Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
promKing

Car that runs on water

191 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Atheist God
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?

No I am using custom alternators to generate the power required although I do have a few batteries as well. The alternators generate enough power to kill a large man with ease, so electricity is no problem.

Edited by AtheistGod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blizno
No I am using custom alternators to generate the power required although I do have a few batteries as well. The alternators generate enough power to kill a large man with ease, so electricity is no problem.

Sigh...

As has been repeatedly said in this thread and other threads, your alternators, no matter how powerful, will NEVER produce more energy than it takes to spin them. Your car may run as long as the batteries are splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, but the batteries WILL NOT be charged faster than they are depleted. In fact, because of the inefficiencies at every step of your process, you will find yourself stranded with drained batteries much faster than if you just used those same batteries to drive an electric motor propelling the car.

The energy coming out of an alternator is converted from the mechanical energy of the engine's spinning shaft. In an absolutely perfect world, you would have to put in one Watt of power from the engine to get one Watt of power out of the alternator. Since no process is perfectly efficient, you have to put in more than one Watt of power from the engine to get one Watt of power out of the alternator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blizno
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)??????????????

It's hard to make out what you're saying because of the terrible grammar, but I think you are asking for some sort of mathematical formula for electricity. There are lots of formulas describing what happens when electricity is used, such as P=IR, but there is no such thing as a "formula for electricity". It doesn't even make sense to ask for such a thing.

As Torgo clearly explained, electricity is simply moving electrons. Electricity is very well understood.

Torgo was also dead on in describing the relationship between changing magnetic fields and changing electric fields. This is how electric motors and electric generators work.

As for an "energy rating" for water, if you're talking about burning 2H2 + O2 to get energy + 2H2O (water), then the "energy rating" of water is zero. Water is like the ashes left from a fire. You can't burn ashes. You can't burn water.

Oh, and a quick grammar hint, it is always wrong to make a word plural by adding an apostrophe in front of the "s". If you're making a word plural, look for an apostrophe. If you find one, it's wrong. I know this is way off-topic but struggling through bad grammar really slows down clear communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blizno
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...

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 would add:

5) The person expounding the concept claims that he/she is being "blocked", "threatened", "watched" by some business organization or cabal of scientists determined to prevent the miraculous invention from reaching the public.

If any of these magical "free energy" devices had the slightest chance of working, scientists would be fighting each other for the chance to study it. The reason real scientists don't carefully investigate each and every one of these "free energy" claims is that every time such a claim has been studied under controlled conditions it has failed utterly. Scientists have real work to do and don't choose to waste time chasing fantasies.

While many or most of these "free energy" schemes are clearly fraudulent, especially when investors are invited to take advantage of the "opportunity", I'm sure that lots of people pursuing these dreams simply don't understand how the universe works well enough to see past the wild claims. Many people no doubt spend years of their lives and much of their savings pursuing things that can never work.

Before I get responses to my use of "free energy", I am using it to have the meaning most often given it in this kind of forum - energy that comes from nothing (overunity, burning water, etc). Electricity from solar cells is not free energy by this definition because it requires sunlight, which requires nuclear fusion. The energy is coming from somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BELOWIM
Torgo, I would add:

5) The person expounding the concept claims that he/she is being "blocked", "threatened", "watched" by some business organization or cabal of scientists determined to prevent the miraculous invention from reaching the public.

If any of these magical "free energy" devices had the slightest chance of working, scientists would be fighting each other for the chance to study it. The reason real scientists don't carefully investigate each and every one of these "free energy" claims is that every time such a claim has been studied under controlled conditions it has failed utterly. Scientists have real work to do and don't choose to waste time chasing fantasies.

While many or most of these "free energy" schemes are clearly fraudulent, especially when investors are invited to take advantage of the "opportunity", I'm sure that lots of people pursuing these dreams simply don't understand how the universe works well enough to see past the wild claims. Many people no doubt spend years of their lives and much of their savings pursuing things that can never work." http://peswiki.com/index.php/Viktor_Schaub...ine)_from_Water "The inevitable conclusion is that water-power is, by far, our most valuable resource. On this, humanity must build its hopes for the future. With its full development and a perfect system of wireless transmission of the energy to any distance, man will be able to solve all the problems of material existence. Distance, which is the chief impediment to human progress, will be completely annihilated in thought, word and action. Humanity will be united, wars will be made impossible, and peace will reign supreme."

