PDA

View Full Version : I've got this idea...



bri-rock
06-12-2008, 09:01 PM
I don't think it's necessarily all that original, but I haven't found any one else doing it yet. It's all about how I think that I can squeeze more mileage out of the LS1 in my 67 (which is a work in progress by the way).

I base this on the following knowns:
1. Higher compression ratios give greater efficiency (some books I have indicate roughly 3% for every 1.0 increase in the compression ratio.)
2. Forced induction further increases the compression ratio. i.e. 10psi of boost would theoretically increase the compression ratio. My LS1 is 10.5. With 10 psi, I calculate 10/14.7 + 1= 1.68
1.68 * 10.5 = effective CR of 17.6.
3. Running a lean A/F ratio is economical, but increases the risk of detonation (plus the formation of additional NOx)

If I combined all three of these, I think we can all be certain that my engine would destroy itself from detonation. The introduction of water/methanol injection would be my solution to this problem. I figure that water/meth connected as a fail-safe to cool the charge would allow me to side-step the risk of detonation. If there is a problem with the water/meth system, the AF ratio mapping in the program would revert to something safer and the boost somehow restricted. I am also figuring that this would cool the charge enough to reduce the formation of the NOx.

Okay, now everybody please poke some holes in this plan. I would really appreciate the feedback.

Fuelie Fan
06-13-2008, 01:12 PM
Not new. Alcohol kits have (or should have) level sensors that inform the ecu when it is low. It's not a common feature, but some ecus can use this input to alter fueling. Also, lean cruise is not new either. Sorry!

TonyL
06-13-2008, 01:18 PM
Yeppers. This is currently in use by many trying to not run an intercooler system on turboed cars. The principle is still the same though in a non pressurized car.

Even the guys running an HHO system in their car are using a modified MAP sensor controller to run lean on the road to squeeze out every last MPG.

bri-rock
06-13-2008, 02:37 PM
Great! Thanks for the feedback.

TonyL
06-13-2008, 03:06 PM
On a sort of related note. My coworker is running a HHO generator in his car and is getting 20 more mpg out of it than without it. I thought this was total bullcrap when I heard about it. (google it or search for HHO generator on Youtube.) This technology will work on ANY engine.

look at water4gas.com for details. It's worth a shot. And I can personally vouch for my guy's results.

CarlC
06-13-2008, 03:09 PM
Already been done, and using your MP122 on an LS1 GTO.

Check out Hot Rod magazine a year or so back. They did a series of performance upgrades ending with the MP122 + meth. It had something like 600RWHP and drove like a kitten.

bri-rock
06-13-2008, 05:11 PM
Tony, I personally continue to believe that HHO is too good to be true. Now, I don't believe everything that I read in Wikiopedia, but please note the excert below from there in regards to HHO.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxyhydrogen&action=edit&section=6)] Automotive

Oxyhydrogen is often mentioned in conjunction with devices that claim to increase automotive engine efficiency. See water-fuelled car (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car)
Many of these claims, prima facie, violate the Law of conservation of energy. See Conservation of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy) and Electrolysis of water:Efficiency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency). To date, all of these claims have been fraudulent.


If it takes a certain amount of energy to break the bonds between oxygen and hydrogen, you can't get more energy back when they combust and make water again.

Even that website water4gas.com has "scam" written all over it. Lots of pseudo-science and flashy pictures.

TonyL
06-13-2008, 05:26 PM
That's what I thought too. Understand that HHO isnt what the car is running on. It's simply drawing what little HHO is produced into the combustion cycle. HHO is both burnable and an oxidizer. It causes the gasoline that is used in your engine to burn more completely, thus giving you more efficiency. For all the science and back and forth on it, I'll tell you this. My man who's actually done this mod to his car, has spent 60 bucks on parts only. No one scammed him out of anything.

He installed it in his corolla. He used to get 340 miles on a tank of gas. As of right now, today, He has burned 1/4 of a tank of gas and gone 130 miles. No changes in driving habit or where he has gone. this is his commuter car to and from work only. at thjs point, he'll go over 500 miles on this tank of gas. That's a verifiable improvement, that i've seen with my own two eyes. As hard as it is to believe it. (and Im a skeptic. really.) I have to say that this does, in fact seem to work. Testing is still in progress.

