topic. I ran an hho gas generator in a van for two years and made a saving of 50% but these things need maintenance and because it wasn't made of stainless steel as the maker claimed it was I lost interest. When I add up the cost of everything I didn't make that much of a saving. But I had to give it a go. I have heard that others aren't giving up and there attempts to separate the hydrogen oxygen and freeze them into two separate liquids for distribution. I am interested in the use of liquid air Powering pneumatic engines. This I believe is one to watch.
Liquid air, takes a lot of energy to produce,,..where as, . water/ HHO, ,is unleashing the cheap abundant, renewable fuel...
@@SuperReznative - ever tried separating hho gas into 2 gases ? It's not as easy as some imagine. Then freezing it into a liquid ? What container can hold liquid hydrogen without leakage ? Hmmm problematic. Freezing air however is achieved via compression. Pneumatic tools and some cars are driven by compressed air.
@@SuperReznative you missed the point. HHO and H is not easy to produce as Hydrogen has an affinity to bond with oxygen- otherwise we would not have a world filled with H2o filled creatures (including us) and abundant water at atmospheric pressure and ambient temperature. It takes a lot of energy to break the H +H+O bond. That's why methane is cracked to produce hydrogen- hydrogen from hydrocarbons being less energy intensive than your silliness of electrolysis. Whatever evils big oil may be culpable of- wasting money is not something they do- thus they are all for a "new green" Hydrogen world- because guess who will produce the hydrogen- them- and sell it more expensive than fossil fuels to recover the costs of splitting H from CH4 (methane)- then they can add some H to H2CH4 to sell on as ethane. Hydrogen won't be cheap. You can count on that as much as big oil likes to profit.
Very interesting. What is the brisance of the detonation in the device you mentioned? It seems to me that it would exceed that in a diesel engine, and we may struggle with the metallurgy to implement that effectively. I have seen the effects of cavitation on propellers, and the heat damage to the propellers occurs in an environment that is quite cold.
sonoluminescence has a lot of heat generation.
The cavitation effect is interesting as it can create forces high enough to create a mini fusion reaction. Once you overcome that limit of course you can see remarkable power production. Whether anyone as done so yet is anyone's guess.
there has been research and the effects are claimed to be anomalous in terms of energy in energy out - so worth a look into mate
Ultrasonic jewelry cleaners use cavitation to clean. Microwaves cause water modules to rub together. If highly focused might help with making hho production more efficient.
@@paulburgess8033 interesting idea. I think they actually use ultrasonic piezo transducers in those jewelry cleaners.
The satanic globalist masonic elite that want to keep you enslaved and or to inject garbage into your body & pervert your kids, use their minion main stream media pawn clowns to keep you confused. ..... Research these hero inventors on DuckDuckGo whom have tried freeing us from the energy cartel. ....... Nikola Tesla Stanley Meyers Dennis Reed Troy Reed Paul Pantone John Christy & Lou Britz Joe Newman John Bedini Howard Johnston Richard Clem Daniel Dingel John Searl Thomas Ogle Dennis Lee Eric P. Dollard Tewari Adam Trombly Paramahamsa Dennis Klien Parendev McKenzie Muammer Yildiz WAKE UP PEOPLE ! SLAVES N0 M0RE !
@@paulburgess8033 No not microwaves, ultrasonic waves created by an ultrasonic "trumpet"- entirely different as much as a fish to a crow to microwaves created by a magnetron. If we're going to be scientific let's keep our language as clear as possible.
how about schaubergers water implosion engine? as i understood it, was mixing 2 batches of water each a few degrees either side of 4 Celsius... its density would increase and so reduce pressure in the pipe... quite interesting...
Amazing as always! Thanks 👌
I hope there is still more to come on this idea.
There's a process called electrohydraulic forming that uses a high energy spark in water to create intense pressure to shape a sheet of metal in a mold. Could a variation of this could be used to push a piston down and rotate a crankshaft? Could water vapor be exploded with a high energy spark?
yes
If only it didn't require a large bank of capacitors charged to about 20,000 Watts a pop.
@@TomABooth 20kw is 26.8 Horsepower. Seems a little high to me. Where did you get that figure?
