2004 Dodge Pickup Runs on 100% Water

reply to post by buddhasystem



I understand your formula perfectly, and yes, it makes sense.

However,

Try and apply it to a nuclear power plant using the variables you assigned.

It won't work.

Because it assumes that the ONLY source of energy comes from the energy input. In reality, the energy input is merely the nudge off the edge of a cliff.

What these water-powered cars, and the people that build them are trying to say is NOT that they are getting more energy out of electrolysis than they're putting into it, but rather that something as yet unknown is providing energy that is manifest in the output.

The problem isn't that it violates the laws of physics, or that we don't have a theory to explain it. If the results are valid, then the laws of physics haven't been broken, since they never can be. The theory to explain the results needs to be solved, and although the "old guard" of science will stubbornly refuse to legitimize the results, a whole new bright and younger generation will come along with a bag full of ideas to test out. Right now there are literally hundreds of speculative ideas about how this might be working.

Ponz and Fleishman were really on to something. Don't turn a blind eye against something that many people are replicating with very "curious" results....

Originally posted by 30_seconds
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I understand your formula perfectly, and yes, it makes sense.

However,

Try and apply it to a nuclear power plant using the variables you assigned.

It won't work.

Explain it to me. I have a decent understanding of nuclear technology.

Because it assumes that the ONLY source of energy comes from the energy input. In reality, the energy input is merely the nudge off the edge of a cliff.

What these water-powered cars, and the people that build them are trying to say is NOT that they are getting more energy out of electrolysis than they're putting into it, but rather that something as yet unknown is providing energy that is manifest in the output.

As I posted earlier, all things related to electrolysis and electrochemistry are of supreme importance to industry and defense. These processes have been studied in great precision in controlled conditions in many labs. Somehow, a gross dis-balance of energy was never observed.

Read the calculations again -- basically you are saying that burning H2 can produce 100 times more energy than was ever measured. That's an impossiblity. If you hear that your local auto mechanic mastered neurosurgery using just the tools in his shop -- that's about same level of credibility.

Look, conservation of energy nonwithstanding, you can't run a truck on three horsepowers.

reply to post by buddhasystem


It is definately possible to extract energy from water, you can extract energy from anything providing you have the technology to convert into something practicle for use. all matter is energy, you, me and everything you see carry's and electrical charge, there is nothing magical about it, its just fact.

To be more relative to this topic its quite old news. The first I heard about it was a guy from the US who created a plasma blow torch by converting water or more accurately Hydrogen into the most wicked flame you ever seen, it cut through everything. Last I heard he was spirited away by the US gov to work on some military applications. Since then NASA has announced that they have a plasma engine which will eventually replace solid rocket engines due to its variable speed ability and the fact that it can refuel in space by scrubbing hydrogen directly into its storage tanks giving it limitless travel time at much faster speeds. There is also a theory which could see hydrogen reactors replacing nuclear stations because hydrogen is much more stable, has zero emissions and is of neverending supply. Above all else and probably most importantly the power output of such energy far exceeds anything we have today. The only thing stopping it being mainstream is there arent alot of materials and especially not in vast supply which can contain the power of a sun for prolonged periods of time. It is the one hurdle which is holding us back unfortunately as this technology will change everything.

***edit***

Response to buddhasystems again

Again this isnt magic and doesnt require vast amounts of energy. you ignite a chain reaction in hydrogen via an electromagnetic coil which literally seperates hydrogen from what ever its taken a fancy to creating the reaction turning it into plasma. Plasma to nuclear is like the lightbulb to a candle!


[edit on 29-8-2010 by Ascensi0n]

Originally posted by Ascensi0n
Since then NASA has announced that they have a plasma engine which will eventually replace solid rocket engines due to its variable speed ability and the fact that it can refuel in space by scrubbing hydrogen directly into its storage tanks giving it limitless travel time at much faster speeds.

Care to provide a NASA source for that claim?
No, I did not think you could!

reply to post by dereks


Heres an idea why dont you use this link www.google.com ?

www.nasa.gov...

