Calling all Chemists/Physicists: My BS senses are tingling - "Aquagen"

[Kelvin Mace]

A friend sent this site to me about this "breakthrough" technology for hydrogen electrolysis.

http://hytechapps.com/

(site doesn't play well with FireFox)

These folks are peddling a $7,000 machine which claims to make "A new gaseous and combustible form of water".

http://hytechapps.com/presentation/linked%20files/Hydro%20Tech/user%20added/Santilli,%20International%20Journal.pdf

Right there I am locking up my wallet and everyone else's in sight.

I find his paper full of references to "magnecules" and "hadronic chemistry". A quick check of "hadron" determines that this deals with an exotic subatomic particle, and anytime someone starts flogging a product that works by manipulating pentaquarks, tertaquarks and hybrid mesons, somebody is about to get fleeced.

The paper is written by "Prof. Ruggero Maria Santilli"

http://www.i-b-r.org/Ruggero-Maria-Santilli.htm

who is currently working for the "Institute for Basic Research" in a PO Box in Palm Harbour, Florida.

Looking up "magnecules" I find this site, http://www.magnecules.com/ which seems to be more bogus science. I find lots of refernces to other sites touting "magnegas" and lots of pitcures of nifty apparati supposedly making it.

My high school physics and chemistry tell me that this is complete horse caca, but perhaps one of your bonafide science type can give it a look?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1. "A new gaseous and combustible form of water"

No need to read any further really. So snake-oily it isn't even funny.

[nickinSTL]

2. yeah, I saw a story on this on TV the other night

(don't remember what channel or show) - and at best it seemed kind of pointless.

They seemed to be pushing some sort of gas and water mixture for fuel...which, umm...isn't that just another kind of hybrid? Why not just stick with the gas-electric hybrids? :shrug:

Hydrogen electrolysis...combustible water? :eyes: That's even worse.

[Warpy]

4. There was a closed PVC/Electrolysis/Fuel Cell driven house

on PBS last night. It was a SMALL house, smaller than the average one car garage, but it had PVCs out front powering the house during the day with surplus energy going out back to an electrolysis system, producing and storing hydrogen and oxygen. At night, the gases were used in fuel cells to generate electricity. It was small, funky, experimental, and possibly on the right track for homes.

However, "magnetrons?" Give me a break, honey. The phlogiston theory made more sense.

You can combust water, though. You just need sufficient temperatures to break those oxygen/hydrogen bonds, then they recombine in a cooler part of the reaction. It's the thermite reaction, something the mob was playing with in arson fires on the upper west coast in the 80s (if memory serves). Pour water on one of those, it gets worse.

[Orsino]

26. Water added to the thermite reaction vaporizes violently...

...but that's not combustion. Seems to me, though, that all that extra vigor could serve to scatter the thermite nicely.

[Seedersandleechers]

3. There is a video about this very subject

I saw a documentary on this very subject a few weeks ago. They showed how it works and it was very impressive. Actually, this was a video online. I’ll do a search and if I find it I will get back to you. If I remember correctly the documentary only played in England.

[Kelvin Mace]

6. Well, an online video

which claims it works may just be more sales talk unless they explain SCIENTIFICALLY how it works.

Again, my reading of the paper didn't enlighten me as it seemed a lot of obtuse language was being used which told me next to nothing.

Please let me know what you find.

[charlie]

5. Nowhere on the site

do they state that the energy produced is greater than energy invested. That's the nut that needs to be cracked and they do a lot of handwaving to distract from the fact that they haven't done it.

[Dogmudgeon]

7. It doesn't SEEM right ... so it must be WRONG ...

1. Don't believe everything you hear. In fact, don't believe ANYTHING you hear until you can check it out for yourself.

2. Not everything is a scam. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, forget it.

3. Sometimes, being "Skeptical" (so-called) is just as bad as being credulous. You need to look at things critically, not "how can I avoid getting deceived and thereby humiliated?"