— Nikola Tesla, September 9, 1915

Edited by BELOWIM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BELOWIM
It's hard to make out what you're saying because of the terrible grammar, but I think you are asking for some sort of mathematical formula for electricity. There are lots of formulas describing what happens when electricity is used, such as P=IR, but there is no such thing as a "formula for electricity". It doesn't even make sense to ask for such a thing.

As Torgo clearly explained, electricity is simply moving electrons. Electricity is very well understood.

Torgo was also dead on in describing the relationship between changing magnetic fields and changing electric fields. This is how electric motors and electric generators work.

As for an "energy rating" for water, if you're talking about burning 2H2 + O2 to get energy + 2H2O (water), then the "energy rating" of water is zero. Water is like the ashes left from a fire. You can't burn ashes. You can't burn water.

Oh, and a quick grammar hint, it is always wrong to make a word plural by adding an apostrophe in front of the "s". If you're making a word plural, look for an apostrophe. If you find one, it's wrong. I know this is way off-topic but struggling through bad grammar really slows down clear communication.

That is so typical to question a persons spelling/grammar! And your saying there is no sense to asking for an Electrical Formula because it is so well understood? (formula PLEASE!) And water is like ashes? Zero Energy?.. Explain even, only to me why I have two(2) working systems on my vehicle? Please..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charleh

I'm not sure how old BELOWIM or aztek are, but by the grammar and lack of understanding of even the fundamentals of sceince I can safely assume that they are either

a: Intentionally winding people up

b: Really very stupid

c: Pre-pubescent

I'm predisposed to choose a combination of b/c.

I think, Torgo/blizno, you are just wasting your time replying to these two - but it's interesting reading your posts as I have a keen interest in science (but unfortunately not much in the knowledge department!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Primeval

We need water to survive. NOT FOR WASTING!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
I'm not sure how old BELOWIM or aztek are, but by the grammar and lack of understanding of even the fundamentals of sceince I can safely assume that they are either

a: Intentionally winding people up

b: Really very stupid

c: Pre-pubescent

I'm predisposed to choose a combination of b/c.

I think, Torgo/blizno, you are just wasting your time replying to these two - but it's interesting reading your posts as I have a keen interest in science (but unfortunately not much in the knowledge department!)

and who might you be??

i think B describes you very good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atheist God
Sigh...

As has been repeatedly said in this thread and other threads, your alternators, no matter how powerful, will NEVER produce more energy than it takes to spin them. Your car may run as long as the batteries are splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, but the batteries WILL NOT be charged faster than they are depleted. In fact, because of the inefficiencies at every step of your process, you will find yourself stranded with drained batteries much faster than if you just used those same batteries to drive an electric motor propelling the car.

The energy coming out of an alternator is converted from the mechanical energy of the engine's spinning shaft. In an absolutely perfect world, you would have to put in one Watt of power from the engine to get one Watt of power out of the alternator. Since no process is perfectly efficient, you have to put in more than one Watt of power from the engine to get one Watt of power out of the alternator.

No watt power aside from spark plugs need to go into the engine.... Alternators convert mechanical into electrical power and can run a car even if you disconnect the battery.

Let me explain to you how it all works.

First the batteries start diffusion and get the engine going, this in turn starts the alternators which take over for the batteries to provide power to the diffusion tank. The byproduct of course is pure hydrogen gas which is sucked into the engine and burned. The burning of the hydrogen pushes the piston back up and so on etc.

You forget that the batteries and alternators are not the fuel source and as long as there is water in the tank the car will run just like a normal car would run as long as it has gas.

The batteries do not charge the water and diffuse it except the first time the car starts aside from that there will always be pressurized hydrogen in the tank to get your car started.

In a normal car as I said you can remove the battery once the car is started because gasoline is converted to mechanical energy which then powers an alternator and your car will keep running. I am using the same principles for my car.

