PDA

View Full Version : energy required > energy released ?



Gregoryn
07-16-2008, 02:43 PM
Wikipedia says:

''The energy required to generate the oxyhydrogen always exceeds the energy released by combusting it'' ''...the extra energy is eventually lost as heat.''

How can we get over it and gain from this phenomenon?

We just use the unused amount of electricity in order to product HHO?

mikestrikes
07-16-2008, 02:49 PM
This is what I hear all the time from people who think inside the box...

From a motorcycle forum I'm on...

Originally Posted by williamr

It doesn't work. You're splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, then burning them together to re-create the water. You're trying to build a perpetual motion machine.

Rob

daveczrn
07-16-2008, 03:07 PM
Yes the people inside the box aren't looking at the whole environment that we are using it in.

here is an example to not looking at the environment that something is used in.
take a bullet w/shell and smack the back of it. The bullet may fly a few hundred feet. Now put it inside a barrel and seal off the back end. It will fly thougsands of feet this way.

What we are doing is taking Un used energy from the alternator and using it to break down the water into hydrogen and oxygen. It's not completely free energy as it does put a slight load on the engine. But it takes much less energy than if we were adding an alternator to just run the HHO cell. Next with the introduction of hydrogen and oxygen in the combustion chamber we are able to burn the gasoline more efficiently. as well with the introduction of hydrogen it has a higher octane rating to it. that means it's harder for it to start to combust. because of this we are able to lean the engine of fuel without the gasoline starting to ignite early and cuasing engine knock.

Smith03Jetta
07-16-2008, 03:07 PM
That's the truth if you are making a cutting torch. You will need more electricity to create the gas than you will get in heat energy at your torch tip.

Automotive use is different. We aren't making hydrogen to power the automobile engines. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

It's true that for every 10 amps of electricity you pull you decrease your gas mileage by .4 mpg. We would all be stupid if it was our goal to use HHO instead of Desert Juice.

We are using a little bit of Hydrogen to change the burn properties of gasoline. When will that sink in?

Gregoryn
07-16-2008, 03:13 PM
I Just copy+past the text form wikipedia.

It up to you to suppose, that it has been wrote ''from people who think inside the box''

The point is to receive opinions and thoughts not critique

cougar gt-e
07-16-2008, 04:43 PM
What we are doing is taking Un used energy from the alternator and using it to break down the water into hydrogen and oxygen. .



Dave, that just isn't true. Smith's explanation is IMHO closer to reality. On Alternators, I have a 3hp lawn mower that I have converted to a 12v power source for the hunting hovel (not quite nice enough to be a shack...). If I hook the power leads up to a fully charged battery, I can easily pull start the engine. If I leave the power leads off, I can easily pull start the engine. BUT, if it hook up the leads to a battery that needs a charge - NO WAY can I pull start it. No way. That tells me that the voltage regulator is working and not energizing the field coils in the alternator. When you draw a load and energize the field, it takes POWER to spin an alternator !

From what I can glean on this whole topic,
you don't get more energy from burning the gas than it took to create it
you don't use "unused electrical energy" from the alternator for free
you don't get energy from some unknown dimension (I read that somewhere)
you DO get better combustion from the addition of the gas and that increases efficiency.

I could be nutzo, bonkers, goofy or even just plain wrong in that. {Feel free to whack on me if I am!:o!} But, it's what I've come up with and it seems to make sense. What I don't know is if the increase is just taking the engine up to where it should be running anyway due to poor maintenance or if it is reaching a new plateau of combustion. (That would explain why some get bigger gains than others). I had hoped to get a system running this week, but can't find nylon rod & nuts locally.


Packer Fan

(Bench Warmer Brett??}

dennis13030
07-16-2008, 04:56 PM
Overall energy efficiency for making and using HHO and a vehicle sucks. We have not developed our technology to the point of even being close to 100% efficient. But that is energy efficiency.

It does not mean that we can not make an electrolyzer that makes the most gas possible with the least amount of input power.

