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: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 

How many times must this be mentioned?
You. Will. Spend. More. Energy. Splitting. Hydrogen. Than. You. Will. Get. Back. As. Fuel.

There is absolutely no way around this.




posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 

I like the way the popular mechanics article admitted that some HHO kit sellers finally gave up on claiming you get more energy out of hydrogen, then they switched their claim to the unburned gasoline and how they help you burn that better.

So now they instead claim that by burning the 0.77% of unburned gasoline more efficiently, you can improve your miles per gallon by 20-50%! (except they try to make you think it's way more than 0.77% that's unburned)

Yeah that's way more credible!


edit on 1-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


After having read the first parragraph; I had to mind that when you combust; you then could have this occure in a sealed environment where if possible ; you then could recollect any charge having been consuned from these or if this is all within this containment ; a refurbishing among these elements may be at hand here ; depending on areas of play that this cocktail is free to roam around and I think that if there is no area; then you would have control somewhat on these transformed elements. Being that I would need to be explained those forms that are assumed and why and their attitudes and you would likely would need to determine the needs that are to take place as to realise changes where the aim of course would be of that of the original prior to combusted by I assume ignition.Oh and yes you can run a car with water but you are going by this the wrong way; he you have this unstable element(s) that with a change of one degree with expand and not to mention that if this takes place within an environment that is at the highest known pressure ; well you can figure; there are munurous proceedures that this could be used ; you have to think that when they first used this expanding of water to steam; they didn't distille it back and keep it at 99 degrees and ready to go again and all that force can generate your heater also and that makes this actually perpetual motoring.LOL
edit on 1-10-2011 by MichelJCardin because: (no reason given)
I'll read the rest now but doubt I will anything to add.Good Luck
edit on 1-10-2011 by MichelJCardin because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by RogerT
 

How many times must this be mentioned?

as many times as it takes to show us that you make no sense!


You.

yes, you again make no sense...


Will.

will is your power to decide...


Spend.

is to give out time or energy (or to pay money)


More.

it's a larger amount...


Energy.

energy is the strength to do things...
but, it's also the source of power...
and absolute power corrupts absolutely...


Splitting.

splitting means to share... what do you have to share?


Hydrogen.

it's a colorless, odorless gas that catches fire easily...
children like you should not play with fire!


Than.

compared with?


You.

already covered... see on top


Will.

already covered see above ^^


Get.

get means to pick up, come to have, or earn...
but, it can be used in the term "get lost"


Back.

back is the rear part...and to support


As.

as above so below...


Fuel.

fuel is something you burn to get energy...


There is absolutely no way around this.

wrong!
there is always a way...
if there is a will there is a way...
one of my old friends used to say "there is more than one way to skin a cat"

thank you for listening

have a good day!
edit on 1-10-2011 by EmilNomel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INJURY OR DEATH.... DO NOT TRY THIS...

This is how they do it....high voltage low amps ....create a static field in a non conductor container of water and watch that water split.
I bet you can't find that in any books.

Don't try it , it's very DANGEROUS.

There are better ways of useing water and you don't need a big boiler either.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Sigh, yet another post of yours that contains zero substance. Here we go...


Originally posted by EmilNomeli understood very well what you try to say and i agree with it...

Evidently not as you have argued otherwise.


nevertheless, you make no sense by putting a periods between each of your words!

Maybe I should make each word bold and a different colour to make it stand out even more as time and time again people wilfully ignore this scientific law. Present Evidence, not conjecture.


the good thing is that this nonsense of yours gave me the idea to show you "some of your own medicine"

So you agree but now it's nonsense? Make up your mind. I challenge you to point out the inaccuracies and/or falsehoods in any of my previous posts. Notice how I actually tackle your "arguments" point by point? You have yet to do so with any of mine. Instead you play foolish games to avoid having to engage in intelligent discussion.


the way you did it to my posts... you were putting words in my mouth and misquoting me!

Yet again, you seem to have failed to grasp the key concepts of this "debating" business. What words did I put in your mouth? I challenge you to point them out. As I said before, rebut the words I have said, not the ones in your head.

If you can't be bothered to substantiate your baseless claims, don't bother posting, you're only wasting your breath. I know it's probably a strange concept for you to actually rationalise your opinions and beliefs beyond superficial fluff, but if you cannot or will not backup up your words with substance when challenged, why even bother posting?



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmthiii
Sigh, yet another post of mine that contains zero substance. Here we go...

yes, i agree



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


The Fillipino inventor Daniel Dingle, had invented this back in 1968. And has been driving his water powered car for over 30 years now. His proof of concept, in a fully working water powered car has been silenced by the media.
The principle that overcomes the electrolysis obstacle is very simple and is called alternating current which is provided to the water and catalyst at a very high frequency....much greater than 60 cycles/second or wall current.

Here is a quick demonstration of the water fuel cell itself.

Go tell him that his invention is not only impossible but doesn't work.







