Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was shown in television. The television crew subjected it to a simple test to determine the saving on fuel that it accomplishes. It burns only around 5 liters per 100 kilometers (plus around 1 liter of water), while the car of an identical model, and year, burned on exactly the same road and with exactly the same speeds over 20 liters per 100 kilometers.
About this kind of "cars on water" I remember to read theoretically alteady in 1997 during my professorship in Borneo. But I never had an opportunity to see how they compare to factory models. So with a great interest I looked on Friday, 13 June 2008 at 7:00 pm to 7:30 pm on the channel 3 of television New Zealand the program called "Campbell Live" which was just about one such car constructed by two young New Zealanders in their 20s. In this programme was also explained what the design and operation of such a "car on water" was about. I described this design and operation on my web page "free_energy.htm" (updated on 15 June or later) the address of which can be find if in the www.google.com someone types the key words "Jan Pajak free_energy.htm" but without quotes. In the program this "car on water was also subjected to an experiment. Namely it was taken for a ride together with another identical car of the same year and model, only that still in the factory condition (it was probably "Ford Falcon"). Both cars drove the same path with the same speed. After they went through 100 kilometers, the fuel consumption was measured ion both of them by the TV crew. It turned out that the "car on water" burned around 5 liters of petrol, while the factory version of the same car burned over 20 liters (both after 100 km on the road). So the saving on fuel amounted to 75% (or three quorters) the the original (factory) fuel consumption.
The mopdification of these two boys was extremely simple. They just added to an old car that they had a small "dissociator of water" which they build themselves. This dissociator consumed energy from the dynamo and dissociated water into hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen was let out, while the hydrogen was added to the air at the car's carburattor. So this hydrogen, after entering the cylinder mixed with the air, burned in the cylinder with the fuel and thus increased the temperature of the burning. This raise in the temperature of burning in turn caused the better burning of the fuel, and also the lack of smoke in the exhaustions. So the burning become much more efficient. The final effect was that the car consumed 75% less petrol. So the entire saving on fuel results from this increased temperature in the cylinder. The changes themselves were technically very simple, so that even these two boys could complete them successfully.
Because in this program there were no details of the car, I looked in internet at web pages of the "Campbell LIfe" to find these details. This particular program has 2 web pages, namely www.3news.co.nz and www.tv3.co.nz. But I could NOT find anything in there about thye car. Therefore I described everything that I remembered from this program on my web page. Interested readers can find it at the addresses of my web page "free_energy.htm" update on 15 June or later. (This web page needs to be seeked via www.google.com as there is a lot of such web pages - not all of these are updated on 15 July 2008. To find these one needs to type key words listed before.)
So it seems that it is worth to experiemnt with cars, as such simple change as the "car on water" may save some of us even around $ 100 per week.
janpa...@gmail.com wrote: > Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was > shown in television. The television crew subjected it to a simple test > to determine the saving on fuel that it accomplishes. It burns only > around 5 liters per 100 kilometers (plus around 1 liter of water), > while the car of an identical model, and year, burned on exactly the > same road and with exactly the same speeds over 20 liters per 100 > kilometers.
Seems hardly credible. Cars are not that inefficient. A four-fold improvement would push the efficiency well into the totally impossible range.
> Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was > shown in television. The television crew subjected it to a simple test > to determine the saving on fuel that it accomplishes. It burns only > around 5 liters per 100 kilometers (plus around 1 liter of water), > while the car of an identical model, and year, burned on exactly the > same road and with exactly the same speeds over 20 liters per 100 > kilometers.
