Plans for a water powered car.

Originally posted by Justoneman
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's your hand that is doing the work, not the magnet. Basic error. Magnetic fields are conservative.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by john_bmth

 

It's already been tested by 3 expert witnesses.

And who were these expert witnesses?

(Second Line)

Fancy trawling through the court records to find out? I know I don't as I have no reason to think there's a cover up. However if you think it's all part of some conspiracy, it's down to you to present evidence that the expert witnesses were either not credible or part of said conspiracy. Again, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claims.

reply to post by john_bmth

Fancy trawling through the court records to find out? I know I don't as I have no reason to think there's a cover up. However if you think it's all part of some conspiracy, it's down to you to present evidence that the expert witnesses were either not credible or part of said conspiracy. Again, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claims.

This coming from someone claiming to KNOW that the device doesn't work, because wikipedia said that 3 "expert witnesses" said so, with no source for the information, Nor any evidence that these EXPERTS were more than actors.

Look, I'm not saying that it DOES work.... All I am saying is that YOU cannot say that it DOESN'T work, because you have absolutely no evidence for your claim.

Therefore, your CLAIM that it DOESN'T work, has the EXACT same weight, as the proponents OF the Meyers cell.

A. The "Proof" that you are citing comes from wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...

In 1996, Meyer was sued by two investors to whom he had sold dealerships, offering the right to do business in Water Fuel Cell technology. His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary, University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed.[3] According to Meyer the technology was patent pending and under investigation by the patent office, the Department of Energy and the military.[14] His "water fuel cell" was later examined by three expert witnesses in court who found that there "was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and that it was simply using conventional electrolysis". The court found Meyer guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered him to repay the two investors their $25,000.[3]

That [3] in the extracted text, links to a footnote claiming that this information was published in a Sunday Times article from December 1st, 1996, entitled "End of road for car that ran on Water", on page 12.

Now... You have not Read the Article, you don't know WHO the experts were, nor do you have any reason to ASSUME that they were actually experts in their field...

Secondly, you don't have the court transcripts from the Lawsuit that you are basing your argument upon....

Therefore, Claiming KNOWLEDGE, when you so clearly LACK it, is basically quite childish, since you are telling everyone else to mind their p's and q's regarding proof and whatnot.

Your entire position is based upon untestable hearsay.


Secondly, I am not actually MAKING any claims.... contrary to what you are presuming, YOU are the one who is making the claim...

You are claiming that the Invention was proven not to work by "3 expert witnesses"

And I am contesting this information.


You see, at this point, I don't even care if the blasted cell works or not.... because I have lost interest.

But when someone claims to KNOW something, they they CAN'T POSSIBLY KNOW, then I get sort of angry.

So.... yeah.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

One more time: by default, the claims are false until evidence is presented to support them, ergo the device DOESN'T work unless evidence is provided to demonstrate that it DOES work. All you are doing is attempting to move the goal posts by pushing the burden of proof away from the claimant.

You can't prove that I'm NOT the second coming of Jesus Christ, therefore it has as much validity as myself who claims I AM the second coming of Jesus Christ. See how logically that argument doesn't hold up?

reply to post by john_bmth

One more time:

Yes... One more time...

I am not claiming that the Device Works.

*YOU* are making the claim that you have EVIDENCE That the device DOESN'T work.

You are claiming that you have PROOF that the Device was Dis-proven.

Whether or not the device actually WORKS or not is irrelevant, because that is not what is under discussion.

What *IS* under discussion, is your CLAIM that the device was DISPROVEN by "Expert Witnesses"



Oh, and By the Way? Just in Case you were Wondering?

