| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/7/2008 2:21:12 AM |
Thank you evergrow, anything is posible.
:D your welcome. I'm just spreading the idea that was instilled in me and my father. Really we must thank the years and years of trial and error, experimentation and perfection of the human race. We've come so far yet we have so much farther to get. I wonder if there ever will be an end. One day gas powered cars will be laughed at as a flat world is laughed at now. Although already i think its beginning. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/9/2008 9:15:29 PM |
As we also know that it takes more energy to convert it than what you get out of it......or does it?
Energy in is always exactly the same as energy out. First law of thermodynamics.
The gist of the second law of thermodynamics states that the process will never be 100% efficient. Some of the energy out will be in the form of heat (something about entropy).
Simply put, you will ALWAYS put more useful energy into a process than you get out of it. It will ALWAYS be Energy In = Energy Out + Heat. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either jumping to conclusions or is trying to deceive you. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/10/2008 3:31:18 AM | | This idea is _totally_ a perpetual motion machine! And thus nonsense! The water is acting just as a component in the machine - transferring energy from your "frequency generator" to your engine, allegedly picking up energy on the way (from where?). The whole body of physics, theoretical and applied, relies on the fact that the total sum of the energy in the universe is constant - everything from Newton's First Law to the principles of Thermodynamics. Do you seriously expect anyone rational and informed to believe that an enormous body of research, which has generated a similarly large body of consistent findings, can be overturned on hearsay? If you can build a working prototype, take it to a prominent skeptic like James Randi - there are millions of dollars worth of prize-money waiting for someone who can prove that you can get energy from nowhere (P.S. no-one has collected yet, though many have tried). | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/10/2008 4:39:38 AM | >>> I was just e-mailed from a person who claims that he has done this to his car and it works.
So, clearly, the research you claim existed still exists- why isn't your email friend submitting his car to the Nobel board for his Million Dollar Prize? Why is it a super duper secret that only a few people from the internet have privy to?
Wikipedia has this to say;
In 1996, inventor Stanley Meyer was sued by investors to whom he had sold dealerships, offering the right to do business in Water Fuel Cell technology. According to The Times, Meyer claimed in court that his invention "opened the way for a car which would 'run on water', powered simply by a car battery."[1] The car would even run perpetually without fuel since the energy needed to continue the "fracturing" was low enough for the engine's dynamo to recharge the car's battery.[1] 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.[1] The Water Fuel Cell, on the other hand, was 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".[1]
On the basis of the evidence the court found Meyer guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered to repay the investors their $25,000.
Wow.....I'm convinced. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/10/2008 10:51:40 PM | You've no idea how many will lose sleep over it.
Another one for the ``not even wrong'' pile. What you refer to as ``using frequency'' and ``electricity'' means using electromagnetic forces.
Use of electromagnetic forces is one way to generate electricity, also photovotaic, piezo electric, catalytic, solar, the list continues to grow. You know what you can do with your pile?
Heat it, the thermopile is a lager version of a thermcouple, which is whats used as a pilot safety in most gas hot water heaters because it produces electricity when heated. Look ma no magnets.
I heard a little bit about this somewhere, maybe NPR. From what I remember, it technically works, but it takes hours to make enough hydrogen to go to the store. It's just not efficient enough to be anything resembling practical.
If you're that gullible, go ahead and try it. It won't work. The laws of physics and chemistry are all against you. Good luck. If you go ahead, let us know how you make out. The gist of the second law of thermodynamics states that the process will never be 100% efficient.
Sorry to hear if it ain't perfect it won't work for ya, however
Ford
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TsA48FohtQ
BMW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0lrlXpWNm4
GM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWwil9OkPFw
think and have the foresight that the technology presents enough potential to invest serious money.
Try a table top version with a lawn mower first. At the very least, it would be fun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I90IcfqS9MU
how long b4 the water runs out/ and how wld we then be able to "make more water"??
All this tech is making my head spin. See ya, I'm goin surfin. Oh my God! Somebody put water in my ocean!
And just what is "frequency" supposed to mean? Sound waves? Whatever it is, it uses energy. "Frequency" used in that context is an absolutely meaningless term.
Hummmm, what could this be? Maybe frequency, such as in the frequency of the power being sent to your home (60 Hz in the US), and powering the computer you're using to show us your grasp of the subject.
