Off topic - Water powered cars - VIDEO
Submitted by xciteful on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 05:42
Two amazing links to water powered cars.
»
| |
  
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
More in Depth
this is a more in depth special on it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcy3JbGjQwo
This Video Has Been Around For Years
How come you bring it up again?
TheKingIsComing
This is more likely
Actually, it is more likely that this is the way we will go, but we have to get the government out of the way first. I think somewhere I read it could go from LA to NYC on one tank of gasoline (of course that could be converted to an ethanol engine, or even a battery powered electric that harnesses retroactive breaking) because it requires a small engine to compress the air.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-A3XHFT5qc
- kipload
idealogs.blogspot.com
9 months ago an american scientist made
sea water combust. It was all over the news.
You talk about these people NOT wanting Ron Paul to be president. Let's talk about these people NOT wanting free energy.
Run your life on water? Sea water? Free energy.No heat, No gasoline. No electricity. When it rains you have a barrel out back of the house. Use the rain for the generator and the car.
I'm not done yet.
No solar, no wind, no nuthin'.
Now we just reduced the amount of particulate in the atmosphere by 89%.
We'll still need oil for french fries....oops...wrong kind of oil. For lubricants and tires and plastics. Problem with that? All of the oil companies out of business tomorrow. All of the utilities out of business tomorrow...I think I'm gonna cry...excuse me.....sob....no more light bill or heat bill and no more gas stations and all the Arab countries...I'm so sorry....but maybe you can make something useful out of all your f%$ing oil. You can fight over the two teaspoons of oil the tire guys and the asphalt guys are going to need....oops...that's right! We have enough in Texas to cover that and whatever else we need....darn.....see ya!
We are going to get the people out of power who prevent free energy.
Water is hydrogen. It is an energy source. The only problem with water as an energy source is that the people in power will never let it happen....unless we are free.
Unify
Again the same issues here
Very inefficient and must have an enormous amount of heat to start the chain reaction.
There are no conspiracies in this industry I can assure you.
It's just that until recently, fossil fuels have been hard to beat when it comes to cost and currently there is no market that requires payment for emitting these gases into the environment.
If property rights were still the rule of law, these issues would have been solved years ago.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
not true ...
water can be cracked with frequency. Frequency being sound. no heat what so ever.
____ _____ _____ _____ ______ ______ _____ ___
"The time is near at hand which we must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."
George Washington
First President of the USA.
http://digitaldiesel.net/index.php?action=forum
≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make
violent revolution inevitable."
John F. Kennedy
did you happen to see the temperatures created
by the frequencies.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
I guess this is where RP fits in.
Restoring property rights ah la Austrian school of economics.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
i hpoe this post is not deleted.
It is harmless and actually interesting for nerds like me.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Thermodynamics
is the key here. As someone said in a post below, it is basic physics/chemistry. The amount of energy needed to produce the hydrogen MUST be greater than the energy of the hydrogen itself.
Of course, that being said, combusting hydrogen produces no carbon dioxide and that appears to be important.
h-daddy
Yes it needs electricity, but...
According to the video with Stan Meyer, his method of splitting the water produced several hundred percent more energy capacity in hydrogen than was used in the splitting process. It all hinges on this. If this is true, the water being split can result in more energy than needed to do the splitting. Hydrogen, then, could ultimately be used to fuel the process of splitting water into hydrogen and water. The only question is whether there is indeed a method by more hydrogen energy can be created than is used to create it.
You have to look at the entire system including
distribution and mass of every added entity to come up with an accurate efficiency rate.
In the near future there is a product in the works that produces zero emissions and is on the magnitude of 10X more efficient than fossil fuels. It will be an amazing transformation.
The kicker is that it is actually less expensive in the long run after the infrastructure is in place and the ash is 100% recycleable.
Just wait and see. It's just around the corner, less than 5 years.
This new fuel has been in our households for many years. You probably don't believe it, but just remember this post when it happens.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Possible ?: Second law of thermodynamics
In this manner perpetual motion could be created and used as an unlimited energy source. Thus, historically, people have always been attempting to create a perpetual motion machine so to disprove the second law.
I have that "drinking bird"
I have that "drinking bird" toy that's been moving back ang forth for weeks now by itself. Only needs some water... pretty darn close to perpetual.
Drinking Bird
The Drinking Bird works as a heat engine. The heat is being taken out of the room to boil the liquid inside. Then when the bird dips the beak in the water is absorbed by the fabric on the head. This then evaporates which cools the top bulb causing the vapor to condense and the cycle to start over.
I'm not trying to be rude here but please at least take some courses in Mechanical Engineering before you start claiming all of this free energy stuff. It just doesn't happen and there is no conspiracy.
If you want the truth why cars don't get better fuel economy in the US it is due to emissions standards. Basicly the hotter you run an engine the better efficiency you get. But at high temperatures Nitrogen Oxidides form. So there is a maximum temperature you can run an engine at. These lean burn engines were around in the late 80's early 90's. Like a Geo Metro that got close to 60 mpg. The other thing is crash standards. In order to meet them you basicly set a lower limit for the weight of the car. Those two together make a big difference in fuel economy.
That's impossible according to modern physics
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
I might believe that he can produce hydrogen 400 times more efficiently (through a catalyst), but not that he's creating energy.
It all comes down to transition efficiency.
If you can split enough water for the amount of electricity a simple solar cell could generate, you could very well run a car for free. If it takes a huge amount of electricity to generate the hydrogen, you'd be forced to use a non-renewable source of electricity.
