Hydrogen systems- has anyone had success? - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

kerry · #31 05-11-2008, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesst

This is a VERY important facet of the scientific method that so many fail to see. I'm glad there's at least one other person on this forum who recognizes that (although I have to say I've never seen a salesperson use that argument).

There's a difference between proving a universal negative and a negative.
I just proved it is not 30 below zero in my house by looking at a thermometer. One negative proven.

thesst · #32 05-11-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

There's a difference between proving a universal negative and a negative.
I just proved it is not 30 below zero in my house by looking at a thermometer. One negative proven.

Actually you've used evidence to SUPPORT your claim. You haven't proven anything.

kerry · #33 05-11-2008, 01:44 PM

No. If 30 below is not 60 degrees and it is 60 degrees, I falsified the claim that it is 30 below zero, thereby proving the negative that it is not 30 below zero.

Matt L · #34 05-11-2008, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

No. If 30 below is not 60 degrees and it is 60 degrees, I falsified the claim that it is 30 below zero, thereby proving the negative that it is not 30 below zero.

Your distinction is correct. You have not proven that there is no house where the interior temperature is 30 degrees below zero.

kerry · #35 05-11-2008, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt L

Your distinction is correct. You have not proven that there is no house where the interior temperature is 30 degrees below zero.

Precisely.

Hatterasguy · #36 05-11-2008, 02:32 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuhYsbT7Kq4&feature=related

This sums it up nicely.

turbobenz · #37 05-11-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hell6789

non sense hydrogen works and works well. my onan generator runs on hydrogen and runs well and produces 1.0 liter a min of browns gas. you guys need to do a lot more studying check out the hyd welder on u tube stanley myers was murdered because he had a car that would run on hydrogen alone. dont try to run it and a 1 cyl lawnmower or you will get a boom . i have a friend that runs his isusu pickup and increased his milage by 25%. get on the net and research research and dont kill yourselfs without many hrs of study safety first and i mean it. booms causes hearing loss and or fires and even death.

Why not? Why would this cause the engine to explode. It wouldnt. If your car wont explode a lawn mower engine wont

turbobenz · #38 05-11-2008, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Johnson

It's common internet sport these days to try to debunk anything new or that might be just slightly beyond the technical understanding or experience of the participant. Everything becomes "snake oil". This includes the loss of the ability to sift out the kernel of truth underlying mass-marketing attempts to latch onto real science.

Two recent examples on this forum stand out in my mind: 1) the belief that diesel fuel additives cannot increase mileage; 2) the related belief that neat diesel fuel cannot end up on cylinder walls during combustion.

Now there is a third: the belief that hydrogen cannot be used to increase net fuel efficiency. Do some research -- maybe something above a middle school chemistry or physics level.

The USA is going to become a laughing stock because so many people just don't want to make the effort anymore. We're being left behind in the sciences -- get used to it, I suppose. A pity.

Again, look at the work that M.I.T. has done.

And europe has a car that can run on dirt?

turbobenz · #39 05-11-2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Johnson

High Efficiency Gasoline Engine Using
Plasma Hydrogen Enhancement

Do you know what plasma is?

Hatterasguy · #40 05-11-2008, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Johnson

It's common internet sport these days to try to debunk anything new or that might be just slightly beyond the technical understanding or experience of the participant. Everything becomes "snake oil". This includes the loss of the ability to sift out the kernel of truth underlying mass-marketing attempts to latch onto real science.

Two recent examples on this forum stand out in my mind: 1) the belief that diesel fuel additives cannot increase mileage; 2) the related belief that neat diesel fuel cannot end up on cylinder walls during combustion.

Now there is a third: the belief that hydrogen cannot be used to increase net fuel efficiency. Do some research -- maybe something above a middle school chemistry or physics level.

The USA is going to become a laughing stock because so many people just don't want to make the effort anymore. We're being left behind in the sciences -- get used to it, I suppose. A pity.

Again, look at the work that M.I.T. has done.

Disprove the laws of thermodynamics with one of these systems, make yourself $1B and get a Nobel price in the process!

Matt L · #41 05-11-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Johnson

Temperature is an average. You are simply stipulating and then agreeing with your stipulation. Failing stipulation you're are faced with an infinite regress of measuring infinitely many points in a infinitisimally small amount of time via a process that requires a finite amount of time.