Where exactly would you like to put the spent fuel for these "mini-reactors?"
As I've suggested before, that they toss it down the holes made by the underground bomb tests, but seems they're too busy making other things out of it, like armor piercing ammo, and who knows what else. By the time they finish the billion dollar storage facility that they can't seem to get right, there won't be anything to put in it. It might make a good tourist attraction though.
a sub that runs very quietly using seawater as propulsion
Real world submarines use screw propellers
Which push against it “using seawater as propulsion.” Don't work well without it. Just nit picking
How about something wilder? http://www.darpa.mil/sto/solicitations/underwaterexpress/
Just so you know DARPA is the military's agency for funding civilian invention and research.
This idea is _totally_ a perpetual motion machine!
Nope sorry, just replacing one fuel for another, Don't know why perp motion keeps coming up, try to stay with the thread.
people with alot of big bucks that dont want this technology out there for obvious reasons. the gas and oil companies and even the goverment dosen't want it out there because how would they generate the big buck.
And is likely why no small time inventor will be credited with any advances, the golden rule.
He who has the gold, makes the rules.
But then rules were made to be broken, like all the rules that stood in the way of progress to date. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/11/2008 5:17:46 AM | You left out scirentists whose job it is to be skeptical until evidence from real experiments changes their minds.
Really? That's exactly what they did with global warming. Any scientist who offered any "skepticism" was demonized and their career threatened, if not destoyed out right. Global warming is highly political in nature as is the energy crisis. It's hard to separate the actual science from the pure political bullsh*t we are all spoon fed each day.
The fact is the Nuclear bomb was considered equally mythical just 80 years ago, and not long before that, human flight. Even afterwords escape velocity was considered to defey the "laws of physics". Yet we know that not to be the case.
Just because most, or even all ideas like running your car on water failed so far. Doesn't mean that someone wont figure it out. laws of physics will never change, but our understanding most certainly will.
One of the big problems is that inventors and scientists don't trust each other anymore. They think on different levels, and use different terminology for the same things. Modern scientists also hold their therories in a religious like regard. The idea that someone could come along with a lower education to redifine the laws of physics is harasy. The inventer knows this, and only wants to reveal so much to get their idea proven possibe. The inventor does not want the scientist to steal his/her invention. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/11/2008 7:24:46 AM |
You realize that the product of combustion is water, so you are describing is a perpetual motion machine.
You wouldn't be able to reuse the water exhaust from a hydrogen combustion in a everyday engine. Along with exhausting fuel gasses, your car also burns a little bit of oil each time it fires, this is why you are suppose to check your oil regularly even if it doesn't have any leaks. If you were to reuse the exhaust you would slowly build up more and more gunked up oil in your return lines, until it was enough to cause problems in the line or cylinders.
--
To the topic: GM actually has a water-hydrogen conversion under body designed that they plan to market after enough testing. The under body is actually the converter, engine, drive train, and steering all in a compact carbon fiber body. I remember seeing it on an episode of Future Car. Can't remember the problems it had, but it's nice to see the big guys are getting into the alternate fuel source field now. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/11/2008 8:37:27 AM | Problem is that the original US patents that were submitted by Stan Meyers are...well...lacking. The self-reported results of Meyer were never proven in his lifetime, not even in court. When Meyer was to show to experts how his vehicle actually worked during his fraud trial, he first delayed the examinations then finally failed to produce the vehicle for study...mind you this was a COURT trial.
Meyer's reported water engine development was a fraud.
On the other hand, there is one engine in development that uses water...but it's the 6-stroke STEAM engine that is proving that old tech may be the best tech once refined.
Cold fusion, although still problematic, has been shown to be an abbaration...the experiments have been reproduced finally, but with mixed results. So far there is anomalous heat (which means they don't know how it produced heat or can reproduce it regularly) and anomalous tritium production (less often but they don't know why it does that yet either). The 2004 Dept Of Energy studies said that there is much to be determined and explored...the 2008 study in India resulted in Dr. M. R. Srinivasan, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of India said: "There is some science here that needs to be understood. We should set some people to investigate these experiments. There is much to be commended for the progress in the work. The neglect should come to an end". So it's a starting science, much like internal combustion was in the 1800's...it'll just take time to figure out how to make it work properly. Whether that is decades or centuries is yet to be determined.
