Run your car on water

abakan

I happened to come across this topic this evening, running your car on water -it seems like a good idea. I think the basic process is to remove the hydrogen from H2O and use it to propel the car.

http://www.waterpoweredcar.com/hydrobooster.html
http://tassiechat.com/about24.html

any opinions on this, reading one of the forums the, myhtbuster may have done this experiment and it didn work

good idea TBF

AngryHippie

There are kits available from Canada that do this, basic hydrolysis, then reinject the 02 and or hydrogen back into the cylinders as a fuel/boost, I read about them on slashdot a year or so ago, at the time the company claimed to be able to reduce fuel bills by 15-25% depending on the engine, and water purity, there are quite a few modifications needed to your average vehicle to make it work though, and more still for explosive gas storage.

Nice idea though.

How about a car powered by good ideas ?

BendiBus

Based on the first link, I'd love to see how they calculate the improved fuel efficiency.

Electrolysis of water is energy intensive and not efficient.
The electricity for electrolysis comes from your car battery.
Your car battery is charged from the car engine.
So your clean hydrogen IS produced from fossil fuel. And from a hideously inefficient IC engine at that!

The first link also says the target is 100% water power.

So the engine will power the battery which will power the electrolysis which will power the engine? And there will be power left over to turn the wheels too? So this process can be more than 100% efficient?

AngryHippie

perpetual motion baby yeah !

PeoplesMod

abakan wrote: »

I happened to come across this topic this evening, running your car on water -it seems like a good idea. I think the basic process is to remove the hydrogen from H2O and use it to propel the car.

http://www.waterpoweredcar.com/hydrobooster.html
http://tassiechat.com/about24.html

any opinions on this, reading one of the forums the, myhtbuster may have done this experiment and it didn work

good idea TBF

It might be best to forget about this. However there are other proven techniques available that produce free energy or next to free and the good ones are based on high voltage applications due to the magnetic flux properties associated with very high voltages. Energy exists all around us and the laws of physics prove that free energy is not possible. However what they fail to mention is that low energy input can produce high energy output when very high voltage is used. For obvious reasons this information is not made available to the general public as it would result in the collapse of many economies due to our heavy dependence on oil. For those who take the time to discover what has been achieved in the field of high voltage energy devices the savings can be very substantial in relation to fuel costs associated with everyday living.

PeoplesMod

Maybe this will help you understand a bit better. You take a low voltage DC current source as in a 12V or 24V DC battery and you feed the DC supply into a LV > HV converter. According to Ohms Law the higher the voltage the lower the current so we get current flowing in the mA or Milli Amps. 1000 milliamps is equal to 1A. However just converting low DC voltage to very high voltage is not enough. We must also find a way to cause the magnetic fields generated by the high voltage to collapse and establish again as in order to produce motion in any form there must be an equal and opposite action. Collapsing high voltage magnetic fields can when timed correctly produce tremendous amounts of torque or turning effect. Once you can produce this high torque effect with milliamp input then you can get high energy output by connecting a device such as a 220V AC generator to the high torque ouput.This is the closest thing to free energy that is or will ever be available. As I mentioned in my last post this information is kept secret for many reasons and you can now all understand why. The world economies would collapse if these devices were mass produced. However someone can build this device from readily available parts that can be purchased from various electronic suppliers. If you do build one I would advice you to keep it to yourself as many that have already done so have found that strange things then started to happen in their lives where they least expected it.

bonkey

Energy exists all around us and the laws of physics prove that free energy is not possible. However what they fail to mention is that low energy input can produce high energy output when very high voltage is used.

Maybe I'm misreading or misunderstanding you, but you seem to be contradicting yourself here.

Energy is typically defined as "the ability to do work". This isn't - strictly speaking - 100% accurate but for the purposes of what is being discussed here, it should suffice. If you disagree, then feel free to supply a more suitable definition for your purposes.

Anyway...

When you refer to low energy and high energy, I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean that "high energy" has quantitatively more ability to do work than "low energy", then you're really talking about amounts of energy, not levels...and given that there's no free lunch, the only way you can get from X amount of energy to Y amount (where Y is greater than X) is by adding at least energy equal to Y-X. I say "at least", because not only is there no such thing as a free lunch, there is no such thing as an "at cost" lunch. Everything we do will cost energy (i.e. nothing is 100% efficient), so we always need to add more to a system then we get out of it.

You refer to high voltage applications. To generate high voltage takes energy. The net output in energy cannot be greater than the net input...that would be a free lunch, which we both agree is impossible.

So maybe you could explain how high voltage is giving you these gains that you talk about, without implicitly requiring the free lunch that you agree is impossible?

Getting back to the point raised by the OP...

