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 -

Car that runs on water


promKing
 Share

Recommended Posts

promKing, I Admire your take on Electric Vehicles, BUT you started this tread on Water Powered Cars, I AM DEVOTED to this technology, I hAve Already EXplained; I Run this Tech. I also stated not 100% because I,m Alive? THE Others Arnt? I Run WATER Injection/ATOMisation Plus Without scientific terms the breaking down of WATER to its gases to POWER Engines, Apart from that I<I<I>I Use Reich Technology (Thats W REICH) I POWER Motors <I Power...SIMPLE CHEMICAL EQUATION????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • DieChecker

    16

  • promKing

    17

  • BELOWIM

    40

  • Torgo

    18

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."

The wiki article seemed to me that he is not "burning" the water as a fuel. It is whatever he is doing, or adding, to the water that causes it to contain more energy. Water is a powerful solvant and can hold a lot of matter or energy suspended in it.

It seems the water is not the fuel. It is the carrying agent.

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.

So your engine takes water and breaks it into oxygen and hydrogen and then out gases those? Or does it use burning the hydrogen/oxygen gas to provide the power. If it is using the hydrogen/oxygen to provide power, then how do you crack the water? Somewhere there has to more energy added. (electricicty or pressure or heat) Sorry if I am being ignorant. I do have a Mechanical Engineering degree and have been hammered to believe in concervation of energy/heat.

Also I agree with Torgo that frictions and heat losses in wiring and the engine will definately cut into any power production. It is not possible to get more then 100% energy return on a engine's output. The mentioned losses will occur even with a 100% return on the alternator, decreasing the electrical output, or work done, over time.

I am a believer in hydrogen tech and think it will be an excellent fuel source if it can be made idiot proof enough for Joe Consumer. Solar and wind power could easily be used to crack water and provide hydrogen for cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wiki article seemed to me that he is not "burning" the water as a fuel. It is whatever he is doing, or adding, to the water that causes it to contain more energy. Water is a powerful solvant and can hold a lot of matter or energy suspended in it.

It seems the water is not the fuel. It is the carrying agent.

This seems to make it more clear...

Options include conversion to Hydrogen for power supply, Fuel savers such as the

Eco Tube for reducing environmental impact and transport costs, Bio Fuels for combustion applications and ultimately complete conversion to Hydrogen Enriched Water for all energy requirements.

From http://biosfuel.org/products.html

(Linked from http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:BiosFuel)

They are probably using some kind of hydrogen suspended in the water. Probably to make it a lot safer for Joe Consumer. That is a good idea! :tu: But still you are not using the water as fuel it is the hydrogen in the water that is the fuel. You still need outside energy to initially process the hydrogen into the water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your engine takes water and breaks it into oxygen and hydrogen and then out gases those? Or does it use burning the hydrogen/oxygen gas to provide the power. If it is using the hydrogen/oxygen to provide power, then how do you crack the water? Somewhere there has to more energy added. (electricicty or pressure or heat) Sorry if I am being ignorant. I do have a Mechanical Engineering degree and have been hammered to believe in concervation of energy/heat.

It burns the gases the same way it would burn gas converting it to mechanical energy. This mechanical energy runs the alternators which produce electricity fed directly back into the diffusion system.

Also I agree with Torgo that frictions and heat losses in wiring and the engine will definately cut into any power production. It is not possible to get more then 100% energy return on a engine's output. The mentioned losses will occur even with a 100% return on the alternator, decreasing the electrical output, or work done, over time.

If you read my other posts I never claim a 100% efficiency rating more or less I expect it to be in 50% to 60% range although after a few more years it would be nice to hammer out a smooth 70 or 80% efficiency. Torgo assumes I expect a 100% efficiency rating even though I never said that although I did say it would be more efficient then gasoline.

I am a believer in hydrogen tech and think it will be an excellent fuel source if it can be made idiot proof enough for Joe Consumer. Solar and wind power could easily be used to crack water and provide hydrogen for cars.

