Dave02dv Posted October 6, 2005 Posted October 6, 2005 Is this for real? From my limited knowlege it seems somewhat logical, but still hard to believe. http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/carplans.htm What do you guys think?
swansont Posted October 6, 2005 Posted October 6, 2005 You don't get any net energy from splitting water and then recombining it.
YT2095 Posted October 6, 2005 Posted October 6, 2005 "In the big picture, your free energy is coming from the tap water in an open system, as the latent energy in the water is enough to power the engine and hence drive the alternator and whatever belt-driven accessories. And the alternator is efficient enough to run the various electrical loads (10 - 20 amps), including the additional low current to run this vapor reaction. No extra batteries are required." Therein lies the problem, there IS NO "Latent Energy" in water. if you can`t beat them with Science, Baffle them with Bull, and it seems they haven`t even done a reasonable job at that either. No, it`s Not "for real"
arkain101 Posted October 6, 2005 Posted October 6, 2005 What they are claiming is that you can use the electrical power that your car produces while running to seperate water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. Then with ultra high compression ratios the engine will function well off of very small combustion areas. They seem to claim that it is possible to make enough hydrogen while driving to fuel the car. I dont know how possible this is but, you can get alot of juice out of an altinator , and with hydrogen you can run compression ratios at levels like 20:1 which offer very high efficeincy in the explosion/ or rather burning of the fuel (hydrogen). The problem is, hydrogen has a very slow flame speed. I think it is around 8 feet per second. Engines are not designed to run with flame speeds that slow, so the engine can not function at a very high rpm, due to the fact the speed of the explosion cant keep up with the speed of the piston at high rpm operation. I have pondered this concept for many years, in fact they have made standard internal combustion engines function on hydrogen in the pas, but from what I understand it takes alot of time and alot of energy to seperate water molecules.. but if you could get just enough to mix 50/50 with propane or gasoline or whatever this will work. I am a journeyman engine builder.
YT2095 Posted October 6, 2005 Posted October 6, 2005 the energy available from a working alternator is not in question, and yes it will make a great deal of hydrogen gas if the rest of the set-up is good too, there`s no arg here either. the problem comes from re burning this fuel to get as much energy back out as you put in to make it in the 1`st place, the fact is, you won`t. but then ONTOP of this, you want to move this engine, chassis and passengers too! what a drain is that. so we ignore the extranious bits here, we produce Hydrogen, we use this to run an engine that in turn propels the armature of an alternator, that then produces electricity. so maybe 10ml of hydrogen gas produces 1 watt of elec, that one watt of elec will only produce 2ml of gas. so you can see right away it`s on a downwards curve, and all we`ve done it generate alot of heat and sound (there went your 8ml of Hydrogen) and no real practical use has been attained yet!
Sayonara Posted October 6, 2005 Posted October 6, 2005 lol It's a perpetual motion machine for your car. How marvellous.
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 6, 2005 Posted October 6, 2005 lol It's a perpetual motion machine for your car. How marvellous. It's the physical equivalent of one of those Aescher drawings where the water goes "downhill" in a continuous circuit.
arkain101 Posted October 6, 2005 Posted October 6, 2005 The reason I deleted this stuff is because It had critical information about an invention that has came to mind through this idea. I beleive I have developed a process of making 100% efficient hydrogen running cars. I know alot of you will dissagree with this. but I have also came up with as of now 12 different functions that assist in powering the car, giving it a range of 60% to 100% efficient operation. This is a serious matter, and I am looking for cooperation from people in this science community that are interested in this. I can be contaced at nickspage99@hotmail.com
arkain101 Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm i can put this concept into a 100% efficent car.
swansont Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm i can put this concept into a 100% efficent car. No, you can't. A critical piece of information you appear to lack is the second law of thermodynamics. All engines reject heat, thus they can never be 100% efficient.
arkain101 Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 ""A critical piece of information you appear to lack is the second law of thermodynamics. All engines reject heat, thus they can never be 100% efficient."" I dont not lack that peice of information, I am not as simple minded as you seem to think. I have seriously developed a design that will allow a car to come closer than anything I have ever heard of that can power itself. I am not interested in sharing much information about it at this time. I know you have no idea how it could work, but that is why it hasnt been made. I am confident this is it. First thing that may be propetual motion.
