"Cars on water" have many enemies, as they "rock the boat"

13 views
Skip to first unread message

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 23, 2008, 10:25:49 PM6/23/08
to
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.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
Jun 23, 2008, 10:45:04 PM6/23/08
to
In sci.physics janp...@gmail.com wrote:
> Not difficult to notice that everyone attacks the idea of "cars on
> water".

Since it is total utter, nonsense, what else would you expect?

If any of that crap worked, JC Whitney would be selling kits for $79.95
marked down to $59.95 with free shipping.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 23, 2008, 11:07:53 PM6/23/08
to

janp...@gmail.com wrote:

> Not difficult to notice that everyone attacks the idea of "cars on
> water".

Yes, because it's stupid.

Water is an oxide. An oxide is something that has already been 'burnt'. You
can't burn something twice over.

Graham

Kwyjibo

unread,
Jun 23, 2008, 11:13:39 PM6/23/08
to

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48606509...@hotmail.com...

You clearly haven't seen my wife cook.

--
Kwyj.


Eeyore

unread,
Jun 23, 2008, 11:21:37 PM6/23/08
to

janp...@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>

Graham

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 23, 2008, 11:34:51 PM6/23/08
to

Kwyjibo wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote


> > janp...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Not difficult to notice that everyone attacks the idea of "cars on
> >> water".
> >
> > Yes, because it's stupid.
> >
> > Water is an oxide. An oxide is something that has already been 'burnt'.
> > You can't burn something twice over.
>
> You clearly haven't seen my wife cook.

Joke welcome ! :-)

If you're ever over my my way I'll offer you some low oxidised food, honest.

Graham

katbo

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 12:32:44 AM6/24/08
to
> 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.

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 12:44:50 AM6/24/08
to
On Jun 24, 3:21 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
...

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/2011093f63500a95#
. 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/559ce66d4b33e50c/71f0de6ae3088af3
. 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 .)

Sylvia Else

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 1:03:58 AM6/24/08
to
janp...@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.

Sylvia.

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 1:09:40 AM6/24/08
to

janp...@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"

Graham

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 1:45:03 AM6/24/08
to
In sci.physics janp...@gmail.com wrote:

> Well, the 75% saving on petrol in a "car on water" was proven...

Nothing has been proven other than you are an idiot.

If any of the crap worked at all it would be in the JC Whiteny catalog.

JC Whiteny, where everything you buy increases your gas mileage by 10%,
including the seat covers.

Put enough JC Whitney stuff on your car and you have to drain gas out
of the tank every couple of days to keep it from overflowing...

Fran

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 2:32:44 AM6/24/08
to
On Jun 24, 2:44 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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.

According to this source:

http://zfacts.com/p/821.html

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.

Fran

nofar...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 7:12:05 AM6/24/08
to
On Jun 24, 2:44 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 24, 3:21 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.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.

Now, FUCK OFF and GET TO WORK.

Michael C

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 7:41:53 AM6/24/08
to
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6664d457-3c1d-4126...@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

> 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? :-)

Michael


Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 7:46:17 AM6/24/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> 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

After which angels flew out of his rectum.

Bob Kolker

John McKenzie

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 8:04:22 AM6/24/08
to
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.

why the fuck am I responding to a troll.


--
John McKenzie

tos...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com ab...@earthlink.com
ab...@aol.com vice.pr...@whitehouse.gov pres...@whitehouse.gov
swee...@accc.gov.au u...@ftc.gov admin@loopback ab...@iprimus.com.au
$LOGIN@localhost world's #1 sardine whisperer ro...@mailloop.com
$USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost ab...@msn.com
ab...@federalpolice.gov.au frau...@psinet.com ab...@asio.gov.au
$USER@localhost ab...@sprint.com ab...@fbi.gov ab...@cia.gov

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 9:02:50 AM6/24/08
to

nofar...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Jun 24, 2:44 pm, janpa...@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.

They removed science from the school curriculum in the USA ??? <stunned>
A religious thing maybe ?

Graham

Message has been deleted

z

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 12:11:26 PM6/24/08
to
a "car on water" IS a boat.

Ralph

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 12:31:24 PM6/24/08
to
Huh?

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" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48606509...@hotmail.com...
>
>

Spaceman

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 1:11:59 PM6/24/08
to
Ralph wrote:
> Huh?
>
> 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?

