Plans for a water powered car.

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Screwed
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Yeah, I think we all know where you stand on the subject now so,..........thanks for your input.

Rather than get my information from ONE source who says "Don't waste your time, it can't be done"
I am going to listen to the people who HAVE tried and gotten results.
I am not opposed to the idea of increasing my gas milage using HHO as a suppliment.
Apparently YOU ARE!
That's cool with me though.
To each his own.

I appreciate your input though.
It appears that there is no way to produce ENOUGH HHO using the cars alternator, to run the car, from what you are saying. But it could produce SOME!
Some is better than NONE!

My ears are still open and I am willing to learn more because I don't claim to know it all nor do I pretend to.
I know what I was told was possible all my life but I also have reason to believe I may have been either lied to
or given information that is innacurate by people who themselves were only "repeaters" for the information that they were given.

I am ready to find out for myself.
AFTER I find out for myself, I will report back and then you can tell me that what I found out is not possible
and you will be allowed to remain safely in your bubble and I will be allowed to explore the possibilities that you were afraid to explore. Everybody wins!!


you said it perfectly... "Some is better than NONE!"

we are not talking about a perpetual motion machine (which is impossible according to modern physics)
the closed minded one here thinks that we are claiming this technology as a perpetuum mobile.
he's holding some kind of grudge against All these "free energy" threads... now i see why he was so hostile towards me

i am glad that your ears are open to all of the possibilities... we could have been deceived or given inaccurate information is very possible!
please don't forget to report back on what you find out for yourself!
i will be looking forward to your findings...
and good luck with your experiments




posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Screwed
reply to post by SavedOne
 


Last time I checked,
water was the most abundant natural resouce on the face of the planet.
Correct me if I am wrong.


The difference is YOU NEED IT TO RUN YOUR INTERNAL ENGINE ALSO-CORRECT?. So again where is the logic in using it for fuel unless you can produce a CLEAN way for the output steam exhaust to reenter the atmosphere and rain again you will eventually run out and when it starts getting low WAR WAR WAR... And expensive water. Expensive shower-drinks on all scales- farming due to needed water increases farm produce ect. Its just no good..

just sayen NOT A GOOD IDEA SALT OR FRESH MY FRIEND..
edit on 9/30/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)
edit on 9/30/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by EmilNomel

you said it perfectly... "Some is better than NONE!"

we are not talking about a perpetual motion machine (which is impossible according to modern physics)
the closed minded one here thinks that we are claiming this technology as a perpetuum mobile.
he's holding some kind of grudge against All these "free energy" threads... now i see why he was so hostile towards me

i am glad that your ears are open to all of the possibilities... we could have been deceived or given inaccurate information is very possible!
please don't forget to report back on what you find out for yourself!
i will be looking forward to your findings...
and good luck with your experiments

Excuse me? I've been "hostile" towards you? I challenge you to quote exactly WHERE I've been hostile to you. Methinks you're engaging in some more flaw projection. After all, you were the one accusing me of being jealous, greedy, ashamed, child-like, egotistical, insensitive, evil, a liar, closed-minded, ignorant and more. All the while you've not addresses even one of my rebuttals.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 

anyway... what i like about this technology is that it's a hybrid and easily adaptable to any internal combustion engine car or truck!
someone here suggested that it would be cheaper to just use an "electric car" (battery only powered car) that maybe true... but, what would you do when your batteries run out in the middle of nowhere? plus you have to purchase the whole new electric only vehicle

an HHO hybrid car you can run it with gasoline and/or gasoline + hydrogen... and if you happen to run out of gas in the middle of nowhere it's not as bad as being with a "battery only car" for you can find a gallon or two of gasoline much more easier from helpful travelers or near by gas stations than having to find an electrical recharge station and carrying very heavy batteries underneath your arms.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I did experiment for a whilst using a home made hydrogen fuel cell, and i did manage to get increased miles per gallon.
but there is a downside that i was not aware of until i tried it.
the hydrogen comes from water, the hydrogen and water vapour both go into the cylinder (you cannot completely stop this), after a while this water vapour attacks the piston and valve heads :- deteriorating the surface area.
the only way to stop this is to strip your engine down and have the pistons and valves heads coated with a ceramic layer, which incidentally doesn't come cheap.
i also found that a car which has a computerised engine management system doesn't work properly with hydrogen fuel cells as the computer is programed to only allow the car's engine to run at specific air/fuel ratio's i.e the computer fights against the increased fuel economy gained by the fuel cell.
you would therefore have to install your hydrogen fuel cells on a car which is rather old and doesn't have a computerised control system managing air and fuel mixes.
another problem comes from the materials available for construction, after a while metal used for the coils/plates (marine grade alloy) in the cell deteriorates and this eventually causes a very large short, the only way to stop this is to use another type of metal which is currently restricted because of it's military use as the casing for atomic devices. until this material is allowed to be sold for general use effective hydrogen fuel cells are unobtainable for your average person.

