Car on water which instead of over 20 l/100km burns only aroun 5 liters per 100 kilometers
janp...@gmail.com
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.
With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak
Sylvia Else
> 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.
ross_w
> 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
> 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.
>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak
The thermodynamics police would like a word...
Steve
> 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 ....
terryc
> 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.
Mauried
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.
atec77
wanting on this one misguided one a really efficient internal
combustion motor is inefficient at best .
Sylvia Else
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.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
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.
Jeßus
> janp...@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.
Sylvia Else
Did you read up on Carnot's theorem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot%27s_theorem_%28thermodynamics%29
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
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.
Sylvia.
janp...@gmail.com
...
> 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).
Eeyore
janp...@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.
But VW have already made a 3 litre / 100km car.
Graham
Eeyore
Sylvia Else wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-energy_vehicle
Some newer examples of efficient commercially available internal
combustion-propelled vehicles:
Audi A2 (3l) 1.16 MJ/km (3.0 L Diesel/100 km / 94 mpg UK / 78 mpg US)
(discontinued)
VW Lupo (3l) 1.16 MJ/km (3.0 L Diesel/100km / 94 mpg UK / 78 mpg US)
(discontinued)
Graham
Eeyore
terryc wrote:
5 litres fuel / 100 km distance is easily available in current production
European cars. No water required.
Graham
Eeyore
Mauried wrote:
> terryc wrote:
> > 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.
Not heard anything of EEstor in a while either.
Graham
Eeyore
Jeßus wrote:
Large marine diesels are up to 50% efficient.
Graham
Sylvia Else
I dare say. But the OP's report related to a modification to the fuel
system of a standard car, not a complete bottom-up rethink of the design.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
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.
Anthony Matonak
...
> But VW have already made a 3 litre / 100km car.
VW already made a prototype 1 litre / 100km car.
Anthony
atec77
> atec77 wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> janp...@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
thermodynamically
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.
thermodynamics and engines beyond reading and bluffing ?
> Sylvia.
Eeyore
Sylvia Else wrote:
> I dare say. But the OP's report related to a modification to the fuel
> system of a standard car, not a complete bottom-up rethink of the design.
But if it was only going 5km on 1 litre to begin with, it wasn't as if they've
made any great advance is it ?
Graham
Eeyore
Anthony Matonak wrote:
That too, and it doesn't look as berserk as some 'eco-cars' I've seen
either.
Graham
terryc
> 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.
lol, did I say that, did i say that {:-).
>
> Sylvia.
terryc
> 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.
<thump> <thump>
> 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,
<THUMP> .........<topple>
> and I got all this spitting and mud throwing.
Naah, there is something wrong at your end. I canna hear the violin here.
Phred
>Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was
>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.
Jesus, it must be some tank of a car! I didn't think they built 'em
like that these days! Even my 30-year-old Tojo gives me around 21.7
litres per 100 km on *short* trips around town.
That said, there have been reports (in _New Scientist_ and/or
_Scientific American_ I forget exactly where I saw them) in the past
year or two about the possibility of building a hydrogen-fuelled car
based on something like catalytic high temperature dissociation of
water. I don't recall the alleged efficiency of the process, but the
main limiting factor to date seemed to be the practicality of
engineering for the extremely high temperatures required. Especially
in vehicles intended for use by the hoi polloi on public roads!
Cheers, Phred.
--
ppnerk...@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
danny burstein
>janp...@gmail.com wrote:
And some of us have cars which get a _real world_
figure of 60 to 65 miles/gallon on real highways.
That equates to 3.9 to 3.6 liters/100 km, for
a car that works, today, with a near decade
track record.
http://www.panix.com/~dannyb/images/mpg-Mich-to-NY.jpg
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Sylvia Else
>
> But if it was only going 5km on 1 litre to begin with, it wasn't as if they've
> made any great advance is it ?
Oh, I don't know. If a production car only does 5km per litre instead of
20km per litre, it's not likely to be because the manufacturer omitted a
simple component. It's more likely to be a combination of fundamental
issues like shape, engine design and mass. If a couple of teenagers
could improve its performance 4 fold by tinkering with the fuel system,
one could reasonably hope that they could do something similar to
vehicles that have a better performance to start with.
However, I'm sure this was a scam from the beginning, assuming the TV
report even existed.
Sylvia.
BobG
that would make the mixture burn hotter, there more more compression,
therefore more spark advance before tdc (retard?) there for more
efficiency, therefor more miles per gallon? Call the newscrew back.