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 1:16:13 PM6/24/08
to
In sci.physics, janp...@gmail.com
<janp...@gmail.com>
wrote
on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
<6664d457-3c1d-4126...@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 **

Benj

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 1:36:31 PM6/24/08
to
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.
>
> 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!

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 1:39:28 PM6/24/08
to

Ralph wrote:

> Huh?
>
> 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.

Graham

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 1:52:58 PM6/24/08
to

Benj wrote:

> 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.
> >
> > 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.

There is no 'faith' involved. Only measurement.

Graham

DB

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 2:37:28 PM6/24/08
to
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.....

DB

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 2:52:00 PM6/24/08
to
Eeyore wrote:
>
> Physics is about FACTS.

No, it is not. There are no 'truths' in science. Science would simply
stop working if there were.

Solar Flare

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 2:54:37 PM6/24/08
to
Faith that previous scientitsts have proven the laws and now they are facts.

"DB" <a...@some.net> wrote in message
news:F9b8k.58305$c5.4...@fe101.usenetserver.com...

Solar Flare

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 2:58:44 PM6/24/08
to
I believe you aren't here anymore.


"DB" <a...@some.net> wrote in message
news:F9b8k.58305$c5.4...@fe101.usenetserver.com...

DB

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 3:03:45 PM6/24/08
to
Solar Flare wrote:
> Faith that previous scientitsts have proven the laws and now they are facts.

Idiot.

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 4:07:58 PM6/24/08
to

DB wrote:

That much is certainly obvious.

Physics is an experimental science, creating theories that are tested
against observations. Broadly, it is the general scientific analysis of
nature, with a goal of understanding how the universe behaves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

Graham


Jeßus

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 4:32:58 PM6/24/08
to
Eeyore wrote:

>
> janp...@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>

Did you enroll in the Phil Allison School for Tourettic Debating?
Your 'great' I.Q is failing you, lol.


--
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things
and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
things, that takes religion"
Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 4:45:54 PM6/24/08
to

DB wrote:

Facts as in things you can measure.

What absence of truth do you see there ?

Graham


Rob Dekker

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 4:54:57 PM6/24/08
to

"DB" <a...@some.net> wrote in message news:inb8k.2091$b_3....@fe127.usenetserver.com...

> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> Physics is about FACTS.
>
> No, it is not. There are no 'truths' in science. Science would simply stop working if there were.
>

No truths in science ? You gotta be kidding.
Start with FACTS. We have plenty of that in science. Every observation creates facts.
Reproducable facts create truths (we call these laws of nature), which remain truth until disproven or corrected by other facts,
leading to an adjustment of truth.
That's science in my book.


DB

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 7:37:38 PM6/24/08
to
Eeyore wrote:
>
> DB wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Physics is about FACTS.

>> No, it is not. There are no 'truths' in science. Science would simply
>> stop working if there were.
>
> Facts as in things you can measure.

A human observation doesn't make a 'FACT'. Facts are human inventions.
At that, you now impose quite the qualifier for your first claim.

> What absence of truth do you see there ?

Read the history of how the scientific method evolved. From Hume to
Popper. If you understand it, you will never say, 'Physics is about
FACTS' again.

DB

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 7:38:48 PM6/24/08
to
Rob Dekker wrote:
> "DB" <a...@some.net> wrote in message news:inb8k.2091$b_3....@fe127.usenetserver.com...

>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Physics is about FACTS.

>> No, it is not. There are no 'truths' in science. Science would simply stop working if there were.
>>
>
> No truths in science ? You gotta be kidding.
> Start with FACTS.

Tell me, how do I falsify a 'truth'?

Solar Flare

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 9:43:11 PM6/24/08
to
Hey how come you text isn't with your header, dickwad?

You think your browser supports bottom posting?

Do you always attach reference material ahead of your own text?

Do you think I can't go back and read what has transpired instead of
rereading it every post?

Are you that much of a simpleton to not progress with a threading browser?


"DB" <a...@some.net> wrote in message

news:jyb8k.2094$b_3...@fe127.usenetserver.com...

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 9:50:58 PM6/24/08
to

Solar Flare wrote:

> Hey how come you text isn't with your header, dickwad?

Because you insist on top-posting maybe ?

