Car on water which instead of over 20 l/100km burns only aroun 5 liters per 100 kilometers

54 views
Skip to first unread message

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 12:37:21 AM6/18/08
to
Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was
shown in television. The television crew subjected it to a simple test
to determine the saving on fuel that it accomplishes. It burns only
around 5 liters per 100 kilometers (plus around 1 liter of water),
while the car of an identical model, and year, burned on exactly the
same road and with exactly the same speeds over 20 liters per 100
kilometers.

About this kind of "cars on water" I remember to read theoretically
alteady in 1997 during my professorship in Borneo. But I never had an
opportunity to see how they compare to factory models. So with a great
interest I looked on Friday, 13 June 2008 at 7:00 pm to 7:30 pm on the
channel 3 of television New Zealand the program called "Campbell Live"
which was just about one such car constructed by two young New
Zealanders in their 20s. In this programme was also explained what the
design and operation of such a "car on water" was about. I described
this design and operation on my web page "free_energy.htm" (updated on
15 June or later) the address of which can be find if in the www.google.com
someone types the key words "Jan Pajak free_energy.htm" but without
quotes. In the program this "car on water was also subjected to an
experiment. Namely it was taken for a ride together with another
identical car of the same year and model, only that still in the
factory condition (it was probably "Ford Falcon"). Both cars drove the
same path with the same speed. After they went through 100 kilometers,
the fuel consumption was measured ion both of them by the TV crew. It
turned out that the "car on water" burned around 5 liters of petrol,
while the factory version of the same car burned over 20 liters (both
after 100 km on the road). So the saving on fuel amounted to 75% (or
three quorters) the the original (factory) fuel consumption.

The mopdification of these two boys was extremely simple. They just
added to an old car that they had a small "dissociator of water" which
they build themselves. This dissociator consumed energy from the
dynamo and dissociated water into hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen was
let out, while the hydrogen was added to the air at the car's
carburattor. So this hydrogen, after entering the cylinder mixed with
the air, burned in the cylinder with the fuel and thus increased the
temperature of the burning. This raise in the temperature of burning
in turn caused the better burning of the fuel, and also the lack of
smoke in the exhaustions. So the burning become much more efficient.
The final effect was that the car consumed 75% less petrol. So the
entire saving on fuel results from this increased temperature in the
cylinder. The changes themselves were technically very simple, so that
even these two boys could complete them successfully.

Because in this program there were no details of the car, I looked in
internet at web pages of the "Campbell LIfe" to find these details.
This particular program has 2 web pages, namely www.3news.co.nz and
www.tv3.co.nz. But I could NOT find anything in there about thye car.
Therefore I described everything that I remembered from this program
on my web page. Interested readers can find it at the addresses of my
web page "free_energy.htm" update on 15 June or later. (This web page
needs to be seeked via www.google.com as there is a lot of such web
pages - not all of these are updated on 15 July 2008. To find these
one needs to type key words listed before.)

So it seems that it is worth to experiemnt with cars, as such simple
change as the "car on water" may save some of us even around $ 100 per
week.

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

Sylvia Else

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 1:17:27 AM6/18/08
to
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.

ross_w

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 1:32:56 AM6/18/08
to
> 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

The thermodynamics police would like a word...

Steve

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 1:59:36 AM6/18/08
to
On Jun 18, 2:37 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:


> 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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 1:53:28 AM6/18/08
to
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.

Mauried

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 2:36:02 AM6/18/08
to

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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 3:01:05 AM6/18/08
to
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 .

Sylvia Else

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 3:05:26 AM6/18/08
to

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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 3:09:51 AM6/18/08
to

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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 3:14:05 AM6/18/08
to
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.

Yeah... about a whopping 20% 'efficient'.
I think your search engine research doctorate in everything has failed
you this time.

Sylvia Else

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 3:16:27 AM6/18/08
to

Did you read up on Carnot's theorem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot%27s_theorem_%28thermodynamics%29

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 3:24:48 AM6/18/08
to

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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 3:35:30 AM6/18/08
to
On Jun 18, 7:14 pm, Jeßus <n...@all.org> wrote:
...

> Yeah... about a whopping 20% 'efficient'.
> I think your search engine research doctorate in everything has failed
> you this time.