> About this kind of "cars on water" I remember to read theoretically > alteady in 1997 during my professorship in Borneo. But I never had an > opportunity to see how they compare to factory models. So with a great > interest I looked on Friday, 13 June 2008 at 7:00 pm to 7:30 pm on the > channel 3 of television New Zealand the program called "Campbell Live" > which was just about one such car constructed by two young New > Zealanders in their 20s. In this programme was also explained what the > design and operation of such a "car on water" was about. I described > this design and operation on my web page "free_energy.htm" (updated on > 15 June or later) the address of which can be find if in thewww.google.com > someone types the key words "Jan Pajak free_energy.htm" but without > quotes. In the program this "car on water was also subjected to an > experiment. Namely it was taken for a ride together with another > identical car of the same year and model, only that still in the > factory condition (it was probably "Ford Falcon"). Both cars drove the > same path with the same speed. After they went through 100 kilometers, > the fuel consumption was measured ion both of them by the TV crew. It > turned out that the "car on water" burned around 5 liters of petrol, > while the factory version of the same car burned over 20 liters (both > after 100 km on the road). So the saving on fuel amounted to 75% (or > three quorters) the the original (factory) fuel consumption.
> The mopdification of these two boys was extremely simple. They just > added to an old car that they had a small "dissociator of water" which > they build themselves. This dissociator consumed energy from the > dynamo and dissociated water into hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen was > let out, while the hydrogen was added to the air at the car's > carburattor. So this hydrogen, after entering the cylinder mixed with > the air, burned in the cylinder with the fuel and thus increased the > temperature of the burning. This raise in the temperature of burning > in turn caused the better burning of the fuel, and also the lack of > smoke in the exhaustions. So the burning become much more efficient. > The final effect was that the car consumed 75% less petrol. So the > entire saving on fuel results from this increased temperature in the > cylinder. The changes themselves were technically very simple, so that > even these two boys could complete them successfully.
> Because in this program there were no details of the car, I looked in > internet at web pages of the "Campbell LIfe" to find these details. > This particular program has 2 web pages, namelywww.3news.co.nzandwww.tv3.co.nz. But I could NOT find anything in there about thye car. > Therefore I described everything that I remembered from this program > on my web page. Interested readers can find it at the addresses of my > web page "free_energy.htm" update on 15 June or later. (This web page > needs to be seeked viawww.google.comas there is a lot of such web > pages - not all of these are updated on 15 July 2008. To find these > one needs to type key words listed before.)
> So it seems that it is worth to experiemnt with cars, as such simple > change as the "car on water" may save some of us even around $ 100 per > week.
> So it seems that it is worth to experiemnt with cars, as such simple > change as the "car on water" may save some of us even around $ 100 per > week.
> With the totaliztic salute, > Jan Pajak
Gee. A car like that would need a beautiful bridge to park on just to set it off. You don't have one? I can get you a deal on a big grey one in Sydney ....
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:37:21 -0700, janpajak wrote: > Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was > shown in television. The television crew
>> Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was >> shown in television. The television crew >.. probably has shares in the scam.
It must be about time we had another free energy machine scam. Steorns engine has gone remarakably quiet, like they all do. Whats next. Must be time for gravity motors or better still, low grade heat engines which convert low grade heat to electricity directly.
Sylvia Else wrote: > janpa...@gmail.com wrote: >> Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was >> shown in television. The television crew subjected it to a simple test >> to determine the saving on fuel that it accomplishes. It burns only >> around 5 liters per 100 kilometers (plus around 1 liter of water), >> while the car of an identical model, and year, burned on exactly the >> same road and with exactly the same speeds over 20 liters per 100 >> kilometers.
> Seems hardly credible. Cars are not that inefficient. A four-fold > improvement would push the efficiency well into the totally impossible > range.
> Sylvia.
Don't be surprised if your found to be wanting on this one misguided one a really efficient internal combustion motor is inefficient at best .
atec77 wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> janpa...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was >>> shown in television. The television crew subjected it to a simple test >>> to determine the saving on fuel that it accomplishes. It burns only >>> around 5 liters per 100 kilometers (plus around 1 liter of water), >>> while the car of an identical model, and year, burned on exactly the >>> same road and with exactly the same speeds over 20 liters per 100 >>> kilometers.
>> Seems hardly credible. Cars are not that inefficient. A four-fold >> improvement would push the efficiency well into the totally impossible >> range.