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 10:38:08 PM6/24/08
to
On Jun 24, 6:32 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> 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.
...
Everything that you say above IS RIGHT - when you take it out of the
content. This is why so-called "arm-chair scientists" argue that the
"cars on water" are impossible and introduce NO progress to our
civilisation. But if you look from the real life experience, then the
entire matter looks totally different. Namly the hydrogen which is
supplied to the cylinders at the cost of energy produced by the engine
is ioncreasing the temperqature of fuel burning. Also in addition it
acts as a kind of "dynamic catalyser" which improves the proces of
fuel burning. In turn these two combined together have thats effect
that (a) the fuel burning is much more efficient in such cars, thus
also the power gained from a unit of petrol is higher, (b) the
performance of the car is significantly improved (e.g. it has more
"power" and higher speed, acceleration, etc.), (c) the fuel
consumption is significantly lowered ifd the conditions of driving are
typical, and (d) the exhaustion gases have much "healthier for the
environment" composition (means we have no smoke coming out from the
exchaustion pipe).

But what is even more important, such a conversion of an ordinary cars
into "cars on water" prepares the technologhical climate for a big
improvbement. Namely, if the conventional "dissociator of water" in
such cars is replaced by so-called "telekinetic dissociator" - which
has energy efficiency much exceeding 100%, then such "cars on water"
become self-sufficient and do NOT need fuel at all. This is because
telekinetic dissociation of water has sufficient energy efficiency
(which I estimate at around 2000%) to run the car engine just by the
hydrogen only, and with the excess of energy generated this way carry
out the dissociation of water that generated the hydrogen gas to be
used as fuel.

I should add that there are already first practical indications
regarding such telekinetic dissociation of water. They stem from a
device called "sonic boiler" which is described on the totaliztic web
page "boiler.htm" (to find this web page type key words "Jan Pajak
boiler.htm" to www.google.com, but without quotes). This "sonic
boiler" was researched over 20 years ago and it supposedly had the
energy efficiency aroun 2000%.

By the way, in my previous post I wrote and checked the internet
addresses and everything was OK. But when these addresses were
printed, they changed. Someone is playing tricks on me. The address of
my previous thread (also about the "car on water") was
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.cars/browse_thread/thread/fe97a6a1887e1216#
. In turn the address of the "Campbell Life" web page was www.3news.co.nz
. ("Campbell LIfe" is the tv3 programme on which was shown experiment
concerning the fuel savings in "cars on water" and also were
demonstrated various improvements which convert an ordinary car into a
"car on water".)

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

Spaceman

unread,
Jun 24, 2008, 10:50:07 PM6/24/08
to
Rob Dekker wrote:
> "DB" <a...@some.net> wrote in message
> news:inb8k.2091$b_3....@fe127.usenetserver.com...
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>
>>> Physics is about FACTS.
>>
>> No, it is not. There are no 'truths' in science. Science would
>> simply stop working if there were.
>>
>
> No truths in science ? You gotta be kidding.
> Start with FACTS. We have plenty of that in science. Every
> observation creates facts.

Actually,
observation does not create facts,
Experiments and physical measurements create facts.
observation is more based upon illusion.

Sylvia Else

unread,
Jun 25, 2008, 2:43:27 AM6/25/08
to

This is splitting hairs in the extreme, if there's even a hair there to
split.

How do you determine the values of the measurements other than by
observing the measuring device?

In addition, some things are completely quantised. For example, a photon
either has a polarisation at some angle, or it doesn't. You determine
this by observing whether it does or doesn't make it through a filter
set at that angle. The distinction between measuring and observing
becomes decidely moot in such situations.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else

unread,
Jun 25, 2008, 2:58:36 AM6/25/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:

> Namely, if the conventional "dissociator of water" in
> such cars is replaced by so-called "telekinetic dissociator" - which

> has energy efficiency much exceeding 100%.

OK, I've got it now. It was a wind up. Well done.

Sylvia.

Solar Flare

unread,
Jun 25, 2008, 8:00:04 AM6/25/08
to
Top posting corrects the header / text association.

Did you have something valuable or real to post?

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:4861A482...@hotmail.com...

News

unread,
Jun 25, 2008, 8:37:23 AM6/25/08
to

"Solar Flare" <solar...@hotmale.invalid> wrote in message
news:S7qdna-9TvXcrv_V...@golden.net...