Thank you for the only constructive voice in this flood of spitting
that my thread received so-far. I am really shock. I just reported on
a true accomplishement of two young New Zealand hobbyists-amateurs who
moved their bottom side to do something about the current fuel crisis,
and I got all this spitting and mud throwing. No wonder that our
civilisation is in trouble since we haver people of that knowledge and
that attitude as the ones that threw the mud via the most of above
opinions.

This is just an innocent report about a significant improvement on
fuel efficiency of an ordinary car, which everyone can confirm by
simply ordering from the channel 3 of TVNZ a DVD with that particular
program ("Campbell Life"). I am pretty sure that the TV team did a
good work in checking this improvement, and that there is NO any scam
involved. Also the improvement is extremely easy to make - two young
hobbyists from NZ did it in their garage. So almost everyone can do
it. If, by any chance, I come accross contact details of these two
young hobbyists, I will publish these details on my web page - please
just check from time the page "free_energy.htm" (by finding it in
www.google.com through typing the key words "Jan Pajak
free_energy.htm" - but without quotes, and later by checking that the
page you are viewing is the update dated either on 15 June 2008, or at
a later date). It is worth to learn about this improvement, because in
present days for many people it is able to save at least $100 per week
(while I believe that the improvement itself, if done in one's own
garage, is going to cost around $100).

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 3:51:47 AM6/18/08
to

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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 3:55:42 AM6/18/08
to

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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 3:58:20 AM6/18/08
to

terryc wrote:

5 litres fuel / 100 km distance is easily available in current production
European cars. No water required.

Graham


Eeyore

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 3:59:42 AM6/18/08
to

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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 4:01:12 AM6/18/08
to

Jeßus wrote:

Large marine diesels are up to 50% efficient.

Graham


Sylvia Else

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 4:01:01 AM6/18/08
to

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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 4:07:58 AM6/18/08
to

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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 5:00:28 AM6/18/08
to
Eeyore wrote:
...

> But VW have already made a 3 litre / 100km car.

VW already made a prototype 1 litre / 100km car.

Anthony

atec77

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 5:34:08 AM6/18/08
to
Sylvia Else wrote:
> 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
yes they are by a huge margin , more 50% possible production lost
thermodynamically

as dictated by Carnot's theorem.
I bet you cant explain how and why it works , now ask me why

Any modified
> variation of the engine is also constrained by the same theorem. While
> there is talk of increased combustion temperature, the engine would fall
> apart and/or melt before any increase in temperature could give a four
> fold improvement.
now I wonder one of us has actual practical experience with
thermodynamics and engines beyond reading and bluffing ?
> Sylvia.

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 7:04:10 AM6/18/08
to

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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 7:05:50 AM6/18/08
to

Anthony Matonak wrote:

That too, and it doesn't look as berserk as some 'eco-cars' I've seen
either.

Graham

terryc

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 7:07:11 AM6/18/08
to
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:09:51 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

> terryc wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:37:21 -0700, janpajak wrote:
>>
>>> Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was
>>> shown in television. The television crew
>> .. probably has shares in the scam.
>
> Well, if not actually shares, they certainly had an interest in the
> story being true, and would not have been motivated to examine the car
> in detail to discover the nature of the fraud.

I was making a reference to the number of "just amazing" products being
pimped on prime time Tv that it is later shown the
show'sprodeucer/director/etc/etc had a financial interest.

>
> "Teens waste TV crew's time on improved fuel consumption scam" is hardly
> current affairs program material - not even "Today Tonight" or "A
> Current Affair" (being Aussie tabloid level CA programs) would be
> interested.

lol, did I say that, did i say that {:-).
>
> Sylvia.

terryc

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 7:10:22 AM6/18/08
to
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:35:30 -0700, janpajak wrote:

> On Jun 18, 7:14 pm, Jeßus <n...@all.org> wrote:
> ...
>> Yeah... about a whopping 20% 'efficient'.
>> I think your search engine research doctorate in everything has failed
>> you this time.
>
> Thank you for the only constructive voice in this flood of spitting
> that my thread received so-far. I am really shock.

<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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 7:39:06 AM6/18/08
to
In article <283e371f-4645-41b2...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, 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.