I was also toying with the idea of an electric car which doesn't need to be recharged, i.e it generates the power it needs in the vehicle, one idea was to remove the engine ect and install a large industrial motor connected to the gear box in the car and using a series of magneto's driven by the motion of the vehicle along with alternators to keep the batteries going this would also require some power inverters.
the other option is to build a car from scratch and have individual motors for each wheel each with it's own power inverter, magneto and alternator, the catch with this is controlling the speed of the vehicle as the smallest of variances can cause a large difference in speed.
these systems would both require a boot full of deep cell batteries and one hell of a multi charging circuit.

There is a car manufacturer in japan that made an engine run on compressed air, with the car having an in built compressor and storage tank, that design is very feasable at the moment, along with electric cars, water cars :- it's just too hard to get the correct grade of materials.

in the early 1980's GM mada a car which was electric and didn't need recharged, the cars were sent to select clients for trial and after getting the results they hid the designs, took the cars back and crushed them down to door height, these cars are still sitting half crushed on the car transporters at the back of GM's storage facility.

in the mid 1960's there was a water based car called hydro, the car now sits inside a museum, the designs are patented and not allowed to be replicated.

in the 1980's stanley myres built a water fusion generator and was getting ready to release it, well you know what happened to him.

in the 1990's in larkhall, scotland, an inventer designed a spark plug replacement which would allow a car to run on any type of water, including mud water, he refused to sell out, built himself a large shed in his garden and was about to mass produce them, you can guess what happened to him.

there have been hundereds of varying designes over the years and the inventers either sold out or just vanished.

our governments and the oil/gas company's would stop at nothing to ensure we don't have these technologies, be careful if you get one working.

on a positive note, honda and mg both have a car which runs on hydrogen fuel cells, in their breifing they stated that the fuel cells would last for 250,000 miles before they ran out, both these cars are currently banned from sale everywhere except japan, you aren't even allowed to import one, the car manufacturers weren't even allowed to import one as a demonstration of the technology. i also remember reading somewhere that honda could very easily mass produce these at the same price as your average saloon car.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
My dad has a friend at work that is somewhat of a genius and was curious about the hydrogen powered car. He found out a man had invented it and was fully function-able! The bad news was that the man was mysteriously killed and all of his work was destroyed. My dad's friend was still focused on "re-inventing" it and he ended up running into a few problems with it and gave up, but apparently he was really close to finishing it.

This thread just reminded of that story. My apologies if it's not on-topic. The main point is just to watch out if you are successful because not only will the oil companies be mad but TPTB seems to like using the need for oil in many occasions.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sytec
our governments and the oil/gas company's would stop at nothing to ensure we don't have these technologies, be careful if you get one working.

that's so true!



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by EmilNomel
 


While these are valid points they are reaching a bit. First off you would probably still be better off running a gas/diesel generator to charge the battery in a car with an electic engine than splitting water and feeding it to an ICE.

If your batteries run out in the middle of nowhere then that's just bad planning. Sure it's easier to get gas but no one really heads out cross country with half a tank of gas so why would you try going past the range of your electric car.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
Do your research before posting that something you now nothing about won't work, please?
Reading your post is all the proof I need it doesn't work...

You're still using gas.

If it worked as you claim, you wouldn't need gas, you could run your car on water.

So you're proving it doesn't work without any help from me.


Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by autowrench
 


For the millionth time already: You will spent more energy splitting the hydrogen than you will get back as fuel. If you believe otherwise, by all means present your findings to the scientific community for scrutiny and collect your Nobel prize before joining the mortal ranks among the likes of Newton and Einstein.

For the 1,000,001th time: You will spent more energy splitting the hydrogen than you will get back as fuel

That's why autowrench uses gas for his HHO system.

Autowrench, you're contradicting yourself, If you got more energy from burning your HHO than making it, you would NOT NEED GAS! So you're proving john_bmth right by using gas.
edit on 30-9-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification john_bmth



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sytec
in the early 1980's GM mada a car which was electric and didn't need recharged,


Wrong again,

It took the NiMH-equipped cars as much as eight hours for the cars to charge to full capacity (though an 80% charge could be achieved in between one and three hours)...The home charger provided by GM, which was required for "fast recharging" of the car, measured roughly 1.5 by 2 by 5 feet (0.45 x 0.60 x 1.50 m), and featured integrated heatsinks and a resemblance to a gasoline pump.

en.wikipedia.org...