I posted a url-link to the source but I can't see my post. Posts with links are screened I guess. Anyway, just researching the subject. A top result video said the process requires capacitors charged to 5 to 25 Kilowatts. An engine might run on much much less per cycle I suppose, but still, "high voltage". It could be an interesting experiment.
@@peoplesresearchcenter6184 yes I agree, it would be a fun experiment although 'high voltage' is risky to play with. 🙂
Great and much needed clarification.
This was a very insightful explanation. Time is now to dig deeper into . Aloha
Thank you Robert for the clear history I enjoy it very much. I think any one who's experimented with browns gas knows the power of the flash back. Its kinetic kick packs a punch. I would find it quite interesting to see what would happen if the water droplets passed over a collector ring at super sonic speeds. Also one could use a diaphragm above the flashback chamber. A small 1mm tube coming out to a candle for ignition seems about right for the timing is controlled by the length of the tube.
but why even bother? The enthalpy of formation with water is negative. You will always have to put more energy in, so why not just directly use that energy instead?
@@lost4468yt Many young kinds come up with the idea of coupling a motor to a generator...the vast majority of them grow up and learn why this cannot work, a few remain at this child-like level of ignorance and refuse to accept physical laws.
@@ferrumignis ya its sorta like growing your own food and raising your own protein. Its kinda like printing your own money. Its just not feasible for this younger generation.
@@rsummers1974ify Oh there are still plenty of scammers that like to make these claims, same as there always has been.
What is the energy output v energy input of the high voltage water explosion/ cavitation experiment? Do you get useful power out?
As no Nobel price in physics have been given for this research. I suspect/know less energy than you put into the process
One interesting aspect of water cars is when doing calculations people usually use pure liquid water and forget all water has a myriad of gases in solution in the liquid which can often be freed easily and contribute in unexpected ways.
for sure mate
rubbish. what gases are contained in water?
When I was working at the hardware store a couple young guys were building an HHO lawnmower that ran off of a J-cell with water and anything from old engine oil to melted down old tires. I wasn't quite clear on how exactly as their english wasn't the best (I Think the idea was the HHO burned hot enough to get an almost complete burn on the oil when they got the mix right), and we had limited interaction over a few months as I was helping them find parts and such, but they had video of it working, and they were trying to get one to run on pure HHO so it would be more green. I've often wondered how far they got with it, as they seemed to be having success with their early attempts. They were, at least, genuine in their intent and dropped quite a bit of money on it.
Looking at the energy content of HHO, if you subtract the energy required for electrolysis, there really isn't any energy left over. Hydrogen isn't a "fuel", so much as it is a "temporary battery", or energy transfer mechanism. Maybe the secret to the Water Engine, is that it wasn't the water that was the fuel. During WWII "Wood Gas" was developed and used as a replacement fuel source. Spoiler: It's Carbon Monoxide from burning charcoal. Another way of generating Carbon Monoxide was putting Carbon arc electrodes driven by a welder underwater and burning the bubbled gas like crappy gasoline. It doesn't have the power output of gasoline, but doesn't require a huge infrastructure, either.
The reason we don't have water-powered cars is simple: The laws of thermodynamics are immutable. Remember that water is the ash you get when you burn hydrogen. The bond between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms makes it very difficult to disassociate water into its component elements. In effect, the amount of energy released by burning hydrogen (2(H2)+O2 -> 2(H20)) is the same amount required to then dissociate 2(H20) into 2(H2)+O2. Water is effectively spent hydrogen fuel and just as you can't burn the ash in your fireplace -- you can't get any more energy out of water.
@@pedrotorres9836 Well the laws of thermodynamics have stood the test of time so far and trust me, there would be an impossibly large fortune to be made by anyone who found a way to violate them so you can bet *lots* have been trying. Until we have extraordinary proof of them being broken, don't go buying into any snake-oil claims by those who say they can use water as a fuel.
You can react magnesium or sodium with water though....
The most abundant fuel source on this blue planet and solar system too ,Oh wait let's waste all the isotopes made in particle colliders on nuclear weapons instead of allowing clean safe hydrogen generation! We're stupid to let it go on as far as we have. If not hydrogen why not further advance our sterling cycle generators like the Australian CSIRO did in the 90s using thermal salt and solar heat energy allowing portable 5kw electricity and water desalination for remote and indigenous communities . Too Derpy as a collective to care or want to change our dependency not only on oil but on idolizing the powerfull few elite actively or passively out of ignorance .
