5 of 6
5
Run your car on water
Posted: 20 January 2009 05:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2009-01-10
Accipiter - 19 January 2009 08:43 PM

Well, there are obviously many different types of bonds between atoms to form molecules.  With the basic water molecule, there are two hydrogen atoms each of which are attached by covalent bonds to an oxygen atom (H-O-H), forming a somewhat V-shaped molecule with the oxygen as the point of the V.

You can also have hydrogen and oxygen gases in oxyhydrogen mixtures.  Hydrogen and oxygen tend to form gases made of homonuclear diatomic molecules; you’ll have two hydrogens covalently bonded to each other (H-H) and two oxygens bonded to each other (O-O).  Those molecules tend to be fairly stable.  If you’ve just done something such as break up water through electrolysis, though, you obviously can’t have a pair of oxygens and a pair of hydrogens coming from a single molecule of H2O.  So there is a lot of shuffling about of atoms.

Yes, but none of the molecules you mention there could be referred to as HHO.  I come from a mechanical background, so I’m not as clear on the convention but I would have thought that calling a mixture of several gases (H2, O2, H2O and maybe some less stable combinations of O and H as well created during electrolysis) by listing it’s elemental components in approximate ratio completely ignores the scale on which a chemical formula is valid.  For example, you don’t call air NNNNO. If it’s not a recognised formulaic description then it’s an acronym, which is unnecessary when a perfectly valid descriptor in “oxyhydrogen” is available.

Accipiter - 19 January 2009 08:43 PM

According to Santilli and also to these Aquygen people, there is another special magnetic form of ... by Santilli and others that is doubtful.

Good summary.  I can go with all of that.

Robin Bobcat - 20 January 2009 07:33 AM

I think he’s saying that molecular bonds are created out of ‘space and time’, which they aren’t.

Molecular bonds are usually held together by atoms sharing electrons in some fashion. This is not electromagnetism. The different molecular bonds apply in different ways, depending on which molecules are being formed, etc. For example, a metallic bond will share its electrons across the entire crystalline lattice, while a covalent bond involves two atoms each sharing one electron. Just because they are using electrons doesn’t mean it’s using electromagnetism.

Water is formed by two covalent bonds - the hydrogen molecules each share their single electron, while the oxygen molecule shares two of its electrons, one to each of the hydrogens. While this is a solid bond, occasionally one of the electrons that the hydrogen atom is currently sharing (its own or the oxygen’s) will get shared with another nearby atom or molecule. This is a hydrogen bond.

They cover this sort of thing in High School chemistry, by the way.

Actually, it is electromagnetism.  Electromagnetism is one of what first year undergrad physics teaches to be the four fundamental forces: gravity, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, and electromagnetism.  Electrons are kind of uninteresting if you’re not talking about electromagnetism, so if electrons are involved its probably a fair bet that you are talking about it in some form.  It just happens that magnecular bonds are not conventional chemical bonds like ionic or covalent or metallic bonds which have well-tested, sub-atomic, electromagnetic theories underlying them and can explain all of the phenomena which “Aquygen” displays.  Given that, it’s hard to see a need to invent a new kind of chemical bonding stemming from chemical phenomena.  If you came at it from some hardcore, empirically tested, sub-atomic phenomenon then you might have a chance but a dude welding with oxyhydrogen in his garage is not that.

BlogBuster - 20 January 2009 05:50 AM

If Electricity and Magnatism have the same bond that space and time do then it is possible. what about polarity?

Don’t be a troll.

Accipiter - 20 January 2009 06:49 AM

Especially since the notion of a

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2009 08:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6941
Joined  2005-10-21

Traditionally, it’s either H2O, H::O::H, or H=O=H. If you really want to get tricky you do it this way:

.     O
.   /   \
.  H     H 

Which reflects the actual shape of the water molecule.

As for electromagnetism, I won’t disagree that there isn’t electromagnetism involved in electron-sharing covalent bonds (Bonds, Covalent Bonds…) but that isn’t the only force involved. A bond formed with *just* electromagnetism would be very, very feeble, at best.

