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.

 

2004 Dodge Pickup Runs on 100% Water

page: 2
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
I dont get the complicated replies.


You mean you don't get the following:

X+Y=X means Y=0

Is that what you don't get?
U tell my Y this deconstruction of water and burning of Hydrogen is a bad Idea,


[edit on 23-8-2010 by Lil Drummerboy]




posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Skepticism is a very important part of science and should be treated with great respect. If no one was ever skeptical about science then the world would still be flat and we would still be living by candle light. However, the moment there is proof of concept or theory then skepticism must take a back seat to understanding. This video alone does not provide enough information for proof of concept, rather it is based in faith that these two gentlemen aren't taking us for a ride.

Show us schematics and real numbers, allow the product independant verification and then we'll have proof of concept. It is a dangerous thing to use words like "can't" or "impossible" because so many times in history people had to eat their words but until this "share-ware" project shares it's design then I will have to say "be wary".

We are a conspiracy website so the skeptic in us either says these guys are lying to us or TPTB are withholding how easy it really is from us. Basically making two camps that fight each other rather than one camp that understands if this is real of fake.

I say let us not attack each other or remain within the norms and try to understand if this sort of thing is possible. Give us schematics or go away, without the proper information we are destine to only fighting.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy

U tell my Y this deconstruction of water and burning of Hydrogen is a bad Idea,




It's a bad idea if you're an oil company rep.... they'll be downsized to providing oil for plastics and lubricants but no longer for energy



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Say you have 15 gallons of water.

You use X number of joules of electricity to obtain Y cubic feet of hydrogen.

When you burn these Y cubic feet of hydrogen in the engine, you get 15 gallons of water plus Z number of joules of energy.

These Z joules of energy need to be split into Z1 (for moving the car) and Z2 (for preparing hydrogen). If you look up above, you'll see that Z2=X.

The balance then goes like this (if you assume everything has 100% efficiency, which it doesn't)

X=Z1+X

If you look at this equation, you'll see that the best case scenario is Z1=0, which means you get nada to propel your car.






We actually run into problems related to conservation of energy before even moving the vehicle.
Given:
X = energy required to completely electrolyze water.
Y = energy required to initiate combustion of hydrogen / oxygen gas.
Z = energy released from combustion.
X+Y=Z.
Assuming 100% of the energy from combustion can be recovered and the electrolysis circuitry is 100% efficient, the only way the electrolysis / combustion cycle can continue in-perpetuity is if the mixture spontaneously combusts.

[edit on 8/23/2010 by abecedarian]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassey222
 
I have seen this Idea already created in sight applied to a vehicle. and there are many plans available via web.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeorgeH
I guess magnetic over unity devices don't work either.


Very true, they do not work, as perpetual motion devices do not work!


I'll be sure to tell my electrical engn'r that his device at work is only an illusion.


He is having you on if he claims it is overunity!



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassey222
It is a dangerous thing to use words like "can't" or "impossible" because so many times in history people had to eat their words but until this "share-ware" project shares it's design then I will have to say "be wary".


You may choose to sit under the apple tree all day long, waiting for a certain falling apple to hover in the air, in an attempt to disprove Newton's gravity. Good luck.

The science of Electrochemistry is of tremendous importance to industry as is physics, and it's covered a lot of ground with decent precision. You can't perform an electrolysis of water and then reverse the separation of components (H2 and O2) while gaining energy at the same time. We aren't even looking at subtle phenomena here, because the truck allegedly used a tremendous amount of energy in its long trip. To miss that sort of thing in the lab, is not just unlikely, but impossible.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
S+F

Daniel Dingel has been running his vehicles on water since 1969 but the Philippine government is ordered by the IMF and World Bank to snub his invention…
www.youtube.com...

People running cars and other devices on water will take away trillions from governments and corporations and kill the phony environmental movement and their “Green Agenda”. All Middle East oil producing nations overnight would become nothing but the arid desert they truly are.