@@madsnoop7 What is _"the most abundant fuel source on this blue planet"_ ?
Wrong
Cavitation still requires a power source. Every water car has to be an electric car to split the water.
And the energy required to split the water will exceed that gained by splitting it. Always.
Depends on how reactions are catalyzed. HHO could be used to heat tungsten, and so on. There are ways that different fuels can be used more or less efficiently. Even a direct drive electric motor is going to have losses.
@@UncleKennysPlace except when you already have the excess power/voltage required to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen.....with any cars factory setup. (Alternator produces more than the car needs to keep the battery "topped off" even on short drives.....................)
@@mikeb4824 The alternator doesn't "produce" anything. It turns fuel into electricity. The crank is driven by the internal combustion, which drives the alternator. Trying to produce hydrogen by burning hydrogen and still have power to drive the car will never work. The energy to split the water will always be greater than the energy inside the cylinder.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD I really don't get why so many smart guys can't grip the concept of utilizing access power produced by the alternator.......THATS ALREADY BEING PRODUCED IN EXCESS TO INSURE BATTERY ALWAYS TOPPED OFF.......to split water by electrolysis. Does it take power to split the water .....of course. Does it cost less to split the water, than what it costs to power the alternator...... probably not. But if cars already have alternators anyways and you can easily tap some of that power to split water and burn it......what's so hard to understand. (The real issue is all the endoctrination to keep everyone's minds in a box). We were ALL lied to our entire lives......it's times to accept it and move on folks.
Great video Robert, I am interested in using the graphitic carbon nitride you mentioned in a previous video. The electrolytic splitting of water into hydrogen and oxygen is well known and being a very inefficient method of turning water into fuel. The only reason we would go down this path is the portability of a tank of hydrogen. Solid state hydrogen tanks offer the added safety of being explosion proof ( if ruptured they will burn but not explode ). To make enough hydrogen to the equivalent of a litre of petrol it consumes around 12.5 Kilowatt hours of electricity. That equates to roughly $3 AUD per litre. Then you can take the hydrogen and using a fuel cell generate electricity to run electric motors. Such a system would suffer a large energy loss in the process and the only advantage is that it is pollution free. In order to be more attractive we need to lower the cost of the electrical energy.
Yep. Virtually all of these systems lose energy. If only one was over-unity ... all energy issues would be immediately solved.
@@UncleKennysPlace can you give an example of over-unity in nature or in space?
Very interesting , thank you for posting !
To be honest, the idea of using a high voltage arc to create a cavitation bubble just sounds like using water as the working fluid still just like a steam engine. In all actuality it just becomes an electric car as whatever generated the electric arc would have been construed as the fuel. Just my two cents.
More efficient to put the electricity through a n electric motor. Same for the onboard electrolysis units, might as well take the internal combustion engine out and rum the battery to an electric motor.
@@ghz24 basically it works as an hybrid, if you time the electrolysis right you can probably use HHO to accelerate and gasoline to cruise, recharging the batteries through the alternator, and dropping the consumption quite a lot. Maybe it might have an advantage with weight and battery size over electric hybrids and get the same results. For the cavitation one i don't know, but in the end gasoline engines also needs high voltage arcs to work, and the resulting energy is enough to power the arcs and to charge the battery, other than pushing the vehicle, so maybe it could be worth to give it a try
@@giacomoneri1782 Internal combustion engines are 30% or less efficient. Anytime you trade a dollar for 30 cents it's a bad trade and the more you do it the more money you loose. If you use the alternator to charge the battery that makes hydrogen for fuel you are burning a dollar in fuel to make 30 cents worth of fuel. It's that simple.
Cavitation IS being used by some developers. Also, please discuss the Bob Boyce setup, as I believe that system differs from what is described here.
Bob Boyce is still using an electrolysis system...albeit a very efficient one....to split water into hydrogen/oxygen. That is very clearly stated in his website....
@@TheWingnut58 The problem with electrolysis is that not only is the efficiency below unity, it is far, far below unity.