Well this is my goal and I have thought of other power sources besides batteries and alternators like solar and I am currently working a way to generate more power by using the motion of the car. The faster it goes the more electricity generated to squeeze out as much power possible for it to run.

While I don't think I will make big money of of the car itself I am hoping some of the components I have designed will be bought and utilized my major auto makers. In the end I am after the money and if I can do so in the green market I'm going to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I don't know what happened. I wrote several emotional responses, after my initial response, and intended to delete them all. It was pure venting on my part and I never intended that anybody else would ever read those vents. I must have clicked something by mistake and posted the vents instead of deleting them.

My bad.

I agree with everyone who has said that emotional ranting achieves nothing. I was letting off steam and I'm sorry that I accidentally forced anybody else to see my rants.

I stand by my initial response though. Communicating clearly is indeed important and is even more important when discussing difficult questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

I did not intend to imply that I was dismissing Belowim because of poor grammar. I was trying to request that he write more clearly so that we could have an easier and deeper conversation. I spoke harshly, which I regret. Belowim, I am sorry for being rude.

As for an atomic submarine making oxygen out of sea water, it does so by converting some of the energy from the atomic pile into electricity and using that electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. It takes a great deal of energy from the atomic pile to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen, in fact at least as much energy (more energy in the real world) than you could ever get back by burning that same hydrogen and oxygen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

We all agree on this point. However, you don't seem to understand that you have to use more energy to create that "strong current" than you can possibly get back by burning the resulting hydrogen and oxygen.

Burn enough hydrogen and oxygen in your engine to get one Watt-hour of electricity out of the alternator. Use every bit of that electricity to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen and you'll get about a third as much hydrogen and oxygen as you originally spent making the electricity.

I don't know the efficiency of a hydrogen/oxygen internal combustion engine, but a gasoline/air internal combustion engine is about 35%-40% efficient, max. Nobody has ever made a gasoline/air engine more efficient that that in a century or so of trying. That includes the military who would certainly do anything they could to reduce their need to ship millions of gallons of fuel to war zones.

"Engine Efficiency

The efficiency of various types of internal combustion engines varies, but it is lower than electric motor energy efficiency. Most gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines, even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, have a mechanical efficiency of about 20% [1][2]. The efficiency may be as high as 37% at the optimum operating point. Most internal combustion engines waste about 36% of the energy in gasoline as heat lost to the cooling system and another 38% through the exhaust. The rest, about 6%, is lost to friction."

That means that two thirds of the energy going into a gasoline/air engine is lost. Only one third gets to the crankshaft.

As I understand it, a good hydrogen/air fuel cell will be much more efficient than a hydrogen/air internal combustion engine. No matter what, though, it will still require more energy to produce the hydrogen than can ever be gotten back by burning it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AtheistGod, Im not going to go too deep here , but I,ll mention if you burn/change the composition of WATER you will only EVER END up at the original Equation(you can neither CREATE or DESTROY EnerGy) KeepThis in mind, By a reverse recycling, and tis all ready pre heated? To fluctuate the frequency rotate the MASS!!! Please I understand your plight, I also fear for your safety! Do not store,. :use any gained energy before shut down! If you pm me I will relay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Die Checker "The wiki article seemed to me that he is not "burning" the water as a fuel. It is whatever he is doing, or adding, to the water that causes it to contain more energy. Water is a powerful solvant and can hold a lot of matter or energy suspended in it.

It seems the water is not the fuel. It is the carrying agent." GOOD CALL, GRAND CALL, THAT IS BRILLIANT DieChecker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You are a Legend, Thank You...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is hydrogen technology then why don't they just call it hydrogen technology. Why do they have to say "It runs on WATER!!!"

