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.

 

Car that runs on water? Japanese co. challenge to big oil?

page: 9
83
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Thanks. I haven't heard about it yet. Looks like I'm gonna run a little Thorium reactor in my backyard

This could be so cheap and pretty safe and so everywhere that we all could ride on electricity or just make Hydrogen by classical electrolysis. Well this is some good news to me.




posted on May, 29 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
it is no hoax

the tech exist and was used
on Steam Locomotives
and was the original design
for Henry Ford

what else do you need ??

a bar code? u won't find one.


You actually have no idea how a steam locomotive worked do you. This is the kind of ignorance I've come to expect of ATS at its best.

Yeah, you just fill her up with water and away she goes. No fuel of any kind require -- except water.

Why did they switch from steam locomotives to something else then if it was so great? Please explain.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TimeSlip2009
 


Read and listen to the information: It would run on ANY kind of water, including sea (undrinkable) and not fresh water. And it would merely separate the H2 from the O, these elements would not be destroyed in this process, and would reconstitute through natural processes over time. We wouldn't be using the water to eradication, merely borrowing and reconstituting it



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by XtraTL
 


If you cared to read the real research and not what this guy said, it was stated often that there would be a need for an electrical source to separate the H and O. This is readily admitted. But if you can have a system whereby the H and O are separated and the energy for such is derived from, say, solar panels as that energy becomes available, then you have the potential for almost free energy (once the fixed costs are absorbed) with the simple input of ANY water. Plus the occasional lubricant and oil, obviously. You just have a conversion unit that separates H from O whenever solar energy permits, and have a full tank ready to load into your car whenever it needs it.
Yes, steam engines ran on coal. This is not what we are talking about here, just some ppl who are off topic. Read what the real research here is saying.
If we were to embrace this technology, research it properly, openly, and collaboratively, and then mass produce it, I have no doubt that the wild claims of its adherents could readily be at least met, but more than likely exceeded.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Back to the OP:

Genepax

So they made a car that "runs on water"....

The following article sums it up nicely I think:



One thing that helps fuel the conspiracy rumors surrounding water cars is that the media run these segments where they show "water cars" actually driving around, and it all seems to work, and then we never hear about them again.

People figure that Big Oil (or the Illuminati, whatever) is suppressing the technology. The reality is more mundane: It is actually possible to make a car look like it runs on water without breaking the first law of thermodynamics.

The way it's usually done is with metal hydrides. These react with water to produce hydrogen, which is then used to power the car. But since these hydrides will deplete with time, they need to be replaced and so they are actually the fuel, not the water.

And you can be sure that more energy will go into producing them than will be taken out, making them an energy carrier, just like a battery.

...The danger is that it creates false hopes, which then turn into real apathy. Either people believe that there's a solution to all our energy problems "coming real soon now", and so there's no need to worry and make efforts.

And the people who've been around longer end up disillusioned and frustrated because they've been promised "water cars" for decades and it never comes, so they think that there's a big worldwide conspiracy against it (and somehow none of the dozens of "inventors" and "engineers" who worked on these projects were able to put the technical information on the internet).
1

What was the purpose of it all? If you google: "genepax stock" You can see the viral marketing done to entice people into investing into Genepax.


From what I can tell, their process was using metal-hydrides. The whole idea makes little sense with a general understanding of business and chemistry.


As for the argument that "TPTB" are covering it up to lock down their profit margin....



It's laughable!


There are a ton of failed water cars, electric cars out there. And they are all so inefficient that they would be using MORE energy to run, ie. electricity, and using fossil fuels to produce that electricity.

So if the "PTB" in control of "big oil" wanted to earn more, they could generate more electricity and sell it to people who then change that into hydrogen at a loss of 30% or so. And they are earning money on it all the way...

As far as using metal-hydrides in a car...



Where is the energy coming from to produce the hydrides?

Right....


Free Energy?... Not in this thread...
edit on 29-5-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
We need to stop hoping for nonsense like "Watercars" and keep with the progress we've made in sustainable fusion reactions.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
It takes energy to break chemical bonds to release energy.

The problem with many modern concepts of that is the lack of efficiency.



Oil requires small amounts of energy to release the massive amount of energy it contains. However, we are still unable to use it efficiently.



Since oil is cheap, we don't really care.


In the future, when oil is expensive, people would sacrifice more for portable energy. They would sacrifice so much that efficiency will eventually go down.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
As was mentioned, if this system worked BIG OIL and TPTB would make power plants run on water.
No nukes.
No environmental impact studies.
No barges of coal.
No pipeline of natural gas.
No costly scrubbers.

Just pull water from the rivers and make electricity and sell it to consumers at the same price as coal fired plants. No supply costs just maintenance cost. The rest is a continuous stream of huge profits.

But many would rather believe in some boogie man behind the curtain is pulling the strings. Just so he can make billions he could never spend in a lifetime.

So the real sheeple are those who believe in water cars.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Dunno much about metal hydrides, their efficiency ratio or how do they deplete and vanish. I'd like to. There's some technology used in fuel cells - some kinda micro/nano membrane which remains the same while doing it's job. (if I remember it correctly)
Speaking about fusion .. the technology may have some similar points that are unacceptable for "scientific" community. I remember when they were using Palladium or Nickel there were some traces of copper and other isotopes as product of transmutation etc. You know what I mean... It wasn't replicable everytime so nobody cared to find it out, but only to quickly debunk and silence it. This could be similar case.
It should be easy to debunk by simple measuring input/output, but again nothing like that happens. Just Inventor or company disappears and big sshhhhhhh-keep-sleeping. Maybe these Japanese have new cars now. Big cars for their big fat cheques. Who knows. Boncho was right about that - I'm a bit more confused and frustrated again.
At least I'll still have my Thorium reactor in my backyard. lol.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Riiight.. cars magically powered by unicorn farts to simply run on water.


