It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chinese firm claims its hydrogen-powered car can travel 500km fuelled by water

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2019 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Fingers crossed.




posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Let’s assume that this vehicle did travel 300klm to 500klm What happened did it run out of water, Why not tow a trailer with a 1000 litres of mixture and go for a record, Maybe engine needs a swap out, Something smells about this claim.

👺



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Well Ford, General Motor's and the affiliated petroleum industry have probably already got all of the idea's and inventions the Chinese are claiming already filed and patented but locked away so that no one can use them - because they threaten the hegemony of the automotive petroleum industry.
Same Reason JP Morgan withdrew funding to Tesla when he found out that Tesla was going to give the world free electricity - or was working on doing so at his wardenclyffe site.


Tesla Cars of course have NOTHING to do with Nikolae Tesla.
Of course you would need to revive and complete his research which the FBI may still be possession of after seizing it when he died and then classifying the vast bulk of it.
IF.
You.
Also.
Wanted to use his UFO design.




The Usual Argument for suppression of low cost, almost or actually free energy technology is economic's, a flawed argument if ever there was one as lower cost transport for example creates cheaper delivery of good's which in turn makes good's cheaper - which makes more people buy them so the economic's argument actually fall's flat on it's face.
The real reason is CONTROL, hold people in captivity and control them.


And before we forget what about old Viktor Schauberger, often maligned due to the NAZI's apparently using some of his idea's in there research but actually simply an inventor whom may have invented something that actually worked.

Read the interesting comment's under this last video on it's youtube page.
www.youtube.com...
edit on 29-5-2019 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Using the laws of thermodynamics, what fuel is more efficient than gasoline or diesel. Or doesn’t require something costly like a large battery bank required by electric cars? The problem is storing energy in a car so the car has a usable range. You can power a car with compressed air if you want to charge the air cylinders ever mile or two.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

That is a very good point, the law's of conservation of energy would suggest you can never get more out than you put in.
But - of course they are not getting more out than they put in.

Even Vacuum energy if we could harvest it would require a kind of sub atomic osmotic membrane - call it a quantum diode or valve if you like - that would allow us to access polarity and so be able to harvest a polarized force we would then be able to apply - that energy does not come from nowhere however so and is below the level of sub atomic activity.

If however we could harvest such - OR - if some super intelligent alien being was able to then it would be the new wind and the technology based upon it would be the new age of sail to draw a very crude analogy.

Tesla was NOT in contravention of Conservation of Energy, he was trying to tap into already existing energy and to harness it.

Think about it like this, there are vast sources of energy all around us and all we need to do is to understand and to discover how to harness them.

But instead you think burning hydrocarbon's is efficient, it is actually not efficient at all and it pollutes, most of the potential energy is still locked away in the byproduct and most of the energy of the chemical reaction is lost and not harnessed efficiently even in the best internal combustion engines we can create.

There have been invention's that have stretched that to the maximum though such as the four ton ford truck in the 1970's which was able to drive for about a hundred kilometers (flat smooth terrain) on a gallon of fuel in a test which witness observed, the three inventor's and there interesting engine modification's were later bought up by the automotive-petroleum cabal after one of the three inventors had his family threatened, one ended up in a wheel chair and the third was too scared to fight over it.

But for more efficient fuels' well seriously look at the space industry, those rocket's are not burning petroleum.

edit on 29-5-2019 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767



There have been invention's that have stretched that to the maximum though such as the four ton ford truck in the 1970's which was able to drive for about a hundred kilometers (flat smooth terrain) on a gallon of fuel in a test which witness observed,


Just your normal ton truck with something like a 5.0 engine. I don’t think there is enough BTU’s in one gallon of gas to make that possible.

Can you show one gallon of gas has enough energy to power a ton truck which weights about 7,000 Pounds for about sixty miles at 55 MPH with a normal transmission for the 70’s.