You assume I'm talking about free energy etc which is not the case as the car can only run as long as their is water in the tank. As long as you don't run out of fuel you can keep going and seeing as how the water does boil away into pure oxygen and hydrogen it doesn't last forever.

Again I am not making a bull free energy claim as you make it out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BELOWIM
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:BiosFuel " When asked why such a phenomenal discovery has not come from academia, he responds that a lack of formal education has freed him from limitations in his thinking about what is or is not possible. If he had gone to university he'd have been reading textbooks that would tell him what was not possible and he'd likely have believed it. Without that influence, he explores options to find out on his own whether they work or not; he's trying things that others might immediately dismiss as impossible because they were taught that it could not be done. He has been working as an inventor for at least 5 years."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

atheistgod, belowim, don,t waste, your energy and proove anything to these nay sayers, nothing usefull ever came from them. they are not worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blizno
That is so typical to question a persons spelling/grammar! And your saying there is no sense to asking for an Electrical Formula because it is so well understood? (formula PLEASE!) And water is like ashes? Zero Energy?.. Explain even, only to me why I have two(2) working systems on my vehicle? Please..

Wahh, wahh, wahh. Learn to speak like an adult or else leave us alone.

As for your two "working systems"...

Give us evidence.

Your claim that you have achieved wonderful goals means nothing. Give us evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

^^why? what can you contribute besides negativity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blizno
That is so typical to question a persons spelling/grammar! And your saying there is no sense to asking for an Electrical Formula because it is so well understood? (formula PLEASE!) And water is like ashes? Zero Energy?.. Explain even, only to me why I have two(2) working systems on my vehicle? Please..

"...And your saying..."

"your" is the possessive form of "you". "your" simply refers to "something that belongs to you". This grunt makes no sense. "And my saying there is no sense...huh?"

I suspect that you mean to say, "..."And you're saying..."

"you're" is a contraction of "you are". "your" is NOT a contraction of "you are", no matter how vociferously you insist that it is.

English is a difficult language, with many words, many rules and many exceptions to those rules. The fact that you've decided that English is crap and you can do whatever you want does not affect the rest of the world in the slightest. Either learn to speak and write English or else shut up. You do not have the right to grunt in monosyllables and then expect anybody else to pay you the slightest heed. The rest of us learned how to speak. Catch up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blizno
That is so typical to question a persons spelling/grammar! And your saying there is no sense to asking for an Electrical Formula because it is so well understood? (formula PLEASE!) And water is like ashes? Zero Energy?.. Explain even, only to me why I have two(2) working systems on my vehicle? Please..

"...And your saying..."

"your" is the possessive form of "you". "your" simply refers to "something that belongs to you". Your grunt makes no sense.

I suspect that you mean to say, "..."And you're saying..."

"you're" is a contraction of "you are" and has no relation whatsoever to "your".

"your" is NOT a contraction of "you are", no matter how vociferously you pretend that it is.

English is a difficult language, with many words, many rules and many exceptions to those rules. The fact that you've decided that English is crap and you can do whatever you please does not affect the rest of the world in the slightest. Either learn to speak and write English or else shut up. You do not have the right to grunt in monosyllables and then expect anybody else to pay you the slightest heed. The rest of us learned how to speak. Catch up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange F8
"...And your saying..."

"your" is the possessive form of "you". "your" simply refers to "something that belongs to you". Your grunt makes no sense.

I suspect that you mean to say, "..."And you're saying..."

"you're" is a contraction of "you are" and has no relation whatsoever to "your".

"your" is NOT a contraction of "you are", no matter how vociferously you pretend that it is.

English is a difficult language, with many words, many rules and many exceptions to those rules. The fact that you've decided that English is crap and you can do whatever you please does not affect the rest of the world in the slightest. Either learn to speak and write English or else shut up. You do not have the right to grunt in monosyllables and then expect anybody else to pay you the slightest heed. The rest of us learned how to speak. Catch up.

