Run your car on water

Guys, water is to hydrogen as ash is to wood.

Water is at a lower energy state than hydrogen - you will always have to add energy to create hydrogen. Unfortunately there is no way round this, just as there is no way to build a lovely big fire from ash.

We desperately need a new energy source on this planet - sadly that will never be water*.


* well OK, at some point we might reach a level of technological sophistication that will allow us to convert any matter into energy, and water would then work, but so would rocks.

I tried running a car on water once. It sank into the river.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

* well OK, at some point we might reach a level of technological sophistication that will allow us to convert any matter into energy, and water would then work, but so would rocks.

So you're saying there's a chance!

[edit on 10-6-2008 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by schrodingers dog

Many people tried the Pantone motor modification in France with mixed results. I read in forums it does work well with old trucks, not with modern HDI diesel motors.
Adding 13% water + an additive to make it mix (an emulsion called aquazole) reduces very significantly NOx and carbon particles emission. Buses started using aquazole about 10 years ago in many cities, I can tell it's a fantastic improvement from the point of view of a cyclist.

Back in 1995 a program aired in the UK called "It runs on water" and since that program I have held out hope that we may indeed solve a lot of energy problems with water, so I have always hoped that these inventions will become available to the public.

Google Video Link

[edit on 10-6-2008 by sherpa]

reply to post by sherpa


linkie not workie

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Should be fine now, sorry about that it has been awhile since I have used Google id's.

Originally posted by sherpa
Back in 1995 a program aired in the UK called "It runs on water"

Hey I remember that! I also got very excited at the time, unfortunately though it turned out they simply weren't measuring the input energy properly. Griggs could never get it to self run by feeding the apparent excess output back into the device - it always used fuel. He sadly died in 2005.

so I have always hoped that these inventions will become available to the public.

Not sure what you mean - it always was available to the public - unfortunately it just wasn't over unity.

reply to post by FatherLukeDuke

Not sure what you mean - it always was available to the public - unfortunately it just wasn't over unity.

.

That comment was not specifically aimed at Griggs cavitation heater as they are available today through companies like THIS.

I still like the cavitation heater as it offers an alternative method of heating water where you have not got the luxury of a main gas supply or do not want the inconvenience or expense of having fuel oil delivered but, as most households do, have an electricity supply.

Annoyingly they are not available in the uk, at least of a domestic size, so I guess you could say they are not available readily to me.

Further on in the video there is mention of Stan Meyer and considering NASA's and the militaries involvement I had, perhaps naively, thought we would see something commercial available from his work.

There certainly looked as if there was prodigious gas production and if it was at 0.5 amps than it was promising.

It is interesting to note that the patent office will not entertain applications for perpetual motion or over unity machines per se so his application must have focused on this gas production.

I did puzzle how he was earning a living since he appeared to have nothing in production so I have to assume he had received ample rewards from his dealings with the above mentioned concerns.

Over unity is a nice concept but what I was looking for was a better cheap energy source and manipulation of water as a raw element seemed to be the promise in this programme you don't have to have free energy just a better way of producing it.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Not sure what you mean - it always was available to the public - unfortunately it just wasn't over unity.

Even if its not overunity it could be very useful if the amount of gas can be reduced. Also Pantones invention claimed to have cleaner exhaust than the surrounding air

The Frenchmen on panthomme.org also seems to have some more mileage on their modified cars. This should be studied more by "mainstream" scientists.

It takes a lot less energy to convert water to hydrogen when you use a harmonic frequency directed at the water instead of a direct current. Similar to using a microwave instead of resistance heat.
So the figures on how many Kw of energy is used will have to be revised.
Here is a link to an inventor who has stumbled onto this.

WPBF

There are some later stories showing a Sterling engine running above the test tube.
I don't mean to get away from the conversion device listed at the top of this thread. My point is that there are ways to reduce the energy required. One of the ways the conversion kit does this is chemically with metals and baking soda.
The only reason I'm unable to set up a shop to install it is I don't have the money.

Originally posted by free-energy
It takes a lot less energy to convert water to hydrogen when you use a harmonic frequency directed at the water instead of a direct current. Similar to using a microwave instead of resistance heat.
So the figures on how many Kw of energy is used will have to be revised.
Here is a link to an inventor who has stumbled onto this.

WPBF

There are some later stories showing a Sterling engine running above the test tube.
I don't mean to get away from the conversion device listed at the top of this thread. My point is that there are ways to reduce the energy required. One of the ways the conversion kit does this is chemically with metals and baking soda.
The only reason I'm unable to set up a shop to install it is I don't have the money.

Even using a harmonic frequency equal to the resonant frequency of water, you'll still never get more energy back than what it took to split it. I'll be the first to admit that it would be an amazing discovery to be able split water at near 100% efficiency, it still wouldn't solve some of the other fundamental problems with using hydrogen as a method of energy transfer.