@@UncleKennysPlace that may be true, or not....my "very efficient" comment was intended as relative to electrolysis systems in general. That being said, there are some things that obviously have not been made "public knowledge" in regards to modern electrolysis systems....there are systems today that are FAR more effective/efficient than what is "commonly understood". Most people rely on the efficiency ratings of a simple DC voltage with a set current applied to a simple electrolysis system much like a middle school science demonstration might employ. Bob Boyce, Stan Meyer, and others, have designed systems that use high frequency, plasma injection etc. that are capable of running high performance engines entirely on water as a fuel source and not just as an "mpg booster"..... Just for the record, I never mentioned "unity" or "over unity" at any point.....not even part of this conversation IMHO
"Hydroxy gas generation is based on catalytic technology. NOT electrolysis.- Bob Boyce
3:30
OK, Alright! I am working on the cavitation device right now. I have been busy!!! First I need about 1,000 Pistol Shrimp.
Brilliant, thank you.
I am interested.
cool
I keep telling people, "Water can't burn because it's already burned." But does anyone listen to me? No, they do not.
Very true, but there is the faint possibility of a deeper magic, in the form of nuclear fusion.
People have dreamed about alchemy since the dawn of times. Ans socialists continue to hallucinate that they can make something out of nothing. Same idiocy.
Water can be regarded as ash from the reaction between Hydrogen and Oxygen. Using water as an energy bearer, is as useful as using ash to fire up your BBQ
Water is fuel is possible but withthe expense of metal used to split water molecules.. so that cant be considered free as metals corrode.
@@xyz-sp9ht that's not "water as fuel", that's spending energy to crack water into hydrogen and then using the hydrogen as fuel. Very wasteful. You only get back a small fraction of the energy it took to dig the metals out of the ground. It would be much easier to crack methane into hydrogen and burn that. Or just burn natural gas.
Retired Archie Blue of new Zealand worked for an electroplating company, and he had increased their acid vats efficiency with piped in air bubbles. He later received U.S. Patent on improved electrolysis cell after converting (2) 4cyl and 1 six cylinder car so as they all ran successfully on water in tank. Process is speeded up when neutral air bubbles push upward through perforated holes of vertical stacked , horizontal +and - circular aluminum plates , by sweeping off the stuck ions of hydrogen and oxygen. The writeup did not include the mention of Nitrogen hydroxide fuel also being generated when an electrolyte ions solution has air introduced that has 78% Nitrogen. The 12v air pump blew air from cell top down to cell bottom and then filtered upward through staggard holes . Fuel gases evolved go to second safety water can with pop off cap, before hosed to engine.
I am a big fan of the compressed air pneumatic cars being sold in India these days. Evidently the key invention was a more efficient pneumatic motor to drive the vehicles. The operation of the high-pressure compressor also provided an alternative storage "battery" for solar electric cells and whatnot.
I really need to look into these. I was thinking a steam engine that had its pressure lowered so water boils at a temp lower than the ambient temp would be a cool design, but looking at heat pumps, the limit might be -21F, so you would still need a heat source, but a battery that runs that could provide heat as well, so...
I did some replications of some suspicious devices that I seen on the internet, I did find something that improved my gas mileage, I used stainless steel screen in a spiraled cylinder, the reactor cylinder was run in series with the engine cooling fan, this resulted in about 7 L per minute of gas, the car started at 21 miles per gallon, then I got around 30 to 31 miles per gallon, it appears that the fuel was all spent because the catalytic converter no longer got hot after this configuration, this was on a carburetor, I tried it with fuel injection and that didn't seem to result in any noticeable increase in mileage, the 14.7 to 1 fuel to air ratio set in stone by the computers get really confused.
Fuel injection is very difficult to manipulate in this manner if it is a narrowband O2 sensor system.
I don't believe your results are valid; to get seven litres per minute would require quite a huge current draw, and adding hydrogen (or hydrogen and oxygen) won't "improve" the burn of petrol, which is exceptional as it is. Also, a modern fuel injection system _will_ react properly to increased fuel input from another source.
@@UncleKennysPlace unless you have tried to replicate my equipment and results your point is not valid
Can you tell us more about your spiral reactor cylinder and was the power just straight wired 12 v DC voltage from the fan lead? Thanks.
