24
   

Whatever happened to the water-fueled engine?

 
 
RaceDriver205
 
  1  
Fri 14 Apr, 2006 06:58 am
So let me get this right, (if any of you are still following this thread), some of you crazy crazy people think a car can run on just pure water?
Now, I would like to know of all the people who think a car can be made to run on water, how many of them are actually educated in the relevant subjects?
Oh, yeah, the big men will come and get the people who design non-oil engines (like on the movie chain reaction i think). Has it occured to anyone else that other big men would embrace such a technology and make incredible profit from it?
Has it occured to anyone that non-fossil-fuel, abundant energy technologies such as nuclear fusion are actually being worked on?

I laugh at people who waste their lives on ideas like perpetual motion. Best thing for them.
0 Replies
 
woffo
 
  1  
Mon 1 May, 2006 08:12 am
making an engine that runs from water as fuel is possible...water is made of hydrogen and oxygen and can be split into its pure elements using electrolosys, if you have a large enough anode and cathode, you could easily make an internal combusion engine using a 12v battery, maybe with some kind of power inversion to increase the voltage used. you could keep power levels constant and keep the batter charged also using some kind of alternator / coil, just look at it from a mechnical and scientific point of view ^
0 Replies
 
woffo
 
  1  
Mon 1 May, 2006 08:15 am
oh, and one more thing is it has already been done but the design was patented and bought by the oil companies and shelved...just imagine how many people would be out of a job in the next decade worldwide if a water fuelled veichle was publicly avaliable. and yes before you ask i am educated in the relevent topics concerned ^
0 Replies
 
RaceDriver205
 
  1  
Tue 2 May, 2006 02:02 am
Quote:
oh, and one more thing is it has already been done but the design was patented and bought by the oil companies and shelved

Says who. I think this is going to become another ridiculous debate but oh well. I'll also thank you not to state this:
Quote:
just look at it from a mechnical and scientific point of view

what with me being an engineer with a habit of scoring exceptionally well in national science tests/competitions.
0 Replies
 
pleighto
 
  1  
Fri 19 May, 2006 08:40 pm
WaterBearer wrote:
Well just a few nights ago here in teh US, they (The Local News Media) had a small snippet on a guy who had made a blow torch to replace Acetalene and Oxygen tanks with a water fuel torch. Showed the tip was cool to the touch, also showed the water runoff by holding the fire against a vertical surface. I was amazed. He also said his device worked by seperating the Hydrogen from the Oxygen with a very specific "Vibration" ( He has a patten on this process.) that made it all the more worthwhile using less energy than other methods. Of course that was just the background to the big part of the story which was, he has made a mixed hybrid car using the same principles. It would run off of hydrogen, but it also would run off of Gas. He was in talks with a Major US automotive manufacturer which went unamed. I wish I had caught this guys name. That's how I wound up here anyways, is that I was looking for more information about that water powered car he was driving. If anyone knows his name please post it. Thanks. Also I wonder how they get so much more energy from that explosion they made for Hiroshima than they put in, was that free energy too. I admit I know nothing about any of this. SGT SHultz....
Man that was a looong time ago.



It was by Fox News channel 26...the reporter was Graig Patrick or (craig)...the guy used "vibrations", or a special "electrolysis" to convert H20 to HH0.....the guys name was Denny Cline....and I am not sure I spelled his name correctly though. I have a video clip send to me in an E-mail is how I got to this page. So yes WaterBearer I have a video clip of it. The clip also said this guy works out of his "clearwater lab". Anyways yes I have a degree in Electronics, but as I have learned in my physics 101 most gasoline Engines are only 30% efficient...so a gas water or electric hybrid...even if only 60% efficient and water as the main fuel source......would be far better then current gasoline engines alone

....oh but wait......it that not what newer hybrid vehicles of today supposed to do now??...( and note no... todays cars are not WATER ran)

anyways good luck all
0 Replies
 
shawnlesky
 
  1  
Sat 27 May, 2006 12:29 am
Denny Cline / Kline sp?
Here's the clip of the news cast referenced. Check this out and be AMAZED, very AMAZED.

To clarify, this guy did make the hybrid Ford Escort, but it can also run on WATER ALONE.

http://www.rratch.com/Misc/WaterFuel/WaterFuel.wmv
0 Replies
 
daddyrob1
 
  1  
Tue 6 Jun, 2006 07:42 am
Water Fueled Torch Video
This is in reply to WaterBearer's request for info on the guy who invented the water fueled torch. Denny Klein (sp?) is his name. I have a Windows Media file of the video you are talking about. A friend sent it to me from a Fox TV news broadcast. If you send me an e-mail address, I'll be happy to share it with you. I checked a couple urban legend websites and found nothing, so I'm pretty sure the news report (and the inventions) are real.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Tue 6 Jun, 2006 07:51 am
I came across this;


http://reddit.com/info/74jd/comments
0 Replies
 
anakpawis
 
  1  
Wed 12 Jul, 2006 01:12 am
I am a convert. I still believe in conservation of energy, but it occurred to me that splitting the water molecule doesn't necessarily mean putting energy into it and getting more energy.

