Whatever happened to the water-fueled engine?

I don't even need a Law of Thermodynamics to knock this one on the head.

Mass has inertia (an intrinsic property). In order to overcome inertia and either get mass moving, changing direction or stopping you need to EXPEND energy and convert it into a force of sorts. In doing so some of that energy is lost as friction between parts of the engine and drive or just between the parts of the vehicle that touch the surface it rides on. Right?

The lightest I could imagine a vehicle that could contain a power source, an engine, drive mechanism, braking mechanism and two adult humans safely is 750 kgs - if it was 500 kgs it would have to be made of bicycle frames and kevlar (lacks integrity and too costly).

Some-one else can do the maths, but to accellerate 750 kgs at say 50kph and keep it going up hills, etc for two hours would require a given expenditure of calories/ergs/newtons, whatever. Work it out and match it against the output of a system that either produces its 'own energy' or somehow manages to make a super-efficient engine by modifying stock parts. No way, Jose!

Ok,
With a production car you have a tank filled with processed petroleum. Pumped into your car by an outside source. This in turn is fed into the carb , mixed with air and ignited by a chemical process. So far no power being produced by the fuel source, gas. Once it ignites the power produced turns an alternator which recharges the chemical battery and powers the electrical system including the spark plugs.

In your driveway sits a hypothetical car that you shove your garden hose into to fill the tank. A chemical battery starts the electrolysis producing hydrogen. this is used to heat the Stirling Engine ( a hot air engine that has been used successfully for decades, ask GM they used to build them). Once this is running you use it to charge a battery pack like in a hybrid car now being produced. Power is also used to produce enough hydrogen to heat the engine the next time you need it, stored in a fuel cell (and yes if you read popular mechanics fuel cels already have testing platforms from handheld disposables to large vehicle size), then shuts down. No new technology, no new engineering, just cheap fuel resources that big energy wont point out to you. Oh the Sterling engine runs on hot air, works to, although it's best fuel is hydrogen. Shoot you could even get a horsepower boost if you could only find a hydrogen source. But where would you find one of those?

Yeah, sounds real farfetched.

Ok. I gust went to the the store and got my nicotine fix. I made the mistake of thinking of storing hydrogen for future use while the Sterling engine needs a constant heat source, burning hydrogen. Using the engine to power electrolysis and charge the battery would be required. This setup would operate as a hybrid powered by water.

good reading



http://www.knowledgepublications.com/google_hydrogen_2.htm

http://people.howstuffworks.com/hydrogen-economy4.htm


http://travel.howstuffworks.com/stirling-engine.htm

can an engine be fueled with water (hydrogen), move an ordinary car while producing enough electricity to split hydrogen from water to fuel itself?
an almost self sustaining power box. i don't want to give up believing this can be done. But believe me "big men" would do anything or
everything to see to it this won't happen. imagine power infinite as water, it's like turning the world upside down. Ordinary people
could live comfortably outside towns, outside power grids, outside the system. A lot of things would get cheaper, since we can readily
produce power without damage to the environment, fossil fuel use could get banned. And who might you think would get the worst effect on
this? I think those would be countries with the most fossil fuel.

No. The amount of energy you get is not even enough to split the water in the first place.



The "big men" want it just as much as everyone else, it would solve all of their biggest problems. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE. Oh, and water is not infinite...



Why and by whom?

Welcome to A2K.

my god I cant believe what I am reading...that rocket that was beaing touted as some sort of water fueled device is being powered by the BATTERIES...its just that batteries by themselves cant produce thrust...thus the water and hydrogen intermediates. In a car the energy to propel the car is being taken from the chemical bonds in gasoline...not the battery...the alternator is only necessay to provide a spark to keep the combustion of gas going.
simply put:
Car: energy to move it comes from chem reaction of gas.
Rocket: energy to move it comes from chem reaction in batteries...water and hyrogen only necessary to turn it into thrust.

I've heard of a water powered lawn mower. It seems you replace the spark plug with a magetron then connect the magtron to a large xeon light flashing power supply. This is keyed by the points. You then fill the tank with water and pull the cord. A charge of water is drawn into the cylinder where it is vaporized my the magtron. This is of course a steam engine. Of course the power comes from the electric power supply but it can impress people as presumely the engine will run.

The problem is discussing this subject is that most of us get so wound up in our underlying belief systems that we fail to observe the obvious or check the science.

Beliefs such as "if it were true, scientists would have proved it so" or "free energy must exist" or "you can't get more out than you put in so it can't exist, conservation of energy and all that......"