In general, anything such as this should be viewed with skepticism. Consider the following...using energy to split water is, in effect, using a hydrogen fuel cell as a battery. This could result in net gains in efficiency, but only if the ICE is generating more power than is needed, and there's nowhere better to store the energy, and the energy can be meaningfully fed back into the power-train at some point. In effect, the process is similar to that of a Hybrid vehicle. The difference is that a hybrid doesn't use hydrolysis, but rather a bank of "ordinary" batteries. It does this primarily because it is far more efficient.

If someone has a system which can take surplus energy from the vehicle, store it via hydrolysis, then release and re-use that energy to add to efficiency when needed....then they'd be better off cutting out the hyrolysis stage, getting rid of the water, and putting a more efficient storage-mechanism (i.e. a battery) in the same place.

Unfortunately, "battery assisted" doesn't sound as cool as "water powered", does it. You're less likely to sell "DIY hybrid technology" then you are "revolutionary water-powered technology"...so I'd be very skeptical.

And, if the power isn't being acquired through what would normally be waste (heat from the engine, brakes, etc. as in a hybrid), but rather from straightforward combustion of more fuel...then because there's no free lunch, and no "at cost" lunch, you'd still be better leaving it as petrol, where its already energy in a stored form.

Having said all of that, I have heard of one idea for "water-power-assisted" which sounded interesting. Basically, it used the fact that pistons and cylinders get really hot from usage. Someone figured out that every 3 or 4 strokes of a cylinder, there was enough heat "waste" that one could use to vaporise water. Thus, the engine could be modified so that instead of injecting fuel for every stroke, fuel would be injuected for 3-of-4 strokes (or 4-of-5) and water for the remaining one. The explosive power of rapidly-vaporised water would, in theory, work the same as combusting fuel, resulting in a 20-25% reduction in fuel-usage.

Never heard anything more about it though...

PeoplesMod

bonkey wrote: »

Maybe I'm misreading or misunderstanding you, but you seem to be contradicting yourself here.

Energy is typically defined as "the ability to do work". This isn't - strictly speaking - 100% accurate but for the purposes of what is being discussed here, it should suffice. If you disagree, then feel free to supply a more suitable definition for your purposes.

Anyway...

When you refer to low energy and high energy, I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean that "high energy" has quantitatively more ability to do work than "low energy", then you're really talking about amounts of energy, not levels...and given that there's no free lunch, the only way you can get from X amount of energy to Y amount (where Y is greater than X) is by adding at least energy equal to Y-X. I say "at least", because not only is there no such thing as a free lunch, there is no such thing as an "at cost" lunch. Everything we do will cost energy (i.e. nothing is 100% efficient), so we always need to add more to a system then we get out of it.

You refer to high voltage applications. To generate high voltage takes energy. The net output in energy cannot be greater than the net input...that would be a free lunch, which we both agree is impossible.

So maybe you could explain how high voltage is giving you these gains that you talk about, without implicitly requiring the free lunch that you agree is impossible?

Energy exists all around us. How can you get the effects of a nuclear explosion from a small amount of radioactive material? Answer is by splitting the atom. Einstein came up with the formula E=MC

Energy = Mass X Speed of Light (vacuum)

What is the mass of an Electrical Magnetic Field? If you can get vast amounts of energy from the break up of an atomic structure then why can't you get energy released by breaking electro magnetic fields? The air we breathe is made up of oxygen and other gases but we can't see them. Likewise electro magnetic fields are made up of complex structures that we can't see and the best part is that we don’t have to split the atoms to release energy. All we need to do is increase the size of the filed then quickly reduce it. The speed at which this happens is not able to be computed by any mind or machine but the outcome is readily available to see in the form of the known reaction of magnetic material. Like poles repel and unlike poles attract. We just need to remember that the basic laws of creation are based on the movement of electrons. This can be viewed very simply as being an Electrical charge. So once we know that the basis of all life is fundamentally based on an electrical charge then it stand to reason that we can obtain what ever energy we require by manipulating the know effects of electrical charges. In other words we can tap into what is all around us or we can chose to ignore it. For reasons mentioned it has been chosen to be ignored for now. However it is still there and has been since time began for the use of all those that choose to use it.

oscarBravo

Cool. Build a working prototype and you'll be rich.

PeoplesMod

oscarBravo wrote: »

Cool. Build a working prototype and you'll be rich.

If only it was that simple. Send Tom and e-mail and ask him what has happened to him since he published this on Mar26th 2002. Tom's invention was not new to many of us and his is not the best way to do it. There are simpler and less dangerous ways to get near free energy as 100% free will never happen due to the laws of nature. However in excess of 99% efficiency is possible by utilizing high voltages with correct timing circuits for collapsing the magnetic fields.