Invocations of feces and baloney are purely optional. I remember a whole lot of people getting worked up over things that were later proven to exist, to work, or to be real -- sonoluminescence, biophotons, so-called "jumping genes" (lateral gene transfer), and even a "bogus" Great Ape that was proven to exist about four years ago when one jumped in front of a world-class primatologist and scared the hell out of her.

Neither belief nor disbelief are worth a damn.

Concerning this latest breakthrough -- who the hell knows? Let Dr. Santilli demonstrate his device and publish plans on its construction and operation. But if it turns out to work like he says after all, those remarks about wallets and locks are going to seem a little hasty.

Just like Tom Jefferson's remark in my sig line.

--p!

[Kelvin Mace]

21. Skepticism will serve you far better

than blind faith any day.

My limited science experience tells me this is nonsense. My long experience with scam-artists tells me it is complete nonsense.

[Dogmudgeon]

28. Only two options? Skepticism and Blind Faith?

I hear this argument quite often when I criticize Skepticism. It comes close to being one of those "memes" which I also give little credence to. For most Skeptics, Skepticism has become that blind faith -- and a movement, a form of social identification, and even a martial art.

People like Santilli are a dime a dozen and require no particular skill to suss out. But it also requires no particular skill to crack wise, which is a strongly-held value among Skeptics. One needs to entertain the possibility that the claimant may be on to something, but that's all. The Santillis of the world allow us to figure out how to deal with questionable claims, because as wacky as he sounds, occasionally people like Santilli have been right.

The most humiliating fate that can befall an intellectual, especially a "science geek", is to be played for a fool. Better to reject a hundred truths than to be deceived by one single lie. At least, that's the way most people reason. But the only way to be safe from that possibility is to scorn everything. Cynicism. So little safety, such a high price! Gullibility seldom costs as much -- but gullibility isn't the only alternative to cynicism.

That's why I don't have blind faith, and I likewise reject "Skepticism". The flexible, critical mind works best when it's unencumbered by fears of any kind. I can not claim to have a perfectly fearless and unencumbered mind, but Skepticism lies in the wrong direction.

--p!

[Kelvin Mace]

31. I put faith in people and institutions that earn it

Anything else with anyone else is blind faith.

I posted to the forum because my limited expertise told me this was BS. A flexible and critical mind still requires proof. This fellow didn't pass a high school level evaluation of his topic.

You seem to believe that folks like Santilli are easy to spot, and I might agree with you except for the fact that I have seen otherwise intelligent people believe this kind of thing. Critical thinking skills are very scarce in the real world, which is why people like Bush get elected.

[NuttyFluffers]

36. agreed, which is one of the reasons i see "Scepticism" as "Blind Faith"...

people wear the mantle of 'scepticism' too easily without going through the hard, respectable work of true scientific method. basically they choose the opposite side of the same coin in order to 'feel safe,' just as much as 'blind faith' people do.

it's time to let go of both groups and embrace critical thinking skills. but critical thinking is so strong because it has one 'weakness' which is truly an ace up its sleeve: doubt. the irritating type of "sceptics" never doubt their belief in impossibility, just as the "gullible" never doubt their belief in surity. the truly free mind, the true critical thinker, must go to the most respected of places, innocence, and admit "i don't know." then logical guessing and good ol' fashioned elbow grease by testing all permutations eliminates all but the truth. grinding out a problem to success necessitates doubt.

faith has its value, just not so much in the realm of discovery. and false faith, i.e. stubborness, fanatacism, "blind faith," derive from the sin of false pride, and such failings come in all colors. it takes humility to hold the gift of doubt for true discovery. we are finite beings, we have no real idea how much we have no clue about -- and a lot of the impossible has routinely disproven to be possible throughout the years. it takes the openness not found in the extremes of "sceptic/gullible" to find the way. one must take the step forward as much as one must open one's eyes in order to progress, right? it is time to let such egoist trappings of the term 'sceptic' die already; it's not a virtue. we should start trying to use the word "doubtful," or "hesitant" instead of these now loaded terms.