I am not here to debate this concept either pro or con. I am merely providing a proof of concept feasibility study by someone who applied themselves to the achievement of this goal and didn't merely TALK about it on an internet chat forum.

Talk IS CHEAP, and Action speaks much louder than words....


PEACE


edit on 1-10-2011 by nh_ee because: typos and additions



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


And instead of having Electric cars... Couldn't we have electric cars as they are now except they have a 40 litre water tank and the engine is normal combustion, and the batteries are used only for the purpose of electrolosis to break the hydrogen from the oxygen, etc.

I'm sure the batteries will give you a much longer trip than just electric alone, and this way you wont have to pay for petrol... just simply water... WOW... is that so hard?



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 

More youtube videos of a thoroughly debunked concept. Funny how this "inventor" is looking for venture capitalist investment as well as selling "products". Haven't seen that one before


If he's willing to take people's money, why isn't he getting independent laboratory tests performed to prove the concept he's selling?



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Oh look, this amazing "inventor" has been convicted of fraud:


MANILA, Philippines?Daniel Dingel, 82-year-old inventor of a ?water-powered car,? has been convicted of ?estafa? [swindling] and sentenced to a maximum of 20 years imprisonment by the Parañaque City Regional Trial Court. The court also ordered him to pay $380,000 in actual damages. Dingel, who has never revealed the secret to his invention, which he began in 1969, questioned the verdict but said he did not mind going to jail at his age. As of late Friday, he remained at large. ??Hindi ko naman kailangan ng pera? [I don?t need the money],? he said. ?I had bigger offers but I never took them. I never asked the government for a single centavo ... I just want to help.? Dingel was found guilty of taking $410,000 from Dr. John Ding Young of Formosa Plastics Group, a Taiwanese company, which gave it to him as research and development funds. The decision, written by Judge Rolando How of the court?s Branch 257 and released on Dec. 9, said Dingel defrauded Young when the inventor failed to fulfill his obligation of developing his ?hydrogen reactor? and creating experimental cars in 2000. Veteran lawyer Frank Chavez, who was approached by Dingel on Friday, said he would immediately appeal the court decision before it became final on Christmas Eve.


So he took $410,000 from a Taiwanese company to invest in his wonder car and failed to deliver. Funny how people cry "suppression!" yet here we see a serious investment from a company, only for the "inventor" to defraud them. Seems like a stand up guy...
edit on 1-10-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



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

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



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
You dont need water to power a car.That is too complicated.To make a car in a few hours,heres all you have to do.Remove the engine,transmission,computers,cooling system and all the other junk they put in there.That space can be turned into extra storage space .Install a small magnet near the drive train.Install 2 bigger magnets on both sizes of the smaller magnet.Tie them into the axles and drive train.Run 2 levers into the car about 3 ft long each.When you pull on one lever it positions the forward magnet,which propels the car forward.By pulling the other magnet, it propels the car in reverse mode.A rechargeable quality battery can be installed in the cabin.Hook up a stereo or mini fridge for beverages,your all set.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
If you don't want to end up DEAD you may want to rethink your water powered car.

It has been done before...by a guy named Stan Meyer back in 1996...




Read about Stan Meyer here and how he died. BigGov and the elite don't take kindly to someone turning off the oil tap that they make billions from....

www.top-alternative-energy-sources.com...

RIP water powered car




posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by romanmel
 

Another convicted fraudster, this time to the tune of $25,000. Notice the patter emerging here?



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Just a quick shout out to the non-beievers...those of you who believe this technology is a scam do a quick google on Stanley Meyers, a man from ohio who drove his water powered vehicle for years. A local news channel even did an interview where he broke down the workings of the engine on camera for everyone to see. I will be the first to admit there are a lot of conartists on the web using bogus technology to make a quick buck, but this is undoubtably a very real thing that has been shoved under the rug for unseen and maybe even sinister reasons. Meyers himself was in the process breaking into the market when he wandered out into the parking lot of a local restaurant after a meal and mysteriously dropped dead. Family members of his have blatenly stated his death was highly suspicious.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by nh_ee
reply to post by Screwed
 


The Fillipino inventor Daniel Dingle, had invented this back in 1968. And has been driving his water powered car for over 30 years now.

...and if you believe that, I have a bridge you might be interested in purchasing....



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
What if you utilize a carburetor to perform the electrolysis there instead of in the trunk? That could solve the pressure problem to a degree.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by romanmel
 


Very Nice! You must have just posted this as I was typing...get out of my brain! Hehe



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by romanmel
 

Another convicted fraudster, this time to the tune of $25,000. Notice the patter emerging here?



Fraudster? I'm an ohio native, I've met the man and seen the car myself. His family is still pushing the technology through in canada after what happened to him here. The same technology was proven to work through his tourch patent, he just modified the system to work on a vehicle. Its easy to dance on someones grave after they're gone.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join