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: 12
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by daskakik
 

If you're splitting the hydrogen in situ using energy derived from either gas or hydrogen, you will lose energy due to the unavoidable inefficiencies of conversion. Granted, if you stuck a solar panel on your roof and used that energy to split the hydrogen, it would be for all intents and purposes "free" (as in financially).

So now that you see this why fight a good idea?

The real story here is, several people have figured various ways to 'cheat' the oil companies and MANY attempts to keep them and their ideas sequestered are present in the anecdotes. Mostly, people challenging the idea keep the mantra of 'can't be an over unity device'. Fine, so when it is presented as NOT an overunity device, as it isn't, then the idea still gets slammed. Hmmm, now this sounds like the comment above about the anecdotes. The magnetic devices are not over unity either it is simply that magnets sitting perfectly still do some form of physics known officially as 'work'.
edit on 2-10-2011 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Justoneman
 


Every concept in this thread has been shown to have no scientific basis. The over unity claims were merely the icing on the cake of absurdity.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justoneman
The real story here is, several people have figured various ways to 'cheat' the oil companies and MANY attempts to keep them and their ideas sequestered are present in the anecdotes.

Anecdotes is the the correct word. That's all we have - people's stories. Some are deluded, some are lying. I see no data to say otherwise.



Mostly, people challenging the idea keep the mantra of 'can't be an over unity device'. Fine, so when it is presented as NOT an overunity device,

If you split water and end up with an overall energy gain, then it is overunity. Presentation is irrelevant.


The magnetic devices are not over unity either it is simply that magnets sitting perfectly still do some form of physics known officially as 'work'.

Magnets can't sit still and do work. Anyway, who is discussing magnets?
edit on 2/10/11 by FatherLukeDuke because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mutatismutandis

Originally posted by Screwed

So a friend and I were wondering why it wouldn't be possible to build a water powered car and came across this really easy to understand idea of how it could be done.
It seems clear to me/us that it would be pretty easy unless there is something we are overlooking which is why I come to you.

The age old problem is the fact that it takes an inordinate amount of electricity to split the water molecule into O2 and Hydrogen. Sure you could get a car to run on hydrogen but where are you going to get the hydrogen?
How are you going to generate enough electricity to keep the electrolysis going?

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.

Here is the idea put another way.




How It Works
Exceedingly simple. Water is pumped as needed to replenish and maintain the liquid level in the chamber. The electrodes are vibrated with a 0.5-5A electrical pulse which breaks 2(H2O) => 2H2 + O2. When the pressure reaches say 30-60 psi, you turn the key and go. You step on the pedal, you send more energy to the electrodes, and thus more vapor to the cylinders; i.e. fuel vapor on demand.
You set the idle max-flow rate to get the most efficient use of power, and you're off to the races.
In the big picture, your free energy is coming from the tap water in an open system, as the latent energy in the water is enough to power the engine and hence drive the alternator and whatever belt-driven accessories. And the alternator is efficient enough to run the various electrical loads (10 - 20 amps), including the additional low current to run this vapor reaction. No extra batteries are required.


link

Here is a facinating video about this very idea being field tested.

link


So can someone smarter than myself please tell me why this wouldn't work?
Honestly?
edit on 30-9-2011 by Screwed because: (no reason given)


I've done a lot of research on this myself and the main problem always lies with producing enough current to produce the hydrogen without draining the battery. Many proposals seem sound on paper, but when put into practice end up being flawed. You can deffinatly produce hydrogen, and in turn it will more than likely at the very least decrease the fuel usage. I have witnessed first hand this system working on vespas and smaller generators, but larger vehicles seem to still be out of reach. The key to the solution I believe may be what is called a step up compasitor..its an easy to build device that like an amplifier for your radio, takes in the current and builds it up very rapidly and in turn releases the current all at once thus increasing the output.


"capacitor"

Why is this concept so hard to accept?

There is no such thing as"a step-up capacitor" if you build a "voltage doubler circuit" (a common simple combination of capacitors and diodes) you double the voltage: BUT get "HALF" THE CURRENT.
THE NUMBERS ARE UNAVOIDABLE!

