Water power, is this for real?

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2006-05-11 03:05pm

A clip from a Fox News segment:

I dress my links

The segment was short on real facts, but apparently someone created a process that creates energy and uses water as fuel. Isn't this basically fuel cell technology?

Azazal · Post by **Azazal** » 2006-05-11 03:13pm

Funny you should ask, was reading a thread on the same thing on a different forum. To quote CROSSBOW over on JREF -

It sure sounds like a scam!

A few excerpts from their web site ...

When the H2O Model 1500 Aquygen™ Gas Generator is used as a gas welder, Aquygen™ Gas can weld, cut, braze, solder, metal clad and fuse materials such as ceramics, metals, cermets, glass, plastics and inter-metallic materials together, such as metal-to-metal, metal to glass, ferrous to non*ferrous, and dissimilar metals to each other, which is a true fusion process heretofore unavailable.

How one could weld metal to glass to plastic to cement is beyond me. I have never even heard of such a thing being theorized.

Our technology centers on the ability to generate a unique type of hydrogen/oxygen gas mixture (a "unique gas", which we call "Aquygen™" gas) on demand from a lightweight, compact machine that uses the water electrolysis process as its underlying technology basis.

This unique gas is infinitely stable until it comes in contact with a select target media. Then it sublimates, causing a molecular surface exchange of certain elements, reacting with such excitation as to cause temperatures of up to 10,000° F, the temperature of our Sun's surface, which is currently the limits of our ability to measure.

An infinitely stable gas? That sure is weird.

Also, their fuel is apparently nothing more than a special mix of hydrogen and oxygen; but I have no idea (nor does the web site spell out) how this mix can reach such high temperatures without the use of some very, very specialized equipment.

Finally, they are selling 'Licenses' so that one can become a dealer for their company. One often sees this trick on scam web sites.

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2006-05-11 03:34pm

Well maybe it's not a total scam if they're in negotiations with the government and developing a hummer for them. But still, I can't help but wonder if this is just a fancy net-loss system.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2006-05-11 03:53pm

Natorgator wrote:Well maybe it's not a total scam if they're in negotiations with the government and developing a hummer for them. But still, I can't help but wonder if this is just a fancy net-loss system.

The Government's thrown money into a lot of oddball projects that have't seemed to go anywhere. Remember LSD-as-a-truth-serum? Yeah, that didn't work out nearly as well as they hoped it would. Neither did the 4-legged tank or the submarine aircraft carriers and so on.

Another question is, how much energy is required to convert the water into his 'special' type of gas? If it requires large batteries and such then we're still going to have a number of the same problems as we currently do. I'd like to have someone look at his engine and test it out not just for safety but for calculating the overall efficency of enegy in and energy out for the entire process (IE, charging batteries and such). If it requires large amount of electrical energy then what you might have is a brilliant method of driving a car around, but a dependance on conventional power-generation methods. Like a purely-electric car, somewhere down the line there's a coal or nuke or oil plant churning out wattage to gas up your batteries, so powering the world completely on Water would only be feasible if there was a net energy gain from this. If there is, hell, that'd be unusual. And interesting.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2006-05-11 03:57pm

Yeah I'm going also side with its a scam.

Covenant wrote: The Government's thrown money into a lot of oddball projects that have't seemed to go anywhere. Remember LSD-as-a-truth-serum? Yeah, that didn't work out nearly as well as they hoped it would. Neither did the 4-legged tank or the submarine aircraft carriers and so on.

But the nuclear powered submarine landing ship tank was defeated only by a lack of money!

nickolay1 · Post by **nickolay1** » 2006-05-11 03:58pm

The claim of negotiations is probably bullshit anyway.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2006-05-11 04:04pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Yeah I'm going also side with its a scam.
Covenant wrote: The Government's thrown money into a lot of oddball projects that have't seemed to go anywhere. Remember LSD-as-a-truth-serum? Yeah, that didn't work out nearly as well as they hoped it would. Neither did the 4-legged tank or the submarine aircraft carriers and so on.
But the nuclear powered submarine landing ship tank was defeated only by a lack of money!

It was also totally kickass. I'm just waiting for the semi-submersible low-profile stealth material supercarrier! Budgets be damned.

I found the guy's patent.

The addition of a mixture of hydrogen gas (H.sub.2) and oxygen gas (O.sub.2) to the fuel system of an internal combustion engine is known to improve fuel efficiency and decrease the emission of undesired pollutants. These benefits are thought to be the result of more complete combustion induced by the presence of hydrogen such that fuel efficiency increases and incomplete combustion products--soot and carbon monoxide--decrease. However, hydrogen is a flammable gas that is potentially explosive. Accordingly, utilization of hydrogen in vehicular applications must be undertaken with caution.