You best believe this thread won’t get flagged and starred off the chart.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

No I'm not. The point is, if you separate H2 and O2 out of water, then burn it, you won't get any energy above what you expended in the separation process.


Ok, I'm guessing you didn't youtube the water motorcycle thing. There are other ways to break the bonds of water besides electricity. In the video I saw, they didn't use any electricity, but relied on a chemical reaction, from what I could tell...

..Ex



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by kyle43
 



i think you'll appreciate stan meyers work. there's some stuff of his on youtube.

jfs;['iuad[f



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Energy cannot be created or destroyed BUT it can be transformed.



This is the law of The Conservation of Energy.

This reminds me all too much of the most respected scientist at the time, Lord Kelvin's, explanation as to why heavier than air aircraft could not possibly fly.

It wasn't so much that the Wright Brothers necessarily defied physics but more so the interpretation of the laws of Physics when confined within a closed system.

If one only took into account the weight of the aircraft and the effects of gravity upon that body. We'd still be navigating the world exclusively in ships !!!

Back to the HHO water system here.....and extracting energy from it.

Simply look at a Hydrogen Fuel Cell. It is converting water into electrical energy via the releasing of electrons between hydrogen and Oxygen. And is proven to work.

The space program has relied upon fuels cells powered by water for decades.




You can't trick the conservation of energy law, no matter what frequency you use.



The transformation of energy is the second part of the conservation of energy principle.

Energy is either Kinetic or stored as Potential Energy in nature.

No Tricks. The energy is already in existence. Just Like the gasoline you buy at the pump, it is stored as potential energy until being transformed.

But requires a chemical reaction or transformation in which to extract that energy.

The electrical energy here 3v @50Amps is being used to phase change the water to a gas by breaking the attraction between the electrons of the Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms.


You don't get the difference between fusion and combustion, do you?


I do and also as to why Hydrogen Fusion, or the melding of hydrogen nuclei releases a tremendous amount of energy, also as to why our Sun and the Hydrogen Bomb, using hydrogen fusion, are the most powerful sources of energy known to man.

The Combustion of Hydrogen gas, is using the Hydrogen Atom in a gaseous state as a fuel in a combustion engine, vs fusion creating a uncontrollable reaction allows one to use it as a fuel without detonating the engine.


But all in all it is demonstrating the releasing of the energy contained within the Hydrogen atom regardless of the chemical reaction used , whether by Fusion OR Combustion.

Speaking of such...

My Grandfather told me that in Germany after WWII , when no one had any real gasoline to run their cars with.
They began using these Wood Gas Carburetors in which to run their cars.
In essence you could run your car by burning wood inside this carburetor and thereby capturing the gas it actually powered the vehicle.

As the Wright Brothers Proved Lord Kelvin Wrong, Laws are meant to be broken !



As far as the Jeep, You Wouldn't Understand, Its a Jeep Thing.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
yeah, but it's still a dodge- hahahar...



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Not to stray too far off-topic, but if water (hydrogen+combustion) is the future, Africa is still screwed. You think the Ferrari version has to run off bottled water


okay enough, this would be cool, but without legitimate outside confirmation I am unable to buy into the video itself. As far as the comment about the sun goes, fusion, fission and combustion are very different things.

IMO, fusion/fission (I haven't brushed up on theoretical energy sources in a while, sorry) would be the only feasible future of hydrogen in terms of energy. If my understanding is correct, if science can eventually attain STABLE and thus SAFE fusion, and shrink it down in size, then it would be as close to "zero-point" energy as we could ever want.

P.S. wasn't val kilmer in some C-grade 90's movie about hydrogen fusion?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by nh_ee
...

The electrical energy here 3v @50Amps is being used to phase change the water to a gas by breaking the attraction between the electrons of the Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms.
The 'phase' of the water is not being changed; rather, it is being decomposed into its constituents, which happen to exist in a gaseous state at the temperatures involved.
In addition, 3 volts is being used to electrolyze the water. Amps are the result of the load presented by the medium (the water and electrolytes present within it). One cannot "force" amperes into a circuit- it's a measure of current draw / sink not source. Amperes however can be externally limited.