My daily drive is about 4,000 pounds, has a nine speed transmission, a 4 cylinder, can’t remember If it’s direct injection, and at best gets 27 miles to the gallon on the highway.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 03:59 PM
link   
If it is real then in the near future we may be buying Chinese made cars like we do Toyotas from Japan.

China may release this car to say f u to the oil industry we rely on. It could be a punch in the trade war gut.

Or it is fake.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 05:08 PM
link   
As explained by Arbitrageur that thing is essentially burning aluminum.

The aluminum oxide can be recycled by electrolysis, which needs a lot of electricity and also produces carbon dioxide (oxygen goes from aluminum to carbon).

So you could say that it is a very complicated way to burn carbon.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Plenty of science in this thread
, I always enjoy learning


what about the thought that if every vehicle on the planet suddenly required WATER to run, we know water is a finite resource, every drop on the planet has been here from day dot and just gets recycled, how much of the planets resouces would peter be stealing to pay paul?

As surely running any engine will produce heat and thus water will be lost from the system, I understand from previuos posts its the Aliminium added that makes the energy but would the water need replacing, topping up?

The only way forward is to look to the past





edit on 29-5-2019 by UpIsNowDown because: typo



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: UpIsNowDown

Aluminum reacts with water and produces aluminum oxide and hydrogen. Hydrogen is then burned in the engine with atmospheric oxygen producing water. So no water is "lost".

In chemistry you don't lose anything anyway. You are just moving energy around.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
There's no way the global oil companies are going to ever allow the public to have vehicles that run on water, burning clean hydrogen.

Even if it requires WAR to prevent it.


Maybe the agenda is make water expensive as oil.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: moebius

thanks, i am literally learning on the spot from people like yourself, would there be any issue though if every vehicle (estimates 1Billion) needed to have water in the tank, and does the water become tainted/less efficient in anyway over time needing replacing, again genuine thanks




posted on May, 29 2019 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

You know what burn's most fuel is when you are changing gear's, slowing and speeding up such as in urban driving, not so bad in the states I would guess were your road's are mostly straight but over here in England our road's are a lot more narrow than yours and also have a lot more bend's and roundabout's.

I remember the story about the truck it was some modification to the engine and the carburettor they had worked and it supposedly got that huge amount of distance - like I said though on the flat, probably driving in a circle with no gear change, no speeding up or slowing down.

Remember how the Jap's were able to feather there engine's and travel huge distance in those old Zero's of there's, yes they were light plane's and had hardly any armour to speak of or even self sealing tank's but still it allowed them to partially glide, partially power there plane's over vast distances.

I would suggest that it was probably a case of the car - truck moving at a speed that allowed it to coast some of the time and idle the engine - even then you are correct as far as pure kinetic cylinder pushing gaseous expansion is concerned - think though how much energy a conventional internal combustion engine which in principle has not really altered at all since Karl Benz first invented the internal combustion engine powered automobile as we know it today and is now well over a hundred years old wastes, not only do even the best engines NEVER achieve 100 percent efficiency - mostly they don't even reach 90 if that - but they waste all the thermal energy generated which is not used at all in the purely mechanical extraction of fossil - or indeed other combustible (alcohol etc) - fuel energy.
In fact the internal combustion engine is horribly inefficient.

Just as well we are moving to purely energy to mechanical system's such as electrical cars in the near future, of course if they take there power from a nuclear, coal or oil power station then they are actually no more clean (nuclear power is dirty and I will not hear that denied (if we ever truly crack cold fusion that is - you know it's not really cold at all when it take's laser energy to instigate it) and if we had the gumption as a species to pursue it thorium technology would fix that problem) but still these electrical motor based transportation devices have the potential to be far cleaner, faster as well and far more efficient - we have natural energy all around us, wave power, geothermal power (they can frack for oil but not to produce geothermal steam vent's? - of course pumping cold water down would cool the local mantle after a time so each geothermal bore would need a rest period so you would really need lot's of them set apart at optimal distances so that you could cycle them to maintain steady output as the first in the sequence was allowed to warm back up once it had been cooled too much to be efficient).



