Water4Petrol Water4cars -Scam or Miracle?

Inactive

I am still laughing at this, especially as the OP seems to be genuine, and not having a wind up.:rotfl: :rotfl:

redux

Is there going to a new thread about this nonsense every week?

Has the search function stopped working, or are the affiliate spammers being deleted?

The last time, someone here naively found info on Wikipedia to back it up, but I pointed out that the pages had been edited hundreds of times by the same person

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=702693

It digresses a bit towards the end, but might be interesting anyway

thescouselander

yaoyao98 wrote: »

Thanks for you all for the following up, it will be helpful to be more specific like the one quoted above rather than dismiss anything new or anything seems unbelievable outright. I have my doubts to the factors and readiness of the technology but I have no doubt that the principle of the technology is possible. Some other guys here talking about water goes to engine for a rusty engine, we are here discussing about increasing the efficiency of engine fuel not replacing engine oil with water. Even the super quality petrol you pumped into your car's petrol tank doesn't run through your car's engine in liquid form, that's why your instructor told you press your 'gas pedal' gently when you first started your driving lesson. I repeat 'gas pedal' not 'petrol pedal'. Some other guys dismissed it purely on the basis that no major news corps such as BBC CNN etc reported it, I don't think these newsnetworks can report anything useful or helpful to ordinary people unless they get a good benefit out of it. I did further online research and found another website www.runyourcarwithwater.co.uk on it there are two video reports, one is Fox26 news which clearly demonstrated that the guy has water and elctricity to convert H2O to HHO, another report is by an unfamiliar TechWeb TV reporting using a small device to provide electricity from pure water. Have a look of these two reports and prove if it's hoaxes. i will find time this week to personally consult with my local garage to see if the process is simple and reversible as claimed on the website. And I will post my findings.

Yes but, as I was saying, it is a simple matter of the laws of thermo dynamics specifically - Energy cannot be created or destroyed.


The amount of energy required to produce the hydrogen will be equivelent to the energy you get back when you burn it. Since the process will not be 100% efficient the energy you get back from burning the hydrogen will not be as much as you used to make the Hydrogen in the first place.

Since the energy to make the hydrogen ultimately comes from the engine (via the electrical system) you will be using more petrol to make the hydrogen. When you burn the hydrogen you wont get as much energy out compared with the equivelent amount of petrol you used to make it.

Abinail

I've been looking into this runyoucarwithwater.com thing. I've seen a few website all promising the same things but i'm still sceptical, however, browns gas, which is what is 'drawn' out off the water is here and there is a whole load of information available on it. It seems to me that this is possible, not willing to bet my car on it like, but the theory, or Rothman Technologies Inc theory backs it. They currently have a patent pending on this. Check out this website and let me know what you think. http://www.brownsgas.com/brownsgasfuel.html
According to this website Samsung are using it for glass cutting and its definately flammable.
I admit, it all seems to good to be true and i've always been taught that if that is the case then it probably is, but i can't help wondering. Its true about the Fox26 news video and it all seems very convincing in theory.
Should email Top Gear they'd buy it, convert it and test it, or would they? I feel the main problem with any new fuel technology is the government and the amount of money they stand to lose if petrol is no longer needed in the quantities currently used.

After all that i'm still confused but welcome feedback

Markyt

Yes, it's too expensive and the government should lower the duty on it.

Abinail wrote: »

After all that i'm still confused but welcome feedback

Ignore it, it doesn't work.

Edit - I can't believe I just replied seriously to another obvious spammer.

Keith

Can someone report Post #9, for some reason it's been edited to include spam, and I've not got outlook configured on this laptop.

Abinail

Markyt wrote: »

Ignore it, it doesn't work.

Edit - I can't believe I just replied seriously to another obvious spammer.

I'm a bit at being called a spammer, if the above quote was directed at me. I was genuinelly interested in whether this worked and not out to pump more traffic to any website. All I want to do is save a bit of money, energy and the environment when running my car.
To be fair I'm not that 'with it' on spammers so if this is how it came across then it was un-intensional.

Cardelia

Yes, it's too expensive and the government should lower the duty on it.

Brown's gas is a mixture of 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen. It does have applications for welding, glass cutting etc., mainly because it burns at something approaching 2000 °C. It's also explosive so not the most practical fuel for powering a car, I think you'll agree.

This "HHO" stuff is a load of utter tosh. It is NOT the same as Brown's gas - in fact, it doesn't even exist. A man called Ruggero Maria Santilli published an academic paper claiming to have discovered a new form of matter, this "HHO" stuff. However, in the academic equivalent of flaming a messageboard troll, his "discovery" was quickly rubbished by proper scientists who were having none of it.

In short, it doesn't work. It's based on bad science and the fact it's been patented shouldn't give it any kind of scientific credence at all. Any old rubbish can be patented as long as it's original, it doesn't have to work or have any scientific truth to it.

By the way, if anyone wants to check out the original paper, the reference is:

Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2006, 31 (9), 1113-1128

A couple of responses can be found here:

Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2007, 32, 1309-1312
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2008, 33, 918-921
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2008, 33, 922-926

Enjoy

AdamEverAlert

Cardelia wrote: »

Heh. Given that water is a combustion product, and is probably the least flammable substance in this universe, anything which claims to "burn water" either doesn't know what its talking about or is a scam. Or both.

Looking on that website, this "Brown's Gas" is claimed to be "HHO". Or, in other words, H2O. So they claim to burn, well, water in order to get... water! Great, it's a scientific miracle.

The whole thing is a big scam.

Not true! water is a flammable liquid, it just requires lots of heat and a naked flame besides what happens when you put a naked flame to hydrogen? and what do we breath that is a nessity for fire? how do you smother a fire? cut off its air supply? cut off its oxygen both parts are in water (H2o) i seriously believe that no one here has done year 10 science are you all american? becaus you all are certanly dumbed down for it, water has everything in it to burn scientificly now that old saying that einstine said bout every action has a reaction is true, but what he didnt say is that it has to be equal or lower he said equal or greater? i'm pretty sure otherwise how would you explane the atom bomb? if that was the case it probably take a long time to store the energy in a bomb to creat such an explosion by the time it would have been stored i'm sure ww3 would just be starting, on the same subject i believe that you could store an atom bomb in your car's engin bay? if any of you know how an atom bomb worked its when you split an atom in a mircowave, the atoms are already vibrating at enormous speeds and when one breaks, sends the shrapnel into other atoms causing them to do the same in a chain reaction! surprise splitting atoms? what i think this guy has done is good i still dont believe it works but i somehow think that it might, if i read correctly the guy who invented it didnt get a patient? the patient office wouldent let him so he is giving away the information freely but i honestly dont like the idea of having to go to a gas station, honestly you all sound like you want to be consumers and continue the trend obvioulsy not what this site had in mind the consumer's revenge. theise new aged fuel cells do sound like hogwash, all they are trying to do is make you pull into a fuel station and pay for somthing that is free, mind you theise fuel stations are owned by the big motoring company's that make the cars in the first place, the same company's that bought all the electric cars from the manufacturer and drove them into a pit and covered them up?? hey come to think of it probably run by a bank, probably the same bank that runs the world patient office? probably the same bank that owns the companys that pays for the scientists to do theise expiriments that you quoted, all i'm saying is keep an open mind
and if you had to line someone's pockets would you choose the poor man or the billionaire?

AdamEverAlert

Ooh and by the way iwaswondering? i'm pretty sure water is more expensive than fuel i mean how much dose a 600ml of water cost at a service station and how much fuel could you buy for the same price?