Any physicists/chemists around who can debunk this authoritatively?

http://www.cleanwatts.com/technology/default.asp

[quote]
Upon immersion of AEC's metal materials into the liquid solution, there is an immediate, steady production of gaseous components, including but not limited to, 99.99% pure hydrogen and oxygen. No source of external energy is introduced or required for such production. The process does not involve electrolysis, or the use of an external source of electrical power of any manner in the actual hydrogen generation process. Removal apparatus for the oxygen are not required for the purity levels to meet required standards for use in alkaline fuel cells and internal combustion engines. The output from the AEC process was certified by Maxxam Analytics, to be 99.9% pure hydrogen on October 7, 2003.
[/quote]

They avoid saying "free energy" but I'm pretty sure that's what they're peddling.

"99.99% pure hydrogen and oxygen"

Which when together as gases form water.

Debunked.

Well, yes, it seems like obvious bullshit to me. What I'm after, though, is some science to explain why a 'special alloy' can't react with water to produce hydrogen (which I presume is unlikely).

In this reaction, there is an imbalence of everything. I am assuming that their solution has to be slightly-less-than pure water to produce slightly-less-than-pure water right above it.

Where does the energy come from? Following the slightly-less-than-pure water theory, it takes a massive amount of energy to break water apart, and thus release a large amount of energy when it combines.

I know that platinum is a catalyst that can (by means I am not sure of) seperate water into oxygen and hydrogen. It still needs a massive amount of energy though.

I guess we will have to wait until they get their patents to find out what is going on.

well, due to conservation of energy, the amount of energy needed to change water into H2 + O is the same amount of energy produced by changing H2 + O back into water.

But who knows?  Stranger things have been invented. 

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=12288.msg121499#msg121499 date=1121919437]
Any physicists/chemists around who can debunk this authoritatively?

http://www.cleanwatts.com/technology/default.asp

[quote]
Upon immersion of AEC's metal materials into the liquid solution, there is an immediate, steady production of gaseous components, including but not limited to, 99.99% pure hydrogen and oxygen. No source of external energy is introduced or required for such production. The process does not involve electrolysis, or the use of an external source of electrical power of any manner in the actual hydrogen generation process. Removal apparatus for the oxygen are not required for the purity levels to meet required standards for use in alkaline fuel cells and internal combustion engines. The output from the AEC process was certified by Maxxam Analytics, to be 99.9% pure hydrogen on October 7, 2003.
[/quote]

They avoid saying "free energy" but I'm pretty sure that's what they're peddling.
[/quote]*cough*steam*/cough*

They say they are creating hydrogen from water.

One metal which has that effect when immersed in water is magnesium.


For debunking purposes, try the laws of thermodynamics.

[quote author=Shout link=topic=12288.msg121502#msg121502 date=1121919844]
"99.99% pure hydrogen and oxygen"

Which when together as gases form water.

Debunked.
[/quote]

Only if you apply heat to enable the reaction.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=12288.msg121678#msg121678 date=1122016837]
They say they are creating hydrogen from water.

One metal which has that effect when immersed in water is magnesium.

For debunking purposes, try the laws of thermodynamics.
[/quote]

That's not really true.  Magnesium doesn't react that well with water.  It does much better with steam.

Also, I'd be interested to hear how the laws of thermodynamics prove AEC's claims false.

The alkali elements react with water (most violently is cesium).

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=12288.msg121730#msg121730 date=1122057006]
The alkali elements react with water (most violently is cesium).
[/quote]

Cesium isn't the most violent, Francium is.  The lower down the table you go, the more violently they react.

I think that has to do with the fact that they already have a lot of stored energy, though.  My last post explains that a bit more, but it involves the laws of thermodynamics.  You can't get back more energy than what you put into it, so to produce H2 and O from water should take as much energy as you get from turning H2 and O back into water. 

However, the energy might be used to product the compound that changes water to H2 and O, which means that, although the energy is there, it doesn't need to be created while driving. 