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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 8:06:11 AM6/18/08
to

>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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 8:37:56 AM6/18/08
to
Eeyore wrote:
>
> 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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 8:44:08 AM6/18/08
to
Assuming the dissociator is working, why throw out the O2? Seems like
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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 9:41:53 AM6/18/08
to
On 18 juin, 00:37, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was
> shown in television. The television crew subjected it to a simple test
> to determine the saving on fuel that it accomplishes. It burns only
> around 5 liters per 100 kilometers (plus around 1 liter of water),
> while the car of an identical model, and year, burned on exactly the
> same road and with exactly the same speeds over 20 liters per 100
> kilometers.
>
> About this kind of "cars on water" I remember to read theoretically
> alteady in 1997 during my professorship in Borneo. But I never had an
> opportunity to see how they compare to factory models. So with a great
> interest I looked on Friday, 13 June 2008 at 7:00 pm to 7:30 pm on the
> channel 3 of television New Zealand the program called "Campbell Live"
> which was just about one such car constructed by two young New
> Zealanders in their 20s. In this programme was also explained what the
> design and operation of such a "car on water" was about. I described
> this design and operation on my web page "free_energy.htm" (updated on
> 15 June or later) the address of which can be find if in thewww.google.com
> someone types the key words "Jan Pajak free_energy.htm" but without
> quotes. In the program this "car on water was also subjected to an
> experiment. Namely it was taken for a ride together with another
> identical car of the same year and model, only that still in the
> factory condition (it was probably "Ford Falcon"). Both cars drove the
> same path with the same speed. After they went through 100 kilometers,
> the fuel consumption was measured ion both of them by the TV crew. It
> turned out that the "car on water" burned around 5 liters of petrol,
> while the factory version of the same car burned over 20 liters (both
> after 100 km on the road). So the saving on fuel amounted to 75% (or
> three quorters) the the original (factory) fuel consumption.
>
> The mopdification of these two boys was extremely simple. They just
> added to an old car that they had a small "dissociator of water" which
> they build themselves. This dissociator consumed energy from the
> dynamo and dissociated water into hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen was
> let out, while the hydrogen was added to the air at the car's
> carburattor. So this hydrogen, after entering the cylinder mixed with
> the air, burned in the cylinder with the fuel and thus increased the
> temperature of the burning. This raise in the temperature of burning
> in turn caused the better burning of the fuel, and also the lack of
> smoke in the exhaustions. So the burning become much more efficient.
> The final effect was that the car consumed 75% less petrol. So the
> entire saving on fuel results from this increased temperature in the
> cylinder. The changes themselves were technically very simple, so that
> even these two boys could complete them successfully.
>
> Because in this program there were no details of the car, I looked in
> internet at web pages of the "Campbell LIfe" to find these details.
> This particular program has 2 web pages, namelywww.3news.co.nzandwww.tv3.co.nz. But I could NOT find anything in there about thye car.
> Therefore I described everything that I remembered from this program
> on my web page. Interested readers can find it at the addresses of my
> web page "free_energy.htm" update on 15 June or later. (This web page
> needs to be seeked viawww.google.comas there is a lot of such web
> pages - not all of these are updated on 15 July 2008. To find these
> one needs to type key words listed before.)
>
> So it seems that it is worth to experiemnt with cars, as such simple
> change as the "car on water" may save some of us even around $ 100 per
> week.

>
> 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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 9:47:08 AM6/18/08
to

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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 10:05:24 AM6/18/08
to

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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 10:43:42 AM6/18/08
to
On 18 juin, 10:05, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> >> needs to be seeked viawww.google.comasthere 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.
>
> 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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 11:02:35 AM6/18/08
to
On 18 juin, 10:05, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> >> needs to be seeked viawww.google.comasthere 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.
>
> 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

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 11:45:13 AM6/18/08
to

danny burstein wrote:

> Eeyore writes:
> >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.

And as another poster pointed out a prototype 1 litre / 100 km 2 seater car.


> And some of us have cars which get a _real world_
> figure of 60 to 65 miles/gallon on real highways.

Quite common in Europe.


> 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

What car is that ?

The PROBLEM is that AMERICANs don't WANT to save energy.

Graham

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 11:48:56 AM6/18/08
to

Sylvia Else wrote:

Sounds like it. 4:1 is frankly implausible.

Graham

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 11:57:17 AM6/18/08
to

srp...@gmail.com wrote:

> 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.

Not 60% for sure and it was more likely methanol injection IIRC.

B17s for sure DID use a little water injection. This helps cool the heated (from the turbocharger) fuel/air mixture, increasing the charge
mass into the cylinder and hence engine output.

Does nought (or little) for efficiency though.


> 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.

Pure BOLLOCKS. It's all VERY well understood science.


