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: 9
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by mutatismutandis
 

Are you denying he was convicted of fraud?




posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


hho is safer than gas.hydrogen escapes faster than any other form of gas.It will not hang around to explode.
Stanley myres showed us how after the hho has combusted the water in the cylinder can become steam the next time around.Well kinda a mix of steam and hho derrived from the heat and friction of the engine running.Its like a secondary explosion of sorts.I am not aware of any way to measure that.
edit on 1-10-2011 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by mutatismutandis
 

Are you denying he was convicted of fraud?


I'm arguing the technology, not the moral standing of the inventor. It doesn't change the fact that the vehicle, which still exists today, ran souly on water. Not to mention, he wasn't the first nor the last to produce working concepts, nor would he be the first inventor with a record.

Like I said in previous posts, I will be the first to admit the majority marketing this type of technology today are conartist, but the science is sound.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mutatismutandis
Like I said in previous posts, I will be the first to admit the majority marketing this type of technology today are conartist, but the science is sound.

The science is not sound. Not only is there no scientific basis for it, but no one has been able to demonstrate that the technology works. The two people listed as proof in this thread have both been convicted of fraud in a court of law.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Im off to go put hose clamps on my projects and get some vids of my system.Remember what im claiming here.Im taking around 20 lpm min of hho gas and bubbling it in gas to gain the vapors and going to my fuel rail.This may take a couple days though as i have just a few changes to make and a party to go to so check back in a couple days for a vid.

I am using 5 4x8x21 plate cells and a 200 amp alternator.My point being that i have invested the money to see if what the op talks about can work.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


be carefull dude this guy was killed. www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 11:00 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 remember a guy in Sydney working on a water powerd car about 25 years ago. don't know how it ended up though.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by nh_ee
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.

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.
You have provided no proof of anything except that you are willing to entertain extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence to back them up.

There is no evidence Daniel Dingle's car runs on water.

The guys with the 2004 Dodge pickup truck made the same claim as do others, but none of them are credible to a rational person who demands proof of extraordinary claims.

Of course people who just fell off the turnip truck are willing to believe any claim, no matter how outrageous, without proof!



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 
Brown 's Gas or HHO is not news, commercial grade systems would be.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by mutatismutandis
Like I said in previous posts, I will be the first to admit the majority marketing this type of technology today are conartist, but the science is sound.

The science is not sound. Not only is there no scientific basis for it, but no one has been able to demonstrate that the technology works. The two people listed as proof in this thread have both been convicted of fraud in a court of law.


Just search for hho generators...there's atleast a hundred videos of people with working generators or small mopeds/vespas and even full size motorcycles...many of which will go through the proccess uncut to show there is no other outside source of fuel. Most of them are just posts for proof of concept with no intentions to make money on it at all. How can you comfortably claim they are all scams. What would they have to gain from it then maybe a few extra hits on their post.

I personally have a cheap $600 chinese vespa knockoff that I ran for 3 days without outside fuel sources. I just don't have the money to waste to have parts custom made in stainless steel for something I'm not able to drive daily. I understand no proof or it didn't happen, which is why I will not claim to be an expert or have all the answers, but the technology is there and has been proven by many more than the few this post has addressed.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Water injection is used on some things. I think the B52's used to use water injections at take off, I think. But that's far from water power.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by EmilNomel

Originally posted by charlyv
reply to post by EmilNomel
 


(And also relating to the OP original question)

The more demand put on the alternator, the more resistance it produces, which puts the machine into a negative power surplus, making it non-sustainable. Nice Idea, but you are still describing a perpetual motion machine. Conservation of energy, laws of thermodynamics are against you.

Keep trying though, this is the kind of thinking that the world needs!
edit on 30-9-2011 by charlyv because: clarity


why would it be that we are describing a perpetual motion machine?
there is a consumption of water ("the fuel") isn't there?
according to your logic... the regular gasoline operated engine is also a perpetual motion machine!

well jaw dropping stuff here. Let me explain simplistically : h2 + o + energy = water. Which means you have to put energy IN to get hydrogen out. With petrol (or gas if you like) : hydrocarbons = water + co2 + energy. which means the conversion (burning) of the fuel leads to a release of energy.

If water was such a great source of energy then a lightening bolt into the sea would explode the planet! It hasn't, well not yet anyway.

All these water based engines will run quite happily until the battery runs down........

If you still want to live in world of anti physics then try this little thought experiment. There are billions of poor people in the world living in countries who hate the US and have no links to big oil. These countries would have produced cars and generators using this technology wouldn't they. For example, North Korea would be an country with limitless energy........
edit on 1/10/11 by malcr because: spelling mistake



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Hasn't this been invented 50 times since the 1960s?

I want to see a dirt powered boat. Now THAT would be an invention.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by EmilNomel

Originally posted by dainoyfb
The problem that everybody has when trying to get a system of this nature working is that it takes more energy to make the HHO than the engine can produce with the HHO available from it's own production.

that is not true!
the alternator produces more energy than what's needed to make the HHO

the problem that i can see is safety...

considering the HHO gas pressure build up and it's combustion...
how safe is this system from not exploding your vehicle?


Ummm.....Electrolysis will produce oxygen and hydrogen at the respective negative/positive poles of the electrodes, utilizing a DC current. perhaps it's feasable then to seperate the poles in their own chambers with interconnecting piping for water, (at the bottom of the respective chambers). A phosphate "detergent" is usually added to the h2o as a "conductor" for the current flow. The gases rise to the top and are pumped under pressure (insulated pump, similar to a fuel pump except the medium is a gas, not a liquid) to a gas pressure regulator, through the fuel rail into "gas" injectors. or through a "propane" ready carburetor.
A reostat accelerator pedal controls the current flow, thus controlling the rate of hydrogen production.

