Watch this video about a invention of a car that runs on water VIDEO
Very cheap and clean.

I heard this 20 years ago.
Deuterium project...but until now....?
Also i heard about fatty oils could be use.

Yeah i heard about this awhile back. There was a program on t.v. that showed a car like that and this guy even drank some of the water that dripped out of the exsaust pipe to show it wasn,t polluted! Also the there were several celebs on a talk show promoting these cars that ran on used cooking oil, they each owned at least one car like that and said it was great for driving around in town. But they wern,t yet practical for long distance trips since there arn,t any filling stations all over selling old cooking oil as fuel yet! But these celebs said they had their own pumps installed right in their back yards that they used for filling these cars up to drive around in the city, one said that every time you start one of these cars or they go by you they smell like french fries!

WaterPowered Car.com another interesting one is the Joe cell which apparently date,s back to WWII, these methods saw Rommell defeated because of the vast distance,s travelled. Joe cell,s operate on a Wilhelm Reitch Theory, and we know what happened to him, I have experimented with these cell,s Interesting!! youtube have various video,s of some of this. After WWII all these device,s were removed from Tank,s and put into a warehouse. Yes more Mystery!?!?

sorry for resurrecting this but something that runs on water with only water as a byproduct is impossible. You CAN use water as a hydrogen source - using some other form of energy to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen and using the hydrogen as fuel either by burning it or putting it through a fuel cell. HOWEVER, SPLITTING the water takes JUST AS MUCH energy as you get when you oxidize the hydrogen again. The water cannot be an energy source, just a way of STORING it as hydrogen.

Torgo "sorry for resurrecting this but something that runs on water with only water as a byproduct is impossible. You CAN use water as a hydrogen source - using some other form of energy to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen and using the hydrogen as fuel either by burning it or putting it through a fuel cell. HOWEVER, SPLITTING the water takes JUST AS MUCH energy as you get when you oxidize the hydrogen again. The water cannot be an energy source, just a way of STORING it as hydrogen." An easy contradiction there, would be a steam engine, but that is,nt what this is about, I was reading a while back and also had information, but I had a serious computer malfunction that erased all my link's, now I download to another connection! Anyway I read somewhere that in England a Law had been passed that forbade the use of this Technology? Doe"s anyone else know of this?

No. Power is not extracted from water in a steam engine. Power us put in to generate the steam, which then merely transfers a proportion of that energy into mechanical force in a cylinder. As with all our (current) engines and motors, you have to put more energy in then you get useful work out.


Absolutely not. All laws - even those relating to state secrets - have to be openly debated in parliament and voted on. It is impossible to have "secret" laws in the UK. After all, how could you be prosecuted for infringement of such a hypothetical 'law'?
? At the very least, judges and prosecutors would need to know of the existence of the law and , by implication, the existence of the technology.

This is pure fantasy.

Oh... and I tried to find referrences to the 'Joe Cell' on the internet. The only sites featuring it where - to say the last - highy unscientific. The cell acts as a crude storage battery. But you have to charge it from the mains first, and it only releases a fraction of the power that you initialy put in. Whillst people claim that the cell produces MORE power than you put in, I don't believe there is ANY example of this claim being verified. Ever. Anywhere.

Meow Purr.

EXACTLY. Any process where you get out the exact same thing you got in will produce EXACTLY *zero* net energy - and the laws of thermodynamics along with simple engineering hurdles ensure that you will overall have a net LOSS of energy.

Steam engines are totally not applicable - there the water is just used as a method to transfer the thermal expansion from one part of the engine to linear motion in another part. <warning: oversimplification ahead!> Its like hydraulic fluid, except gaseous steam instead of flowing liquid. Doesn't MAKE any energy, just moves it.

I did download two..ermm.. sort of blueprints for converting our internal combustion petrol engines to run on water. I have no time and enough resources to try them yet. One seems so simple but the other quite complicated. They claimed you can achieve 300mpg! 300 miles on a gallon of water! Wow! Surely the oil companies will do something about this!

I've vaugly heard theories of "zero-point" or "vacuumn" energy, mostly in science fiction novels. The idea is that even completely empty space is actually - on the nanoscopic level - a seething cauldron of sub-nuclear energies, all balanced and held in check by 'each other', with net zero radiation. (so you don't detect it). Seems somewhat far-fetched.