That at least sounds fairly reasonable. It's a fuel additive rather than an actual fuel source. Seems like's going to add hho gas to the fuel/air mixture in the piston assembly in order to get a little more bang for the buck.

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2006-05-11 04:09pm

Covenant wrote:If it requires large amount of electrical energy then what you might have is a brilliant method of driving a car around, but a dependance on conventional power-generation methods. Like a purely-electric car, somewhere down the line there's a coal or nuke or oil plant churning out wattage to gas up your batteries

Just BTW, I think the basic principle behind an electric car being "clean" is that combustion is pretty much the only viable power source that scales down easily enough to fit into one with present technology, or anything we're likely to have in the near future. I mean, can you imagine trying to fit a nuclear reactor under you hood?
Then again, there have been experiments with solar cars. Maybe if they figure out a way to make solar panels efficient enough to actually be viable as anything more than a marginal energy source that could have promise.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2006-05-11 04:12pm

This seems to not be just a scam, though "unique electrolysis process" sets off a warning bell for me. That he's in negotiations makes it sound better, and if he demonstrated it for congress he's probably on the up-and-up.

My prediction: Its too expensive to be practical, but it does work. If it ever gets practical, though, it can take the pollution out of the cities and put it in localized aquygen production plants.

Azazal · Post by **Azazal** » 2006-05-11 04:14pm

Covenant wrote:
The addition of a mixture of hydrogen gas (H.sub.2) and oxygen gas (O.sub.2) to the fuel system of an internal combustion engine is known to improve fuel efficiency and decrease the emission of undesired pollutants. These benefits are thought to be the result of more complete combustion induced by the presence of hydrogen such that fuel efficiency increases and incomplete combustion products--soot and carbon monoxide--decrease. However, hydrogen is a flammable gas that is potentially explosive. Accordingly, utilization of hydrogen in vehicular applications must be undertaken with caution.
That at least sounds fairly reasonable. It's a fuel additive rather than an actual fuel source. Seems like's going to add hho gas to the fuel/air mixture in the piston assembly in order to get a little more bang for the buck.

I have heard for hydrogen boosting before, if that's what he is going for, more power to him. But from what he has on his web-site, it looks like scam time.

And shuld have put this up earlier, they guy's website - http://hytechapps.com/

nickolay1 · Post by **nickolay1** » 2006-05-11 04:15pm

The claim of increased fuel efficiency is suspicious. Obviously, power from the engine is required for the electrolyzer to function. Therefore, it would seem that any efficiency increase in the engine itself would be offset by the power draw for his apparatus. The patent does not appear to include any actual calculations or numbers, so perhaps somebody more knowledgeable in this field could confirm this?

nickolay1 · Post by **nickolay1** » 2006-05-11 04:25pm

The "Science" page is a crock of shit:

Aquygen™ Gas flame temperature itself is only between 259° F to 279° F when produced in ambient open air.

Aquygen™ Gas develops a temperature differential ranging from 259° F to well over 10000° F depending on the material substrate being worked. This allows each material to be worked, using dissimilar materials together or separately, without changing the fuel or its setting.

This gem is probably the best, though:

Aquygen™ Gas, when combusted, produces no ultra-violet radiation and does not require special protective eyewear or clothing when used.

Here, they directly contradict all other claims of their gas being a oxygen/hydrogen mixture, as a hydrogen flame radiates UV strongly.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2006-05-11 06:47pm

nickolay1 wrote:The "Science" page is a crock of shit:

Aquygen™ Gas flame temperature itself is only between 259° F to 279° F when produced in ambient open air.

Aquygen™ Gas develops a temperature differential ranging from 259° F to well over 10000° F depending on the material substrate being worked. This allows each material to be worked, using dissimilar materials together or separately, without changing the fuel or its setting.
This gem is probably the best, though:
Aquygen™ Gas, when combusted, produces no ultra-violet radiation and does not require special protective eyewear or clothing when used.
Here, they directly contradict all other claims of their gas being a oxygen/hydrogen mixture, as a hydrogen flame radiates UV strongly.

Not to mention anything at ten kilodegrees F radiates in UV. I cite a little itty-bitty glowing thing called 'The Sun'.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2006-05-11 08:19pm

Scams and bad science have been pitched to Congress before. All it means is that they guy is slick enough to get his foot in the door.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2006-05-12 01:12am

Imperial Overlord wrote:Scams and bad science have been pitched to Congress before. All it means is that they guy is slick enough to get his foot in the door.

