Plans for a water powered car.

Originally posted by EmilNomel
face it john... we are human beings and we are greedy!

Not all of us. I can't speak for anyone else but I know I'm not.

killing others for 5 dollars...

I certainly haven't killed anyone for 5 dollars and I really hope you haven't

assassinate our presidents...

Again, I know I haven't and I'm pretty certain no one else on this board has.

we make wars because of greed for oil and other resources... thus kill millions of innocent people!

Certain factions of government do, but I know I don't and I'm fairly certain neither do you. How is any of this pertinent?

big corporations steal other poor people's inventions...
and on and on...

You'll have to substantiate this claim. Not just one or two examples, but evidence that every single big corporation in existence steals the inventions of poor people, seeing as that is what your claim implies. Or, more fitingly, provide specific evidence that a big corporation stole Meyer's "invention".

things you do not really want to hear because they make you ashamed to be called a human being!

You're putting words into my mouth again. Substantiate your claims, don't play the armchair psychologist with me.

it hurts your peace of mind and ego hearing about these things...

See above. Either you're flaw projecting or putting more words into my mouth. Neither is appropriate behaviour.

and if you say that it does not hurt you then you are either a liar or just a really insensitive, ego centered and evil person!

MORE flaw projection and/or words being put into my mouth. Those are pretty big accusations. Substantiate them, the armchair psychology is getting tiresome.

and that's why you keep saying "bla bla bla... prove it"

Well... yes. unlike you, I don't believe wild claims unless they have supporting evidence. How exactly is that a bad thing?

you were quick to accuse me for being closed minded... yet, you do not see that you are closed minded just the same if not even more!

Being open minded is not good when you are prepared to believe any old thing you read on the internet without a shred of evidence.

here is a proof for you that "free energy" and perpetuum mobile exist:
just look at the universe or the solar system... how is it possible for all the planets to go around the sun "forever"?

If no work is being done and no force is acting against it, the orbit will be perpetual. Notice the key phrase no work being done. As soon as you tried to harness energy from the motion, it is no longer perpetual motion. Is a "water powered" car a planetary orbit? No. Your analogy is false. I've made this point many times on these boards: there is a strong correlation between scientific illiteracy and belief in over unity claims. That is why uniformed people such as yourself get sucked into these hoaxes.

or look at the atoms... how is it possible for the electrons to go around the nucleus "forever"?

See above. Electrons don't "orbit". That is an inaccurate analogy to make teaching physics in high school more palatable to the students. So, yet again, your analogy is false.

energy can neither be created nor destroyed... maybe true but, it can be borrowed used and returned back to the source...

Energy is not converted at >=100% efficiency. That is the killer blow to perpetual motion machines or "water powered" cars.

perhaps here you will say that "once it is used to do some work (for example heat up your room in the cold winter) it's gone and cannot be returned" and if you say so then yes, you do have a point!

You WILL use up more energy splitting hydrogen than you will get by using it as a fuel. You will have to supply more energy than you get back as fuel.

we say that energy cannot be created but, that is not the truth either... because energy can be created from the void! (big bang theory for example) + other proofs that i will not get into them at the moment...

Is there a cosmological Big Bang happening in the "water powered" car? Of course not. Lets not take thread this into complete absurdity.

what do you know about infinity and the void? and how can i open your eyes for you to see something without a boundary?

What you are saying is not in any way pertinent to this thread.

you are closed minded (we all are

)

Hang on, you said you weren't. Which is it now?

because we have limits how far we can see and understand... do you see?
i bet you don't see... understand?

Again, you have stopped making sense.

[continued...]

bah... why am i wasting my time trying to educate you on things you will never be able to comprehend?

What exactly could I possibly "not comprehend"? You haven't addressed any of my points, instead you've gone off on a pseudo-intellectual tangent. You might think that your monologues are clever and insightful but alas they are not.

i'll tell you why... because there are others who will see! and perhaps there is a small chance (one in a gazillion) that one day you will open your eyes too!

More pseudo-intellectual rambling. Funny how you haven't addressed one single point I have made in my previous reply.

reply to post by john_bmth

you keep on braking my words and phrases out of the context... in a poor and sorry attempt to make out no sense of what i have said to you... but, that does not do you any good! it only shows me how ignorant you are!
you are like a small ignorant child who brakes out the little pieces from the full picture of a jigsaw puzzle and says "wow that piece of the puzzle looks like an elephant"
grow up mate!