If it did exist, then I guess in principle you could tap into it. Juggling chain-saws seems a lot safer, somehow. (and also more useful in the event of sudden zombie attacks).

Meow Purr.

The law I referred to was something along the line's that if you were pulled over in your car an found to have a water fuel device fitted you would end up in court for breaching tax law's on fuel, anyone heard this?. It may surprise you that I use a water injection system on my vehicle, as do a lot of people, especially running turbo/super charger's, it cool's intake air and suppliment's fuel increasing performance and milage, this too was initially banned in racing as an unfair advantage.

Ahhhhhh right... gotcha.... yes, I beleive you are correct Belowim.

If you have converted your diesel car to run on Biodiesel (vegetable oil), then you have to make sure you pay Duty on the aforementioned vegetable oil. This is because ALL fuels are susceptiable to fuel duty. If I buy a carton of veg oil and use it to fry my Tuna, then that is fine. However, if I then put the SAME oil into my diesel tank, I must pay the Inland Revenue some extra money or face prosecution. Stupid or what ?

However, your water-intercooler system would NOT be against the law, because water is not the actual fuel.

Meow Purr.

ENERGY CAN NEITHER BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED.

IT IS, AND THUS IT IS FREE.! All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33570/118 http://www.waterfuelcell.org/concept.html http://www.waterfuelcell.org/ http://www.keelynet.com/energy/meyerx.htm http://www.water-4-fuel.com/ If I,m using solar power to split water am I breaking any so called law's?..

laws of physics are few hundrede years old road of corrected mistakes

Using sunlight to split water is most certainly possible, and could be a great way to get fuel. The PROBLEM with the idea of a WATER-fueled car that only produces water as exhaust is that no matter what reactions take place in the intermediary steps theres NO NET gain of energy.

Splitting water with sunlight to make H2 and O2 takes the energy in the photons of sunlight and stores it chemically. By recombining the two you take that potential energy and can harness it. With no change in potential energy between water and water, however, you need some other energy source. You CAN'T run an engine on just water with no other energy source, and thats a fact.

you cant run car on gas alone either you need engine to convert it to energy, as for water, salt water when subjected to radio waves of certan hz emmits hydrogen, it is proven and it works,

Actually there is a car that runs on water,very well.Will the powers that be even let this car become reality?... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb8wIqECwGE

soldierspy "Actually there is a car that runs on water,very well.Will the powers that be even let this car become reality?... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb8wIqECwGE" Can anyone translate the Japanese version on youtube?

That PRECISELY illustrates my point!!!

The hydrogen is produced by the energy of the radio waves being absorbed by the water. Energy was absorbed and converted into chemical energy. BUT YOU NEED TO CREATE THE RADIO WAVES. This requires energy. And the amount of energy you get from burning the resultant hydrogen or running it through a fuel cell or whatever can never exceed the amount of energy you put into the system in the form of the radio waves. It simply does not matter how you split the water or make hydrogen or anything - the energy has to come from somewhere. You can't get energy from nothing, and any process that has the same thing as its input and output has to get energy from somewhere else.

I think people need to study their thermodynamics better here.

This guy has been debunked time and again - its getting late here, and I will find the link some other time and post it, I promise. All this guy does is split water into a hydrogen-oxygen mixture using the energy from the engine. His hybrid is just a ploy to make it seem like water is fueling the thing when really its just storing a little energy - its worse than standard battery hybrids we have today.

Well,it has been more than a few days...and still no "debunking" going on...why?I have to be honest,i havent heard ANYTHING about this guy being a fraud.Too many scientist that have checked him out,and they have found his invention works just fine.The govt,LMFAO,They want to know everything about it,and have offered him Big bucks for patent rights.I think you could be looking for a very,very,longtime.I wont hold my breath waiting.

Gah, I apologize. I've had a lot of crap going on the last couple days and checking up on forums has been the least of my concerns.

