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.

 

Water powered Vehicles.

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
Listen up: the glass breaks from accumulation of the acoustic energy. So you are supplying energy little by little, but the total will be enough to break the glass. No magic here.

So don't look for the "concept" to be proven, it's against the fundamental law of physics.


I'm aware of that, but so far as I know no one has used the frequency of the electricity to make the process more efficient (perhaps with less heat loss because of more efficient use of energy).

I'm also not saying that this is an over-unity concept by any means, read my other posts.




posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by shbaz
I'm also not saying that this is an over-unity concept by any means, read my other posts.


If it's not over-unity, than you have to carry the source of electric energy with you, with enough power to drive the car. Right?



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by shbaz
I'm also not saying that this is an over-unity concept by any means, read my other posts.


If it's not over-unity, than you have to carry the source of electric energy with you, with enough power to drive the car. Right?


Pardon me, but did I say anything to the contrary? Double check the nicknames you are reading.

EDIT:
Most notably, did you happen to notice when I wrote this?


The conversion of water to gas through electrolysis is roughly 50% efficient. You're going to have to either charge the car or supplement the system with conventional fuels, solar power, etc. Don't waste all of your money on an idea that isn't going to work.


[edit on 8/23/2004 by shbaz]



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Sounds very interesting Ezekial. You say you got the information from a friend in the military, does he know if one of these has been built successfully?



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
I have a Geo Metro. The water tank would probably be as big as my lil car! Besides, I get34 mpg, it cost 12 dollars to fill up and I get over 200 miles on a tank. Even with gas being $1.78 where I am ( louisville Ky.) I still love my li purple gas sipper.


My Dad might be intrested in this though. He drives a huge chevy dually that gets abou 10-12 mpg. BIG TRUCKS SUCK!


You pay $1.78 per gallon?
Here in Portugal we pay +/- $3.3, that is why there are so many tests of alternative energies in Europe.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Aaahhh...the old water car.

Yes, it does work


It works on resonant frequency, not electrolysis.

I won't say much about this except that:

1) The patents are available at www.uspto.gov (can't recall the number)
2) You need a number of "cylinders" to have enough pressure for it to work - the bigger the engine, the more cylinders you need.
3) You need a reservior chamber
4) Buy a multiple trace ocilloscope when you build the device
5) Be prepared to experiment A LOT to get it working.

Cheers

JS



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Hi to all of you.

Ezekial posted the question on 23 08 04 at 08:06 am (australia

time I suposed ) The last answer was from the moderator.

Well, I give to Ezekial an information (wrong or right ) ?

Now I don't understand what I will do with elecrolysis in that

case/matter. Long time ago I have a lecons/enseignements

on financials stuctures and economics -2 years just. Enough...?

If every body drive a car with a water the economic appocalypse

will......tock, tock, tock on the door. Nowadays the only matter

is the petrol for turn the World. Right?

The moteur GEET is pur mecanic stuff, nothing to do with:

chemisry, conservation of the energy , transmutation of elements

(it's an alchemy feeld boy ),electric power, ets... kitchen- mixer story.

Just try or open the eyes and seek. 80% of the discovery

belong to self-made man/womens.

For electric power:

1ts train mouved with el. power, but need the weels. OK.

2 ond train consomed the same el. power but no weels

(MAGLEV TRAIN )

The resultat/lecon is: the power is equal but we win the

speed,the train will never go out from the way; no catastrophe!!!

I tryed to help ezekial and now a big debat. For sure I am on

the RED LIGHT now. Maybe is good to comeback to the

UFO-FAUNA team ???

Have a good afternoon, I am at 12:30 sideral time.

REGARDS chapo

P.S. US GALLON = 3.786 litres

UK GALLON =4.546 litres

The prise of litre super 98 is 1.08 euro (not sure for a few cents )

France.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TexasConspiracyNut
This may be what you are going to post:

www.spiritofmaat.com...

Here are the diagrams:


www.spiritofmaat.com...

www.spiritofmaat.com...

I stumbled accross this while doing research on magnetic motors and such a few months ago.

I may build one.


After my last post I went to bed and didn't see this.

I AM SO DAMN PISSED OFF RIGHT NOW.

I drove 84km round trip and scanned all the pages and had to do multiple scans of some of the diagrams which were in A1 size.

And what happens? It's all online already.


I think I must apologize to everyone for getting your hopes up. I honestly thought it wasn't mainstream info. The version I had didnt have page numbers or the reference list and disclaimers.

But it did have 4 more pictures than the link you posted, here are the addresses I put online for you to see:

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

I realise that two of those images are the same images as in your posts TexasConspiracyNut but thought I would post anyway. In return for providing the info for me (in a more presentable manner too, I was just compiling 22 JPGs and putting them into a PDF) I am going to vote for you as my Above Top Secret for this month.


I repeat again, I am deeply sorry and feel that I have ripped you guys off.

[edit on 24-8-2004 by Ezekial]



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Here's a link for everyone for the same:

www.keelynet.com...

It has links to the patents, drawings etc etc

And a general link for energy devices.info:

www.keelynet.com...

Cheers

JS



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ezekial
I repeat again, I am deeply sorry and feel that I have ripped you guys off.

[edit on 24-8-2004 by Ezekial]


Well, about one and a half pages of people learned something new, so it wasn't a total waste. I could see how people wouldn't know about it, pretty outrageous concept when you first hear of it.

I found out about electrolysis when I was in the 10th grade in High school, the first thing I did was fill a baloon with water and turn it into gas, then blow it up.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 02:02 PM
link   
It's all good - I will vote for you for the effort.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   
The more information, the better. Good work!



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   
This kinda sounds like aquafuel. Here are the links
jlnlabs.imars.com...
www.blazelabs.com...
www.cryptogon.com...



EDIT: ITS also called Bingofuel and Magnegas are just 2 examples.

[edit on 24-8-2004 by sardion2000]



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
If this is true, it's obvious to say it's nothing short of revolutionary. But what would the performance of these water-powered cars be like? Would they be able equal or surpass the performance of regular internal-combustion cars or would they be outrun by glaciers?



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by VanishingPoint
If this is true, it's obvious to say it's nothing short of revolutionary. But what would the performance of these water-powered cars be like? Would they be able equal or surpass the performance of regular internal-combustion cars or would they be outrun by glaciers?


Here are the specs of probably a regular natural gas generator run by Aquafuel




posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Aquafuel is different because it uses carbon rods with very high wattage. The gas that comes out of it is more than just hydrogen and oxygen because the carbon will also bond to the gasses. I'm still itching to try it because it may be possible to harness more energy than you put in by the combustion of air (mixes in a ration of 5:1).

Mind you this is NOT over-unity, it's simply harnessing energy from air as well as the gas you create.

I don't know if it's really plausible or not, the web is a tricky place.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by shbaz

Mind you this is NOT over-unity, it's simply harnessing energy from air as well as the gas you create.



Air does not contain energy to be harnessed, unless you are talking about wind. Now, a sail on top of your car is perfectly doable and might indeed work.



I don't know if it's really plausible or not, the web is a tricky place.


I never knew conservation of energy was even trickier than the web!



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by shbaz

Mind you this is NOT over-unity, it's simply harnessing energy from air as well as the gas you create.



Air does not contain energy to be harnessed, unless you are talking about wind. Now, a sail on top of your car is perfectly doable and might indeed work.


Oh, so you're saying oxygen does not combust when mixed with certain gases? Because I just want to be sure, your mocking tone makes me doubtful.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by shbaz
Oh, so you're saying oxygen does not combust when mixed with certain gases? Because I just want to be sure, your mocking tone makes me doubtful.


Well of course a mix of a combustible gas and oxygen would burn. However, producing such combustible gas out of water will take at least as much energy (more in practice) than will result from combustion. So unless you are using an additional source of fuel, or battery, there is no way you can use water as a potential fuel... And the battery that you are supposed to carry should be powerful enough to move your car. So you end up with an electric car. Fine, but then you'll have to charge it and it'll be damn heavy, and this whole water thing is unnecessary



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by shbaz
Oh, so you're saying oxygen does not combust when mixed with certain gases? Because I just want to be sure, your mocking tone makes me doubtful.


Well of course a mix of a combustible gas and oxygen would burn. However, producing such combustible gas out of water will take at least as much energy (more in practice) than will result from combustion. So unless you are using an additional source of fuel, or battery, there is no way you can use water as a potential fuel... And the battery that you are supposed to carry should be powerful enough to move your car. So you end up with an electric car. Fine, but then you'll have to charge it and it'll be damn heavy, and this whole water thing is unnecessary


You don't understand. The addition of carbon into the equation changes the nature of the gas and the energy taken to release it. The gas is more than just O2 + H2, it's a mix of a few different gases (Most notably H2CO). These websites are claiming that because of this you can use air as a reactant and it becomes a large part of your fuel for the reaction. Because of that, you could run the reaction for an extended period of time or perhaps for as long as the machinery works. Air is hardly in short supply.

I don't know if it works that way or not, NASA has analyzed it and not much has come from that so far as I know, so maybe it's useless.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join