While I can agee with the need for clear communication, you seem to have outright dismissed Belowim because of poor grammar. Challenge him to communicate better, but don't dismiss him. I wonder if you're just using that angle to dismiss him because you don't like what he is saying. Brilliant minds do not always excel in english, and those with excellent grammar are not necessarily the smartest or wisest. Personally I have a hard time understanding what Belowim is trying to say, but I sense there is some value to what he has to say. Belowim, I have some interest in what you have to say, but it would help if your communication was clearer.

I have a freind who served on a submarine in the navy. He told me one day when I was talking about the idea of operating a car on water that the US Navy uses electrolysis to power things on submarines and have for many years. The idea of running a car on water is not simply the ravings of lunatics. Perhaps if you applied the same energy and focus to making it work as you do to refuting it, you might just be the one to bring the NEEDED technology to the world. I would imagine that your perspective would be valuable to solve the problems if you just decided to go for it instead of saying it can't be done. What do you say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidCat

So, it appears that there are people here who, lacking the educational and intellectual properties necessary to either understand and/or refute the claims and statements made by certain others must attack language usage. As a commentary upon that, I might say that English just happens to be either a second language or none at all to a majority of the population of this world. If you must degrade yourselves by attack on those who speak English poorly, remember that the vast majority of scientists/mathematicians are not British. I might also add that a majority of those who are in the fields have some difficulty with both spelling and grammar. More often than not, my peers in engineering are poor at both spelling and grammar, but I certainly wouldn't hesitate to put any of them into direct competition in learning, intellect, and creativity with any of you who have made such attacks.

In attacking these people, you show only your own ignorance and egotism. If you don't like what they write, then you can disprove their statements by firstly learning enough about what they are doing to do your research; secondly, show in scientific and mathematical terms why those items will not work. To do nothing more than parrot old laws, possibly outmoded laws, and other laws about which you obviously know little is also indicative of your own ignorance.

I've personally had enough of nitwits who simply cannot do more than be those parrots, and when shoved off into the corner of being forced to show their own ignorance of the world of physics, resort to stupid attacks. So, if you can't come up with reasonable proof that backs your own statements, perhaps you should just shut up and let those of us who are willing do the work, since your statements and claims are little more than a waste of time.

And, for the record, having spent more than three decades in electronics engineering, I will state unequivocally that there is much that is yet to be discovered about electricity. All you get in your books is the basic theory. So you can calculate resistances and impedances and so forth; you cannot state why, for instance, an electromagnet exerts its forces on magnetic materials but at the same time does NOT convert the power that creates the force. Or, if you think you can, please do, for none of the hundreds of books I have read, studied, or used for teaching electronics has given even a rudimentary explanation. From this, you would easily gain my greatest respect; but be careful with your answer because this has been my career and I know the field well.

I am, incidentally, still awaiting the proof that my experiments with the toroidal alternator are not valid. There were supposed to be some "engineering friends" helping someone with that, but nothing has come forth. It would be quite interesting to know exactly why all the testing I've done is invalid, even when my instruments state this testing is valid.

I've also yet to have anyone who has built an Ecklin generator according to the patent show my why this generator will not perform as stated in the patent.

I've also yet to have anyone who has built a Gray motor facsimile show me why it doesn't work as stated in the patent. Or the Johnson motor. Or the MEG (which is similar in function, if not form, to the toroidal generator).

No one need come out and state that these devices have been debunked, since that will also be indicative that the debunkers are incapable of understanding the principles behind those devices. Period.

Edited by RabidCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AztecInca
The fact that you've decided that English is crap and you can do whatever you please does not affect the rest of the world in the slightest. Either learn to speak and write English or else shut up. You do not have the right to grunt in monosyllables and then expect anybody else to pay you the slightest heed. The rest of us learned how to speak. Catch up.

blizno this is not acceptable behaviour. Suggesting another member improve their grammar politely while continuing to put forth your argument is rather simple and is considered civilised discussion. Please do not attack another member over their spelling or grammar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange F8
So, it appears that there are people here who, lacking the educational and intellectual properties necessary to either understand and/or refute the claims and statements made by certain others must attack language usage. As a commentary upon that, I might say that English just happens to be either a second language or none at all to a majority of the population of this world. If you must degrade yourselves by attack on those who speak English poorly, remember that the vast majority of scientists/mathematicians are not British. I might also add that a majority of those who are in the fields have some difficulty with both spelling and grammar. More often than not, my peers in engineering are poor at both spelling and grammar, but I certainly wouldn't hesitate to put any of them into direct competition in learning, intellect, and creativity with any of you who have made such attacks.

