"Cars on water" have many enemies, as they "rock the boat"
janp...@gmail.com
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
> 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
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
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48606509...@hotmail.com...
You clearly haven't seen my wife cook.
--
Kwyj.
Eeyore
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
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
> 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
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
> 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
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
> 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
> 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:
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
<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
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
>
> 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
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
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
z
Ralph
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
> 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
<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
> <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
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
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
> 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
>
> Physics is about FACTS.
No, it is not. There are no 'truths' in science. Science would simply
stop working if there were.
Solar Flare
"DB" <a...@some.net> wrote in message
news:F9b8k.58305$c5.4...@fe101.usenetserver.com...
Solar Flare
"DB" <a...@some.net> wrote in message
news:F9b8k.58305$c5.4...@fe101.usenetserver.com...
DB
> Faith that previous scientitsts have proven the laws and now they are facts.
Idiot.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Eeyore
DB wrote:
That much is certainly obvious.
Physics is an experimental science, creating theories that are tested
against observations. Broadly, it is the general scientific analysis of
nature, with a goal of understanding how the universe behaves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics
Graham
Jeßus
>
> janp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> All this in spite that in many cases of "gas-guzzlers" such a
>> conversion into "cars on water" can save users even up to 75% costs of
>> fuel,
>
>
> Tale your experiment to a certified test lab and PROVE it or SHUT THE FUCK
> UP>
Did you enroll in the Phil Allison School for Tourettic Debating?
Your 'great' I.Q is failing you, lol.
--
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things
and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
things, that takes religion"
Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
Eeyore
DB wrote:
Facts as in things you can measure.
What absence of truth do you see there ?
Graham
Rob Dekker
"DB" <a...@some.net> wrote in message news:inb8k.2091$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
>
> 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
> "DB" <a...@some.net> wrote in message news:inb8k.2091$b_3....@fe127.usenetserver.com...
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Physics is about FACTS.
>> No, it is not. There are no 'truths' in science. Science would simply stop working if there were.
>>
>
> No truths in science ? You gotta be kidding.
> Start with FACTS.
Tell me, how do I falsify a 'truth'?
Solar Flare
You think your browser supports bottom posting?
Do you always attach reference material ahead of your own text?
Do you think I can't go back and read what has transpired instead of
rereading it every post?
Are you that much of a simpleton to not progress with a threading browser?
"DB" <a...@some.net> wrote in message
news:jyb8k.2094$b_3...@fe127.usenetserver.com...