Whatever happened to the water-fueled engine?

well I can certainly believe that is your own definition of metaphysicist. Now would you like to use an on line dictionary or google metaphysics and compare?

Maybe I'm being a bit hard on you. I would not have been able to give a clear definition of metaphysics either. But some of the stuff you come out with is preposterous. For a start Einstein's theory of special relativity was tested and proved correct by measuring the light bending property of massive objects during a solar eclipse in (i think) 1919. How that has anything to do with your observation that 1+1+1=3 is not clear to me. And if you are offering this as proof of a perpetual motion machine using a tin can and an electric battery, its not me acting the clown.

I'll try to get info
I'm of the "show me" opinion with this gadget. I just found out that my neighbor has a co-worker who bought a distributor license for cool-flame products. This should allow me to get some more honest answers I would guess...I emailed him and asked if I could see a car running on this and maybe even borrow it for a few days. We'll see...

whatever happened to the water-fueled engine?
Just came across your interesting site. Seems that many have witnessed working engines fueled by water. In the summer of 1975-76, I watched an Australian current affairs program called the MIke Willisee Show at 7pm weeknights over 3 nights. The story concerned an ethnic inventor from Perth, Western Australia, who had converted his 1969 HT Holden to run on water. The 2nd night showed a driving test and the 3rd night detailed the engine itself. At the end of the segment, Mike Willisee said that the inventor had signed a deal with Ford motor company. Nothing was heard of him again. In 1983, a business magazine, BRW, started a rich list, namely called the BRW Rich List, which is still covered by the media even today. This inventor was listed 4th on the list at $400 million Australian dollars. For the next 5 years, he was listed ALWAYS at $400 million dollars. Unlike all the other people on the list, only his name appeared. Normally a description or title followed the name to show how they made their wealth., i.e. Rupert Murdoch: Media, Greg Norman: Golf etc... None of the articles of commentary about the wealthiest mentioned this man either. The 4th richest man in Australia and none of the media outlets who reported this list considered him worth mentioning! I can't remember this inventor's name, other than he was Polish or Czech and his short name began with the letter P. I have tried to find old BRW Rich lists on the net for years, but to no avail. In 2005, I met the late, but well-known Australian painter and inventor Pro Hart. (He has his own website if you want to verify him as a well-known Aussie icon). He was a close friend of my boss and I was in his home town of Broken Hill to pick up some of his paintings for an auctuon in Adelaide, South Australia. He showed me his flower-painted Rolls Royce which ran on water. He told me that Mobil paid him to not reveal his invention to the public. He showed me other inventions of his which no one would believe, or any company could afford to let on the market. I was a Pastor in an Adelaide church and Pro's daughter and grandkids attended there. He was a christian himself. As a wealthy man himself, and nationally famous, he had no reason to lie or dream up a story like this. Over the years, TV reports spoke of this invention, but never focused on it too much as they could have. You'd think everyone would be interested, especially the media. It is good to know that there are others who know about this 'unwanted' design, but I daily wonder why no one has raised the subject today when car companies are brazenly showing off their million-dollar concept cars that run on electricity or hydrogen. It would certainly be a question they would not like to be asked if given in a correct manner. Maybe one day.

Martin, first welcome to a2k!

Second there is no such thing as a water powered engine...unless you are talking about something powered by gravity eg a water wheel. Thats actually powered by the sun.

And thinking about a water powered engine...well ok there might be just as there might be somewhere water flows uphill.

Anyone who says he has invented such a thing is either a liar, a con-man or is delusional. Its against the God given laws of thermodynamics. Just as God abhors perpetual motion machines.

Hello Steve, thank you for your reply. Please consider this: religion may very well be like the water-fueled engine. To those who are convinced of its existence, they consider themselves to be believers. There are believers , and then there are BELIEVERS. There are those who make a conscious decision through logic and personal conviction that there is a God. And then there are those who have an experience that causes them to not only believe, but make radical and illogical changes in their life, their job, friends, even dramatic personality changes. These latter people are usually known as born again christians, and are generally viewed as religious fanatics. The same goes for those who have UFO experiences; they are true believers in what they have experienced. It's entirely possible you may think that these people are not the 'full-monty', but more than likely, Jules Verne, Orville Wright and Bill Gates were probably ridiculed for their ideas and beliefs too. What they claimed to be able to do was illogical until they proved all wrong. Unfortunately not all ideas are received as openly as theirs. A water-fueled engine would not be accepted because its effect on the modern-day economy would be devastating. My point is this: water-powered engines may sound ridiculous to you because you haven't seen one yet. the ones who have the knowledge and finances to produce one, WIll ridicule it and hope to influence others to think like they do. But to those who've seen, you will never convince them otherwise. So, Steve, don't give up with your opinion that its not possible because you don't sound like a close-minded person. You've obviously got the determination to debunk the theory, so with an attitude like that, one day you might just stumble across something you don't believe in. If you don't mind the pun: the truth is out there, you've just got to find it.