[Poiuyt]

8. I can tell you how to avoid getting fleeced by internet ads for $8,000

I have a Paypal account. You can PM me for it so that you can send me the money.

[Kelvin Mace]

22. Droll,

very droll.

[ProfessorGAC]

9. I Read The Whole Paper

The math is highly questionable. The bond energies and Gibbs Free Energy values stated do not make sense. The energy used to electrolyze the water doesn't necessarily have to exactly equal the heat of combustion upon recombining, (although in general, heats of formation and heats of combustion are essentially the same). But, this would require 100% efficiency in both the electrolytic and combustion steps.

I don't know that there is any such thing, and even in combustion, the only way to assure 100% efficiency is to have the system under high stress (temperature and pressure). That would only be done in the interest of creating an adiabatic state to determine the exact measures of energy release. It would be impractical under these circumstances because the energy used to achieve those temperatures and pressures would exceed the output. Thermocell and combustion bomb studies (to determine the dangers involved in certain chemical mixtures and reactions) always are a net energy sink, despite the fact that one is actually creating an explosion. (A highly efficient energy release.)

I wouldn't buy this concept for a nickel, let alone 8 Grand.
The Professor

[papau]

11. Bingo - I totally agree - here are some links to old video from Fox news

The idea is that the h2o passes through a thin special plastic where only the oxygen passes through the hydrogen attemps to join back with it and being a positively charges ion molecule passes along an electric bar causing a current, that can be used to power anything like cars - but is it effective?

Hydrogen is not a fuel source; it is storage at best. It takes exactly the same amount to split the molecule as you will get back out when they recombine. So he must be using energy from gas, and then getting some of it back from burning the hydrogen. Over all more energy must be used than just burning the gas.

At the current use rate we have enough U235 left on earth (the known and estimated resources plus secondary resources -such as the military inventory - are a total of around 4.8 million tons) for around 90 year.

We can use solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and wind to make electricity but we can not make enough that way, so Conservation and bio-mass are the only solution - not hydrogen until and unless we use solar to produce the hydrogen. But the reason half of Arizona isn't already covered in solar panels and windmills so the US could reduce the coal and oil consumed to produce its power is cost - there must be a return on the investment.

As reported on Fox News - video will begin eventually on this page - please wait about 30 seconds
video at:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/128967/water_as_fuel/
Aquygen™ Gas website http://hytechapps.com/applications/HHOS.htm

2005 Article - Working in a small, two-room shop at the Airport Business Center, Klein, 63, said he has developed a gas that speeds welding and fusing times and improves automobile fuel efficiency 30 percent. Flipping a switch on his H2O 1500, Klein picks up a hose with a metal tip, creates a spark, and instantly a blue and white glowing stream shoots out of the metal tip. He holds the tip with his fingers to prove how cool it is to the touch, unlike such a tip when oxy-acetylene is burned for welding. But the instant he sets the flame on a charcoal briquette, it glows bright orange. Then, within seconds, he burns a hole through a brick, cuts steel and melts Tungsten. The temperature of the flame is 259 degrees Fahrenheit. But it instantaneously rises to the melting temperature of whatever it touches, Klein said. Those temperatures can exceed 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit. "You can't do this with any other gas," he said. Klein also has outfitted a 1994 Ford Escort station wagon with a smaller electrolyzer that injects his HHO into the gasoline in the car's engine. He said he has increased his mileage per gallon by 30 percent.