The energy in water is simply harvested. The internal energy in hydrogen is inherent to its properties. Much like splitting an atom, we are not using as much or more energy to split an atom than what the amount of energy it can give.

Splitting a water molecule is like mining for fossil fuel. We process the crude oil with less energy than we can make use burning it.

I've seen Stanley Meyer's video demo and convinced that it is possible with his method of using high resonance to vibrate the water molecule and running a high voltage to split hydrogen with oxygen, with less energy than the conventional electrolysis.
0 Replies
 
imho
 
  1  
Sat 15 Jul, 2006 05:25 am
i remember reading a vw house magazine about a scirocco with a water power engine in the 80s can anyone shed any light on this
0 Replies
 
TheKevlar
 
  1  
Sat 15 Jul, 2006 05:33 pm
Is there an efficient electrolysis process to produce HH2O?
I have followed this fuel source for some time and the point everyone appears to miss is that the patent is for an electrolysis process that coaxes H2O molecules apart. Not burning of the fuel! There are catalyst alloys that can do this for other compounds. The cold fusion scandal a few years ago was doing just that with neutrons. What is not being talked about is has an efficient electrolysis process been found?
0 Replies
 
eelbaise1
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jul, 2006 04:25 am
electrolysis
If power from the grid costs less than power from oil, then electrolysis research must make this the object.
How many times greater is the power produced by hydrogen compared to electrolysis production.
I've understood that it was the speed of production of hydrogen, and this can only be variable by the number of batteries.
0 Replies
 
carlock
 
  1  
Sat 22 Jul, 2006 11:27 pm
would this help?
www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16977&ch=nanotech
0 Replies
 
simonsays
 
  1  
Mon 25 Sep, 2006 11:19 pm
water powered engines
Hey,

Did you know you can buy hydrogen powered Hummers trucks, Arnold swartanagger annger(sp?) has one I've seen hydrogen powered H2 trucks.

BMW is working on and has a working prtotype of a combustion hydrogen engine not a hydrogen fuel cell but one that has pistons and valves and runs on liquid hydrogen. it has a safe heat proof hydrgen tank. By the way if gasloine was trying to pass safty inspections today based on current laws it would fail, it's highly combustable, and unsafe.

If your looking for cool engines look up Dean kaman's engine, he is the guy that invented the two wheeled electric vehcile that moved forward and backward as you lean forward or backward. It run on cow waste and other waste.

Simonsays
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Tue 26 Sep, 2006 08:34 am
I hear the Kamen engine has a toilet in the driver seat and comes with a weeks supply of beans, jalapenos and prune juice.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Tue 26 Sep, 2006 08:36 am
NickFun wrote:
I hear the Kamen engine has a toilet in the driver seat and comes with a weeks supply of beans, jalapenos and prune juice.


Gas propelled car, I assume?
0 Replies
 
curtis73
 
  1  
Thu 12 Oct, 2006 02:46 am
I'm getting tired of the wide-eyed optimists talking about "free" energy from water.

I've been watching this waste-of-time thread since it started and I am going to speak my peace and then leave.

Energy is energy. Period. Picture the H and O atoms in water as two magnets stuck together. They are pulling on each other with a force of (lets say) 5 lbs. SO, in order to pull them apart, you need to exert 5 lbs of force. If you let them fall back together, they exert 5 lbs of force. Period. Got it? You pull 5 lbs, then you get back 5 lbs in return. The net result is ZERO LBS OF FORCE. You had to put as much work in to the equation as you got back out of it.

Now, translate that to water. Water takes as much energy to split as it gives back when it joins. That is a CHEMICAL TRUTH that can't be explained away by the idiots at Fox News or by mystical fairies that roam the third moon of Jupiter. So, let's say you just spent 1000 wH splitting H and O from water. Now you send the H and O to the engine. Of that 1000 wH you magically produced from a battery, 20% will be lost to heat, a small percentage will be lost to light and sound energy, and most of the rest will get eaten by friction down the rest of the drivetrain. What's left after you actually create motion in a vehicle? About 1.7% to drive the alternator. So, of the 1000 wH required to SPLIT water, only 17 wH are remaining to split the next batch of H and O for combustion. That means, that in order to perpetuate your fantasmical equation, you only need to come up with 983 magical wH from some phantom source... just to support combustion.

Asking your car to split water into H and O so that it can burn it is LITERALLY like putting exhaust gasses in your tank and asking your car to turn them back into gasoline to burn. If water engines were truly possible, there would be no need to ever refill with the garden hose. Just have the exhaust pipe go straight back to the tank. Since you've discovered this completely unending source of magical energy, it should be possible.