[quote author=iago link=topic=12288.msg121788#msg121788 date=1122134778]
[quote author=rabbit link=topic=12288.msg121730#msg121730 date=1122057006]
The alkali elements react with water (most violently is cesium).
[/quote]Cesium isn't the most violent, Francium is.  The lower down the table you go, the more violently they react.[/quote]Then my chemistry teacher was wrong.  O well.

[quote author=iago link=topic=12288.msg121788#msg121788 date=1122134778]
[quote author=rabbit link=topic=12288.msg121730#msg121730 date=1122057006]
The alkali elements react with water (most violently is cesium).
[/quote]

Cesium isn't the most violent, Francium is.  The lower down the table you go, the more violently they react.

I think that has to do with the fact that they already have a lot of stored energy, though.  My last post explains that a bit more, but it involves the laws of thermodynamics.  You can't get back more energy than what you put into it, so to produce H2 and O from water should take as much energy as you get from turning H2 and O back into water. 

However, the energy might be used to product the compound that changes water to H2 and O, which means that, although the energy is there, it doesn't need to be created while driving. 
[/quote]

That doesn't mean that their idea is necessarily useless..  It probably is, but there isn't that much information to go on.

The second law of thermodynamics states that in a cyclical process you can't
get more useful work than the energy invested.  You break even when
the net change of the entropy of the system is zero, which doesn't happen.

HOWEVER... the change in free energy of a chemical reaction might be "Q", and the useful work that can be done out of say a hydrogen product might be L, where L << Q, but we have methods of using hydrogen (rather efficiently) as a fuel, and we don't have good ways to use all of the energy in the chemical reaction to do useful work. 

For example, we often put a lot more heat energy into our engines than we get useful work out of it.  But that's OK, it's not as though we've failed somehow, because we've (in vague terms) "turned" some energy we couldn't use to "less" energy we can use (+ biproduct).


Also Frankium is radioactive, and I'm not sure if it is naturally occuring (I might remember hearing a statistic that there are 4g? on the entire earth?).  So Cesium might be the most reactive with water as far as the naturally occuring alkali metals go.

While we're on the subject, I was talking to someone earlier about free energy - a different system - but he used some jargon that I didn't understand enough to refute. He said that the machine "extracted energy from the zero point energy field, by some process involving the resonant frequency of water".

He didn't seem to accept that you can never get more energy out than you put in. Oh well.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=12288.msg121795#msg121795 date=1122141186]
[quote author=iago link=topic=12288.msg121788#msg121788 date=1122134778]
[quote author=rabbit link=topic=12288.msg121730#msg121730 date=1122057006]
The alkali elements react with water (most violently is cesium).
[/quote]

Cesium isn't the most violent, Francium is.  The lower down the table you go, the more violently they react.

I think that has to do with the fact that they already have a lot of stored energy, though.  My last post explains that a bit more, but it involves the laws of thermodynamics.  You can't get back more energy than what you put into it, so to produce H2 and O from water should take as much energy as you get from turning H2 and O back into water. 

However, the energy might be used to product the compound that changes water to H2 and O, which means that, although the energy is there, it doesn't need to be created while driving. 
[/quote]

That doesn't mean that their idea is necessarily useless..  It probably is, but there isn't that much information to go on.

The second law of thermodynamics states that in a cyclical process you can't
get more useful work than the energy invested.  You break even when
the net change of the entropy of the system is zero, which doesn't happen.

HOWEVER... the change in free energy of a chemical reaction might be "Q", and the useful work that can be done out of say a hydrogen product might be L, where L << Q, but we have methods of using hydrogen (rather efficiently) as a fuel, and we don't have good ways to use all of the energy in the chemical reaction to do useful work. 

For example, we often put a lot more heat energy into our engines than we get useful work out of it.  But that's OK, it's not as though we've failed somehow, because we've (in vague terms) "turned" some energy we couldn't use to "less" energy we can use (+ biproduct).


Also Frankium is radioactive, and I'm not sure if it is naturally occuring (I might remember hearing a statistic that there are 4g? on the entire earth?).  So Cesium might be the most reactive with water as far as the naturally occuring alkali metals go.

[/quote]

I was actually thinking that.  Even if it takes a lot of power to create the substance, which then breaks up water, the work would be done before it ever entered the car, perhaps powered by  hydro or something clean, and then the energy would be released.  That would be possible.  So yeah, that claim isn't impossible.