Why I think there could be something to this: Enzymes and other catalysts reduce the activation energy (the middle man) of chemical reactions by a huge amount. The right catalyst could cut out the middle man in water-based combustion systems. The fuels with the biggest middle man are biofuels, which require keeping an organism alive for a period of time in order to extract a portion of it, via other energy inputs, for wasteful an polluting combustion. Fossil fuels are a little more efficient than biofuels, but they are non-renewable and tip atmospheric balances.
I got to work on a similar
Plan at UC Berkeley. Conversion of cellulose to ethanol. They are making some real progress isolating proper enzymes needed to greatly increase efficiency.
That combined with several groups researching high tolerant yeasts could help secure our energy needs.
Dont believe the Hype
I make a gravity powered car!!!!!!. I just have to push it up a hill and let it roll down. That is essentially the same thing as a water power car. It takes more energy to push it up than I get out by allowing it roll down the hill.
No conspiracy just 4th grade science.
Finally something I know a lot about.
First rule to remember ... Energy can neither be created or destroyed.
Seen this video many times.
These torches exist and work extremely well.
Converting water into usable energy for an automobile is not very efficient.
Too expensive.
Environmentally, at best it is a wash, due to batteries needed to store energy.
Won't work, however there are some new technologies just coming on line that I can not speak about that are proving to be very promising.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
There is no such thing....
as a water powered car. You have to use electricity to destabilize the water into a higher energy state. The electricity is what creates the fuel and electricity has to come from somewhere (it is not magic). The electricity will come from fossil fuels or nuclear etc. The only way water could ever be used as a fuel source is through a electrolysis followed by a particle accelerator then a fusion reaction which would be very complicated and would most likely not be able to fit inside a car. This would release nuclear energy not chemial energy. This video is not evidence of some magic new free energy source. This post is misleading and mistaken.
I have no background
in automotive. I just think the electric car is more practical. If you can lighten the chassis, it will drastically increase the output power. Now for the recharging I still can remember the alternators ancestor - the dynamo. I think, I mean, I think it can charge the fuel cells /batterie/s a lot quicker and the roof can be retrofitted with sleek solar panels. Or, there is an experimental product now that is a composite or liquid cell that can be applied like paint that converts solar power to electricity.
"He who exercises government by means of his virtue may be compared to the north polar star, which keeps its place and all the stars turn towards it." Confucius
"He who exercises government by means of his virtue may be compared to the north polar star, which keeps its place and all the stars turn towards it." Confucius
Your Electric Car is Coal Powered
Youre gonna have to plug it in eventually
Fuel efficiency.
A coal plant runs at much higher efficiency then any internal combustion engine. Plus most people will be charging at night when power usage is the lowest.
Johntitor4ronpaul tells me in the future 90% of everything is...
..electric, he says cars get over 1500 miles to the charge, and somehow partly recharge themselves as they are driven. I don't understand any of it myself.
G_d bless
Attend a Church of your choice this Saturday.
G_d bless
Attend a Church of your choice this Saturday
Batteries recharge during braking
uses the energy of the moving car to charge the battery, obviously this slows the car down while it does it so it naturally is part of the braking system of the car. really neat.
It does sound a little nutty BUT
I've built both the stan meyers replication and have a freind who built the Bob Boyce replication. He has a Ford 350 Diesel that runs about 30% on HHO on demand from water. My fuel cell boosted my fuel economy about 50%. Not bad... It is like having a factory under your car and needs maintenance. Not for the average Joe.
The standard ICE internal comubstion engine can't run on a fuel cell. It is only 50% efficient. Stan Meyers did get a dune buggy to run on his fuel cell, It is a 2 stroke engine. So this is not like you just build something and your car runs on water.
Also, Electric Cars are really the future. They are so much faster and efficient than a combustion engine car. A electric car can smoke any drag racer. Telsa motors has a good car and GM has some good electric cars. YouTube "Who killed the electric car" and EV1.
Solar powered chargers and John Bedini Radiant Energy Battery Chargers will generate the power needed. It may be even possible in the future to have a 'self charging" electric car.
So yes "water cars" are "real" but not so practicle. But, building a hydrogen booster will help greatly with fuel economy. Or even a water mister, as well as increase HP.
People do get "kooky" with the conspiracy stuff. But as many "conspiracies" there is SOME basis in reality.
What they are doing is taking this technology and you can have a hydrogen gas station. BMW have several in California. Some day maybe you can have a home gas station.
But, electric really is the way to go.
These videos have been
These videos have been circulating for years.
This sounds like conspiriacy stuff
There are a couple problems here. First is that the issue isnt a car running on water, it's an engine that makes power used water. The engine could be used for everything from runnin a lawn mower, generating heating and cooling for your home, every industrial and commercial application imaginable. If this is true, the process would have been fully vetted for decades and common knowledge, like a sterling engine. It works, but it's not practical.
Secondly, it seems to me thermodynamics rules here. Water is not burning, only the hydrogen that is created from it. It takes power to split water, no matter how small that amount of water might be. There is no such thing as perpetual motion and it seems to me the energy put into splitting the water, by whatever means, would be greater than the energy gained by burning the hydrogen. Whatever the inventor used as an energy source should use that energy to power the engine or powerplant. That being said I could be wrong and it's possible that the bond is easily broken and resulting burned hydrogen does in fact yeild more power than it takes to split the water, somewhat like nuclear fission. But I'd have to see proof and no one has provided any yet.
This is not off topic at all
This is why we need Ron Paul in the White House. I believe that in a true free market system, creativity will flourish and the playing field will be leveled.
LivingTheDream