Anyways, a summary of the problems with this guy's deal:
All this person is doing is normal electrolysis, creating a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gas. This technique has been known for a LONG time in the welding industry and is known as Brown's Gas. The fact that it got on the news is more a testament to the gullibility of reporters than the technology.
The term "HHO" means nothing. I wish i could say more about that, but saying he is making "H2O into HHO" has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. I can't even say its wrong. At best, I suppose we can assume it refers to a 2:1 mix of H2 and O2, which is what you get from electrolysis.
CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. This is the first law of thermodynamics. Confirmed by more experiments than can be counted. Here is how it applies to electrolysis: when you break water, you are putting the electrical energy into the potential chemical energy of the new mixture of H2 and O2. When you then burn the H2, breaking the HH bonds and making HO bonds, the HO bonds are a lower potential energy and the difference is released as heat (or some electricity as well as heat if you're using a fuel cell). However, this is the SAME ENERGY DIFFERENCE that must be overcome to take the lower energy H2O and make it into higher energy H2 and O2. This means that the exact same energy you put into the water when you split it is put out again when you burn it. More generally, any process that has the same substance as its initial input and final product will have no net energy gain - the same amount of energy will go in as goes out. THE ONLY THING THIS DEVICE DOES IS TURN ELECTRICAL ENERGY INTO CHEMICAL ENERGY.
I submit the idea that this "gas/water hybrid" is nothing more than a car that runs on gas and uses some of the electricity it generates to split water and then inject the resultant gas into the cylinders. It probably does this very little, thus only requiring very little water but about the same amount of gasoline.
I have no idea where the claims about the flame changing temperature comes from, other than the suggestion that it probably has something to do with the way the news always gets science news wrong and sensationalizes it.

A side note on physics being a series of corrected mistakes: i would call it more a series of successively more improved understandings. Before radioactivity was discovered, the output of energy from radioactive materials would have seemed to violate the conservation of energy. Eventually it was discovered to be related to the transmutation of elements, and it was proposed that this was causing the release of energy. By looking at more and more examples the relationship between the atomic decay and the energy released could be understood. Conservation of energy has always worked out in every circumstance in the end. I find it hard to believe that one particular chemical reaction out of trillions of possible ones would violate it, and furthermore if it were truly this simple real scientists would have found it and studied it.

References:

http://anti-rant.blogspot.com/2006/05/simp...-and-water.html While a blog and nothing professional, this person articulates all the relevant points and explains it in a very concise and easily understood way. Here, the writer assumes the term HHO refers to a mix of H2 and O2 gases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown%27s_gas#Brown.27s_gas The entry on Brown's gas (a 2:1 mix of H2 and O2). Refers to "controvertial claims" made regarding its properties, and its long use in welding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics The laws of thermodynamics.

and finally: critical thinking.

Just a fraction of new's, http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Electrolysis http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Hydrogen_from_Water http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage1247.html http://www.hydrogenenginecenter.com/ http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/rotary.html http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/carplans.htm http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2004/09/20/230837.html http://www.electrogravityphysics.com/pollution/index.html

Well frankly I'm much more for electric powered cars then hydrogen. Since I saw the documentary "Who killed the electric car" I found out that hydrogen powered cars are fraud run by Oil Corporations who hold the politicians to literally divert public from using perfected electric cars that you can't even buy today because they have been banned by law. Hydrogen is just something that politicians want to fool the public that they worry about oil problems by working on hydrogen technology that will actually never be achieved.

I did a little research on that Filipino inventor who's name is Daniel Dingel and to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if he is just a fraud who is trying to milk money from people, altough there are lots of articles about him. This is a little segment in which is explained how his car works:

According to him, his reactor uses electricity from a 12-volt car battery to transform saltwater or ordinary tap water with salt into deuterium oxide or heavy water, which is chiefly used as a coolant for nuclear reactors. Deuterium is actually a hydrogen isotope with twice the mass of ordinary hydrogen, and heavy water is produced when the hydrogen atoms in H2O are replaced with deuterium.

"The electricity from the battery splits the water into its hydrogen and oxygen components, and this hydrogen can then be used to power the car engine. Normally it takes temperatures of about 5,400 degrees Fahrenheit to generate hydrogen from water, but here I am just using an ordinary 12-volt battery," he claimed.

Just how this kind of chemical reaction is possible using an ordinary car battery is, of course, the secret behind Dingel's invention--and the kind of claim that leads people to dismiss him as a crackpot and charlatan. In fact, while hydrogen is being touted as a viable alternative fuel in the US and other countries, these prototypes do not make use of ICEs but fuel cell engines, nor do they run on ordinary water but on liquid hydrogen.

For example, DaimlerChrysler unveiled in the US in March the hydrogen-powered NECAR 4 (New Electric Car), which is based on a Mercedes-Benz A-class compact car.