And that's correct, Francium is radioactive and it reacts with the water in the air anyways.  It's so unstable, and it doesn't last long.  But the rule of thumb is, as you go down the "alkali" column on the periodic table, they get more reactive. 

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=12288.msg121816#msg121816 date=1122158185]
While we're on the subject, I was talking to someone earlier about free energy - a different system - but he used some jargon that I didn't understand enough to refute. He said that the machine "extracted energy from the zero point energy field, by some process involving the resonant frequency of water".

He didn't seem to accept that you can never get more energy out than you put in. Oh well.
[/quote]

Arta: I'd have to see his whole argument, but it seems like nonsense to me.  I've never heard the term "zero point energy field" used.  Usually people start frothing with jargon in an attempt to shut an opponent down.

Other claim --

If what they claim is true, and they're not morons, then they're probably using various chemicals to produce the reagents they need to get their precious reaction, and not using (e.g. hydro power) to do it.

They don't really give enough information to soundly "debunk" them.  Time will do this though, I'm sure.

Oh, Rule, I'm so disappointed in you.  How can a guy so into physics not know about zero point energy and fields?

Quick intro to zero-point

Even I don't know everything ;).

Having said that, I have heard of this before, I just didn't remember the term "zero-point energy field".

The example they have in your reference is quite easy to test (as an estimate)..

sigmaX*sigmap <= hvar/2

The energy of an oscillator built by connecting two bodies with a spring (with spring constant k) is
E = 1/2*k*r^2 + p^2/(2m), where r would be the distance between them.
wo^2 = k/m

so let things be measured accurately, sigmaP=hvar/(2q)

The lowest energy will be approx 1/2*k*(sigmaR)^2 + (sigmaP)^2/(2m)
Emin approx = 1/2*k*(q)^2 + (hvar^2)/(2m*4q^2)
set dEmin/d = 0
kq - hvar^2/(m*4q^3) = 0

q^4 = hvar^2/(4m^2*wo^2)
(One way to check to see that this is a minimum is to take the second derivative, and show that it is greater than zero)

Substituting this back into Emin, you get Emin = (approx) 1/2*hvar*wo

It's interesting that you don't get this as a ground energy state if you were to
solve  1/2*k*r^2 = mv^2/r,  (rotating harmonic oscillator), you get
1 energy level below this.  (Try it if you want.  The relation angular momentum = L = mvr = n*hvar helps).

That guy's claim (extracting energy from the zero point energy field) still sounds like nonsense (even more so now)!

Wow. There are a few factors that are not being considered here in this thread.
1) Regarding Hydrogen as a fuel additive: Hydrogen, when inducted onto the airstream of a vehicle (diesel or gasoline) results in a much more efficient burn of the fuel it contacts. This is why the second law isn't being broken at all. It releases a WHOLE lot more of the energy that is currently being wasted using the systems prevalent today.
2) Zero Point Energy Again, the second law is NOT being broken (or even bent!). The so-called "Aero Point Energy FIeld" is currently recognized as "Cosmic Energy" and a whole host of other names. It is a hertofore unexplored (save for Tesla) source of energy. The devicxes to which your contact refers is simply a new spigot on an old pipe!

Please have him contact me. I will help him with his research.
GadgetMan at ClubHHO.com-Don't worry! It's a pure research site dedicated to increase the level of collaboration between closet inventors such as myself.

[quote author=GadgetMan link=topic=12288.msg180281#msg180281 date=1226091788]
Wow. There are a few factors that are not being considered here in this thread.
1) Regarding Hydrogen as a fuel additive: Hydrogen, when inducted onto the airstream of a vehicle (diesel or gasoline) results in a much more efficient burn of the fuel it contacts. This is why the second law isn't being broken at all. It releases a WHOLE lot more of the energy that is currently being wasted using the systems prevalent today.
2) Zero Point Energy Again, the second law is NOT being broken (or even bent!). The so-called "Aero Point Energy FIeld" is currently recognized as "Cosmic Energy" and a whole host of other names. It is a hertofore unexplored (save for Tesla) source of energy. The devicxes to which your contact refers is simply a new spigot on an old pipe!