Office of Fayette County Clerk of Common Pleas,
3rd floor, 110 E. Court Street, Washington Court House, Ohio 43160

Willis, Richard R. Etal vs. Meyer, Stanley A.
Case Number: 93CVH0292

Page 5:

07/23/1996
DEF REQUEST FOR NEW HEARING OR DISMISSAL DUE TO DEFENSE COUNSEL SUPPRESSING DEF WFC DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED & DEFENSE COUNSEL REFUSAL TO CALL WFC SITNESSES FOR REBUTTAL & PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL DELIBERATE SUBVERSION & TAMPERING WITH

(REQUEST CONT) WFC EVIDENCE & DEF DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW COPY OF REQUEST MAILED TO JUDGE CORZINE

08/05/1996
DEFENDANT REQUEST FOR NEW TRIAL/DISMISSAL DUE TO PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL DELIBERATE SUBVERSION & TAMPERING W/WFC DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT---CONTINUATION IN PART----COPY OF TOP SHEET MAILED TO JUDGE CORZINE

08/28/1996
DEFENDANT REQUEST FOR NEW TRIAL /DISMISSAL DUE TO PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL DELIBERATE SUBVERSION AND TAMPERING WITH WFC DOCUMEN TS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT CONTINUATION IN PART.

Page 6:

09/04/1996
DEFENDANT REQUEST FOR NEW TRIAL/DISMISSAL DUE TO PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL DELIBERATE SUBVERSION AND TAMPERING WITH WFC DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT--CONTINUATIONIN PART (4), AFF OF DR. RUSSELL E. FOWLER, AND EXHIBIT A36 & A37

I found that part very interesting.

What I found even more interesting, was the complete lack of the "Expert Witnesses" testimony from that court case.

So, where are they?

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Eh? A defendant can request a new trial/dismissal for any reason they like, it doesn't make it true. He could request a new trial due to aliens tampering with the evidence if he likes. Any convicted fraudster will say they're innocent, that's why they're fraudsters. They don't hold their hands up and say "fair cop guv" when convicted. Again, you need to provide EVIDENCE for this claim.

reply to post by john_bmth

Eh? A defendant can request a new trial/dismissal for any reason they like, it doesn't make it true. He could request a new trial due to aliens tampering with the evidence if he likes. Any convicted fraudster will say they're innocent, that's why they're fraudsters. They don't hold their hands up and say "fair cop guv" when convicted. Again, you need to provide EVIDENCE for this claim.

For the *THIRD TIME*

I am not claiming anything.

*YOU* are claiming that "Expert Witnesses" *PROVED* that his device didn't work.


Where is YOUR evidence?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Eh? A defendant can request a new trial/dismissal for any reason they like, it doesn't make it true. He could request a new trial due to aliens tampering with the evidence if he likes. Any convicted fraudster will say they're innocent, that's why they're fraudsters. They don't hold their hands up and say "fair cop guv" when convicted. Again, you need to provide EVIDENCE for this claim.

For the *THIRD TIME*

I am not claiming anything.

*YOU* are claiming that "Expert Witnesses" *PROVED* that his device didn't work.


Where is YOUR evidence?

Go get hold of the actual court records (if that's allowed) and find out who the expert witnesses were. If you're claiming that the expert witnesses didn't exist and that the news coverage was false or that they were involved in a cover up, you need to supply evidence for this.

Regardless, none of this is actually relevant because even if you did provide evidence for any of these scenarios, it doesn't in any way validate his claims as there is no evidence that his fuel cell did as claimed.

The burden of proof is on YOU. By default, his claims are false unless evidence is provided to support them. Likewise, your claims of a cover up are false unless you can provide evidence to support themHowever, the latter is completely irrelevant as only the former is pertinent to his claims.

reply to post by john_bmth

Go get hold of the actual court records (if that's allowed) and find out who the expert witnesses were.

There weren't any.

I linked you the case number, did you even read it?

There is no record to testimony.

And since YOU Are the one claiming that "Expert Witnesses" have disproven the meyers cell, the Burden of Proof falls on YOU to establish that these "Expert Witnesses" even exist.

If you're claiming that the expert witnesses didn't exist

No, You are claiming that these Witnesses DO exist... therefore, YOU must supply evidence that your claim is TRUE.

This is HOW the Burden of Proof WORKS.

