[Hidden-tech] Env/Tech: Water As Fuel

David Korpiewski davidk at cs.umass.edu
Tue Jun 13 14:52:21 EDT 2006


I've been researching different hydrogen technologies on the side and 
ran across this myself.  There was actually a CNN video that was on 
cnn.com not that long ago that talked about this.

The company featured in the video is based out of Florida and is called 
"Hydrogen Technologies".  The way this works is they don't actually 
break apart the water, they simply restructure the molecule of water. 
By adding a catalyst to this restructured water (namely a small amount 
of regular gasoline), the "water" will burn.  They call this newly 
restructured water molecule "aquagen".  There are a few more sites out 
there that talk about aquagen, but none mention how to actually make it. 
   It has quite a bit of promise for sure.  But again, no catalyst, no 
burning water.

The greatest feature of aquagen is that it takes a significantly less 
amount of electricity to restructure the atom rather than to rip it 
apart (as in electrolysis).  I think the stats were something like they 
could create 300 liters of aquagen for $7.50.   To create the same 
amount of pure hydrogen using electrolysis would cost significantly more 
than that.

-David


Tom Kopec wrote:
>   ** Be a Good Dobee and help the group, you must be counted to post .
>   ** Fill out the survey/skills inventory in the member's area.
> 
> 
> As is usual, the efficiency question remains unanswered..
> 
> This requires energy input to work (to break apart the water), and at 
> the end of burning the resulting gas you have water again.. so, if it 
> produces more energy than it uses, you could run it on it's own output 
> and have a perpetual-motion machine. OTOH, if it produces less energy 
> than it uses (in keeping with the laws of thermodynamics as we know 
> them), then it's just another energy transport mechanism.
> 
> I wish him luck, and I do hope he finds something interesting and useful 
> here.. but given that he seems to be willing to (at best) not correct 
> omission of or (at worst) actively hide the fact that a lot of energy 
> has to get put into the system to get something out, I'll stay on the 
> skeptical side of the fence for now.
> 
> ...tom
> 
> At 06:05 PM 6/11/2006, Shel Horowitz wrote:
> 
>> Remarkable Fox-Florida segment on water-powered welding and vehicles. 
>> I was skeptical enough to play on Google; it's apparently real:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page: http://www.hidden-tech.net
> Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net
> 
> You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech Discussion list.
> If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the Members   
> page on the Hidden Tech Web site.
> http://www.hidden-tech.net/members

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------
David Korpiewski                     Phone: 413-545-4319
Software Specialist I                Fax:   413-577-2285
Department of Computer Science       ICQ:   7565766
University of Massachusetts Amherst
--------------------------------------------------------




Google

More information about the Hidden-discuss mailing list