Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Beyond the barrel idea #1: Run your car on tap water

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-04 01:36 PM
Original message
Beyond the barrel idea #1: Run your car on tap water

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/122304Mazza/122304mazza.html


There's nothing like a good mystery, especially with your own Deep Throat.

This time an email from a stranger, a reader, Miguel X, who says "Run your car on water. It's been around since 1937. The federal government doesn't want you to know that because they cannot kill for water. Nor do they want you to know it would cost less than four new tires to convert your car from gasoline to hydrogen. The man who invented it or the man who stole the idea, I am not sure which, was murdered because the Fed did not want it to come out. Big Oil, Big Bank, and Big War have been running this game. We will never be the same. Go to Google or Ebay and type Run Car on Water and you will see, you can have all the power you need and have it for FREE. Don't tell Dubya I was the one who told you. MX."

Naturally, I go to Google, type in the five words and ffftt, there it is at the top of a page of Run Cars on Water:

-snip-

I immediately email Miguel X back and thank him. He responds. "I don't want credit. I just want the truth to come out. I know it won't on NBC. But some Spanish based TV stations have been reporting on the water car being developed in Mexico. The Mexican design requires a catalyst, a product that would allow water (H20) to electrolyze into hydrogen in a cylinder's combustion chamber without gasoline. The residue would be 02 or clean oxygen in the form of a mist. Caterpillar is working on a product called A55 (I believe) that allows a mix of gasoline and water with a proprietary product to blend and not separate. The product is supposed work in an internal combustion engine without modification. The water can work alone on an ordinary engine with some changes. If you need any help researching any or all parts, let me know."

-snip- (this snip gives all the particulars)

Have the gangsters quashed all these ideas, because they had the gas flow for the cash flow? And only now as Doomsday creeps in like an unhinged iceberg are we hearing, seeing about this? There's even a letter here sent by the English inventor of the French car in 1981 to BMW no less, asking what they think of the engine? And BMW, I mean Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft no less, says it's okay. Maybe a little problem with ze disposal of oxide deposits but everything else goodt to go. Go where? It went nowhere. There was plenty of gas for those 520s and 750s and the cute 320s. Vas is de problem? Don't fix vot isn't broken. In eleven steps, Mr. Francois P. Cornish of the UK, the inventor, spelled out the whole thing and nobody's seen him since1982. Mon dieu!

-snip-(this snip holds some very interesting info)
-----------------------------------

maybe Mr. Cornish is on the bush body count list

maybe Pimp My Ride could work on this and show us how it's done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-04 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. Waste of bandwidth.
Edited on Thu Dec-23-04 01:44 PM by BlueEyedSon
Unless the laws of thermodynamics have been revoked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-04 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Well
Some of it can work. I mean you can add additives to increase the H2O in gas but I doubt that is a good thing. You can burn H2 and O2 to make H2O and run an engine on it. You can use electrolysis to split water into H2 and O2. The idea as written seems to be sort of a half ass bastardization of a fuel cell by someone that doesn't know what a fuel cell is.

The key thing is of course it ain't free energy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-04 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. This cannot be done with any excess energy for running the vehicle.
You can't even break even (and have in effect a perpetual electrolysis machine). Each step loses some energy to entropy (heat, etc).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-04 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. yeah
I know that. My post never said you could. Just pointed out that the original post takes actual science of a fuel cell and makes it sound like free energy you can do in your own car. You can catylze H2O, you can dissolve more H2O in gas, you can use some combustion energy to run a h2o catalyst reaction. All this can be done. You can't do it in a normal engine and you sure can't get free energy out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-04 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. Nicoli Telsa was not a fan of this "law".
String theory, Scalar energy, quantum physics, does not revoke the laws but suggests they may need to be reconsidered. Very little in Science is called a "law" and deserves skepticism when it reaches that rock star status. Engineers will refer to Thermodynamics as law but some Physicist are more cautious.

The Universe is a strange place. Humans have not yet figured it out. Human intelligence is questionable, for proof look at the dip who was recently semi elected pResident.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jesus H. Christ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-04 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Tesla was a bit off his rocker.
Thus, he's become a favorite for pseudoscience nutjobs.

Physicists haven't got the slightest problem with calling the 2nd law of thermodynamics a fundamental law. There's nothing in theoretical physics that suggests it should be reconsidered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-04 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Go build your "free energy" machine.
So far NO experimental observations contradict the 3 laws of TD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-04 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. high school chemistry
is more than enough to know this won't work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Worst Username Ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-04 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. Logically, I am not entirely sure how this would be done.
Edited on Thu Dec-23-04 01:53 PM by Worst Username Ever
Water needs to be separated into oxygen and hydrogen molecules in order to create combustion. This is easy to do, all you have to do is run and electircal charge through it and the atoms split, forming separate hydrogen and oxygen molecules (we did this in high school physics). These gases would be used to create the combustion required to move a piston or turbine. The problem is getting enough energy to not only drive the wheels of the car, but also to create enough of a charge to continue the electric current, needed to separate the hydrogen and oxygen molecules. The amount of the electrical charge required to produce enough hydrogen to do this would be MASSIVE. This would probably require an additional charge, likely through use of batteries. These would need to be recharged regularily... requiring most likely an electric plug-in (which most likely uses coal to manufacture the electricity).

I would be interested to see someone combine this water-separation technique with perhaps a solar panel to create additional electricity.

I could be completely wrong, any physics majors have any ideas?

On edit: another issue is the impurities in tap water. Likely for this process to work correctly, the water would have to be almost 100% pure. All those other gasses and minerals would muck things up pretty quickly. Perhaps "refined water" would be the next big money fuel industry. I think they'll get us at every turn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lectrobyte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-04 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. it may be "easy" to split hydrogen and oxygen, but takes a lot of
electricity to get meaningful amounts of hydrogen out. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-04 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
7. Zinc Air Fuel Cells...they put the lid on this project too
Zinc Air Fuel Cells, basically zinc oxide with potassium hydroxide catalyst, are also a clean solution. Lawrence Livermore National Lab in CA was even going into a consortium with Australia (also a country with vast zinc reserves, like USA Canada Mexico Peru CHINA--virtually the Pacific Rim) for the 2000 Olympics as a demonstration...starting in Sept. 1997. This project was squelched.

If you look closer you see that Transportation Sec, and sole Democrat in the Bush admin, Norm Mineta's old district in Santa Clara CA has a demonstration Fuel Cell project with Hydrogen fuel cell PEM proton exchange membranes, has platinum catalyst. Platinum for fuel cells used to require LOTS of platinum...now it takes a thinner layer, like in catalytic converters, under the $10,000 it used to take with about $1000 or so today (guess). But the world only has so much platinum. The world has vast amounts of zinc.

Check out eVionyx company or the now defunct Metallic Power.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jesus H. Christ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-04 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
8. Anybody want to buy a bridge?
I'm selling a nice one for real cheap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-04 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
9. I think I saw this in a Mamet play
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arbustosux Donating Member (769 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-04 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
10. This explains why Bush is resisting doing something about global warming
the planet heats up, the water evaporates

in the meantime, Carlye Group quietly buys up anything to do with water....its brilliant!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC