Posted on 05/23/2006 9:27:27 AM PDT by floridaobserver
Though the developer of a technology that uses water to produce a flammable gas says it provides a solution to high gas prices plaguing the nation, detractors claim the businessman's idea is a scam.
Denny Klein is president of Hydrogen Technologies Applications in Clearwater, Fla. His patented machine uses an electrical charge to separate the atoms of H2O into HHO, a gas he calls "Aquygen."
"You get a huge energy response," Klein told the Tampa Tribune. "But this gas is very, very safe."
He first used the fuel to power a welding tool, but soon tried it out in a hybrid automobile.
The flame, though on its own registers just 259 degrees Fahrenheit, heats up to the melting point of whatever substance it touches, explained Steve Lusko, project manager for Hydrogen Technologies Applications.
"For example, when you ignite our flame and touch it to steel, it will cut right through it at 1,400 degrees," Lusko told WND.
"It will melt a hole right through a brick at 4,500 degrees. … It reacts to whatever it touches."
So, Lusko says, the gas has the ability to bond to whatever fuel it is mixed with, like gasoline in a hybrid car.
"Upon combustion, you get a dramatic increase in energy BTUs," he said, "and you get an equally dramatic decrease in emission pollution, because the burn is so highly efficient, what would have come out of the tailpipe as an emission ends up getting burned up and used."
An "electrolyzer" in Klein's 1994 Ford Escort uses electricity from the alternator to initiate the electrolysis process to make the HHO gas out of water, explained Lusko. That gas is then pumped to the manifold and into the gas tank.
"The gas then bonds with the gasoline in the gas tank," Lusko said, "and then upon combustion, that's when you get the reaction, giving you higher gas mileage and cleaner emissions."
Why not run a car with exclusively HHO gas?
"We have combustion engines here that have run completely on our Aquygen," Lusko said, "but it would be a matter of engineering."
Lusko says in tests the mileage of the hybrid vehicle has improved anywhere from 25 to 53 percent.
Stange, the link works for me.
http://www.cycclonemagneticengines.com/videos/cycc_20031125-56Kbps.wmv
I don't I saw it on local news. Sorry. Maybe you can do a search and find them. It really was amazing what these guys have come up with. They also said the batteries last 10 yrs. When you do a search remember they're in California.
"Forgive me, oh Potentate of Potential Energy."
Oh, I am unworthy of such praise.
I am merely a petroleum engineer. My savage people call gaseous H2O "steam."
It's bunk.
Read up on the history of aviation. Many engineers were working on powered flight. It was hardly seen as an impossibility by those "in the know". The fact that a few "experts" called it impossible doesn't mean that people working in the field of expertise (there was alot of flying going on at the time, alot of gliders were being studied, that flew for thousands of feet with a human aboard) thought it was impossible.
"In this Fox Report, it is said that the gas temperature will go up as high as the surface of the Sun."
Obviously an early model of a "Mister Fusion" device.
It is fairly easy to explain why this won't work.
Energy released from a chemical reaction can be easily calcuated by measuring the change in enthalpy (internal energy plus system pressure times system volume) between the reactants and reaction products. Talbes of these values at varying pressures can be easily located, since they are used all the time by chemists and engineers.
In the article, the inventor claims that this "HHO" always reacts with substances so that the substance locally (in the area of the reaction) reaches its melting point. Also, it is clear that the only possible products are metal hydrides, metal oxides, and water vapor.
We can take two metals, such as aluminum and iron, and easily find the delta-H (change in enthalpy) necessary to raise samples of the respective metals to their melting temperatures. This number should be equal to the sum of the enthalpies of "aqualyne" and aluminum/iron, minus the enthalpies of the products.
We can rearrange the equation to find the value of the enthalpy of aqualyne by subtracting the enthalpy of the metal in question, aluminum or tungsten, from the sum of the enthalpies of the products and delta-H.
If we do this, we will get two different values for the enthalpy of aqualyne. This is impossible. Thus, aqualyne is not a real material. :)
"You guys should take notice that aside from yourselves, the only other people treating this as plausible are the dumbest people in the world (i.e., TV journalists)."
You should take notice that the brightest people in the world once thought.
the world was flat
Man can't fly
Space travel is impossible
They turned out to be idiots too.
You bring up a great point, and something I never knew before about just what "octane" means...
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question90.htm
So even if the explosive capability of gas is replaced the issue of controlling it under compression is another engineering hurdle. Sounds like a new type of engine is required. I wish I was smart...
Scam... Whooops, nevermind. It is called a Jet Ski
Not idiots, just ignorant.
Or as some of us in the hill say, "ignert" :)
from Wiki:"It is commonly assumed that people from early antiquity generally believed the world was flat, but by the time of Pliny the Elder (1st century) its spherical shape was generally acknowledged. At that time Ptolemy derived his maps from a curved globe and developed the system of latitude and longitude (see clime). His writings remained the basis of European astronomy throughout the Middle Ages."
So basically most intelligent people knew that the world was round.
Man can't fly, I dealt with in an earlier post. Man was "flying" since the 1850's, in GLIDERS, these same guys ALL were working on powered flight. People around the modern world were working on it.
Impossibility of space flight.
Who really thought that? Who thought that it violated the laws of physics? The problems with flight, and Space Flight, were ones of achieving the right power/weight ratios. Difficult with the technologies of the time, but not seen as impossible.
Spoken like one of those guys who told the Wright Brothers,..."If man were meant to fly, he'd have wings."