> 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 they're not. I nominate you LOONIE OF THE DAY. Besides, farmers in Europe use DIESEL powered equipment ! Jesus Wept !


> No formal scientist will touch the stuff with a 10 foot pole.

You're an ignorant prick.

Graham

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 11:58:30 AM6/18/08
to

srp...@gmail.com wrote:

> 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.

You're a FUCKWIT.

Can you find your arse reliably ?

Graham

Spaceman

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 11:58:33 AM6/18/08
to
Eeyore wrote:
> The PROBLEM is that AMERICANs don't WANT to save energy.

That is so not true, it is not even funny.

So Eeyore is an anti-american puke.
figures.. no wonder he is so unhappy all the time.
LOL

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman


Uncle Al

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 12:05:05 PM6/18/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was
> shown in television.
[snip crap]

Never invest in a venture that violates a conservation law.
Idiot.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 12:08:27 PM6/18/08
to

Sylvia Else wrote:

> srp...@gmail.com a.k.a. IGNORANT FATHEAD wrote:
> >
> > 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

Worth pointing out that's a methanol water mix. The methanol itself added considerable extra energy to the intake charge in its own right.
The additional cooling of the water increased the fuel/air density further (through cooling) thus increasing the charge mass even more.


> 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.

Charge mass.


> The power goes up, but so does the fuel consumption.

Yup.

It was my understanding that B17s did something similar just with the water to cool the intake mix for similar reasons, but I may be
mistaken. For this clot I can't even be bothered to look.


Graham

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 12:11:21 PM6/18/08
to

srp...@gmail.com wrote:

> Well, I don't really have an opinion on this.

Hardly surprising since it probably went about 5 miles over your head.


> I am not interpreting what is happening one way or other.

You don't have the ability to.


> 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.

Utter garbage. They use DIESEL equipment anway. Diesel engines work rather differently.


> I am not trying to convince anyone. Just giving out the info I
> have.

DIS-information. What k00k site did you get it from ?

Graham

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 12:16:02 PM6/18/08
to

srp...@gmail.com wrote:

> "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.

Oh really ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engines)

Water injection, also known as anti-detonant injection, is a method for cooling the combustion chambers of engines by adding water to the
incoming fuel-air mixture, allowing for greater compression ratios and largely eliminating the problem of engine knocking (detonation). This
effectively increases the octane rating of the fuel, meaning that performance gains can be obtained when used in conjunction with a
supercharger or turbocharger, altered spark ignition timing, and other modifications.
Contents [hide]
1 Composition of fluid
2 Effects
3 Use in aircraft
4 Use in automobiles
5 See also
6 References

[edit]
Composition of fluid

Many water injection systems use a mixture of water and alcohol (approximately 50/50), with trace amounts of water-soluble oil. The water
provides the primary cooling effect due to its great density and high heat absorption properties. The alcohol is combustible, and also serves
as an antifreeze for the water. The purpose of the oil is to prevent corrosion of water injection and fuel system components. [1] Because the
alcohol mixed into the injection solution is often methanol (CH3OH), the system is known as methanol-water injection, or MW50. In the United
States, the system is commonly referred to as anti-detonant injection, or ADI.

[edit]
Effects

In a piston engine, the initial injection of water cools the fuel-air mixture somewhat, which increases its density and hence the amount of
mixture that enters the cylinder. But the greater effect comes later during combustion when the water takes in significant amounts of heat
energy as it converts from liquid to gas (steam). This increases piston pressure (torque), reduces peak temperature and resultant NOx
formation, and reduces the amount of heat energy absorbed into the cylinder walls. The alcohol in the mixture burns, but at a much slower rate
than gasoline. The net result is that the combustion process happens slower, preventing the destructive supersonic shockwave characteristic of
detonation.

When used in a turbine engine, the effects are similar, except that preventing detonation is not the primary goal. Water is normally injected
either at the compressor inlet or in the diffuser just before the combustion chambers. Adding water increases the mass being accelerated out of
the engine, increasing thrust, but it also serves to cool the turbines. Since temperature is normally the limiting factor in turbine engine
performance at low altitudes, the cooling effect allows the engines to be run at a higher RPM with more fuel injected and more thrust created
without overheating. [2] The drawback of the system is that injecting water quenches the flame in the combustion chambers somewhat, as there is
no way to cool the engine parts without cooling the flame accidentally. This leads to unburned fuel out the exhaust and a characteristic trail
of black smoke.