In these fuel cell cars, water is just a by-product of the reaction between hydrogen and oxygen ions, which produces the electricity to run the car's engine. In this sense, the fuel cell process is the reverse of Dingel's discovery. Also, Dingel claims that his reactor can work with any existing ICE-based car.

Dingel said some investors from Taiwan now plan to commercialize his car and help him get an international patent. source

I have no idea where THIS is coming from. You can't turn water into heavy water with just a chemical reaction! This is a nuclear reaction and would require somehow adding a neutron to the proton in the hydrogen nucleus, DOUBLING THE ATOM'S MASS. As a general rule you can't influence nuclear reactions chemically, except in a few rare nuclear reactions that require an electron from the electron cloud of the atom to be captured by a proton.



EXACTLY - a charlatan. You can do electrolysis yourself with a 9 volt battery, some wire electrodes, and some salt water. The "5,400 degrees Fahrenheit" bit is sheer baloney.



Sort of! Fuel cells require at least a supply of hydrogen (they could probably get oxygen from the air). Unfortunately hydrogen does not occur naturally on the Earth - we have to MAKE it, hence the whole problem of hydrogen cars actually being BAD for the environment because you need to generate the power somehow to break the water and if you do it using fossil fuels, because of inefficiencies in the process you end up burning MORE than if you just burned the gasoline in the cars in the first place. (random nitpic, its actually between hydrogen and oxygen molecules, not ions...)

Oh and a note on "zero-point energy" - its not what most people think.

What it is is the fact that there is a lowest energy state that space can exist in, and that this energy state is not zero energy. Nevertheless it's called the "zero point" because it's the lowest point that can be reached. The Casimir Effect is the most well known manifestation of the phenomenon - if you put two parallel plates EXTREMELY close together (we're talking an atomic radius) they will feel an attractive force because the space between them cannot contain the same density of particles as the space outside them because only particles with a wavelength smaller than the space between them can exist there (quantum physics can be weird - yes particles have wavelengths). In any case there is no known way to extract this zero-point energy - again according to the laws of thermodynamics in order to get usable energy you need to drop something else into a lower energy state. This is all fine and dandy for, say, burning hydrocarbons. You take the high-energy hydrocarbon bonds and oxygen-oxygen bonds and make carbon-oxygen bonds and hydrogen-oxygen bonds which are lower in energy and keep the difference. But there is no lower state to drop the space containing zero-point energy TO. It is FUNDAMENTALLY the LOWEST state achievable. You CAN'T drop it any lower, at least with any known process we have today.

And again, I find it hard to believe that one chemical reaction out of trillions would create this effect especially if it has never been observed elsewhere, and that if it did it would escape the notice of real scientists. Zero point energy is an overhyped and overused idea.

Torgo "Oh and a note on "zero-point energy" - its not what most people think. " Exactly, could not have said it better!

I just watched this video, so it is possible after all, no matter what anyone say, because this guy made it.

I watched that "who killed the electric car" video last night and I just wondered if charging a car for 8 hrs for 100 miles worth of a trip is actually 'enviromentally' more friendly than simply sticking a couple of litres of petrol into it due to loses in electric transmission and the fossil fuels that are burnt (generally) to provide the electricity in the first place.

Personally I am waiting for something like Doc Brown had on the Delorean in B2TF 2.

Well you can charge your electic car at home while you sleep. Take a look at this electric car that should be available soon. http://www.teslamotors.com/

*Charge At Home or On the Road*

Plug your Tesla Roadster into its at-home charging unit, and you'll be fully charged in about 3.5 hours. But we consider this a "worst case" for someone starting with a completely dead battery. Even after a 100-mile trip, you can be completely charged in less than two hours.* And should you need to charge on the road, packed away in the trunk is an optional mobile-charging kit that lets you charge from most standard electrical outlets while away from home.

Yes I know that but that electricity will have been created in most places by the burning of fossil fuels and once you take transmission losses into account as well, what I am asking is are they more environmentally friendly (which is what I thought the point was) than just sticking a couple of litres of gas into your normal car ?

Actually that was on the FAQ'S of the car in the link (looks ok btw) however its hardly independent.

You can't trust the news! People defraud others! One has to understand what is possible and what is not before blindly accepting what other people SAY they have done. No scientist has ever under close examination violated conservation of energy. THIS MAN IS LYING IF HE SAYS THIS IS AN ENERGY SOURCE.

