Not difficult to notice that everyone attacks the idea of "cars on water". All this in spite that in many cases of "gas-guzzlers" such a conversion into "cars on water" can save users even up to 75% costs of fuel, and that conversion of just an ordinary car into a "car on water" can be done on "do it itself" principles by almost every advanced hobbyist who has prototyping capabilities.
So why there is so much negativity about these cars. Well, we have oil companies, all their employees, and all their share holders who would loose a lot when everyone uses "cars on water" instead of present "gas- guzzlers". We also have scientists who would loose sources of lucrative research contracts when every car burns only around 5 l/ 100km, instead of present over 20 l/100km. We also have car manufacturers who could NOT come up every year with a new version of a car which is supposedly "better" somehow from previous versions, and sell this new car - as people would be happy with their old ones. And so-on, so-on. Practically it turns out that the idea of "cars on water" would too much "rock the boat" in order to obtain any official support.
So the only way of appreciating thse "cars on water" is to convert ordinary cars into "cars on water" on the "do it yourself" principle. Then, instead of listening to theoretical arguments of the "arm chair" scientists, such "do it yourself" people can experience in person that these cars actually DO save fuel, that they do NOT emit so much pollution as ordinary cars, that they have much better performance than the ordinary cars, etc., etc.
I prepared a description as to how convert your own ordinary car into a "car on water" on a free principle of "do it yourself". A hobbyist who did such a conversion claims that it cost him only around 50 dollars. The principle of this conversion is described in part #H of my web page "free_energy.htm" - update on 23 June 2008 or later. Unfortunately, someone in google sabotaged my profile from this group, so that when I try to provide the address of my web sites which have this web page, I am unable to save this thread with such a link. So the only way to find my web page is to type in www.google.com the key words "Jan Pajak free_energy.htm" (but without quotes) and then run the web page "free_energy.htm" which google finds and indicates.
With the totaliztic salute, Jan Pajak
P.S. Reders probably noticed that I already privided a descriptive information on these "cars on water" on another similar thread, the address of which also seems to be baned here (so I also cannot provide here a link to it). It appears that for some reasons only a criticism of these cars is permited on this group.
janpa...@gmail.com wrote: > All this in spite that in many cases of "gas-guzzlers" such a > conversion into "cars on water" can save users even up to 75% costs of > fuel,
You're talking SHIT.
Tale your experiment to a certified test lab and PROVE it or SHUT THE FUCK UP>
> So why there is so much negativity about these cars. Well, we have oil > companies, all their employees, and all their share holders who would > loose a lot when everyone uses "cars on water" instead of present "gas- > guzzlers"
Learn the difference between LOOSE and LOSE, you fucking idiot.
On Jun 24, 3:21 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: ...
> > All this in spite that in many cases of "gas-guzzlers" such a > > conversion into "cars on water" can save users even up to 75% costs of > > fuel,
> You're talking SHIT. > Tale your experiment to a certified test lab and PROVE it or SHUT THE FUCK UP > Graham
Well, the 75% saving on petrol in a "car on water" was proven by the experiment which I described on my previous thread which you should be able to find under the address http://groups.google.com/group/aus.cars/browse_thread/thread/2011093f... . Just have a look in there. The same experiment is also described on my web page "free_energy.htm" (update dated on 23 June 2008, or later) which you can find through the search engine www.google.com if you type the key words "Jan Pajak free_energy.htm" but without quotes. Also the description of the alteration of an ordinary car into the "car on water" is so simple, that if you have "do it yourself" workshop, you can test it on your own without relying on anyone else's word about the savings.
By the way, I can see that the idea of "cars on water" has much more enemies than I listed in my initial post on this thread. Almost all comments so-far are against this idea. I also noted that there are separate threads on google discussion groups just to attack this idea - as an example see the thread http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/browse_thread/thread/559ce6... . No wonder that people are in troubles these days when they listen to such a rubbish.
On the other hand the idea of a ccar on water is extremely simple. You just add a small, home-made dissociator of water to you car, which runs on electricity from your car batter or dynamo. Then the hydrogen that this dissociator produces you just add to the air at the inlet to your cylinders. The burning of this hydrogen increases the temeprature in the cylinder. This increased temeprature, as well as the fire from the burning of hydrogen gas acts like a kind of catalyser on the petrol-air mixture making it to burn much better and without leaving any fumes. The rersult is that the efficiency of fuel burning is increased, your car gains a lot on performance, the car does NOT produce smoke, and in addition you can save up to 75% of the fuel.