This technology does not exist, I'm sorry you've been hoaxed into thinking it does.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
ok i've only read the OP. i just want to make a prediction, that this is fake. Heard it all before....
But i'll take a look off course. it would be great.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
Henry Ford's Model A was originally designed
to run on water/steam. But Ford couldn't
get his invention off the ground due to a lack
of working capital.

His investors would only invest in
a vehicle which had a power supply
that they could control.

Hence the water/steam engine was scrapped
for the gasoline version. And we have been hooked
on gasoline ever since.


Please actually post proof of your ongoing BS, there is no record of any such thing, Ford used a similar model (ie petrol) based as other manufacturers of the time.

Exactly how many times has this popped up on ATS? I haven't read anywhere that the ability to run a car on a water based system is impossible or even unproven, but it appears to actually be less economical to do so.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
the Rail Roads made a fortune back in day
from a Steam Locomotive while they only
pursued gas engines for personal vehicles.

en.wikipedia.org...

If the tech was a hoax

why did they make over 1,000
Steam Locomotives ?

Not one of these used gasoline

edit on 5/28/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)


Good grief. Steam trains generated steam through the use of another fossil fuel - coal!!! Did you think they were water driven? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Thank you for sharing your total and utter ignorance.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
every time one of these threads come up, and there have been countless since ats debuted

the ONLY argument people have

"i went to college" "i studied this science" "i know how these things work so i know its not possible" "BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH"

yea great, so since you dont know how to do it, it must not exist right

we still have no clue how the pyramids were built, theres tons of people spouting they do, but they dont, its nothing more then hypothesis


no one knew about nuclear tech until einstein thought of it all and began the manhattan project, well maybe not the project itself but everything that allowed the project to take place


so since before then no one knew about it it must be impossible right, and the nukes we have now are all fake and dont exist because its previously been impossible

THINGS CHANGE

come down off your high horse and you'll realize that

maybe this is real, maybe this is fake

saying its impossible because you know the tech is simply ignorant


you go back in time tell the wright brothers about uavs and space shuttles, just because they couldnt make one doesnt mean that they wont exist in the future just because they didnt understand the tech

i swear, people say the stupidest things

with as many ignorant people that exist on this earth, i truly dont know how we have survived this long

we must be a virus



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho



I actually like the idea of using solar make hydrogen gas, I think it is great. But it still has drawbacks. If electrolysis is running at 70% efficiency, then you are losing 30% right off the beginning. .


I had a similar idea during the daytime solar electricity would be produced using Stirling engines and surplus electricity would be used to make hydrogen from water and stored to be burned at night to generate electricity during the sunless hours.
I envisioned this being done out in the ocean on floating platforms or rigs.


Aparently the the sun produces more solar energy every hour than the entire energy needs of human civilization.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I hope this promise doesn't dry up and go away, we need something like this so we can say Goodbye Gas, HELLO WATER ! ! ! ! ! !



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Just want to offer some perspective, to freshen up the thread a little


I was out driving somewhere thinking about things other than this thread when the thought of not having to pay for gas crossed my mind.
I mean, what we're talking about here would expand our essential freedom, no? No more cost concerns when it comes to where you do go or more immportantly where you KNOW you CAN go if you so desire.
It kind of hit me like the feeling I got hopping on a bike for the first time in a long time, a few years ago.
I remembered that youthful exhuberance in having complete freedom in where you go, how you go, and how you choose to get there.
This is when I realized this is the true essence, the payoff if you will, to this whole shebang.
Go where you want, when you want.
Now wouldn't that be nice?
Just a thought



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
This technology not only exists it is patented. USA patent#4,6134,304. Stanly Meyers is a genius and a hero. The technology is being suppressed. For anyone to deny this, hasnt done their research or is posting with alterior motives.

I would also of that any questions and concerns about where the energy comes from, and doesnt want to read the patent itself, should watch the youtube video link - www.youtube.com...
It offers detailed explanations and YES, THE US (AND CANADIAN) PATENT OFFICE DID ISSUE A PATENT FOR AN INVENTION THAT OFFERS A SELF-GENERATING SOURCE OF ENERGY.

Please watch. We need more informed people.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ELahrairah
 


uh oh looks like someones a bit behind in the latest science news

'Fossil fuel' theory takes hit with NASA finding

and by the way




Just the facts

Petroleum was formed from the remains of marine plant and animal life which existed many millions of years ago (hence it is known as a fossil fuel).


Its not a fact, its just a theory.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by balon0
 


Nice article
very informative
Yeah I got heated and in argument used the word fact instead of widely accepted theory.
If this research is right then the model will have to be updated.
but first it must be tested.
However methane CH4 is not the same as the complex hydrocarbons found in crude oil.
Methane is the simplistic of hydrocarbons a molecule contains one carbon atom and 4 hydrogen atoms.
Where as petroleum contains many complex hydrocarbons

Chemicals that occur in TPH include hexane, benzene, toluene, xylenes, naphthalene, and fluorene, other constituents of gasoline, of jet fuels, of mineral oils, and of other petroleum products. It is said that if enough TPH goes into the environment that life as we know it would cease to exist.[1]
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 29-5-2011 by ELahrairah because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
83
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join