Just thought I'd bring this to the attention of anyone interested in water fuel technology.
Fast Freddy, as he's known, has created quite a stir, with many people immediately jumping to the conclusion that his claims verify Stan Meyer, et cetera, et cetera. He claims that he is outputting 55 litres of hydroxy gas per minute!! Unfortunately, he is clearly not the brightest of chappies and has yet to have his own claims independently verified. He says that he is going to open source everything and has started putting together a video diary of a new build. He has uploaded a few pretty pointless videos, where he seems to be promoting his gun making business more than anything else, and has yet to provide anything of value.
Myself, I do not for a second believe that the relatively small electrolyser he is/was employing is capable of delivering 55 litres per minute of hydroxy... oh, and thats from just 55 amps!
Here's a couple of links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwQ6Acv2fQc
http://pesn.com/2010/08/17/9501689_QA_Frederick_Wells_VP_Future_Energy_Concepts_Inc/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbxqQQ4mGzQ
http://groups.futureenergyconceptsinc.com/documentation/
It is my understanding that when a spark is applied to a HHO stochiometric mixture, there is an implosion (recombination) resulting in a droplet of water being formed.
This would imply that the large reduction in volume from the gas to the liquid state would require a different configuration of the engine timing, firing at bottom dead center (BDC) rather than top dead center (TDC) to pull the piston up with implosion rather than forcing it down with explosion.
I have not watched all the videos of Fast Freddy. Does he mention anywhere how the timing switchover is performed?
I understand that a lot of folks are claiming increased mileage by adding HHO to a normal gasoline vehicle. One that runs entirely on HHO it seems would be a fundamentally different animal.
Can anyone explain this?
Edit: Here is someone's explanation
QuoteWhen the gas ignites and the hydrogen and oxygen recombine, they form water droplets. In the very hot environment in a compressed cylinder, the droplets then convert to steam, expanding, and giving an added push to the power stroke of the piston.
Looks like a chicken and egg situation e.g what forced the piston to compress the gas causing all that heat. Also at moment of recombination it would seem the implosion would offset the effects of the steam explosion. So the words "added push" implies a "push" from an implosion?
If HHO implodes, wouldn't this open the valves on the engine?
The trick to water as a fuel is finding a way to cheaply convert it to free radicals and then maintain them long enough to recombine in the cylinder and release their volatile cocktail.
Someone around here knew a great deal about this, I think it was "microcontroller", but I might be wrong.
(I'll keep my wager on the TPU.)
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.10.01, 18:09:43
If HHO implodes, wouldn't this open the valves on the engine?
Good point G. Yes an implosion at BDC would suck the valves open. That's why I said it would have to be a radically different type of engine. The valves would have to operate in an inverted fashion as in a vacuum pump.
HHO does implode. This is easily proven. I witnessed this demo once where a chamber with a piston was filled with HHO. A heavy weight was attached to the extended piston. The mixture was ignited with a spark plug and the heavy weight was lifted up as the piston was forced to reduce the volume of the chamber due to the vacuum of the implosion. A little water vapor was all that was left.
What these folks seem to be saying is the HHO mixture is compressed then ignited at TDC. If it is already under pressure, it would seem that the implosion (vacuum) would nullify the compression (pressure) and you would be left no power stroke. Now you have to figure out where the energy of compression came from.
ION,
It is my understanding that HHO in exactly the split water percentages does infact implode when ignited, but when it is being injected into an engine it is being mixed with outside air and gas which changes everything and the mixture actually explodes. The hydrogen and oxygen act to produce cleaner and more complete burning of the hydrocarbons increasing power and mileage. I think Farrah knows more about this.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2010.10.01, 21:20:23
ION,
It is my understanding that HHO in exactly the split water percentages does infact implode when ignited, but when it is being injected into an engine it is being mixed with outside air and gas which changes everything and the mixture actually explodes. The hydrogen and oxygen act to produce cleaner and more complete burning of the hydrocarbons increasing power and mileage. I think Farrah knows more about this.
My understanding too, is that is is a mixture that explodes. There is air with the water after combustion.
Electricity is the future. My money and time are on the TPU.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2010.10.01, 21:20:23
The hydrogen and oxygen act to produce cleaner and more complete burning of the hydrocarbons increasing power and mileage. I think Farrah knows more about this.
This thread is supposedly about Fast Freddy who claims to run the truck on 100% stochiometric HHO. Supposedly, there are no hydrocarbons involved in the process.
I understand that there are variations of HHO systems that also burn petroleum derivatives plus air.
Quote from: ION on 2010.10.02, 00:37:06
This thread was about Fast Freddy who claims to run the truck on 100% stochiometric HHO. No hydrocarbons involved in the process.
Since water is hydrogen "ash" it certainly is a difficult proposition. Notwithstanding the implosion issue when you are burning 2 H2 + O2, there is a very tall order when you look at the energy trail:
1. You have to expend electrical energy to rip apart the hydrogen ash to produce two gasses and waste heat energy.
2. Then take those two gasses and burn them to get mechanical energy and waste heat energy and hydrogen ash.
3. Expend mechanical energy to push your truck forward.
4. Expend mechanical energy to drive the alternator to make electrical energy.
5. Go to step 1.
So it's a classic perpetual motion idea; You burn hydrogen and oxygen to push your truck forward AND rip apart hydrogen ash to make more hydrogen and oxygen.
The fuel is pushing your truck forward and making enough replacement fuel to keep the whole shebang going.
Something doesn't add up.
MileHigh
@milehigh
QuoteSo it's a classic perpetual motion idea; You burn hydrogen and oxygen to push your truck forward AND rip apart hydrogen ash to make more hydrogen and oxygen.
The fuel is pushing your truck forward and making enough replacement fuel to keep the whole shebang going.
Something doesn't add up.
I would agree, if there is one thing we should have understood by now it is that ripping things apart, tearing things down, applying horrendous forces until something has no choice but to give way has never really worked out all that well for us. There is no intuition in it, no forethought, no indication of a higher thought process and yet this is what we do and this is what our supposedly "modern" society is based upon.
Regards
AC
Too be honest guys, I doubt a lot of the claims that Freddy has made, and let's face it, we've heard it all before, but wanted to bring it to everyones attention as he has stated that he'll be fully disclosing everything. This makes it a little more intriguing, but much will depend on what follows... and nothing of value has been shown so far. There has - as per usual - been no independent verification of his claims. Nothing new there then. Nevertheless I'm watching with great curiosity to see where this goes.
I have years of experience in electrolysers and whether or not Freddy has run his vehicle on just water or not, I can say with confidence that his electrolyser is certainly not producing 55 litres of gas per minute. I don't need fancy equipment to verify this, the visual of his electrolyser at switch on is enough. At this stage I'm prepared to give Freddy the benefit of the doubt, but amongst other things I do not trust his measurements, his maths or indeed is explanation of operation.
QuoteIt is my understanding that when a spark is applied to a HHO stochiometric mixture, there is an implosion (recombination) resulting in a droplet of water being formed.
With reference to the ICE, this is a long-standing common myth. Yes if you ignite a stoichiometric volume of H2 and O2 gas the end result will be the formation of water, but everyone assumes that the water has to be in liquid form. It does not. Sure there will effectively be an implosion as an end result once the water vapour cools into liquid, but everyone seems to overlook the explosion phase. The explosion phase is exothermic producing heat, and in a confined space such as the cylinder of an ICE, that heat can not easily dissipate, so the resulting water is heated and as such remains as gas, not liquid. Explosion, but no implosion. This myth really has been kicking around forever and a day.
In WWII during the fuel shortages some businesses converted there vehicles to run on hydrogen. They were not timed 180 degrees out of phase and did not rely on implosion. In fact they simply set the timing after TDC to compensate for the much faster flame front of H2. In this case of course the hydrogen was burning in the oxygen available in normal air, but water was still the ash, and implosion not an issue.