He doesn't yet have a patent, because it would be bustable by several "prior art" claims - 20060075683 - April 13, 2006 - An electrolyzer which decomposes distilled water into a new fuel composed of hydrogen, oxygen and their molecular and magnecular bonds, called HHO. The electrolyzer can be used to provide the new combustible gas as an additive to combustion engine fuels or in flame or other generating equipment such as torches and welders. It will be soon evident that, despite a number of similarities, the HHO gas is dramatically different than the Brown gas or other gases produced by pre-existing electrolyzers. In fact, the latter is a combination of conventional hydrogen and conventional oxygen gases, that is, gases possessing the conventional "molecular" structure, having the exact stochiometric ratio of 2/3 hydrogen and 1/3 oxygen. As we shall see, the HHO gas does not have such an exact stochiometric ratio but instead has basically a structure having a "magnecular" characteristic, including the presence of clusters in macroscopic percentages that cannot be explained via the usual valence bond. As a consequence, the constuents clusters of the Brown Gas and the HHO gas are dramatically different both in percentages as well as in chemical composition, as shown below. With the use of only 4 Kwh, an electrolyzer rapidly converts water into 55 standard cubic feet (scf) of HHO gas at 35 pounds per square inch (psi). By using the average daily cost of electricity at the rate of $0.08/Kwh, the above efficiency implies the direct cost of the HHO gas of $0.007/scf. It then follows that the HHO gas is cost competive with respect to existing fuels.

Water Car Inventor Murdered video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800

[ProfessorGAC]

13. There Actually Are Exotic Quantum Mechanisms. . .

. . .that allow for the splitting to require less energy than the returned heat of combustion during recombination.

But, first, i see nothing in this technology that would avail itself of such exotic mechanics. And, secondly the uncertainties and "controllability" of such photon seepage mechanisms would make the system extraordinarily difficult to sustain. Hence, it would work part of the time and not work others. Then, with input energy needed to restart it, the best one could practically hope for is a breakeven.

So, while it's theoretically possible to get a net energy release, it would take enormous volumes of combustion gasses to do it, (so there's your ROI argument) and i don't see anything here that would suggest these quantum theories are even in play.

I think this is snake-oil.
The Professor

[papau]

14. Another thing to add to "Things I don't know" list- it is a very long list

Exotic Quantum Mechanisms that at least appear to violate the 2nd law?

I think I'll concentrate on the grandkids!

[ProfessorGAC]

16. Yep. It's A Weird Little World

And i do mean LITTLE as in incredibly superduper, small.

Remember this is the same world that gives us "it's a particle, it's a wave" duality, and photon tunneling, where photons can go right through an opaque, solid object, but not really be the exact same photon.

Lots of things that are really hard to figure in QM. Very weird stuff. Probably why i liked it so much. Weird stuff for weird people.
The Professor

[skids]

15. Truth mixed with fiction?

Electrolysis with a membrane is used in creating disinfecting OH-carrying water (which only stays that way for a short time and must be used on the spot.)

http://www.aquatechnology.net/electrolyzed.html

And injecting just plain old hydrogen into a car fuel mixture is well known to increase mileage/reduce emissions, and has been since the 70s.

http://www.chechfi.ca/

Both technologies aren't on most people's radar -- in the case of the latter he might be passing off a lesser-known effect as something it isn't.

[papau]

17. Classic partial truth lies as far as I can see - but if Fox News picked it

up - it must be true - right!

:-)

[SidDithers]

18. Thanks, Professor...

was hoping you'd appear on this thread. Your insights are always appreciated.

:toast:

Sid

[Kelvin Mace]

24. Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

What is your discipline? I wish to assure my gullible freinds that a REAL scientist has examined the issue.

[Orsino]

27. Well, real scientists might examine the issue in detail...

...if the paper could pass muster with the editor of a scientific journal, or if anyone could reproduce the results.

This is rather obvious baloney, though.

[Avalux]

10. LOL - water combustible? Highly unlikely.

I haven't gone to the site, but is the actual chemical equation for such a feat posted? It would require an extraordinary amount of energy. A lot of scientific sounding hooey, especially when it comes down to peddling a machine.

If this was the real deal, it would be in scientific journals and reviewed by other scientists.

[rock]

12. Water is burnt hydrogen

Isn't it? Might as well try to burn (say) wood ash.

[slackmaster]

19. Not even close to a new idea

http://www.lrultrasonics.com/industries/jewelry/special.html

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Trust your high school chemistry.

Yes, of course it's complete horse caca.

[Kelvin Mace]

23. Shame we can't more folk

to remember and trust their BASIC science education.

[jmowreader]

25. He's just selling a welding machine

A very, very expensive welding machine.

