PDA

View Full Version : Stan Meyer's built a car than runs entirely on water.




WarDog
06-06-2008, 08:44 PM
This is interisting and i have been looking into this. If any of you know for fact that this works please let us know


http://easygrowhouseplants.blogspot.com/2006/12/inventor-of-water-powered-car-murdered.html


http://www.waterfuelsecretguides.com/?tid=wfl1901&gclid=CIOehfGo4ZMCFSQWiQodPjOfWQ

forsmant
06-06-2008, 09:00 PM
Did he get murdered yet?

OptionsTrader
06-06-2008, 09:05 PM
Of course it doesn't.

OptionsTrader
06-06-2008, 09:06 PM
Chemistry and Physics should be mandatory in highschool.

driller80545
06-06-2008, 09:17 PM
Of course it doesn't.

Is this simple cynicism or do you have some experience with this?

ARealConservative
06-06-2008, 09:22 PM
Is this simple cynicism or do you have some experience with this?

I understand how capitalism works.

every service station in the country would be running $399 specials right now to upgrade your car to run on water.

driller80545
06-06-2008, 09:24 PM
I understand how capitalism works.

every service station in the country would be running $399 specials right now to upgrade your car to run on water.

They would be if enough cars had been converted. Same with natural gas.

torchbearer
06-06-2008, 09:31 PM
Question, if cars ran on water... would there be any short-term or long term consequences to our drinkable water supply?

electronicmaji
06-06-2008, 09:31 PM
They would be if enough cars had been converted. Same with natural gas.

No he means conversion would cost 400 dollars. These things are fake; you can't build a car to run on water. It runs on hydrogen made from breaking the water into oxygen and hydrogen; but the process it takes to break that link takes more energy that it puts out. Its fake mon.

torchbearer
06-06-2008, 09:32 PM
Solar powered electrolysis would be ok, but its not quick and there is no good way to store the hydrogen that wouldn't require a lot of power to condense it.

driller80545
06-06-2008, 09:41 PM
No he means conversion would cost 400 dollars. These things are fake; you can't build a car to run on water. It runs on hydrogen made from breaking the water into oxygen and hydrogen; but the process it takes to break that link takes more energy that it puts out. Its fake mon.

I suspect that you are right, but do you have proof or is this just the prevailing attitude towards something new. I have found some pretty interesting info about why and how it works, but all I have found negative is just someone saying "it won't work". Is this negative attitude a detriment to alternative energy in general, or just practical realism?

pcosmar
06-06-2008, 09:52 PM
Question, if cars ran on water... would there be any short-term or long term consequences to our drinkable water supply?

NO. When Hydrogen and oxygen burn they produce water vapor.


Solar powered electrolysis would be ok, but its not quick and there is no good way to store the hydrogen that wouldn't require a lot of power to condense it.

Bingo. You could not produce hydrogen to run on. Electrolysis works. Hydrogen works.
The problem is in efficient transfer of energy.
Until Hydrogen can be efficiently produced and packaged/delivered it will not be practical.

driller80545
06-06-2008, 09:57 PM
Makes sense. I wonder how practical oil is after factoring drilling, shipping, storing, refining, distribution, etc. into the equation. I would think that the efficiency quotient gap is closing in on some of these other products.

pcosmar
06-06-2008, 10:06 PM
Makes sense. I wonder how practical oil is after factoring drilling, shipping, storing, refining, distribution, etc. into the equation. I would think that the efficiency quotient gap is closing in on some of these other products.

Probably so. I am sure some technology has been repressed over the years to protect profits.
I have been in favor of Hydrogen for over 30 years (they used to call me crazy) and I am glad to see movement in that direction.

I have in the past, suggested Nuclear plants off shore on both coasts producing Hydrogen for fuel and running desalination plants for fresh water. Both California and Florida would benefit.

But what do I know. I'm crazy.

Allen72289
06-06-2008, 10:12 PM
Probably so. I am sure some technology has been repressed over the years to protect profits.
I have been in favor of Hydrogen for over 30 years (they used to call me crazy) and I am glad to see movement in that direction.

I have in the past, suggested Nuclear plants off shore on both coasts producing Hydrogen for fuel and running desalination plants for fresh water. Both California and Florida would benefit.

But what do I know. I'm crazy.

Where ya' gonna get the funding to store the nuclear waste for 245 thousand years?

'Short term nuclear sounds great, long term it is the most expensive fuel.

Then there are the chances of radioactive meltdowns and what not.

driller80545
06-06-2008, 10:16 PM
The price of oil and gasoline has got to open some doors. I also think that the technology is there and being repressed and has been for a long time. That is why I was questioning the above posters about this water engine.
Nuclear subs refuel once every twenty five years, I want a car like that!

WarDog
06-06-2008, 10:16 PM
http://www.katu.com/news/specialreports/19157944.html?video=YHI&t=a

Carehn
06-06-2008, 10:18 PM
I suspect that you are right, but do you have proof or is this just the prevailing attitude towards something new. I have found some pretty interesting info about why and how it works, but all I have found negative is just someone saying "it won't work". Is this negative attitude a detriment to alternative energy in general, or just practical realism?


The laws of thermodynamics would be a start. This will explain way hot air moves around in a box and why Leonardo D. gave up on PERPETUAL MOTION.

Perpetual motion 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJJrjDI5xSQ)

perpetual motion 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us7YB7eiOeQ)

pcosmar
06-06-2008, 10:21 PM
Where ya' gonna get the funding to store the nuclear waste for 245 thousand years?

'Short term nuclear sounds great, long term it is the most expensive fuel.