Just wait--we'll be hearing about this for twenty years, people saying the Oil Industry shut him out because he promised free energy to the masses and The Man shut him down. Not that I don't believe the energy industry doesn't have a vested interest in a fuel source they can actually sell, rather than falls from the sky, but I suppose they'd still be able to gouge us if we live in, say, Arizona. I really hope it's actually a viable product though, and the guy just has a really cooky website.

Darth Lucifer · Post by **Darth Lucifer** » 2006-05-12 01:54pm

I've heard of something like this before, though it was originally referred to as 'Brown's Fuel' or 'Brown's Gas."

More Info - Clicky

I'm inclined to think it's a scam, myself.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-05-12 02:03pm

How can the guy get a patent on what appears to be a garden-variety electrolytic device, just by saying that he intends to feed the resulting gas into an engine?

By the way, I would find his claims of catalyzed hyper-efficiency to be rather more credible if he had shown the catalyzed chemical reaction on either his patent application or the "Science" portion of his webpage. The complete absence of any chemical equations does not inspire confidence in the validity of his claims.

Resinence · Post by **Resinence** » 2006-05-13 02:04am

They apparently don't know the exact chemical formula of their own product.

With the understanding that any expectation of a complete understanding of the chemical composition of the HHO gas in this first paper is not realistic, and any lack of release of anomalous new measurements due to lack of their final understanding is not scientific, we here submit the working hypothesis for further future studies according to which the chemical composition of the HHO gas is a novel realization of the new species of Santilli magnecules[3].

More specifically, our working hypothesis is that the HHO gas is composed of stable clusters of individual H and O atoms, HO dimers and ordinary molecules H2, O2 and H2O all bonded together by attractive forces between opposing polarities in the toroidal polarization of the orbitals of peripheral atomic electrons

- "Science Paper" from the site.

Was supposedly written by Ruggero-Maria-Santilli

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2006-05-20 11:16pm

And people wonder why we need more science in the classroom.

Stile · Post by **Stile** » 2006-05-20 11:45pm

Darth Wong wrote:How can the guy get a patent on what appears to be a garden-variety electrolytic device, just by saying that he intends to feed the resulting gas into an engine?

By the way, I would find his claims of catalyzed hyper-efficiency to be rather more credible if he had shown the catalyzed chemical reaction on either his patent application or the "Science" portion of his webpage. The complete absence of any chemical equations does not inspire confidence in the validity of his claims.

Something from the latest JREF page: +http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-05/051906sylvia.html#i10

THE USPTO AGAIN

Reader Rebecca Watson, of Skepchicks www.skepchick.org/blog, follows up on our critique of the US patent system with this novel possibility offered by a “peer review” idea that might take some of the pressure experienced by the system….

Last November, the United States Patent Office issued patent number 6,960,975 to Boris Volfson of Huntington, Indiana for a spaceship that bends space and time in order to defy gravity. Read through it with the knowledge that someone working for the United States government gave it the old thumbs up.

This year, there are approximately 500,000 patent applications waiting to be approved. The Patent Office predicts this number will increase to 600,000 by next year. The average examiner spends about 25 hours reviewing each application, though most companies must wait an average of three years to get an approval. With a dwindling staff and an ever-growing backlog of applications, it’s no wonder that pseudoscience like Volfson’s anti-gravity vehicle manage to sneak through, securing a disturbing level of credibility with their official recognition.

The Patent Office recognizes a growing problem and is taking steps to improve the process. Granted, they are more concerned with the issue of vaguely worded and derivative (read: lawsuit-worthy) patents getting through than they are with the approval of inventions that just don’t work. The only two stated requirements to get a patent as of right now are novelty and non-obviousness — scientific validity takes a back seat but presumably could be used as a reason for rejection.

That’s the way it has to be with the present system. A patent, in reality, is a legal tool to protect an original idea, and not an official government endorsement of a product. Sadly, the latter is exactly how the general public sees it, which is why I believe that it would behoove us all to take a dual approach by first educating the public on the limits of what a patent does and then reforming the approval process so that we reject the most absurd and unproven pseudoscience.

One way this might be feasible is through the Peer to Patent Project, a system that would allow a peer review process on applications in order to take a huge load off overworked and possibly undereducated (on the specific issues of each patent) Patent Office. IBM has stepped up to be first in line with its own patents, which bodes well for a larger scale institution. Not only would this process help stop redundant and obvious patent applications at their infancy, but it could be a way to weed out the pseudoscience before it clogs up the system and gains legitimacy.

I’m interested to see where this goes, and if eventually we’d be able to fight to rescind the patents of thousands of frauds who are using the designation to shill their products, from Q-Rays to cold fusion to free energy.

For further reading, check out this article from InformationWeek in February 2006, The U.S. Patent System in Crisis by Eric Chabrow.