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/announce/meg.htm

bonkey

PeoplesMod wrote: »

Energy exists all around us. How can you get the effects of a nuclear explosion from a small amount of radioactive material? Answer is by splitting the atom. Einstein came up with the formula E=MC
Energy = Mass X Speed of Light (vacuum)

Ummm, no. Einstein came up with the formula E=MC^2 : Energy is Mass times the square of C.

Thats how we get energy from a nuclear explosion. Mass gets converted to energy. We end up with less mass than we started, but no net increase in energy.

What is the mass of an Electrical Magnetic Field?

Electromagnetic fields are a property created by stationary or moving charges. They have, in and of themselves, no mass. The charges which create them have mss. As an example of the distinction...a magnet has mass. Its magnetic field does not...it is a property of the magnet.

If you can get vast amounts of energy from the break up of an atomic structure then why can't you get energy released by breaking electro magnetic fields?

What do you mean by 'breaking' electromagnetic fields? You can interfere with the field either by interfering with the source of the field, or by introducing additional fields to cause interactions.

and the best part is that we don’t have to split the atoms to release energy.

Einstein's equation deals with mass/energy conversion. If you're not talking about converting mass into energy, then it doesn't come into play.
If you are talking about converting mass into energy, then this can only occur at a subatomic level.

For reasons mentioned it has been chosen to be ignored for now.

I would argue that the reason is hte same as that which I offered to your comment regarding cold fusion in another thread.

It has been ignored because not one of these claims has once withstood publication of the details for replication, followed by peer-based scrutiny. In other words, not one has been openly verified by the scientific community. Time after time, either the proponents find some reason as to why this cannot be done, or it is done, and fails verification tests.

Its the same type of mumbo-jumbo that Steorn have used...pseudo-scientific handwaving, backed with promises that real scientists have indeed looked at it, but that its some sort of special case that cannot be peer-reviewed in the normal manner by the scientific community at large.

bonkey

PeoplesMod wrote: »

However in excess of 99% efficiency is possible

99% efficiency of what?

Are you saying that for every 100 units of energy you pour into a system you can get somewhere betwwen 99 and 100 units back? If so, then this isn't going to change anything in the world...it doesn't radically alter anything.

Where do you think we have a massive lack of efficiency that you can radically change teh world getting to or above 99%?

The only way such figures would becoem radical is once you start talking about overunity. Of course, overunity is the free lunch you agree is impossible.

PeoplesMod

bonkey wrote: »

Ummm, no. Einstein came up with the formula E=MC^2 : Energy is Mass times the square of C.

Thats how we get energy from a nuclear explosion. Mass gets converted to energy. We end up with less mass than we started, but no net increase in energy.


Electromagnetic fields are a property created by stationary or moving charges. They have, in and of themselves, no mass. The charges which create them have mss. As an example of the distinction...a magnet has mass. Its magnetic field does not...it is a property of the magnet.


What do you mean by 'breaking' electromagnetic fields? You can interfere with the field either by interfering with the source of the field, or by introducing additional fields to cause interactions.


Einstein's equation deals with mass/energy conversion. If you're not talking about converting mass into energy, then it doesn't come into play.
If you are talking about converting mass into energy, then this can only occur at a subatomic level.


I would argue that the reason is hte same as that which I offered to your comment regarding cold fusion in another thread.

It has been ignored because not one of these claims has once withstood publication of the details for replication, followed by peer-based scrutiny. In other words, not one has been openly verified by the scientific community. Time after time, either the proponents find some reason as to why this cannot be done, or it is done, and fails verification tests.

Its the same type of mumbo-jumbo that Steorn have used...pseudo-scientific handwaving, backed with promises that real scientists have indeed looked at it, but that its some sort of special case that cannot be peer-reviewed in the normal manner by the scientific community at large.

I left out the squared as there is no way to put the symbol in. The energy from a nuclear exposing is due to the chain effect of electrons being forced out of their orbit by the catalyst. I am not an expert on this as I don't need to be. As a matter of fact I don't need to be an expert on anything. All I need to do is ask if there is any information available in relation to free energy that will explain to me how it works and how I can build such a device to prove it to myself. As in many walks of life the simplest things are often overlooked and we humans tend to overcomplicate everything. There was one man who smashed all barriers in relation to this type of thinking and I think that you know his name. It is from his many inventions and patents that the information that I now have in my possession has been compiled. This stuff works. Full stop. One can either choose to use it or ignore it. I have opened a new discussion in the science section as it is more appropriate to the subject.

bonkey

PeoplesMod wrote: »

I am not an expert on this as I don't need to be. As a matter of fact I don't need to be an expert on anything.
...
This stuff works. Full stop.

With respect, for the latter claim to hold any water, you absolutely need to be an expert, or be able to reference the expert who established that works. You've done neither.

PeoplesMod

bonkey wrote: »

99% efficiency of what?

