| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/2/2008 12:37:45 AM | I cam across something of interest for every one to know.
As we all know water (H2O) can be converted into hydrogen and oxygen useing electrical curent. As we also know that it takes more energy to convert it than what you get out of it......or does it? there was a guy by the name of Stan Meyer who back in the 90's found away by using frequency reather than electricity to seperate the hydrogen and oxygen from water and was able to get 10 thimes more energy out that it took to make it. He was able to run a dune buggy just off of tap water. Any combustable engine can be converted to run on just water and its cheap and easy to do. never mind the expensive hdyrogen cells and having to buy hydrogen at a station. this would give everyone free energy for your cars. If your worried about the price of water then one could catch rain water or stop at a creak.
You dont have to take my word for it, I found the information on the net. Go to youtube and search Stan Meyer you will find videos on his acomplishments. unfortunatly like so many befor that has invented great things was murdered and his house ransacked for all his research but some one some were still had a copy of his research and posted it to the net. I did some more searching after i seen the videos and found some free pland that they guarantee will work for your car. they say that you will be getting any were from 50-300MPG depending on your fine tuning skills.
this web site with the plans is http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/carplans.htm
I wish I knew a little bit more on how a car works, I would try this out for myself. if anyone tries this please let me know how it works. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/2/2008 1:33:22 AM |
there was a guy by the name of Stan Meyer who back in the 90's found away by using frequency reather than electricity to seperate the hydrogen and oxygen from water
Another one for the ``not even wrong'' pile. What you refer to as ``using frequency'' and ``electricity'' means using electromagnetic forces. You realize that the product of combustion is water, so you are describing is a perpetual motion machine. Do you really believe that it takes less energy to dissociate a molecule than it takes to bind it into a molecule? If the car worked, the inventor would have received a Nobel prize for proving all of the science done in the last 400 years was wrong. Your link also provides a testimonial from a great spokesman for fraudulent pseudoscience, Tom Bearden. He is a well known uber crackpot from usenet who has been peddling pseudoscience forever. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/2/2008 5:29:42 AM | | 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. You could theoretically rig a car to run on hamster wheels for an engine, but would it really be worth it? | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/2/2008 6:48:36 AM | When I was a kid, I discovered how to get an extra horsepower out of my moped. I was beating all my friends. Next thing I knew, everyone was punching holes in their mufflers too. lol.
Point is: If anyone sees anyone with something like that, it would spread like wildfire and couldn't be contained.
Try a table top version with a lawn mower first. At the very least, it would be fun. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/2/2008 8:03:10 AM | I was just e-mailed from a person who claims that he has done this to his car and it works. He said he is very happy with the results.
You realize that the product of combustion is water, so you are describing is a perpetual motion machine.
As far as perpetual motion goes it wouldn't be classed as that. a perpetual motion machine is a machine that dosen't need a source and is compleatly self containing. This Hydrogen engine needs a source the water that comes out is less than what went it. You cant burn anything and expect to get energy from it for ever. Most of it is used up in energy and is gone so one would eventualy have to put in more water to keep it going. It wouldn't fall in the perpetual motion catigory. | |
|
| |
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/2/2008 8:29:22 PM | | That's just a rehash of the old "cold fusion" hub bub of the late '80's by Pons and Fleischman. Although they trumpeted with huge fanfare that they were able to produce excess heat using heavy water - no one else was able to reproduce their experiments. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/2/2008 10:40:29 PM | If you watch the videos on youtube of Stan Meyer he was able to make huge amounts of hydrogen using only half an amp and the water wouldnt get hot like other people designs did. I Believe that this works. I'm not a scientist I'm just an average person with an average education. But I am willing to try if it gives me a few more MPG I'm saving alot over the year. wouldn't it be nice to have say 100mpg? Not say hat your going to get that but it would be nice.  | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/2/2008 11:40:47 PM | If you're that gullible, go ahead and try it. It won't work. The laws of physics and chemistry are all against you. Try to get a guarantee before you invest too much money into it. Also, please read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell
These schemes come around all the time and mostly when fuel prices are high. If it's too good to be true, it's not true.