Also, cost efficiency is not the same thing as energy efficiency. It is, economically speaking, a good thing to improve our MPG to a point where the savings out weigh the associated costs.

daveczrn
07-16-2008, 05:25 PM
What we are doing is taking Un-used energy from the alternator and using it to break down the water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Dave, that just isn't true. Smith's explanation is IMHO closer to reality.

and if you would have read the next line you would have read this.

there is alittle power lost from this process but it's not anywhere near what it would to just produce this from nothing.


Sentences can have statments in them that may not be true. but the paragraph will clear everything up.

cougar gt-e
07-16-2008, 11:59 PM
Maybe it's just me, maybe mom dropped me on my head one time too many? But I still don't understand what the 2nd sentence means. Sometimes it takes more than one whack up side the head of this 'ol mule ....

Packer Fan

daveczrn
07-17-2008, 11:20 AM
sorry.. Ill rewrite the sentence to be more user friendly.

It's not completely free energy as it does put a slight load on the engine. But it takes much less energy than if we were adding an alternator to just run the HHO cell.

timetowinarace
07-17-2008, 11:46 AM
By all the Law's of flight in aviation, it has been determined that it is impossible for bees to fly. Science says it is not possible. But wait! I've seen bees fly. HMMMMMMM.

To this day, scientists cannot explain how a bee can fly. If only a handfull of people in the world had said they saw a bee fly, scientists would call them quacks, hoaxes and people trying to get attention. Most of the world would beleive the scientists.

Only a handfull of people in this world have claimed to run a IC engine soley on hho produced on board. Scientists, school books, housewives, and people on this board say it is impossible and that they are hoaxes.

I'm inclined to beleive that some things work wether I understand them or not.

ranger2.3
07-17-2008, 11:55 AM
Look at it this way, in 1945 during WWII in Japan, the Manhattan project was dropped on two city's right?Well the explosion from those bombs was created by "cracking" the atom's energy and thus it being released, well think about nuclear power plants they harness the energy created by that "cracking" of an atom and it goes to power the homes of millions of people in the area, well in a sense when we apply the same principles. Taking energy to "crack" or release more energy that is in water, thus not creating more energy, but simply releasing the energy thats already there.

Smith03Jetta
07-17-2008, 02:16 PM
Do we have any atomic scientists on this forum? I would like to know how much energy it takes to set off a chain reaction in an atomic explosion. Maybe it takes more energy to break the Hydrogen and Oxygen bond than will be released by the explosion of Hydrogen and oxygen together but who knows. I'm guessing it only takes a tiny "thump" in the exactly the right place to set off an atomic explosion.

I'm seriously looking for someone who can explain it to us. Not saying Ranger is a scientist or making fun...

ranger2.3
07-17-2008, 02:37 PM
I hope you don't think I am an atomic scientist which I am not, Im just a kid who uses common sense.

mneste8718
07-17-2008, 05:35 PM
Do we have any atomic scientists on this forum? I would like to know how much energy it takes to set off a chain reaction in an atomic explosion. Maybe it takes more energy to break the Hydrogen and Oxygen bond than will be released by the explosion of Hydrogen and oxygen together but who knows. I'm guessing it only takes a tiny "thump" in the exactly the right place to set off an atomic explosion.

I'm seriously looking for someone who can explain it to us. Not saying Ranger is a scientist or making fun...


As far as I know, to get a nuclear explosion, you need some uranium and then surround it by explosives and those explosives must explode all at the exact same time so that the uranium has a ridiculous amount of pressure inside of it to create so much heat that it explodes. Not an easy thing to do....
But, this takes precision rather than brute force, though you still need some brute force and not just a little thump heh.

Stratous
07-17-2008, 06:20 PM
We are not cracking atoms here, we are cracking molecules. We are breaking a molecular bond, not attempting to seperate an electron from a nucleus...lol. Sometimes it takes folks like us, who dont think inside the box, to perfect something or prove that something can actually be done...

dennis13030
07-17-2008, 06:28 PM
We are not cracking atoms here, we are cracking molecules. We are breaking a molecular bond, not attempting to seperate an electron from a nucleus...lol. Sometimes it takes folks like us, who dont think inside the box, to perfect something or prove that something can actually be done...

Your opinion please.

When we dissociate water molecules, which of these two lines is true.
1. A single H20 molecules are converted into 2 atoms of Hydrogen and 1 atom of Oxygen.
2. In pairs, H20 molecules are converted, at the same time, into 2 molecules of H2(Hydrogen) and 1 molecule of O2(Oxygen).