Qoute

VASIMR is a plasma-based propulsion system. An electric power source is used to ionize fuel into plasma. Electric fields heat and accelerate the plasma while the magnetic fields direct the plasma in the proper direction as it is ejected from the engine, creating thrust for the spacecraft. The engine can even vary the amount of thrust generated, allowing it to increase or decrease its acceleration. It even features an "afterburner" mode that sacrifices fuel efficiency for additional speed. Possible fuels for the VASIMR engine could include hydrogen, helium, and deuterium.

you owe me a star

This thread was posted on 8-23, and I just noticed that their 2002 plans were posted on 8-26, they apparently weren't there initially:

Freddy's Plans for Running a Vehicle on Water

How do you like their disclaimer?

Disclaimer: We have no indication these plans work or will work as claimed when built, so if you choose to try it, use common sense and start SMALL, like a lawnmower engine, please report any successes you might have. They are posted 'as is'.

I reviewed their plans briefly and they really never say what the source of power is for the battery that runs the hydrogen generator. In the more recent video it almost seems they want to infer that the truck's alternator powers the battery, but they never come right out and make that claim. And if you watch the video closely, you can see the battery in the bed of the truck that powers the hydrogen generator is truly massive, it's MUCH larger than the battery under the hood. The battery under the hood is probably charged by the alternator, but I don't know if the monster battery in the bed of the pickup is charged by the alternator. My guess is that if so, it's only being partially charged.

These guys don't strike me as typical hoaxers (if there is such a thing as typical hoaxer-I usually think of someone asking people to send money for the plans or a kit), as they posted these plans for free and I haven't seen them ask for money for plans or a kit, so I don't know what their angle is. I also suspect they know something's not right, which is why they canceled the demo scheduled for Aug 21 2010 where someone showed up to verify if this thing actually works.

Is it possible they just aren't all that bright and think they just need to do some tweaking to get the output amps down (as they discuss in the video), and don't really realize it's more than tweaking they are faced with but a fundamental violation of the laws of physics if they don't plug the monster sized battery in to recharge it? I really haven't figured them out, but I'm guessing they are bright enough to know something is wrong, but maybe not bright enough to know exactly what it is. Neither one strikes me as a physicist so they may not know too much about those annoying laws of physics.

reply to post by Ascensi0n

Since then NASA has announced that they have a plasma engine which will eventually replace solid rocket engines due to its variable speed ability and the fact that it can refuel in space by scrubbing hydrogen directly into its storage tanks giving it limitless travel time at much faster speeds.

VASIMR will not replace solid rocket engines, those are used mainly for rocket launches. It is intended for long interplanetary journeys or stationkeeping.

There is no energy extracted from hydrogen in VASIMR. The energy must be supplied by solar panels or nuclear reactor.

I find this Video completly true.

My 2004 Chevy Avalanche For 2 Years:
Has been running at a average 40% HHO.
I Have Pictures and Mileage Posted On my Profile.
Winter mileage and city Mileage is about 20%
It runs 15 % cooler than straight Gas. Cleaner,and Way More POWER !

I Have solved a safe stable nonpoisonous electrolight problem ..The guys in the Video are useing sodium Hydroxide.Not Good to Breath Burned or not.

Due to limited finances They are ahead of me on the outside electronics.
Which they Openly Share.
But i have them completly smoked under the water.
as stated in the video ..the only thing keeping the cars from easily running on hydrogen is the computer, and the timeing.

I also Have Grandchildren and Started working on this For a Better world for THEM !

Anyone interested in Donateing a old enough Delorian with a distributor cap so I can adjust the timeing.
Im not Proud.
I got about 30,000 or more in prototypes
I have had diffrent parts made by diffrent people.
anyone who has made parts for me has tried to steal my ideas .

It has Been a ruff road and I have Lost alot . But This Does work, It does Burn cooler and Cleaner it is way more Powerfull than Gas.
and Like any Gas Needs to Be respected.
But this Video is Not a Fake . I would Bet On That. and I don't Bet.
God Bless

reply to post by abecedarian



Does it work? Well if both them and the truck "disappear" in the middle of the night never to be seen of heard from again then we will know that it did work. At least it work well enough to get them "removed". This idea has been tried before and each time "something" happens to the prototype and the inventor.

