What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
106 Comments
- SpaceDreamer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+46This is a hoax.
the gas they talk about is a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. It is nothing new.
They pretend it is different, but that has never been demonstrated.
Anyway, the engine doesn't run on "water" but on gas that is extracted from water though a process that obviously costs MORE ENERGY than the engine generates. Are people from fox news retarded ? - CovardeAnonimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+36buried. this Brown guy is just a conn artist selling "unlimited power from water". seen this many times, and none of that bull**** ever stood to a more detailed scrutiny. you want enormous ammount of power from water ? build a tokamak.
- Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34It's BS, do 5 minutes of research. Look up "brown's gas". Why is this submitted once a week?
- limppapa, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31Wow! He did it, some random guy who drives a crappy escort solved the worlds energy problems. Don't these huge oil companies invest hundreds of millions of dollars a year into alternative fuels. I guess for some reason they actually aren't trying that hard.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1825 miles on an ounce of water.
- Nerys, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11its not a hoax but simply constantly misread
HE DID NOT GO 100 MILES ON AN OUNCE OF WATER
Over the course of 100 miles he USED 1 ounce of water in his HHO or whatever and GASOLINE HYBRID
ie its a gas car using a tiny bit of hydrogen to improve mileage SLIGHTLY - iconshotspot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Oh man glad I read the comments. I am almost moved all my shares out of Google and tried to diversify my portofolio with stocks from Dasani and Aquafina.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6There are a lot of people out there who don't think fluoride in our water supply is such a great thing.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/
(I do not endorse this site...just posting it as Devil's advocate.) - hmniq, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@sephiroth4: You're an idiot.
- AZTriGuy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7With all the comments (now including mine) stating that this was not only on the front page months ago and proved as fake, how do stories like this keep getting promoted?
- MrBabyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"of course none of this has been confirmed" would be the key phrase here.
- Ub3rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Marked as inaccurage beacuse
- its 100 miles on 4 oz of water
- it unconfirmed
- unless he's got some super secret sauce, it actually takes more energy to convert h2o to hho than is provided to the engine - Quactaur, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8This was dugg a while ago (3 months i think).
It's a poor way, because power stations have to exert much greater amounts of energy to convert h20 into HHO; just a more energetic, but more wastefull kind of battery. - DigitalWorld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5To anyone who might not have done this.
Klein did file a patent application. In 2004. He later re-filed, but in doing so cancelled the first 8 claims of his patent application. The first 8 claims all envolved the electrolyzer used to create the gas. In cancelling those claims, it stands to mean that the "electrolyzer" Klein referred to in his video, doesn't work, or else it would still be in the claims of his patent application. He also removed all claims of being able to use said gas to improve fuel efficiency (the last 25 claims).
It seems like he stumbled upon this by accident and thought he had it. I stumbled upon perpetual energy a few times myself.....:)
First one (2004): http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=5&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=HHO&s2=Gas&OS=HHO+AND+Gas&RS=HHO+AND+Gas
Second One (2006): http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=HHO&s2=Gas&OS=HHO+AND+Gas&RS=HHO+AND+Gas - thor0411, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7read the laws of thermodynamics, this is impossible
- Quactaur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4We can't use hosed water.
It's the same components are water, but not the same chemistry. To make your hose water into enough fuel for a 12 mile run, you'd have to expend enough energy for a 18 mile one, at the very least. I can't see a niche or use for this product, the chemical has' been around for decades (just not used in vehicles) and it's too much effort to use it as a fuel.
Edit: You edited just after i posted. No worries, just so everyone else knows that you can't use tap water. - ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Sigh...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown%27s_gas
How often do we have to recycle the same stories that aren't nearly as important as people think they are? - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What? "chemical stability of water" my ass! HHO (or as it's more commonly called, 2H2O2) is extremely explosive. One spark and the thing goes up like a rocket. What do you think big rockets burn anyway? Hydrogen and Oxygen, that's what.
