350 watts and 10 amps same as 420 watts and 12 volts?

According to how they are calculated the amps should be the same, but is it actually the same?

I want to build a water fueld generator.(yes H20) and need to have a DC power supply of 35volts at 10amps and want to use a PC power supply that has 420watts and a 12volt output. Would this work to provide me with the 10amps I need to vaporize the H20?

 

I'm not sure I understood exactly what you are doing, but if the device is going to require a 35 Vdc source, the 12 Vdc power supply will not work.

Think of the power companies transformer. Let's say it's a 50 kw transformer with a 7200 volt primary and a 240 volt secondary.

7200v x 7amps=50 kw
240v x 208 amps = 50 kw

The math matches, but obviously you couldn't use the 7200v side without frying everything.
I'm not sure this was the best analogy. If not, let me know and I'll try something else.

 

As WFO said, if you have something that requires 35 volts, but you only give it 12 volts, it won't work. Watts and amps don't matter if volts aren't right.

 

I'd like to know more about this water fueled generator. It sounds like it is not really water fueled but 35VDC fueled. Is it some sort of steam engine?

 

It uses an arc of electricity inside a tank of water from 2 carbon rods to vapourize the water into hydrogen and oxygen gas which is cooled as it travels through the liquid to the surface and then ready for combustion.

http://jlnlabs.online.fr/bingofuel

It's actually possible to power a car off this.

Also I was just wanting to know if it was still the same amps. If it is, I may not need to have 35volts. It's just an expiriment. Just may not provide nearly as good of fuel efficency, but I'm just doin it for fun.

 

Based on a quick look the the website you mentioned, I would guess that you might be able to run on 12V by reducing the spacing between the carbon rods which produce the arc.

IMHO again from a very brief scan of the website you are not performing electrolysis (splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen gas). You are using electricity to convert water and the carbon in the rods into a rather weak flammable gas. You will get less energy from burning this gas than you would from the combination of (1) the energy from your power supply plus (2) the energy delivered by burning the carbon rod. My be cleaner than burning the carbon rod directly, though.

Basically sound like an attempt at a clean way to get energy from coal (carbon). Have fun.

 

I know I'm going off on a tangent here, but this generator intrigues me. What is the theory about the carbon rod arc actually splitting the molecule into hydrogen and oxygen instead of just boiling plain old steam? Is there a web site on this?

 

do a search in google for Aquafuel.
will give plenty of results.
Also yes, the carbon rods are themselves being "burned off" into the water to combine with the gas from the water vapour to make a flamable gas. Menaing they have to be replaced periodically.

 

The idea here is do dissociate water into it's elements hydrogen and oxygen. Not a bad idea because combining hydrogen and oxygen as a gas can, indeed, be burned in an engine. Alas, the devil is in the details, though. It takes energy to convince the water to break apart into it's individual elements, more energy than can be gained by their combustion. If it were not so great cities, like Chicago, could be easily powered by pumping water from Lake Michigan, extracting the hydrogen & oxygen, and burning the same to power electrical generators. This idea sounds great but the first law of thermodynamics says you will be disappointed with the actual results.

 

no it does not take more energy to put in then what is gained in the output. If you look at the site, there are links to other sites where this is being persued by bigger companies. Nasa has also done research into it. The input is a mere 35volts of electricity, the output is enough to power say a 5hp generator(or more). Also, the water used in the fueling becomes purified in the process providing a dual service. Other companies are planning on using this technology for using water-based and oil-based fuels from coal and other uses.

http://www.usmagnegas.com/technology/part5.htm

the company the link points to even have made a ferrari modified to use their "magnefuel"

 

If you read the website that was referenced, it clearly states that this is not simply electrolysis of water (disassociating hydrogen from oxygen) and then recombining them (burning the hydrogen). Clearly this would not result in a net production of energy.

According to the website, this process produces a gaseous hydrocarbon which can then be cleanly burned. Since in the demonstration the only items are tap water and carbon rods, clearly the carbon in the rods is consumed in the production of this gas. Energy is released as the elemental carbon eventually ends up as CO2 after the gas is burned. We start with H2O, C, and O2 (from the air - remember that air must be added for combustion) and end up with CO2 and H2O. The water is not the fuel, the carbon rods are.