Fuel economy can be improved with water injection, although the effect on most engines with no other modification, like leaning out the
mixture, appears to be rather limited or even negligible in some cases.

Some degree of control over the water injection is important. It needs to be injected only when the engine is heavily loaded and the throttle
is wide open. Otherwise injecting water may simply drown the engine and cause it to quit.

[edit]
Use in aircraft

Water injection has been used in both reciprocating and turbine aircraft engines.

Piston engines in military aircraft utilized water injection technology prior to World War II in order to increase takeoff power. This was used
so that heavily-laden fighters could take off from shorter runways, climb faster, and quickly reach high altitudes to intercept enemy bomber
formations.

As a general rule, the fuel mixture is set at full rich on an aircraft engine when running it at a high power settings (such as during
takeoff). The extra fuel does not burn; its only purpose is to evaporate to absorb heat. This uses up more fuel, and it also decreases the
efficiency of the combustion process. By using water injection, the cooling effect of the water allows the fuel mixture to be run leaner at its
best-power setting. Many military aircraft engines of the 1940s utilized a pressure carburetor, a type of fuel metering system similar to a
throttle body injection system. In a water-injected engine, the pressure carburetor features a mechanical derichment valve which makes the
system nearly automatic. When the pilot turns on the water injection pump, water pressure moves the derichment valve to restrict fuel flow to
lean the mixture while at the same time mixing the water/methanol fluid in to the system. When the system runs out of fluid the derichment
valve shuts and cuts off the water injection system, while enrichening the fuel mixture to provide a cooling quench to prevent sudden
detonation.

Due to the cooling effect of the water, aircraft engines can run at much higher manifold pressures without overheating, creating more power.
This is the primary advantage of a water injection system when used on an aircraft engine.

The extra weight and complexity added by a water injection system was considered worthwhile for military purposes, while it is usually not
considered worthwhile for civil use. The one exception is racing aircraft, which are focused on making a tremendous amount of power for a short
time; in this case the disadvantages of a water injection system are less important.

The use of water injection in turbine engines has been limited, again, mostly to military aircraft. Many pictures are available of Boeing B-52
takeoffs which clearly show the black smoke emitted by turbine engines running with water injection. For early B-52s, water injection was seen
as a vital part of take-off procedures. For later versions of the B-52 as well as later turbine-powered bombers, the solution to the problem of
taking off heavily loaded from short runways was simply to build larger engines.

[edit]
Use in automobiles

A limited number of road vehicles with large-displacement engines from manufacturers such as Chrysler have included water injection. Saab
offered water injection for the Saab 99 Turbo. With the introduction of the intercooler the interest in water injection disappeared, but today,
water injection is also of interest because it can potentially decrease nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in exhaust. The most common use of water
injection today is vehicles with aftermarket forced induction systems such as turbochargers or superchargers, particularly those used for drag
racing and illegal street racing.


NOW SHUT UP !

Graham

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 12:24:15 PM6/18/08
to

Spaceman wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > The PROBLEM is that AMERICANs don't WANT to save energy.
>
> That is so not true, it is not even funny.

Spacedoutman would be a better name for you.

Ask any newbie clot in alt.solar.photovoltaic asking about sizing a
system if he'd ever thought of *reducing his energy usage* instead of
trying to create great dollops of alleged 'greenie energy' to make him
feel he's 'saving the planet' and there's this sort of embarassed
realisation as the penny finally drops.

No most Americans LOVE using energy. Preferably as wastefully and
extravagantly as possible.

Fix that and you fix the problem. It really is THAT SIMPLE.


Graham

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 12:26:35 PM6/18/08
to

Phred wrote:

> 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!

It's a technological dead-end. Entertaining but ultimately useless and pointless.

Graham

Spaceman

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 12:51:18 PM6/18/08
to
Eeyore wrote:

> Ask any newbie clot in alt.solar.photovoltaic asking about sizing a
> system if he'd ever thought of *reducing his energy usage* instead of
> trying to create great dollops of alleged 'greenie energy' to make him
> feel he's 'saving the planet' and there's this sort of embarassed
> realisation as the penny finally drops.

If such technology was not possible. than
Americans would save more energy,
but because Americans are inventive crazy people.
We will make energy so we can waste it.
You truly are funny Eeyore
You only see "your side" no matter how many sides you are told about.


> No most Americans LOVE using energy. Preferably as wastefully and
> extravagantly as possible.