In attacking these people, you show only your own ignorance and egotism. If you don't like what they write, then you can disprove their statements by firstly learning enough about what they are doing to do your research; secondly, show in scientific and mathematical terms why those items will not work. To do nothing more than parrot old laws, possibly outmoded laws, and other laws about which you obviously know little is also indicative of your own ignorance.

I've personally had enough of nitwits who simply cannot do more than be those parrots, and when shoved off into the corner of being forced to show their own ignorance of the world of physics, resort to stupid attacks. So, if you can't come up with reasonable proof that backs your own statements, perhaps you should just shut up and let those of us who are willing do the work, since your statements and claims are little more than a waste of time.

And, for the record, having spent more than three decades in electronics engineering, I will state unequivocally that there is much that is yet to be discovered about electricity. All you get in your books is the basic theory. So you can calculate resistances and impedances and so forth; you cannot state why, for instance, an electromagnet exerts its forces on magnetic materials but at the same time does NOT convert the power that creates the force. Or, if you think you can, please do, for none of the hundreds of books I have read, studied, or used for teaching electronics has given even a rudimentary explanation. From this, you would easily gain my greatest respect; but be careful with your answer because this has been my career and I know the field well.

I am, incidentally, still awaiting the proof that my experiments with the toroidal alternator are not valid. There were supposed to be some "engineering friends" helping someone with that, but nothing has come forth. It would be quite interesting to know exactly why all the testing I've done is invalid, even when my instruments state this testing is valid.

I've also yet to have anyone who has built an Ecklin generator according to the patent show my why this generator will not perform as stated in the patent.

I've also yet to have anyone who has built a Gray motor facsimile show me why it doesn't work as stated in the patent. Or the Johnson motor. Or the MEG (which is similar in function, if not form, to the toroidal generator).

No one need come out and state that these devices have been debunked, since that will also be indicative that the debunkers are incapable of understanding the principles behind those devices. Period.

I applaud your efforts. Hopefully you won't become discouraged from all the flack you must get from skeptics. While I feel skepticism has a valid part to play in all of this, it appears that no progress would be made at all if left to skeptics. We'd still be on horseback, using kerosene lanterns and sending mail via Pony Express. Ya know, in some ways that might not be so bad, but I could not live without my computer, wide screen hi def TV, and especially my music collection (and I wouldn't want to clean up after the horse either).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidCat
I applaud your efforts. Hopefully you won't become discouraged from all the flack you must get from skeptics. While I feel skepticism has a valid part to play in all of this, it appears that no progress would be made at all if left to skeptics. We'd still be on horseback, using kerosene lanterns and sending mail via Pony Express. Ya know, in some ways that might not be so bad, but I could not live without my computer, wide screen hi def TV, and especially my music collection (and I wouldn't want to clean up after the horse either).

Thank you Strange. I agree with you that skepticism is necessary, but many skeptics take their position way too far. As stated there are many aspects that are either not yet fully understood or are dismissed out-of-hand because they appear to violate the theory.

Also as stated, these things are best left to research by the fringe elements, since many of us are not bound by the conceptual restraints imposed by mainstream and academia. We are making progress, and more and more little advances are being publicized. See my latest in future energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Torgo

Phew, I'm back after another load of crap I've had to deal with the last couple days.

Anyways I'd like to address a few things that've come up in this thread since I've last looked.

Can we all lighten up on the grammar stuff? It just makes us all look like nitpicking idiots.

You assume I'm talking about free energy etc which is not the case as the car can only run as long as their is water in the tank. As long as you don't run out of fuel you can keep going and seeing as how the water does boil away into pure oxygen and hydrogen it doesn't last forever.