55 lpm is not even a gas measure. It is a volumetric measure for liquids consumption. It equals 14.54 gallons per minute. If this was true, it would take 145 gallons of water every 10 minutes and his water tank would have been empty by then since it was not even full to begin with. Something is not right with those numbers.
Quote from: wattsup on 2010.10.02, 10:50:32
55 lpm is not even a gas measure. It is a volumetric measure for liquids consumption. It equals 14.54 gallons per minute. If this was true, it would take 145 gallons of water every 10 minutes and his water tank would have been empty by then since it was not even full to begin with. Something is not right with those numbers.
I'm not sure what you mean. He claims that he is producing 55 litres of hydroxy in one minute, he is not saying that he dissociates 55 litres of liquid water in a minute! Quite a different thing.
Anyway I for one don't believe he is doing anywhere near that, and as this would be quite easy to show, I'm not sure why he hasn't at least verified this.
The fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about does nothing for his credibility. That said, I'm prepared to overlook this and give him a chance to provide the proof... just in case.
Quote from: Farrah Day on 2010.10.02, 08:58:38
With reference to the ICE, this is a long-standing common myth. Yes if you ignite a stoichiometric volume of H2 and O2 gas the end result will be the formation of water, but everyone assumes that the water has to be in liquid form. It does not. Sure there will effectively be an implosion as an end result once the water vapour cools into liquid, but everyone seems to overlook the explosion phase. The explosion phase is exothermic producing heat, and in a confined space such as the cylinder of an ICE, that heat can not easily dissipate, so the resulting water is heated and as such remains as gas, not liquid. Explosion, but no implosion. This myth really has been kicking around forever and a day.
In WWII during the fuel shortages some businesses converted there vehicles to run on hydrogen. They were not timed 180 degrees out of phase and did not rely on implosion. In fact they simply set the timing after TDC to compensate for the much faster flame front of H2. In this case of course the hydrogen was burning in the oxygen available in normal air, but water was still the ash, and implosion not an issue.
Farrah:
Thanks for clarifying that. Steam and steam pressure, how it works is in a way almost a lost science for your average person. I think that a lot of big cities still have a steam infrastructure in place. Certainly New York City does.
Going back to the reality check, it takes more energy to split water to make 2 H2 + O2 than you can get back from it. When you throw in the fact that you are also trying to run an ICE and push a truck around, forget it.
I watched about half of one of the clips where they shut off the gas line and then drive around. If you want to be really cynical, how many of us know trucks enough to really say that they cut off the fuel line? They had a big extra deep-cycle battery in the back of the truck to "just to build up pressure" or something like that. So they start the truck and drive around. What some people might not realize is that a big lead-acid battery can output a LOT of power for a moderate amount of time. So if they take a 10-minute cruise then 99% of the power to create the 2 H2 + O2 could be coming from the big deep-cycle battery. Perhaps in the back of the truck they were hiding a big extra gas generation unit, and the one you see running in the engine compartment is a token one. Like you said, they simply can't generate the flow rate that they need from the unit in the engine compartment.
My opinion is that the whole thing is just another "HHO" con to make money off of gullible people.
As a general comment I am mystified why they always electrolyze water with some sort of AC signal to make 2 H2 + O2 gas, which is very dangerous. Why don't they do it with some sort of DC signal to separate the gasses and then only recombine them in the fuel injection phase? That would be so much safer.
I don't believe for a second that any type of pulsed AC or DC with some sort of a "magic" waveform will tap into "water resonance" or anything like that to make the separation of the water more efficient. I bet that some people even believe that a "magic" configuration of plates and the right signal can even give you an over-unity production of gas. The simple fact that the splitting process produces waste heat is telling you that the process is less than 100% efficient. There is simply no logical reason that any signal/plate combination should do something above and beyond what is supposed to happen.
Even looking at a "standard setup" where you add 2 H2 + O2 to a regular gas fuel mixture, I don't believe for a second that that works either. Whatever extra power you get from the motor is offset by the extra mechanical load on the alternator for a net loss in efficiency. I know that you will find hundreds if not thousands of proponents that will claim that they get better mileage per gallon when they add their 2 H2 + O2 setups and I don't have a real response to that. I can only speculate that they are wrong and it is a combination of con artists and wishful thinkers in a happy symbiotic relationship.
MileHigh
@FarrahDay
QuoteToo be honest guys, I doubt a lot of the claims that Freddy has made, and let's face it, we've heard it all before, but wanted to bring it to everyones attention as he has stated that he'll be fully disclosing everything. This makes it a little more intriguing, but much will depend on what follows... and nothing of value has been shown so far. There has - as per usual - been no independent verification of his claims. Nothing new there then. Nevertheless I'm watching with great curiosity to see where this goes.
I would agree, I know many people like to knit-pick every little detail and offer endless critiques of why something cannot work but their result from this action is always the same. At the end of the day they have learned little if anything and they are no closer to understanding how something could work in reality. I do not believe everything I see or hear, I believe very little in fact, but I will always give them the benifit of the doubt not for their benefit but for mine because if I dismiss every claim that does not fit nicely into my little world then my little world can never expand. This is the problem with critics, they make very little if any progress because they will always be limited to what they know and resist all new possibilities. I am kind of the anti-critic in this respect, lol, if I have not learned at least 30 new things and conceptualized at least two or three new devices by dinner I am quite literally pissed off at the world because I am not making progress. It is never what I know, it is that instantaneous moment when I understand something new that never occured to me, that something I never could have imagined that just came out of nowhere when all the pieces of the puzzle are laid out correctly, this is my addiction. For me the fact of whether it works as claimed or not is a moot point, it is simply another problem to be solved and the chances are good that my solutions to the problem will not be the same as others thus I will always expand my understanding of things and make progress. I think the physics here are pretty straight forward, if your not making progress then your not going anywhere,lol.
Regards
AC
AC:
There is real value in critiquing why something cannot work. It offers a second perspective for people to consider when they are trying to determine for themselves what is true and what is not true. Many people are interested but they may not have the knowledge to make an informed decision, they have to do research. There is also great value for individuals because it helps them decide where to spend their money so that they don't get ripped off. There is also the distinct possibility that the given critique is correct and true.
I recall seeing a posting on one of the other forums where somebody proclaimed that "all musical instruments that use resonance are over unity devices." I couldn't respond because I was already banned from the other two forums. To the best of my recollection, not a single person challenged that ridiculous statement. In other words, no second perspective offered. That could very well be because of an implicit peer pressure from the top down where expressing contrary opinions is not appreciated. It's implicitly not tolerated and you can be labeled a "trouble maker." It gets positively Orwellian.
The notion that dismissing a claim results that you are trapped in a "little world that can never expand" is also wrong. The issue is to determine for yourself where you want to pursue knowledge, and where you don't want to pursue knowledge because you believe it to be false, or you have done your research and you know for a fact that it is false. There is the distinct possibility that you will make an error with a "false negative" decision, but that's what life entails, and endless sequence of choices and you hope that you have the wisdom to make the right choices most of the time. If you don't invest your time, money, and energy in modifying your vehicle with a "HHO" system, then you can pursue something else and learn something new. There is a potentially huge time and financial "opportunity cost" in going down the wrong path. Just look around, knowledge is expanding at a faster rate than it has ever expanded before, and we are already carrying around "Star Trek" hand-held computers that also happen to be cell phones.
I don't buy your argument where you say that you want to keep an open mind with respect to most free energy propositions just in case you might learn something and you "can expand." There is so much legitimate mind expanding stuff going on that you will never be able to absorb it all. Why pick at the bones of highly suspect information when it's most likely junk? At the same time, filtering out the crap is an important skill that everyone should try to hone. Take the example of Sterling Allen, he is incapable of filtering out the crap and his web sites are filled with nonsensical stuff, and a good chunk of it is nothing but con artists using him for the free publicity because they want to steal money off of gullible people. It's simply wrong. On the other hand, I respect Sterling because he allows contrary opinion to be posted in the comments section of his articles so that people can get both perspectives.