I've been insanely critical of this. And have not mentioned it here until I had seen it for myself.

TonyL
06-13-2008, 05:28 PM
here's a youtube video of my guy's setup.
He's attempting to put together a little free tutorial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk4gIioSMmk

cantvalve16
06-14-2008, 12:23 PM
I have been researching the whole HHO thing myself. Pretty close to trying it out myself on my wife's Corolla, then on my truck.

wills55
06-14-2008, 12:41 PM
if there is a place where I can get instructions on how to set up a system then Ill try it out on my DD Toyota Avalon, I already have a bio-diesel setup on the back portch for the truck and its helping ALOT with price of diesel. not bad making 1gal of bio-diesel for approx $0.70. hell, its awesome when diesel is $5.00/gal here in Miami!

TonyL
06-14-2008, 12:45 PM
The instructions are all over the web. There's a ton of tutorials on youtube. and there's the formentioned water4gas site.

Note that the site does use the word "scam" what is being referred to is the fact that most people are selling complete systems for thousands of dollars when you can build it for 30 or 40 bucks in parts from radio shack and home depot. That's the "scam" they are poking fun at.

bri-rock
06-15-2008, 08:19 PM
Tony, you've peaked my interest. I decided to conduct an experiment. Today, I made one of these things using 4" ABS pipe, 1/2" stainless allthread, etc. I just finished hooking it up to my F-150 which is my daily driver. I have nearly a full tank of gas. Give it a week and I'll let you know what happened.

I think I may have to add some more baking soda as the gas production of the unit doesn't seem to be very high to me (about one bubble per second). Any suggestions?

TonyL
06-15-2008, 09:53 PM
My guy is using the stainless lightswitch plates in his. He used some baking soda and some PH reducer for aquariums in his water.

jerome
06-16-2008, 08:47 PM
using electricity creates mechanical drag at the alternator...are you telling me that you extract more energy from the water by creating hydrogen and and oxygen (and then burning it) than the mechanical energy required to generate the electricity?

mechanical--->electrical--->chemical--->mechanical

that cycle gains energy? that just makes no sense to me.

Now a solar panel as a hood creating electricity to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen would help...but I don't think it creates nearly enough H & O to help mileage a noticeable amount.

Jerome

HsvToolFool
06-19-2008, 09:05 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_enhancement



Automotive fuel enhancement systems inject either a hydrogen-rich mixture, or pure hydrogen into the intake manifold of the engine. In some cases, this is combined with air/fuel ratio, and timing modifications. A small amount of hydrogen added to the intake air-fuel charge permits the engine to operate with leaner air-to-fuel mixture than otherwise possible. As the air/fuel mix approaches 30:1 the temperature of combustion substantially decreases effectively mitigating NOx production.

Under idle conditions power is only required for extraneous components other than the drive train, therefore fuel consumption can be minimized. A 50% reduction in gasoline consumption at idle was reported by numerically analyzing the effect of hydrogen enriched gasoline on the performance, emissions and fuel consumption of a small spark-ignition engine.

Under most loads near stoichiometric air/fuel mixtures are still required for normal acceleration, although under idle conditions, reduced loads and moderate acceleration hydrogen addition in combination with lean burn engine conditions can guarantee a regular running of the engine with many advantages in terms of emissions levels and fuel consumption.

Increases in engine efficiency are more dominant than the energy loss incurred in generating hydrogen. This is specifically with regard to use of a hydrogen reformer. Overall computational analysis has marked the possibility of operating with high air overabundance (lean or ultra-lean mixtures) without a substantial performance decrease but with great advantages on pollution emissions and fuel consumption.

TonyL
06-19-2008, 10:59 AM
using electricity creates mechanical drag at the alternator...are you telling me that you extract more energy from the water by creating hydrogen and and oxygen (and then burning it) than the mechanical energy required to generate the electricity?

mechanical--->electrical--->chemical--->mechanical

that cycle gains energy? that just makes no sense to me.