D.C. power in "watts"= voltage x current!

THERE IS ONLY SO MUCH ENERGY THERE!
doesn't matter what flavor you split it up into!
100watts= 10v @ 10 amps
or 100v @ 1amp
or 50 volts at 2 Amps
or25volts @ 4amps
I can do this all day...


Originally posted by mutatismutandis
The key may very well lie in using one or even multiple to increase energy output without draining the vehicle battery.

edit on 2-10-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
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.


I think this is just marketing. I may be wrong but don't two stroke ICEs have a maximum theoretical efficiency of 50%. Electric motors have an efficiency of 80%.

According to this the US versión will have four stroke engine (max efficiency of 25%):

Fiat 500


According to Automotive News, the small, four-seat car will get an EPA rating of 30 mpg city/38 mpg highway for a five-speed manual transmission model. The six-speed automatic is rated at 27 city/34 highway.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post 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



You are absolutely right, RogerT, and I have been feeding this troll, haven't I? I was curious to his agenda, he most certainly has one, being so adamant that this "will not work, no way, no how" way of posting. He does not know anything about this except what he has read on the internet, and believe me there are a great many shills out there trying to make a buck selling these devices. And there are a lot of internet sites that say it will not work, tests have failed to produce results, we are violating the First Law of Thermodynamics, it takes more power to make the HHO than you get out of it, and so on. The trolls who read these sites just do not get it. BIG OIL will do ANYTHING to keep this out of your hands.

Admittedly, my first device was bought from the internet, it was like THIS ONE, a jar type with an acrylic tower with stainless wires wrapped around the tower. After getting to too hot on two occasions, and twisting the acrylic tower all out of shape, I got the idea to use stainless bolts instead of the wires, and my production went way up immediately. I paid nearly $100 for my first one, but now have twin reactors because I now know how it works, and how to construct a reactor. So I faithfully came into this forum to report on my progress, my alterations, and my mistakes, so that others could avoid this trouble. I have to say I got a lot of support, but also a lot of flak. There are people in here, like john_bgmth, and like boncho, who haunt these threads trying to convince us all that it won't work, that we are liars, and that we are trying to scam people. That is simply not the case. I am not selling anything, I would not even install one of these on a car for money, and believe me the offers have been made. One guy offered me $250 to put one on his car. I cannot, in good faith, do this. I told him to photograph it all, I gave him a parts list, and where to obtain the parts, and instructions on how to install it. I have been told to patent my design. why? I serve others, not myself.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


I guess it's easier to label someone a 'troll' to avoid intelligent discussion when the questions get tough, eh? It's like when a child sticks their fingers in their ears and shouts "LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU" when people say things they don't want to hear. "Quick, he's demanding evidence, close the ranks to avoid further debate!"
edit on 2-10-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

I think this is just marketing. I may be wrong but don't two stroke ICEs have a maximum theoretical efficiency of 50%. Electric motors have an efficiency of 80%.

According to this the US versión will have four stroke engine (max efficiency of 25%):

Fiat 500

That's a different car. It is a 4 stroke, 1.4 litre engine. The Fiat 500 TwinAir I linked too is a 2 stroke, 0.875 litre, twin turbo-charged engine. The mpg figures quoted will be from independent tests.

I will ask the HHO advocates again: why didn't the Fiat engineers include an HHO device on the car. Please don't tell me Big Oil stopped them - as that car is more fuel efficient than anything you are driving.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by autowrench
 


I guess it's easier to label someone a 'troll' to avoid intelligent discussion when the questions get tough, eh? It's like when a child sticks their fingers in their ears and shouts "LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU" when people say things they don't want to hear. "Quick, he's demanding evidence, close the ranks to avoid further debate!"
edit on 2-10-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

He called me a Big Oil shill before. Despite the fact that I cycle nearly everywhere, and own a small turbo diesal car for other journeys. He drives a bloody great truck. I will openly call for humanity to drastically reduce it's oil dependence, whereas he just wants cheap gas. Yet somehow I am the Big Oil shill. Go figure.....