The only difficulty with this modification is to make your own "water dissociator". But this part is simple - I describeds such a simplest dissociator on my web page "free_energy.htm" mentioned before. Practically every hobbyist can do it. In turn a hobbyist who has done it and who demonstarted his design of such a dissociator on the television show "Campbell Life" on channet 3 TVNZ on Monday, 23 June 2008, at 7:00 pm to 7:10 pm, claimed that it cost him only around 50 dollars. (This particular program "Campbell Life" has its own web pages at addresses www.3nest.co.nz and www.tv3.co.nz .)
janpa...@gmail.com wrote: > We also have car > manufacturers who could NOT come up every year with a new version of a > car which is supposedly "better" somehow from previous versions, and > sell this new car - as people would be happy with their old ones.
Why? People have traded in old cars for new ones probably since cars began, but fuel consumption wasn't a big issue in the time of cheap fuel.
janpa...@gmail.com wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > ... > > > All this in spite that in many cases of "gas-guzzlers" such a > > > conversion into "cars on water" can save users even up to 75% costs of > > > fuel,
> > You're talking SHIT. > > Take your experiment to a certified test lab and PROVE it or SHUT THE FUCK UP > > Graham
> Well, the 75% saving on petrol in a "car on water" was proven by the > experiment which I described on my previous thread
You didn't PROVE fuck.
"Take your experiment to a certified test lab and PROVE it or SHUT THE FUCK UP"
> On Jun 24, 3:21 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > ...
> > > All this in spite that in many cases of "gas-guzzlers" such a > > > conversion into "cars on water" can save users even up to 75% costs of > > > fuel,
Listen Jan
You must know surely that claims of this type ranging from between 40% and your 75% are bing made.
First of all you have to consider how much energy will be required to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen and then supply the H into a combustion chamber. If that turns out to be *more* than the extra energy resulting from improved combustion, then you are not saving energy but losing it. And since no energy conversion method is 100% efficient, there will be losses en route. And how much water will the alternator have to electrolyse to produce the Hydrogen on the fly to improve your fuel economy by 75%? A hell of a lot. Does any alternator produce that much surplus current? I don't think so. Even at the lower bound of 40% saving, the numbers don't add up.
it takes about 20 horsepower (about 15KW) to keep a 4000 lb car travelling at 65 mph along a level surface. To produce 40% of that power, you need 40% of about 15KW which is about 6KW. Now let's assume to keep it simple that your electrolyser is 100% efficient. (It won't be) That means you're going to need about 500 amps to do the job. I'm ready to stand corrected on this but AFAIK, the average alternator produces about 70-85 amps so where are you getting the other 420+ amps? It would have to come from the battery which might last about 15 minutes. Of course, typical ICEs are only about 25-30% efficient so even if you could get that much into the engine, it would amount to maybe around 2KW in practice -- which in the case of our car going at 65 mph would be about a 10% saving.
Remember that the energy from the alternator is not free. It comes from the same petrol-driven motor you're trying to improve the efficiency of. If the alternator has to power an electrolyser, then the engine powering it will have to work harder. That takes more fuel. There is no free energy lunch.
The only way I can see an idea such as you propose beginning to make a positive contribution is if the energy used to power the electrolyser was exclusively from some sort of device capturing the energy from braking, in much the way that regenerative braking systems work. If most of one's braking force could be applied to turn a generator that powered an electrolyser that produced Hydrogen and this was fed into a cylinder under circumstances that could be optimised by the vehicle's fuel management system then in theory, you *might* get some advantage. You'd since you don't actually need more power when braking you'd have to have some sort of device for temporarily storing the hydrogen and supplying it when the vehicle was under load. The whole system could not weigh very much of course and the bulk of the benefit would be for vehicles doing a lot of braking and accelerating under load, but in theory, that might work ... maybe. NB: I'm not recommending anyone try this unless you know what you're doing.
Think about it. If your original proposal actually worked why wouldn't pretty much every vehicle manufacturer have factory-fitted one of these? Why wouldn't this principle have been used in stationary power generation to improve the efficiency of thermal power plants?
Don't get me wrong. I love the idea of cars running with more thermal efficiency, but it's hard to see how this adds up.