Now a solar panel as a hood creating electricity to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen would help...but I don't think it creates nearly enough H & O to help mileage a noticeable amount.

Jerome

Actually, there's no noticable drag on the alternator running this setup. Certainly none more than running a fan or stereo in the car.
It's not an arc welder in that jar. It takes very little electricity to cause this type of reaction. Can you increase the reaction to get a more violent and faster extraction of hydrogen? Im sure you could. The point is, this system is *so* dialed back, turned so far down, that it makes just enough to improve the mileage. Im not saying I understand the science. Just the results. Dude is getting better milage now. Signifigantly so. Check it yourself. Materials cost around 40 dollars, if that.

bri-rock
06-19-2008, 11:40 AM
Tony, if I'm reading that wiki insert correctly, I will only realize the fuel savings if I modify my air/fuel ratio. So, supposedly the hydrogen offers some sort of anti-detonation effect when running lean? or is it more of a catalyst?

Regarding your buddy: did he modify his A/F ratio?

Quick snapshot on my fuel mileage with 1/2 a tank of gas consumed since the install of the unit: so far my gas mileage is exactly the same.

I wonder how many cubic inches/min of hydrogen is necessary to actually have an impact.

TonyL
06-19-2008, 12:47 PM
he does use a box that is spliced into his map sensor.

It's in his youtube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trhz11JW3G4

He's in the middle of adding two more "jars" to his setup. We'll keep you posted. he's supposed to have it done this weekend.

(note. Mike's deaf. Hence his way of speaking.)

streetk14
06-19-2008, 05:26 PM
Back to the Magnacharger and high-compression setup........that's very similar to what I have in my 67 Camaro. LS1 short block with COMP XER cam, ported LQ9 heads, and 10 psi from 122 magnacharger. I lowered the compression to about 9.75:1 to be safe, but I will probably bring it up if I ever get some new heads. I will also probably do methanol injection eventually also.

As far as good gas mileage, I'm doubt it's improved since I added the blower, but it burns off the tires from a 50 mph roll now in 2nd gear. I'll have to see what it gets on the freeway next time I take it somewhere out of town. I'd like to think it will get 25 mpg on the freeway with the motor chugging below 2000 rpm at around 80 mph.

Andy

Bow Tie 67
06-20-2008, 09:45 AM
After $70 plus to fill last night and some preliminary research.

Bada-Bing!!

http://waterpoweredcar.com/hydrobooster2.html

I'm leaning toward this design. Hydrogen is 130+ octane

Chewy72ss
06-23-2008, 11:58 AM
I am seriously considering the HHO electrolysis design. There is an 82 Malibu 6cyl. around for a couple hundred bucks...might have to pick it up as a test car.

I've always dreamed of insane (good insane) gas mileage with an exhaust note!

bri-rock
06-25-2008, 07:21 PM
Well, after a tank of gas on my homemade electrolysis (HHO) system, the results are in. I usually get 16 to 18 mpg on my F-150. With the electrolysis system in place I achieved 17.2 mpg.

A few things that could have affected that result:
1. It's been bloody hot in Southern Cal for these past 2 weeks. I've been using the AC more than usual.
2. The surface area of the elecrodes in my system are about half of Tony's buddy's system (stainless allthread versus stainless switch plates).

Besides those things, not sure what else could be the problem. The truck doesn't "feel" any different to me. It's not smoother when accelerating. It doesn't feel more powerful. Oh well, it was worth the trip to Home Depot just to have a go.

Anybody else have first hand experience with these things?

Chewy72ss
06-26-2008, 03:09 AM
^Eh. Although those results are somewhat discouraging, I still want to try it!! I want to try a 9-11 plate cell, using 316L stainless plates (about 2"x6" each). Much more surface area, and at around 20amps, should produce a fairly good amount of HHO.

bri-rock, did you use any electrolyzer, such as baking soda or vinegar??

bri-rock
06-26-2008, 07:50 AM
I used baking soda.