Those problems mostly being the adiabatic compression losses when storing it, the actual containers for storage, and the low energy density of hydrogen.

It takes energy to compress gas, and you won't get all of it back, because when you compress it, it heats up, and when it is decompressed, it cools down. The heat is generally lost to the atmosphere, unless you strapped a thermocouple to your gas tank. This is much more of a problem for cars that run purely on compressed air, but it will still represent a loss. Second, it's hard to store hydrogen. H2 molecules are so small they like to leak out of most seemingly-solid containers over time. You need to have it highly compressed, because hydrogen has a ridiculously low energy density compared to gas, and it's not feasable to carry tanks of cryocooled liquid hydrogen.

Those are really all problems to be solved by engineers, but it basically means that even if you could split hydrogen at near 100% efficiency, we wouldn't be fundamentally any closer to a hydrogen economy than we are today, where we can do it by brute force at about 80%.

It's certainly not going to be used in stationary applications, where you could just run the machine on the electricity for no engine loss, so that limits hydrogen to being a method of power transfer, putting it in competition with gas and batteries.

Eventually gas will become too expensive, and hydrogen's energy density should be able to beat out batteries, but we'll probably be using it in hydrogen fuel cells, and not in crudely modified reciprocating piston engine cars (or unmodified wankel rotary engine'd cars), simply because of the issue of efficiency.

Also: the method of using aluminum and barium to split water is neat, but it's really only suitable as a very portable hydrogen source. The overall process is much less efficient than electrolysis. (because you have to electrolysyze the aluminum oxide to get useful aluminum back)


EDIT: O snap!

Honda FCX

Apparently Honda has a production fuel cell car that they'll lease you if you live in the Santa Monica area. Range is 274 miles, top speed of 100 mph. Looks kind of like the prius.

It's probably just to test the market feasability of such a product, and they'll probably recall them when the three year lease is up, so they don't have to keep making parts, but it doesn't look half bad.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by mdiinican]

I've looked into the hydrogen issue with cars.
And probably the best solution i've seen is running a small hydrogen generator to poduce browns gas.
browns gas is HHO.

what you do with the browns gas generator is to attach the line going into your air intake. which mixes with your fuel and helps to burn it completely. part of the problem with fuel engines is that you are not completely burning your fuel. probably half of the fuel is not burnt and is exiting your tailpipe. that's why we have a catalytic converter on our cars.
by attaching the browns gas generator you tend to have a savings in gas of about 20% to close to 50%.

If you look on youtube you'll find alot of videos on subject.
Here's an example.

What we need to do know, is get flex fuel vehicles in production, like Brazil, that way it will give the customer a choice of ethanol, or gasoline. Even if ethanol is just pennies cheaper I would choose it over gasoline. Oil rich countries are holding are econmoy hostage and Repuclicans could care less(they are a part of the big oil) and democrats are too weak to change anything, But the people have the power DEMAND FROM YOUR CONGRESSMAN TO INITIATED FUEL FLEX VEHICLES AND DEMAND THE OUTGRAGEOUS TARRIFFS ON ETHANOL FROM BRAZIL BE LIFTED. THE TARRIFFS PUT IN PLACE BY BIG OIL BECAUSE THEY DONT WANT COMPETITION. Thank you for reading this I just hope this message can get out.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


I got interested in this some time ago and have been doing tons of research on it to make my efforts more productive once I get to the work bench.

There are many theories on how to get this to work and several people who claim to have been successful. Unfortunately, these stories usually end in a suspicious death or a visit from MIB. Freedom from the enslavement of dependancy on hydrocarbons is not what the establishment wants.

Look at the inventors listed on www.rexresearch.com and also search for information on the "Joe Cell" for inspiration.

Assuming you can convert water to hydrogen with a 100% efficiency. The actual engines have an efficiency of only 20%, so you have to put 5 times more energy to convert H20 to H that you can put on the road.

Or don't convert water on the fly to hydrogen, do it at home then tank up on hydrogen, perhaps this is easier for most people.


Another solution, draw electricity from the ether directly. Why use chemicals when you can tap the magnetic fields that can make energy.

Its all around us.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by mOOmOO]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


If "water" is to be our next "clear" gold. Is it not in the best interests of those who wish to prosper to dominate the next best thing?

Ponder these latest developments.....


Source


Source

[edit on 11-6-2008 by Willbert]

I don't know if this is old news or not. It seems a man has found a way to ignite salt water with radio waves. the video states it burns at 1500 degrees celsius and can power a turbine. I believe his research began by trying to find a way to eliminate cancer cells. Anyway here is the link. I hope you find it interesting as I did.

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

Hmm, I made a thread that actually has scientists involved.....

Nada

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Run your car on water with science instead of gimmicks!

Who cares though, right?