Anyway, this is clearly bogus. The thing isn't running on water, it's running on electricity by electolysing water. Which is silly because you lose a lot of efficency that way. Combusting 2H2O2 only gives back about a third of the energy that it took to create the stuff from water in the first place. Using it to drive a car would thus be about 33% efficent. Whereas a straight electric motor is like 85% efficent. - AlexApetrei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4yes sir, unless that huy has figured out a way to cause a chain reaction in the elecrolisis of water (which I doubt) , that thing's not saving any energy.
On the plus side it does what it was intended to do , which is wealding mettal whilst keeping that tip cold.
So, well done to the guy for solving the problem of having to cary/store dangerous pressurised hydrogen and oxigen canisters, but that car stuff is just hype to get attention. I think it did it's job, it's a cheep advertising campaign, end of that. - shadedream, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Actually if new technologies get goverment contracts it generally helps get them onto the market sooner. They already will have a large paying customer base to start with to fund further development.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4From the description: "but one has to wonder if this knocked oil dependency, would countries charge for water."
Ummmm...we're ALREADY charged by whatever city we live in for water. That's not even counting companies charging for bottled water. - clickwir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually he used more energy to create the hydrogen that ran the car than he would have if he just bought some gas for it.
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8zbeast, at least they can spell "they're". It seems that you're even lower on the 'retard scale' than Fox News is. That's sad news for you.
- xemvip, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Nerys is paying attention.
Notice they say it is running on gas AND water. The HHO does improve mileage, but it does NOT eliminate the need for petroleum fuel. While this is all slightly interesting, it is by no means revolutionary. - hmniq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What carbon? There's no carbon.
- guytoronto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Please, for the sake of everyone's intelligence, bury this article.
- ThatsUnpossible, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Because in some places tap water tastes like *****, and in other places, it can make you *****?
- akira117, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2*** Inaccurate title ***
"...four ounces of water..." - lauridsd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I call "shenanigans".
Or to quote Homer, "In this house we obey the laws of Thermodynamics!" - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Alright guys, here's the super-secret process that his engine uses.
1. Gasoline generator turns motor.
2. Motor turns generator charging battery
3. Battery is used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen
4. Hydrogen and oxygen is burned in a generator to turn another motor
5. Motor turns wheels.
All he did was add in steps 2,3 and 4 into a normal car. - Djerrid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2One way to test if these claims are correct is to make it yourself:
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/bingofuel/bgen/
I believe others have done so already:
http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm - hmniq, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Highly improbable, yes, but impossible? Care to explain why?
- Sklz711, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Um...AFAIK this hasn't been shown as false yet. For those who never saw the first Digg basically the claim as I understand boils down to this.
Normal electrolysis completely separates the Hydrogen and Oxygen. The electrolysis this guy claims to have invented supposedly only breaks one of the H-O bonds and supposedly bonds the H to H through some new kind of bond. I think the term they "invented" for it was magnecule.
Basically the guy isn't claiming he invented a new element, he knows he's burning hydrogen and oxygen, or what basically amounts to Brown's Gas. He just thinks he's found a more efficient way to create it. He's not claiming he invented perpetual motion either.
Think of it like this, total ***** numbers incoming. Let's say the efficiency of turning water to Hydrogen is something like 50%. Now, let's say this new process has an efficiency of more like 85%. So you'd still be losing 15% of the energy you put in. However, if it increases fuel efficiency over 15% you'd be looking at a net gain.
Note, this isn't breaking any laws of Thermodynamics. It isn't creating energy from nothing, it's simply putting the energy we have to better use.
Do I believe in HHO gas? I don't really know. However, if you don't fine. Believe that he is just making Hydrogen and Oxygen. Even if that's the case, you have to admit it IS possible that he invented a new or improved form of electrolysis. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3IT's total *****! The same scam ran during the 1970's oil crunch.
- cdlavalle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This again?!? This is a big ole dupe...they should require searching before posting again. This is getting ridiculous... http://digg.com/tech_news/Water_Fuel_-_HHO_Gas
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If their claims are accurate, then it's a powerful and renewable energy storage medium. A powerful energy storage mechanism would allow for the use of MUCH more efficient power generation technologies, which could result in a net increase in miles per gallon.