68sixspeed
06-26-2008, 04:40 PM
I'm a total sceptic, but my curiousity is up after talking with 3 people that are experimenting on beater cars/trucks, they are seeing 15-25% gains. Who knows if it has a long term negative, or what you do in the winter in the north, but it is interesting to watch and learn.

TonyL
06-26-2008, 04:43 PM
Now mike (the guy here) has added two more bottles and a fuel line heater to his system.

Kinda the antithesis of our usual idea to cool fuel to get more of it in the combustion chamber. the idea here is to use as little as possible and still get a good burn.

There is a LOT of difference in the types of stainless, wire, allthread or plates relative to how much HHO is produced. It's all about surface area.

dhondagod
06-27-2008, 02:40 AM
Sanding the surface of the SS improves HHO output as well...

(was going to stay out of this but I too have a friend messing with this)

My buddy wasent getting alot of bubbles untill he did that. No performance reports as of yet as he hasent got it under the hood yet.

His is SS washers from Home Depot... Ill probley build one tomorrow just so I can mess with one of my own and not wait for him


Chris

Chewy72ss
06-27-2008, 04:11 AM
Anyone have any ideas on how perferated stainless would perform, rather than solid plate? By the numbers, there is less surface area, but I think the holes would aid in bubble production.

dhondagod
06-27-2008, 08:41 AM
A glass/plastic bucket of water, SS plates, some jumper wires and a battery is all you need to find out....


Chris

4OfaKind
06-27-2008, 01:53 PM
Found this pic on the net:

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

Is this all you need in a nutshell or is there more to it than this?

Mal

TonyL
06-27-2008, 02:09 PM
whats missing from that image is the control module you'll need to change the air fuel ratio. It's a box that splices into the map sensor and then allows you to lean out your mix.

bri-rock
06-27-2008, 06:39 PM
Tony, Isn't leaning out the AF and using the HHO introducing two variables at once? How can we know that the AF ratio change alone didn't effect the mpg? I would invite your friend to disconnect the HHO and use his box for leaning out the mix only to see if the mpg's are the same.

Chewy72ss
06-27-2008, 07:02 PM
I'm pretty sure that is where most of the mileage gains come from. Leaning the mixture is (obviously) using less fuel, and the HHO is compensating, or taking the place of the fuel (gasoline in this case) you just leaned out of the mixture. Although, HHO gas is a much more potent fuel, therefore burns more efficiently. There are probably many variables that go with mileage gains. I'm still new at this, and have much to learn. Just my thoughts...

Jim Nilsen
06-30-2008, 07:14 AM
I was checking out a video of another invention that was an over-unity power supplier. The engineers went and made a new formula and are working with changes to see if they match the changes with the results. It seems that the over 100 year old formulas are totally wrong. It doesn't matter if it is wind,water,magnetics or solar there are people getting 200% to 700% increases in power output compared to power in.

All of you sceptics out there better get with the new formula or you will be left behind. I saw saltwater on fire all from an accident from an experiment to create a way to kill cancer. It burns more than hot enough to boil water at very low input. I also saw 1.7gal. of water get heated from 100 degrees F to 184 degrees F with a 9 volt battery and a pulse generator that was made for almost nothing in 2min. These are not gimmicks ,they are breakthroughs we can all get free energy from with the right setups.

Just Google up OVERUNITY or OVER UNITY alternative energy and you will get educated into the 21st century. The law of energy conservation is 19th or older and was out of date as soon as people were smart enough not to use it :twothumbs

The brainwashing we have all had from big oil and poor schools has led us into fossil fuel slavery and that is just the way they still want to keep it. They want to keep us divided so we can't unite and have free energy. There is even legislation that prohibits the use of some types of alternative energy that is backed up by old school beliefs that it is inefficient compared to new tech.