Stratous
07-17-2008, 06:35 PM
I believe "splitting" is a more correct term, although it depends on where you look. Some people call it Breaking, some call it splitting, and others call it cracking. Personally I dont care, I only use it as a descriptive term to help visualize what we are doing.

dennis13030
07-17-2008, 06:49 PM
I believe "splitting" is a more correct term, although it depends on where you look. Some people call it Breaking, some call it splitting, and others call it cracking. Personally I dont care, I only use it as a descriptive term to help visualize what we are doing.

ok

How about this.

When we dissociate water molecules, which of these two lines is true.
1. Single H20 molecules are converted into 2 atoms of Hydrogen and 1 atom of Oxygen.
2. In pairs, H20 molecules are converted, at the same time, into 2 molecules of H2(Hydrogen) and 1 molecule of O2(Oxygen).

mikestrikes
07-17-2008, 07:08 PM
I just got told HHO doesnt exist............. only H2 and Oxygen can be made from it.

I try'd to tell them that thst even wrong, you get Hydrogen - Hydrogen - Oxygen from it. Thats why its called HHO, its short for what I just said and no its not a substance in its self.... :rolleyes:

We CANT get better MPG..... we are at the max scientific power of this so we have no room to improve, water doesnt have LOTs of energy bound up in it, bla bla bla.

I wont try and convince anymore people that this works.

This is what I said to them...


Yeah but they didnt add anything to the water to make it conduct electricity... aka Baking Soda.

What it is you bust the H2o into HHO.......... Hydrogen, Hydrogen, Oxygen.

It only takes 2v to do it but 12v does it alot. A good setup will draw about 20 amps....... you loose approx 1/2 MPG for every 10 amps extra you pull from the alternator. The HHO only increases the combustion efficiency, you do not run the car on HHO.
It turned into steam and cleans the pistons and valves also, adds a higher octane and cools the exhaust temps.

The O2 sensor "thinks the motor is no running lean as the exhaust is cleaner and has more oxygen, so the ECU pumps more gas in. You can wire in a controller to alter the output of the O2 and MAP sensor to compensate this and you will see about 10-20 MPG increase.

How can you get more than you put into it ?

Simple, water has ALOT of energy in it from the start you only need to use a little energy to release it.

HHO has 3 times the power as petrol !

Its not hocus pocus.... now we are not even close to seeing full benefits from this and I know this, but we will make it better over time..

Stratous
07-17-2008, 07:19 PM
If I remember correctly, we are not breaking the bonds that hold the two hydrogen atoms together only the bond that holds the oxygen and hydrogen together. so it sould be 2h + O, then the oxidation of the anode also produces an O molecule so its actually 2H + 2O.

dennis13030
07-17-2008, 07:21 PM
If I remember correctly, we are not breaking the bonds that hold the two hydrogen atoms together only the bond that holds the oxygen and hydrogen together. so it sould be 2h + O, then the oxidation of the anode also produces an O molecule so its actually 2H + 2O.

What I saw was
2H2 + O2

Stratous
07-17-2008, 07:29 PM
What I saw was
2H2 + O2

I am no chemist, but I am pretty sure Heavy Water is 2H2O. I am not sure how they could come up with 2H2 +O2 for breaking water with electrolysis. The addition of deuterium oxide is what gives water the 2 in front of the H making it 2H2O.

dennis13030
07-17-2008, 07:36 PM
I wonder what reference I can use as the correct definitive source for this? Any ideas?

Hydrogen(H or H2) what's the usable difference?
Oxygen(O or O2) what's the usable difference?

mneste8718
07-17-2008, 07:38 PM
I am no chemist, but I am pretty sure Heavy Water is 2H2O. I am not sure how they could come up with 2H2 +O2 for breaking water with electrolysis. The addition of deuterium oxide is what gives water the 2 in front of the H making it 2H2O.

The formation of water usually takes place like this

2H2+O2->2H2O

meaning that there are 2 resultant molecules. This isn't heavy water by no means.