MileHigh
Very well put AC.
I'm always open to the possibility that science as we understand it is not the be all and end all, and that every now and then something scientists and current scientific understanding says is 'impossible', suddenly becomes possible. There have been many cases in the past when our understanding of science has been severely overstated, and science has inevitably thrown up a googly. I just feel it is wrong dismiss things outright without due consideration, or without giving things a chance to fully play out. Afterall, we are always basing our thoughts on our current knowledge and understanding of science and what is generally accepted by scientists and the masses. We might just be missing a trick here and there.
QuoteGoing back to the reality check, it takes more energy to split water to make 2 H2 + O2 than you can get back from it. When you throw in the fact that you are also trying to run an ICE and push a truck around, forget it.
I watched about half of one of the clips where they shut off the gas line and then drive around. If you want to be really cynical, how many of us know trucks enough to really say that they cut off the fuel line? They had a big extra deep-cycle battery in the back of the truck to "just to build up pressure" or something like that. So they start the truck and drive around. What some people might not realize is that a big lead-acid battery can output a LOT of power for a moderate amount of time. So if they take a 10-minute cruise then 99% of the power to create the 2 H2 + O2 could be coming from the big deep-cycle battery. Perhaps in the back of the truck they were hiding a big extra gas generation unit, and the one you see running in the engine compartment is a token one. Like you said, they simply can't generate the flow rate that they need from the unit in the engine compartment.
My opinion is that the whole thing is just another "HHO" con to make money off of gullible people.
MH, your reality check is at the very heart of this, and indeed I would expect it to be foremost in every scientifically-minded and educated persons thoughts. Let's face it, just to have the alternator running to feed the electrolyser would be a closed-loop with no energy loss, but as you say he's also finding spare energy to move a bloody great truck!
I too considered the deep cycle battery as a source of energy, and thought that maybe that battery was going flat within a few miles and the system stopping, but he claims to have driven it 3000 miles!
According to everything he has said, I find it hard to believe that he is unintentionally deceiving us through a lack of understanding, poor engineering or poor science. No, I'm more inclined to think that there are only two real options: either he is doing what he claims or the whole thing is deliberately fraudulent. And when I hear him thanking people for funding him through Paypal, and all the praying nonsense, my bullshit needle is tending to swing toward the latter.
And MH, you are certainly right about the gullible people out there. It seems there really are a lot of people quite happy to simply take his word for it, the old 'changing the world for the better' brigade, only too happy to send him money. It does rather beg the question, what the hell is wrong with folk – they appear not to have the brains they were born with!
I'm the biggest sceptic there is when it comes to this stuff, and to date he certainly hasn't provided anything to sway me in his favour. But... time will tell.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.10.02, 16:04:19
Even looking at a "standard setup" where you add 2 H2 + O2 to a regular gas fuel mixture, I don't believe for a second that that works either. Whatever extra power you get from the motor is offset by the extra mechanical load on the alternator for a net loss in efficiency. I know that you will find hundreds if not thousands of proponents that will claim that they get better mileage per gallon when they add their 2 H2 + O2 setups and I don't have a real response to that. I can only speculate that they are wrong and it is a combination of con artists and wishful thinkers in a happy symbiotic relationship.
MH as much as I appreciate your knowledge and wisdom you are not always right, I disagree with you on this (quote), I have worked with it for a couple years and have actually built and tested it on cars. One car we run got normally 27 miles to the gallon and even with a poorly designed electrolyzer milage increased to 42 miles to the gallon and we run it for thousands of miles. Sometimes actually experimenting and building and testing really pays off especially in what we know and don't know. Yes it needed an effie and and twiddling with it but we are learning and future systems will be much easier and simpler to use.
I'd just like to add that I tend to agree with both AC and MH on certain points - and I'm not known for my diplomacy.
I think that uniformed critics are every bit as bad as their uniformed and gullible 'believe anyone and everything' counterparts.
Room, with reference to your previous post, this would tend to agree with the findings of Bob Potchen who is manufacturing and installing electrolysers for the heavy haulage industry. And an 8 mile per gallon wagon that can effectively do even 2 extra miles per gallon is a good longterm saving. Clearly science is throwing us one of its googlies!
@milehigh
QuoteGoing back to the reality check, it takes more energy to split water to make 2 H2 + O2 than you can get back from it. When you throw in the fact that you are also trying to run an ICE and push a truck around, forget it.
I remember myself and another person were outside one night in the country and we saw four insanely bright lights appear in a very long row in the sky nearby at 11:23 pm and then an orange spherical object left the four lights horizontally, made a perfect radial curve towards outer space and just took off at a rate of speed I cannot even describe --- there was no rocket plume/exhaust gasses on this perfectly clear night and there was never even a whisper of sound even on a perfectly calm cold winter night when sound carries for many miles. From that moment on I kind of understood that most people do not have a freaking clue about reality, they can barely balance their cheque book let alone understand basic physics. The people who do understand physics would probably try to tell me that this was swamp gas or a weather balloon, lol, what does this say of their twisted reality? The fact of the matter is that two technical people well versed in applied mechanics, physics, rocketry, general and advanced aviation and propulsion systems saw something which defied all logic and that my friend is the ultimate "reality check". The true reality is that your little reality and mine mean little if nothing in the bigger picture and it is more an indication of our own shortcomings if anything, a failure to understand.
QuoteThe simple fact that the splitting process produces waste heat is telling you that the process is less than 100% efficient.
It is not telling me anything because an ordinary heat pump produces a great deal of waste heat and yet the COP can still be greater than 300%, what does this tell us?
QuoteThere is simply no logical reason that any signal/plate combination should do something above and beyond what is supposed to happen.
Does the fact that you cannot personally think of a logical reason exclude all other logic? it would seem to me that there is no real logic to your arguement because it assumes that all other logic must be the same as yours.
I hope I do not sound to harsh and I understand criticism of what we see as blatantly misleading is important but I think we can go to far when we criticize things without all the facts or when we criticize based on known phenomena when it should be obvious that the device, if it does work, must utilize some effect we are oblivious to.
Regards
AC
Room3327:
Adding 2 H2 + 02 systems to cars and trucks is not my area of expertise at all. I have seen your claims on various YouTube clips and all that I can say is perhaps there is some merit to it, but that's as far as I am prepared to go.
I wonder if it is possible that not all of the gasoline fuel gets burnt and then when you add 2 H2 + O2 you then help burn the unburnt fuel and that gets you your extra mileage. Then in my thought processes I stop and check myself and say to myself that that's highly unlikely, basically impossible with a modern ICE that not all of the fuel gets burned.
Then I can only offer you up a thought experiment: What possible mechanism could explain how the compressed gasoline and 2 H2 + O2 mixture in the cylinder could possibly produce more energy than it is "supposed" to. We know the energy potential in the gasoline and we know the energy potential in the small amount of 2 H2 + O2 that are in the cylinder. We know that we have to pay for the 2 H2 + O2 and some of the energy in the explosion will be allocated to the alternator. I am not chemist or physicist, but I can't think of any possible mechanism that would explain getting more energy (or MPG) out of the exploding gasses in the cylinder. You assume that there is enough normal oxygen available for the gasoline, and the "extra" oxygen will be used up when combining with the hydrogen. I am not capable of doing the actual thermodynamics calculations with the gas temperature after ignition and the pressure and the expanding volume of the cylinder and the heat vs. mechanical power and all that stuff. By the same token I know that the engine design engineers and scientists know all of that stuff inside-out.
Another thought of mine is that often design trade-offs are made that the lay person is not aware of. Like you may be able to get more performance from a car engine with higher cylinder compression ratios, but that may dramatically shorten the life of the valves. That's a purely hypothetical example, I am not saying that is even true. So it's also possible that you get higher performance with a 2 H2 + O2 system, but you are going to prematurely wear out or damage some aspect of your engine. Again, I am just speculating here. What I am of course implying is that the engine could be tweaked by the engineers to get much better performance, but this is intentionally not being done because in the long run it's less beneficial than you might think.