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 The reason I deleted this stuff is because It had critical information about an invention that has came to mind through this idea.I beleive I have developed a process of making 100% efficient hydrogen running cars. I know alot of you will dissagree with this. but I have also came up with as of now 12 different functions that assist in powering the car' date=' giving it a range of 60% to 100% efficient operation. This is a serious matter, and I am looking for cooperation from people in this science community that are interested in this. I can be contaced at [email']nickspage99@hotmail.com[/email] I have done the same with gasoline engines. My mistake was that I made subsequent improvements, the gas tank of course overflowed, and the damn thing caught fire and blew up as I was driving merrily down the highway. When I awoke in the hospital bed I could not remember how I got it to work!
arkain101 Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 Let me give you an example off the top of my head of a similar concept. Lets use a steam engine. The steam engine turns a generator. The generator delivers electricity to heating coils that are in a main water tank. The steam developed in the water tank transfers to a secondary pressure tank which holds steam when the main water tank lets out pressure. The steam that goes through the engine is cycled back into a tank that is inside the main heating tank. when the pressure is released from the main tank and goes into the secondary steam holding tank the exhaust steam is able to be directed back into the main holding tank. A solor panel is attatched to the rigging to deliver extra power to the heating coils. aswell as the heating tanks and all of the rigging having made out of low disipating heat materials and high absorbing outter color/materials. The machine is placed in a hot area with mirrors that shine heat onto the heating tank. Attatched to the rigging are windmills that also deliver electric power and mechanical power to the system. This is nothing like my idea for a free energy car but using this thought process of thinking.. this funny contraption above that I came up with in 5mins would be nearly self functioning and theres more than could be done. See my point.?
the tree Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 Yes, that would be a convection engine. A well established concept. Doesn't prove a thing.
swansont Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 The use of solar and wind means it is not "self-functioning"
swansont Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 I dont not lack that peice of information' date=' I am not as simple minded as you seem to think. I have seriously developed a design that will allow a car to come closer than anything I have ever heard of that can power itself. I am not interested in sharing much information about it at this time. I know you have no idea how it could work, but that is why it hasnt been made. I am confident this is it. First thing that may be propetual motion.[/quote'] I hope you don't think you are anything close to the first person to express this sentiment.
YT2095 Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 you can get Close to that goal with the use of modern fabrics and bearings and low loss engines and maybe even super-conductor motors and magnets (when we can get them to usable temps) and low loss silver wire etc... but it`s going to be REALLY expensive! and not your about town run-about either. you may get nearer to the 100% effciency of fuel to desired "work done" ratio, but it`ll still use fuel. you just get more bang for your buck
arkain101 Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 I hear what all of you are saying and I agree with all of you completely, although there is so much more to it than you think. The car may not come out on paper as being 100% efficient, but it will still have the ability to drive nearly forever free and have the performance to do around 12 seconds in a 1/4 mile as a quick estimation. That is fast, not many factory cars vehicles can reach times like that. Its already been proven that this thing can. Like I said there is so much more to it and this is the real deal. I can actually prove that mathimatically that it is theoretically a free energy car. I realise you dont beleive me becuause of what all the science books tell you. But there is reality concepts that alot of people overlook becuase of the fact energy is always lost somewhere. I have invented about 12 completely orignal thing that a part of the car and some things that already exist that make it go. Im done with trying to convince anyone heh. I am patenting it and introducing it.
Teotihuacan Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 It's just that each car will have to "swallow" an awful lot of oxygen in order to be efficient. And why carry water around for fuel anyway? It's much too heavy.
arkain101 Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 It's just that each car will have to "swallow" an awful lot of oxygenin order to be efficient. And why carry water around for fuel anyway? It's much too heavy. Really? How much does water weigh?
swansont Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 Really? How much does water weigh? Water has a mass of 1g for each cm3 (isn't that common knowledge among science-types?) at 4 degrees C, or a kilogram per liter. That's roughly 8 lbs per gallon.
Green Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 You don't get any net energy from splitting water and then recombining it. No energy is formed but on burning the hydrogen that is evolved we can procrure large amounts of energy.
YT2095 Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 No energy is formed but on burning the hydrogen that is evolved we can procrure large amounts of energy. and coincidently, that energy is Exactly the same amount as that used to obtain it too!
Green Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 Complies with the conservation of energy laws DUH!!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now