>> Sylvia. > Don't be surprised if your found to be > wanting on this one misguided one a really efficient internal > combustion motor is inefficient at best .
They're not that inefficient by comparison with their maximum theoretical efficency as dictated by Carnot's theorem. Any modified variation of the engine is also constrained by the same theorem. While there is talk of increased combustion temperature, the engine would fall apart and/or melt before any increase in temperature could give a four fold improvement.
terryc wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:37:21 -0700, janpajak wrote:
>> Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was >> shown in television. The television crew > .. probably has shares in the scam.
Well, if not actually shares, they certainly had an interest in the story being true, and would not have been motivated to examine the car in detail to discover the nature of the fraud.
"Teens waste TV crew's time on improved fuel consumption scam" is hardly current affairs program material - not even "Today Tonight" or "A Current Affair" (being Aussie tabloid level CA programs) would be interested.
Sylvia Else wrote: > janpa...@gmail.com wrote: >> Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was >> shown in television. The television crew subjected it to a simple test >> to determine the saving on fuel that it accomplishes. It burns only >> around 5 liters per 100 kilometers (plus around 1 liter of water), >> while the car of an identical model, and year, burned on exactly the >> same road and with exactly the same speeds over 20 liters per 100 >> kilometers.
> Seems hardly credible. Cars are not that inefficient.
Yeah... about a whopping 20% 'efficient'. I think your search engine research doctorate in everything has failed you this time.
Jeßus wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> janpa...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was >>> shown in television. The television crew subjected it to a simple test >>> to determine the saving on fuel that it accomplishes. It burns only >>> around 5 liters per 100 kilometers (plus around 1 liter of water), >>> while the car of an identical model, and year, burned on exactly the >>> same road and with exactly the same speeds over 20 liters per 100 >>> kilometers.
>> Seems hardly credible. Cars are not that inefficient.
> Yeah... about a whopping 20% 'efficient'. > I think your search engine research doctorate in everything has failed > you this time.
Mauried wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:53:28 +1000, terryc > <newssixspam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:37:21 -0700, janpajak wrote:
>>> Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was >>> shown in television. The television crew >> .. probably has shares in the scam.
> It must be about time we had another free energy machine scam. > Steorns engine has gone remarakably quiet, like they all do. > Whats next. > Must be time for gravity motors or better still, low grade heat > engines which convert low grade heat to electricity directly.
I prefer selling solutions to non-existent problems, such as HI-FI digital cables, and solar power supplies for pocket calculators. Less chance of spending time in chokey.
On Jun 18, 7:14 pm, Jeßus <n...@all.org> wrote: ...
> Yeah... about a whopping 20% 'efficient'. > I think your search engine research doctorate in everything has failed > you this time.
Thank you for the only constructive voice in this flood of spitting that my thread received so-far. I am really shock. I just reported on a true accomplishement of two young New Zealand hobbyists-amateurs who moved their bottom side to do something about the current fuel crisis, and I got all this spitting and mud throwing. No wonder that our civilisation is in trouble since we haver people of that knowledge and that attitude as the ones that threw the mud via the most of above opinions.
This is just an innocent report about a significant improvement on fuel efficiency of an ordinary car, which everyone can confirm by simply ordering from the channel 3 of TVNZ a DVD with that particular program ("Campbell Life"). I am pretty sure that the TV team did a good work in checking this improvement, and that there is NO any scam involved. Also the improvement is extremely easy to make - two young hobbyists from NZ did it in their garage. So almost everyone can do it. If, by any chance, I come accross contact details of these two young hobbyists, I will publish these details on my web page - please just check from time the page "free_energy.htm" (by finding it in www.google.com through typing the key words "Jan Pajak free_energy.htm" - but without quotes, and later by checking that the page you are viewing is the update dated either on 15 June 2008, or at a later date). It is worth to learn about this improvement, because in present days for many people it is able to save at least $100 per week (while I believe that the improvement itself, if done in one's own garage, is going to cost around $100).
janpa...@gmail.com wrote: > Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was > shown in television. The television crew subjected it to a simple test > to determine the saving on fuel that it accomplishes. It burns only > around 5 liters per 100 kilometers (plus around 1 liter of water), > while the car of an identical model, and year, burned on exactly the > same road and with exactly the same speeds over 20 liters per 100 > kilometers.