Stratous
07-17-2008, 07:40 PM
according to this it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water

Stratous
07-17-2008, 07:43 PM
OK, here is from another source: 2H2O + ENERGY = 2H2 + O2 , I just dont get it, but then I am an aircraft mechanic, not a chemist ...lol

mneste8718
07-17-2008, 07:43 PM
according to this it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water

From skimming that article, deutrium is a modified hydrogen atom because they differentiate between the two. It is also a radioactive isotope... this isn't anything that is related to producing HHO or the formation of water I don't think.

mneste8718
07-17-2008, 07:45 PM
OK, here is from another source: 2H2O + ENERGY = 2H2 + O2 , I just dont get it, but then I am an aircraft mechanic, not a chemist ...lol

What do you not get? Two H2 molecules with two O molecules, done.

Stratous
07-17-2008, 07:47 PM
On a side note, I just blew the hell out of my vacuum pump. I think I am deaf now. I was measuring the effect of vacuum on generation and um, I believe i got some spark mixed with my hho in the vacuum chamber. JESUS, that scared the crap out of me.

mneste8718
07-17-2008, 07:52 PM
On a side note, I just blew the hell out of my vacuum pump. I think I am deaf now. I was measuring the effect of vacuum on generation and um, I believe i got some spark mixed with my hho in the vacuum chamber. JESUS, that scared the crap out of me.


I had an explosion happen to me on sunday, I am still deaf as well... I hope my ears heal. It is going to be really crappy if they don't.

Stratous
07-17-2008, 07:52 PM
On a side note, the Youtube video where the guy says vacuum doesnt effect production is fing crazy. When I applied vacuum, my generator went insane and the bubbles in the bubbler were absolutely insane. He musta done something wrong. My vacuum pump is totally destroyed.

daveczrn
07-17-2008, 07:53 PM
you guys are missing something here.

when you break a water into hydrogen and oxygen it will not stay as H2 and O. The oxygen is not stable at that point. You need to break another water molecule apart for it to stay as diffrent elements. so 2(h2o)= 2(h2)+1(O2)

mneste8718
07-17-2008, 07:54 PM
On a side note, the Youtube video where the guy says vacuum doesnt effect production is fing crazy. When I applied vacuum, my generator went insane and the bubbles in the bubbler were absolutely insane. He musta done something wrong. My vacuum pump is totally destroyed.

I dunno if you knwo this but if you put regular water under a vacuum, the water will start to bubble and evaporate (I want to say boil off, but there is no heat addition). Basically you are making extra water vapor along with the HHO.

But who knows, maybe on some small scale it helps to free the bubbles and then make them explode in your pump hehe...

mneste8718
07-17-2008, 07:56 PM
you guys are missing something here.

when you break a water into hydrogen and oxygen it will not stay as H2 and O. The oxygen is not stable at that point. You need to break another water molecule apart for it to stay as diffrent elements. so 2(h2o)= 2(h2)+1(O2)


That's exactly what I have been trying to show...

dennis13030
07-17-2008, 08:03 PM
OK, here is from another source: 2H2O + ENERGY = 2H2 + O2 , I just dont get it, but then I am an aircraft mechanic, not a chemist ...lol

I think this is the same as I found. I'm no chemist either.

mikestrikes
07-17-2008, 08:15 PM
On a side note, I just blew the hell out of my vacuum pump. I think I am deaf now. I was measuring the effect of vacuum on generation and um, I believe i got some spark mixed with my hho in the vacuum chamber. JESUS, that scared the crap out of me.


Be careful man.......... next time get vid would ya..... LOL.

Stratous
07-17-2008, 08:26 PM
I am currently trying to epoxy my vacuum pump back together...lol. My ears still hurt.

dennis13030
07-17-2008, 08:28 PM
High velocity dry gases can generate static electricity. It depends on how dry the gas is and it's speed. So if you are moving a combustible gas to quickly it could go BOOM!

timetowinarace
07-17-2008, 09:07 PM
I've read the terms diatomic hydrogen and monotomic hydrogen. I don't know where though.

I'm assuming H2 as seperated from the O is diatomic and the seperated H is monatomic.

Monatomic is supposed to be better for our applications.