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by EmilNomel

according to your logic... the regular gasoline operated engine is also a perpetual motion machine!

No it's not. You have to fill your tank with gas when it runs out.

you also have to fill up the water tank when the water runs out... yes?

&infin

...

reply to post by Screwed


Sure it can be done, lots of us are doing it already, even though the armchair math guys and scientists say it's impossible, I did it, and so can you. See my thread on this here: Turn Your Car/Truck Into a HHO/Gas Hybrid
Be sure to read through the entire post, I originally purchased a complete unit from an online supplier, but didn't like the design, so I altered it several times, each time getting better production. Know this, the car engine does not "run on water," that would be impossible. The electrolysis process splits the molecules of the water into Hydrogen/Hydrogen and Oxygen, twice as much Hydrogen as Oxygen. Thus the name "HHO."

As you can see, mine are simple jar designs, but they do work, they in fact double mileage in my Chevy G-20 van. We are currently working on a plate design, this unit will use seven plates, in a positive/negative arrangement fed by our 105 Amp GM type 3 alternator through a 50 Amp circuit breaker. If we can produce just five litres of HHO per minute, we can turn the gas completely off. Be sure to see the ECM hack we did.
Be aware that many will tell you this is all a scam, and it will never work, but it does work quite well. We are throwing just 40 amps across our bolts right now, and are getting lots of HHO bubbles in two Mason Jars! 32-37 mpg every day.

Hint. Smoke cigarettes? Do not smoke around this stuff! My uncle, bless his heart, is getting old and his mind doesn't work as good as it used to at 78 years old. I made him one, gave him some hose and parts, and some lye to experiment with. He filled the jar with mix, hooked op a 50 amp battery charger, took the hose, about 8 feet of it, out and struck a match to the end to see if it would light. The reactor exploded into a thousand pieces, even the plastic lid was destroyed. The only things left were the bolt. This tech is dangerous if you are being stupid, so don't be stupid. It is perfectly safe if you follow my instructions.
Happy motoring!
Auto

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.

Wrong in so many ways. Have you tried it, friend? I am producing HHO with just 13.5 Volts at 105 Amps, running through a 40 Amp circuit breaker. Of course the reactor will draw as much energy as it is allowed to, that is why we have to limit it. Even at 40 amps it will drain my battery in 10 minutes flat.

Originally posted by EmilNomel
reply to post by john_bmth

 

you keep on braking my words and phrases out of the context... in a poor and sorry attempt to make out no sense of what i have said to you...

No, I address your posts point by point. You do not need me to help you make no sense, you seem to be doing just fine on your own. Notice how i actually respond to each and every point you make? You might try that one yourself rather than responding to things I clearly did not say. You know, argue the points on the page rather than the ones in your head?

but, that does not do you any good! it only shows me how ignorant you are!

Ironic. I point out the logical holes and outright falsehood in your posts yet you have yet to address a single one of them.

you are like a small ignorant child who brakes out the little pieces from the full picture of a jigsaw puzzle and says "wow that piece of the puzzle looks like an elephant". grow up mate!

Again, you have resorted to ad hominem attacks and putting words into my mouth. Still, I guess it's easier than actually rebutting any of my comments.

you also have to fill up the water tank when the water runs out... yes?

For the umpteenth time: you will spend more energy splitting the hydrogen than you will get back by using it as fuel. Let that one sink in for a few moments before responding.

reply to post by autowrench


YOU are the guy we have looking for.
I need to u2u you for more info on EXACTLY how to do what you did.
Have some info ready for me.

There is no point discussing it here because I don't want to sift thru all of the posts to find the info at a later date.
We are VERY interested in finding out exactly what you did. I will begin reading your thread now.
Thanks.

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?

Safety is a very important issue, friend. We make the HHO on demand, the only explosive gas is in the Jars, the bubbler, and the hose leading to the air breather. I would never have a tank of this stuff on my car, it would become a mini hydrogen bomb in a crash, or a fire. As far as "exploding your vehicle," I take that to mean exploding the cylinder walls or pistons, it's true that the HHO burns hotter than gasoline, but it makes the gasoline 100% efficient, and it cleans out all carbon and sulphur left from the burning of gasoline from your engine. You do have to remove the CAT, as Oxygen always goes south, out the exhaust. Having a hot CAT full of Oxygen is not a good idea. No worries about passing an emissions test, my van passed, the tech even commented on how clean it ran. My tailpipe is perfectly clean, just a little water moisture.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Therefore the motor and alternator can't make a sustained output to split hydrogen which is greater than the input, so what we see is only temporary, and battery powered.