There is no such thing as free energy from water. Gasoline exists at a high state of latent energy, exhaust is a low state of energy after combustion. Hydrogen has a high state of latent energy. Water is its EXHAUST, so its extremely low. If you don't believe me, take two identical fires and throw a gallon of water on one and a gallon of gasoline on the other. When you get out of Intensive Care, give me a call and we'll talk about the results.

If you believe ANY news blurb that talks about water as a fuel, just donate your brain to medical research right now. In fact, if you take any news report as gospel truth, you need a new prophet.

The amount of people who are willing to disregard fact in favor of whispy little leprechauns and butterflies just amazes me. I am a dolphin-hugging, vegetarian, alternative fueled, californian. If anyone should believe this crap, its me... but I DON'T. its CRAP. It is a physical impossibility, period.
0 Replies
 
FIF1217
 
  1  
Wed 18 Oct, 2006 06:49 pm
Quote:

I'm getting tired of the wide-eyed optimists talking about "free" energy from water.


would you rather fill the air with CO2? Not free energy, just a better fuel.

Quote:

They are pulling on each other with a force of (lets say) 5 lbs. SO, in order to pull them apart, you need to exert 5 lbs of force.


Almost always true in all aspects, but think about it like this: Your friend is grabbing a pole that wont move. You try to pull him off, which would normally take the same amount of force that he is using to keep grabbing the pole. What happens when you tickle him though? Its easier to pull him off. Same thing can happen with chemical components

Quote:

That is a CHEMICAL TRUTH that can't be explained away by the idiots at Fox News or by mystical fairies that roam the third moon of Jupiter


Believe me, I support you fully on that statement!

Quote:

20% will be lost to heat


Where's this 20% coming from? Is it a proven constant?

Quote:

About 1.7% to drive the alternator.


Again, where are we getting 1.7%?

Quote:

Asking your car to split water into H and O so that it can burn it is LITERALLY like putting exhaust gasses in your tank and asking your car to turn them back into gasoline to burn.


No, thats nothing like getting your car to split water to use as fuel. To say that it would be like putting exhaust gasses in your tank and asking your car to turn them back into gasoline to burn, we would have to be saying that we would be converting water into fuel, and have a mechanism that collects its 'wastes' and reuse them!

Quote:

There is no such thing as free energy from water.


Your right. As far as I know, thats not what the water fueled torch/car creator/co-creator was aiming for.

Quote:

If you don't believe me, take two identical fires and throw a gallon of water on one and a gallon of gasoline on the other


Well, besides the obvious results, theres a problem with doing that. Throwing water that hasn't been separated from regular water into highly combustible hydrogen, and fire-fueling oxygen will only result in the fire being put out.

Quote:

If you believe ANY news blurb that talks about water as a fuel, just donate your brain to medical research right now. In fact, if you take any news report as gospel truth, you need a new prophet.


Nope, don't believe the news. Just make sure that you think about concepts before arguing.

Quote:

It is a physical impossibility, period.


Then how have people done it?

Not trying to argue, just want people to think first.
0 Replies
 
metalhead2k
 
  0  
Sat 21 Oct, 2006 12:15 am
energy
If what i've written below makes no sense, then start a forest fire:

The thing that always causes me to pause are things like a forest fire - an example of a chain reaction. All I got to do is light a match, which requires little energy on my part, and then I use it to ignite a forest fire which amounts to a lot of energy output due to the chemical reaction in the wood, right? Isn't that getting more energy than you put in, from a laymens point of view? Is that similar to the chain reaction during a fission process? In the end you end up with a lot of ashes and/or unfissionable material (spent fuel), an example of something that is NOT over-unity. However, if we can learn to tap nature in such BIG ways, we can at least get things done on a faster timetable. If we could tap water in such ways (better than electrolyses), we'd get high energy output, but we'd 'soon' run out of water! I know this might not apply to two atoms bound to eachother or in other relationships, but its worth considering. Another example might be a locked door. You have your first choice, which is to break the door down which would take quite an effort on your part. Your other choice is to use a key and unlock the door. Which would you choose? In either case, these examples highlight that there're good ways and bad ways of tapping into nature (read: burning your fuel). They're not examples of anything that challenges the basic laws of physics or thermodynamics, but what they're is an example of human ingenuity and the diversity of natural laws. If someone tells me that electrolyses is the ONLY current method to seperate O and H in an effective manner, then I might accept it purely on a scientific basis. But at the end of the day, while I am outside gaping at the stars in awe, I will exercise my freedom and 1st amendment rights. Speculation and theory is fun, and it can take us places that current theory/knowledge is unable to.
FIF1217
 
  1  
Sat 21 Oct, 2006 02:24 pm
Quote:

but we'd 'soon' run out of water!


Something tells me that even with so many people on Earth, we wouldn't run out of 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water any time soon Wink

FlyingIsFun1217
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 08:49:14