Then there are the chances of radioactive meltdowns and what not.

The waste "problem" is being poorly handled,IMO.
We have the technology to launch it into the Sun. That would be permanent disposal.
Some can be recycled and used in other ways.

There are hundreds of nuclear plants that have been running for decades with no safety problems.
It NEEDS to be handled safely, and it can be.

driller80545
06-06-2008, 10:30 PM
I agree that nuclear power use should be expanded and not just for creating electricity

pcosmar
06-06-2008, 10:38 PM
I have been out of school for a long time, and this is not my area of expertise. I would like some chemists to chime in. This looks like an interesting concept.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Hydrogen_from_Water_using_Boron
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

It would still require an infrastructure adjustment, but looks promising.

driller80545
06-06-2008, 10:45 PM
One of the water engines that I read about recently was talking about using boron as a catalyst and also baking soda. I am not a chemist and don't want to be, but their engine was running fine. I am sure that without pessimism that these alternatives can be developed if people demand it. Right now, I think the public just considers them inconvenient. My hope is that with the huge rise in the price of gas that a market will be created for all of these alternatives and that way we can find out first hand what works best. It is high time for it.

electronicmaji
06-06-2008, 10:54 PM
Water engines are just pointless....complete circles

You are using electricity to break apart hydrogen and oxygen molecules and the fueling the car with the hydrogen molecules. Why not just fuel the car using electricity? You lose nearly half of your energy in splitting apart the molecules. Its inifficient; there will never be a way to make effiicient. Basic science. It takes more energy to break apart the two molecules of hydrogen from the water then the two molecules of hydrogen contain. It's that simple.

driller80545
06-06-2008, 11:01 PM
In the oilfield where I work they have a saying: Can't never could.

OptionsTrader
06-06-2008, 11:33 PM
Water engines are just pointless....complete circles

You are using electricity to break apart hydrogen and oxygen molecules and the fueling the car with the hydrogen molecules. Why not just fuel the car using electricity? You lose nearly half of your energy in splitting apart the molecules. Its inifficient; there will never be a way to make effiicient. Basic science. It takes more energy to break apart the two molecules of hydrogen from the water then the two molecules of hydrogen contain. It's that simple.

Newton would be proud. If there is any justice in this universe, let this thread and the myriad like it die with this post.

pcosmar
06-07-2008, 07:21 AM
Newton would be proud. If there is any justice in this universe, let this thread and the myriad like it die with this post.

Rather than dismissing a viable alternative energy, wouldn't ist be better to debunk the junk science and present factual information.
We are talking about energy storage and retrieval.
Fossil fuels are an energy storage medium and have been used because of their abundance.
Batteries need regular recharging. They are heavy and as yet inefficient.
Hydrogen is available and can be used several ways (internal combustion/fuel cells) but has not been developed.
I am glad to see research and development in this area.
http://www.geocities.com/hydrogenpower1/essays/main/hydrogen.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4199381.html

Allen72289
06-07-2008, 07:28 AM
Water engines are just pointless....complete circles

You are using electricity to break apart hydrogen and oxygen molecules and the fueling the car with the hydrogen molecules. Why not just fuel the car using electricity? You lose nearly half of your energy in splitting apart the molecules. Its inifficient; there will never be a way to make effiicient. Basic science. It takes more energy to break apart the two molecules of hydrogen from the water then the two molecules of hydrogen contain. It's that simple.

I bet hydrogen splitting is more efficient than electric vehicles.

Why?

Weight
Cost of Batteries
Power loss through transferring energy to the battery pack and finally to the drivetrain will lose about 20-60% of it's energy.

Pcosmar, how much would it cost to launch nuclear waste into the sun?

Ethanol is the most practical fuel given that you use switch grass (no chemicals need, perennial, restores nutrients to the soil unlike corn, can be used as feedstock for cattle after fermenting and produces double the fuel per acre)

Given that you use solar heat collectors you could distill ethanol with the sun's heat alone. FREE. ZERO COST. CHEAP ETHANOL.

The farmer would have to setup a fuel station at his farm in order to eliminate transportation energy cost.

That's why the main stream media hates ethanol.

'cause the big ol' corporate farmers can't produce it and ship it 1000 miles and still turn a profit.

pcosmar
06-07-2008, 07:43 AM
I bet hydrogen splitting is more efficient than electric vehicles.

Why?

Weight
Cost of Batteries
Power loss through transferring energy to the battery pack and finally to the drivetrain will lose about 20-60% of it's energy.

Pcosmar, how much would it cost to launch nuclear waste into the sun?

Ethanol is the most practical fuel given that you use switch grass (no chemicals need, perennial, restores nutrients to the soil unlike corn, can be used as feedstock for cattle after fermenting and produces double the fuel per acre)

Given that you use solar heat collectors you could distill ethanol with the sun's heat alone. FREE. ZERO COST. CHEAP ETHANOL.

The farmer would have to setup a fuel station at his farm in order to eliminate transportation energy cost.

That's why the main stream media hates ethanol.

'cause the big ol' corporate farmers can't produce it and ship it 1000 miles and still turn a profit.
I don't know the actual cost of launching the waste, but I suspect that it would be less than long term storage and maintenance.
As far as ethanol, I believe it has a place and uses also. I think several fuel sources should be explored. I am not sure that it alone could be produced in the massive quantities needed to provide enough power for all. (cooking,heat,transportation). But in some areas it could provide a good portion of energy needs. I would also love to see solar power used more in areas where it is abundant. Not much help at my latitude though, or in areas with regular cloud cover.
There are many options that have not been explored/exploited.