Please have him contact me. I will help him with his research.
GadgetMan at ClubHHO.com-Don't worry! It's a pure research site dedicated to increase the level of collaboration between closet inventors such as myself.
[/quote]

One such factor not being considered was that the thread was more than three years old?

However, welcome to the forum =)

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=12288.msg180282#msg180282 date=1226092232]
One such factor not being considered was that the thread was more than three years old?
[/quote]
I always say, if they are actually contributing something, it's ok.

Thank you, Grok and Iago. I tend to dismiss the nay-sayers as they are the ones that discover problems, and not the solutions.
I wonder, are there any of you guys interested in the computer control systems for automotive apps? I have an issue on a device and it's effects on the ECU...

[quote author=GadgetMan link=topic=12288.msg180306#msg180306 date=1226198877]
Thank you, Grok and iago. I tend to dismiss the nay-sayers as they are the ones that discover problems, and not the solutions.
I wonder, are there any of you guys interested in the computer control systems for automotive apps? I have an issue on a device and it's effects on the ECU...
[/quote]

I'm sure there is someone with experience in the area you mention considering some of the people who post on this site and the wide variety of experiences.

[quote author=GadgetMan link=topic=12288.msg180306#msg180306 date=1226198877]
I tend to dismiss the nay-sayers as they are the ones that discover problems, and not the solutions.[/quote]

Without discovering problems, I'm going to have to assume it'd be pretty difficult to find solutions for them..
With that said, MyndFyre is one of the most productive and intelligent people on this site. This claim can be easily proven simply by checking out just a few threads on this site.

[quote author=GadgetMan link=topic=12288.msg180306#msg180306 date=1226198877]
Thank you, Grok and iago. I tend to dismiss the nay-sayers as they are the ones that discover problems, and not the solutions.
I wonder, are there any of you guys interested in the computer control systems for automotive apps? I have an issue on a device and it's effects on the ECU...
[/quote]

Not me.  Everytime I start to study this area, I get distracted.  Only skimmed the surface, and only details specific to my Volvo.

Good news on your Volvo, Grok.
If it has an air intake, you can put a HHO system on it. You can share with me the year and model and I'd be delighted to help you designa  system to suit not just your vehicle, but your level of ability.

I'd like to invite you personally to come to the site. I just launched the FireBoard module for discussions, and would love to hear your thoughts on it! Remember, I'm just a GadgetMan...

Thanks for your kindness.

Ron
aka
~GadgetMan~

[quote author=GadgetMan link=topic=12288.msg180319#msg180319 date=1226260921]
Good news on your Volvo, Grok.
If it has an air intake, you can put a HHO system on it. You can share with me the year and model and I'd be delighted to help you designa  system to suit not just your vehicle, but your level of ability.
[/quote]

2004 S60R
Red one   ;D
Been wanting to build a CAI for years, never got around to it.  Plans are simple and materials are cheap.
HHO though, what's involved there?

Hey Grok.
Simple: Stainless steel plates or tubes (usually), electolyte and electricity. A housing to hold it and tubing to get the gas to the intake.

How about you coming to my site and take a look. My system is improving and I'm looking for 600% by the time I'm done. Right now I'm at 47% and climbing.

E-mail me when you've been to the site. What's important to me (as the site just turned 15 days old) is what you expected versus what you found. Does it captivate your thinking brain or your creative one? Both?

I'm getting feedback from all over the world from people with initials after their name and people with only initials from the back woods of Kentucky.

You'll find there's something to this HHO stuff. I've been doing it for ten years and I learned more at one meeting of two hours length with six other developers than in a thousand hours of research.

I love it.

So, take a trio to the wild side, Grok! Come join the motor fuel renegades!

If I can do it, ANYONE can!

~GadgetMan~

Grok,

If you are going to do this, just save yourself some time and get this: http://www.saferwholesale.com/product-p/fuel%20saver%201.htm or this: http://alternativegassolutions.com/products.php?cPath=21 or many other kits already out there.

I'm not doing either ;)

Nay!