[nofkayalk]

Might be old, thought I'd share it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdVevvgM3ho

100 mile trip on 4oz of water O_O

[disappointment2]

Why haven't we heard from this if this is real?

[wmirkru]

Yeah, that exact news story was on my local station ages ago...
I think that guy might have even been from Minnesota. Not sure though.


Anyways, cool stuff, but I think the news story isn't telling us everything. It separates the hydrogen from the water and burns that, right? But what kind of energy does it take to separate the molecules?

[nofkayalk]

Yeah, that exact news story was on my local station ages ago...
I think that guy might have even been from Minnesota. Not sure though.


Anyways, cool stuff, but I think the news story isn't telling us everything. It separates the hydrogen from the water and burns that, right? But what kind of energy does it take to separate the molecules?

Well it mentioned the HHO and electricity... a couple car batteries perhaps?

[gZAhTyWY]

that story made me thirsty.. brb
________
Toyota AXV-IV

[PharmaDrMan]

That is incredible. [shocked]

[Nundduedola]

That is incredible. [shocked]

Stanley mayer was granted patents on this back in the late 1980's, after tons of excuses while avoiding any proper investigation it was eventually discovered to be nothing more than convenional electrolysis.

It didnt change the world then and it wont change the world now no matter how many times people insist on *re-inventing* it.

under these circumstances getting a car to run on water was a complete waste of time unless it actually had tangible benefits. such alternative methods are supposed to be aimed at solving the world fuel crisis. considering what is proposed and the way it is advertised in this video, it defies the laws of physics for it to be tangible, more specifically it defies one of the laws of thermodynamics, the first one "The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings."

Basically your wasting energy by making the car run on water because you will be using more than what you are getting back to run the engine. For anyone who watched that you would have to believe that water alone could be used to power the car for it to be tangible. if you were to believe it, with what is known as perpetual motion (currently defied by our understanding of the law of physics) you would have to believe that the engine is creating usable efficient work out of nothing (being water alone powering the car)

I would much rather have a steam engine powered car, at least its more efficient

When something is too good to be true, it usually is

oh Here's Mr. Meyer' debuet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K05rv...related&search=

[Alexunda]

Stanley mayer was granted patents on this back in the late 1980's, after tons of excuses while avoiding any proper investigation it was eventually discovered to be nothing more than convenional electrolysis.

It didnt change the world then and it wont change the world now no matter how many times people insist on *re-inventing* it.

under these circumstances getting a car to run on water was a complete waste of time unless it actually had tangible benefits. such alternative methods are supposed to be aimed at solving the world fuel crisis. considering what is proposed and the way it is advertised in this video, it defies the laws of physics for it to be tangible, more specifically it defies one of the laws of thermodynamics, the first one "The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings."

Basically your wasting energy by making the car run on water because you will be using more than what you are getting back to run the engine. For anyone who watched that you would have to believe that water alone could be used to power the car for it to be tangible. if you were to believe it, with what is known as perpetual motion (currently defied by our understanding of the law of physics) you would have to believe that the engine is creating usable efficient work out of nothing (being water alone powering the car)

I would much rather have a steam engine powered car, at least its more efficient

When something is too good to be true, it usually is

oh Here's Mr. Meyer' debuet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K05rv...related&search=

None of that matters, its not about being 100% efficient, its about saving whats left of our enviroment.

[Nundduedola]

None of that matters, its not about being 100% efficient, its about saving whats left of our enviroment.

pseudoscience isnt going to save our enviroment. such methods have been seriously investigated and well we all know the result

as meyer tried to profit this by selling rights to this mysterious device he was sued and found guilty of gross and egregious fraud.

We already have the electric car that is viable and energy efficient. And it the best option we currenlty have and will have for quiet some time

The idea of such ventures is to combat the fuel crisis in a way that would repect our environment. your right this is not just about efficiency but Electrolytic designs are not viable or practical.

Electrolytic designs

In practice, none of the processes involved are 100% efficient. This means that some electricity is wasted in the electrolysis stage, some heat is wasted in burning the hydrogen in the engine and some of the power of the engine is lost in generating electricity. This means that the amount of power available for recharging the battery is considerably less than the amount of electricity needed for continued electrolysis - and the engine rapidly comes to a halt when the battery runs out of charge. This is made much worse by the fact that the engine has to drive the car along as well as recharge the battery.

When the hydrogen is burned, the heat it creates can be converted into work by a conventional piston engine (car engine), but the efficiency of such engines is limited by the second law of thermodynamics and is likely to be of the order 30%. Because a conventional electric motor does not use heat, it can theoretically have an efficiency close to 100% and 80% efficient motors are commonplace. Hence it is not possible that an electrolytic/piston engine could be more efficient than a conventional electric motor.

Hence, electrolytic designs for water fuelled cars seem compelling but they are not viable machines. At best they run for a short while until the battery discharges. One may consider them to simply be very inefficient electric motors which (like the steam engine) use water merely to transfer power from the battery into the engine. A conventional electric car would be vastly more efficient.

Another notable electrolytic design is the water fuel cell where it is claimed that hydrogen and oxygen are produced by a mysteriously efficient form of electrolysis. However, the the perpetual motion machine argument still applies. No matter how clever or mysterious this hypothetical fuel cell might be, it is still impossible under the first law of thermodynamics, a successful water fuel cell would require one of the oldest and most fundamental laws of physics to be proven incorrect.
Whatever you might think you have seen there is currenlty no car proven to be using this design thats viable, any attempts to investigate were met with "lame excuses that did not allow any testing to proceed. If there ever was such a car it might have seemed great initially getting it working and everything, but the car would eventually be completely useless.

I know a lot of people who buy new cars every year, actually having to replace the car/ cars engine frequently is just out right ridiculous, hence there was no progress made

[kentbrookug]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqL5Sur7LtE [thumbup]

This one is pretty darn impressive. I'm really wanting to try it, but still need to educate myself a bit more before getting into a potentially dangerous situation. This technology needs to be used in the worst kind of way.[surrender]