> Not difficult to notice that everyone attacks the idea of "cars on > water". All this in spite that in many cases of "gas-guzzlers" such a > conversion into "cars on water" can save users even up to 75% costs of > fuel, and that conversion of just an ordinary car into a "car on > water" can be done on "do it itself" principles by almost every > advanced hobbyist who has prototyping capabilities.
If a low cost, simple conversion could save 75% of fuel costs it would be bigger news than 9-11. It's not. Any idea why? :-)
> I prepared a description as to how convert your own ordinary car into > a "car on water" on a free principle of "do it yourself". A hobbyist > who did such a conversion claims that it cost him only around 50 > dollars. The principle of this conversion is described in part #H of
Rock the boat? Your boat (premise) is made of tissues and the minute it's in the water (pardon the pun, or let me be direct, the moment it's properly scientifically tested) it'll sink.
Until you come up with a way to extract hydrogen and oxygen from the water (or even just the hydrogen) that costs less energy (or startup funding) than the energy potentially available from burning it, you're up shit creek.
If you really want to do something about the threat (and I use the term loosely) of running out of fossil fuels, then the first step would be to abandon the emissions regs esp with regard to NOx . Do that, and instantly manufacturers using their existing engines (to say the least about the possibility of higher compression or in the case of turbo diesels higher boost and so forther) simply via mixture alteration could improve fuel efficiency somewhere around 10-20%
If you want to make some use of water, I'd make a suggestion - get a pre emissions vehicle, and get the engine reconditioned and either custom pistons or if material allows, raise the static compression to around 12-13:1 which will potentiate much better part throttle economy, and then use water injection above approximately 65% throttle openings to act as an anti-detonant to prevent what would otherwise happen on such a high static comp ratio and low octane pump fuel.
There you go, of course that's not much interest to trolls.
I'll go even further - if you've got a _very_ low compression older vehicle with the engine in good condition, you could run tiny amounts (and I'll suggest ratios based on the advice of a rocket scientist, and no I'm not joking) of diesel cetane improver in the fuel, for around a 10-20% reduction in fuel costs (even once the cetane improver is factored in). It's only safe on low comp engines and only in very tiny amounts. Try and tip the can on that one and you'll fuck the engine quicker than James and Lachlan fucked one-tel.
All this in spite that in many cases of "gas-guzzlers" such a
> conversion into "cars on water" can save users even up to 75% costs of > fuel,
That would happen only if you poured a few litres per minute into the intake and hydraulically seized the engine and therefore had to walk. Sure you'd spend less on fuel.
Not that I defend the crock-o-blank 'cars on water' junkmail, but I think we have a chemical problem.
Water, being H2O, can't be seperated (say, electrically), into hyrdrogen and oxygen, and burned?
I don't believe for a moment that whatever capt. gmail is selling, is worth anything but a laugh, but I do know, and have seen, hydrogen and oxygen seperated from water and burned.
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Not that I defend the crock-o-blank 'cars on water' junkmail, but I > think we have a chemical problem.
> Water, being H2O, can't be seperated (say, electrically), into > hyrdrogen and oxygen, and burned?
> I don't believe for a moment that whatever capt. gmail is selling, is > worth anything but a laugh, but I do know, and have seen, hydrogen > and oxygen seperated from water and burned.
The real question would be, Is this known fact about hydrogen/oxygen creation possible with the same amount of power that might be used to power a radio or dvd player in your car or something else with such a draw of power from the engine?
If it is. You are then making a fuel, instead of watching your DVD player and even if it hurts the mileage a tiny bit like the dvd player would, it will end up burning less "paid for" gas in the final outcome and replacing it with hydrogen gas that has been created by the "paid for" gas that was burning anyway. So really, how much power is needed to "watch" the "hydrogen creation system work". :) Is it a power need that is actually closer to 20 DVD players? or just 1 dvd player?
In sci.physics, janpa...@gmail.com <janpa...@gmail.com> wrote on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:25:49 -0700 (PDT) <6664d457-3c1d-4126-a166-d420bb453...@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>:
> Not difficult to notice that everyone attacks the idea of "cars on > water".
That's because cars on ammonia makes much more sense. :-)
Water:
Fuel: 2 H per water molecule Molarity: 55.6 moles/liter
Ammonia:
Fuel: 3 H per ammonia molecule Molarity: about 50 moles/liter
This is assuming something along the lines of cold fusion, which is extremely unlikely anyway.