They might get to .5 liter per kilometer.
srp...@gmail.com
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak
This is nothing new. During WW2, spitfire pilots has a small
water reservoir that they could inject into their engine go get
a 60% boost in power to escape German fighters.
Why this is not formally experimented with is because scientists
still do not understand why this works, so no formal experiments
have been carried out.
A lot of farmers in Europe are currently converting their huge fuel
guzzler equipment to hybrid water mix. But this is all ad hoc.
No formal scientist will touch the stuff with a 10 foot pole.
André Michaud
srp...@gmail.com
I found my source, it was spitfires and F4-Corsairs.
Look for Paul Pantone, or better yet for Gillier-Pantone on the net.
You won't find any formal info on this because it is being developped
outside the formal community, like more and more stuff these days.
The gain is apparently outstanding. Farmer in Europe are converting
their
huge fuel guzzler equipment to this system as fast as they learn
about the savings that others got.
When water is superheated, the effect is identical to injecting
pure hydrogen into the mix. When highly vaporized, water
molecules become isolated like a gas and in that state, they
have the same topological characteristic as hydrogen molecules,
except that instead of both protons protruding at 180 deg, they
protrude at a lesser angle.
The actual reaction is not yet understood, but it may well be
that the molecule is not dissociated, but acts more as a
catalyst.
André Michaud
Sylvia Else
Scientists don't experiment on things they don't understand?
Anyway, it's not true that scientists don't understand why it works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MW_50
It's a mistake to equate increased power with increased efficiency. They
are different things. If an engine is pulling in more air it will also
be pulling in more fuel. The power goes up, but so does the fuel
consumption.
Sylvia.
srp...@gmail.com
> >> 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.
>
> >> With the totaliztic salute,
> >> Jan Pajak
>
> > This is nothing new. During WW2, spitfire pilots has a small
> > water reservoir that they could inject into their engine go get
> > a 60% boost in power to escape German fighters.
>
> > Why this is not formally experimented with is because scientists
> > still do not understand why this works, so no formal experiments
> > have been carried out.
>
> Scientists don't experiment on things they don't understand?
>
> Anyway, it's not true that scientists don't understand why it works.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MW_50
>
> It's a mistake to equate increased power with increased efficiency. They
> are different things. If an engine is pulling in more air it will also
> be pulling in more fuel. The power goes up, but so does the fuel
> consumption.
>
> Sylvia.
Well, I don't really have an opinion on this.
I am not interpreting what is happening one way or other.
This simply seems to work for those european farmers with
gains in fuel consumption that seem to convince other farmers
to follow suit. In my other post, I give keywords for those who
want to follow the trail. But nobody has to.
I am not trying to convince anyone. Just giving out the info I
have.
André Michaud
srp...@gmail.com
> >> 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.
>
> >> With the totaliztic salute,
> >> Jan Pajak
>
> > This is nothing new. During WW2, spitfire pilots has a small
> > water reservoir that they could inject into their engine go get
> > a 60% boost in power to escape German fighters.
>
> > Why this is not formally experimented with is because scientists
> > still do not understand why this works, so no formal experiments
> > have been carried out.
>
> Scientists don't experiment on things they don't understand?
>
> Anyway, it's not true that scientists don't understand why it works.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MW_50
>
> It's a mistake to equate increased power with increased efficiency. They
> are different things. If an engine is pulling in more air it will also
> be pulling in more fuel. The power goes up, but so does the fuel
> consumption.
>
> Sylvia.
Had a look at your link. This is not the water injection I was talking
about.
Just did a google search with "spitfire corsair water engine" and
got this among other links.
If you go here for example, it is mentioned right after the 2nd
picture
http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html
Quote:
"Chance Vought's F4U-4 came about as a development of the
F4U-4XA, which was first flown in early April 1944. It was fitted
with an up-rated Pratt & Whitney R2800-18W or -42W engine.
This powerplant developed 2,450 bhp with water injection
Just mentioned as an aside since the link is not at all
meant to describe the process.
On strictly fuel, if I recall, this engine develops only
about 1600 bhp. And it has nothing to do with pulling
in more air and fuel as you seem to think. Without
water injection, even at mas trottle, the bhp can't
get more than 1600 bhp, or whatever close by
figure the actual limit is with only fuel.
The process has always been developed ad hoc here and
there outside the scientific community and without their
approval, ever since internal combustion engines have
been around. And still not formally recognized today.
For those interested, there is quite a bit of info about
on the net, but NOT in formal publications.
André MIchaud