This is also referred to as on demand hydrogen, creating hydrogen from stored water tanks versus carrying tanks of hydrogen in the vehicle. This can not work, you need to generate power some how to make the electrical charge in order to get the hydrogen out of the water. You can keep recharging the battery, but it will never get back to its full charge because you are using the power for mobility as well as trying to recharge the battery. If it is even possible to get started and running, eventually the battery will be dead and you will be stranded. Even if it was possible you would need to redesign the entire exhaust system of the car, because this process would potentially rust the entire exhaust system of the vehicle.

Here is another way to look at it. If you have a generator generating power for two motors and one motor is hooked to several gears of altering sizes that eventually get back to the generator in order to keep the generator at the same speed, if there is a slight larger drain on the output of the generator than expected, the generator will slow and eventually stop. Power output from the generator would have to be a constant to the motor turning the gears that in turn, turn the generator.

I think anyone should be able to see where the fault lies in this logic; it would not be any different from the hydrogen derived from the water by electric that would then be put back in to a charged cell.

Though both of these ideas are interesting and entertaining, it is not possible for them to work properly if at all.

S+F for yoru thread! Extracting energy from water is not a new idea as we all know and it has been proven to work time and time again, it is just the process that is being refined all the time. To sit on the fence and say this does not work, its impossible; this is to sit in the closed box which will inevitably close the mind and stop and progress in science. Science is all about pushing the laws and trying to bend them, or understand them better.

Why was Physics split into two i ask you? Classical and Quantum? Why because Classical physics could not explain the Quantum. Newton's laws do not explain every aspect of gravitation. And i ask you, which of the 4 forces of nature do we not fully understand with mathematical theory? GRAVITY!

Side stepping for a minute (which will get me shot on here as it has before) as you will see from my sig i support the Searl Effect Generator, which in the words of the self proclaimed know it alls, "it cannot and will never work" but unfortunately for these people they will not even consider the explinations behind it and try to understand if it will work. This is the evidence of a closed mind scenario. The negativity about water as a fuel is the same against the SEG. Energy is all around us, call it the "ether" or whatever, it has been proven and it is just a matter of time until somebody finds a way to extract this energy form the ether either from water, temperature or other means, no violation of any conservation of energy is going on here.

I fully support these ideas and we all should be more positive about it. If it does not work, so what, at least we tried and found out it does not, but in doing so we may find out something else that propels us forward in science.

Never forget, science was all about experimentation....theory came second, nowdays its all theory first and experimentation second which is why we are backward.

and a saying i try to read everyday!

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
Arthur C. Clarke (1917 - 2008), Clarke's first law

reply to post by 1234567

Never forget, science was all about experimentation....theory came second, nowdays its all theory first and experimentation second which is why we are backward.

This is incorrect, an experiment is performed to confirm or dispel a theory. It has always been done this way. Why would someone experiment without a thought as to what result is expected? The result is not always the one expected, which is why you get accidental discoveries, but there is always a result an experiment is trying to reach which was thought of prior to the experiment being performed.

The proposed idea may very well work at first, until more demand is made for power from the source that is not able to be provided, thus less and less power will be able to be drawn from the source until the device totally stops running due to insufficient power.

Try the example I provided above of a generator and two motors, you need two because one has to be used to supply power to the generator, Even if you are able to get the gear ratio correct where you can supply power to both motors and keep the power efficiently going back into the motor that runs the generator, as soon as you put a load on the other motor, more power will be pulled from the generator and not enough power will be able to be supplied to the motor running the generator, slowing the generator end reducing it’s overall power output, until the whole system is unable to sustain itself and it stops functioning.

The same above experiment is true for the hydrogen from water as well, as demand increases, output from the hydrogen will need to be increased, but if the power source is not able to add the required electrical charge to the water to produce the hydrogen, the system will fail. Remember that a perfect system would be a closed system where you would need to recharge the power source that is charging the water to release the hydrogen, so if you are not getting enough power from the hydrogen to run your device and adequately recharge the power source the device you are trying to run will stop, it may come slowly to a stop, but it will eventually stop.

Originally posted by AlienCarnage
reply to post by 1234567

 

Never forget, science was all about experimentation....theory came second, nowdays its all theory first and experimentation second which is why we are backward.

This is incorrect, an experiment is performed to confirm or dispel a theory. It has always been done this way. Why would someone experiment without a thought as to what result is expected?