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FatherLukeDuke
 


Right but the TwinAir may not be available stateside. The 38 mpg version of the 500 will.

Still don't see how a 50% efficient power plant can beat an 80% efficient plant. While the battery weight brings down the milage the cost of electricty versus gas offsets it. The $1000 dollar electric Geo Metro claims to use 1 kwh every 4 miles. If the kwh costs $0.12 then 70 miles would cost $2.10. That's half what some are paying for gas.
edit on 2-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by autowrench
 


I guess it's easier to label someone a 'troll' to avoid intelligent discussion when the questions get tough, eh? It's like when a child sticks their fingers in their ears and shouts "LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU" when people say things they don't want to hear. "Quick, he's demanding evidence, close the ranks to avoid further debate!"
edit on 2-10-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

He called me a Big Oil shill before. Despite the fact that I cycle nearly everywhere, and own a small turbo diesal car for other journeys. He drives a bloody great truck. I will openly call for humanity to drastically reduce it's oil dependence, whereas he just wants cheap gas. Yet somehow I am the Big Oil shill. Go figure.....

Hah! Same here. I've also been accused of being a "government dis-info agent". At least 2 members have called me "evil" and one a "poisonous snake" simply for demanding evidence. Now it's considered "trolling" to challenge claims and demand evidence to back them up. It really is quite pathetic.
edit on 2-10-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

I will ask the HHO advocates again: why didn't the Fiat engineers include an HHO device on the car. Please don't tell me Big Oil stopped them - as that car is more fuel efficient than anything you are driving.



The Toyota Prius was made with a button on the dash you could push and the car would operate entirely on electric.

The United States forbid Toyota from exporting that car to the United States with that button on the dash. Prius forum members figured out how to add the button to the wiring harness themselves.

Obama also stopped India's Mahindra from exporting those cheap little fuel efficient trucks to America with tiny 4 cylinder diesels. They KNEW Americans would buy them all up....and it would hurt Detroit.

The powers at be do NOT want fuel efficient vehicles in America. They want America buying lots of oil...because the Federal/State Governments generate massive revenue from taxes on it. Oil companies and stock holders also make mega Billions. Plus our Army/Navy/ Air Force NEED billions of gallons of fuel to fly, sail, and drive their vehicles globally. Your excessive use of oil...subsidizes their fuel needs.

They want the worlds oil supply to be depleted. Then America will break out its secret new technologies...and become the Planets new leader.

It used to be the only way to crack the hydrogen bond was electrolysis...took alot of power to release hydrogen. Not anymore. In 2007 American inventor John Kanzius woke up from a dream with an idea. He took 2 of his wife's frying pans and an old Ham radio. One frying pan was the transmitter, the other the receiver. When a glass of salt water was placed in between them....the RF radiation cracked the hydrogen bond...much more efficiently than electrolysis.

He created more energy than he was putting in. They also started using Sonar instead of a Ham radio and emitting RF radiation to crack the Hydrogen bond. They've created mini-stars. Controllable.

We can now use the oceans as a fuel source. The question now is....which country will bring it online first to become the worlds new Messiah.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius

The Toyota Prius was made with a button on the dash you could push and the car would operate entirely on electric.

The United States forbid Toyota from exporting that car to the United States with that button on the dash. Prius forum members figured out how to add the button to the wiring harness themselves.

Obama also stopped India's Mahindra from exporting those cheap little fuel efficient trucks to America with tiny 4 cylinder diesels. They KNEW Americans would buy them all up....and it would hurt Detroit.

The powers at be do NOT want fuel efficient vehicles in America. They want America buying lots of oil...because the Federal/State Governments generate massive revenue from taxes on it. Oil companies and stock holders also make mega Billions. Plus our Army/Navy/ Air Force NEED billions of gallons of fuel to fly, sail, and drive their vehicles globally. Your excessive use of oil...subsidizes their fuel needs.

They want the worlds oil supply to be depleted. Then America will break out its secret new technologies...and become the Planets new leader.