I have seen enough and have heard enough to finally free myself from the "it's impossible " mentality and am going to start doing what I can to get all of the free cheap energy out there the same way others are doing it and succeeding. Sometimes all it takes to get hot water is to put the hose in the sun and make use of it but we are too brainwashed to do it . We can build cars but we still don't utilize the power of the wind and the sun:headbang:

I know some of you will want to argue the point till you die. Just go look for about a week and come back and say that all of the people doing it are wrong. It was an awakening for me as to how much more is out there than I ever knew existed. It also seems that all of the stupidity is here in the U.S. and most of the headway is made outside of the U.S.

Jim Nilsen
07-02-2008, 06:47 AM
Anyone have any ideas on how perferated stainless would perform, rather than solid plate? By the numbers, there is less surface area, but I think the holes would aid in bubble production.

There is a Youtube from a guy who used 2 tea strainers that were just wire tied together and the thing just turned into a cloud of gas. With the wire mesh it really had some surface area and less displacement.

jerome
07-02-2008, 02:06 PM
It boggles my mind that people believe such garbage.
You may think everyone else out there is stupid, but its the people that believe this kind of horse**** that are getting conned. It's so easy for them to con people, cause people want so bad for something to be a miracle breakthrough that they can themselves use...sadly it's always to profit the originator, leaving these supporters stranded.


Always look for the hidden agenda, whether it's global warming, penis enlargement, perpetual motion, or miracle energy.

People have been conning the needy and uninformed with psuedo-science for a long time. Believing and finding "evidence" in what you want to believe is natural.

PS Brown's Gas to power cars, and pulse electrolysis as miracle fuel sources are both frauds.

TonyL
07-02-2008, 03:32 PM
really jerome? despite the fact that I've seen it work myself? Or the fact that the only people who profited from the experiment was the hardware store? He's getting over a 10mpg improvement with three bottles hooked up. How do you explain that? How's there a hidden agenda? who profited the most from it?

/It must be the stainless lightswitch cover makers! That's it!
//It isnt' pseudoscience when it's been proven by method.

jerome
07-02-2008, 04:46 PM
This is copied from your friend's youtube:

UPDATE 6/11/08. After installing the map sensor ehancer in vid #2. I have used 1/4 tank exactly and gone 93 miles? If I'm right, these vehicles are set to get around 250 miles average per tank full??? Yes, I looked at the tank under the car, it's squared. 93 miles times 4 quarters of gas = 372 miles... NAH, it can't be that good... I'm only using 1 jar right now. I wonder what 3 jars will do? Let's finish this test first. We'll see... I could be wrong. Stay tuned!
update 6/11/08: O.k., I stand corrected. I was told that over 300 miles (was wrong at 275) on a tank of fuel is about right for this car. Now, I'll be able to sleep tonight. Otherwise, I would have to answer more questions then I would want/need to...
UPDATE 6/14/08: Well, usually I would be at half a tank on fridays. It's about in between 3/4 and half now at 145 miles. But, it could be that I haven't been watching the gauge usages closely till I started this too. So, we'll see.
Updated 6/15/08. I couldn't wait any longer. 181.2 miles divided by 5.94 gals = 30.50 MPG. That's an increase of 4 MPG!!! Now I'm going to add 2 more jars, fuel heater, and xylene to fuel. So it will take several days to rig it up and give you another result.

------------------------------------------------
I assume he filled up, noted his odometer, drove 181.2 miles, and filled up again, noting that he pumped 5.94 gallons.

He did not seem to do a baseline test of his mpg, instead basing his 4mpg increase on either the quoted EPA mpg or an anecdotal 300miles per tank baseline.

Here are the EPA ratings for a 1996 corrola (correct me if i'm completely off on the year): http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/14264.shtml

They quote 29 mpg for combined highway/city driving. Obviously your mileage may vary, and my estimate on the year of his corolla could make things a bit different.

Driving route, temperature (both filling & operating), habits, and acceleration rates added together can affect MPG by at least 4mpg. Turning air conditioning on blows the test, even a properly functioning compressor can affect the mpg by a huge amount.

The shutoff at the tip of the pump can shutoff at a varying levels, not guaranteeing that you actually burned the number of gallons indicated by the pump.