You have some compelling sounding anecdotal evidence, so it would be interesting to see if it is ever taken to the next level and confirmed with scientific testing. On top of that, the real reason as to why this phenomenon is happening would have to be explained scientifically. There are probably devices in engine R&D labs that consist of a single cylinder that you can fire in a single shot and then measure the energy that you get from that single shot. You can measure all aspects of how the piston fires. If you could get conformation that you are getting more energy and then take it to the next level and actually explain how you are getting that increase in energy then it would all start to look much more interesting. From what I have seen so far is that the proponents of these systems just say that it works, but they can't explain how they actually work. That's in contrast to people that design and test gasoline engines, diesel engines, turbine engines, jet engines, electric motors, etc, etc. The can tell you exactly how they work and show you plots of the performance, and explain the energy transfer mechanisms. In my personal opinion the fledgling "HHO industry" would have to grow and mature to the point where they can cover all of the bases that I mentioned above to be "real."
I saw one guy talk about measuring his mileage in over a 300 mile drive without the 2 H2 + O2 injection system engaged. Then the next day he drove back with it engaged and got better mileage. He seemed to forget about factoring it what his elevation change was and more importantly what the prevailing winds were and what time of day he was driving and the ambient air pressure. It the winds were in the same direction over both days then that screws up his test. The time of day and the ambient air pressure also affect the air density, another very important factor. So for this particular test his data was invalid, but he was seemingly not aware of this. That's an example of some of the pitfalls that have to be avoided.
MileHigh
@FarrahDay
QuoteAccording to everything he has said, I find it hard to believe that he is unintentionally deceiving us through a lack of understanding, poor engineering or poor science. No, I'm more inclined to think that there are only two real options: either he is doing what he claims or the whole thing is deliberately fraudulent. And when I hear him thanking people for funding him through Paypal, and all the praying nonsense, my bullshit needle is tending to swing toward the latter.
I would agree with the BS needle part, lol, on the other hand people drop thousands on gambling which is a sure bet -- to lose, or the lottery or a $100 night in the bar which gets you a hangover and change. Now when we put this in perspective with "wasting" our hard earned money on possibly fraudulent HHO research which may or may not help billions of people in the end then I can only think that if this "donation" makes a person feel good about themselves then it is a cheap form of entertainment. I had often thought of the consequences of what might happen if we gave more people a chance to succeed but you see the problem is most people expect a reciprocal action to their giving, we always expect something in return but this is not giving, it is little more than a business transaction. There is also this ingrained fear of being decieved by others which we think will make us look weak and foolish when in fact the people who usually succeed are the ones who do not have this childish fear of failure. I am not saying we should give anything to anyone as this is a personal choice we must decide but I also think it is completely wrong to judge others for "giving" when we do not have any facts, giving is a good thing -- it always has been and it is contageous so be careful out there.
QuoteI'm the biggest sceptic there is when it comes to this stuff, and to date he certainly hasn't provided anything to sway me in his favour. But... time will tell.
I am a sceptic of sorts concerning all things including that which we call "normal", lets look at the fraudulent claims -- A ford commercial claims 94% efficiency next to a picture of their truck but in fine print this is "combustion efficiency", is this not misleading and fraudulent?. Or the simple phone contract with hundreds of dollars of hidden fee's? Or the banks,lol, I won't even go there. The fact is that what we consider as "normal" is not normal at all and in many cases it is rampant with fraud and deceit on a scale we can hardly imagine. I think it is great that people are sceptical but where do we draw the line? Do we pick and choose with no rhyme or reason to it? Does scepticism only apply to new or odd things we are not familiar with? In the end I think there is always two sides to every story and we make choices as individuals which may not always be right or wrong but they are still our choices to make.
Regards
AC
AC:
That's quite an amazing UFO story. There was some stuff in the news the other week about a UFO sighting at a missile base where some nukes were allegedly temporarily deactivated. It sounded compelling. I am in the "open minded" camp on this topic. If I ever saw one and I was convinced it would be amazing. Hey, they discovered a "Goldilocks" planet just 20 light-years away recently also. But who is to say that life requires an environment between 0 and 100 C anyways? With all of the digital cameras out there now... who knows? Who knows what goes on in government and military inner sanctums also. By the same token, I filter out all of the stuff like where people analyze pictures of the Moon or Mars and see three boulders in a straight line and are convinced they are looking at a city or something. There is a funny case where people look at jpeg compression artifacts and think that they are looking at fields of crops on Mars. Can't forget all of the space junk in low earth orbit business also.
QuoteQuote
The simple fact that the splitting process produces waste heat is telling you that the process is less than 100% efficient.
It is not telling me anything because an ordinary heat pump produces a great deal of waste heat and yet the COP can still be greater than 300%, what does this tell us?
The heat pump is a really tired worn out argument in my book. You are making an apples and oranges comparison. For a heat pump, the environment is the source of your heat and indeed you can pump heat from point A to point B. It's called a fridge! lol
QuoteQuote
There is simply no logical reason that any signal/plate combination should do something above and beyond what is supposed to happen.
Does the fact that you cannot personally think of a logical reason exclude all other logic? it would seem to me that there is no real logic to your arguement because it assumes that all other logic must be the same as yours.
Not really AC. What is clearly implicit in what I am saying is that there has to be a burden of proof imposed on the proponents of 2 H2 + O2 systems. They have to come up with a logical reason and explain it. I don't have to impose any constraints on them besides that. That's the logic behind my argument.
For example, suppose you say that you are tapping into the "water's resonance" with your excitation signal and that gives you electrolysis above and beyond what is expected. OK, go ahead and make your case. What is the resonance of the water? How does your signal interact with it? Explain the mechanism. Show some data to back up your claim. Submit it for peer review.
MileHigh
This is a bit off topic but please have a look at this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZqYZcYiEwE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZqYZcYiEwE)
It shows con artists in action. They are charging a capacitor through a diode and claiming it is free energy. Their "products" are various "plans" that you can purchase so you can build your own "free energy machine."
Notice that there are three phony props in the clip to add credibility for those that are very gullible; 1) a lab coat, 2) a pyramid, and 3) latex gloves.
It's very disheartening to see this kind of stuff in the 21st century.
Sorry this is off-topic to the car running on water discussion but it ties into one of the themes we have been discussing.
MileHigh
MH,
I personally don't care about getting better milage out of ICE's so I will leave it to the brainiac people out there to tell me why it works. I hope to be driving an electric vehicle very soon and if I can't buy one I will build one. The facts of the matter are that ICE's are only about 30% efficient at the best and most modern electric motors are 90% efficient right off the shelf. That directly correlates to a 3 to 1 improvement in mileage, why should I be satisfied with a lousey 50% gain in milage when I can have a 300% gain. Not to mention there are NO hoses, antifreeze's, radiators, filters, oil or oil changes, transmission fluids and filters, spark plugs, tune-ups, plug wires, fuel pumps, gas tanks, carburators, belts, exhaust pipes, mufflers or catalytic converters to worry about and have go bad. This list should also tell you why they don't want us to have electric cars.
The reason I have been playing with electrolyzers is to supply my own heating gas, I live in a cold climate, The plan is to have solar or wind or ? providing my own electricity which I will use to charge my electric car, run my home and provide hydrogen gas to heat with. But the fact of the matter is that adding HHO to an ICE will improve mileage even when the same ICE is driving the process, I know this by my own testing and if you don't believe it why that is your perogative.
Room3327:
Certainly an electric car is a lower-maintenance vehicle. Since you live in a cold climate, what are your thoughts about heating the interior of your electric car in the winter time? Perhaps use some of your hydrogen gas and have a hydrogen gas heater in the car? In an ICE car you have the luxury of all of that waste heat generation to heat up the interior of your car.