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Ok? There’a a reason some red neck engineer hasn’t refit a a ton truck to make it into a 60 miles to the gallon cursing at 55 mph gas mileage monster. It’s because there isn’t enough BTU’s in one gallon of gas. With all of the ways individuals reprogram and modify trucks, can you find one modified ton truck with the claim of getting 60 miles to the gallon?




This Guy Can Get 59 MPG in a Plain Old Accord. Beat That, Punk.

Drafting 18-wheelers with the engine off, taking death turns at 52 miles an hour, and other lessons learned while riding shotgun with the king of the hypermilers.

www.motherjones.com...



You do understand there are individuals obsessed with actual mpg for their vehicles? So who’s getting 60 mpg in a ton truck?



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Current fuels fall into the category of Hydro-Carbons.

That is Hydro (H2O) Carbon (C)

It is the Hydrogen doing the work anyway.

You want to talk efficiency ...

Try working your figures from the start.

My water is in my rain water tank ... God put it there.

Your Oil is deep in the ground.

You need oil rigs, survey ships, oil tankers and then you need refineries then gas stations, trucks running all over the place delivering to your gas stations ....

Now tell me how much it costs to make a solar cell.

Solar Cells on your house roof > Split water into gasses > store at home > put in car > drive around.

Notice who is missing ... yep ... Big Oil.

Hydrogen does the work, helped by oxygen in every engine on the planet.

The truth is in the name ... Hydro-carbons.

P



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
There's no way the global oil companies are going to ever allow the public to have vehicles that run on water, burning clean hydrogen.

Even if it requires WAR to prevent it.



Sure they would. They'd just buy everything that is to do with cars that run on water and find a way to mitigate the fact that they don't run on gas.

They could still charge so much to buy one that you'd pay the same as you would to buy gas.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Some day people are going to stop even paying this mess any attention. I read it until I saw the words "catalyst" and "aluminum." Same ol'. same ol'.

The entire process can be quickly summed up in a couple of chemical equations:

6H2O + 4Al → 2Al2O3 + 6H2 (this makes the hydrogen from the water)

6H2 + 3O2 → 6H2O + energy (this is burning the hydrogen)

Notice the water comes right back out the other end... it's never used up. So stop worrying about using all the water. But the aluminum is not the same when it finishes... it is now aluminum oxide. Sure, it can be converted back into aluminum (any reaction can be reversed) but what does that take? Oh, yes, lots and lots of energy and a bunch of fluorine. You guys know fluorine, right? That's the nasty little halogen that is so super reactive and so toxic.

The car burns aluminum, not water. You just don't see the other end of the reaction. The technology is not scalable.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

You would not call this a car, I mean it's like a cross between a bed on wheel's and a pessary but it get's a claimed over 7000 miles to a gallon.
www.treehugger.com...
Even if you would not really want to drive that thing it is not bad for a bunch of student's.
(and the name of the website there had me chuckling).

Meanwhile closer to you there is a Texan guy whom has adapted a Stirling engine into his car to make it ultra efficient.
www.dailymail.co.uk... y.html

But I do concede your point about that truck, while I have no doubt it existed and that those shenanigan's to take it's technology off the market did also occur it is probable that it was no were near as efficient as claimed - still it must have done something to scare the petroleum automotive cabal the way it obviously did for them to use threat's and actual thuggery to gain control of the propriety technology those three had invented.

edit on 30-5-2019 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

From your daily mail link.



The Stirling engine used by Mr MacDowell came from Nasa, who experimented with one in vehicles in the early 1980s. Their experiments saw a Dodge pickup achieve roughly 54 miles per gallon.


I wonder why NASA didn’t develop that engine further? I know how a sterling engine works but what would supply the heat/cold it needs to run in a car? I’m assuming burning regular fuel at this point or electricity supplied by the battery and converted to heat.

Like the article says how has nobody thought of this before? I’d guess they have...



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


I get over a hundred miles to the gallon on a GN 125cc Suzuki. I just drive normally .Its all stock,I could get more if I played around with the sprockets.




top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join