i don't know how new/old this is... but i found it VERY interesting and i figured you guys would like to check it out as well.

http://www.yourdailymedia.com/media/1147691355/Water_Power

seems pretty legit. if it is, imagine the potential for this power... AWESOME!!

What is happening here is that electolysis is being used to break the water into hydrogen and oxygen (the so called HHO gas is actually a combination of H2 and O2 gases). It is then being re-burnt which is why the exhaust is water. It is a safe system because you don't need gas cylinders, but it isn't really clean as the video claims as it will be very power hungry. It isn't really a water powered system, it is an electricity powered system and that electricity has to come from somewhere.

The electrolysis of water takes a relatively large amount of electricity. It would take a huge amount of time to split the water (weeks, months>) for personal use. Unless this HHO was being produced on an industrial scale it's useless, especially for anything like cars.

And as the water is split using electricity, you're only getting at most, the same amount of energy put in to it; most probably a fair bit less.

It's an impractical battery at best.

Whats cheaper? Gasoline ( more than 3/galon)? or the electric bill for making h20 into hho? If the electric cost is less than the gasoline cost then its probably a good "replacement" hehe

^You'd spend more time splitting the water than you would using it for anything like a car.

This would be a totally impractical system to power a car. It needs to be plugged in to a power supply to work, so even going to the shops would require a very long extension lead.

If you were to use it to produce hydrogen which you then stored it would also cause problems.

Firstly hydrogen is dangerous stuff. If people were storing it in pressure tanks on their premises you would not want to be living next door to them if they had a house fire.

Secondly, as I said above, it is not a clean power source. It is not pollution free, it is just that the pollution is generated somewhere else.

Where it does have huge advantages is in the application shown in the video. It would have a safety advantage in cutting/welding tools. As it generates hydrogen "on demand" there is no storage of flammable gases. This would make it considerably safer than an oxy-acetylene system.

This stuff has been known as Brown's gas, originally discovered by an Australian. Brown called his process homogenization (mixing of the h and o), entirely unique. Brown's gas was never intended for anything but materials heating.
The "invention" in the video is identical to Brown's gas.
Of great interest is that in Brown's demonstrations of the heating by the gas is the fact that the flame will heat the intended material to its own melting temperature, vice some temperature determined by the flame itself, as in oxy-acetylene equipment. His demos showed such anomalies as welding steel to firebrick, aluminum to steel, glass to copper, and so forth. Exactly what the function is has not yet been determined.
Brown's gas equipment has been available on the open market for years; last I heard there was a company in LA producing various models of the homogenizer.

Why is the car a bad idea again?

Got to get the power to separate h and o somewhere. One fellow, as I understand it, used the gas in an IC engine, but instead of using the expansion (since the actual heat produced wasn't much) he used the contraction of the h-o to water when burned. Didn't work too well.
Once again, as many people (some who do know and some who do not), to develop a usable, fuel efficient vehicle, one must be esoteric. Common methods won't quite cut it, so a new or different method must be used.
It makes no sense whatever to use electical power to convert water to split fuel (oxidant and oxidizer) and then burn it to achieve mechanical power, OK? If electrical power is to be used, cut out the middleman (hydrogen-oxygen) and go directly to electric. The fact is that e-force to m-force conversion is far more efficient than even the finest improvements to internal combustion. Further, the entire e-field/h-field phenomena is not entirely understood by anyone.
Some say they understand it, using Maxwellian theory. But Maxwell excludes free charges/fields (no, don't comment otherwise until you understand what I just stated). Maxwell et al do NOT account for Heaviside/Poynting findings, to simplify and make Maxwellian theory acceptable and calculable. Heaviside is ignored.
As the skeptics will say, undoubtedly, " you can't get something for nothing". While this is reasonably close to the truth, the facts of the matter still remain: scalar potentials are completely ignored, as is the law of conservation of matter and energy (in the macro sense), and also particle physics. You see, our science of electronics and electrical phenomena is quite limited.
We do not account for any of the unique fields, both production of and collapse of, except in a practical sense. In theory, these are essentially ignored.
If one makes a mathematical model of a conversion system, electric to mechanical, and fully accounts for all energy input, one finds that the only conversion losses are heat losses (more commonly known as copper losses) in producing the magnetic fields, flux losses due primarily to gaps, and frictional losses. These are heat conversions, and if design is proper, these can be minimized. What is completely ignored is the fact that fields collapse to balance the circuit.
Think of it this way: you can't get something from nothing, but neither can you make something into nothing.
Don't go to some fool engineering department at some fool school to learn about this: go to someone who does motors for a living, or designs controls using solenoids, and so forth. You will find little in the books, for the above reasons. People who write textbooks don't have the practical experience of dealing with the real world. Find material from companies that do these things, for they do have the experience.
The world of physics tends to sell short on the world of electrical phenomena; to find some more interesting stuff, visit JLN Labs website. This may open some eyes.