I'm afraid that it seems to me the system you described can only run for so long off its initial charge from the batteries. When you initially electrolyze the water you are storing the electricity in the chemical bonds of the hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Burning it in the engine releases this performing mechanical work on the axles and such that the engine turns - including the alternator. This alternator WILL convert a portion of the energy released by burning the hydrogen and oxygen back into electrical energy - but some will INEVITABLY be lost as heat in the engine, and if the engine moves the car more will be lost to mechanical work. You simply can't regenerate the TOTAL amount of electricity you put into making the hydrogen/oxygen mix in the first place. Kudos for recapturing some of the energy - its like a gasoline-hybrid car that gets much better gas mileage, except this is a hydrogen-hybrid car. It recaptures SOME of the energy that would normally be wasted from the combustion reaction and uses it to electrolyze more hydrogen. However, after a few cycles it will inevitably wind down as less and less hydrogen is regenerated with each cycling of material through the engine. Ultimately you are simply producing a more efficient hydrogen-combustion engine, and you WILL need to recharge it with more electolysis electricity at intervals.

you cannot state why, for instance, an electromagnet exerts its forces on magnetic materials but at the same time does NOT convert the power that creates the force. Or, if you think you can, please do, for none of the hundreds of books I have read, studied, or used for teaching electronics has given even a rudimentary explanation.

I assume here you're talking about how the presence of a magnetic field around any electric current does not sap energy from it by virtue of simply existing. Since you would appear to know a good deal about electromagnetism, I'll just restate a brief explanation of the basics of how electric current and magnetism interact for the benefit of others:

For reasons which are really awesomely cool but would take a bit long to get into here, a moving electrical charge generates a magnetic field. For a wire the field is circular around the wire, but by coiling wires you can make the field assume useful shapes. In any case, this does not require energy, it is just a byproduct of moving charges. When another charged particle moves through the field or the field moves over stationary charged particles (its all relative) the particle experiences a force perpendicular to both the direction of motion and the lines of force of the magnetic field.

This is all well and good - but here comes something that I think is the solution to the issue you bring up. There is a side-effect of this: The charged particle that has been accelerated is now moving itself! This means it is generating its own magnetic field. This magnetic field will be in the opposite direction to the field produced by the initial current, and acts to slow the charges moving within that current. SO, whenever a current generates a magnetic field and moves a charge, that charge acts back on the initial magnetic field.

This means that the current going through an electromagnet encounters increasing drain as it performs more and more work (weather that is moving a magnetic object or creating another electrical current), preserving the conservation of energy. It is also the reason that motors experience drag and need to be constantly pushed by some sort of engine/turbine/whatever rather than generating endless electricity. THEREFORE, only in the ABSENCE OF DOING ANY WORK do magnetic fields not "drain the energy of the current that produces it".

I hope this makes sense to people! :)

Edited by Torgo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidCat
This is all well and good - but here comes something that I think is the solution to the issue you bring up. There is a side-effect of this: The charged particle that has been accelerated is now moving itself! This means it is generating its own magnetic field. This magnetic field will be in the opposite direction to the field produced by the initial current, and acts to slow the charges moving within that current. SO, whenever a current generates a magnetic field and moves a charge, that charge acts back on the initial magnetic field.

This means that the current going through an electromagnet encounters increasing drain as it performs more and more work (weather that is moving a magnetic object or creating another electrical current), preserving the conservation of energy. It is also the reason that motors experience drag and need to be constantly pushed by some sort of engine/turbine/whatever rather than generating endless electricity. THEREFORE, only in the ABSENCE OF DOING ANY WORK do magnetic fields not "drain the energy of the current that produces it".

What you say is not strictly true. The back emf encountered is due to the construction of the field when it is a wound electromagnet. That back emf will exist ONLY until the field has stabilized, at which time it will disappear. An example of this is the specific method Tesla used to wind certain of his coils such that no back emf existed.

Now, that said, once the e-magnet has stabilized, there is no back emf, and the magnet can continue to exert its force with no further back emf. Further, once the field is established, or partially established, [now this is important] if the circuit is broken the equivalent to the back emf will force continuation of current flow through the circuit until the field has completely collapsed. This continuation is equal to the power required to make the field in the first place, less the copper and flux losses, usually not very large, and properly constructed, minimal.