Your plan is something that a lot of people want to do for sure. When you crunch the numbers today, they probably look a lot better than they did 10 years ago. By the same token the numbers will look a lot better 10 years from now.
The tough thing is when you factor in your energy requirements, and relate that back to the number of solar panels you need, it's still a quite costly venture. Then you need all of the equipment for your energy storage and gas generation, etc. I will take a wild guess that it will cost between $20K and $40K in American dollars. Then I'm assuming that you have to buy an electric car for $40K USD also. It's probably still cheaper to buy an electric car and charge it with mains power. If your mains power is mostly from renewable sources like hydro electricity, then you are already realizing the goal that you are looking for. Of course I am simplifying things here but the general principles are correct.
MileHigh
Yes absolutely MH, I have thought of all this stuff and priced out more then you suggest. Heating the car is indeed a sticky point but not insurmountable, Volks Wagon had a small gas heater they used here in the old beatles (air cooled) for example. Why do you think I am interested in things like the TPU?
Room3327:
I am quite suspicious about the price of solar panels. You look at things like cell phones as an example, and the features they offer on an annualized basis and you sometimes wonder. On one hand, there really are limits on how much engineering development that you can do in a single year to release new features. On the other hand, the marketing people know all about mass-marketed devices, and the "disposability" of cell phones. They intentionally will hold back on releasing certain features and keep them for next year's model. They are trying to ride a "maximum revenue wave" and surf like that all the time. It's the so-called "price-point" and the migrating feature set working together to maximize revenue. Price-point is actually a quite often abused term.
This is how Capitalism works and it has its benefits and disadvantages. Solar panels don't really have new feature sets that get upgraded every year. So right now it appears to me that the price-point for maximum revenue is lower volume at a higher price. If they lowered the price the volume would go up but the profits would be lower, so they don't want to do that. A "socialist push" from Big Government might be quite beneficial here. I am simply not convinced that the manufacturing process is so expensive such that the price for solar panels has to remain so high.
In 10 or 20 years things may really change. I think we may see a revolution for domestic electrical generation that mates solar panels with fairly large composite-carbon flywheel motor/generators that spin at super high speeds in vacuum chambers that are buried below ground. (That way if it fails and flies apart it does not slice anybody in two.) A half-dozen houses could pool their roof solar collection like that and be nearly 100% off the grid and also sell surplus energy back to the grid. That could charge your car for sure.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.10.02, 19:09:35
What is clearly implicit in what I am saying is that there has to be a burden of proof imposed on the proponents of 2 H2 + O2 systems. They have to come up with a logical reason and explain it. I don't have to impose any constraints on them besides that. That's the logic behind my argument.
For example, suppose you say that you are tapping into the "water's resonance" with your excitation signal and that gives you electrolysis above and beyond what is expected. OK, go ahead and make your case. What is the resonance of the water? How does your signal interact with it? Explain the mechanism. Show some data to back up your claim. Submit it for peer review.
MileHigh
This is probably my single biggest gripe. That is, no one can ever explain in anything remotely resembling science just what is occuring and why. And there never seems to be any genuine attempt to establish any real science or facts, instead we get a mish-mash of conjecture and mindless nonsense. Ok, the sad truth is that not many of the people that ever make these claims are up to the science that is involved, most obviously struggle to understand even the most basic of chemical reactions, but that is no excuse to spout gibberish as if it's all substantiated fact. I cringed when I noticed Fast Freddy has now coined the phrase HHOi to indicate that the gas is ionised in someway, when it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that he wouldn't have a clue about this - just wild and meaningless speculation. Give me strength!
Over two visits we recently sent three people to visit Fast Freedie -- I wont detail the string of excuses we were given -- the net result is that we are still waiting to see confirmation of any of his claims.
Quote from: marksnoswell on 2010.10.03, 05:36:35
Over two visits we recently sent three people to visit Fast Freedie -- I wont detail the string of excuses we were given -- the net result is that we are still waiting to see confirmation of any of his claims.
Hi Mark, I was aware that a planned demonstration had fell through supposedly due Freddy's ill health, although later it was stated that the electrolyser had broken. Whatever, it is not the most encouraging of starts, and real fuel for the sceptics.
He doesn't have to show the system running in situ in the vehicle to gain some credibility, just showing that his electrolyser can actually make 55 litres of hydroxy in a minute should be easy enough for him to demonstrate and silence the critics.
Watching his videos, he seems to me to be talking too much about experimenting... why I wonder if he already has the set up to do the job? If he had given out the full specs, many of us could have replicated it by now. Something is just not adding up (and that's apart from Freddy's maths)!
Well here's Freddy's latest pointless video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mms0GY3tus&playnext=1&videos=A7ZZ7lPmPuk&feature=mfu_in_order
Interestingly this is update 11, and the previous video was update 9... what was I saying previously about Freddy's maths! ;)
Hi All,
Thinking about the ambient pressure, it may be correct that his stated volume of production is correct. As I see it this may be true in remote places similar to that found on the moon.
55 litres per min would conventionally require around 8KW with estimated results from a test cell. If however he has found a way to make a tiny cell generate this amount of gas then the volume of water used would show itself. 0.03 litres of water per min would be used when running at this rate. (Assuming reported conversion maths are correct).
I am sure theres more to this than the eye has seen, paypal, donations, prayer,... Who is the winner here?
Lets wait and see.
The ball is his at this time so hopefully... Dont wait up though, I think we all know where this one may end up lol.
They claim to have driven the 2004 Dodge 3000 miles with the HHO rig alone.
If true, that would be convincing enough. Are there holes in their claims/stories?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.10.03, 13:15:06
They claim to have driven the 2004 Dodge 3000 miles with the HHO rig alone.
If true, that would be convincing enough. Are there holes in their claims/stories?
.99
Just the biggest hole of them all at present .99. Namely there has been no independent verification of their claims and no demonstration of the working vehicle and/or the electrolyser producing 55 litres of gas per minute!
Understood.
Seems to me there is enough enough to build his unit. Tough part being that he tuned all those tubes by lathe. Not many of us have access to the wonderful workshop he has. I've not checked into SS piping, hopefully there are a few sizes available to get close.
Only foggy area for me I think is what exactly was done in the lower portion of the vessel.
What is the theoretical litres per minute for 55 Amps draw?
.99
In one video, I believe he says that if the specified SS tubing is used and all cut to the proper lengths, tuning should not be required. Also, some degree of tuning is achieved by adjusting the lengths slightly.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.10.03, 15:08:24
Understood.
Seems to me there is enough enough to build his unit. Tough part being that he tuned all those tubes by lathe. Not many of us have access to the wonderful workshop he has. I've not checked into SS piping, hopefully there are a few sizes available to get close.
Only foggy area for me I think is what exactly was done in the lower portion of the vessel.
What is the theoretical litres per minute for 55 Amps draw?
.99
Implementing Faraday's laws - and off the top of my head - I would think we are looking at around 6KW to provide 55 litres of hydroxy gas in a minute. Assuming he is using 12 volts then of course we are looking at passing 500 amps through the electrolyser. This also assumes 100% efficiency!
But of course Freddy is not using straight DC, but a Pulse Width Modulator to power his electrolyser. Details of this might hold the key, but no details have yet been posted. That said, even with the magic of pulsing, 55 lpm is pushing the boundaries of reality, especially when you take into account he says he's achieving this with a mere 55 amps! ???
.99, I'm reluctant to call Freddy a liar or a scammer in case his claims bear fruit, but let's just say, irrespective of whether his claims are genuine or not, you do have to take what he says with a pinch of salt.
My observation and gut feel is that he is not intentionally scamming us.
Regarding my question:
From what I found so far, it appears that a rule of thumb is about 1 LPM per 10 Amperes of current. So Freddie's theoretical output should be about 5.5 LPM for his 55 Ampere input.
So he seems to be claiming a gain of roughly 10x the theoretical amount.
.99
A revision to the above post.