* edit *

Sorry for the tone of this one, didn't want it to sound like that.

*end of edit*

i'd take his word over yours anyday.

I apologize for my overly terse and seemingly silly most recent response - I was running late for class but felt like I had to say something. In retrospect it was not the best response.

I will attempt to say what I said in a calmer and more rational manner.

You honestly CAN'T trust the news when it comes to science stories. The people who report on them are often ignorant of the basic principles of the field they are investigating, know nothing of the scientific method, and are thus easily misled and prone to draw incorrect conclusions. In addition, the news channels are prone to overhype or sensationalize things in order to hold the interest of the lay public and keep ratings. Examples abound - the out-of-proportion reaction to the discovery of a large terrestrial planet in another solar system a few months ago comes to mind. The news outlets were calling it "habitable" - when in reality while it's probably made of rock, its gravity and position means it is likely a hothouse world like Venus. The hype about hydrogen cars also comes to mind - they call it an answer to energy problems when it just moves the problem of generating energy to power plants instead of car engines. The media is also prone to turn potential science stories into "human interest stories" - they LOVE the plot of the little guy with some revolutionary technology not recognized by the establishment. If they investigated some of these more I'm certain most of these stories would never make it to air.

One of the reasons scientific literacy is vitally important is to avoid frauds and scams. Someone can make a claim that under close examination makes no sense, but hide it in scientific-sounding terms or otherwise convince someone to believe them rather than the scientific establishment (which, while never perfect, is at least self-correcting over time). All free-energy schemes fall into this category, as does homeopathy, astrology, creationism, and a goodly number of other ideas. The most BASIC principles of chemistry dictate that one cannot get energy from a process that has the SAME THING as its only input and only output - in this case, water. One can store energy but nothing more. All of chemistry falls apart if a single reaction can be found to reproducibly violate this. I know most people here won't believe me when I say this, but I'll say it: there has NEVER been a reaction discovered that violates this rule (the conservation of energy). Oh sure someone might measure an oddity once - but thats called EXPERIMENTAL ERROR. There is never a reproducable defect that is not eventually explained by an error in the experiment. And AGAIN, I find it hard to believe that one single reaction would violate something which holds up so well under ALL other circumstances, and that if this effect really existed it would go unnoticed by real scientists. In fact there would be a rush to understand where the excess energy was coming from, and in my OPINION, eventually a mechanism would be discovered to account for where it was coming from (WHICH WOULD MEAN IT WAS NOT COMING FROM NOWHERE AND SOME SORT OF CHANGE WAS HAPPENING TO THE REACTANTS).

My immediate first thought is fraud or scam when several of the following things line up:
1) A result which defies one of the most well-confirmed laws of physics
2) The person expounding the concept is making a personal profit/other benefit from having others believe it
3) The person expounding the concept goes through the channels of the news media and/or internet rather than accepted scientific journals
4) The person proposes RADICALLY new physics to explain it

Torgo, I,m not even going to quote the rubbish you call an explanation! Scientific establishment indeed! I suppose my replication's and countless other's of Tesla's Radiant Energy Theory/device is pure BS to you, and YOUR establishment. I,m tired of pure BS and dictarship, go and do something usefull like getting the Twenty thousand plus (20,000)+ patents locked up in a vault for National Security reasons,LOL. And thats only One country! Where oh where do you think Electricity come's from? And if you truelly believe we make it then show me the Formula! There is more Energy in Water than Just about anything else!!! I don't know where you live but at my shop's water is being sold at twice the price of petrol! Now when every one has to do that, sure you,ll be allowed to run your car on it!!!!!!!!! I and countless other's are already burning water, I only use it as a supplement to fuel in two different way's on the same vehicle... The other guy up the road used only that, but then he's not around any more! One day he and his car fell of this world never to be seen again!! There's YOUR Establishment!!

Out of curiosity... where do you live? Where I live water comes out of the tap in the wall for less than pennies per gallon.


Could you elaborate on what you mean by this question?