Are you saying that for every 100 units of energy you pour into a system you can get somewhere betwwen 99 and 100 units back? If so, then this isn't going to change anything in the world...it doesn't radically alter anything.

Where do you think we have a massive lack of efficiency that you can radically change teh world getting to or above 99%?

The only way such figures would becoem radical is once you start talking about overunity. Of course, overunity is the free lunch you agree is impossible.

What I am saying is very simple. By feeding a low voltage DC supply into a LV > HV converter and by adding certain electronic components to the circuit it is possible to obtain high torque output form very small current input which happens to be in the milliamps. I will assume that you are familiar with Ohms law so I will not repeat myself on this. What you can then do is use a portion of the high torque output to charge the DC battery/ies with the reaming torque available as free energy. Of course one must be practical and work out the load that will be applied to the available torque as the load will determine the size of the required electronic components and the required capacity of the high volatge. All the testing and prototyping has been done and one can obtain anything form 1HP output to several hundred HP output. Hard to believe but true and all thanks to one very intelligent man whose name has been kept form the general public over many decades for obvious reasons mentioned.

PeoplesMod

bonkey wrote: »

With respect, for the latter claim to hold any water, you absolutely need to be an expert, or be able to reference the expert who established that works. You've done neither.

I have made many references to the father of these inventions. If you are not aware of who he is by now then it is you who are ill informed and not me.

bonkey

PeoplesMod wrote: »

I have made many references to the father of these inventions.

You've mentioned 'the father of these inventions'. You haven't once supplied a reference.

If you are not aware of who he is by now then it is you who are ill informed and not me.

I've challenged your claim that you don't need to be an expert, and accepted your claim that you're not one.

I haven't suggested you're ill-informed and I'll thank you to do me the same courtesy.

AngryHippie

PeoplesMod wrote: »

I have made many references to the father of these inventions. If you are not aware of who he is by now then it is you who are ill informed and not me.

You've been caught talking nonsense.

Long live Casey

blackbox

PeoplesMod wrote: »

If you do build one I would advice you to keep it to yourself as many that have already done so have found that strange things then started to happen in their lives where they least expected it.

Yeah - I bet they were haunted by the people from the parallel universe who wanted their energy back!

cdixon

Alt 253 = ²

Just an update here, latest announcements on hydrogen powered cars.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7496644.stm

More proof that there is life after oil! But, it must be more measured/less wasteful!

UK Firm ITM Power has developed a way of making hydrogen at home to fuel a car.

Chief executive Jim Heathcoate says it has made a new type of plastic for the production process.

ITM believes the plastic could be mass produced relatively cheaply and would allow people to create the gas at home using their normal electric supply or greener sources such as solar power.

However, some industry experts have said that electric power and not hydrogen could be more cost effective and energy efficient.

They have also questioned how safe it is to create fuel at home.

Gurgle

Deleted User wrote: »

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7496644.stm
...
They have also questioned how safe it is to create fuel at home.

When I saw 'making hydrogen at home', the first thing I thought of was 'Hindenburg'.

If you're going to build a car with any kind of a decent range, you'll be carting around a fairly large tank of Hydrogen at a fairly high pressure....

I can't see this being the solution for the general public.

AngryHippie

Gurgle wrote: »

you'll be carting around a fairly large tank of Hydrogen at a fairly high pressure....

I can't see this being the solution for the general public.

It'll stop those drink driving ads with people in tatters though, It'll be back to the Blackadder school of landmines everytime there is a crash, Just throw yourself 50 feet up in the air, and spread yourself out over a few acres. No more A & E, just CSI.......nice, go to a car accident with a mop and a pack of cotton buds.

gerky

In years of testing pressurized hydrogen tanks I don't think there has ever been an explosion.
In fact it may be safer in a lot of ways than petrol/diesel, if a petrol/diesel tank is ruptured it flows out in to the area of the accident whereas hydrogen dissipates extremely quickly in to the atmosphere.

Also there was 97 on board the hindenburg and only 35 of them died, its just tends to stick in peoples heads as it was such a dramatic moment caught on film.

Gurgle

gerky wrote: »

In years of testing pressurized hydrogen tanks I don't think there has ever been an explosion.

I wonder if they've ever smashed 2 of them together at a combined speed of 120 mph?

gerky wrote: »

Also there was 97 on board the hindenburg and only 35 of them died, its just tends to stick in peoples heads as it was such a dramatic moment caught on film.

True, though of course it wasn't pressurised.

gerky

They would have to be impact tested before they would be let put them in a car, they also test them with chemicals, acid, gunshot, over pressurize them, intense heat/fire ect..........

Gurgle wrote:

True, though of course it wasn't pressurised.

Exactly why it shouldn't be compared to modern use.

m3boy

I love contraversial boards :-)
was my grammer ok?
If its not then im sure someone has a matamatical equation that will solve all the worlds financial probems :-)