Fiat, Toyota and Mahindra are not American companies so your argument does not in any way explain why these manufactures intent on fuel efficiency are not using so-called "HHO" configs.


It used to be the only way to crack the hydrogen bond was electrolysis...took alot of power to release hydrogen. Not anymore. In 2007 American inventor John Kanzius woke up from a dream with an idea. He took 2 of his wife's frying pans and an old Ham radio. One frying pan was the transmitter, the other the receiver. When a glass of salt water was placed in between them....the RF radiation cracked the hydrogen bond...much more efficiently than electrolysis.

He created more energy than he was putting in. They also started using Sonar instead of a Ham radio and emitting RF radiation to crack the Hydrogen bond. They've created mini-stars. Controllable.

We can now use the oceans as a fuel source. The question now is....which country will bring it online first to become the worlds new Messiah.

It has been stated many times in this thread already, but what the hey: you will spend more energy splitting the hydrogen than you will ever get back as fuel. Period. There is no way around this. Out < In.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
It used to be the only way to crack the hydrogen bond was electrolysis...took alot of power to release hydrogen. Not anymore. In 2007 American inventor John Kanzius woke up from a dream with an idea. He took 2 of his wife's frying pans and an old Ham radio. One frying pan was the transmitter, the other the receiver. When a glass of salt water was placed in between them....the RF radiation cracked the hydrogen bond...much more efficiently than electrolysis.

He created more energy than he was putting in.

That's not what John Kanzius says:



Kanzius admitted that this process could not be considered an energy source, as more energy is used to produce the RF signal than can be obtained from the burning gas and stated in July 2007 that he never claimed his discovery would replace oil, asserting only that his discovery was "thought provoking."
(from his Wiki)



They also started using Sonar instead of a Ham radio and emitting RF radiation to crack the Hydrogen bond. They've created mini-stars.

No they didn't.



We can now use the oceans as a fuel source.

No we can't.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 




Now it's considered "trolling" to challenge claims and demand evidence to back them up. It really is quite pathetic.


The "evidence," my friend, is in the people who are using HHO generators on their vehicles. Have you seen one? Have you performed a test for mileage on an HHO equipped engine? Or do just believe what you read on the internet in blogs and articles posted by those who wish to kill this idea? Popular Mechanics have printed a lot of things that simply not true, it is a magazine, and their "test" was not conclusive, at least not to me. I am not a scientist, and have no scientific testing equipment, or a lab. I am an automobile mechanic that is looking for ways to make my big truck, which no car would serve our purpose as well as the van does. I drove a 1987 Nissan Sentra for a few years, and it's little four cylinder engine got no better mileage that my truck does now. I really wish you could see my setup working, I am sure you would change your mind.
Remember, you started this argument. I offer an apology to you for calling you a troll. But no matter how much you post against this, it does work to reduce mileage, not to mention cleaning out you engine from the things that kill it, carbon and sulphur, and running a clean engine means less pollution. And the best thing is, it's really neat to have one! People will come up to admire it, and ask questions about it.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
That's quite enough personal attacks.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
here is another one. www.rexresearch.com...



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


Yes, ignoring these guys is the solution I found works best.

It does puzzle me to see so many conservative thinkers participating so vehemently to police an alternative thinking website? Reminds me of missionaries trecking off into the Jungle to bring spiritual truth to the savages


I've a lifetime of experience with stuff science can't measure or even acknowledge exists, so I've developed an attitude of "I believe you, now show me the evidence" which apparently is akin to sticking my fingers in my ears and yelling lalalala. However, an attitude of "if it isn't in the peer reviewed literature it doesn't exist or is fake" is apperently good science


Notice how john_bgmth still didn't address a simple chemical equation which together with a bit of math shows how 20% more energy is available from combining HHO than it takes to split them (according to Puharic). I don't know if this is accurate or not, so I asked the self proclaimed scientist to explain where the fallacy lies. But apparently, unless I can find a peer reviewed paper that quotes the same equation, it's below him to bother with it.

Hang on a minute - "la la la la la la la la la la la..."



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join