No, spoken like one of those guys who knows physics and chemistry, as well as the techniques and hallmarks of con men.
But hey, you go right ahead and send this guy your $7000, so I can laugh at you when it doesn't deliver what he promises.
And I wrote that before I went to look at the "scientific paper" on their website. It's complete gobbledygook. It frequently confuses watts with watt-hours (something a freshman physics student would get an "F" for). It claims a lab "measured the specific weight" of their magic substance as "12.3 grams/mole", when that's entirely the wrong units for specific weight (specific weight is measured per *volume*, not molecule count), *and* that value would imply that a substantial amount of mass is vanishing into thin air (instead of mysteriously *appearing* as they incorrectly say), since water in any form or any rearrangement of its atoms will have a molar weight (*NOT* "specific weight", which is something else entirely) of 18 grams/mole. They then go on to incorrectly calculate the "specific weight" of a *mixture* of different molecules (that's a no-no) by figuring the *average* molar mass, which makes no sense whatsoever. Then they do an apples-to-oranges comparison and subtract the bogus average molar mass of the mixture from the alleged molar mass of their magic gas to "show" that mass has somehow "increased", when all they've really shown is that if you juggle numbers in a nonsensical way you'll get nonsensical and meaningless "answers".
Then there's this lulu:
The first remarkable feature is the efficiency E of the electrolyzer for the production of the gas, here simply defined as the ratio between the volume of HHO gas produced and the number of Watts needed for its production. In fact, the electrolyzer rapidly converts water into 55 standard cubic feet (scf) of HHO gas at 35 pounds per square inch (psi) via the use of 5 Kwh, resulting in the remarkable efficiency of 55/5,000 = 0.001 scf/W, namely, an efficiency that is at least of the order of ten times the corresponding efficiency of conventional water evaporation, thus permitting low production costs.Um, "water evaporation"? I thought they were claiming some sort of *electrolysis*. Did they just admit that all they're doing is producing water vapor, or are they just too stupid to understand the difference between evaporation and electrolysis? Furthermore, an "efficiency" of 0.001 scf/W ([sic] -- yet again they're cluelessly shifting back and forth between watts and watt-hours -- this one should have been "W-h" not "W", because it makes no freaking sense the way it's written) is truly crappy, not the "remarkable efficiency" they spin it as -- if you used a standard hotplate, you could evaporate over a hundred times that much water per watt-hour of energy. And while they're trying to spin 5 Kwh as a tiny trickle of energy, it's *huge* -- it's the amount of energy you'd use to run a space heater for HOURS. Imagine that kind of drain on your car's electrical system...
And so on. The whole paper's a word salad of fancy-sounding terms and numbers which make no sense when you take the time to actually read them.
Here's another howler from their website:
This unique gas is infinitely stable until it comes in contact with a select target media. Then it sublimates, causing a molecular surface exchange of certain elements, reacting with such excitation as to cause temperatures of up to 10,000° F, [...]Man, where do I start? First, if it's "infinitely stable", then it won't react at all, but they're claiming it does, so it's not infinitely stable after all. Then they say it "sublimates" -- um, no it doesn't. They say it's a gas -- gases can't sublimate. Sublimation is the name for the process which occurs when a SOLID turns into a gas without going through a liquid state in between (like the way dry ice evaporates directly without melting into a liquid). There's no way that they can produce a gas and then have it "sublimate" -- this makes no freaking sense.
As for the "demos", there's plenty of ways to rig them. I note that the two car "tests" involved a direct injection into the engine's intake ports. Given the short length of the tests (50 miles), which would involve only two gallons of gas consumption for the car *without* any assistance, it would take only a gallon or two of conventional fuel smuggled into the engine from one of the mysterious tanks in that big box-of-junk they claim is their mystery generator in order to boost the "fuel efficiency" of the car by 50% to 100%.
As for the welding trick, if they injected excess oxygen into their mix (beyond what their fuel actually consumed when completely burning), the flame itself could be relatively cool (depending on what they were actually using for fuel), but the moment it touched something that could be oxidized, the heat of the flame would trigger rapid oxydation of the material, and it would fiercely flare up like, well, something burning in pure oxygen. Ta daa!
Why wait? It has already been posted -- and debunked -- several times here on FR -- including here.
Oh, I almost forgot: "Hello there!"...
Good post, engineer?
I haven't looked up the data in any of my textbooks, but IIRC more energy is required to 'break' a water molecule than would be created by combusion of the 2H & O.
Their 'welding' is plain funny. Perhaps we should start selling bridges, snake oil, magic beans, and AZ ocean-front property????
Who really thought that? Who thought that it violated the laws of physics?
Well, there was this moron:
That Professor Goddard with his "chair" in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react--to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools...In short, he was saying that rocket travel was impossible because in the vacuum of space it would have nothing to "push against", and that even schoolchildren should know this...
-- New York Times editorial, 1921.
But then again, since that moron was an editorial writer and not an actual expert, that just proves the wisdom of Sloth's original comment: "You guys should take notice that aside from yourselves, the only other people treating this as plausible are the dumbest people in the world (i.e., TV journalists)." TV journalist, newspaper editorialist -- same difference.
Funny how this sort of *science* was applied to all the tin-hat WTC theories as well, no?
Why wait? It has already been posted -- and debunked -- several times here on FR -- including here. (--Fixed the link--).
Oh, I almost forgot: "Hello there!"...
LOL. I said the same thing in post #46.
The New York Times, wrong then, wron now..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.