Generator that runs off water from your fresh water tank.

[38Chevy454]

Originally Posted by WorkRVing

Are you a molecular scientist that specializes in bond dis-assembly theorum?

You have a good point, but your missing one thing, there are two bonds holding together 3 atoms, so to simply put it you are saying that if the molecular energy contained in one atom of oxygen isn't enough to split apart the three atoms making up water that it's going to take more power than 2 hydrogen atoms to equate for the loss of that oxygen atom?

That doesn't add up, 3-1 still leaves 2.

Nowhere does it say it is 'free energy'. It takes money to assemble the components and i'm sure there is a process for extraction of the volatile and highly explosive and implosive gasses in water that happens if their claims are valid. Water is full of tons of energy, releasing that energy is above both our pay grades.

It's speculation and conjecture at it's finest for those of us that don't understand the technology, however, don't discount a running prototype:

I leave you with a few valid questions, if you had a 3 trillion dollar monopoly, would you spend 2.9 trillion to protect it?

Do you think all of the scientific discoveries we will ever make have already been made?

We will definitely have an answer to the validity of this invention in mid 2016 barring any sudden deaths or billion dollar patent buyouts.

Which by the way, Mr. Stanley Meyers was offered 1 Billion USD for his patents before he suddenly stood up in a restaurant and screamed he had been poisoned and ran out to his car where he collapsed and died.

So where do I start? Yes I am a nuclear rocket scientist or at least a nuclear engineer that works on things that make very large mushroom clouds.

When you break H2O down, you break the H2 from the oxygen, resulting in H2 and O, then subsequently the free O's combine to make O2. The Hydrogen is not broken into monatomic Hydrogen, it stays as H2. There is not two breaking the bond reactions. Oxygen is in the form of O2 and not monatomic Oxygen, but that is really outside the discussion here. The potential power is when combining the H2 back with Oxygen to make H20, this is an exothermic reaction. That exothermic heat is what makes the engine run - just like burning gasoline, diesel, propane, natural gas, or something else. The point is all of these fossil fuels are basically carbon and hydrogen. When you mix them with air (oxygen source) and get the reaction (initiated by the spark) you get CO2 and H2O if perfect combustion. However it is notr perfect and you get some CO, and nitrogen-oxygen compounds to go along with the majority CO2 and H2O out the exhaust pipe.

Now, even if you could break the H2O down with 100% efficiency, and could combine them back with 100% efficiency, your net is zero energy available for work (ie running the generator). However in real world, nothing is 100% efficient, and so you have losses at both ends and in the end you put in more energy than you get back out. Or simple terms, it costs energy rather than producing energy by the time you do the reversible process.

Physics does not lie, and any of the HHO, or hydrogen fuel generators, do not provide any excess energy available from breaking down water into hydrogen gas; which can then be used to combine back with oxygen to provide heat energy. It takes an external energy source to break the hydrogen-oxygen bond of the water, so you can then get the energy back to run the electric generator. That is why solar or other available energy source is required.

If this water powered generator was really able to do what it claims, it is more than a perpetual motion machine. It just does not hold up to real scientific scrutiny. I will side with physics and laws of chemistry; and also keep my money in my pocket except when filling my MH (and subsequently my generator fuel) with diesel.

It's a free country, you can form your own opinions and spend your own money; I am just trying to show you this does not work.

[dennis45]

As PT Barnum used to say, "There's one born everyday "

[MSHappyCampers]

Originally Posted by dennis45

As PT Barnum used to say, "There's one born everyday "

[mrt_1111]

Now if I could only figure out how to fuel a generator using dreams. Nice idea, not going to happen.

[nothermark]

FWIW If they do get one running and sell some so folks can see it work then the Physics books will be rewritten and the disparagement will cease. All science is based on demonstrating that a theory has a repeatable proof. So far the community has seen a lot of speculation and information but no demonstration for a lot of ideas. This is just one.

[RV Vagabond]

Many inventors have been called nutcases until their product hits the market. People tried to convince Henry Ford that the automobile was too impractical.

[ahicks]

But those people shut up when the vehicle demonstrated it could work as advertised. I seriously doubt that's the case here....

[J Birder]

They seem to have invented perpetual motion.

Burning is oxidation. When you burn hydrogen, you are combining it with oxygen. The result is water and energy. To break that bond and get the hydrogen out, you have to reverse the reaction. That inputting the same amount of energy that was given off when the bond was formed.

At best, you break even. If the system is not 100% efficient, you get less energy out than you put in.

Joel

[jondrew55]

As I recall from thermodynamics "there is no free lunch" and "you can't get something for nothing; in fact, you can't even come close"

Free energy, perpetual motion, cold fusion machines have been popping up for ever. Look up "run your car on water" and you'll find tons of stuff on the petroleum conspiracy.

Wish it were so, but that stuff just isn't there.

Also, I don't think it helps ridiculing people who are not technically versed to understand why these things can't work. The best you can do is point them in the right direction

[slickest1]

Since all the water from the river will get used up as these things catch on, you will likely get a real deal on a few bridges!!!

[garbonz]

Originally Posted by RV Vagabond

Many inventors have been called nutcases until their product hits the market. People tried to convince Henry Ford that the automobile was too impractical.

Henry had a engineering problem, not a physics problem. He had plenty of available energy in the form of kerosene and then gasoline, he did not use water as a source of energy, nor will anyone ever.

[Old-Biscuit]

As a retired Power Plant Operator that went thru Nuclear Training and spent 30+ years operating boilers/steam generators of various sizes/designs/methods to produce energy for propulsion and electrical generation I can whole heartily state without reservation.............


Horse Pucky

[Ray,IN]

Originally Posted by ahicks

Like many things that sound too good to be true, I'll believe it when I can see it.

Not going to say it can't be done, just thinking if it has been, there would be a lot more talk regarding it, and applications using the power system other than as a generator.

Perhaps this is a future show for MythBusters.

[nothermark]

Originally Posted by RV Vagabond

Many inventors have been called nutcases until their product hits the market. People tried to convince Henry Ford that the automobile was too impractical.

The folks who said that obviously were not looking at the automobiles already running around. Henry did not invent the automobile. His area of real expertise turned out to be assembling teams to do the manufacturing and marketing.