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: 13
13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 

Read my posts, I addressed all of your questions. I asked if you had the credentials to validate the paper yourself, as in this post here:



Roger_T, let's turn your argument around. You expect me to trawl through his website and pick through his "Chemistry and Math". You seem to accept his "paper" as valid, so I want to know on what basis. Evidently it's passed your personal peer-review so I'm assuming you have relevant qualifications. Do you have a PhD in chemistry and are you active in the area of research your PhD was awarded in? No? Lets leave it to the experts then, that's what the peer-review process is for. Post up the peer-reviewed research of his that supports his (and your) claims.

I don't have a a PhD in chemistry but I am a PhD student in an unrelated field who has research both accepted and rejected for publication through the peer review process so I'm intimately familiar with the strict requirements for good, sound research that is required for publication in credible journals. I am absolutely confident that the referees reviewing on behalf of credible journals pertinent to the relevant fields of research have the credentials and experience to assess whether Mr. Puharic's results and methodology are valid and sound. I don't accept his claims at face value and I certainly don't hold your vouch for him in high regard seeing as you do not have the credentials and training to confidently asses his findings. Let's see what the experts say, post up his journal publications that support his claims!

So enough side-stepping, enough straw man diversions, enough ducking the burden of proof and shifting it on to me, post up the peer-reviewed research that Mr. Puharic has published in credible journals that demonstrates he is indeed getting more energy out of the hydrogen splitting process than he is putting in. As they say, "put up or shut up". Enough excuses!


So, Roger_T, what are your credentials? What gives you the credibility to validate Mr. Puharic's results and methodology? Or are you going to avoid the issue and resort to personal insults again?
edit on 3-10-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Justoneman
 


This might become interesting: TATA hydroelectric car

Basically your ideas are correct: one process generates the hydrogen, which then is burned in a fuel cell creating the electricity, and runs the car. Hydrogen is generated in a process mimicing photosynthesis (few alternative techniques exists).

Their ambition is to get a working example in matter of few years, which might be a hard push - but will result something within perceivable future.

If not then molested to death by oil companies.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 

here is stan meyers indepent test www.waterfuelcell.org...



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
reply to post by john_bmth
 

here is stan meyers indepent test www.waterfuelcell.org...

Right, so I downloaded the pdf and had a skim. There's a bunch of patent applications along with some dodgy "paper" that was published at a non peer-reviewed conference followed by all sorts of random stuff like scans of textbooks other strange, non-pertinent things. Care to highlight exactly where in this 140 page nonsensical mish mash of random stuff is the independent laboratory tests that demonstrate over unity?



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
reply to post by john_bmth
 

here is stan meyers indepent test www.waterfuelcell.org...

Right, so I downloaded the pdf and had a skim. There's a bunch of patent applications along with some dodgy "paper" that was published at a non peer-reviewed conference followed by all sorts of random stuff like scans of textbooks other strange, non-pertinent things. Care to highlight exactly where in this 140 page nonsensical mish mash of random stuff is the independent laboratory tests that demonstrate over unity?


my apologies clearly it is beyond your understanding



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Ok, John_bmth greedy for your oil buddy's eh? Perhaps not.

Here is a simple demonstration of a magnet doing work while SITTING STILL for your benefit. This is a freshman level observation in physics taught at many university's. I know I taught it during one year many moons ago while a Grad student.

Take a compass and lay it near a magnet and move the compass about slowly being careful to mark precisely where the arrow points as you move around all sides of the magnet, Connect the dots and you will begin to notice the magnetic field. That magnetic field can and will do work if your smart enough to employ the right angles of the field. My guess, since you've established for me that your not really going to think for yourself or dare to truly notice the Kinetic Potential, that you might not think magnets do any real 'work'. And, to answer your earlier question, magnets did not fit exaclty into this discussion but it applies in that there are other examples of concepts I feel your missing out knowing anything about. Just so that you could have had a chance to have useful commentary to add to a thread of such proportion and interest to so many of us here.

As far as calling anytihng you don't understand over-unity so you may off- handedly dismiss it, does not give credence to some perceived error of mathematics in the physics examples. Simply put, the sun and a solar panel are enough to bypass the insulting comments about "it takes too much energy in the long run, therefore it is not a good idea'. Perhaps, it does take too much energy if you don't have a cheap way to bypass that problems. Since that is solved, we need to be able to purchase devices that work on HHO, period. Some fat cat has held us back for his profit to teh detriment of children needing to put food in their mouths due to unecessary costs. He is going to be wanting to preserve his $ kingdom and we all know it. The game for this theivery is about over John and the idiots don't even know it yet but many of those who are ignorant are getting a genuine desire to get an education in these matters. Science WILL lead the way.

The desire of true science is to follow the data, where ever it leads. Today it is HHO and solar energy tp produce it. A Win-win for the little man. Through this, we can get out from under high cost of fuel. Plus, quit giving money to nations and people that have supllies of oil only to use it to fund attacks on freedom everywhere.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
Care to highlight exactly where in this 140 page nonsensical mish mash of random stuff is the independent laboratory tests that demonstrate over unity?


He cannot , as there has been no such test. Meyer is just another convicted fraudster



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by john_bmth
Care to highlight exactly where in this 140 page nonsensical mish mash of random stuff is the independent laboratory tests that demonstrate over unity?


He cannot , as there has been no such test. Meyer is just another convicted fraudster


Wow!.. It's amazing to me that on a conspiracy theory web site people can be so blantently close minded even in the face of the proven facts. Prove me wrong if you can.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
Wow!.. It's amazing to me that on a conspiracy theory web site people can be so blantently close minded even in the face of the proven facts.


very true, as some people refuse to accept that Meyer was found guilty of fraud, and was forced to return money to investors.. That is a proven fact, that some people refuse to accept.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
Wow!.. It's amazing to me that on a conspiracy theory web site people can be so blantently close minded even in the face of the proven facts.


very true, as some people refuse to accept that Meyer was found guilty of fraud, and was forced to return money to investors.. That is a proven fact, that some people refuse to accept.


