Well, that logic certainly reduced his argument to rubble.

On the chance that you'd like to read some actual study results, check out http://www.ahjonline.com/article/PII...06496/abstract :

One should be careful to note that the study does not address the possible existence of a god or gods; it simply examined recovery rates in large trial groups of patients.


Torben

__________________
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.

 

Thank you, Torben, for the reply. Unfortunately, I didn't get e-mail notification for the responses in time to reply myself.

Your quote from Professor Koenig,

is exactly what I had in mind when I said depending on how one interprets the texts. Specifically, I was thinking of the Book of Job.

Most important, as you point out, the experiments were not designed to test the existence of God, but the power of prayer. Its relevance, if you will, was in reference to your comments about proper scientific inquiry.

John

 

Dang! That means I'll never see supercharged HHO at work until I believe it first!

And then, there'll be no need to demonstrate it, since believers don't need proof, and it never works for non believers.

 

OK, need some help from Electrical Engineer pretty please. The power mosfet is $35us STE250NS10 (http://www.st.com/stonline/books/pdf/docs/8220.pdf). As I stated in my earlier post, the electrode I am using now draws 50 amps @ room temp. Later I plan to expand the surface area by using circular plates instead of rectangular ones and I anticipate a current draw of 125A, which is why I am choosing a transistor which can handle twice the current. for the driver I would like to use a DRV101. Here's a schematic from one of the App note's: Instead of the IRF4905, I'd like to use the STE250NS10. What adjustments do I have to make to the schematic to make it work? TIA

Attached Images

fet driver.jpg (51.4 KB, 14 views)

 

The prayer test shows that believers have poor results and non-believers have better results.

With HHO it will be the non-believers who don't waste time, money and gasoline to overload their overheated alternator to make useless HHO.
It will be the believers who waste all that stuff.

__________________
Uncle $crooge

 

Or the people stating the claims should put up facts... If I were to even attempt having an engine run off HHO I would begin with a model airplane engine on a workbench along with a battery powering a water splitting cell (or whatever term it's called). Show the measured current to producing the hydrgen and then load the engine on a dynometer to prove the power output from the engine. I haven't even seen that...let alone a true real world vehicle do that.

Energy out = energy in - losses

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydEkV...eature=related

watch the whole video. theyre electrodes werent working. plus, the goal initially is to run a hybrid, gas+HHO. But the vid shows an engine, albeit and improperly HHO tuned engine can run on HHO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMda-I44CSQ

This is what real electrodes do to water!

 

If this stuff was even marginally useful, there would have been commercial products and kits being offered all over the place. I've seen the schematics and hardware, pretty low cost, which means huge profit potential. There is a lot of stuff people could easily build their selves with a quick stop at any hardware store, and maybe Radio Shack (just an example, have been in one for maybe 30 years). Only people making money, are those selling books, plans, and home videos of how they built their designs

Most any chemistry research lab could set this up on a slow afternoon, just to play with between paid projects. If there was even the slightest potential, I'm sure they'd be all over it. This isn't a new, ground breaking concept. A lot of the schematics have obsolete part numbers and very old technology.

I still believe you get what you pay for... The return will never equal what you put into it. There will be losses making the gas, and more losses burning it. Might make for an impressive show, but you'll need to sell a lot of tickets, just to break even...

 

If you fool the car's computer so that it doesn't see the extra oxygen then HHO is supposed to help gasoline burn better so a little less gasoline is used.
The testimonial from the trucker with a huge engine and a tiny bottle of water: "Better fuel economy" (no proof).

__________________
Uncle $crooge

 

I hear that all the time. This stuff is now coming to the forefront because of the demand AND the internet. It will be found stanley meyers was ahead of his day I believe. And remember, our government does not yet TAX water does it? Not only that, if you disassociate salt water, side gas would be chlorine, very dangerous. This is not stuff to play with. Prob best to stick with distilled water....

Here are some links as I was researching today: (too lazy to do research?... too lazy to click some links?)

Police dept investigating advantages:http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/jul/...ahoo_headlines

News station doing tests:http://www.wptv.com/news/local/story...1-939c4bb13a28

Company now producing HHO units for aforementioned entities at $1200 a piece:http://www.hydro4000.com/

 

I don't see why you are having a problem with understanding why this won't work.

Look at the energy conversions taking place.

Petrol to kinetic energy - 25% efficient.
Kinetic to electrical - 80% efficient.
Electrical to chemical (using electrolysis to produce 'Brown's gas') - 60%?
Brown's gas to kinetic 25%?

You're loosing more energy by doing more conversions, it's pretty obvious.

Even the above estimates are optimistic, they assume the engine and alternator are working at their maximum efficiencies.

__________________
I also post at the following sites:
http://www.stop-microsoft.org http://www.heated-debates.com
Screen name: Aloone_Jonez
And http://www.silicontronics.com, same screen name as here.

 

Well you have to take into account the phase angle

 

The efficiency of electrolysis using PWM can be up to 85%...

Using your petrol to kinetic conversion at 25%, if you add a turbo to an engine you raise it's volumetric efficiency. By how much I don't know, but if adding a turbo raises an engine's efficiency why can't electrolysis have the same effect?

 

It changes nothing, even if I was wrong about the effiency of electrolysis.

It could be 99% efficient but it adds another energy conversion step to the process.

Turbochargers are different, they actually increase the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo

You might next ask about hybrid cars and how they boost efficiency even though there's an extra conversion of energy from one form to another. The simple answer is that they rely on the fact: that engines are most efficient at 3000rpm and inefficient at 1000rpm and electric motors are effient at all speeds. When the engine is operating near maximum efficiency, some of the kinetic energy is converted to electrical energy and stored in the battery and wehrn traveling at lower speeds the engine can be shut down and the energy in the batterys can be used.

Using electrolysis to produce Brown's gas would only make the system more efficient if it was done when the engine is working at its maximum efficiency and there was an efficent method for converting the stored energy in the Brown's gas to kinetic energy. Currently the latter is very inefficient, in fact it's just as bad as the combustion engine which is why you don't gain, you only loose.

__________________
I also post at the following sites:
http://www.stop-microsoft.org http://www.heated-debates.com
Screen name: Aloone_Jonez
And http://www.silicontronics.com, same screen name as here.

 

Written by two athiests funded by the Bilderberg's. Bet you buy into Global warming and Evolution too. Don't you?