The AUSubaru.com.au Forums

http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/?gclid=CO ... CwodYk7lPQ

what do you think?......
please discuss......

Ive been studying these systems for a while and the theory is there.
the electrofied water breaks the molucles into a low grade hydrogen gas.
Try googling for joe cell or browns gas or try http://www.eagle-research.com/ and http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/h-o/. or
http://www.frank.germano.com/joe_cell2.htm
I have seen it demostrated but remain a little cautious.
The container has 3 or 4 metal rings in it all isolated from each other.
The middle ring acts as a cathode with negitive attached and the outer wall has the positive lead attached.
The browns gas version produces a greater volume of gas so the you can weld with it.
Cheers Pete

I maybe think your right Pete!
altho the $1000usd asking price!! however there is plenty of info to find on the web to make your own for maybe $100?

I think if your using 10-20amps from the alternator for H2+O production, that is not really alot of extra energy used, compared with the frictional loses of already rotating the alternator.

The trick is how efficiently that can be done...I thinking if the water is steamed, and using nickel electrodes.......

on another issue, the heating of the fuel...remember its not doing this for power, but efficiency....however ea82t already has manifold heating of the fuel....so i'm not sure what to really make of this extra heating of the fuel.

It looks like a load of crap to me. I'm sure it would produce some gas, but not work as a perpetual motion machine like some people claim.

crap? well some of it might be, like those Joe cells and Orgone energy ? what energy? fanciful and may need some incantations from your favorite witch to work
however the link in the first post above refers to a system that adds the H2 + O to normal fuel, theres no mention of it being some kind of perpetual motion thing.
I think what they are saying is that the sum result energy produced is greater than the parts, ie browns gas and petroleum fuel, i'm no expert on chemical reactions and combustion so am prepared to be amazed.
On the other hand am quite prepared to say some things are crap where I'v got a decent understanding of the physics involved, ie electrolysis,sacrficial anodes,static charges,electric current - like the electric rust prevention that is being touted about.

I read something in the paper today that reminded me about this thread, then I read the links and got depressed!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/tuc ... 98683.html

I would love to try and find something to play with that is actually workable.

Hey all,
I've been watching this thread and have been doing some of my own thinking/researching... i think this is a fuel system that is possible to use instead of petrol. GM is already working on a car that uses hydrogen... but they are talking of it being available the same as petrol is today - at a fuel station (using steam from power stations to derive the hydrogen from after electorlsis)

Some of the systems i've looked at include the one's already mentioned. That one about Orgone energy sounds a little superstitious to me... Try out a google search on things like "water car" - i got this web page that i'm going to look at closer later -> http://netmar.com/~maat/archive/feb2/carplans.htm

I've got my dad intreged (spelling???) as well... we're going to see if we can build one of these devices and run the paddock bomb on it before we go and do over our engines and fit it to a road car... we think it'll take some time to perfect it, especially since we're not going to be working on it from 9 til 5 every week day...

Even if it doesn't work, i'd rather have ppl pointing and laughing at the idea while i can say that i gave it a go... We're aiming to produce an onboard kit modelled off some of the one's seen on the net that will split water into it hydrogen and oxygen. We see this as the easiest way to do this at home - no gas tanks of hydrogen to store or fill the car up from.

Anyway, i don't know if anyone else is following this anymore... for now i'll keep pluggin away and hopefully have a water subie sometime in the near future... or not, we'll see.

Cheers

I'd be interrested in trying anything that is practical and scientificly sound, keep us posted!

El_Freddo wrote:Hey all,

I've got my dad intreged (spelling???) as well...

Cheers

spelling is intrigued...a dictionary is your friend....

anyway, do some research about Browns Gas, it is hydrogen + oxygen in a gaseous state - risky yes, but you only want to produce what is required. It is much more efficient to produce, than separated H2 and O (as you may remember in high school experiments - well if you did any science subjects that is)
lol, Its scarey to play with too, well the bang is fun.