> Top posting corrects the header / text association.

I advise all not to respond to persistent top posters. Bottom posting is
clearly the system used here and on Usenet in general.

Spaceman

unread,
Jun 25, 2008, 9:22:21 AM6/25/08
to
Sylvia Else wrote:
> Spaceman wrote:
>> Rob Dekker wrote:
>>> "DB" <a...@some.net> wrote in message
>>> news:inb8k.2091$b_3....@fe127.usenetserver.com...
>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>> Physics is about FACTS.
>>>> No, it is not. There are no 'truths' in science. Science would
>>>> simply stop working if there were.
>>>>
>>> No truths in science ? You gotta be kidding.
>>> Start with FACTS. We have plenty of that in science. Every
>>> observation creates facts.
>>
>> Actually,
>> observation does not create facts,
>> Experiments and physical measurements create facts.
>> observation is more based upon illusion.
>>
>
> This is splitting hairs in the extreme, if there's even a hair there
> to split.
>
> How do you determine the values of the measurements other than by
> observing the measuring device?

Everyone that has a simple brain will see the same numbers.
Don't pull that hair, it is the only one left.
:)


> In addition, some things are completely quantised.

Yup,
sadly,
but that is because...
Instead of actually trying to take apart the super small stuff
carefully somehow,
We smash it up to see how it works.
Really smart "reverse" engineering isn't it?
:)


Sylvia Else

unread,
Jun 25, 2008, 9:53:26 AM6/25/08
to
Spaceman wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:

>> In addition, some things are completely quantised.
>
> Yup,
> sadly,
> but that is because...
> Instead of actually trying to take apart the super small stuff
> carefully somehow,
> We smash it up to see how it works.
> Really smart "reverse" engineering isn't it?
> :)
>

The photon polarisation measurement/observation doesn't involve smashing
anything at all.

Sylvia.

Spaceman

unread,
Jun 25, 2008, 10:17:00 AM6/25/08
to

Mathematical machinery being measured, is not a physical measurement
at all. (It is mathematical)
So that is yet another sad non-physical method. (not actually physical at
all)
Math is not a cause.
The measurements and observations you have done, find no physical causes
at all, just as the smashing up stuff finds no physical mechanics of how the
tiny
stuff works.

math predictions = no physical cause found
It is great for "predicting what will happen,
but never actually finds "how it works"
:)

Bob F

unread,
Jun 25, 2008, 11:40:06 AM6/25/08
to

"News" <kill...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g3te6d$q6l$1...@registered.motzarella.org...

And I advise that all posters ignore you. So What?


News

unread,
Jun 25, 2008, 11:47:15 AM6/25/08
to

"Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:X9SdnZQBwftT-__V...@comcast.com...

Oh good! A bottom poster.

Bob F

unread,
Jun 25, 2008, 4:49:37 PM6/25/08
to
Who? Me?


"News" <kill...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message

news:g3tpac$ncm$1...@registered.motzarella.org...

daestrom

unread,
Jun 25, 2008, 4:57:21 PM6/25/08
to

Math, along with theoretical physics is a great way of developing the
predictions from a theory. But neither math or theoretical physics alone
establishes any 'fact'. But take those predictions to an experimental
physicist and tell him/her, "See if this comes out to be true." They in
turn will do some experiments and see if the 'real world' does what the
theory predicts.

If the 'real world' does what the theory predicts, that is *supportive* of
the theory. Doesn't 'prove' the theory is right, just 'supports' the idea.
Of course if the 'real world' doesn't do what the theory predicts (assuming
no experimental error), then the theory is kaput.

Sort of like how one 'aw sh--' erases every 'atta boy' you ever got, one
'failed' experiment can override all the 'supportive' evidence of a theory.
(again, assuming the experiment is done properly and has no error)

So both theoretical and experimental work is needed to further our
understanding of 'how stuff works'.

daestrom

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 25, 2008, 6:22:17 PM6/25/08
to

janp...@gmail.com wrote:

> Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> > 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.
> ...
> Everything that you say above IS RIGHT - when you take it out of the
> content. This is why so-called "arm-chair scientists" argue that the
> "cars on water" are impossible and introduce NO progress to our
> civilisation. But if you look from the real life experience, then the
> entire matter looks totally different.

MORON

Learn some basic science will you ?