Indeed the truth is out there. And getting at it is hard work. But you dont arrive at the truth by wishful thinking. No matter how hard I wish for anti gravity paint to enable me to fly, its not going to happen is it?

We have achieved what would appear remarkable, even magical, to people of a previous era by meticulous observation of the world, critical thinking and diligent application. We have built up a body of knowledge which is constantly refined and tested against what we observe. And if theory doesnt support observed fact, we junk it. The thermodynamics of heat engines is well understood, although its not easy. Its hard science, not easy wishful thinking or religious guesswork. Its just not good enough to say you BELIEVE in a water fuelled engine. Give us a theoretical explanation as to why a water fuelled engine will work, then build it.

There is no conspiracy among theorists. I can assure you if a water fuelled engine was theoretically possible, there would be people all over the world developing the idea, and nothing except perhaps materials would be holding them back.

............................................


I take it you are a believer (upper or lower case I dont know which) in a concept you refer to as 'God'. Its a short word and its dog backwards. Now I know exactly what a dog is, in fact I'm a believer in dog. But before you can believe you have to understand what it is you are asked to believe in. And there are as many definitions of the word 'God' as there are people out there who 'believe'. What's your definition of 'God'? It may well be different from mine. Is that ok?

But for the sake of argument consider this. Perhaps we could agree that God is the creator of all things, the maker of heaven and earth, the orginator of the Universe of all that exists. Now thats how we define Universe. Everything that exists. And God exists, obviously or he couldnt be around creating things. Therefore God is part of what we define the Universe to be. So he created the universe and himself as part of it. God exists as just a component of all existence? But thats not how we have agreed to define god. Because it begs the question who created God?[/i]

Surely God is somehow over and above the Universe. His existence was before the Universe. But by definition something that is outside the Universality of all existence, doest not exist[/i].

If all you said is true, it's time to close down the patent office.

And oh, about the,"outside of Universality of existence" not existing. I agree. Those string theory is bullshit anyways...12th dimension???

if you have a point to make i would be pleased to respond if you express it in english

You sound like a very interesting dinner guest, Steve. My reference to religion and UFO's relates to those who believe because they have seen. Obviously you have not come across anything that convinces you that an engine exists. But more obvious is that you are very curious because, if you're not the intelligent and intellectual person you sound like, you wouldn't waste your time on such a ridiculously sounding theory. A few years ago, a group of 'think-tank' scientists gathered to challenge many scientific theories in the hope of gaining greater understanding in area's that always created division in the science world. They used the creation of the human eye to question whether man is randomly created. When formed, the eye has over one million nerves that join in a specific order. They discovered that if two of those nerves don't united in the correct order, sight is distorted. Blindness and bad eye-sight is common, but not that common. They came to the conclusion that the human eye could not be formed at random: there had to be an organised formation in the process. This is what is birthed Intelligent Design. These guys have technology and understanding that most of us don't have. So do we ignore their findings because we can't prove it? The average person just doesn't have the capabilities to do that. We either believe what they conclude or we disagree. This decision is based on our own limitations of understanding and logic, and our acceptance of facts. If you want a good scientific example of this: think of the bumble bee. Scientists have proven beyond doubt that it is too heavy, and its wing-span too small for it to be able to fly, yet it does. Just because you can't prove or believe its possible, doesn't make it impossible. Today,scientists can bend light. If you understand the process, its easy to accept this. If you don't , then you have to make a conscious decision whether you accept what these guys say or not. The difference here is that they know something that others don't. I'm on this website because I am curious to see if there are others like me, who have suspicions of its existence. I am not scientifically clever enough to design one, and I don't have a blue print of the process, but I have seen and heard enough to accept that theres a possibility. Doctors don't have the cure for cancer YET, but one day they will. At the moment they are just lacking a 'simple bit of information and understanding', and when they do find the cure, the process will seem simple. But for them to find that answer, they're will have disprove every theory along the way until they find the right theory. You sound mathmatically minded and can comprehend the possibility and improbability of this engine. But as I said earlier, don't give up, the answer is out there in the scientific world, you've just got to find that little bit of information and understanding that others don't have.