The method of separating h2o into hho via electrolysis portrayed in the video does have merrit. People talking about plugging the device into a wall ect.. lol are you dead serious? The application to the combustion engine relies on several refinements (none of which are mentioned in the video) but then again.. its fox news, gospel of the retarded, and nobody
can argue with that sh**. I think it needs to be understood that this is in no way implying perpetual motion, were talking about the conversion lets call it "movement" of fuel from water state to gas state, using the proper AC inverter at low amps this can be done with about as much DC power as a gasoline fuel pump. Admittedly the only measurement ive heard is 15amps 12vDC could generate enough hho to sufficiently power a 6 cylinder motor. Its a ballpark, but start expirimenting with electrolysis with low amperage high voltage AC and youll quickly realize you can create ALOT of hho in a short time. Also, take into account the fuel ratio. hho burns ALOT hotter than gasoline, this poses both a problem and a solution. The 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen provides the optimal fuel to oxygen ratio for combustion, adding additional air with co2 and other natural impurities and you can reduce the burning temperature while increasing fuel efficiency! Its my guess that there is actually only a small amount of hho present in an air-fuel mix capable of running in a gasoline motor. Also realize, were not talking about precompressing hho, but rather streaming water through an electrolysis unit capable of creating enough hho to create the minimal pressure required for the motor to fire, and thats in addition to the air that hasto be thrown in the mix. From what ive seen in my own experiences, im pretty confident that
enough hho could be created without totally draining a car battery in a matter of seconds to get an engine to turn over. And a high output alternator say 200amp should have NO problem keeping a battery charged even if an engine is running at fairly high rpms. The only real problem i see is rust but theyve been doing some amazing things with ceramic coating .

now what if you use solar power, wind power, or any other renewable resource to split the H2O into hh0 and then send that like we do with gasoline or through a pipeline and then to the gas stations and use that around the country. It would be an easy to get to. Would the reaction in the engine turn into water so you are not realy making polution. You could think of it as a battery that has a quick recharge.

ok, that last post was a complete accident. Guys, like it or not, hho is a viable source of hydrogen and it does take a rather small amount of dc voltage to make. with a 17.5 Amp power drain at 13.2V DC, enough hydrogen is produced to improve my gas mileage by 10mpg in a v6 truck. quite simply, a regenerative braking system with a restorative battery would be more than enough to power the hho generator. If the military is using this technology in experimental hummers, no matter how bad you know it alls don't want to admit, it does work. period end of sentence.. if you spent some time building and testing a model, you would find out that it does really take little power for electrolysis. The more surface area of a 316 surgical stainless, the more hho that can be derived from the water. 304 tends to corrode much faster due to the impurities. 18-10 is not recommended at all, corrodes rather quickly.

17.5 Amps? That is like running three large stereo systems in your truck at one time, isn't it? That sound significant to me. Do you need a special high amp alternator?

So you have to figure if the voltage drain is more then the MPG gain. Which I can assure you, it is. I am not saying this does not work. I'm just saying that probably you are shortening the life of your truck, and certainly your battery. If gaining MPG is worth greater repair costs and more frequent battery changes, then go ahead.

There has to be give and take. For the MPG to go up, there has to be a cost somewhere else.

Perhaps with fuel costs going up this will be a better then OK idea now.