Even under the assumptions that your buddy did everything precisely (not using " I was told that over 300 miles (was wrong at 275) on a tank of fuel is about right for this car" or EPA estimates) using the pump as a gauge for fuel consumed and odometer for miles, you can arrive at imprecise calculated MPG due to driving conditions, small test sample (only 6 gallons), and low measuring accuracy. This is not mentioning the tester having a vested interest in the success of his experiment, possibly subconsciously/consciously altering driving habits, especially when in the mindset of saving gas.

I'm not saying your friend is lying. I'm saying his test is nowhere near "proven by method".

And the agenda? Profit those who push it. water4gas.com, a site you linked earlier profits by selling books for $97. This book deal also includes a "free" plan for a "water car" which runs completely on water. If that doesn't scream scam, I dunno what does.

I feel like I'm getting trolled, but I think that you actually believe this...

I'm not gonna argue on here to prove why electrolysis of water to provide fuel does not give you better gas mileage. Do some research yourself. It's pure snake oil. Electrolysis is high school science. Unfortunately the same people that are dazzled by it did not learn high school science.

Jerome

paul67
07-03-2008, 11:10 AM
I heard about this 30+yrs ago by an aircraft engineer working in aus for an airline which tried it but found after long term use they had an increase in corrosion in the engines.This was when the 70s fuel crisis was going on.

Jim Nilsen
07-04-2008, 05:06 AM
I heard about this 30+yrs ago by an aircraft engineer working in aus for an airline which tried it but found after long term use they had an increase in corrosion in the engines.This was when the 70s fuel crisis was going on.

That's back when they had steel valves instead of stainless steel valves. When they made us go to unleaded gas they went to stainless.

There are people right now working on an additive to help older engines.

Hi Jerome, The longer you keep using bad examples to make your point most people will believe you but that doesn't make you and all of those people correct it just makes you all in the same technological age you want to be in. I can remember a lot of people who still live in the seventies and keep wondering where all of the special things are that were going to come out of the space race that was going to improve our lives. These people usually took forever to buy a microwave and are still afraid of a computer in most cases.

There is a Coast to Coast interview on youtube that is in 4 parts. I would really suggest to everyone who is interested to listen to them. It is being done very successfully if done right and they explain in good language what that means.

A guy once told me I couldn't put 85 vette suspension on my 67 but it didn't stop me and he was wrong !!!!

And just so you know, I think most all of us here were above average in science including yourself but that doesn't makes us the rulers of what is possible and what is not just because science hasn't taught us any better ,that's why we they call them hypothesis and experiments = results.

Jim Nilsen
07-05-2008, 06:10 AM
I hope this works.

here is the youtube of salt water burning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_67-3NlkpU&feature=related


You should check out the cloaking videos, they will really blow your mind as to what is now possible.

Bad Bird
07-05-2008, 12:17 PM
The law of energy conservation is 19th or older and was out of date as soon as people were smart enough not to use it

What an absolute load of garbage. Conservation of Energy (in a statistical sense) is both derivable mathematically and proveable experimentally. It has never been shown to be violated by ANY credible source. No overunity device has EVER been independently verified to work.

I've never seen a HHO generator increase mileage on its own. It only "seems" to work when combined with a leaning out of the air/fuel mixture. Perhaps the hydrogen and oxygen gas helps prevent detonation. However, it is entirely the leaner AF that is decreasing the mileage.

Get a good (lean) tune and run methanol injection, that would be a better solution.

Jim Nilsen
07-06-2008, 05:09 AM
What an absolute load of garbage. Conservation of Energy (in a statistical sense) is both derivable mathematically and proveable experimentally. It has never been shown to be violated by ANY credible source. No overunity device has EVER been independently verified to work.

I've never seen a HHO generator increase mileage on its own. It only "seems" to work when combined with a leaning out of the air/fuel mixture. Perhaps the hydrogen and oxygen gas helps prevent detonation. However, it is entirely the leaner AF that is decreasing the mileage.

Get a good (lean) tune and run methanol injection, that would be a better solution.