Here is the reaction that produces electricity in lead-acid batteries:
Half reaction one: Pb (solid) + SO4 (2-) (dissolved) --> PbSO4 + 2 electrons (each with energy associated with them)
Half reaction two: PbO2 (solid) + SO4(2-) (dissolved) + 4 H+ + 2 electrons --> PbSO4 (solid) + 2 H20
Total reaction: Pb + PbO2 + 2 SO4 + 4 H+ --> 2 PbSO4 + 2 H2O

The electricity is the flow of the electrons from one side of the battery where half reaction one takes place through a wire into the other side of the battery where half reaction two takes place.

There isn't really a "reaction" that generates power in generators other than a heat engine driving a turbine, which moves a magnetic field across a wire and generates a current.

After looking this up a bit ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_energy theres a picture partway down, various images from google, etc) it looks entirely plausible. The antenna/plate/whatever that pokes up would be hit by electromagnetic radiation/other particles/atoms/whatever and develop a static charge (probably positive from electrons being knocked off) that would build up and be stored in a capacitor. Its a far less efficient way to collect radiant energy than, say, solar panels, but it would certainly work. If you call this free energy you also have to call standard photovoltaics free energy as well.

Let's just drop the term "Free Energy" for now. The fact is that if we want progress in the field of energy production, we can't settle for business as usual thinking. We need to look at things in new ways. OK, so we can't get energy for free, but we can acheive greater and greater efficiencies. We might even possibly break the stranglehold of the powers-that-be that keep us from seeing any real progress. Torgo, you have a scientific mind, what kind of outside-the-box ideas do you have? Its not enough to just say something can't be done, we need to know what can be done other than what is obvious is not working very well. I'm sure you must have some interesting ideas.

You can make electricity very cheap and clean in nuclear power plants. And even if they were made by burning fossil fuels they would be environmentally friendly (at least that is what they say in the movie) and cheaper.
As of independence of the electric car in the movie we are also introduced with the electric cars that need to be fueled every 300 miles, which is pretty independent. There is also more info on wikipedia about electric car. Not to mention that electric car was invented at the same time as oil powered car.
Of course I don't think that electric car would please everybody's needs but a lot of people would drive it if it was more available. Because I don't know if there is a place you could buy that car which is a real shame because when you think about for instance in L.A. people are every day warned that they should not go out because air pollution is to high and toxic to breathe.

Nice Reply Strange F8, this should all be happening in my thread Future Energy, but were here so let's go, Torgo I asked for THE Formula for Electricity, not some random chemical Reaction! GIVE me THE FORMULA for everyday Electricity? Radiant,Rock, Earth, Lightning< whatever? Not some vinegar metal reaction? Now you state magnetic field across a wire generates current? Elaborate Please! I want Scientific Evidence/Formula You know actual Mathamatical equation's, Now take your Time because Your gonna be busy finding this? I did'nt Spend years researching great people for nought. Hint, Search engines are the greatest tool in the World. Even these Great mind's had problem's with what they were/are dealing with. Also get out of Wiki in your searches! As I,ve stated before, I only wish to work WITH people not against...

lol, i,d like to hear that one too.
if that was the case, you'd get electricity by just replacing steel core of el. magnet with a permanent magnet, it doesn,t work, i tryed.

aztek it works see Faraday<>Tesla, Stubberfield, + MORE, Nice question!

it didn,t work for me, guess time to go back to the drawing board.

here is what i did, may be you can find a mistake, a 1\2 inch rod 5 inches long(the size of the magnet i had, poles are on the ends) wound wire around the rod(wraped wax paper on the rod first), tested, el. magnet worked, took the rod out, and put in the same dimentions magnet, hooked to voltmeter, no power.
you think if i used magnet with poles along the sides, it would work?

A couple topics in one post:



Uh... what? Electricity is not a substance, it is a flow of electrons from an area of negative charge or high energy to an area of positive charge or low energy.



The key is not the presence of a metal wire in a magnetic field, instead it is moving that magnetic field across the wire. For all you trying this, connect a wire coil to a meter and grab a bar magnet, and move the magnet in and out of the coil like a piston. You'll generate a current!
I do not remember the exact math... but I remember the concepts from my highschool physics classes. Firstly, any moving electrically charged particle generates a magnetic field. In a permanent magnet this comes from the angular momentum of electrons inside the atoms of the material - in most materials they all cancel out but in some they can line up and reinforce each other. An electron moving through a magnetic field experiences a force perpendicular to the direction of the magnetic field, proportional to its speed through the field. You can also turn this around - a moving magnetic field will accelerate an electron inside it. This is how almost all electrical generators work - a heat engine drives a turbine connected to some permanent magnets. These rotate and sweep their magnetic fields along wire coils and accelerates the electrons inside them, generating a current. This is how all standard electrical generators work, except solar panels and a few weird nuclear things that are mostly used on space probes.