Graham

Sylvia Else

unread,
Jun 25, 2008, 6:45:32 PM6/25/08
to
You were the one who introduced "how it works" into the discussion.

"How it works" is, and will forever be, inaccessible. All we can ever do
is measure, observe, and construct models that describe and predict. No
claim of "how it works" can be verified, or falsified, other than by
measurement and observation, so anything purporting to be a statement of
"how it works" would be nothing more than another model.

There may be no "how it works" down there anyway.

Sylvia.

Spaceman

unread,
Jun 25, 2008, 7:08:06 PM6/25/08
to
Sylvia Else wrote:
> You were the one who introduced "how it works" into the discussion.
>
> "How it works" is, and will forever be, inaccessible. All we can ever
> do is measure, observe, and construct models that describe and
> predict. No claim of "how it works" can be verified, or falsified,
> other than by measurement and observation, so anything purporting to
> be a statement of "how it works" would be nothing more than another
> model.
>
> There may be no "how it works" down there anyway.

Wow,
We better just give up now then,
Or.. you should at least because I have found how lots of things work
using plain old Newtonian physics and experiments.
:)

daestrom

unread,
Jun 25, 2008, 7:17:55 PM6/25/08
to

Well, I think Sylvia's point is that you have some pretty good *theories* of
how things work. And if you're a handy fellow, you can even apply your
theories to designing other things that 'work' the same way.

But someone may come along next week with a 'twist' to the theories that
shows things don't really work the way we've always thought, they just work
that way 'most of the time'. Kind of like how Einstein showed that
Newtonian physics isn't how things 'really work', just how they work in
normal everyday experiences.

daestrom

Spaceman

unread,
Jun 25, 2008, 7:27:36 PM6/25/08
to

Actually all of Einsteins stuff can be explained by Newton
also.
The trick is to never mix the two
One being variable length and variable time standards (Einstien)
and the other being absolutes of both (Newton with the help of Euclidian
3D).
Newtons world absolute work fine as long as you find
all of the forces and such in your problem you are trying to figure out.
It is really sad that kids and many grown up adults were
taught such crap about Newton being wrong at all.
Not one of newtons laws have been proven wrong by Einstein,
and in fact right now. Newton is slowly killing GR because
people are actually thinking about Einsteins wrongs
more than just "parroting" Einstein crap.
Please do name one thing Einstein came up with that proves Newton
wrong and I will try to explain it to you Newtonian wise.
It is actually more simple the Newton way also.
(and much better in laymen terms for basic understanding)
:)

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 25, 2008, 11:24:59 PM6/25/08
to
On Jun 25, 2:50 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
...

> Actually,
> observation does not create facts,
> Experiments and physical measurements create facts.
> observation is more based upon illusion.
...
The "illusion", "mistakes", "special conditions of experiment", or
whatever we call it, it all makes both observation and experiments
valid just for the circumstances in which they were made. In old days
(in Poland) scientists used to say that "in theories NO one believes -
apart from the scientist who formulated them, in experiments everyone
believes - except for the scientist who carried them out". In other
words, whatever theorists say about the "car on water" it is just
their opinion, NOT truth. In turn, whatever experiments with "cars on
water" indicate to us, it is just valid for circumstances in which
these experiments were carried out. For these reasons each bobbyist
who builds his own "car on water" should actually complete his own
experiments regarding the fuel consumption and savings. The best thing
would be to carry them out BEFORE the car is converted into a car on
water, and then repeat them again in exactl;y the same conditions
AFTER the car was converted. (E.g. in both these cases driving a
specific distance, e.g. exactly 100 km, along exactly the same road,
with exactly the same speed, and in approximately the same kind of
day.) If any reader (of these words) ever completes such experiments,
I would appreciate letting me know the otcomes, so that I could
illustrate with them my web page "eco_cars.htm" which is explaining
(free of charge) how exactly one should convert his "gas-guzzler"
into a "car on water" on the "do it yourself" principles. My email (or
address) can be found either from this post, or by typing the key
words "Jan Pajak" in www.google.com and then looking at the end of my
autobiographic note provided on the web page "pajak_jan_uk.htm".