Now consider this, and consider it well, without resort to laws that may (probably will) become invalid: If the field being produced is used to cause mechanical motion only to the extent of that tau before stabilization (let's say 67% tau) and then the circuit is opened, almost all of the power used to make the field is recoverable. Whether physics likes this or not, it is easily reproducible, and it happens billions of times every day. Simplistically, the operation is like this: current flows and makes an increasingly intense H field, and incidentally causing mechanical motion, then circuits open, leaving the field to collapse; during the collapse, other passive circuitry steers the current through a recovery system until collapse is complete. What happens then is that the whole thing has gone into a static state except for the mechanical forces exerted, assuming that the mechanical aspect is a movable device. What is left is the imparted motion plus the recovered current. Obviously, the greater the field produced, the greater the mechanical force, as can be seen within any switched reluctance motor or solenoid. Keeping in mind that a greater field also produces similar power out for power in, it becomes very easy to see that a quite powerful mechanical device can be made utilizing these properties (since switched reluctance motors are in use everywhere).

So, you figure it out: what is the next step? I've made the next step many times, and I know it works; take it from here, and you yourself can find an interesting phenomenon that stretches your imagination, and appears to defy your current understanding of the laws of physics.

All of the above is within standard textbooks. What is NOT is that it is possible to recover the power. However, remember that older radio circuits made extensive use of the above properties, and so this isn't new, just reapplication of knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atheist God
I'm afraid that it seems to me the system you described can only run for so long off its initial charge from the batteries. When you initially electrolyze the water you are storing the electricity in the chemical bonds of the hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Burning it in the engine releases this performing mechanical work on the axles and such that the engine turns - including the alternator. This alternator WILL convert a portion of the energy released by burning the hydrogen and oxygen back into electrical energy - but some will INEVITABLY be lost as heat in the engine, and if the engine moves the car more will be lost to mechanical work. You simply can't regenerate the TOTAL amount of electricity you put into making the hydrogen/oxygen mix in the first place. Kudos for recapturing some of the energy - its like a gasoline-hybrid car that gets much better gas mileage, except this is a hydrogen-hybrid car. It recaptures SOME of the energy that would normally be wasted from the combustion reaction and uses it to electrolyze more hydrogen. However, after a few cycles it will inevitably wind down as less and less hydrogen is regenerated with each cycling of material through the engine. Ultimately you are simply producing a more efficient hydrogen-combustion engine, and you WILL need to recharge it with more electolysis electricity at intervals.

While there are current flaws in my design as well as mistakes and no doubt about it I strive to achieve the maximum efficiency i can. I and my friends have been working on this for years and I am sure many years to come hammering out our mistakes and design flaws as they come up.

Of course I will never get 100% efficiency but that's not really the point, the point is to make it as efficient as possible and to make a car run on water. Gas is about 35% efficient and I want at least 50 or 60% or more if i can per gallon of water used.... You would be surprised at how much electricity you can make with the alternators.

As to how it works your not storing the electricity in chemical bonds you are using it to separate chemical bonds mainly hydrogen from oxygen, this is then converted into mechanical energy which is converted to motion and electricity which then keeps the current in the water going and charges the batteries at the same time... The goal is to capture as much of the mechanical energy that i can to convert to electricity w/o sacrificing the cars performance to create an equilibrium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
promKing

Look at this cool electric car:

ZAP and Lotus are utilizing the award-winning APX lightweight aluminum architecture design to achieve unprecedented levels of performance and utility for electric cars. The drive system alone is enough to excite driving fanatics, featuring an innovative all-wheel drive option with revolutionary electric motors inside each of the wheels, potentially delivering 644 horsepower and speeds up to 155mph. An advanced battery system will enable the car to travel a range up to 350 miles between charges, with a rapid charge technology that can recharge the batteries in as little as 10 minutes.

http://www.zapworld.com/electric-vehicles/...tric-cars/zap-x

Edited by promKing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.