I'm thinking of moving this into the future energy thread (I have a bit of a response for the circular generator thingie from that thread ready too)... quick summary before I hop on over there though:
- Greater end-use efficiency, especially in heating and cooling living spaces.
- New solar panel technology.
- Exotic biofuels.
- A closed nuclear fuel cycle that generates very little waste and uses new-generation reactor designs, which have the potential to have far less risk of accident.
- SOLAR POWER SATELLITES
- Ocean thermal power
- Solar thermal power

Hop on over to the future energy thread for more on these.

You havent the ability to see into someones mind,right?So how do you KNOW that this is bull?Maybe he see's something you dont,something you missed.And he has NOT BEEN DEBUNKED.He has in fact,been moving forward on this amazing instrument.To say he's lying just because YOU dont understand how it all works,is tantamount to saying Einstien was wrong cause you cant follow his way of thinking.Obviously it's the one's who do think differently who ultimately make the the most amazing discoveries.Wich,escapes your grasp at the moment.It dosent take a team of scientist,the govt,and a bunch of big wig oil guys to debunk someone who is full of it.So far,none of them have.So sorry that not only is it possible,but yes,you can get 100 miles on 8oz of water!Understand this:No one from any sector of the govt,or any scientist would even waste thier time if it was B.S.So far they havent backed away from him,they are in fact working on a deal.If he was lying,im sure all those people wouldnt even be around,giving him the time of day.They would have washed thier hands of him and his B.S. long ago.So again,show me the PROOF that he's lying....Myself,and the U.S GOVT await your response.

Torgo, you are full of it, and I don,t mean Energy,LOL, I Asked you A simple Question? You could,nt deliver! Why Not? you no research? You your Establishment doe,snt know? I asked for a Scientific Formula for Electricity? Now while were here I,ll also ask for an ENERGY RATING for water(H2O)??????????????

i,ll take a wild guess, magnetic field and spin motion.

aztek "i,ll take a wild guess, magnetic field and spin motion." Funny one,LOL, BuTT We should try to stick to the subject Matter,LOL, Which IS H2O(H2O) FUEL,GO JUICE,...I,ll Add aztek you are right in some ways, Butt the point was at the right TIMING,.Good onya>>Not the end of this subject! Water to Burn!...

I agree water by it's self in it current liquid state cannot be used. However if you run a strong current through the water it will produce hydrogen gas which can be used in an internal combustion engine.

In reality using the diffusion process as a way of powering a car is a viable solution. I am experimenting with this myself on an old car i got for $200, I am trying different plans I have made up for the diffusion of water via electrical current with a decent amount of success and I am ready to build a prototype fuel tank and electrical power system. The internal workings of the car are of course modified for example it now has several alternators and car batteries and the engine needed some modification as well, I no longer use the fuel injection system this has been disabled as the hydrogen which is currently just a tank of hydrogen is no pumped directly in the air intake. The alternators along with constantly charging the batteries will provide enough electrical power to diffuse the water in the tank.

The gas tank will be replaced with a fiber glass mold reinforced of course to prevent damage and is air tight as well. It need to be air tight to maintain constant pressure and prevent hydrogen leakage.

The current design I am fooling around with makes the water appear as if it is boiling.

The water can be poured where you used to pour your gas however the cap has been modified with a custom seal to keep in the tiny hydrogen atoms and prevent leakage as well.

==

All in all my pet project has been turning out quite nicely and I expect to have all the bugs and current technical challenges overcome by the end of this coming June. I have to make sure it is safe enough not to explode. Aside from that people will look under your hood and say WTF or that people will look at you funny when you fill your tank with a garden hose the car will perform just as well as a gas powered car.

This project is coting me quite a bit of cash too for R&D as I've had to employ outside help for various things I simply don't have the time or tools for. I am about up to 15k now on this car which happens to be an old K car wagon from the 80's.... Yeah I know I could have picked a cooler car but it was $200, green and had almost no rust at all.

I take it you're getting the current to run through the water from the car batteries, correct?

I'm just curious. If you are splitting the water with the batteries, aren't you limited to the energy stored in the batteries?