Fact No.1 By definition "Free energy" is an energy source where man puts in less energy into a system than he gets out, usually by tapping into a cycle of nature.

Fact No.2 The conservation of energy does state that energy change from one form to another. The energy in the wood you burn on a fire gets converted to heat. The wood does not get recycled back into wood, seedlings or any other form of wood derivative. All you get is carbon and heat. Once the heat is used, you can't get it back. All you have is a bit a small amount of carbon dust. This is called using it up.

Fact No.3 You may recall of a man called Archie Blue. He built a device to extract hydrogen and oxygen from water through electrolysis, an process we did as experiments at high school.

Fact No.4 He demonstrated to the British Royal Auto Club on the Island of Guernsey in 1977. the BRAC attested to the fact that he there was no sleight of hand or trick, and that it did work and that he was getting approximately 100mpg on water, from a current of 2 or 3 amps from a car battery.

Fact No.5 I have tried various experiments myself and had actually met Archie and discussed his invention.

Fact No.6 The concept that a water/hydrogen powered car could not work because of conservation of energy is bollocks. This would only not work if you were expecting all the water and electricity back that you used to create the oxygen and hydrogen in the first place.

For every litre of water that went into Archie's device and engine, less than a litre of water came out the exhaust pipe. Why ? Because the energy contained in the missing water went into heat, just as the burnt wood went into heat.

Fact No. 7 Water is a source of energy, just like the coal in the ground, or the timber in the trees. Man taps into a cycle of nature and puts in less energy than he gets out. And scientists tell you that there is enough energy in a glass of water to power the Queen Mary across the Atlantic.

Take petrol for example. If we apply the same flawed argument about the water energy to petrol, we wouldn't have a petrol engine. Why ?
Well to drill for oil, transport oil, and refine oil, we need ...... guess what ? Oil, diesel, and petrol.......shyte...

Blind use of "Conservation of energy" dictates that we never get out more than we put in, so it will take more oil and diesel & petrol to run the oil rigs, refinerys, ocean going oil tankers, and delivery tankers than we could ever get out by burning the fuel. But clearly this does take place.
Oil has latent energy in it, so does wood, and water and so on. All we are doing is using it.

Fact No.8 Using Fact No.1 definition, Coal, wood, and oil are all examples of "Free Energy", but the biggest source of free energy is Hydro-electricity. Every time we turn on a light switch we are tapping into nature.

Fact No.9 Just because something is "Free Energy" does not mean it will cost nothing. Someone has to dig it up, process, or put it into a commercial form, the only problems occur when a particular group want to keep a monopoly on a particular energy production and therefore allow ideas to be circulated that prevent alternative or competitive forms of energy being promoted.

And I object to Mobil seizing one of my words (oil) and placing a link on it!!!

Oil has latent energy in it, so does wood, and water and so on. All we are doing is using it.


Sorry but wood and oil have energy in them that can be used. To convert water to hydrogen and oxygen and then burn them consumes more energy than is recorved.

There is a company called Chainging World Technologies ( http://www.changingworldtech.com/ ) that is making cleaner-bruning crude oil from garbage. Why haven't we heard more about this?

water engine
I remember watching a TV news item back in the late 70s or early 80s, where a New Zealander claimed to have made a water powered engine. The car was driven down a road down while the reporter sat in the passenger seat, a camera operater was obviously in the back seat, and the engine was proved to be the real thing, as a result of that test.
A follow up story said that a Japanese company had bought the rights to develop the engine, but there has been no mention of it since. Anyone know what happened to the engine and whether or not this was a real invention or not?

Can't recall that instance, but I read of a good example in 'Bad Science'. In the 30's a gent claimed to have just done that (turned water into fuel with a secret 'additive'). He attracted a lot of interest and even had the State Dept involved by hinting that he might sell the technology to the Nazis.

Turns out that the secret 'ingrediant' was acetone. Yes, it will work when mixed with water, but the life of the engine used is measured in months - it just seizes it up. Just a hoax, perhaps this Kiwi just reinvented it.

well theres always a "heavy water" engine. However, I believe the shielding would cause a weight problem on the tires

The 'anti-matter' engine has some shielding problems too. The magnets involved to capture and hold the anti-matter tend to stick the car body to trucks... usually those passing in the other direction.

re: water cars


Hydrogen can actually be made from water for free just stick a negative and positive wire close together but not touching under the water (use stainless steel for the conductor) and i think the oxygen goes to the positive and and hydrogen to negative. the higher amps/volts/watts u use most likely the more gas u will produce (WARNING:this stuff is highly exposive: i know this crazy guy who made a bomb like that and put a crater in his field)

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm
http://www.fuellesspower.com/water.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1408888/posts
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/carplans.htm

re: water cars


what im thinking is that when cars start rolling off the accembly line with fuel cells gas prices will drop like a rock.

they use hydrogen or in the space shuttle and its ******* powerful to lift that 80 ton space shuttle. they might use it in dc10 someday lol

Here's an interesting site for powering a motor on hydrogen.
They add a dirt cheap electrolyte (metal) that lasts about 2 hours for this 12hp motor. They say you can use saltwater as the source.