I'll try to find where I read it.

mneste8718
07-17-2008, 10:33 PM
On a side note, I just blew the hell out of my vacuum pump. I think I am deaf now. I was measuring the effect of vacuum on generation and um, I believe i got some spark mixed with my hho in the vacuum chamber. JESUS, that scared the crap out of me.


I just read this:


"Hydroxy gas produces a very high-speed shockwave when it is ignited so the bubbler needs to be strong contructionto withstand this. No pop-off bubbler or flash-back device acts fast enough to contain a hydroxy shockwave, so make the bubbler housing strong to withstand the pressure wave."

I think this is what's causing us to go deaf...

Stratous
07-17-2008, 10:39 PM
Well, at least my bubbler didnt blow up. The polycarbonate didnt even flinch. But my poor vacuum pump flew about 15 feet in several pieces. I epoxyed it back together and it still works!!!!

dennis13030
07-17-2008, 11:33 PM
I just read this:


"Hydroxy gas produces a very high-speed shockwave when it is ignited so the bubbler needs to be strong contructionto withstand this. No pop-off bubbler or flash-back device acts fast enough to contain a hydroxy shockwave, so make the bubbler housing strong to withstand the pressure wave."

I think this is what's causing us to go deaf...

I believe the pop-off bubbler is a good thing. It is so much better to blow the lid off of the bubbler than it is to blow up the bubbler or electrolyzer.

timetowinarace
07-17-2008, 11:48 PM
Okay, some may want to research this.

Hydrogen is most commonly in it's diatomic state. H2. It can be further seperated into it's monotomic or monoatomic state of just H. However, it will want to return to it's diatomic state and when it does it releases energy. It is said that monotomic hydrogen produces four times as much energy as diatomic hydrogen.

To run an IC engine on diatomic hydrogen it takes 4% hydrogen to air. For monotomic hydrogen it takes 1%.

The method of splitting diatomic hydrogen into monotonic hydrogen is through DC pulses during electrolysis.

Monotomic hydrogen cannot be stored as it will bond and become diatomic again. It will create heat as it does so, not a good thing in a sealed container.

cougar gt-e
07-17-2008, 11:57 PM
I am no chemist, but I am pretty sure Heavy Water is 2H2O. I am not sure how they could come up with 2H2 +O2 for breaking water with electrolysis. The addition of deuterium oxide is what gives water the 2 in front of the H making it 2H2O.

Stratous,

Heavy water is made of hydrogen with 1 proton, 1 electron and 1 neutron each. Normal hydrogen is 1 proton and 1 electron with 0 neutrons.

"Heavy" water has 2 extra neutrons when it is deuterium. It's only semi-heavy if its 1 normal hydrogen and 1 heavy hydrogen.

H2O2 is what you use to boil out your ears when you get swimmers ear, Hydrogen peroxide. I have a long association with that stuff from years of swimming / lifeguarding!

Smith - the energy from breaking atomic bonds is like a billion times greater than breaking chemical bonds. That's why a couple hundred pounds of nuclear stuff can make a 20 megaton bomb and vaporize a city and it would take 20,000,000 tons of dynomite which is 40,000,000,000 pounds. I can't picture a pile of dynamite that weighs 40 billion pounds!

Can you tell I like to watch NOVA on PBS?

Packer Fan

Stratous
07-18-2008, 10:51 AM
Stratous,

Heavy water is made of hydrogen with 1 proton, 1 electron and 1 neutron each. Normal hydrogen is 1 proton and 1 electron with 0 neutrons.

"Heavy" water has 2 extra neutrons when it is deuterium. It's only semi-heavy if its 1 normal hydrogen and 1 heavy hydrogen.

H2O2 is what you use to boil out your ears when you get swimmers ear, Hydrogen peroxide. I have a long association with that stuff from years of swimming / lifeguarding!

Smith - the energy from breaking atomic bonds is like a billion times greater than breaking chemical bonds. That's why a couple hundred pounds of nuclear stuff can make a 20 megaton bomb and vaporize a city and it would take 20,000,000 tons of dynomite which is 40,000,000,000 pounds. I can't picture a pile of dynamite that weighs 40 billion pounds!

Can you tell I like to watch NOVA on PBS?