So it certainly did need recharging!



in the mid 1960's there was a water based car called hydro, the car now sits inside a museum


Source for that claim? Which museum?


the designs are patented


So show us the patent number then.... oh, you just made that up!


in the 1990's in larkhall, scotland, an inventer designed a spark plug replacement which would allow a car to run on any type of water


Valid source for that claim....


both these cars are currently banned from sale everywhere except japan, you aren't even allowed to import one, the car manufacturers weren't even allowed to import one as a demonstration of the technology.


Why post lies like that?
automobiles.honda.com...


The FCX Clarity FCEV is officially out on the road. A limited number of these groundbreaking vehicles are currently being leased to select Southern Californians.....Ron Yerxa and Annette Ballester took delivery of the first hydrogen fuel cell powered FCX Clarity FCEV on July 25, 2008 at Honda of Santa Monica....Therefore, only customers currently residing in the Torrance, Santa Monica and Irvine areas who meet additional qualification criteria were eligible to take an FCX Clarity FCEV home. Honda wants to ensure that FCX Clarity FCEV drivers will be able to take their vehicles in for service at participating dealers and have convenient access to refueling stations.


So once again we have silly claims that are just not true from you!



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

the point is to save the gas use per mile and not to replace it completely with water which perhaps could be possible one day in the future...

i will say this again for the last time, we are not talking about a perpetual motion machine here!



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by EmilNomel
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

the point is to save the gas use per mile and not to replace it completely with water which perhaps could be possible one day in the future...

i will say this again for the last time, we are not talking about a perpetual motion machine here!
You're not making any sense at all my friend.

Either you're getting more energy from the HHO than you put in to make it, or less. Which is it?

If you're getting less energy from the HHO than you put in to make it, then it's HURTING your gas mileage to make the HHO, because you're wasting gas on the conversion process. It's called inefficiency.

If you're getting more energy from the HHO than you put in to make it, then it is indeed a perpetual motion machine according to the common definition:

en.wikipedia.org...

Perpetual motion describes hypothetical machines that operate or produce useful work indefinitely and, more generally, hypothetical machines that produce more work or energy than they consume
And in that case you would NOT need gas, you could do what the OP suggests. But nobody is doing that because it's not possible by any means we know of.
edit on 30-9-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


The hell with the "scientific community." I will just continue to drive my big, heavy van with it's big, V-8 engine, and will get better mileage every time I alter it. We are working on a plate design right now. You can keep believing that, and keep feeding Big Oil all you want to, but don't say it won't work unless you ave tried it. I see your kind all the time, they see my "Hybrid Chevy" sign and shake their heads as they walk away, and then more people come up, take pictures, ask questions, and make drawings so they can save some money too. There are now four people in my little town running one on their vehicle. So, if it won't work, then why are people doing it?



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by john_bmth
 


The hell with the "scientific community." I will just continue to drive my big, heavy van with it's big, V-8 engine, and will get better mileage every time I alter it. We are working on a plate design right now. You can keep believing that, and keep feeding Big Oil all you want to, but don't say it won't work unless you ave tried it. I see your kind all the time, they see my "Hybrid Chevy" sign and shake their heads as they walk away, and then more people come up, take pictures, ask questions, and make drawings so they can save some money too. There are now four people in my little town running one on their vehicle. So, if it won't work, then why are people doing it?


1) Are you or are you not using gas in conjunction with hydrogen?
2) Do you believe you are getting more energy from the hydrogen than you used to split it?



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Sytec
 




after a while this water vapour attacks the piston and valve heads :- deteriorating the surface area. the only way to stop this is to strip your engine down and have the pistons and valves heads coated with a ceramic layer, which incidentally doesn't come cheap.


Using my own method of reactor, after two years run time, we tore down the cylinder heads for a rebuild, valve grind and seat, new seals and springs. The heads, and combustion chambers were so clean of carbon you could eat from them. There was no rust, and no damage. But see, my reactor isn't running the engine all by itself, it just adds to gasoline, which the truck still uses. You would be correct if you ran the HHO exclusively, you would have to start and run the engine every day, and Carl Cella taught me years ago. Sadly, Carl is gone home now, but here is a list of water car inventors. waterpoweredcar.com...



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




Reading your post is all the proof I need it doesn't work... You're still using gas. If it worked as you claim, you wouldn't need gas, you could run your car on water. So you're proving it doesn't work without any help from me.