@@yougeo yes, the chamber was in series with the fan, the electrodes are 316L stainless mesh .030 6" x 36" coiled like a battery, insulating separator is 1/4" plastic mesh. About every 400 miles I needed to add somewhere around a cup of water, the polarity is reversed upon every fill because some of my first prototypes would eat one of the electrodes .
Hi Rob, another fascinating video. I wonder, have you looked into the Hydrogen fuel cell Ie converting hydrogen into electricity? Seems to me the cost of the platinum membrane is the killer for home production. Anyway many thanks for the videos.
Buy a crashed FC car. Still, where would you be getting said hydrogen? It's not super cheap, and storage is problematic. In any case, you get more usable energy with a FC than by burning the stuff.
Also short life span and easy to damage. How to stop a over unity technology. Honey Pot, illegal loans, drug connections, litigation to make inventors bankrupt and threats, all else fails, end them. Stanley would not give up his electronic details and they went with litigation, then they ended him.
the main problem is life span of the cell : average 50k kilometers. Nowadays maybe more. And 50 percent of the fuel has to be cooled away ....... At least that was the case with the TU Delft fuel cell experimental car a couple of years ago.
@@UncleKennysPlace Alcohol, with an onboard cracking unit.
@@UncleKennysPlace Since there are very few FC cars, you will never come across a crashed one. A few might blow up, though.
I believe the problem with cavitation is the amount of pressure it generates on any given surface. Small cavitation breaks metal like a chissel. Imagine that happening at continuous RPM.....it would lead to mechanical failure of materials, and that not counting the watts needed to generate it on a constant basis.
Got a lot of your videos to catch up on bud but great stuff as always 😉 just fyi on the hho bubblers been playing with them for years. I haven't been able to consistently reproduce it as of yet but I did double my fuel mileage in 2002 F-150 (5.4L) pick-up with a home built bubbler. That was essentially a round trip from Houston to Des Moines Iowa. I can still increase the mpg but haven't doubled since that particular version. Talking about the Stan Myers system I've done a great deal of homework and consideration over the years. As near as I've been able to figure out it was a combination of the resonance and electrolysis in the same chamber. The resonance is actually dependant on maintaining a consistent or cascading em field coupled with the standard electrolysis. The tubes he used (I believe) were actually somehow shorting out to create a series effect instead of parallel on then he had just the right frequency in a square wave form for that exact model. As I said long time ago I quit school essentially in the 6th grade and just tinker but I'm pretty sure that's what actually happened with his dune buggy. Kind of like a freak storm etc all the variables were just right at just the right spot. The tubes are each individual so require specific frequency tuning which includes the mineral content of the water itself. I'm pretty sure at least a few of the "scams" were subject to the same situation and the rest were just outright b.s. overblown marketing 🤔 Either way that's all beyond my personal ability/resources to set up and do especially when they're going to change as they degrade under usage, including the water itself as the electrolyte ppm changes as well. So for me it's kinda like a cave man trying to tune a Tesla coil for a light and music show lol🤓 ..j.s.
They are wrong and technobabble doesn't change the rules of the universe.
I think sending a spark through water to vaporize it would be classified as an electric car, wouldn't it? Seems a lot simpler just to use that electricity to turn a motor. Water is just an unnecessary middle man.
Not if it's High voltage and low amps like the ark on an electric lighter or a spark plug, it will require way less power (wats)in terms of electrical energy than an electric car, what it's interesting is the energy surplus that can be used from the cavitation phenomenon
You're ignoring the fact that refilling a tank with water is a lot faster than recharging a battery pack with electricity. You are also ignoring the fact that using exploding water and using that energy to turn an ICE, you can use part of that energy to maintain a charged battery just as you do with petroleum ICEs. You are also ignoring the fact that the electric grid cannot handle charging a massive fleet of electric powered automobiles over night during low demand, let alone during the day during peak demand. In addition, if you have a substantial fleet of electric cars charging at night, the lower cost of nighttime electricity loses it's lower cost because the demand has increased. A water car, if possible, is therefore more advantageous than an electric car.