Is it just for the sensationalism? To stir up controversy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The department of Energy has released papers which state that the Energy of water far surpasses that of gasoline which is a very poor fuel! I,ll find a link for future reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern hydrocarbon fuels use pressure combined with a spark... heat, to ignite the fuel and cause an expansion of vapors, right? How would a water burning engine work. A larger amount of electricity, or perhaps a high mechanical pressure, is needed to break down the water and I suspect that the energy needed is more then can be retrieved from burning the hydrogen and oxygen produced.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfue..._processes.html

Is this what you are talking about?

If so, then it is still hydrogen technology. It also needs a lot of electricity to work, and likely is not scaled down to fit in the engine compartment of a car... yet.

There is interesting articles on exotic materials reacting to light to produce hydrogen and biological manufactured hydorgen, but these are also too little advanced to provide enough hydrogen to run anything for long. At least not without waiting a good long time for your hydrogen fuel cell to fill up.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfue...biological.html

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfue...rochemical.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DieChecker, LOL I,m not smart enough to reply! I,ll let my secret ary from now on, Reply for me! All good She Smarter than You?!......I,m BELOWIMS Secretary,"Energy Is Not Consumed , IS converted!Is Proven! THEM / I/ Have Validity,Reaction , Metabolic, Cataclysmist,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The electrodes are vibrated with a 0.5-5A electrical pulse which breaks 2(H2O) => 2H2 + O2. When the pressure reaches say 30-60 psi, you turn the key and go. The diagrams show a simple circuit to control and drive this mini-system. You are going to make a 'square-pulse' signal that 'plays' the electrodes like a tuning fork; which you can watch on an oscilloscope. The premise given by the literature is: the faster you want do go down the road, the 'fatter' you make the pulses going into the reaction chamber. Duty cycle will vary with the throttle in the vicinity of 90%MARK 10%SPACE (OFF/ON).

There is nothing sacred about how the pulse waveform is generated; there are many ways to generate pulses, and the attached diagrams show a few. The diagram shows the NE555-circuit approach from the referenced patent. The output switching transistor must be rated for 1-5 amps @ 12VDC (in saturation).

You will want to get your chamber level sensor verified before you epoxy the cap on. If you have a throttle position sensor, you should be able to access the signal from the sensor itself OR from the computer connector. This signal is input to the circuit as the primary control (i.e. throttle level = pulse width = vapor rate). You will be using this voltage swing to generate a 10% ON 'square' pulse. The patent implies using a 'resonant' pulse in the 10-250 KHz frequency range; but it is not explicitly stated so. tune to whatever frequency , Monitor your engine temp with the CHT (cylinder head temp) or EGT (exhaust gas temp) Always use an output transistor, such as a MOSFET, that is rated for the voltage and current you need to get the job done

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you get any engine knock our loud combustions (not compensated by adjusting the timing), it means that you need to install an additional coil in the chamber, and drive the coil with an additional pulse signal (about 19 Hz on the .1sec time base (see diagram). Here, you will be slowing down the burn rate just enough so that the vapors burn thru out the power stroke of the piston. Be sure to include a board-mount POT to set the correct strength of this 2nd pulse signal into the coil. This is a stainless steel coil of about 1500 turns (thin wire) that you can arrange like a donut around the center pipe (but NOT touching either electrode), directly over the circular 1-5mm gap. You want no knocking at any power/throttle setting; smooth power only, but also no excess hydrogen leftover from the combustion.

Always watch your chamber pressure range from IDLE (15-25 psi) - FULL POWER (30-60 psi). Set your safety-pressure relief-valve to 75 psi and make sure it's rated for much higher, Do you use an intermediate reaction cham,ber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you want to put a pulsed signal through a stainless steel coil ? Why not DC ? After all, the only reason for putting a pulse through a coil is to generate an electromagnetic field... but this won't work with stainless steel.

What am I saying ? The entire concept is flawed from day 1. You can't make a car that uses water as a fuel source.

Meow Purr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look I,m replying Now ship-cat Fully, I just been Banned outta chat for revelance? Hang in there or send me your mail address I,m I,m sure yuume getting banned for realism so be Quick, and you too AtheistGod? And RAbIdCAt??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Build the car. Prove it works. Hold a press conference. Become richer than Bill Gates.