Anyone that loves moving forward in life and science love using energy
apparently you don't like moving forward in science and life.
We should all go back to chiseling rocks and dragging them
to a place where others can read what we wrote just for you
to like americans again.
LOL


> Fix that and you fix the problem. It really is THAT SIMPLE.

Fix what?
The problem that americans are also trying to solve energy problems
just so they can use it even more than now?
You truly are an anti-american moron.

srp...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 2:10:59 PM6/18/08
to
On 18 juin, 12:11, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Well, I don't really have an opinion on this.
>
> Hardly surprising since it probably went about 5 miles over your head.
>
> > I am not interpreting what is happening one way or other.
>
> You don't have the ability to.

Seems to me you are looking right into your mirror. If you turn
back 180 deg, you will see that your screen reads again
from left to right.

Had a look at your other messages. You definitely have
quite a behavioral problem. Nobody can help you out
of your egotriping mania.

Idiots like you never learn more than was drilled into them
by rote.

> > 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.
>
> Utter garbage. They use DIESEL equipment anway. Diesel engines work
> rather differently.

Well diesel fuel being more expensive than gas, why do you think
some are converting ?

> > I am not trying to convince anyone. Just giving out the info I
> > have.
>
> DIS-information. What k00k site did you get it from ?
>
> Graham

Quite a bit of progress been done that you obviously
never will even learn about.

Even with all the shit you throw about, you can't keep
interested parties to dig for themselves and make up
their own mind one way or the other.

Time to take your lithium pill now, before you puke
on your keyboard. When you feel your next delirious
outburst coming, try to remember to take one more.

Now go gack playing with your teddy bear like a good
boy and let grown ups discuss.

André Michaud

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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 4:05:04 PM6/18/08
to
In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> srp...@gmail.com wrote:

> > 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.

> Not 60% for sure and it was more likely methanol injection IIRC.

> B17s for sure DID use a little water injection. This helps cool the heated (from the turbocharger) fuel/air mixture, increasing the charge
> mass into the cylinder and hence engine output.

Umm, no.

Airplanes have water injection so they can run full power without
burning up the engine.

And since most airplane engines are normally running at around 75%
power, it would be difficult to get a "60% boost".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 5:33:18 PM6/18/08
to

Spaceman wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > Ask any newbie clot in alt.solar.photovoltaic asking about sizing a
> > system if he'd ever thought of *reducing his energy usage* instead of
> > trying to create great dollops of alleged 'greenie energy' to make him
> > feel he's 'saving the planet' and there's this sort of embarassed
> > realisation as the penny finally drops.
>
> If such technology was not possible. than
> Americans would save more energy,

Oh shut up !


> but because Americans are inventive crazy people.

No, you're DIMWITS.

Graham

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 5:33:57 PM6/18/08
to

Spaceman wrote:

> We will make energy so we can waste it.

Sums the USA up really.

Graham

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 5:44:06 PM6/18/08
to

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > srp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> > Not 60% for sure and it was more likely methanol injection IIRC.
>
> > B17s for sure DID use a little water injection. This helps cool the heated (from the > turbocharger) fuel/air mixture, increasing the charge
>
> > mass into the cylinder and hence engine output.
>
> Umm, no.

Umm YES actually. Basic physics in fact.


> Airplanes have water injection so they can run full power without
> burning up the engine.

Sorry to have to disagree but that's only part of the story. That's another use of water injection in v.high compression engines IIRC. NOT in
the B17 AFAIK.


> And since most airplane engines are normally running at around 75%
> power, it would be difficult to get a "60% boost".

That wasn't my figure (in fact I said it was poppycock straight off - read above) but some crazed Australian who's been out in the sun too
long.

Please get your attributions right.

Graham

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 5:48:44 PM6/18/08
to

Spaceman wrote:

> Americans are inventive crazy people.

No.

Just crazy and remarkably STUPID.

Graham

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 5:52:22 PM6/18/08
to

srp...@gmail.com wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Well, I don't really have an opinion on this.
> >
> > Hardly surprising since it probably went about 5 miles over your head.
> >
> > > I am not interpreting what is happening one way or other.
> >
> > You don't have the ability to.
>
> Seems to me you are looking right into your mirror. If you turn
> back 180 deg, you will see that your screen reads again
> from left to right.

You are so utterly dense and devoid of even the mildest degree of
intelligence that I frankly hope you keel over and die very soon.