Where do you people get these ideas from? Using NAOH-2 Food Grade Hydroxide Lye as an electrolyte, one teaspoon to a quart of ordinary tap water. I can make bubbles using a 9 volt battery, and a few with an AA battery. Using a 13.5 Automotive battery and a 105 Amp GM alternator I can make a great deal of HHO. Do your research before posting that something you now nothing about won't work, please?

reply to post by autowrench


For the millionth time already: You will spent more energy splitting the hydrogen than you will get back as fuel. If you believe otherwise, by all means present your findings to the scientific community for scrutiny and collect your Nobel prize before joining the mortal ranks among the likes of Newton and Einstein. Talk is cheap. Present your results and methodology to the scientific community for scrutiny and independent verification or join the ranks of all the other Internet tinkerers who talk loud about breaking the laws of physics yet never deliver.

I remember when the (HAARP) earthquakes first hit Japan, someone was saying it was because they were ready to release a hydrogen powered car, that would damper the oil industry.

Originally posted by Screwed


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)

AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN FUEL WARS OVER WATER START??? SOLAR POWER IS BEST AND MORE PLENTIFUL..

reply to post by john_bmth


Yeah, I think we all know where you stand on the subject now so,..........thanks for your input.

Rather than get my information from ONE source who says "Don't waste your time, it can't be done"
I am going to listen to the people who HAVE tried and gotten results.
I am not opposed to the idea of increasing my gas milage using HHO as a suppliment.
Apparently YOU ARE!
That's cool with me though.
To each his own.

I appreciate your input though.
It appears that there is no way to produce ENOUGH HHO using the cars alternator, to run the car, from what you are saying. But it could produce SOME!
Some is better than NONE!

My ears are still open and I am willing to learn more because I don't claim to know it all nor do I pretend to.
I know what I was told was possible all my life but I also have reason to believe I may have been either lied to
or given information that is innacurate by people who themselves were only "repeaters" for the information that they were given.

I am ready to find out for myself.
AFTER I find out for myself, I will report back and then you can tell me that what I found out is not possible
and you will be allowed to remain safely in your bubble and I will be allowed to explore the possibilities that you were afraid to explore. Everybody wins!!

reply to post by Screwed

It really is quite simple: extraordinary demands require extraordinary evidence. Am I telling him not to try? No, I'm telling him to supply evidence for his tall claims of breaking the laws of physics. Not exactly unreasonable, is it now? The fact that there are people on this forum who will take a stranger at their word on a conspiracy forum about breaking the laws of physics says a lot about their scientific literacy and gullibility. What's even worse is that such blind belief is considered "open minded", yet evidence-based research and critical thinking is considered "closed minded".

A water-powered car, wow, I can't wait for water to be 5.00 a gallon too! Seriously, this is insane. Maybe if they used salt water, but clean freshwater is on its way to being as limited a resource as oil. I would hope these inventors would focus on technology that utilizes unlimited resources (that would mainly be solar).

reply to post by john_bmth


I think where you and I differ is that you demand proof wheras I demand the ability to prove it to myself.

That being said....

IN NO WAY do I intend on creating a "water powered car" which would liberate me from paying high gas prices
and free me from dependance on foriegn oil. I enjoy my slavery and am more than happy to pay at the pump. The questions I have are for entertainment purposes ONLY and should in no way be taken to mean that I have more than a passing interest in the POSSIBILITY of a water powered engine.

-End Disclaimer.

reply to post by SavedOne


Last time I checked,
water was the most abundant natural resouce on the face of the planet.
Correct me if I am wrong.

reply to post by Screwed


The main problem with cars is the internal combustion engine. Very inefficient. I think youd be better off just hooking up a battery(s) to an electric motor instead of splitting water and then feeding it to an ICE.

Originally posted by Screwed
reply to post by john_bmth

 

I think where you and I differ is that you demand proof wheras I demand the ability to prove it to myself.

Demanding proof and demanding the ability to prove oneself are not in any way mutually exclusive. It's a shame that critical thinking and evidence-based research using scientific method is such a taboo on this forum.