A gain factor of 10 is based on 12V @55A, or about 660 Watts.
Freddie claims to be using 3.02V @55A, or about 166 Watts.
I assume Freddie is basing the 3.02V on a mark/space ratio (duty cycle) of about 25%.
660W/166W ~ 4
So together with the initial gain of 10 (based on 12V) and factoring in the actual power being claimed:
6600W (approximate theoretical) / 166W ~ 40x :o
.99
Freddy's basic description from his website and from Peswiki:
QuoteBasically the water is pumped into the pressure vessel when the internal float switch is closed. The PWM is used to produce an electrical pulse which is tuned to the resonant frequency of the inner electrodes. This vibrates the water trapped between the outer and inner tubes. The outer tube is charged positive and is tuned exactly 180 degrees out of phase with the inner tube. The vibration wave is propelled by the positive charge towards the outer tubes just to be attenuated by the outer tube tuning.
The excited water molecules 2(H2O) now only require a fraction of the amperage to be converted into (2H2 + O2). Also experimentation of harmonic frequencies have produced interesting results, sometimes exceeding HHO production of the tubes at resonance. The vessel has a large inner and outer tube which is tuned 4 octaves lower than the outer tubes and has a clearance between the tubes of only 1mm. This tube produces the most heat and HHO. The smaller outer tubes have a 2mm clearance and run cooler and take less amperage and are mounted around the large tube assembly. The epoxy used to seal the bottom inside of the vessel and bottom of the electrical enclosure is laced with ferrous oxide dust 10% by weight which creates an capacitor which smoothes out the square wave pattern to a sine wave pattern which helps the transition between off and on for the PWM. Experimentation with an air coil after the mosfet drivers and before the load also resulted in an increase of efficiency.
Unfortunately, some of the description is unclear as to what is meant exactly (esp. the bold). The problem of deciphering the description is compounded by the fact that there is a central
inner electrode pair, and several
outer peripheral electrode pairs, and each has an
inner and
outer tube.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.10.03, 18:03:00
Freddy's basic description from his website and from Peswiki:
Unfortunately, some of the description is unclear as to what is meant exactly (esp. the bold). The problem of deciphering the description is compounded by the fact that there is a central inner electrode pair, and several outer peripheral electrode pairs, and each has an inner and outer tube.
.99
This is the problem .99, unfortunately there is not even enough basic information to make an informed judgement is there? I mean where does he get that 3.2 volts from? He seems to be using 9 smaller tube pairs and a larger central pair, so could it be that he's got three outer pairs in parallel and the large inner by itself, but in series with the other three parallel combinations. Perhaps, but we're only guessing unless he details things properly. The PWM is designed to operate at heavy currents, but I assume the output voltage is simply that of the deep cycle battery, ie 12 volts.
Yep, got to agree, I too am totally baffled by his talk of the inner and outer tubes being 180 degree out of phase with each other. And I'd bet if you asked him face to face he wouldn't be able to fully explain what he means by this.
However, of even more intrigue to me is his apparent doping of the epoxy resin at the base of the unit with rust... sorry, ferrous oxide dust, which he claims makes a capacitor - I mean, what the hell is all that about... a capacitor? ???
I've seen or heard nothing yet from FF that instills any great confidence in me, and I'm getting a really funny feeling that nothings going to change in the near future. :)
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.10.03, 16:19:03
Regarding my question:
From what I found so far, it appears that a rule of thumb is about 1 LPM per 10 Amperes of current. So Freddie's theoretical output should be about 5.5 LPM for his 55 Ampere input.
So he seems to be claiming a gain of roughly 10x the theoretical amount.
.99
Yep that's a good ball park figure, which equates closely to the 6KW I guestimated above. The actual power of course depends on the voltage, but you have to remember that when people talk about the theoretical power it will take to evolve a certain volume of gas, they are assuming the minimum voltage for electrolysis to take place, ie, around 1.27 volts and 100% efficiency. Any voltage above the minimum threshold will immediately reduce overall efficiency. So in reality, it is likely that Freddy's electrolyser would not even be producing 100% Faraday, let alone 1000%!!
Quote from: Farrah Day on 2010.10.03, 20:29:08
I mean where does he get that 3.2 volts from?
I think that's straight-forward:
With a PWM duty cycle of 25% (and an assumed V+ of 12V), this equates to an average of 3V. His total cell impedance would have to be roughly 0.055 Ohms.
.99
Poynt:
I am not following the discussion in great detail here but if the 3V is being used for any power calculations, shouldn't this all be RMS-based? i.e.; the RMS equivalent of 12 volts at a 25% duty cycle is 6 volts RMS.
MileHigh
Indeed MH.
However, I am guessing that Freddy used a regular voltage meter and it probably read out 3.02V directly, and this would be an average value. Of course RMS values of voltage and current need to be used for power.
How did he measure the 55 Amperes of current? I know he used a CSR, but using a voltage meter across it would also produce an average current value.
If Freddy took a scope and measured the peak voltage across the cell (which could be 3V if the cell impedance is lower than that of the interconnecting wires), and the peak current through the cell, he would then have made the measurements the correct way.
As usual and as Farrah mentioned, not enough information is available to make a proper evaluation of the claims.
.99
Irrespective of what cell configuration he is using I would expect to see 12ish volts across the electrolyser input as a whole. I doubt that he has any fancy equipment, so would see him as reading 12ish volts across the whole electrolyser, and perhaps 3ish volts across each parallel bank of tubes. If he's using pulsed square wave 12v dc, then surely the meter will still read 12v at the electrolyser input. Wouldn't it then just be a matter of determining the gating and mark/space ratios in order to determine the power dissipated.
One thing for sure, 3 volts is not enough to operate all the cells in series, and of course to get this voltage in the first place would mean transforming down the 12volts. 3 volts suggests to me that this is the voltage across just one bank of cells, and if there are four banks in series then that would give us our 12ish volts input. So any calculations worked from 3 volts, I would expect to need multiplying by 4.
However, from what I've seen, I seriously doubt that Freddy has made anything by way of accurate measurements, and that we can speculate for ever and a day on how he has is electrolyser configured and exactly what voltages are where.
It's all painfully slow going and becoming rather tedious now. If this hasn't been properly detailed by Christmas, then I think we can start to consider it as bogus.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.10.03, 20:54:43
I think that's straight-forward:
With a PWM duty cycle of 25% (and an assumed V+ of 12V), this equates to an average of 3V. His total cell impedance would have to be roughly 0.055 Ohms.
.99
.99, wouldn't this be wrong? If you do this the figures become very misleading as 3 volts will not work the electrolyser and indeed is not what the electrolyser would be seeing. A standard voltmeter will surely
not be reading an average 3 volts, but the 12 volt pulse. It might be a convenient way of determining the power dissipated, but I doubt this average 3 volts will have any bearing on Freddy's actual voltmeter reading. This is not an AC sinewave, so surely rms does not apply in the same way. To my mind it has to be 12 volts with the power determined by the duty cycle and/or gating, and Freddy must be talking about the voltage across one of 4 banks of cells... but who knows!
Pointless video update #12.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH-VQ3RGydI&playnext=1&videos=mc4Z4FHBR3k&feature=mfu_in_order
Not a single construction detail explained or mentioned, in fact not a word spoken in this video... he doesn't even say 'basically'. Very atmospheric music though! lol
Well can't deny the guy has engineering skills:
http://www.youtube.com/user/FutureEnergyConcepts#p/u/4/kUTtIEkVepg
But not sure what to make of this next video. He now claims his cell is making electricity from... fusion...???
http://www.youtube.com/user/FutureEnergyConcepts#p/u/3/iaAAdeqSMFE
He talks about a threshold of around 3 amps setting the process in action, and then electrolysis maintains a healthy gas output when backed down to 25ma. What he does not say, and what is unclear, is exactly what he is doing with the PWM to increase and decrease the current flow in the first place. FF is clearly talking a lot of invented nonsense, but at least visually this video appears to be showing something interesting happening.