The water is only a mechanism to transfer energy, not a source of it. You can't get more energy out than you put in. Cavitation or no. There are certain applications for sudden spikes in potential, like ram pumps, which can lift water higher at the cost of wasting some of the water, and switching power supplies than can deliver higher than source voltage at the cost of less current, but that doesn't give you any more useful work than was originally available. You'd just have 2 things to recharge instead of one: a water tank and a battery.
@@VacuumTube88 Except that you need _a lot_ of cavitations, with each one taking low current but high voltage. There will be no "energy surplus"; there never is.
@@scotttovey Except that it cannot happen. Can. Not. Happen. As it takes more energy in that you get out. And the ICE would then be an ECM (external cavitation motor), right?
I saw a patent, which doesn't prove much but it showed when water under pressure passed over a heater of 3500f it would fracture the water and would be a self powered flame that could heat steam powered generator. Around 1954 and the Navy classified it's use, lol.
You're aware that the existence of a patent, being a publicly available document /that you have seen/, somewhat dispels the idea that "the powers that be" have "classified" or otherwise prohibited the dissemination or use of the information therein? My neighbour insists that pantone's patent has been "bought out" by some evil oil conglomerate in order to suppress its contents, and stop anyone ever being able to produce a water powered vehicle, because obvious reasons. He won't accept the clearly obvious fact that the patent is extant, and publicly available, and that anyone can use it as a base for some improved mechanism, makes that clim utterly ridiculous.
This video once again does a great job at really just summing up the most important things, while still being very informative. One thought I'd like to add though: Unless Hydrogen and Oxygen release more energy when reacting into water, than it takes to split those two apart from water, a motor won't be able to run as a closed system. And this is, I think, the most important part; unless you could just add water and run a car, any electrical fiddling around using energy to create Hydrogen would just add complexity and inefficiency. Now, I'm not sure if it applies, but wouldn't the above mentioned problem of energy held within the Hydrogen and Oxygen conflict with some law of thermodynamics? Also, is there even any potential chemical energy in water? I mean petrol reacts with oxygen and releases energy in an exothermic reaction, but what readily available resource would water react with in such fashion? Just some thoughts, feel free to point out any mistakes in my thinking. cheers
Water reacts with many alkali metals, but think about this: *_water is the ash of a hydrogen/oxygen fire._* That is, it's already burned.
You have a lot to learn, as we get close , we get subtle threatens. and that stops us from continuing. it is doable.
Well the cavitation engine that you describe still needs some other energy source to create the high voltage arc. Technically whatever produces energy for the high voltage arc is the fuel and water is just a propellant, like xenon in an ion engine. Which reminds me, could you build a microwave air ion thruster like the one from Wuhan University? doi: 10.1063/5.0005814
Exactly. The sum total of the energy such an engine would produce can only be equal to the energy put into the spark device,less efficiency losses. The water is just a medium ,no different than a steam engine (the execution is different)
it appears that plasma ion engines are in the forefront of space at present .therefore a vacuum sealed car engine with a plasma ignition should form ion disruption of that air within .on the basis of the joe papp. waiting for a good plasma circuit to have a go as the so called water inventors state its not .especially joe booker of lismore nsw my practical will seal the downpipe of exhaust just beyond the 4 finger and utilise a egr type engine and with the inlet sealed above the carburretor and as the ions form in a cylinder by the plasma they will disperse and reform within the egr .under vacuum no valve bounce can occur and no heat as the vacuum will allow cold running at warp speed revs logically by potentiometer or spark advance retard type throttle.. thats the plan now just need to know how to make the plasma .andrija puharich utilised a magnatron as did stan meyer REMEMBER AIR HAS INERT GASSES NITROGEN AND OKYGEN.HYDROGEN etc
It's interesting to watch Anthony Hopkins talk about this........😊
Very few companies are working on hydrogen combustion,because they all run into the problem that it is devilishly difficult to control the combustion and get a reliable,long lived ,efficient,engine. BMW threw millions of dollars (possibly billions) at the problem and seem to have given up. Hydrogen fuel projects are largely based on electrolytic fuel cells.
Can you list your sources on that? I would love to read up on their findings. I have read about a lot of problems with hydrogen but this is the first I ever heard about difficulty controlling combustion or longevity in their engines
@@ToneTruong Paul G probably can not. I think he is talking out of his ass.