Diamond...get that guy who emailed you to PROVE it to the world...one would think that anyone who could find a tv reporter in a haystack could get airtime for that right now. If proven true, it would quickly go national. But as science and the courts have shown, Meyer was nothing more than a FRAUD. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/11/2008 9:45:35 AM |
Use of electromagnetic forces is one way to generate electricity, also photovotaic, piezo electric, catalytic, solar, the list continues to grow. You know what you can do with your pile?
Heat it, the thermopile is a lager version of a thermcouple, which is whats used as a pilot safety in most gas hot water heaters because it produces electricity when heated. Look ma no magnets.
This is a good example of why charlatans can prey on the gullible. Every force and source of energy you see you see around you, with the exception of gravity and the sun is due to the electromagnetic force. There are four forces in nature: Electromagnetism, the weak interaction, the strong interaction and gravity. The erak interaction is responsible nuclear beta decay. The strong interaction is responsible for binding neutrons and protons into nuclei (or more precisely, quarks into nucleons). The strong interaction is the source of energy for nuclear reactors (but because the force has a range of about 1.5 x 10^-15 meters, no one observes anything due to nuclear forces directly).
Chemistry is electromagnetism. Thermocouples and thermopiles are electromagnetism. The fact that macroscopic amounts of matter (like anything made of atoms) is solid is electromagnetism. Solar cells are electromagnetism. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/11/2008 10:23:12 AM |
Cold fusion, although still problematic, has been shown to be an abbaration...the experiments have been reproduced finally, but with mixed results. So far there is anomalous heat (which means they don't know how it produced heat or can reproduce it regularly) and anomalous tritium production (less often but they don't know why it does that yet either). The 2004 Dept Of Energy studies said that there is much to be determined and explored...the 2008
Cold fusion is a fraud. I know (or knew - one of the guys is dead) several of the people who were involved with cold fusion experiments. One guy got quite a hefty sum of money to run an experiment for a few years and just about every day, I'd ask him if he made any big ones out of little ones yet. He was always rather vague in answering whether or not he really believed it and essentially, I don't think he did. Publicly, he was also rather vague and his opinion tended to shift in order to remain credible. In the end, the so-called tritium was found to be due to contamanation of the palladium which came from it being previously used as reactor shielding (and I personally think he suspected this all along.)
It's very easy to see why cold fusion does not work. In order to fuse two nuclei, the energy required to get the nuclei close enough together for the strong force to bind the nuclei and release binding energy is on the order of MeV's (million electron volts). Atomic binding energies (i.e. chemistry) are on the order of a few eV (electron volts). You cannot create enough presure in a material to fuse the nuclei using a chemical process. The difference in energy is a factor of a million. Pons and Fleishmann were electrochemists and despite having no understanding of nuclear physics, apparently didn't see the need to talk to any nuclear physicists and/or perform a rigorous investigation of their so-called results to know what was going on. Furthermore, they decided to announce their (mis) findings via a news conference rather than submit an article for peer review which would have led to a rigorous scientific inquiry instead of the media circus that resulted in the sort of ``let's throw a few million at a long shot, just in case'' attitude that bean counters have when they imagine patent royalties. (A few million is nothing compared to what a company like exxon spends on advertising alone.)
However, there does exist a well known (at least to nuclear physicists since the mid 1950's) cold fusion process, called muon catalyzed cold fusion. When a muon produced by cosmic rays (or an accelerator) penetrates a material it can be captured by an atom in place of an electron, since a negatively charged muon has the same electrical charge as an electron. However, because the muon mass is about 207 times the electron mass, the muon orbits INSIDE the nucleus and partially cancels the positive charge of the nucleus, thus reducing the coulomb repulsion between two nuclei. If two nuclei get close enough together before the muon decays (about 2.2 microseconds) the nuclei can fuse. As you might imagine, the likelyhood of capturing a muon is not all that high and the 2.2 microsecond decay time of the muon makes muon catalyzed cold fusion a rather unworkable source of fuel. Considering the energy cost of producing a muon in an accelerator is about 60 times (considering only the muon mass, not the cost to also run the accelerator) the return from a possible fusion event is a losing proposition even if you could produce an intense enough muon beam to create a lot of fusion events. (muons are produced via the production of a pi- beam, and the pions then decay in flight). | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 7/2/2008 11:55:19 PM | Well it looks like I have created quite a complex debate here. some of you I'm not even sure what your refering to.