Frankly, instead of hawking a fuel regulator, you should ask yourself why this guy hasn’t simply published his findings. A discovery of something of that magnitude would be earth-shatteringly amaszing. The Nobel committee would not only break down his door, they would insist he marry their daughters. One wonders why that hasn’t happened.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsibility to disprove your claims, but rather your responsibility to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2009 12:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  23
Joined  2009-01-17

Ok, so I just got off the phone with Russ Scott, CEO of Hydrogen Technology Apps inc. How i got connected to him was extremely lucky. I said i was from villanova U, which is where i work, the secretary must have said “nova” and he took my call thinking i was from the whyy program i guess. he did give me some information that was very insightful, especially regarding our conversation here. The physics paper on the site i mentioned was santilli’s paper, and not specifically about his device, they pulled it from the site for all the reasons we are discussing here. He then told me that the direction the company is going in has drastically changed, but he would not be specific. The direction has changed because of the research done with European scientists, it sounds like they have figured out what is going on here. He did divulge that the impact would be global and the implications would be great especially for the science community. The info will be released in may of this year so keep an eye out.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2009 02:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  26052
Joined  2004-11-08

I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that no real information will be released in May.  At best they might issue a release reiterating the promise of Great Things to Come while pushing the date back again and again.

 Signature 

Heaven must be really boring, if you think about it logically.
All the angels must be snoring.  Who could stand perfection for eternity?

Not me. - George Hrab

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2009 03:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Platypus - 20 January 2009 10:40 AM

Yes, but none of the molecules you mention there could be referred to as HHO.

There are a number of ways a chemical fomula can be written out; which one you use really depends on what you’re wanting to show.  Writing water as H2O shows the proportions of the elements in it, but not how the elements are arranged.  H2O can be written as HOH, if you’re wanting to write it so that it shows the bonding structure.  So Santilli’s magnecule could be written HHO, if it did exist.  Sort of like how C3H8O can be written as C3H7OH for one isomer (n-propyl alcohol), or C2H5OCH3 for another (methyl-ethyl-ether); those molecules both have the exact same empirical formula, but different structural ones. . .and totally different chemical properties.  So if you were to just write “add 500 ml of C3H8O to the mixture”, you could end up with some unfortunate misunderstandings.  But if you were to write out the structural formula, then you could avoid the trouble.  Or you could write out the written name of the molecule, but that can take up a lot of time and space.

So since Santilli is trying to distinguish one structural isomer of H2O from others, it would make sense for him to write it out structurally rather than empirically.

Robin Bobcat - 20 January 2009 07:33 AM

Molecular bonds are usually held together by atoms sharing electrons in some fashion. This is not electromagnetism.

Actually, it is electromagnetism.

Yes, there are really two forces that are really directly important for in molecular bonds:  the strong force and the electromagnetic force.  The strong force is, surprise, the strongest force.  But it is also very short-range.  It holds the parts of the electrons and the protons together, and it is this structure that gives those parts of the atom their opposing properties.  The electromagnetic force then works between the oppositely-charged bits and keeps the electrons more or less in orbit around the protons.  It is a lot weaker than the strong force, though, so electrons can leave the protons much easier than the parts of the electrons can separate from each other.  There are also the weak force and gravity, but they’re not really doing much that we can see relating to this discussion.

“Electromagnetism” is just an all-encompassing term for the various actions and results of the electromagnetic force.  So while it is electromagnetism that holds molecules together, there are other aspects of electromagnetism that don’t apply to molecular bonds.

Now, Santilli specifically said that it was magnetic bonds that hold HHO together, not just electromagnetic.  Which would require that the individual atoms have magnetic fields stable enough for molecules to form by their interaction.  The magnetic fields are caused by the motion of and by the basic nature of electrons (protons also have their own magnetism, but it’s so weak and limited that it doesn’t really do anything).  There is no real doubt that atoms have magnetic properties to them.

What is in doubt is that there is some sort of special “extra” version of the electromagnetic force that somehow uses electromagnetism in some whole new way to join atoms together.  There are just too many things that don’t fit with regards to the magnecule idea.  There is no evidence for them.  There is no need for them; they don’t fill in any gaps in our knowledge of the workings of molecular bonds.  They don’t seem to fit in anywhere in the observed universe, because there just isn’t any place for them to fit.

Imagine you have a pile of Legos on the floor.  Your ordinary human friend, who you know likes working with Legos, comes in.  He sits down, and you watch him put the Legos together.  He then leaves, leaving behind a bunch of Legos joined together.  Would it make sense for you to then decide that invisible marmosets had put the Legos together?

Likewise, we know all sorts of stuff about molecular bonds.  We have watched them at work.  We have seen and measured their results.  There’s no need to theorise magnecules (or invisible marmosets) at work, as there’s no sign of them and not really any place for them to fit into the whole scheme of things.