Sylvia Else wrote: > janpa...@gmail.com wrote: > > Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was > > shown in television. The television crew subjected it to a simple test > > to determine the saving on fuel that it accomplishes. It burns only > > around 5 liters per 100 kilometers (plus around 1 liter of water), > > while the car of an identical model, and year, burned on exactly the > > same road and with exactly the same speeds over 20 liters per 100 > > kilometers.
> Seems hardly credible. Cars are not that inefficient. A four-fold > improvement would push the efficiency well into the totally impossible > range.
The VW 1-litre car, also known as the 1L,[1] is a two-person concept car designed to travel 100 km using just 1 litre of fuel[2] (equivalent to 235 miles per US gallon or 282 mpg Imperial). To achieve such economy, it is made from lightweight materials; the body is streamlined; and the engine and transmission are designed and tuned for economy.
terryc wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:37:21 -0700, janpajak wrote:
> > Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was > > shown in television. The television crew > .. probably has shares in the scam.
5 litres fuel / 100 km distance is easily available in current production European cars. No water required.
> >> Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was > >> shown in television. The television crew > >.. probably has shares in the scam.
> It must be about time we had another free energy machine scam. > Steorns engine has gone remarakably quiet, like they all do. > Whats next. > Must be time for gravity motors or better still, low grade heat > engines which convert low grade heat to electricity directly.
Jeßus wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > > janpa...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was > >> shown in television. The television crew subjected it to a simple test > >> to determine the saving on fuel that it accomplishes. It burns only > >> around 5 liters per 100 kilometers (plus around 1 liter of water), > >> while the car of an identical model, and year, burned on exactly the > >> same road and with exactly the same speeds over 20 liters per 100 > >> kilometers.
> > Seems hardly credible. Cars are not that inefficient.
> Yeah... about a whopping 20% 'efficient'. > I think your search engine research doctorate in everything has failed > you this time.
>> janpa...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was >>> shown in television. The television crew subjected it to a simple test >>> to determine the saving on fuel that it accomplishes. It burns only >>> around 5 liters per 100 kilometers (plus around 1 liter of water), >>> while the car of an identical model, and year, burned on exactly the >>> same road and with exactly the same speeds over 20 liters per 100 >>> kilometers. >> Seems hardly credible. Cars are not that inefficient. A four-fold >> improvement would push the efficiency well into the totally impossible >> range.
> The VW 1-litre car, also known as the 1L,[1] is a two-person concept car > designed to travel 100 km using just 1 litre of fuel[2] (equivalent to 235 > miles per US gallon or 282 mpg Imperial). To achieve such economy, it is > made from lightweight materials; the body is streamlined; and the engine and > transmission are designed and tuned for economy.
janpa...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jun 18, 7:14 pm, Jeßus <n...@all.org> wrote: > ... >> Yeah... about a whopping 20% 'efficient'. >> I think your search engine research doctorate in everything has failed >> you this time.
> Thank you for the only constructive voice in this flood of spitting > that my thread received so-far. I am really shock. I just reported on > a true accomplishement of two young New Zealand hobbyists-amateurs who > moved their bottom side to do something about the current fuel crisis, > and I got all this spitting and mud throwing. No wonder that our > civilisation is in trouble since we haver people of that knowledge and > that attitude as the ones that threw the mud via the most of above > opinions.