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

P.S. Did anyone notice how many advertisemens for a PAID conversion
into a "ar on water"appears in this thread. This again may be an
indication that such a car has a lot of enemies. After all, we do NOT
know what are intentions behind such advertisements. On the other
hand, completing such conversion on principles "do it yourself" is
almost for free, and additionally releases this huge ocean of untapped
creativity which is suppressed in present civilisation by claims that
only scientists and car producing factories hold the monopoly on
improvements made in cars.

Bob F

unread,
Jun 26, 2008, 12:07:14 AM6/26/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:88bdc248-e446-4b4d...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

> If any reader (of these words) ever completes such experiments,
I would appreciate letting me know the otcomes, so that I could
illustrate with them my web page "eco_cars.htm" which is explaining
(free of charge) how exactly one should convert his "gas-guzzler"
into a "car on water" on the "do it yourself" principles. My email (or
address) can be found either from this post, or by typing the key
words "Jan Pajak" in www.google.com and then looking at the end of my
autobiographic note provided on the web page "pajak_jan_uk.htm".


Show us you the results of your experiments.


Fran

unread,
Jun 26, 2008, 2:17:31 AM6/26/08
to
On Jun 26, 8:22 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:


I'm guessing that Sylvia has it right. The post is a wind up. 2000%
efficiency? When I read that I stopped bothering about it. That
'totaliztic salute' sig should have been enough of a clue.

Fran

News

unread,
Jun 26, 2008, 3:31:45 AM6/26/08
to

"Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ceb74f9-f41f-4307...@r37g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

------------------------------

He didn't say it emphatically was. He was on about that it works, there
something there, it looks very encouraging and further testing and
development should be done. The Belgian lash-up produced around COP 1.7, by
the lose figures given, which is encouraging.

Using shock and sound waves to heat water is not new.

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 26, 2008, 7:02:42 AM6/26/08
to

janp...@gmail.com wrote:

> P.S. Did anyone notice how many advertisemens for a PAID conversion
> into a "ar on water"appears in this thread.

YES.

It's a scam that relies on the price being so low that people won't bother
making a legal claim against the supplier.

Graham

nofar...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 26, 2008, 7:40:38 AM6/26/08
to
On Jun 24, 11:02 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> nofarken...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 2:44 pm, janpa...@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.
>
> They removed science from the school curriculum in the USA ??? <stunned>
> A religious thing maybe ?
>
Nope, Australia.

nofar...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 26, 2008, 7:46:13 AM6/26/08
to
On Jun 25, 3:52 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Benj wrote:

> > 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.
>
> > > 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.
>
> There is no 'faith' involved. Only measurement.
>
> Graham

Poor litle benj had his arse kicked and he doesn't like it.

Stiif shit.

As I have previously written, and I say it again, if the sciences were
compulsory high school subjects we wouldn't have half arses like benj
and the other congenital genital manipulators making idiot claims
that quite clearly violate basic laws of physics.

News

unread,
Jun 26, 2008, 8:33:57 AM6/26/08
to

<nofar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:99f8c40f-6907-452b...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

> that quite clearly violate basic laws of physics.

Oh No! Not those man made laws again.

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 26, 2008, 8:53:49 AM6/26/08
to

nofar...@gmail.com wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > nofarken...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Jun 24, 2:44 pm, janpa...@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.
> >
> > They removed science from the school curriculum in the USA ??? <stunned>
> > A religious thing maybe ?
>
> Nope, Australia.

Even scarier.

Graham


Eeyore

unread,
Jun 26, 2008, 8:56:09 AM6/26/08
to

News wrote:

> <nofar...@gmail.com> wrote


>
> > that quite clearly violate basic laws of physics.
>
> Oh No! Not those man made laws again.

Nature made 'laws' actually.

Humans merely measured and confirmed them.

Graham


Spaceman

unread,
Jun 26, 2008, 10:08:26 AM6/26/08
to
Eeyore wrote:
> News wrote:
>
>> <nofar...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> that quite clearly violate basic laws of physics.
>>
>> Oh No! Not those man made laws again.
>
> Nature made 'laws' actually.

Nature made huh?
A lightbulb is turned on,
(A sun is born)
The wavefront of the light travels outward in a sphere
The "north side" of the sphere is moving outward at 1c,
The "south side" is doing the same
The seperation speed of the lightwave fronts are moving
at 2c.
Natures law my ass.
Nature is laughing at the man made speed law all the time.

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 26, 2008, 11:26:55 AM6/26/08