If you take some basic rules of thermodynamics/chemistry and some other basic concepts you can see this will not work.

Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules can be liberated from water using electricity, an anode and a cathode.

Any gas/gases added to the combution chamber will decrease the volume of any primary gases (and liquids if you want to get real picky!).

Water itself is essentially free, but the energy required to liberate the gases is not- as you are expending electricity generated by an alternator which draws power from a combustion engine which runs on petrol.

None of these operations get even close to being 100% efficient- energy is lost as sound, kinetic energy and most importantly heat.

In other words you will NEVER EVER get even close to the amount of energy back as you expend trying to attain it.

Spend the money on a big service and a set of nice tyres, the results will be far more spectacular.

PeeJay wrote:It looks like a load of crap to me. I'm sure it would produce some gas, but not work as a perpetual motion machine like some people claim.

ANYONE that says a perpetual motion machine works is wrong and should have their cutlery replaced with wooden spoons immediately!

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons.
I have a detailed constructable plan on file if anyone out there wants to build
and try it out.
I will send it to anyone who wants to try just PM me.
I believe that the only real way to find out if its a thing that will work or not is to simply try but i dont have the resourses to produce this system.
Some of the board members are in a better situation to do this.
If it does work then i for one would buy a working unit.
Cheers Pete

fredsub wrote:spelling is intrigued...a dictionary is your friend....

Thanks for the spelling, i knew i had it wrong... maybe oxford should re-define "pocket"... no way can i fit one of those babies in my pocket...

Julian, i'm no scientist, and i'm not here to start an arguement over an idea, but i am willing to learn about this sort of thing, i learn best through my own mistakes, and if thats what it takes for me to find out that i cannot make this thing work, then so be it... i've said in in one of my previous posts:

El_Freddo wrote: Even if it doesn't work, i'd rather have ppl pointing and laughing at the idea while i can say that i gave it a go...

cheers

I agree that learning from mistakes is one of the soundest methods of learning, you are talking to someone whose put a clutch plate for an old renault in backwards, CRUNCH CRUNCH!

By all means have a go at building one of these kits and rest assured you will get a pat on the back from me for having a fair go, but if you need a more detailed thermodynamic explanation of this process or other associated ones (water injection, nitrous etc) I would be more than happy to devote some time to a PM.

To quote a great man:

Homer Simpson wrote:This perpetual motion machine that Lisa made just keeps going faster and faster! Lisa, in this house we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics

Interesting Julian, I too am well aquainted with the science of heating things up and cooling them down. What do you do for work pray tell?

*also note:

This is not true perpetual motion as it expends chemical energy, ie you need to use up water to make it work.

That is true, yet i was refering to ANY perpetual motion machines, you are correct in regards to chemical energy and water consumption.

Sadly I do not work, I am PAYING a small organisation called the university of Adelaide a RIDICULOUS amount of money to study an Science/Arts degree. Have dabbled with some chemistry and physics before settling for majors in biochemistry and anthropology. My knowledge does not extend deep into the realm of thermodynamics but I understand the basics.

LOL . . . ah, yes . . . they day I paid off my HECS debt I was a happy man.

perpetual motion does not work. its been tried. and tried. and tried. theyve come so close, but the closer they get, the further it is they find themselves. i do not believe this has 100% efficiency. however. id buy one if i knew it worked.

whys discussion degenerated to crapping on about perpetual motion - we know theres no such thing.

what is interesting is that there seems to be efficiencies gained by adding browns gas to the combustion mixture - see first post in this topic, read about the "Tour de Sol Mileage" competion.

I'v sort of dismissed the Joe cell...but theres actually quite a bit of "chatter" about it in the web isn't there.....anyway, it looks interesting as an electrolyser, because with the concentric pipes makes for a great surface area.....it probably won't be easy getting sample lengths of different pipe diameters though.