Ah, but heat follows certain laws and we have a solution to the heat equation. Let us stipulate that it is well above 30 degrees below zero at some point near his house. You can estimate how much colder it could possibly be in the area of the house, then prove that your estimate is valid (i.e., your extrema must be coarser than reality). From this, apply the heat equation and you can determine bounds on the extrema of the temperature inside the house.

Quote:

There are all sorts of ways logic and mathematics fudge. In mathematics, one such philosophical divide is with respect to completed versus potential infinity. Seen all the time in calculus.

Particularly in calculus, this appears to be the case with people learning the method but not the theory. The course materials covering the theory of calculus are usually called "Advanced Calculus" for introductory courses, and "Real Analysis" for the deep material.

There is no divide.

Gox777 · #42 05-11-2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesst

This is a VERY important facet of the scientific method that so many fail to see. I'm glad there's at least one other person on this forum who recognizes that (although I have to say I've never seen a salesperson use that argument).

Very true. I stand corrected.
Time for me to get back to changing brake pads.

thesst · #43 05-11-2008, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

No. If 30 below is not 60 degrees and it is 60 degrees, I falsified the claim that it is 30 below zero, thereby proving the negative that it is not 30 below zero.

Sorry, I should I have clarified that the reason you have supported your claim (and NOT proved it) is largely semantic.

In science you do not say you "proved" or "disproved" something. You supported or failed to support your hypothesis.

And, you really shouldn't even have a negative hypothesis at all. More standard procedure would be to have a positive hypothesis ("It is 30 below zero in here") and then fail to reject the null when you find that it isn't 30 below zero.

NickMendoza · #44 05-11-2008, 04:57 PM

NOT DEPEND ON IT.

If the output turns out to be 1% then it is not worth it.
If the output helps out 25% to 30% then it would be.

I am going call water4gas tomorrow and make an appointment to see a system. They are about 15 min. away from me.

The guys name is Ozzie Freedom. Has anyone heard anything about him? Other than through the water4gas site?

I am a little paranoid now. I am going to ask to see the fuel tank for possible displacement of fuel, look at the filters etc.

This is why I like this site. I am going to copy paste all the questions and take them over to him.

Thank you

Nick

#45 05-11-2008, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Johnson

It's common internet sport these days to try to debunk anything new or that might be just slightly beyond the technical understanding or experience of the participant. Everything becomes "snake oil". This includes the loss of the ability to sift out the kernel of truth underlying mass-marketing attempts to latch onto real science.

Modern "efficiency enhancers" are simply taking advantage of the general publics ignorance and gullibility for quick and easy profit. Its the same way Nigerian scammers continue to successfully steal money from people despite supposedly common knowledge of their scam methods. People know they don't work but they want to BELIEVE they work.

Quote:

Two recent examples on this forum stand out in my mind: ... 2) the related belief that neat diesel fuel cannot end up on cylinder walls during combustion.

You are confused. The discussion on that topic was that a few believed the fuel provided some lubrication for the cylinder walls, not whether or not fuel actually contacted the walls.

Quote:

Do some research -- maybe something above a middle school chemistry or physics level.

I agree, many people should.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

Making hydrogen gas is very easy.
Your car battery has been doing it all of its life.
Or
Put the positive and negative leads of a battery charger in a bucket of water.
The bubbles you will see is hydrogen gas.
That is called electrolysis
-----
You will use more electrical energy running the battery charger in the bucket than you will ever get out of the hydrogen that it creates.

If it were possible to get more energy out of a system than was put into it
then you would have perpetual motion and free energy.
You would have solved the worlds energy problems.
Right there in your little bucket.
-----
There is currently no way to make make hydrogen that uses less energy than the hydrogen produced.

You could run the battery charger off of a windmill and have some very cheep hydrogen.

But you would have been a lot better off just charging a battery.

Is that RATIONAL thinking by RichC??????

Quote:

Correct, but you can take a fuel that it being used inefficiently, input energy to transform it to a more efficient form and net an efficiency gain.

That would be great if it were true but the hydrogen produced is simply burning as an additional/replacement fuel, it is not changing how efficiently the existing fuel burns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickMendoza

I am going call water4gas tomorrow and make an appointment to see a system. They are about 15 min. away from me.

If they want to charge you more than $15 for their middle school science project then it is a rip-off.