Joe cell?

[Clark Bigger]

research that.....does it really work?
or' "stan meyer " let's get this stuff going
let's get it out in the open

[KeithW]

When you start looking into any "break water into H and O2 to burn in the engine as you drive" setups also check out perpetual motion machines. Unfortunately it takes more energy to break apart water than you get from burning it. So, you're taking an inefficent internal combustion engine, running an inefficent alternator, running an inefficent chemical reactor and expecting to gain energy? Sad but true, TANFL.

keithw

[Benjamin Roth]

From what I have read about the Joe Cell....it's nonsense. That design does make a very good electrolzser though.

If it takes more fuel to run the alternator to power the electrolyzer.....why do you still see a 3 mpg increase in fuel economy?

Benjamin

[KeithW]

"If it takes more fuel to run the alternator to power the electrolyzer.....why do you still see a 3 mpg increase in fuel economy? "

The normal reason, poor control of the test conditions. There is a reason for large samples, double blind tests, and all that fun stuff.

It is also possible that the efficiency of the engine is being increased by something other than what they think is causing it. If that is the case then the same results could be produced by implementing the real cause and dumping the hocus-pocus.

It's like all the magic spark plugs. Any new plug will work better than an old worn out plug. You never see them take two cars and put new OEM plugs in one and the magic plugs in the other.

keithw

[Clark Bigger]

your right.....sorry to take up space....moderaters, you can delete this thread clark

[KeithW]

I vote for not deleting. It was a good question. With all the hype and snake oil going around it's good to have at least a little sanity out here in the big cyber world.

keithw

[Simon Thomson]

I believe there is a way to make this work. It's just a case of building testing improving starting over etc etc. Been following electrolyser and water power sites for a good while now but there's a helluva bull***t out there and quite a lot of nastiness. One site which was very good got so bad so quickly that I no longer visit it.

Nearly everybody seems to be concentrating on straight DC at very low voltages because hydrogen is generated at one pole and O2 at the other because they learned it in science at school and are blinkered to other methods. There are a few interesting developments at high voltage high frequency ac say 4-8kv at say 10-20khz (plasma generation voltages). The parts to build generators capable of these voltages are available for pennies at the likes of radio shack but very few seem interested. I reckon it will happen one of these days hopefully sooner rather than later.

Simon.

[pegasuspinto]

someone needs to complete the idea! you're wasting all that CO2!! if burning hydrocarbons makes H2O and CO2, why not build a car that burns both CO2 and H2O!!!

Some people just hate to believe basic science, you simply can not get more energy out of water then you put into it. NEVER. mankind will never do it, short of a nuclear reaction (even then, you are simply decomposing the water further down...)

Robert