Brown's Gas and electrolysis are worthless for motive power, unless one moves the electrolysis off the car (and uses a different power source), making the problem a question of distributing the gas from where it is formed to where it is needed...not unlike refineries and catalytic crackers of the gasoline/diesel fuel/aviation fuel market today.
[rest snipped]
-- #191, ewi...@earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129: void f(unsigned u) { if(u < 0) ... } ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
> <kilobytes of insanity deleted to conserve electrons>
> You, numb nuts, are proof that removing compulsory science subjects > from school is breeding a subspecies of technologically illiterate > wankers.
> Your assignemnt for this week is to research and learn the basic > points of the laws of physics, specifically - conservation of energy.
> Now, FUCK OFF and GET TO WORK.
-------------------------- Well, I'm pleased to see that your faith-based physics is so strong. Many scientists find great comfort in their physics "faith"!
But for those working in science, faith in texbook "laws" that "everybody knows are true" just isn't enough! Name-calling doesn't make much a "proof" either. YOUR assignment (note correct spelling) is to learn that science relies on EXPERIMENT for verification NOT "textbook laws"! Didn't you ever hear the hippie slogan, "Question Authority"? Yeah, I thought not.
The problem with the "water car" fad is that some half-baked experiments have sparked the public imagination, but no definitive demonstration of a hydrogen-oxygen water separator has been produced. Sure, if you had this box and you poured in water and out came Oxygen and Hydrogen which you used to run your car engine, it would be a HUGE boon! ZERO pollution. You could run your car cheaply using bottled drinking water at maybe no more than $1 a quart! Humanity is SAVED!
But I've seen NO such "box". All the boxes I've seen to separate water take SOME form of OTHER energy input. And that is the problem! Unless you get out significantly MORE energy in hydrogen and oxygen than you put in to split the water, you've got NOTHING. So far nobody has anything.
But even if you COULD build the water splitter box, that doesn't guarantee that cars will be built using it. There is a LOT of politics involved here! Take for example the well-known phenomena of cars getting much better mileage in the summer due to the better vapor pressure of the fuel when hot. So? How many cars do anything with that? None. There were patents in the 1930's for carburettors that ran the fuel vapors through heated ducts to increase mileage. But today the usual practice (with fuel injectors) is to just squirt raw liquid (cold) fuel into the engine! A step backward for sure! See what I mean? And it's not just auto makers and oil companies. How stupid is driving some gigantic SUV to work every day? Just what in hell is the PURPOSE behind that? Trying to win the prize for dumbest and most arrogant human on the planet?
Oh wait! That prize just went to "nofarken" for his unbridled faith in textbook dogma!
> Not that I defend the crock-o-blank 'cars on water' junkmail, but I think we > have a chemical problem.
> Water, being H2O, can't be seperated (say, electrically), into hyrdrogen and > oxygen, and burned?
> I don't believe for a moment that whatever capt. gmail is selling, is worth > anything but a laugh, but I do know, and have seen, hydrogen and oxygen > seperated from water and burned.
But you haven't seen *WATER* burn have you ?
Once you electrolyse water back to hydrogen and oxygen it's no longer water you see.
> > <kilobytes of insanity deleted to conserve electrons>
> > You, numb nuts, are proof that removing compulsory science subjects > > from school is breeding a subspecies of technologically illiterate > > wankers.
> > Your assignemnt for this week is to research and learn the basic > > points of the laws of physics, specifically - conservation of energy.
> > Now, FUCK OFF and GET TO WORK. > -------------------------- > Well, I'm pleased to see that your faith-based physics is so strong. > Many scientists find great comfort in their physics "faith"!
Physics is about FACTS. It's the science of how physical objects interact.
Benj wrote: > On Jun 24, 7:12 am, nofarken...@gmail.com wrote:
>> <kilobytes of insanity deleted to conserve electrons>
>> You, numb nuts, are proof that removing compulsory science subjects >> from school is breeding a subspecies of technologically illiterate >> wankers.
>> Your assignemnt for this week is to research and learn the basic >> points of the laws of physics, specifically - conservation of energy.
> Well, I'm pleased to see that your faith-based physics is so strong. > Many scientists find great comfort in their physics "faith"!
'faith based'? Observations require faith? You don't have a clue how it works.....
