Please Register and login to reply and use other advanced options
Posted by muser on August 8, 2008, 3:39 pm
I recently saw this on youtube which had this segement on fox news,
which shows jimmy kline demostrate his invention.
what i would like to know is, is the EROEI sustainable along the
what is the seperation energy of hydrogen and oxygen in norm water\ or
Posted by spaco on August 11, 2008, 12:03 am
Just another "overunity" scheme. The separation energy is the cost of
the their marketing program to separate your money from you.
Take the link yourself and look at some of the "scam" videos, related
to that search, too.
Or join the perpetual motion machine movement.
Look, if you are going to seriously try this idea out, go and get some
statistics training first. I have talked to several people who are
either excited about the concept or have tried it out. They say such
things as "well, I got xx better mileage on my last tank, but this one
wasn't so good" or "it used to work but now the car's computer must be
fouling it up", my battery runs down all the time now, etc...
People often ask me to evaluate these concepts (note that I was
polite and did not call them "schemes"). I have not yet seen any
statistically sound evidence that they output any more total energy than
Here's a test plan for you:
Run your car for at least 10 tanks of fuel over a known course, with
known wind speeds, etc. Then run the car with the XX hydrogen
generator for 10 tanks over the same course, same driver, same wind,
etc. Average all the data from both tests sets. Now let's see if
there's any difference. If the differences is less than 3 or 4
percent, then there is NO statistical difference. If the difference is
greater than 3 or 4 percent, then let us know which way the test went.
I'd love to believe that this system works. But----- the only way it
can work is if the hydrogen changes the way that an internal combustion
engine converts that fuel to energy. (Now remember that there is plenty
of hydrogen in the hydrocarbon fuels we already burn, so don't betum
ranch on this too fast).
I have a feeling that there are some well meaning but misdirected
folks out there who think they've really got something, but that doesn't
make it right.
Simple electroysis is typically about 25% efficient just for starters.
I have seen systems using high voltage pulsed DC that claim up to 90%
efficiency, but that's still well under 100%. Even that is only "break
Posted by muser on August 14, 2008, 11:38 pm
could those who have genuinely claimed to have achieve near break even
efficiency or results that had allowed to them to believe hydrogen was
a viable alternative to fuel. Is it possible that somehow in their
experiment that they were able to convert hydrogen to helium? and if
so is helium anymore effective fuel than hydrogen?
Posted by Eeyore on August 16, 2008, 12:25 am
Didn't know how to use measuring equipment properly.
No not remotely.
Helium is not a fuel. It is totally inert.
Posted by muser on August 16, 2008, 9:05 am
I shouldn't really respond to a troll, but if helium can't be used for
energy purposes why are scientists suggesting mining the moon for the
helium 3 for those reasons?