But presumably, it would just be a storage technology; not a new source of energy. A good thing, but not magic. Perhaps even a breakthrough, but we'd still need to put as much energy in as we get out. Charlie ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Korpiewski" <davidk at cs.umass.edu> To: "Tom Kopec" <t_e_k at comcast.net> Cc: <hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:52 PM Subject: Re: [Hidden-tech] Env/Tech: Water As Fuel > ** 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. > > > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >