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.

 

Plans for a water powered car.

page: 11
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Simple magnets can propel a car.One small one and two others,1 for forward and one for reverse.Extend 2 poles into the drivers seat to go either forward or reverse ,no problem.What seems to be the discussion here.




posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
If someone puts one of these things in their car and they say they see improved milage then, giving them the benefit of the doubt, it's not a question of "can it work?" but "what is actually causing this?".

Now it could just be a biased observation or even a change in driving style but it might be something someone hasn't thought of testing before.
You apparently didn't read the Popular Mechanics articles I cited in this thread. They not only THOUGHT of testing it, they DID test several of them, and countless other contraptions that claim to improve gas mileage. Virtually none of them made it better, and many of them made the mileage worse. With HHO it was slightly worse. They were deluged with people who claimed huge improvements but cited the reasons they are skeptical, one of which is the bias or driving style changes you mentioned. That's one reason they did testing on a dynamometer.

The installer who put in their system even gave them a gas receipt which supposedly showed the installed unit at least doubled the gas mileage, and he provided the documentation to back it up. Yet the testing revealed no improvement at all. So I think we have reason to be highly skeptical of these claims.

We really don't have much reason to be skeptical of the claim that if you turn off your engine, you'll burn less gas. That's not an extraordinary claim, rather it seems quite ordinary. It's only the extraordinary claims which require extraordinary evidence.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by brindle
Simple magnets can propel a car.One small one and two others,1 for forward and one for reverse.Extend 2 poles into the drivers seat to go either forward or reverse ,no problem.What seems to be the discussion here.
You mean like this?

knowyourmeme.com...


Did you notice the name of that site is troll science? Does that make you a troll? Or are you actually powering your own personal car with magnets as you describe?



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Actually I did read it. Maybe something is being done different. Maybe mainstream media is bought and paid for. Maybe they had a biased observation in the other direction.

That's a lot of maybes.

Ever wonder why electric cars are so expensive. These guys do to:

Forkenswift



The ForkenSwift is a 1992 Geo Metro converted from gasoline to electric power with used forklift parts (electric motor, etc.), used golf cart batteries (and a golf cart motor controller) and a pair of near-dead "host" cars.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

I never dug into it too deeply but I assumed it might have something to do with production volumes.

Higher production volumes tend to be more economical, lower volumes tend to be less economical. That's why you'll typically pay a lot more for a car where the volume is 100 a year than a car where the volume is 50,000 a year. The economic reasons have to do with automation, discounts for larger purchasing volumes, and such.

But they have a lot more than $1000 in that electric car, if their own time is worth anything.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


They should just discontinue ICE. Like vacum tube TVs. That would guarantee volume. Hey maybe that was what the bailouts were. A government incentive to retool and phase out gas guzzlers.

Off time don't cost anything and it's worth less if your doing something you enjoy. Heck you usually have to pay for entertainment. These guys probably had a ball and now get the same miles as a gallon of gas for less than a buck.

Time better spent than mucking about with HHO because people can't let go of the ICE. That is mainly why I posted it because earlier in the thread the price of electric cars was presented as prohibitive.


edit on 1-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by brindle
Simple magnets can propel a car.One small one and two others,1 for forward and one for reverse.Extend 2 poles into the drivers seat to go either forward or reverse ,no problem.What seems to be the discussion here.
You mean like this?

knowyourmeme.com...


Did you notice the name of that site is troll science? Does that make you a troll? Or are you actually powering your own personal car with magnets as you describe?
I dont have a car, I ride a horse for transportation.I would never pay for gas.At 3 dollars a gallons, thats ridiculous.If i ever needed gas, I would go to the coast of saudia arabia,fill up up a tanker of a 200, 000 gallonsI I would buy the refined gas at 60 a gallon,transport it home, then sell the rest.Gas is overpriced fool.
edit on 1-10-2011 by brindle because: mistake



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench



You maybe getting better gas mileage by creating a more efficient combustion in the cylinder and eaking out all the power that gallon of gasoline can produce.That's not the same as running solely on hydrogen created by onboard electrolysis.


Please show me where I said that I was running on HHO alone?


Perhaps I confused your o.p. with member "screwed's" reply way back on page 1:

quote "screwed":
Can someone please tell me why you couldn't generate the electrolysis process using the already existing alternator?

It would work like this.
A separate deep cell battery is designated to the electrolysis system.
You get in the car, flip a switch, and the bubbles begin to rise and gas begins to accumulate in the water cannister in the trunk.
Pressure begins to build, feeding the Hydrogen/O2 mixture to the fuel injection manifold on the engine,

then it's time to start the car.
Once started, the alternator begins generating the electricity needed to keep the system going.


The only problem I see is the ability to keep the pressure at a manageable rate.
Too much pressure and somethings gonna blow.
Too little and the engine dies.
But the idea is still solid.



I use water, and Food Grade Lye. One teaspoon to the quart. The HHO enhances the gasoline to nearly 100%, and as a bonus, it cleans out the stuff that kills engines, carbon and sulphur, and running it does not pollute the atmosphere anymore. The old engine runs quiet now. The HHO, along with the ECM hack, is what doubles the gas mileage. People have ran cars on just HHO, I am not one of them, yet. And I stress that word yet. Of course, since I have seen what people do when they see someone running this,

when I do finally get it just right, and run on HHO alone,

busted...



Originally posted by autowrench
I will not be posting it in this forum. I will just keep it for myself, and my friends and family.

edit on 1-10-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-10-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-10-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
:
edit on 1-10-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


They should just discontinue ICE. Like vacum tube TVs. That would guarantee volume. Hey maybe that was what the bailouts were. A government incentive to retool and phase out gas guzzlers.

Off time don't cost anything and it's worth less if your doing something you enjoy. Heck you usually have to pay for entertainment. These guys probably had a ball and now get the same miles as a gallon of gas for less than a buck.

Time better spent than mucking about with HHO because people can't let go of the ICE. That is mainly why I posted it because earlier in the thread the price of electric cars was presented as prohibitive.


edit on 1-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Iagree i very much advocate the clean electric motor. hundrds of thousandsof hours of life three moving parts( two bearings and the armature).
little to no lubrication needs and maintenance,
regenerative braking lessens the wear on the vehicle brake pads/shoes.
Mr.goodwrench doesn't make as much money in the parts and repair dept.

They can be charged overnight when typical grid load demands are the lowest!
I love em!...big
for "electrics". My civilian background is industrial motors and controls: I'm sold on big electric "prime movers".
and they can be (quiet &) fast!

edit on 1-10-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
Are people having a hard time understanding that autowrench is using the HHO (hydrogen and oxygen developed electolytically from H2O...water) as a fuel additive, not as the primary fuel source?
That is what I read from his posts.


Thank you. You are one of the few who understood this, some thought I was making claims of running my van on nothing but the HHO, which I assure you I am not doing. I would, however, if I knew a way to do it. I have a plan, but it is untested, and we do not know yet if it will in fact run the engine, until we design, wire up and build it. I can guarantee you that most of the people posting in this thread not only have not built and tested on, they have never even seen one working. That is where all the confusion is coming from, I think. I was sitting in the Doctor's office waiting room today, taking about our setup with the wife. Two guys overheard us taking and came over, older guys. One said to me, Hey, I have been reading and hearing about this, can you show me yours? Which I dutifully did, open the hood, turned them on, and then he asked it he could take photos, to which I said go ahead. The other guy took out a notepad and pen and began to question me on where to get the parts to build one. People are hungry for something, anything to save some money. Our gas just went down, to $3.32 a gallon, a few days ago it was $3.85.
That still represents a lot of money spent on gasoline.

If I could lay my hands on some medical grade stainless steel plates and about $200 worth of parts, I would run on just the HHO. I know it can be done. I also saw one on a semi, this guy had 8 jars right on the front of the truck. He told me he was getting 5 mpg, now he is getting 9 mpg. He said to him that seemed like a lot, it meant more money to pay bills and feed his family. More and more people ever day are building and running devices to save gasoline, why are some of you so against this? Got something against saving money, and feeding your children?

I simply do not understand the plain truth that some of you are doing nothing in this thread but trying to make us that are using these devices believe they do not work, when we know they do work. No amount of scientific evidence or math equations, or weblinks that debunk the whole thing will make me dismantle it it and take it off my vehicle. You are simply wasting your time.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


Don't know who you are, or most of what you said, but, to answer your question, if that is what it was. if I can produce enough Hydrogen, I can run a V-8 engine. The Space Shuttle runs on it, and the Sun runs on it. It is a highly explosive gas, as my uncle discovered when he lit a match to a hose connected to a reactor and it blew up into thousands of little pieces.
Produce enough, and the correct pressure, sure you can run an engine. Might run a little hotter, but hey, I saw a guy mowing his yard using an HHO reactor, and his tractor engine was a quiet as a mouse, and was not excessively hot.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
I've done a lot of research into Stan Meyers work and the theories that he employs are sound. It doesn't break any of the laws of physics and people have been making cars run on water since the seventies. A high voltage but low amp current is pulsed into the water using electrodes. The trick is finding which electromagnetic frequenceys to use. Stans brother has patented and is selling a similar device from his office in Canada. Essentially it is a water capactor. Since water can hold no electrical charge of it's own the capacatance is essentially generated between the water and the negative electrode. A particular electromagnetic frequency is used which creates cavation in the water in much the same way as high power sonar does. This cavation weakens the bonds between the hydrogen and the oxygen atoms alowing for easier seperation. As the electricity surges through the water it rips the water molecules apart creating hydrogen and oxygen gas. A diode in the circuitry prevents the circuit from closing as the resulting spark would result in a large explosion. Just before the circuit closes the electromagnetic field is collapsed and the process begins all over again. The reult is the production of a lot of hydrogen gas very quickly at a very low amp draw. sometimes the draw is as low as half an amp or lower. Stan Meyer claimed to have found the resonating frequencies that would split the water molecules VERY efficently.
From there the gasses were ionised in what is essentially an ion gun. It appears that Stan was using laser light energy of a particular frequeny to excite the electrons and cause an exchange creating more explosive ionic hydogen atoms. In some of the reserch that I've read it indicates the Stan was actually making Duterium which is water where the hydrogen atom has acquired a second proton. If Stan was indeed using an ion gun to add and extra proton the the hydrogen atom than this would make the hydrogen even more explosive again. From what I've read I believe it is possible to create duterium in that manner buy I'm not going to pretend to fully understand the science.
From there the Hydrogen was mixed with exhaust gasses to slow the burn rate to that of petrol. The burn rate of Hydrogen is probably twice that of petrol. Hydrogen burns to fast to sustain a flame it just explodes. Now that the hydrogen/exhaust gas is mixed in the correct proportions the resulting mixture was injected into the combustion chamber.
Stans success is not amazing in itself, I have read about people doing similar things in the seventies. What makes Stan special is the fact that his fuel cell was SO efficient. Stan claimed that he could drive his water powered beach buggy across the U.S. on approximately 80 or 90 litres of water.
In later articles about Stan he claimed that he had developed a water fuel injector where this whole process takes place in the injector... so having hydrogen only produced in the injector makes this process completely safe. I have read of other people also having developed similar injectors. Again what I understand of the theory is sound but I don't understand all the science.
This is not a perpetual motion machine. There are still losses in energy. The reaction does not work in a completely enclosed system but the hydrogen and oxygen can be recombined to create a sizeable IMPLOSION.
This is an over unity device. The process creates more energy from combusting the ionised Hydrogen hydrogen that is required to split the water molecule.
THIS PROCESS IS NOT ELECTROLYSIS! it is a completely new way of splitting the water molecule.

waterpoweredcar.com...
www.hereticalbuilders.com...
www.ritalie.com...

I hope this is helpful... There is heaps of information out there just start googleing



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

never mind.
edit on 2/10/11 by RogerT because: recalled the troll food!



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mutatismutandis
reply to post by john_bmth
 


You do realize you are attempting to insight arguement in a post who's soul intention is to further their reasearch of said subject. Your only intention thus far has been to come here just to call us all idiots when the op was asking for assistance. If you're so insistent that your point of view is correct seeing how you obviously feel your futher educated than anyone else in this post, then go publish your own findings in your prestigious scientific journal and leave the real science to those actively trying to make a difference. It'd be a lot more constructive than spouting off to those that don't care for your input in a sad attempt to bewiddle us.


john_bgmth does this in every thread discussing this subject. He actually seems to believe he is making a contribution to the poor feeble minds that don't wish to see life through his own personal world view. It appears to be a 'defender of the faith', 'missionary' type thing.

Debating with him is absolutely pointless. Even if you post facts and figures, rather than personal observation and opinion, he'll either ignore them or revert to his favorite mantra "show me the peer reviewed paper" (as if the corrupt, broken peer review system is the gatekeeper of truth :rofl


Only way to keep the thread on track is to simply ignore him. I apologise to the OP for feeding the troll, I should know better



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by hudsonhawk69
 


I have no idea where you got all that pseudo rubbish about Mr Meyers but rest assured it is rubbish if you're going to claim he achieved fusion in his 'secret process'. Deuterium is actually a standard hydrogen atom with a single proton and 1 neutron, Tritium has 2 neutrons with one proton which makes it unstable IE it will throw off one of those neutrons (beta radiation) with little provocation but it remains Hydrogen regardless of the number of neutrons. 2 protons in a nucleus is the element Helium regardless of how many neutrons it may or may not have.

Stan made a lot of claims - all unsubstantiated and also not reproduced.
We see a lot of that going on.
Look into the Ohio State Court's assessment of his claims re the water fueled car claims he made. They used the exact words "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered him to repay the investors he duped into supporting his so-called research.

Ion beams, laser excitation etc etc - please

edit on 2/10/2011 by Pilgrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT

john_bgmth does this in every thread discussing this subject. He actually seems to believe he is making a contribution to the poor feeble minds that don't wish to see life through his own personal world view. It appears to be a 'defender of the faith', 'missionary' type thing.

Debating with him is absolutely pointless. Even if you post facts and figures, rather than personal observation and opinion, he'll either ignore them or revert to his favorite mantra "show me the peer reviewed paper" (as if the corrupt, broken peer review system is the gatekeeper of truth :rofl


Only way to keep the thread on track is to simply ignore him. I apologise to the OP for feeding the troll, I should know better

Oh what a surprise, when Roger_T and his type are pressed too hard with questioning, they find every excuse not to respond. Now it's considered "trolling" to ask tough questions that challenge belief systems. What a convenient way of avoiding discussion! So Roger_T, at what point did my posts suddenly change from demanding scientific evidence to "trolling"? How pathetic, instead of sticking around and backing up your wild claims, you've picked up your ball and gone home. You call me the troll? At least I stick around for the debate rather than attacking people's character and walking off when having to rationalize my beliefs. If everyone did what you did, this website would be dead in the in no time.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Let's just hope it never becomes 'trolling' to demand sensational absolute proof of sensational claims and that none of us is so thick and obstinate to reject such proof if it ever comes to light. To date all we see are highly questionable claims severely lacking in suitable evidence of authenticity so the conclusions we skeptics come to can't be considered at all rash under the circumstances



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
but it seems like turning the engine off would be the best solution if it wasn't so inefficient to restart it.

It is, and there are a few cars on sale in the UK that already do it. Here is the Fiat 500 TwinAir.



This revolutionary TwinAir engine, however, takes the car to a new level, adding brains to its beauty. Some critics are even hailing the 875cc twin-cylinder turbocharged unit as one of the greatest leaps forward in engine technology in the past 20 years


It is the most economical car in the world, getting 86mpg (US gallon) , and it's still capable of 108mph. It beats electric and hybrid cars in terms of effeciency.

Here is a question for those of you who have fallen for the HHO scam: the expert engineers at Fiat have clearly done everything they can think of to squeeze out every last drop of effeciency out of this thing. They will be amongst the best in the world at their jobs. Yet, for some reason they have left out an HHO system....why do you think this is?



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by FatherLukeDuke
 


Manufacturers are responding to the need for improved efficiency in terms of reducing pollution and also dealing with rising fuel costs (trying to at least). Hybrids are a good example in that they will shut down the combustion engine in stop-start congested traffic situations unless the batteries are getting low but there are a number of far more efficient conventional cars now for more typical cruising operation such as the Fiat you mentioned. BMW (I think) has a model now that shuts down the engine if standing still for more than a short defined time, re-starting it automatically on demand in a manner transparent to the driver who just squeezes the throttle normally and away it goes again. Then there's engines that run on half the cylinders unless driving demands full capability (such as the Chrysler 30C) but I don't consider that much of a saving as such vehicles are thirsty monsters to start with and somewhat doomed to extinction like the dinosaurs were, the 'half-engine' operation is only postponing an inevitable demise.

edit on 2/10/2011 by Pilgrum because: typo



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by N3k9Ni
 


No he didn't, it was a scam:

aardvark.co.nz...



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join