The return of your remains to the soil would be of far greater benefit to
mankind than your inane/insane ramblings.

I hope your death comes soon for the health of the planet.

Sincerely yours, Graham

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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 6:45:03 PM6/18/08
to
In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > srp...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > > Not 60% for sure and it was more likely methanol injection IIRC.
> >
> > > B17s for sure DID use a little water injection. This helps cool the heated (from the > turbocharger) fuel/air mixture, increasing the charge
> >
> > > mass into the cylinder and hence engine output.
> >
> > Umm, no.

> Umm YES actually. Basic physics in fact.

Umm, yes it is basic physics, and no it isn't to cool the fuel/air mixture.

Airplane engines with carburetors (which is just about all of them
before about 1970) have problems with the fuel/air mixture being
too cold and carburetor ice forming.

Cooling the fuel/air mixture is not a goal.

Increasing the charge mass is not a goal since an aircraft engine is
capable of sucking in a far bigger mass than it can burn without the
engine coming apart.

> > Airplanes have water injection so they can run full power without
> > burning up the engine.

> Sorry to have to disagree but that's only part of the story. That's another use of water injection in v.high compression engines IIRC. NOT in
> the B17 AFAIK.

Nope, that's the full story.

The biggest problem with high horsepower piston aircraft engines, i.e.
anything over about 200 hp, is keeping the engine cylinder head temperature
under control without inducing huge amounts of drag.

Water injection reduces the combustion temperature and prevents the
the valves and valve seats from burning and the engine from going into
detonation at high power settings due to high temperature internal parts.

Typically the only time water injection is turned on is during take off,
which is typically the only time you run an aircraft engine at 100%
power.

With jet engines, it is used to get maximum power without melting
the engine components.

> > And since most airplane engines are normally running at around 75%
> > power, it would be difficult to get a "60% boost".

> That wasn't my figure (in fact I said it was poppycock straight off - read above) but some crazed Australian who's been out in the sun too
> long.

> Please get your attributions right.

If you count the '>' characters, you will see the attributions are correct.

Bret

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 7:07:13 PM6/18/08
to
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:37:21 -0700 (PDT), 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.


Wrong country.

http://au.video.yahoo.com/network/100000095?v=2865566


Jeßus

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 7:28:37 PM6/18/08
to
Sylvia Else wrote:
> Jeßus 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.
>>
>> Yeah... about a whopping 20% 'efficient'.
>> I think your search engine research doctorate in everything has failed
>> you this time.
>
> Did you read up on Carnot's theorem?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot%27s_theorem_%28thermodynamics%29

Sure, but it doesn't alter the inherent inefficiency of car engines
(internal combustion engines). I'm really not interested in delving into
semantics here, thanks :)

Jeßus

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 7:42:05 PM6/18/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 18, 7:14 pm, Jeßus <n...@all.org> wrote:
> ...

>> Yeah... about a whopping 20% 'efficient'.
>> I think your search engine research doctorate in everything has failed
>> you this time.
>
> Thank you for the only constructive voice in this flood of spitting
> that my thread received so-far. I am really shock. I just reported on
> a true accomplishement of two young New Zealand hobbyists-amateurs who
> moved their bottom side to do something about the current fuel crisis,
> and I got all this spitting and mud throwing. No wonder that our
> civilisation is in trouble since we haver people of that knowledge and
> that attitude as the ones that threw the mud via the most of above
> opinions.
>
> This is just an innocent report about a significant improvement on
> fuel efficiency of an ordinary car, which everyone can confirm by
> simply ordering from the channel 3 of TVNZ a DVD with that particular
> program ("Campbell Life"). I am pretty sure that the TV team did a
> good work in checking this improvement, and that there is NO any scam
> involved. Also the improvement is extremely easy to make - two young
> hobbyists from NZ did it in their garage. So almost everyone can do
> it. If, by any chance, I come accross contact details of these two
> young hobbyists, I will publish these details on my web page - please
> just check from time the page "free_energy.htm" (by finding it in
> www.google.com through typing the key words "Jan Pajak
> free_energy.htm" - but without quotes, and later by checking that the
> page you are viewing is the update dated either on 15 June 2008, or at
> a later date). It is worth to learn about this improvement, because in
> present days for many people it is able to save at least $100 per week
> (while I believe that the improvement itself, if done in one's own
> garage, is going to cost around $100).