Anyhow...
3 volts? AC? DC? AC biased / offset positive 1.5v? What frequency?
50 amps? ... one could say 30 volts at 5 amps or 1 volt at 150 amp or 150 v at 1 amp.... Why 3@50?
Why not 150 watts? The only reason I can see for 3 volts is relatively low resistance in the electrolyte solution and higher voltages would be explosive should arcing occur within the electrode matrices.

What is the mean production rate of H2 and O2 gas from the cell? Can it supply sufficient volume to keep say, my 2.4L (2395cc) gas engine supplied with sufficient gasses to operate at say 1500 RPM? That would be approximately 1796250cc's (1796.25L) per minute; any naturally aspirated engine is not capable of drawing 100% cylinder volume through the manifold due to camshaft profiles, intake restrictions, etc. so can it produce even 80% of that volume?


As far as the Jeep, You Wouldn't Understand, Its a Jeep Thing.


Sorry for being o/t here but that is funny. Jeeps.... CJ, right? The ones that suffer 'death wobble' with lift kits unless you rotate the front axle to keep caster and u-joint angles in check and keep your wheel offsets close to stock?
Don't get me wrong, Jeeps are capable vehicles, for the most part. But I'll stick to my 4Runner.

[edit on 8/23/2010 by abecedarian]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by v3_exceed
There are other ways to break the bonds of water besides electricity. In the video I saw, they didn't use any electricity, but relied on a chemical reaction, from what I could tell...


True, there are many ways to break down water. In any of these, the amount of energy you put in as at the very least as much as you will get back when burning the resulting gas mix.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by kyle43
but I don't know if there is anything someone on ATS will be able to point out to disprove it.


Conservation of Energy.


The point he is trying to make is it takes more energy to get the
hydrogen out of the water than you get from the hydrogen.

Nuclear effects with water are a different story.

www.eetimes.com...







[edit on 23-8-2010 by Ex_MislTech]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by nh_ee
Simply look at a Hydrogen Fuel Cell. It is converting water into electrical energy via the releasing of electrons between hydrogen and Oxygen. And is proven to work.


To get the requisite amount of H2, you will spend at least as much energy as you'll get from that cell.


The transformation of energy is the second part of the conservation of energy principle.
...
No Tricks. The energy is already in existence. Just Like the gasoline you buy at the pump, it is stored as potential energy until being transformed.


Gasoline will take form of CO2 and H2O (mainly) upon combustion. The energy stored in gasoline is derived from the chemical potential of its molecules that can be oxidized. You can't oxidize water. Give it a try. Water in itself does not store energy that you can extract.

When you do electrolysis in water you indeed create an energy store. But it's a store, nothing else. You won't get more energy out of it than you put in.



They began using these Wood Gas Carburetors in which to run their cars. In essence you could run your car by burning wood inside this carburetor and thereby capturing the gas it actually powered the vehicle.


They still have that in North Korea, and it doesn't break any laws of physics.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by v3_exceed
There are other ways to break the bonds of water besides electricity. In the video I saw, they didn't use any electricity, but relied on a chemical reaction, from what I could tell...


True, there are many ways to break down water. In any of these, the amount of energy you put in as at the very least as much as you will get back when burning the resulting gas mix.
In this case the energy being created to cause the separation will not move the vehicle but the reaction to the action creates another energy that moves the vehicle



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
How long till this guy ends up in his jacuzzi with an "apparent" heart attack......

They want us all sucking on the tit of the OIL goddess as long as they can ...

Oh and TAX us also for using it ...

Man that's a killer racket...



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
In this case the energy being created to cause the separation will not move the vehicle but the reaction to the action creates another energy that moves the vehicle


You don't "create" energy to cause separation. You expend energy.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join