CANCER CURES: Not to be used by narrow-minded people....lol

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5528328984547372206&q=cancer+cure&ei=jb9pSNe5DI7CqAPl8IS2CA

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3628288513087759130&q=cancer+cure&ei=jb9pSNe5DI7CqAPl8IS2CA

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3383948315844437935&q=blood+electrification&ei=6sBpSNa6BoHKqgPlm_HFBw

Intelligent design is junk. Its just creationism with a human face. It explains nothing. Its an admission of defeat, that our knowledge at present is incomplete therefore we give up on evolution (with which we have religious and political issues anyway) and say without any evidence or proof that god must have done it.

The eye developed without challenging evolutionary theory and bees fly breaking no laws of physics. Its just that we didn't understand how...now we do.

I'm quite open to the idea that there might be all sorts of stuff that we cant explain, low energy nuclear reactions or cold fusion being one. But as far as I know its unproven. If it were shown to be a reality, it would change the world completely, and a lot of people would get very rich very quickly. So far they haven't which speaks volumes.

As Carl Sagan said, keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.

The best shot at new tech cars at this point is the super capacitor, a company called EEStore in Texas and an automotive firm called Zen in Canada. Apparently the US military wants the EEStore capacitor so that it's unlikely Detroit or big oil will find a way to make the thing disappear. You'd be talking about an electric car which could run 250 miles and then take five minutes to recharge.

Cold fusion is real but elusive, the Brown gas idea is problematical i.e. it's not clear that you'd gain any MORE energy than the amount of electrical power it took to seperate the Browns gas from water in the first place and if your alternator is producing that much excess electricity, then the alternator was mismatched for the car in the first place.

The other big problem which NOBODY is addressing is weight. Today's small cars are a thousand pounds heavier than the small cars of 1960 or thereabouts and in an age of carbon fibre and other space age materials, it's far from obvious that is necessary.

There have been a couple of major advances in gasoline engines in the last several years which are worth trying to keep up with:

The Angel Labs engine would have been a war-winning technology starting from 1941:

http://www.angellabsllc.com/resourse.html

The new Evinrude/Bombardier/Rotax engines for boats radically outperform four stroke engines and are more efficient:

http://www.evinrude.com/en-US/

but even the boat engines dont run on water. Jesus only walked.

Cars, that are powered with water actually work! Ever heard about converting car to run on water?

Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

oh no they dont packhead

Well I guess it could work if you attached a gravity turbine to a wagon in an intense rain. Lets see, if the car area was 8ft by 16ft and it was raining 2 inches per hour then it could capture 21.33 ft^3 of water per hour. With a fall head of say 10ft, that would be about 1/100th of a horsepower. so I guess you could get that wagon to move under water power.

Rap

nice try rap but packhed said on water power not under water power. (Actually it would be much better to charge up some high capacity batteries from a hydro electric power plant). But who cares we both know packhead is an idiot.

The fact that something has a patent has NOTHING to do with whether or not it works. A patent is one of the first things you do in the invention process, long before you know if it works or not. There are patents for rubber-band powered cars that (even looking at the diagrams) you can see horrific flaws in it. Patents are there to protect your invention, not to prove that anything works.

I've seen patents for a battery made from fingernail clippings and bronze, several for an anti-gravity device that uses willpower from the user's mind, and a cannon that uses a sneeze-amplifier. Evidently you can kill massive numbers of enemy troops by sneezing into a piece of PVC tubing.

Go here http://www.uspto.gov/

Its estimated that of the billions of patents that have been issued, only somewhere between 2 and 7% are actually viable

Another way to get a car to run on water would be to use it as a jet. Say you could get a chamber really really hot, using coke, or gasoline, or better yet a small fission pile. Then you could spray water into the chamber and the water would absorb some of the provided energy to disassociate into oxygen and hydrogen. Since the chamber it still quite warm the sudden exothermic recombination of oxygen and hydrogen (explosion) would be initiated (ignighted) and you could then redirect this explosion into a thrust vector (jet exhaust) which would propel you on your way.

One drawback the ride on this bang bang drive would be kind of rough. The good news, it would discourage tailgating.

Rap