I would probably vent the oxygen into the atmosphere, as it's not needed for combustion

Another poster, mentioned exhaust turbines coupled with a generator/alternator, you could also use regenerative braking to scavenge electricity.

We already have fuel tanks with gasoline vapor, I'm not sure what the comparison is of ignition/explosive rate between hydrogen gas and gasoline vapor but the OP is'nt suggesting a Hydrogen containment vessel, rather he's illustrating a production on demand system that could possibly be hybredized with a battery backup/electric motor for accelerative and off the line needs...

YouSir



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by YouSir
 


By sealing off alternating ends of the stainless steel plates you can separate the hydrogen and oxygen, it creates a sort of zig zag pattern where on one side of the bundle you will accumulate all the oxygen and on the other the hydrogen.

If u can produce enough energy with a single alternator please let me know, but in my exerience it bogged down way too much without having some form of current amplifier.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


This is essentially how a hydrogen fuel cell works for a car! Except in the case of the fuel cell it produces electricity by combining H and O2 with the resulting exhaust being water....

I may be misunderstood there but I'm going to tell you this great Idea I just had for free energy.

It would be a plant of sorts, it needs a water supply. The plant performs electrolysis on the water, the resulting O2 and H would run the fuel cell producing water, which could then be recirculated or released as a fresh water!! ah it sounds loverly but I'm pretty sure a quick google will disappoint me.
edit on 10/1/2011 by Ilyich because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
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.


Oh sorry, I forgot, I'm in a thread with John_bmth and must adhere to John's Law.
If you'd like to address the post and papers by Puharic, the guy seems to state that elementary chemistry says you get 20% more energy from combining HHO than splitting water into HHO.
Now, as a self-styled expert in all things science, I'd appreciate you educating me as to why his assessment of chemistry is incorrect (according to your emphatic assertions).
Thanks muchly.

PS. If you can do this without Arbitrageurs help, that would be cool ;0)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mutatismutandis
reply to post by YouSir
 


By sealing off alternating ends of the stainless steel plates you can separate the hydrogen and oxygen, it creates a sort of zig zag pattern where on one side of the bundle you will accumulate all the oxygen and on the other the hydrogen.

If u can produce enough energy with a single alternator please let me know, but in my exerience it bogged down way too much without having some form of current amplifier.


Could you use a capacitor to build up a large charge ? or would a quick high voltage burst potentially cause the a spark and result in the device becoming a bomb ? Isn't there a way you could harness the high voltage release of a capacitor and turn it into a slower more usefull current. I know Voltage can be changed to successively lower voltages usually with an increase in amperage right ? or is it a loss of amperage ? After all this is what the transformers do right. Could we not set up a capacitor bank to be charged by the calternator, once it build sufficient charge it could power it. Fuel cell could put out the power !! and a fuel cell would use the H and O2 and probably result in excess energy that could be harnessed for consumption !!!



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
Oh sorry, I forgot, I'm in a thread with John_bmth and must adhere to John's Law.

If by 'John's Law' you mean 'sound research using scientific method', then yes. What exactly is your problem with substantiating claims with credible evidence? Why does that concern you so much? All you do is duck and weave when asked to present solid, scientific research from credible sources to support your claims.


If you'd like to address the post and papers by Puharic, the guy seems to state that elementary chemistry says you get 20% more energy from combining HHO than splitting water into HHO.

Post up the peer-reviewed papers from credible journals, then. If you want to play the science game, post up the science (see my sig). Oh, but you're one of these paranoid "the scientists are all part of the great global conspiracy" types so logic, reason and evidence don't wash with you. You post a website as evidence of the extraordinary claim of over unity (more energy out than in). To anyone scientifically literate or capable of critical thought, that does not wash in the slightest. Fight science with science, not dubious websites. You need to up your standards for credible research.


Now, as a self-styled expert in all things science

Well there's your problem. What you actually know is hopelessly outpaced by what you think you know, as you have demonstrated on a number of occasions. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


I'd appreciate you educating me as to why his assessment of chemistry is incorrect (according to your emphatic assertions)

See above. Post up the peer-reviewed papers from credible journals. Websites, youtube videos and other unscientific sources do not cut it. Enough excuses, show us the science.


PS. If you can do this without Arbitrageurs help, that would be cool ;0)

Quit trying to push the burden of proof into my court. You're the one making the extraordinary claims therefore you must provide the extraordinary proof. Enough stalling, enough floundering, enough picking up your ball and going home when challenged, put your money where your mouth is and show us the science.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Ilyich
 


As long as the plates are fully submerged there shouldn't be an issue with a spark. If it did arc it would arc in the water, in which case there would be nothing substantial enough to ignite, just produce more hho. Even a large on demand system at max efficiency probably won't produce enough in concentration to blow up. At most it may pop the case in a worse case scenerio.

I'll have to look at my papers on the controler for the compasitor when I get home. I had an electrician friend that assisted me on the project, definately not my area of expertise. You would deffinately want some type of controller regulating the compassitor to fine tune the best point to release the current for maximum output. I know the one my electrician friend made was very cheap from parts between radio shack and lowes. I'll get back to u on that!
edit on 1-10-2011 by mutatismutandis because: typos



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join