Meow Purr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ships-cat, were working on this trust me. Input is good we are cracking the code! Pervailing to cradk the secret, LOL,LOL,LOL,

In th meantime I can vibrate the resonance,to the Tune of ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...trust me,....

No. You are making a fantastic claim that hundreds of years of science has proven cannot possibly work.

We will not simply trust you. You must provide evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In th meantime I can vibrate the resonance,to the Tune of ??

What? What are you trying to say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The electrodes are vibrated with a 0.5-5A electrical pulse which breaks 2(H2O) => 2H2 + O2. When the pressure reaches say 30-60 psi, you turn the key and go. The diagrams show a simple circuit to control and drive this mini-system. You are going to make a 'square-pulse' signal that 'plays' the electrodes like a tuning fork; which you can watch on an oscilloscope. The premise given by the literature is: the faster you want do go down the road, the 'fatter' you make the pulses going into the reaction chamber. Duty cycle will vary with the throttle in the vicinity of 90%MARK 10%SPACE (OFF/ON).

There is nothing sacred about how the pulse waveform is generated; there are many ways to generate pulses, and the attached diagrams show a few. The diagram shows the NE555-circuit approach from the referenced patent. The output switching transistor must be rated for 1-5 amps @ 12VDC (in saturation).

You will want to get your chamber level sensor verified before you epoxy the cap on. If you have a throttle position sensor, you should be able to access the signal from the sensor itself OR from the computer connector. This signal is input to the circuit as the primary control (i.e. throttle level = pulse width = vapor rate). You will be using this voltage swing to generate a 10% ON 'square' pulse. The patent implies using a 'resonant' pulse in the 10-250 KHz frequency range; but it is not explicitly stated so. tune to whatever frequency , Monitor your engine temp with the CHT (cylinder head temp) or EGT (exhaust gas temp) Always use an output transistor, such as a MOSFET, that is rated for the voltage and current you need to get the job done

The principle behind this is very interesting. Innovative. Using a high frequency electical signal to the electrodes to increase the yield of hydrogen is worth looking at, I would say.

So it will run as long at there is water and as long as the electrodes are charged? What kind of milage does it get? (L/km)

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote BELOWIM "The electrodes are vibrated with a 0.5-5A electrical pulse which breaks 2(H2O) => 2H2 + O2. When the pressure reaches say 30-60 psi, you turn the key and go. The diagrams show a simple circuit to control and drive this mini-system. You are going to make a 'square-pulse' signal that 'plays' the electrodes like a tuning fork; which you can watch on an oscilloscope. The premise given by the literature is: the faster you want do go down the road, the 'fatter' you make the pulses going into the reaction chamber. Duty cycle will vary with the throttle in the vicinity of 90%MARK 10%SPACE (OFF/ON).

There is nothing sacred about how the pulse waveform is generated; there are many ways to generate pulses, and the attached diagrams show a few. The diagram shows the NE555-circuit approach from the referenced patent. The output switching transistor must be rated for 1-5 amps @ 12VDC (in saturation).

You will want to get your chamber level sensor verified before you epoxy the cap on. If you have a throttle position sensor, you should be able to access the signal from the sensor itself OR from the computer connector. This signal is input to the circuit as the primary control (i.e. throttle level = pulse width = vapor rate). You will be using this voltage swing to generate a 10% ON 'square' pulse. The patent implies using a 'resonant' pulse in the 10-250 KHz frequency range; but it is not explicitly stated so. tune to whatever frequency , Monitor your engine temp with the CHT (cylinder head temp) or EGT (exhaust gas temp) Always use an output transistor, such as a MOSFET, that is rated for the voltage and current you need to get the job done " You sound like a smart cookie ,could you PLEASE give more info as I,m very interested. Have you Plans? I shown this to an electrical engineer and he did,nt pick any problems just wandered off shaking his head?.. More Please.

Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.