Here are a couple of links for you. If you still have the same beliefs ask yourself this. If you never get to buy one because you don't believe and those who do get one, where does that leave you if it really works?

http://www.lutec.com.au/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh_-DUKQ4Uw&feature=related


With just these 2 items I would never need the utilities again and with the right car no gasoline either.

If you look into it you will notice that both of these items have been independently tested and and work. There are others out there as well that have a lot of people eating ego's. Why can't we have something just because it works and not have to have a formula ? These things were first concieved as a thought not a mathematical formula. If it works and you can't figure it out with your formula does that mean it's a fruad or is your formula a fraud? If you take your formula personal at that moment you will feel attacked personally and I understand that.

We have t shirt's that light up now with advertising and tracking devices that log your every move and you still think we haven't moved past those old realities.

Bad Bird
07-06-2008, 08:46 AM
The Lutec site has scam written all over it. It has NOT been independently tested by reliable sources. See the following sources as to why you should stay away from these snake oil salesmen.
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/2001/3_lutec1.pdf
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/2001/4_lutec2.pdf

The second one is a load of pseudo-science garbage.


personally i don t believe in religion i have my own religion i live well im still alive and healthy and i never pray about anything i mess with science and i do believe in aliens and ufos that all i believe in. EVERYONE ELSE I KNOW WHO WERE RELIGIOUS ARE ALREADY DEAD.

You trust this guy? Pa-lease.

I can't believe anyone believes any of this. These people are no better than the Nigerian scammers.

jerome
07-06-2008, 10:40 AM
Jim,
You have little faith in science, and too much faith in the internet. Combined with a burning desire to have free stuff, you are the ideal scammer's target.

I did watch the saltwater video. Yes, he gets hydrogen from the saltwater and burns it. The problem is that he uses a "RF transceiver" is plugged into an outlet which provides electricity made from conventional methods. He then takes this energy to separate the hydrogen and burn it. He GAINS NO ENERGY from the demonstration. Water is not a fuel, plain and simple.

And cloaking? like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNKfvdy2yF8
I surely hope that's not the video you are talking about...That is a very, very poorly done camera trick. They don't even get the first scene with the ball right. You should see the dude's face and not the writing.

You sir, are very very misinformed. Oh right, I forgot, I am a product of the old technological age that you choose not to live in.

Jerome

slowcamaro
07-06-2008, 11:00 AM
physics we dont need no stinkin' physics.

Im a skeptic. My neighbor is working on a similiar project, he is a dreamer, i have my doubts but I hope it works for him...or at least ends with a killer explosion :-D

CarlC
07-06-2008, 03:12 PM
Ask yourself this....

If that device can take 4 watts input and produce 19 watts output, why not just connect that 19 watts to another device and make 80 watts, connect to another and make 300 watts...... With just 4 watts you could power the world.

You don't get something for nothing. There is no free lunch. There is no perpetual machine. There are scam artists everywhere.

Jim Nilsen
07-06-2008, 07:11 PM
I have MORE faith in science because of all of the tchnology that surounds us that is much more complicated than turning water into hydrogen and using a magnetic field.

Look at all of the infrared tech. Low energy in resolution to another out. That energy goes through a vacuum and speeds up and converts photons into electrons. Is the energy that speeds up in the vacuum as it passes through gaining or losing ?

Here is what Duke University has to say about cloaking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja_fuZyHDuk&feature=related

Now is this misinformation and internet bunk or is it real?

Answer this question, How much power does it take to operate an RFID chip and where does the power come from ? You know that brilliant tracking device that you can't turn off unless you cut it out. I remember when that was just a futuristic invention too and wish it still was!

Bad Bird
07-06-2008, 11:10 PM
There is a difference between independently tested and verified experiments, and the pseudo-science overunity garbage.

You are just back-pedalling now.


energy goes through a vacuum and speeds up and converts photons into electrons

You have no idea what you are talking about. How does energy "speed up"? It seems like you know only enough science to be dangerous.


to operate an RFID chip and where does the power come from ?

The well-known phenomenon of electromagnetic induction.

TonyL
07-06-2008, 11:45 PM
this thread is going nowhere. Lets just leave it at "we all agree to disagree"