Good luck. If you go ahead, let us know how you make out.
Thanks, | |
|
| |
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/3/2008 10:15:19 AM | there will always be believers and skeptic for every thing. There are alot of 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. they have enough money and power to put what ever they want on the net to try to convince the public that this technology wont work.
No word of a lie I was talking to a guy that has made some changes to his car. he said that it runs on both gas and hydro and he was able to get his car from about 25mpg to aroud 50mpg and he is very happy with the results.
through out history there has been scientist that have proven other scientist and laws wrong. I believe that laws are just theories and can be proven wrong.
I have a second gas lawnmower and with the help of my 2 friends, one is a mechanic and the other is an electritian we are going to try it. the plans are free and the guy that said he did this to his car only spent around $200 for parts. So we wont loose to much if it doesn't work. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/3/2008 10:26:36 AM | my concern with this wld be/ water.
how long b4 the water runs out/ and how wld we then be able to "make more water"??
i think we shld try to conserve water.
or at least/ start buildin something, to get the heck off this planet/ no water=no life.
  | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/3/2008 10:29:58 AM |
I was just e-mailed from a person who claims that he has done this to his car and it works. He said he is very happy with the results.
The given the price of gasoline right now, your buddy ought to make a fortune. I await the appearance of the stock symbol on the nasdaq.
As far as perpetual motion goes it wouldn't be classed as that. a perpetual motion machine is a machine that dosen't need a source and is compleatly self containing. This Hydrogen engine needs a source the water that comes out is less than what went it.
Why? All that can be exahusted are the products of the combustion, which can onlly be water, Hydrogen gas (H2), Oxygen gas (O2) and H2O2., which burns in oxygen to produce - you guessed it - water + oxygen gas. So. are you suggesting that this is also a portable matter destruction machine instead of a perpetual motion machine? | |
|
| |
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/3/2008 10:45:51 AM |
there will always be believers and skeptic for every thing.
You left out scirentists whose job it is to be skeptical until evidence from real experiments changes their minds.
There are alot of people with alot of big bucks that dont want this technology out there for obvious reasons. the gas and oil companies
Since I happen to know a bit about the cold fusion fiasco personally, I can tell you first hand that there was no shortage of people and companies willing to throw money, and lots of it, at cold fusion. There was a shortage of scientists willing to accept money for pursuing cold fusion because accepting money to research something that one knows is wrong is unethical. As it was explained to me by one person who wasn't willing to pursue cold fusion, it's nothing for an oil company to throw a million dollars away on something that's a long shot if they see the potential from the patent rights.
through out history there has been scientist that have proven other scientist and laws wrong.
That's what scientists do, which is why you need to supply real experimental evidence to support a claim like the one you made. Scientists have already disproved the existence of perpetual motion machines. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/3/2008 11:11:21 AM |
you need to supply real experimental evidence to support a claim like the one you made.
I didn't invent it and I'm not claiming it works, I'm just saing that I believe that it can. it takes believers and perservierance through all others doubt to prove that something might actualy work were all others have failed. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/3/2008 12:24:16 PM | The whole concept is "siphoning off" a certain amount of energy that is being produced by "burning" a fuel. We don not harness ALL the energy by any means. Therefore, by increasing the amount of energy harnessed, we can use less fuel.
A two stroke engine (like a lawnmower motor) wastes a lot of gas. It is burned off and the energy is NOT harnessed. They are inefficient in that manner.
A car that is "tuned up" is going to be far more economical than one that is not. Cleaner burning and harnessing the power produced. By chemistry or mechanics, we can get better mileage by better designs and/or fuel additives, or alternate fuels and engine designs.
If the navy can build a sub that runs very quietly using seawater as propulsion, surely we can invent a better engine.
Evena small nuclear ractor would provide a lot of long term energy. Radiation leaks? they can be contained....and the small amount of "spillage" because of accidents or whatever would be minimal. Again, technology could make this even safer....an airplanes "black box" recorder is designed to survive catastrphic crashes...why couldn't the same kind of technology be used to house a "mini-reactor" for land vehicles?