If this is all there is to the project, then it is just a (possibly very clean) way to burn carbon rods (coal). However, reference is made to using biomass (basically dead plants and animals). The idea seems to be to use this electrical technique to extract the carbon from biomass to produce the hydrocarbon gas - basically a "fossil" fuel without needing to wait millions of years for the biomass to fossilize.

Actually sewage might make a pretty good biomass for this application.

 

I looked, briefly, at the website you provided, vodka_vacuum. What little I saw was a bizzare mixture of fact & fiction. To be specific I was reading about all the "facts" regarding ships operating in the Med. If you read my profile you will see that I might have some knowledge in that area. I've actually worked in engine rooms of ships operating in the Med and I can tell you that doing any one of the things mentioned would be a gross violation of many, many international regulations and American flagged vessels, and almost all other flagged vessels, don't dump sewage, any oil products, or bilges into the sea. EVERY ship I've worked aboard has a fully functional sewage treatment plant simular to those run by your local municipality. I've actually operated and done maintenace work on such things. EVERY ship I've worked aboard has had a fully functional oily waste processing system. I've actually operated and done maintenace work on such things. I could go on & on, but I think you see my point. The information provided, at least in the section I mentioned, is pure fiction, to be polite. That fact alone might make you believe that most of the other info might be also. I don't doubt that you can run an internal combustion engine on hydrogen or any other mixture of combustable gasses as well. Hell, they burn boil off from the LNG tanks on certain types of tanker ships as a matter or routine. My original point still stands.

1) Breaking apart water to gain oxygen & hydrogen takes more energy than can be gained by buring those products.

2) The technology for breaking apart water to get hydrogen & oxygen has been known for a long, long time.

3) If the technology were really practiacal you would see great cities near large lakes or rivers being powered by using that method.

Take a look at the sites promoting "zero point energy" There's another "technology" that's even better.

 

The website says to me that they have a "new" process to use waste oil and/or sewage that will yield a gas that can be burned to produce energy. All well & good. If such a process exists and makes sense then:

Industrial users will beat a path to their door and you won't be able to buy in as a dealer or partner because all the "high rollers" will have bought up all production for years to come. CoGeneration is big today and many industries try to recycle their own waste products and/or generate their own power to cut costs. This product should be in high demand.

I would suspect, however, that all the "techno-babble" spewed forth is an effort to bury the fact that what is advertised is a pile of BS, that can't, in fact, really be recycled or burned.

My guess is that the company would take your down payment and then deliver perhaps part of what you ordered. They would then offer excuse after excuse while delaying delivery of some critical part. They would say cash flow is tight and to speed up delivery you should consider remitting a larger portion of the agreed on purchase price. After a year or two of this BS everyone involved in the company would disappear with all the money you forwarded never to be seen again. Perhaps I'm wrong but I see good reason to be highly suspicious.

I say so because if I were the owner of such a process and could really demonstrate the merits of it I wouldn't be trying to market it to dealers or partners. There is little money in doing that. The heavy hitters with the big bucks are the major corporations, but they have engineers on staff that will require proof that the technology really works.

That's the way I see it. Someone out there prove me wrong.

 

the more i glanced over that web site, the more i laughed at the errors. it must be a bored college student's project.

CO (carbon monoxide) is never combustible, not even flammable.

the professor is the world leader in the study of lightning and thunder---what's to study about thunder?

all those pictures show different combinations of mig welders, air compressors, pool filter pumps and pvc tubing. the connections don't even make sense.

the big yellow storage tank for 'magnegas' is a compressed nitrogen tank. put anything flammable into a yellow tank and you've broken a law somewere. and those plastic pvc pipes are not filling that bottle up to it's rating of 2,500psi. look closely at the manual controls--it looks like old sink knobs.

where is a single picture of the honda from underhood? i'd love to see the gas fuel injected engine and carbureter for a compressed gas on the same engine, and all controlled by a switch, that's a good one. (carburetors only flow liquid gasoline) and no switch is controlling them.

they sure didn't splurge on the lettering on those cars, i'm sure i could do the same thing in about 10 minutes on my computer here, doctoring a photo.

everything 'jughead' said is true, his three 'points' and the laws governing oil or sewage dumping into any body of water.

back to reading it


my 2 cents

 