Appologies but I may not have explained my reasoning correctly. Experimentation has always been done to confirm or disprove a theory Yes i agree, but what i meant was "mathematical theory" today is written and a theory will be deemed correct or incorrect without experimentation because so called thoerists say its not possible with a mathematical model, but this solves nothing as usually the current accepted mathematics may not fully be able to explain the proposed outcome of the experiment. This is the situation with the Searl Effect.

Anyway back to the water running cars thread.....you are correct that the total output must always cover whats needed to sustain the input as well otherwise as you stated it will eventually stop.

Did you hear about a recent video showing that Bob Lazar had converted his corvette to run on water? I will try to find the video....standby.

Here is the video of Bob Lazar...but its powered with hydrogen, a different process as stated in this thread by the OP.....but here it is nonetheless as it is interesting.

reply to post by 1234567


You are correct that mathematical models are not always correct, and people do rely on the output of mathematical models without putting forward the physical effort to prove or disprove a theory which is not what good science is about. I see now where you are coming from with your earlier statement, now that you have explained it in more detail.

There are other considerations to the car that runs on water, if the process of pulling the hydrogen from the water is adequately achieved. The whole system of the engine to the exhaust of a conventional car is susceptible to corrosion and rust that the by product of the system will produce. In order for this to be eliminated, the whole system would need to be gone over removing and replacing these parts with non corrosive and rust resistant parts. This would not be cheap, and you may not be able to get the parts needed for such an undertaking.

I am not trying to deter anyone from giving this a go, I just want to let anyone who may consider this project to know, this is not just a simple cheep weekend project. I encourage people to experiment, but educate yourself fully before going into this, my advice is if you are going to experiment do it with small scale, and remember to be safe first.

I have tried failed experiments with the motor generator, and never could get it working properly, I did not simply use 2 motors a generator and a battery, though that is where I started, I will not go to where I ended it or what it looked like when I was done, but it was not pretty. Because I have tried and failed does not mean it is impossible, it could mean I missed something that someone else might realize.

Looks like they have the fast hydrogen system in quite a big set up.
The water buggy may have had a generator that big.
I think all these water power blast the hydrogen with a Tesla coil
so thats where the power comes from.
In order to use atomic hydrogen (H) and never burn hydrogen gas (H2)
in a recycle set up we might have to go back to steam engine drive.
The never ending use of a can of hydrogen gas.

No dinosaur made any oil, Venus dumped a lot on Arabia.

link to hydride system

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You're missing the points entirely.

No I'm not. The point is, if you separate H2 and O2 out of water, then burn it, you won't get any energy above what you expended in the separation process.

Yes, the answer is so simple. They invented a Dodge that uses more energy than one that uses gasoline. They are snake oil salesmen.

Don't pay ANY attention to anybody that says this can't be done. It HAS already been done by Stanley Meyer. Spread this video to everybody through facebook. Our criminal government has known about this technology for decades but has suppressed it so you have to be pay for obsolete gasoline.

THIS IS REAL! I've read many books and this has been done many times before. Stanley Meyer's brother confirms that he was POISONED because he refused to sell his technology for $1 billion to an arab investor.

Our Department of Energy is a 100% FRAUD!

I was going to post this today and was glad to see you posted this. This post should have 200 Flags! Come on guys, spread the word. Pay attention to all Shills who try to discredit with doing no research. Look at all their other posts. I see these SAME people saying that it's GREAT that TSA puts their hands down your pants! LOL

SPREAD the WORD to all!

Isn't it FUNNY how I can't FLAG this post! Hmmmm, why is that? Anybody else not able to flag this post. Why does somebody want to keep this from going viral on ATS!

reply to post by pteridine


This is wrong. If you do it the OLD way that they showed you in high school with two plates and dc power then fine, but if you know ANYTHING about Stan Meyer, he figured out how to break the bonds of the water using a special frequency that did it at FAR fewer amps and that's why his water powered car worked and he was killed for it. The man had many patents and contracts with NASA so don't sit there and tell us it's impossible because he did it! Daniel Dingel in the Philippines did it also as did many other men but they DID NOT do it with straight voltage and plates because that doesn't work. Do more research on this but don't just keep sitting there saying "This won't work!" because it's already been done and people have been killed for it like Stanley Meyer. Wake up or maybe this is just your gig to keep telling everybody why it won't work when you don't even know anything about how it's already been done!