You can buy an Esab multiprocess machine for under $4000, or a Miller multiprocess for under $5000...OR buy this Aquygen machine for around $7000. With the first two boxes, I can weld using three different and very versatile processes so I can take any two given objects and turn them into one. Hydrogen Applications' machine is an oxyfuel unit. That's all it is. You can go to any welding shop in the world and buy a whole oxyfuel system, with two-stage regulators, flame arrestors, filled cylinders and safety gear, for well under a thousand dollars. And with it, I can cut ferrous metals which the Aquygen machine won't do.

If I buy the Esab or the Miller and it breaks, and industrial equipment DOES, I can get it fixed in any large city. The Aquygen machine will have to be sent back to the manufacturer--by motor freight, and at your expense. (Also consider: if my Miller breaks and I take it to the shop, I can rent a machine until mine is fixed. With this machine, you are almost required to own two. If I run a welding shop, I can't make money if I can't weld, and I can't weld with no machine.)

Also consider that Esab's been around for 102 years, Miller was founded in 1929, Lincoln Electric has been in business for 110 years...and Hydrogen Applications Corporation has been in business for six years. Welding professionals look at things like that--if I drop seven large on a welding machine, especially one that is made of parts found in no other device on the planet, I must know that the company will be around tomorrow to service the machine.

Now let's look at the machine Hydrogen Applications Corporation has built. I think about half of what they're saying about it is utter bullshit--being able to run your hand through the flame without injuring the hand, then turn around and melt a hole in a firebrick without adjusting the flame is one. Apparently this flame is supposed to be able to pick out the sublimation temperature of any object you point it at and adjust the temperature of the flame to match that point--but at the same time it's supposed to be able to know not to raise the flame temperature when you've got the flame pointed at yourself. Okay...hmmm...this machine can sublimate--convert solid to gas without going through the liquid phase, which is different from "setting it on fire"--things that don't sublimate, like firebrick. It can supposedly reach 9000 degrees Celsius, which is plasma cutter territory.

No...make that about 90 percent of what they're saying is bullshit.

What IS correct is that these kinds of welders exist. Jewelers like them because they don't require you to store cylinders of welding gases.

But fuck, man, for seven bills you're a hell of a lot better off with microplasma.

[newspeak]

29. so, this is some kind of "glorified" welder?

You know, there's got to be something out there that replaces oil--if we only could make a battery that would collect energy, greatly magnify the energy and conservatively expend it. You could even use your own energy to charge the battery. As a five year old, I had a dream about filling up the gas tank with water and putting in some kind of pill and the car worked. Well, I actually tried it on my grandmother's car--of course, I didn't have the magic pill, so I used dirt. Do you know how much trouble I got in for my little experiment? Seriously, there has got to be something out there other than petroleum!!!!

[Odin2005]

30. Snake Oil

Or else he's a fool who doesn't understand the basics of chemical reations.

[eppur_se_muova]

32. It's just electrolysis of water, plus a lot of mumbo-jumbo.

Amazing how many times this resurfaces. TANSTAAFL !! If you put a few kilowatt-hours of energy into the electrolysis of water, you make a lot of hydrogen. Burn it (in a fuel cell if you want) and you get energy back -- always less than you put in. As more attention focuses on hydrogen, there will only be more of these scams. People fall for these things because they WANT to believe TISATAAFL.

Your bogometer should have PEGGED.

[Dave Reynolds]

33. The terms "combustible" and "water" used in tandem

automatically spell "bullshit" to me.

[Random_Australian]

34. I smell BULLSHIT at polarised atomic Hydrogen.

Keep an isolated atom polarised? In a GAS? Almost no chance.

At best, they've managed to funklaiciously got water into the gaseous state with some OH in the mix, but it is fairly likely that it is one big scam.

Edit: They should have links to peer-reviewed journals if they want me to start believing them.
(Looking closely for them now)

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Hey, I'm still waiting for my check from Bill Gates and AOL...

you know, for all those emails I forwarded back in 1997...