Platypus - 20 January 2009 10:40 AM

But one more thing.  If the summary is that we are pumping small volatiles into our fuel then I guess we also have to wonder what this is doing to the octane number of the fuel.  If engine knock risk is increased then pumping electrolysed oxyhydrogen into your fuel could be a bad idea, rather than just an inefficient idea.

Here’s a bunch of stuff on the idea.  And here’s a NASA article I linked to earlier regarding some tests they did with a Cadillac.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2009 03:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
BlogBuster - 20 January 2009 05:52 PM

Ok, so I just got off the phone with Russ Scott, CEO of Hydrogen Technology Apps inc. How i got connected to him was extremely lucky. I said i was from villanova U, which is where i work, the secretary must have said “nova” and he took my call thinking i was from the whyy program i guess. he did give me some information that was very insightful, especially regarding our conversation here. The physics paper on the site i mentioned was santilli’s paper, and not specifically about his device, they pulled it from the site for all the reasons we are discussing here. He then told me that the direction the company is going in has drastically changed, but he would not be specific. The direction has changed because of the research done with European scientists, it sounds like they have figured out what is going on here. He did divulge that the impact would be global and the implications would be great especially for the science community. The info will be released in may of this year so keep an eye out.

So, they’ve dropped the magnecule idea and gone on with some other completely vague thing. . .and this new discovery is already so neatly packaged that they can already schedule the press conference?

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2009 03:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  23
Joined  2009-01-17

He didnt say one way or the other, and im not going to speculate on what the company is doing, but it has been about 4-5 years since they have released any new devices. maybe, maybe not, we will have to wait and see

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2010 03:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2010-02-13

Greetings everyone. Concerning making of Hydrogen, Hydrogen Fuel, Fuel from water for your car hereafter called HHO. I am a auto tech for more than 30 years. I have build three HHO units. I also install HHO units other people have build. Of all the HHO units I have installed on cars and trucks. I know of no HHO units that produce negative or zero results. The least amount produced by a HHO unit, I worked on, was 12%. This HHO was homemade and installed by the owner himself. I have seen as high as 50% increase without 02 sensor tune. I do build and use HHO’s on a 12 volt system. They do work, of course the HHO’s I build and use are nothing like the ones seen on the web. Most of the HHO’s that come into the shop are like the HHO’s seen on the web. Many produce low results.

This is only the beginning it will come but I don’t believe the oil companies are going to standby and willingly allow the change to take place.

have a blessed day!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2010 09:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Senior Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  356
Joined  2004-11-10
gijoeredneckrambo - 13 February 2010 08:22 PM

...I don’t believe the oil companies are going to standby and willingly allow the change to take place.

Pretty lame conspiracy theory. This is no different than the “150 MPG carburetor” of years past. An “HHO” device like you mention would be worth billions of dollars in revenues with relatively little capital outlay. Drilling for oil is extremely expensive. Some oil companies spend billions of dollars on drilling and making wells productive, not to mention building pipeline infrastructures and refineries. There are thousands of oil companies in the world many of which go bankrupt by drilling too many dry holes. The fact that none of them or any other big corporations have spent a penny trying to market an HHO device that you claim can be built by amateurs in their basements proves it’s a farce. They would also have to answer to their millions of shareholders why they spend all those billions if they don’t have to. Truth is, oil companies have no say whether any alternative energy source will be allowed to come to market. You’re just making this up to have a convenient excuse to explain why you can’t prove your device works as claimed.

 Signature 

Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right.
-Robert Park

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2010 09:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Captain Al - 14 February 2010 02:00 AM

You’re just making this up to have a convenient excuse to explain why you can’t prove your device works as claimed.

Yeah, that sort of claim has become a kind of mantra that people recite by rote whenever anything like this is challenged for not showing any results.  “Big Oil is blocking/hiding/sabotaging it” is no different than similar excuses such as “Big Pharma is blocking it” or “the Government is blocking it” about their own pet theories.  You’ll notice how they never, ever, ever give the slightest bit of evidence to support their claim, or even manage to make the claim make all that much sense.  Yeah, every single company and nation and individual in the world who is connected with the oil industry is united in a giant global conspiracy!  I’m sure that places such as Iran, where the national government not only owns the local oil industry but is also trying desperately to get the nation less dependent on oil, would go and cover up this new and simple and amazing technology that would answer all of their problems.  Uh huh.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2010 11:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2010-02-13

I,  don

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 6
5