As for Stan Meyer's invention, true they wern't able to see that it worked in his life time but I bet there isn't any prof that it didn't work either. after all who knows what could have happend to it the day he was to show off his invention, some one could have sabotaged it or a peice could have broke last minute while transporting it. The thing is I don't think any one will know the full true story as to why he wasn't able to prove to the scientific world.
On the other hand, If it didn't work why would after his murder some one break in to his place and steal all his hard work? | |
|
| |
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 7/3/2008 8:53:31 AM | I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
Thomas A. Edison
This thread brings me back to this quote.
Anyways i was saying that its funny how quick people on here are negative towards something that is different or something the BIG DOGS said is pseudoscience. Sure sure yes til the money owners of the world tell you that YEs IT WORKS. You will forever fight on the side that it does not work. Do you realize people were told along time ago that the world was flat because they did not want people journey to areas they did not want you to go.
This as well reminds of the same situation. Why dont you go in your backyard and find out if it works or if it is pseudoscience. You know why you wont because your to damn lazy. So of course you ride off the coattails of those who put in the work. Your like the little guy that yells from behind the bully. So many negative comments nothing positiive or uplifting at all. Why are so many of you negative ? Does it hurt to say something positive in the light that sure if MAY not work but who cares give it hell and why not give it a go?
I also noticed how the word TEACHER = threat
Of course why bother you know because physics tells you it wont work but so many things in the world once were told that it would not work. Here we are today using the pseudoscience. A few of you ask why is he not a million dollar goose for some company its the exact same reason Mr Hutchison did not sell his to the GOV't. Money does not always show that it works. If you know the money system then you would know that it is nothing but a bunch of Bs. We live behind money that has not vaule what so ever besides the value we as people give it, like we give our power to the men who run the country.
NOthing good can come out of negativity. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 7/3/2008 9:31:44 AM |
NOthing good can come out of negativity.
Prominent doctors were making money by treating people infected with smallpox for decades. Along comes some crazy physician named Edward Jenner claiming that if you allowed a person to inhale or otherwise be exposed to cowpox scab scrapings, that same person would develop a resistence to smallpox: an often fatal and disgusting disease that had been plaguing mankind for centuries. Edward Jenner had discovered the first type of vaccine, but it was YEARS before his method was fully accepted by mainstream medicine.
I'm not saying that this water hydrolosis using electromagnetc waves works, but I too am astonished at how quickly people can reject new ideas simply because the often indoctrinated big boys of science say that it is impossible. No wonder we don't have cures for AIDS or lunar/martian outposts. Too many people lack vision and are very fast to blurb out responses that are as socially acceptable as possible regardless of whether or not the idea might have some merit. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 7/3/2008 9:46:52 AM | people with alot of big bucks that dont want this technology out there for obvious reasons. the gas and oil companies and even the goverment dosen't want it out there because how would they generate the big buck.
Every time I hear this said I know the person saying it is a quack and their "idea or device" is a fraud. Let say you are right, you could build a car that uses water as its energy source without adding any energy to the system. GM,Ford,Toyota,Honda,Nissan,etc won't build it because they are making enough money off the status quo. You can tell me some guy in India or China won't jump on the opportunity to do it. No matter how much money the oil companies would promise you, this "car or engine" would be worth more, much more.
BTW, I've never met any one or know of any one else has met some one who has said "Yea I got rich by taking money from the oil companies or the government in exchange for not building something"! | |
|
| |
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 7/3/2008 11:36:45 AM | Sorry mate,you're on the wrong pile actually. Done this experiment at highschool, doing it professionally now. System uses electricity,yes,perpetual motion no. There is no patient on this technology, so no one can own exclusive rights, or patient it because it is in the public domain.
And I thought yanks were educated. I know some are highly educated,but sorry mate, go backback to the not even wrong pile. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 7/3/2008 12:04:24 PM | [is too hot/quote If your that gullible go ahead and try it. It won't work. the laws of physics and chemistry are against you.]
Sorry mate, these units are being produced constantly around the world while you failed your physics and chemistry exam. | |
|
| |
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 7/3/2008 12:25:41 PM | [2findU 6/3/2008 every decade there is some bs like that.....there is no magic solution] You've missed the boat mate. These kits are being manufactured by me and many others for some time now. And if you've $100,000 to bet, I'll gladly take your money! | |
|
| |
| |
Home
login 