Changing the subject momentarily, Fantastic Freddy seems to have gone a little quiet considering he was going to open source everything. Has anyone seen or heard anything new from this guy?
I just feel sorry for Rick over on EF. He's been ready with his ss tubes for ages, eagerly waiting full disclosure in order to replicate FF's system... :'(
Fast Freddy Breakthrough
Fast Freddy discovers that hydrogen is an explosive gas!
Must see video: http://www.youtube.com/user/FutureEnergyConcepts#p/u/3/03T5f-QYw3s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qgxZ7Xz0jA&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
I think it's quite plain now that we're being monkeyed about by jokers. I posted a few pertinent comments (with my usual diplomacy of course) on his web site, which he promptly removed. Yet another Aaron Murakami type, who only wants to read posts from mindless devotees that sing his praise and go to church every sunday, otherwise they are deleted.
http://www.youtube.com/user/FutureEnergyConcepts#p/u/8/iaAAdeqSMFE
FF claims to have only two teaspoons of KOH in 4 gallons of water, so what is all the crap on the surface that rather conveniently stops us seeing clearly into the bucket.
At first I thought that FF might actually be achieving what he claimed, but was simply so uneducated in this science that he was unintentionally talking bollocks. But now I'm beginning to think that he's an out-and-out fraudster. Still nothing on the all important input voltage, current or waveform. But that's OK, he is being worshipped by the dreamers and religious nuts alike.
Farrah
Do you think they will reward him in perpetuity with blind conviction and No replications?
Nah, I think they'll eat him for dinner If he doesn't cough up the goods eventually!
Church folk or not!
Chet
PS
WOW!! Did you see what I just saw??928 889 8878 thanks Farrah!!
You know how I love to make phone calls!!
I'll be Back!!
AHH its Sunday ,you don't pester church folks on Sunday
Mannana!
Farrah
Some questions,the sound doesn't work on this Compu!
What's he claiming in the orange bucket?
Does that look right to you ?[Gas volume and meter reading??]
OR?
Please!!
Chet
It's almost comically bad, you really need to get sound to appreciate it, but 'bascially' FF's coconspirator is simply turning a knob on the PWM, some point at which he states he is achieving threashold (yes, with an 'a') after which he claims that the cell in the bucket is making its own electricity. Absolute utter garbage of course.
Any negative or mentally challenging comments he is quickly removing, which leaves only the, 'We love you Freddy', 'You are a genius Freddy', 'God bless you Freddy', posts from the Muppet brigade for him to bathe in.
The other 30 sec video is showing the new truck they intend to run on gas and the driver doing his boy-racer impression. I don't think I've ever seen anything as continually unscientific as the videos this bunch of clowns are producing. I'm sure there are many misguided religious folk happily throwing money at him via his website, so I think we can now confidently confirm FF as a con artist and fraudster.
This video is probably the most stupid of all.
http://www.youtube.com/user/FutureEnergyConcepts#p/u/6/OCsoVNCbc8I
He 'basically' just gets a couple of hillbillies to tell everyone what a nice guy he is. :D I think Fantastic Freddy has been drinking too much moonshine - he's clearly not the full ticket, in fact he's bonkers!
Farrah
"It's making its own electricity"
Is Hillbilly for,
We don't know whats goin on ,But its real good!
Does the output in the bucket look exceptional for the input shown on the meter?
Chet
PS
I'll be callin Freddy Mannana [I spake Heeeilllbillleeee}
Impossible to tell as it looks like he's just finished shaving in the bucket - certainly there's no reason why two teaspoons of KOH would make that amount of scum in 4 gallons of clean water.
Nothing clear in the video and we don't know the setting on the PWM, or indeed exactly what the meter is reading if it's a pulsed output. Not enough info - total waste of time and not worth even speculating on.
Oh, I forgot to mention, at the end of the bucket video he claims to be creating nothinh other than... (roll of drums)... 'Fusion'! ::) ROLF This if nothing else clearly indicates that Fast Freddy is well away with the faeries!
Tickets to Fast Freddy's Fantastical Fantasy World are now available to buy from his web site via PayPal. :-*
Wow, FF's on a bit of a roll now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgBMmLn5uQA
Don't ask me to tell you what he's saying word for word Chet, but 'basically' (he loves that word), he's saying that he's doing God's work, and that he loves us all (even me), God bless, God willing, blah, blah, blah. Oh and that he's been working on the project for 14 hours a day solid for two weeks and that he plans to have it all wrapped up by Tuesday! Unfortunately he never stated the year, so we'll have to be patient.
So roll on Tuesday... any Tuesday... every Tuesday!
Farrah
Since you posted that Freddy is working today ,I figured I'd call him.
The number I have doesn't connect,now I can't find the vid I got it from [in your posts ]
Do you have a Number thats different than 928 889 8878 for Freddy??
Please?
Chet
Nope, sorry Chet, unfortunately I don't have a hotline to Fast Freddy's Fantasy World.
Here's a link to a guy who also claims to have his truck running on 100% hydroxy too:
http://pesn.com/2010/11/11/9501723_Mr2tuff_Replica_of_Freddys_100-percent_HHOi/
QuoteThe above is the caption text from the video link Freddy Wells gave Captain Willy to pass on to the Future Energy Concepts Yahoo e-group dedicate to replicating his device that claims 100% HHOi operation of a Dodge Truck. While there are definite differences between the two devices there are many striking similarities.
This replication uses 12 plate pairs whereas Freddy's uses 10 pairs of tubes. Both however claim to be using 12V at ~255 amps at ~60PSI for input to the system. While this latest video doesn't show a road test, nor definitive proof that the device is actually the fuel source for the truck, it at least counts as a replication claim of sorts and a 2nd witness to the working of the technology.
Mr2tuff's Youtube channel shows more detail of the cell's construction. It is an open bath type plate system of 12 pairs of electrodes 3" x 6". In a new take on the pop bottle output test, Mr2tuff, places his bubbler in backwards and the device expels the water in it; which seems to be a cool way to measure output but may only work for these 50+PSI devices.
It is well known that quality HHO or Hydroxy is supposed to self ignite at 15PSI, so there can be little doubt that the gases being put out by the Fast Freddy device and this one are not pure Hydroxy or HHO. However, they do appear to run internal combustion engines quite well on this HHOi. In recent posts Fast Freddy has acknowledged that there is anode sacrificing going on, but says that tubes should last for a couple 100,000 miles.
This fact has yet to be demonstrated. So, these type cells seem to run on HHOi and tube/plate material; which is different from HHO or Hydroxy where voltage and amperage are limited to avoid deterioration of the stainless steel plates or tubes. It is not know if the plate material adds anything to the process or is just a casualty of it.
If Mr2tuff can run a 20KW generator for a year or more on 12 3"x6" plates and distilled water using NaOH as a catalyst the cost of operation will only be a few hundred dollars for plate replacement. This makes the most pressing question about this design the rate of plate/tube deterioration.
Fast Freddy is now saying that the tube coils in his #6 version may be unnecessary and that an additional mystery ingredient in the electrolyte is playing a key role. The mystery ingredient is due to be released in the e-book of plans scheduled to be released to the public for $100 upon completion.
At the start the author states:
QuoteWhile there are definite differences between the two devices there are many striking similarities.
But much to my amusement then goes on to highlight considerable differences.
1. Freddy's using 10 tubes, this guy is using 12 plates.
2. Freddy claims he's drawing 55 amps, this guy is drawing 255 amps! (even though the author states both are claiming to be drawing 255 amps)
QuoteIf Mr2tuff can run a 20KW generator for a year or more on 12 3"x6" plates and distilled water using NaOH as a catalyst the cost of operation will only be a few hundred dollars for plate replacement. This makes the most pressing question about this design the rate of plate/tube deterioration.
Wow, a 20KW generator! For a year... OR MORE! ... on just distilled water and Sodium Hydroxide!