Good luck finding this "Expert Testimony", by the way.

reply to post by Screwed


please exuse my bad spelling and grammer. i think the laws of thermodynamics are probably against you, it would have to be so perfectly tuned and balaned to ever come anywhere close to operating neutral. but why not try to supplement it by adding solar panels to charge your deep cycle batterys or even plug it in at night to charge it. also look into regenerative braking systems from a hybrid like the toyota prius, might get lucky and find one at a wrekers.and if you could manege to get a turbo to spin a generator/alternator exhaust gas is just wasted energy, and i have also been thinking of experimenting with fractal arrays insted of old the tube array used in miers cell. keep up the good work the world need more thinkers, think of how many thing where thought impossible untill someone took the time to figure it out

Why all the fighting? I haven't seen any constructive opinions. Its all over unity this... and it can never be done that. How about we try and figure out? People have reported doing it all over the place. Check out youtube if the videos haven't been taken down. People consistently have to repost videos all the time just to get the truth out Stop fighting it (and with each other) and just post constructive info and ignore all the bull# people say. If I didn't want the truth to get out, I'd pick a fight with a bunch of people so nothing can get done.

Start researching. For those interested....

waterpoweredcar.com...

Originally posted by curran736
Why all the fighting? I haven't seen any constructive opinions. Its all over unity this... and it can never be done that. How about we try and figure out? People have reported doing it all over the place. Check out youtube if the videos haven't been taken down. People consistently have to repost videos all the time just to get the truth out Stop fighting it (and with each other) and just post constructive info and ignore all the bull# people say. If I didn't want the truth to get out, I'd pick a fight with a bunch of people so nothing can get done.

Start researching. For those interested....

waterpoweredcar.com...

I have gone to some effort to experiment with this idea. That is why I am sceptical. Do you know of any genuine controlled testing by credible third parties that would validate any of these type of claims. I would be genuinely interested in this. Thanks.

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)

Sure, I can tell you how to do this without it being a mystery. You can take what these guys have in this video as it's displacing the water in to H2 and O by separating the H2O. You probably did an experiment when you were a kid that show you how this works. Go here to see it H2O

Then when the H2O is split in one of the chambers you grab the O2 and the H and re-combine them again into your engine with an injector. When the H2 and O hit each other they will cause fire. believe it or not. Instead of smoke as the by-product of the re-action of H2 and O you get steam. Then you take the steam and from the exhaust pipe and put the steam through a condenser and condense it back to water. Put the water back into your reservoir and whoola, the process starts all over again.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Justoneman

 

You haven't even bothered to read my replies, have you? Nor did you even read the links you posted up:

To get hydrogen to fuel the car, Dr. Ricketts and his team separate hydrogen out of water using electricity through the process of electrolysis. To make it a greener process, their electricity comes from solar energy.

They're using an external power source to split the hydrogen (solar). No over unity. Nothing to do with Me. Meyer's "invention" or any of the others mentioned in this thread. If you're going to accuse someone of talking nonsense, best make sure you get your own story straight first.

John, your missing the point on the magnet. The compass is pointing to the location of a 'field'. IF you would entertain that idea and what a 'field' in this case means you will have an ahhhh moment. Maybe, I would not be surprised one way or another based on your posts.

The concepts of HHO can be made to efficiently work, it has happened as Ricketts used Hydrogen gas in the presence of Oxygen after splitting it from water. It matters not where the initial energy comes from if you can get it cheap. Plus it makes oil just goo again. If this one being described here on this thread is really a bozo, so be it. I am not trying to claim anything in that manner anyway.