Ok...just idea tossed out there....but technologically, they could work quite well. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/3/2008 1:39:57 PM | | Every decade there is some BS like that but in the mean time we still run on gasoline or diesel. There is no magic solution. 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. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/3/2008 4:46:50 PM | " an airplanes / black-box".....yes, this is a good point actually.
and a good design.
even a primitive thought to the realization of hows and whys.....planes go-down.
and a simple solution / temporary even, why haven't we attached a big ole parachute up-top the planes/???
no more...crash landings.
(sorry/ off topic)
can't stop thinkin./beyond.
| |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/3/2008 6:46:04 PM |
why couldn't the same kind of technology be used to house a "mini-reactor" for land vehicles?
Where exactly would you like to put the spent fuel for these "mini-reactors?" You do realize that many of the heavy fissionables will remain deadly radioactive for several hundred thousand years. Not only that but the "small amount of spillage because of accidents...would be minimal." So you'd be willing to clean this minimal mess up?
A nuclear reactor is not an engine. In a nuclear reactor, nuclear chain reactions take place heating water. This water powers a steam turbine which converts into mechanical energy. Essentially it's the same tech from the 1800's steam power locomotive.
navy can build a sub that runs very quietly using seawater as propulsion
I'm assuming you're talking about the U.S. Navy. Nuclear subs use the same methods in commercial nuclear reactors. They use a compact vessel using nuclear chain reaction to power a steam turbine - for propulsion and electricity generation. No seawater ever gets in contact with the reactor - unless of course it you're hit by a torpedo. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/4/2008 1:59:16 PM |
If the navy can build a sub that runs very quietly using seawater as propulsion
You're thinking of the fictional Russian submarine in the movie "The Hunt For Red October". Real world submarines use screw propellers most likely driven by a steam turbine which uses water heated up by that nuclear generator. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/5/2008 8:19:23 PM |
Stan Meyer who back in the 90's found away by using frequency reather than electricity to seperate the hydrogen and oxygen from water
I may have made a mistake with my opening post were I said it uses frequency rather than electricity. It does use electricity just very little compared to other contraptions that use direct current to seperate the oxygen and hydrogen. Stan Meyer`s, I believe, found a way to seperate it by vibrations useing only half an amp so he is still using elctricity. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/6/2008 10:06:32 AM | I know a nuclear reator is not an engine...it is a means of powering one. Anyways...the "rods" that are used up can be stored much the same way as they currently are. They would be much smaller than the big ones used in hydro plants, of course. They can be stored where used cores are currently stored...or...ground up and put into concrete blocks and stacked in the desert...until some bright-boy figures out how to use it to make more energy. Don't underestimate the future grandkids....they might be smarter than you think!
These rodes last a long time...in comparison to a tank of gas!
Also...if these rods are "hot" (radioactive) to the point where they would pose a huge danger in the event of a small leak, there are ways to look after it.
So, YES, I would clean up the mess....it is a high pay job, often done teleremotely! Not like in China where they use rags and buckets so sop up radioactive water and wring it out by hand.
Also...don't underestimate the "seawater propulsion" system....if you thnk it is a "pipedream" or " a tall-tale"...think again. Most technology is about 12 years ahead of what is out there now. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/6/2008 4:32:44 PM |
If it's too good to be true, it's not true.
I understand what you are trying to say, but with that thinking, how can you drive a car, breath the air, or even live? All i know is that i had ice-cream for breakfast today. Are you saying that ice cream doesn't exist? It was to good to be true. But ANYTHING is possible. | |
|
| Run any combustable engine on water this includes any car.
Posted: 6/6/2008 8:03:34 PM | Thank you evergrow, anything is posible. long ago people thought the world was flat and they wouldn't believe any one that said different, some people were even jailed and put to death for talking about some thing so unbelievable and untrue as the world being round.
Try not to be to skeptical over filling up your car on water. | |
|
Home
login 