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm

I think however, there would be a good chance of powering a car using electrolysis. The electricity to breakdown the water would come from an electric generator based on the axle of the car. When the car begins to move, the axle rotates. The axle is made of a magnet with a coil around it. The faster the car goes the more power it produces. In order to get more power, either more powerful magnets are needed, more coils are used, or the back wheel axle is also used.

The above site has a patented tech that produces 10 times more Browns gas than normal (so they say).


Also of note is Micah Hinton. If a model can be made, then so can a large scale version.

http://organicconsumers.org/corp/hydrogen.cfm


Also worthy of consideration is this:

http://www.hasslberger.com/tecno/hydrogen.html

http://www.keelynet.com/energy/waterfuel.htm

Unfortunately, large scale production will not be happening of cars like these unless you have hundreds of millions of dollars, or can get that loan from a bank with a cracking business plan.
When I retire I wil have a go at something like this. You could start small and expand, but only if the feds have changed their mind regarding supressing water tech as above.

I doubt it though. BP and Shell have invested huge amounts in renewable sources of electricity. I believe this to be the beginning of the infrastructure needed to power their version of the hydrogen car, which is the fuel cell. It is very likely that oil is running out now. I just hope to hell that the big boys get it right. If the timing is in anyway screwed up, it could be very hard on the world's pop and economy.
Remember how the mobile phone companies screwed up with the liscences and over-indebted themselves before the revenue for 3g came in?
It is easily done, but this would be far more catastrophic. Let's hope those MBAs did their job.

Stanley Meyers WFC
Whats up,

I have looked into Stan Meyers' WFC(Water Fuel Cell) technology. There is something about it, that I find strange. Very strange. I dont know if this inconsistency is pro WFC, or bad for WFC, or maybe theres something that I am wrong about.

The thing is, is that there isnt really any real information on experiments done. I have collected enough information to make a WFC, and have read on message boards of people trying it, and getting surprising results. But I have been unable to find ANY experimental information whatsoever. What I find strange about that is, WFC, DOES produce hydrogen, and oxygen, from water, using high voltage(KV range), low current(mA range). Using no electrolyte. The water, that produces the H,O gasses, is a dielectric in a capacitor("water capacitor"), which is in series with a inductor, and a high voltage pulse is applied to the citcuit, which (may) require a certain frequency(of said pulse) which causes the circuit to be in resonance(correct me if you know that I am wrong about the resonance). The two oppositely charged capacitor plates seperate the H, and O, and release the gas. And this technology does produce H,O gas. All of what I just said I believe to be fact, exept where I specified. And it seems to be at least comparable to standard electrolysis in efficiency. OK, now lets get one thing straight, I am not claiming that WFC is over-unity. NOW, Im gonna go out on a limb here and say that, WFC is quite a bit different from electrolosys, and I would not classify it as electrolosys. Correct me if I am wrong. SO, lets get to the point. In my research, I looked at many different, scientific, websites about all of the different methods of PRODUCING H,O GAS FROM WATER, and none of them have any information about this type of technology. They list many different technologies. Nowhere have I heard of a type of ELECTROLYSIS that resembles this technology. Where is the information? Has anyone ever read of any REAL research on this technology? Shouldn't this technology have been researched FOR APPLICATIONS IN THE HYDROGEN PRODUCTION INDUSTRY, EVEN IF IT IS NOT OVER-UNITY? Has WFC been researched and found to be NOT even worth mentioning in the hydrogen production industry? Has anyone ever compared WFC and electrolysis?

Now Im not trying to suggest that there is some kind of conspiracy or anything. I just find it strange.

Does anybody have ANY comments?
???

Heres a few links:

Meyers patent: http://www.rexresearch.com/meyerhy/meyerhy.htm
(USP # 4,936,961)

Message board experiment report:
**This is really good**
http://www.keelynet.com/interact/Arc_7_98-12_98/00000470.htm

Usenet discussions(experiment report):
**READ THE SECOND MESSAGE FROM DON KELLY
http://www.all-usenet-archive.com/File.asp?service=7362



God, give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, and give me the courage to change the things that I can