Other viable ideas have been left behind for these oil barons. Proof for me was found after the EPA comments but I also believe there is a documentable fact that Maxwell's equations were re-written by someone , whom(?) I can't recall the exact details, someone reading may have to bail me out on this one. This happened not too long AFTER Tesla had studied them and I think you would concede Nikola his place in history, it was fantastic.Yet we know of some of his inventions and read where his work was absorbed by our Government years ago only to stay secret. I've read a lot about this and bought his book of patents which explain the obvious stuff but not all the things described in his autobiography. There were some ideas about free energy that Emanuel Velekovksy would love since it related to the electric universe which electricity in space does seems very plausible to me watching SOHO recordings. Free energy from our Solar System is what Tesla was working on when he invented transmitters and especially receivers. Something other than what we've been taught officially is the truth is my conviction and you will remain sheep if you continue down that path of not believing something wonderful is there for the taking that scoundrels would keep from mankind. It is certain.

reply to post by Screwed


Not to mention that the guy that previously came up with these schematics mysteriously "dissappeared" back in the day when the original information of this came out. the idea has been around forever, the earth is covered in it for pete's peppers. A better idea for running a vehicle would be, instead of using a "limited" resource of our planet we should be running vehicles off of "unlimited" energy such as electrostatics that can be harnessed motionlessly (via MEG, ( Motionless Electrostatic Generator) ) and power cars that way. more efficient, less costly.

Originally posted by Justoneman
It matters not where the initial energy comes from if you can get it cheap.

You've entirely missed the point of this thread.

The OP didn't ask if it was possible to run a car on hydrogen from some random source where the source doesn't matter. That wasn't the question, it's not the topic. Of course a car can run on hydrogen, and nobody denies that so there's not much discussion there, beyond "you can run a car on hydrogen" and "I agree". Right?

The topic is, can you split the hydrogen using the car's alternator, essentially running the car on water? That's a specific question about a specific source and the source of the energy to split the HHO matters in that case because it's specified in the OP.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The answer to that question of your is yes, you can split the atoms using the alternator. You would simply hook up the positive lead and negative lead from the alternator to two copper rods for the experiment submerged in water. while the alternator runs it would produce the + and - charge to the rods and the would split the water atoms into gas bubble at the top of the reservoir. You would then capture the hydrogen on one side and the oxygen on the other. No problem at all.

Your only problem with water for long term use is the rods. You would really need either gold, platinum or palladium rods to be perfect as neither gold nor palladium will rust in water. You can also use a hybrid metal used in jewelry called Nambe wear metal. It's an alloy and again won't rust, but will conduct.

In all practicality you would need a reservoir of plastic and nothing that would corrode with water. Building a automobile would be costly as the gold or alloys would eat you up.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Justoneman
It matters not where the initial energy comes from if you can get it cheap.

You've entirely missed the point of this thread.

The OP didn't ask if it was possible to run a car on hydrogen from some random source where the source doesn't matter. That wasn't the question, it's not the topic. Of course a car can run on hydrogen, and nobody denies that so there's not much discussion there, beyond "you can run a car on hydrogen" and "I agree". Right?

The topic is, can you split the hydrogen using the car's alternator, essentially running the car on water? That's a specific question about a specific source and the source of the energy to split the HHO matters in that case because it's specified in the OP.

edit on 4-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Hell you can run a car on "woodgas" you just can't grow a tree outof the trunk.to feed the" gassifier"

Truly, you can run HHO on the alternater of a car motor provided you charge a battery externally for use when you start the usage because it WILL lose some energy to diminishing returns in the process. The whole problem has really been naysayers and lazy people not incorporating the brain God gave man. All of the lazy ones, are thanks to the dumbing down of society to balance out the haves and have nots. Something for another thread. Some of the naysayers are obviously bought and paid for by the aristrocrat classes of old times. The "pigmallion effect" works both ways. If you presuppose failure you cannot succeed. Certianly, I would think all those crazy inventors who dared to think outside the standard pardigm of their day, were presupposing success. That is one concept that explains how things work that people need to understand or they are doomed to repeat failure like in the movie "Groundhogs Day".

You can do HHO, you just have to want to do so.


TPTB need to get all the oil first appears to be the news here too.

reply to post by Justoneman


No one has said you can't run a car on hydrogen. No one has said you can't split hydrogen in situ using an external power source. You accuse people of being lazy, well read the thread before arguing about things nobody has implied.