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.
Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by mutatismutandis
Are you denying he was convicted of fraud?
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.
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)
You have provided no proof of anything except that you are willing to entertain extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence to back them up.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by RogerT
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)
PS. If you can do this without Arbitrageurs help, that would be cool ;0)