I never once said I was running the engine just on the HHO. Not once. Re-read my thread, obviously you have some trouble reading! You need five liters per minute, with a surge tube, compressed to 60 psi to run the engine exclusively on HHO. Go back and read again.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 

Why would you need any other energy source if you are achieving over unity?



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
There are now four people in my little town running one on their vehicle. So, if it won't work, then why are people doing it?
I can find a lot more than 4 people praying to various and sundry supernatural beings, like maybe 4 billion. So what does that prove?

People are irrational and will do all kinds of things without adequate proof that what they are doing makes any sense. The scientific types who tend to be more demanding of evidence that something works to rigorous standards of proof are in the minority. If you had something that worked better to rigorous standards of proof, you'd probably have a lot more than 4 other people using it. If I had something better and could prove it, I'd have half the country using it.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by john_bmth
 


The hell with the "scientific community." I will just continue to drive my big, heavy van with it's big, V-8 engine, and will get better mileage every time I alter it. We are working on a plate design right now. You can keep believing that, and keep feeding Big Oil all you want to, but don't say it won't work unless you ave tried it. I see your kind all the time, they see my "Hybrid Chevy" sign and shake their heads as they walk away, and then more people come up, take pictures, ask questions, and make drawings so they can save some money too. There are now four people in my little town running one on their vehicle. So, if it won't work, then why are people doing it?


because "There's a sucker born every minute" (The famous P.T.Barnum). i'm not gonna read all these pages.it's unnecessary:

Energy only goes one direction from "ordered"(i.e. oranized and useful to "disordered" or diffuse and "expended")("entropy")

The "ice "(Internal Combustion Engine):
is15%efficient: 85%of all the energy it "creates (through the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels) is wasted as heat and noise.
Only15% is converted to rotary motion to drives the vehicle forward. You can achieve a cleaner hotter burn with nitrous oxide injection(* like a "street racer")introducing more oxygen may improve (give more complete) burning of fuels. You are not creating any extra energy than already exists. in the gasoline.
and what is:"hho? ""2HO"?????


Deuterium? ie "heavy water"?


Chemical symbol
Deuterium discharge tube

Deuterium is frequently represented by the chemical symbol D. Since it is an isotope of hydrogen with mass number 2, it is also represented by 2H. IUPAC allows both D and 2H, although 2H is preferred.[2] A distinct chemical symbol is used for convenience because of the isotope's common use in various scientific processes. Also, its large mass difference with protium (1
H) (deuterium has a mass of 2.014102 u, compared to the mean hydrogen atomic weight of 1.007947 u, and protium's mass of 1.007825 u) confers non-negligible chemical dissimilarities with protium-containing compounds, whereas the isotope weight ratios within other chemical elements are largely insignificant in this regard.

en.wikipedia.org...

So you are creating "Deuterium" in your peanut butter jar reactor vessel ?

Thought so...(sarcasm)
edit on 30-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-9-2011 by 46ACE because: spelling errors....
edit on 30-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by EmilNomel
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

the point is to save the gas use per mile and not to replace it completely with water which perhaps could be possible one day in the future...

i will say this again for the last time, we are not talking about a perpetual motion machine here!


Yeah, some of these "debunkers of all things that will save money" are not reading the material well, they are skimming. When I got my G-20, upgraded the ignition system to 40,000 Volts, changed oil, plugs, rotor cap, and module, the van got a whole 14 miles to the gallon. Using twin HHO reactors, I now get 32-35 miles per gallon. That is more than double the mileage, and this engine is not by any means a fresh, new one, it has some hard miles on it. And I didn't just jump into this either. I was an auto mechanic for 38 years, and first heard of a water powered car back in 1979, the Carl Cella Cadillac, the lead singer for "Rampage." I was intrigued, to say the least, but lacked the knowledge to build the electronics involved with Cella's design. Remember, he build his before fuel injection came into being on all cars. I doubt my design would work well on a carburated engine, this design is for FI engines only.

One last thing. I was basically fored to design and build mine. We are a large family, and three of us are disabled, two with really back backs. Riding in a little car we cannot do, period. Besides, getting groceries for the month in an Escort or like vehicle is not possible. My family lives in Social Security, this is known as a "fixed income" family. We have not had a cost of living raise in four years now. These reactors has saved us over $200 a month, every month, for over two years. I do not care whether people believe me or not, it is their loss, after all, and they do not have to read what I write, either. I made the original post to help out others in this forum who also live in fixed incomes, and in this economy, everyone needs a little help. My mission in life is to Serve Others, not self.

If my design will save you some money, help you out, you are welcome to it. There are no copyrights, patents, or trademarks on any of it, parts are easily available, for about $70 you can have a set-up just like mine.






top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join