>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak

Well, I'm not going to do a critique on the particular merits (or
otherwise) of guys you refer to - I just lack the time and motivation at
the moment :)

But I do want to say that I find it disappointing (and some what
perplexing) how/why some people automatically write off anyone who try
to develop alternative systems, be that fuel or engine (or whatever).

You often see an almost Pavlovian response of open hostility to anything
not part of the established scene.
They always somehow see a scam, or see only what they want to see to
bolster their rather strange negativity over anything that doesn't
involve conventional fuel sources.

Its the same mentality that automatically wrote off the Wright brothers
- because everyone 'knew' that heavier than air flight was impossible.
Many newspapers of the day didn't even bother reporting the great event
because of the very same logic.

There are a lot of people out there doing great work, frequently under
very difficult circumstances with opposition from govt/big business.
There are dodgy people in the field, just like any other field. Give
them a wide berth, simple. I've had an interest in this area for many
years, and I'd rather keep an open mind rather than be so negative.
Conventional existing technology is not the long term answer, so the
solutions have to come from elsewhere.

terryc

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 8:11:51 PM6/18/08
to
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:43:42 -0700, srp2inc wrote:


> 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.

from your post. I suspect is is just the hot metal/hot air phenomium on
water; aka flash boiler. Inject water onto a hot enough metal surface and
it flashes to steam, which if in a confined area can do a lot of work.

I suspect the reasons it isn't common place is that it is murder rings
and seals and long term bad for the engine block. not to mention a whole
new range of possible polltants(?)


Sylvia Else

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 8:18:20 PM6/18/08
to

Semantics being the study of meaning. Yes, to hell with meaning. Totally
unimportant in a medium like this.

Your main problem of course is that it undermines your feeble attempt at
an insult.

Sylvia.

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 8:18:51 PM6/18/08
to

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > srp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > > Not 60% for sure and it was more likely methanol injection IIRC.
> > >
> > > > B17s for sure DID use a little water injection. This helps cool the heated (from the > > > turbocharger) fuel/air mixture, increasing the
> charge
> > >
> > > > mass into the cylinder and hence engine output.
> > >
> > > Umm, no.
>
> > Umm YES actually. Basic physics in fact.
>
> Umm, yes it is basic physics, and no it isn't to cool the fuel/air mixture.

NOT to increase the charge mass ?


> Airplane engines with carburetors (which is just about all of them
> before about 1970)

Errr NO. Not by a million miles except wanky USA ones.


> have problems with the fuel/air mixture being too cold and carburetor ice forming.

Yes I'm well aware of carb ice. One of the best ever reasons not to use a carb in fact.


> Cooling the fuel/air mixture is not a goal.

Not when it's NORMALLY ASPIRATED for sure,


> Increasing the charge mass is not a goal since an aircraft engine is
> capable of sucking in a far bigger mass than it can burn without the
> engine coming apart.

Oh Bollocks.

Sorry, from now on you're talking UTTER SHIT.

Maybe it applied to wanky US engines. I don't care frankly.

Graham

Sylvia Else

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 8:24:46 PM6/18/08
to
Jeßus wrote:

> But I do want to say that I find it disappointing (and some what
> perplexing) how/why some people automatically write off anyone who try
> to develop alternative systems, be that fuel or engine (or whatever).
>
> You often see an almost Pavlovian response of open hostility to anything
> not part of the established scene.
> They always somehow see a scam, or see only what they want to see to
> bolster their rather strange negativity over anything that doesn't
> involve conventional fuel sources.
>
> Its the same mentality that automatically wrote off the Wright brothers
> - because everyone 'knew' that heavier than air flight was impossible.

Hardly - they already had gliders that were heavier than air.

The reason many people strongly doubt these too-good-to-be-true systems
is that there have been so many announced, and none delivered. The laws
of thermodyamics have stood the test of time. Anything that violates
them is highly suspect. This is not to say that they are necessarily
right, but no one with any understanding of the physics is going to
believe that the laws are wrong when all they have to go on is the odd
TV report, and unvalidated claims made by those who stand to profit from
the invention. So far in such situations, the hypothesis of error, or
blatant fraud, has stood up.

Sylvia.

Eeyore

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 8:26:00 PM6/18/08
to

Jeßus wrote:

Suggest you bugger off then and stop wasting peoples' time.

Graham


Jeßus

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 9:11:44 PM6/18/08
to

Suggest you go fuck yourself little boy.

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

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 9:15:02 PM6/18/08