Packer Fan

I know h2o2 is hydrogen peroxide, I didnt say h2o2, I said 2h2o is heavy water

cougar gt-e
07-18-2008, 11:49 AM
I know h2o2 is hydrogen peroxide, I didnt say h2o2, I said 2h2o is heavy water

Sorry, I'm a bit lysdexic.

Gotta dash off to the meeting... Lysdexics Untie!

mneste8718
07-18-2008, 02:57 PM
I know h2o2 is hydrogen peroxide, I didnt say h2o2, I said 2h2o is heavy water

2H2O is not heavy water... it is 2 molecules of H2O

Stratous
07-18-2008, 03:08 PM
2H2O is not heavy water... it is 2 molecules of H2O


Someone else says otherwise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6774754
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/76/5/1868
http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v123/n3/full/5602473a.html

Argue with them.

mneste8718
07-18-2008, 03:10 PM
Someone else says otherwise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6774754
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/76/5/1868
http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v123/n3/full/5602473a.html

Argue with them.

In wikipedia, it is a superscript 2 in front of the H denoting the extra Neutron in the hydrogen.

You realize that if we were dealing with Heavy water, it would be radioactive and we would all be getting cancer pretty gardarn soon.

Stratous
07-18-2008, 03:19 PM
and the other two web sites? I suppose they are incorrect as well? I dont think heavy water is radio active anyways.
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/D2O.html

ranger2.3
07-18-2008, 05:01 PM
You know the way it sounds is that the HHO is not "produced" by breaking the atomic bonds, but it is "produced" by breaking the molecular bond thus a bunch of Hydrogen-Hydrogen-Oxygen molcules just "floating" around.

mneste8718
07-19-2008, 11:22 AM
and the other two web sites? I suppose they are incorrect as well? I dont think heavy water is radio active anyways.
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/D2O.html


The only way you can form heavy water is through a radio active chemical reaction. This is so silly, I can not believe we're still arguing this. Get back to your chemistry books guys and read.

Stratous
07-19-2008, 04:06 PM
It is important to note that heavy water is not radioactive, nor is it dangerous to humans or other life unless ingested in in large amounts (it becomes toxic to humans at a level of roughly 10% of their body weight). The deuterium isotope occurs naturally in the ratio 1:4500; thus D2O is found at the level of about 1 in 20 million water molecules.

Who is arguing, this is a debate. I have provided web site after web site that collaborates what I have said, you on the other hand have provided no proof to justify your side of the debate.

URL: sno/D2O.html (Last revised Jan 31, 2006)
Mail problems/comments to qusno@sno.phy.queensu.ca

wydopnthrtl
07-21-2008, 10:45 AM
54 posts and you guys never addressed the question.

"energy required > energy released ?"


As a hot rodder and modern car gear head... I can without a doubt tell ya that the TQ being generated at the crank is greater than the vehicle uses.
The only time this is not true is when you are at WOT. (wide open throttle.. hence my user name "wydopnthrtl")

At idle most V8s are in the 15-20% range on load.
At idle most V6s are in the 25-30% range.
At idle most inline 4s are in the 35-40% range.

Going down the freeway at 70mph w/AC cranked my 06 ranger 4x4 is pulling 50-52% load. If I turn on the headlights, e-fan, radio, and turn the HVAC fan on high.. It *might* load the motor by an additional 5%. Now at idle it adds quite a bit. But once you get up over 1000rpms the increased loads really are quite small.

Meaning, that from the TQ being produced by the crankshaft/engine. Only that percentage is actually being consumed to propel the vehicle down the road and supply TQ to the FEAD. (front end accessories like water pump, AC compressor, PS pump, Alt, ect.)

If you guys have a 20amp draw from a HHO unit? I'm not sure what that translates into additional load on the crank? BUT! I do know that the first line of defense that the PCM uses when load increases is to add timing. Not fuel.
If fuel is being added you'll see it in the short term fuel trims.

You HHO guys need to get yourself a www.scanguage.com and be more informed about whats going on with the cars drivetrain. ;)



Regards,
Rich

ranger2.3
07-21-2008, 03:57 PM
Is there anything like a scangauge that would work for a 1990 vehicle with a ECU?

ranger2.3
07-21-2008, 04:09 PM
What about the Laws of Inertia??? Anyone, anyone???