Let's do some math. There are a total of approx 20,000 ships world wide over 1000 gross tonnes. Of that total the United States only has 348 ships, they are number 23 on the list !!
Assume that there are 500 cruise ships and/or military vessels out of port and operating on any given day. Also assume that each ship carries a total of 5000 passengers and/or crew. Now take the stated total of sewage water discharged to the sea of 200,000,000,000 gallons and do the math. You will come up with a number of 80,000 gallons per passenger per day. A typical toilet aboard ship will only use about a gallon and a half of water to flush. They like to conserve water. Now that's some serious flushing to generate all that sewage. The fact is that every ship grossing 1000 tonnes and above will have a sewage treatment plant that will produce clear water. On the last ship I worked on we had a "crapper zapper" that applied electricity to the sewage. All the toilets flushed with sea water. Sea water is a very good conductor. The sewage (with the sea water flush) was pumped between conducting plates hooked to a 50volt power supply. The current flowing in the water between the plates was sufficient to dissociate the sea water to produce chlorine which killed all the bacteria. The result didn't smell much at all. It was my job to clean the plates and do maint on the machine once a week. It really wasn't as bad as you might think because the "crapper zapper" did a good job.

Really big claims provide really big proof. If you want to take a trip to fantacy island go to the one named "zero point energy" you will find even better claims than the ones made by the "producers" of Magnegas.

I did find an element of truth at the Magnegas site. Even they said that when dissociating water into hydrogen and oxygen you get less energy out than you put in. Bravo.

 

I have to say that the jlnlabs site sets of my BS detector like no-ones business.

They are clearly pushing the 'water as the source of energy' angle, and as jughead eloquently states you get less energy out from burning the hydrogen and oxygen then you put in disassociating the water into hydrogen and oxygen. If someone trys to sell you using water as 'fuel', then my advice try to get them to trade their technology for a bridge in Brooklyn.

But mikewu99 has a very good point: this could be viable _if_ there is an additional source of energy input. In particular, I would expect that the carbon entrained in the arc, reacting with the vaporized (and partially disassociated) water would produce a wild brew of compounds, many of which would be flammable.

This is chemistry that has been known for a long time and used on large scales. You react a fossil fuel (natural gas, coal, waste oil, etc) in appropriate conditions with _water_, and you produce an output gas which is a mixture of hydrogen, hydrocarbons, carbon _mon_oxide, carbon _di_oxide, and water vapor. This is not unknown 'zero point energy' stuff; you are extracting energy from the fossil fuel, with water as part of the reaction to provide more hydrogen, at the cost that some of the hydrocarbon fuel value is used up reacting with the oxygen in the water.

Various reactors have been proposed (and built) which do the same thing with organic fuel sources. The output is always a mix of H2, CO, CO2, H2O, and various other bits. And yes, people have run cars with the output of these reactors.

Now _if_ this technology works to run these well known reactions on a small scale, then it may plausibly have some value. The electric arc provides an extremely concentrated high temperature region, which could disassociate lots of random organic matter into basic elements. Then when it all cools down and recombines, you _might_ end up with the fuel value of the input stuff left as a simple combustible gas.

With luck, the energy that you could get from this fuel would be greater than the electrical energy input. It could _never_ be greater than the combined electrical energy and chemical energy input. But putting in (say) 400W of electricity and 15000W of chemical energy to 'harvest' 12000W of chemical energy in a more useable form does not violate any conservation laws, and might even be useful.

I personally suspect that given the BS level used to sell this particular system, that it is not viable. But the basic concept of reacting a fuel with water to get a different fuel is sound.

Finally: CO is very much combustible. Do a google search on 'producer gas' or 'city gas'. CO is the basic fuel gas in blast furnace iron production. CO is combustible because it can further react with oxygen to get CO2.

-Jon

 

I am not supporting the views from that website. I am just pointing out that they are not simply disassociating hydrogen and oxygen and burning the resulting hydrogen - a process with a clear net energy loss. They are claiming to be creating a weak hydrocarbon gas and burning that. Basically a fancy way of burning the carbon rods which form the arc (i.e., a fancy way of burning coal). If the cost of electricity to form the gas is low (which I doubt) maybe this is a way to burn coal cleanly (of course who know what kind of nasty compounds are formed when impurities are present in the carbon rods). The biomass stuff is pretty out there.

The overall impression is similar to cold fusion, with perhaps fewer laws of physics violated.