> This is just an innocent report about a significant improvement on > fuel efficiency of an ordinary car, which everyone can confirm by > simply ordering from the channel 3 of TVNZ a DVD with that particular > program ("Campbell Life"). I am pretty sure that the TV team did a > good work in checking this improvement, and that there is NO any scam > involved. Also the improvement is extremely easy to make - two young > hobbyists from NZ did it in their garage. So almost everyone can do > it. If, by any chance, I come accross contact details of these two > young hobbyists, I will publish these details on my web page - please > just check from time the page "free_energy.htm" (by finding it in > www.google.com through typing the key words "Jan Pajak > free_energy.htm" - but without quotes, and later by checking that the > page you are viewing is the update dated either on 15 June 2008, or at > a later date). It is worth to learn about this improvement, because in > present days for many people it is able to save at least $100 per week > (while I believe that the improvement itself, if done in one's own > garage, is going to cost around $100).
> With the totaliztic salute, > Jan Pajak
We'd all like a 400% improvement in fuel consumption just by a modest retrofit of our existing vehicles. Unfortunately there seem to be no end of people willing to sell us such a system, and remarkably few (equals zero) who can demonstrate that their system works under properly controlled conditions.
Vehicle manufacturers have every incentive to use any economically viable mechanism available for improving the fuel consumption of their products. The fact that the system created by the teenagers is not already embodied in mainstream production vehicles speaks volumes.
Sylvia Else wrote: > atec77 wrote: >> Sylvia Else wrote: >>> janpa...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was >>>> shown in television. The television crew subjected it to a simple test >>>> to determine the saving on fuel that it accomplishes. It burns only >>>> around 5 liters per 100 kilometers (plus around 1 liter of water), >>>> while the car of an identical model, and year, burned on exactly the >>>> same road and with exactly the same speeds over 20 liters per 100 >>>> kilometers.
>>> Seems hardly credible. Cars are not that inefficient. A four-fold >>> improvement would push the efficiency well into the totally >>> impossible range.
>>> Sylvia. >> Don't be surprised if your found to be >> wanting on this one misguided one a really efficient internal >> combustion motor is inefficient at best .
> They're not that inefficient by comparison with their maximum > theoretical efficency
yes they are by a huge margin , more 50% possible production lost thermodynamically as dictated by Carnot's theorem. I bet you cant explain how and why it works , now ask me why Any modified
> variation of the engine is also constrained by the same theorem. While > there is talk of increased combustion temperature, the engine would fall > apart and/or melt before any increase in temperature could give a four > fold improvement.
now I wonder one of us has actual practical experience with thermodynamics and engines beyond reading and bluffing ?
> >>> Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was > >>> shown in television. The television crew subjected it to a simple test > >>> to determine the saving on fuel that it accomplishes. It burns only > >>> around 5 liters per 100 kilometers (plus around 1 liter of water), > >>> while the car of an identical model, and year, burned on exactly the > >>> same road and with exactly the same speeds over 20 liters per 100 > >>> kilometers. > >> Seems hardly credible. Cars are not that inefficient. A four-fold > >> improvement would push the efficiency well into the totally impossible > >> range.
> > The VW 1-litre car, also known as the 1L,[1] is a two-person concept car > > designed to travel 100 km using just 1 litre of fuel[2] (equivalent to 235 > > miles per US gallon or 282 mpg Imperial). To achieve such economy, it is > > made from lightweight materials; the body is streamlined; and the engine and > > transmission are designed and tuned for economy.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:09:51 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote: > terryc wrote: >> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:37:21 -0700, janpajak wrote:
>>> Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was >>> shown in television. The television crew >> .. probably has shares in the scam.
> Well, if not actually shares, they certainly had an interest in the > story being true, and would not have been motivated to examine the car > in detail to discover the nature of the fraud.
I was making a reference to the number of "just amazing" products being pimped on prime time Tv that it is later shown the show'sprodeucer/director/etc/etc had a financial interest.
> "Teens waste TV crew's time on improved fuel consumption scam" is hardly > current affairs program material - not even "Today Tonight" or "A > Current Affair" (being Aussie tabloid level CA programs) would be > interested.