Yes and the courts found O.J. simpson innocent. Clearly the courts are a fountain of truth and a pillar of reliability. Especially when it comes to scientific issues. Is that going to be the basis of your arguement? Or do you have some actual information to bring forward.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
Is that going to be the basis of your arguement?


The basis of your argument is a convicted fraud, who is unable to provide any independent tests of his device, says it works, so I believe him when he claims it works



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
Is that going to be the basis of your arguement?


The basis of your argument is a convicted fraud, who is unable to provide any independent tests of his device, says it works, so I believe him when he claims it works


I'll take that as a yes... you are going to base your argument on a bogus court case performed by an extremely flawed legal system. Congrats, should come up with some scientific evidence that water fuel cells don't work than feel free to let me know.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
should come up with some scientific evidence that water fuel cells don't work than feel free to let me know.


It is up to the one making the claim to prove that claim, not for others to disprove it - which you are unable to do, as no independent testing was done on it.

you know that they are frauds when they are unable to back up the claim that they make.
edit on 4-10-2011 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


I am very skeptical of these type of claims, at the same time I think the idea is worth pursuing. I have experimented with electrolysis units in an old diesel (with no engine electronics at all). While my electrolysis units were larger (I used two), it was not as sophisticated as this system claims to be. Instead of a fully pressurized fuel system it was designed more as a combustion aid and relied on the produced gas being sucked into the intake manifold. It was powered with straight DC current from the alternator/battery.

I am very skeptical of being able to separate enough gas to run a car as per the video. At a certain current (20A) I found the unit put out enough heat as a result of the electrolysis process to be dangerous, perhaps the electronically modulated pulse works more efficiently? Using the formula P=IE gives roughly around 280 W power usage per unit (where I= 20A E= 13.9V). I notice in the video they use one standard plastic water filter housing at a significant amperage.

In the end I did find benefits. The engine ran smoother and seemed to have slightly different torque characteristics. The lack of fumes was also noticeable, to the point that you could put your nose at the tailpipe without being able to smell anything at all. The results with fuel economy were not as impressive though. The engine was less efficient and actually used more fuel. Not a great deal, around the same loss as with the air conditioner running (consistently about 0.3 - 0.5 litre's per 100km more fuel used), which, when I think about it makes sense. I still think it will always take more energy to produce the fuel than it can give out (under unity).

This was in contrast to the claims of all types of fuel efficient miracles, which (IMO only) pertain to bogus claims and snake oil salesman. Though I am prepared to be convinced if anyone could genuinely substantiate such claims.



edit on 4-10-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
These day we read a lot about "hybrid cars". Generating electric energy from motion might be one idea, but in my opinion not a pretty good one.

A friend of mine has done his own "research". He just loves to play around with some technologies and since 2 or 3 years he attempted to run his car on hydrogen. Which of course is generated by the car from an onboard water tank.

What he and his friend achieved so far, is that they use the alternator to generator hydrogen and mix it together somehow with the air/petrol mix in the combustion chamber. That way they save around 30% of petrol.

For many people, the idea might sound crazy to run a car from water. But it isn't. Its not like the cars is running from nothing. The challenge of course (and that was mentioned many times in this thread) is to find an effective way to split H20 into oxygen and hydrogen. In the past some seem to have achieved that, but they have all one thing in common, they are dead...
edit on 4.10.2011 by C64Warrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Hydrogen, is not the way to go for new fuel technology. It's a scam the same as gasoline otherwise car builders wouldn't be interested. There's an air powered car in India, the US wont allow it on US roads their reason? It's too light weight. Hmm what about mopeds? What about Smart cars? Or VW dune buggies or anything else on the road vs. a semi? The real reason? Air currently is f-ing free aside from a few cents of electricity to compress it which could be generated by the automobiles movement. I am not supporting Indias car directly, just showing an example that there are much less complicated ways to power automobiles, if one puts their mind to it.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
here is another one. www.rexresearch.com...


This is a water powered car. www.rexresearch.com...



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by C64Warrior
What he and his friend achieved so far, is that they use the alternator to generator hydrogen and mix it together somehow with the air/petrol mix in the combustion chamber. That way they save around 30% of petrol.

edit on 4.10.2011 by C64Warrior because: (no reason given)


I am very interested in this concept. I have experimented the same way as your friend, the difference being a slight loss in fuel economy. I'm not saying your freind is not successful with this, though all I have ever seen are unsubstantiated claims, often from people selling such technology.

It would be nice to have these claims verified with some simple scientific testing from a genuine unbiased 3rd party. Until then I will stick with what I have found.
edit on 4-10-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Maybe I can get him, to join the thread. But I don't think that he is here on ATS.

But I need to agree that we should get rid of the combustion engines. So many mechanical parts, only capable of lasting a certain amount of time. Replacement of all these parts is part of the business and part of the problem. Most people forget, that the production of all these spare parts needs lots of energy too.

Cars could be so much simpler, with an electric engine. When I look today at all these remote controlled toys and the brushless motors, I am really impressed. But we are still lacking the idea, how the car could generate the electric power, necessary to run the motors. I am not a fan of batteries...



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by hudsonhawk69
 


...or you haven't actually read it properly yourself and assumed that because it looked vaguely technical (even though it is clearly a bluff), that it must be valid evidence. Seeing as it's clearly within your awsome comprehension skills, how about you give the rest of us a hand and point out the pertinent bits? Or are you bluffing because you were taken in by the pseudo-science yourself?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join