Completely aside from that, if this technology lives up to the hype then we could use the incredible fuel efficiency of nuclear power plants to completely eliminate fossil fuels in a single generation, if it weren't for those blasted NIMBYs.
The key word, of course, being "if". - kmiller2087, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1jeez this article needs to be closed, you guys are just repeating the same ***** everyone else has said. we get it. its less efficient and impractical. let it go.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You sad, deluded jerk!
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12H2O2 is my crappy digg-safe way of writing hydrogen gas + oxygen gas. AKA H2 + O2. When you electrolyze water, you get 2 molecules of H2 for every one of O2.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sure, you can get great milage from a few cups of water, but to make it work properly you probably have to have several gallons of gas in a special 'gas tank' at the back.
You see, the gas makes the water insecure and to compensate the poor water farts out its hydrogen in embarassment till the car starts rolling.
Course, you gotta top up the gas every so often coz it looses its embarrasment power over the water and loses a lot of its mass (say, around 1 gallon for every 12-19 miles worth of water embarrasment) - bobdole34, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well.. at current rates there is well over 100 trillion dollars of oil left to sell..
How motivated can they really be? - fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Caleb, RTFA. The claim is that it converted water to another non-water material which is flamable. Specifically, the claim is that he's converting HOH into HHO.
- jwinky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Please, this crap gets posted every few months someplace.
He's using electrolysis to create Brown's Gas, which is then fed into the engine. Brown's Gas is unstable, but it doesn't explode. It implodes, releasing water (H2O) and some electricity. The energy released in the form of electricity is the exact same as the energy put into the system through electrolysis.
This is an elaborate system for transporting energy from a battery to an engine. The reason it goes 100 miles on 1 OZ of water is that THE WATER IS NEVER CONSUMED. It merely transports electrons. If it wasn't for leaks in the engine 1 OZ of water would last forever. All the energy comes from the elecrolysis, which is powered by either batteries or the gasoline combustion, so in either way the real energy source is a lot more expensive than water.
So yes, this is bunk. There are far more efficient ways to add extra energy to a car.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown%27s_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis - drakaan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@AlexApetrei: That's the question, isn't it...his patent isn't for running a car on "HHO" gas (hopefully most of us knew that electrolysis splits water molecules into Hydrogen and Oxygen gas), or even on the blowtorch that uses it. His patent is supposed to be on the method of electrolysis he's using (from the article).
I think I'd have been more interested to have seen him demonstrate the electrolysis process, but I'm going to remain interested until I see that he's been officially verified as a crank. Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible (although it may very well be). - redeye666, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This has been around for a while, it's called "Bingo Fuel". JL Naudin has done some experiments and there are over 100 other successful replications, worth a look at http://jlnlabs.imars.com/bingofuel/index.htm
- ThatsUnpossible, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not sure where you live, but I just paid a pricy $3.25 per gallon for my gas (.85 cents per liter), and my nearby store sells 1 liter of bottled water for $1.50: http://www.bevmo.com/productinfo.asp?sku=00000056519&Dn=166+168&Nr=Store%3A99&Ntt=water&N=168+0&Nty=1&D=water&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&Ntk=All
- ThatsUnpossible, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Sklz711... you're going in the opposite direction of logic. Typically a scientific claim must be PROVEN, scientifically. You seem to say let's believe something until it's disproven.
How about we stop digging this stupid claim until it's actually proven outside of a marketing video?
BTW, this claim is old news, read about Brown's Gas:
Brown's Gas on wikipedia - Trebormojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"If you had electrical power available you would be much, much better off driving the car with an electric motor than fooling around with a gas generator and a gas powered motor."
The Tom Napier post describes with detail the math involved with Brown's Gas.
http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm - shotgunefx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you believe that, I've got a Perpetual Motion Machine you might be interested in. Real cheap :)
- Fratz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Uh, for the chemistry-impaired, _don't_ try this unless you have a safe way to contain the resulting hydrogen and oxygen gas, both of which can lead to explosions when taunted. (Technically, oxygen isn't explosive, but it enhances the power of any oxygen-burning substance - such as just about everything - and is considered an explosive gas, for the purposes of labeling, storage, and transport.)
-
Show 51 - 100 of 106 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is