But this is a key paragragh:
QuoteFast Freddy is now saying that the tube coils in his #6 version may be unnecessary and that an additional mystery ingredient in the electrolyte is playing a key role. The mystery ingredient is due to be released in the e-book of plans scheduled to be released to the public for $100 upon completion.
What tube coils? When as there ever been mention of any tube coils... whatever they are? And A MYSTERY INGREDIENT! What mystery ingredient... when has there ever been mention of a mystery ingredient? Could it be something Ma Wells has scraped of the inside of the stove... or perhaps it's Freddy's 100% moonshine?
Oh, I see. Finally the clincher. We have to buy his e-book of plans to be released to the public for just...$100. Therein lies the mystery ingredient. I wonder what happened to open-sourcing everything? I guess donations from the Fantastic Freddy Appreciation Society must be drying up... or he's getting greedy. God Bless you Freddy! ::)
The name "Fast Freddy" should have been a dead giveaway.
Wonder how many other ventures he's had to high tail out of town, hence the name.
When someone starts to mix personal salvation with science....run the other way.
So Fast freddy's latest replicator Claims 3000 [or so] Watts in
300,000.00 [or so] Watts out
This I have to see!!
Chet
Quote from: ramset on 2010.11.22, 12:51:06
So Fast freddy's latest replicator Claims 3000 [or so] Watts in
300,000.00 [or so] Watts out
This I have to see!!
Chet
Is this the guy that Farrah mentioned who is using 255 Amps rather than 55 Amps?
.99
Poynt
Yes 2tuff [I think] is his handle.
Sterling Has a whole Wiki thing running on this [Farrah's post above].
Quote from: ION on 2010.11.22, 01:07:06
The name "Fast Freddy" should have been a dead giveaway.
Wonder how many other ventures he's had to high tail out of town, hence the name.
When someone starts to mix personal salvation with science....run the other way.
Yep, must agree with you ION. I absolutely detest it when gods and religion are deliberately intertwined with science and technology - and worse still, used as a tool to promote something or someone.
OH Stop!!
Bringing these things to Church ,Is just as american as Chevrolet and apple pie!
Always gonna be that way!
Chet
Quote from: ramset on 2010.11.22, 21:12:54
OH Stop!!
Bringing these things to Church ,Is just as american as Chevrolet and apple pie!
Always gonna be that way!
Chet
So many people still living in the Dark Ages... so many people brainwashed from birth. It's a very strange world we live in.
Ok, Fast Freddy's latest - rather baffling - video:
http://www.youtube.com/user/FutureEnergyConcepts#p/u/4/dfUPBaktU24
Now, to me, this is rather curious video as it really makes no headway at all. He has a truck running on an electrolyser that is out of the truck on a workbench, and so presumably not even being powered by the vehicles own electrical system. The electrolyser unit pressures up to around 60psi and the truck engine starts and ticks over. However, very quickly the pressure in the electrolyser drops and the engine splutters to a halt. Before this, the guy with the video camera goes to pains to show that Freddy has removed the fuel tank and rather annoyingly keeps insisting that the car is running on water, which of course it isn't.
What happens in this video is exactly what I would expect to happen as the truck engine ultimately demands too much gas for the electrolyser to provide - and this from an outside power supply and the engine just on tickover.
So I'm not sure what the purpose of this video is as it's clearly a backwad step, in that it shows that this system doesn't work! It all makes no sense, whatever is Freddy thinking? Why would someone who has apparently driven a truck via an on-board electrolyser go to the trouble of having someone video a failure? One thing for sure, this demonstration is a million miles away from driving a truck 3000 miles on just water as he has claimed.
Anyone with half a brain will quickly deduce that Freddy is not exactly the brightest spark in the box, but more than ever now this has the stench of a scam, and I can't help feeling that Freddy's actually as bent as a nine-bob note.
Freddy has blocked me from making comments on his latest video (I wonder why?), and I guess he'll be banning anyone and everyone that tells him something he doesn't want to hear. I've just been reading through some of the comments and, believe it or not, many people still think Freddy's showing them something amazing and is on the level. I just had to copy and past this comment from some lame-brain as it gave me a good laugh!:
Quoteif I may make a correction here - it's running on H2O1 gas made by the tube cell - and a mixture of other gasses in the atmosphere, like nitrogen. The combustion / oxidation process is electric in nature - so no actual atoms are harmed in the making of flame. Think of the burning of fuel as an electromagnetic event that stimulates photons. In the case of gas like H2O1 mixed with ambient air, many different gasses and molecules are involved in the electromagnetic event.
mikepowers420 1 day ago
Running on H2O1 gas... I wonder what this strange stuff is? ::) Anyone that can talk this much total bollocks in a single paragragh must be bordering on genius!
FD
Save time... Let it go... Focus on the ideas you have... Move forward.
IQ
Heheh, Farrah,
your so above this...
Relax...
It will play out,
and truth will be the reveal as always.
The only thing he has is the Piezo factor,
he hasn't incorporated the 14.73-Mhz factor.
So he is spinnin' wheels on ice dear.
But you knew that.
:)
I know. :)
I long ago stopped taking this guy seriously, but I'm now starting to find the whole thing quite entertaining. It's very 'Laurel and Hardy' and I find myself looking forward to the latest instalment like a favourite soap opera. I'm just waiting for the 'shit to hit the fan', as it seems quite a few people have donated funds and are starting to get a little twitchy. :)
Quote from: Farrah Day on 2010.11.22, 23:16:30
So many people still living in the Dark Ages... so many people brainwashed from birth. It's a very strange world we live in.
Amen....LOL
And the FF saga continues...
http://www.youtube.com/user/FutureEnergyConcepts#p/u/3/vKH3Of-91Po
Wow, impressive leaps forward... a short video of Freddy driving a green truck... a real breakthrough... amazing stuff! He's gonna make believers of us all yet! ;D ;D
What is this guy on? lol. :)
The infamous Fast Freddy has now closed his You-tube account... and without open-sourcing the details of his WFC as promised :'(
Apparently he's scammed enough people to buy another truck... he filled it up with 'petrol' and he's high-tailed it out of town... :o
...and that's why they call him Fast Freddy! ;)
Fast Freddy returns with yet another great work of fiction, aided and abetted, of course, by the irrepressible, totally irresponsible and supremely gullible... SSSSSterling Allen.
http://pesn.com/2011/06/06/9501839_Freddy_Launches_Universal_HHO_Gas_Kit/
And if you really want a good belly laugh, have a read of this:
http://pesn.com/2011/05/05/9501827_Mister_X_aka_Freddy_water_fuel_non-disclosure_show_disappoints/
I was almost rolling around on the floor as I read this article.
These parts stick in my mind:
11 atempts on his life... Right, and no one has yet managed to do the job? The MIB are nowhere near as competent as in the movies, are they?
Freddy (aka, Dr X - love it!) was, and I quote: 'offered a billion dollars to walk away from the technology'. Yes, a Billion Dollars! But I guess God wouldn't let him take it ;)
Now he also claims that his unit only makes 2 litres of gas per minute (Yes, just TWO lpm... not 55lpm as first stated). But - I love this bit - and I quote: 'for every horsepower's worth of HHO gas produced the engine produces four horsepower'. lol
The guy gets more absurd every time. It's a sham and he's a disgrace... but I shouldn't be too hard on him, after all he is still recovering from the latest two attempts on his life. C.C
I think he must be related to the infamous, Bob Boyce who is also full of all this crap, and who also has feigned various extraordinary claims, but sadly never substantiated any of them..
One more for a giggle:
http://pesn.com/2011/05/9501821_10x_Attempted_Murder_Survivor_Mr_X_to_Reveal_Water_Fuel_Secret/
I love it. Now FF, aka Dr. X or Mr. X... or whatever, is claiming to have a degree in HYPER PHYSICS! Anyone know what that is? Anyone ever heard of hyper physics? ???