I couldn't get the videos to work except for the one about the guy with the torch and car conversion (Fox News I believe), but I am guessing (please correct me if I am wrong, because I honestly don't know, and it wouldn't be the first time) that they talk about either fuel cells or the mysterious concept of "HHO." If this is not the case, feel free to ignore all of this if you wish and please let me know so I can retry the videos at at later date. I try to be open minded about things, but this stuff (if it is what I think it is) is way too good to be true.
FACT: Neither of them get you free energy. Why? It's quite simple really and it can be proven with fundamental chemistry. I feel that, while I am no expert, I do have a good understanding of basic chemistry and thermodynamics. I took several thermo courses as well as chemical engineering courses and none of this adds up according to the laws which govern reactions.
The chemical reaction for electrolysis is 2H
2O --> 2H
2 + O
2 . This reaction is reversible and has a heat of reaction just like every other chemical reaction. The heat of reaction when you split water by electrolysis (or any other method for that matter) is 286 Kilojoules/mole, if memory serves me correctly. This means that to turn one mole (18 grams or just a little under a half fluid ounce) of water into hydrogen and oxygen you must supply 286 KJ. And when you recombine the two you get 286 KJ out. And this is if your conversions are 100% efficient. That's right, even if your set up was 100% efficient you would only break even in terms of the energy balance.
The same thing applies to the HHO business and any other similar load of horse hockey. For the sake of argument, lets assume that there really is such a thing as HHO (which I doubt, but I can't say with 100% certainty). Converting water to HHO would require a certain amount of energy and when you converted the HHO back to water you would simply get the energy that you put in back out, assuming that everything was 100% efficient.
They torch that was mentioned in the one video that I was able to see was likely just a oxy-hydrogen torch, which is exactly like an oxy-acetylene torch, except the hydrogen is the fuel instead of acetylene. These torches have been used on a fairly limited basis in industrial applications for years, but they are generally a real pain in the rear because the fuel mix must be almost exactly right. I laughed when they heated the brass ball. Hit a brass ball with an oxy-acetylene torch. The same thing will happen. As far as the comment about the flame being hotter than the surface of the sun, well I doubt that. Even if it was true, the surface of the sun really isn't that hot. Now the core of the sun, well that's another story.
Anyway, the point I'm really trying to make is that:
The fact of the matter is that if your feedstock is water and your end product is water, you will only be losing energy. No matter what you do. On the other hand, in the green energy news link, a company was mentioned that is using solar energy to split water. That is perfectly legitimate approach because solar energy is used to split the water. And solar energy is probably the closest thing to "free" energy we will ever see.
Flame on.
All good.
