15-12-2011, 07:26 PM
|
#1 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 507
|
Japanese Water Car
__________________
"A single ear of corn in a large field is as strange as a single world in infinite space." - Metrodorus of Chios Last edited by caper; 15-12-2011 at 07:27 PM. |
|
|
|
15-12-2011, 09:09 PM
|
#2 |
|
Inactive
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,604
|
he he, thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
16-12-2011, 04:01 PM
|
#3 |
|
Inactive
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 130
|
Awesome! Brilliant technology. Thanks for that info
|
|
|
|
|
14-02-2012, 02:34 AM
|
#4 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,738
|
Is it true this was about to be released just before fukishama?
__________________
forget everything and remember.. what you think you have learned is only the knowledge your ego has gained on your brief time on this planet. you are infinite, you memories are much older than the universe itself. forgive everything and remember. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgdn0...layer_embedded |
|
|
|
|
14-02-2012, 06:31 AM
|
#5 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 637
|
all the stupid people still not believing in free energy and water cars.
even though there is now a video showing a running free energy generator and even japan unveiled a water car. And look at the comments. there are still idiots trying to tell you "you need energy to separate wataer hurr durr". the nwo is right, some people like this really need to be exterminated. |
|
|
|
|
14-02-2012, 06:31 AM
|
#6 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 637
|
yea its true, do you think the global cabal would let japan change the world with this water car?
everyone would buy it and no one would want fuel anymore. |
|
|
|
|
15-02-2012, 04:11 AM
|
#7 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,396
|
Quote:
I've been looking at this particular product for years. It was speculative vaporware technology. The company developing the car in the OP video ceased operations in 2009, citing "development costs." The domain name "Genepax.com" is currently owned by Endurance International Group, who appear to be a company buying and leasing domain names. Genepax.com is currently being used to market a water electrolysis kit using the names of several previously competing products. Water electrolysis powered by the car's alternator will never provide enough energy to drive the car. I've been doing electrolysis experiments since 1984, and there's no way to drive the hydrogen and oxygen apart with electrons that even comes close to 100% efficiency, belt-driven alternators are terribly high-friction and Otto-cycle engines have 20% heat --> motion efficiency at best. "water for fuel" is a losing game unless you're in the business of selling conversion kits on the internet to scientifically unsuspecting but optimistic consumers. The Genepax product was not described in any way that makes sense to scientifically knowledgeable researchers, but as far as people have determined was using a metal hydride reaction cell to crack the hydrogen from water which was then used in a conventional hydrogen fuel cell to create electricity to drive the converted vehicle. Thus, we're not looking at in the OP video is not a "free energy" product but at a consumable product which represents substantial investment of energy by the manufacturer. |
|
|
|
|
|
15-02-2012, 04:20 AM
|
#8 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,396
|
Quote:
Maybe you could even prove to the world how we can live by eating poop and heating our homes with ashes. Because that's what water is. It's the ashes of a hydrogen-oxygen reaction. Water represents the "ground state" for that set of chemicals. The argument you present actually indicates your complete and utter lack of training on this matter. Knowledgeable researchers prefer to suggest that there might be methods to dissociate water with less than 237.13 kJ/mole. Despite the fact Meyers' patents and diagrams have been readily available for nearly 12 years nobody has managed to replicate his alleged results. Last edited by apollo_gnomon; 15-02-2012 at 04:21 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
15-02-2012, 07:23 AM
|
#9 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,312
|
I agree with apollo, and so does anyone else with any semblance of technical knowledge.
If you guys want a low energy consuming car, this is real... Steam engines the world over died when Rockefeller struck oil, so did their development. . |
|
|
|
|
15-02-2012, 06:21 PM
|
#10 | ||
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,396
|
Quote:
Cheap gas kept cars inefficient. In 1978 the average automobile engine was state-of-the-art 1937 to 1949, with electronic starter, mechanical breaker-point distributor, overhead valves and downdraft carburetor. Smog rules were what finally pushed car makers to develop and incorporate improvements in fuel, air and spark management. Despite all these improvements 4-stroke engines still throw away nearly 80% of the heat energy from the fuel combustion. As stated in the video, burning fuel in a furnace is a hell of a lot more efficient. The average crappy household forced-air heater delivers 60% of the heat to the home with the remaining 40% of the heat carrying exhaust up the flue. My furnace is a new "high efficiency" type that uses a little fan to blow the exhaust gasses out and delivers (nominally) 90% of the heat to the home. Quote:
The good thing, though, is that a modern engineer tackling the problems has those years of technology close at hand already, so good steam cars could be developed in a pretty rapid manner. One of the biggest problems is the furnace fire-up time and steam boiler heating time, but the Stanleys had tubular boiler designs that got hot quite quickly. The Stanley Steamer was one of the last steam cars on the market. It cost nearly 10x the price of a Model T but was slower and more tedious to get going in the morning. Steamers also required water and fuel, rather than just fuel. Later model Stanleys used 2 different fuels, one to get the fire started and another to run. This kind of fussiness didn't appeal to the average consumer. The death-knell was the electric starter, replacing crank starters on gasoline engines. One of the advantages of steam is hellacious torque capacity. The current crop of electric car development (the Tesla in particular) uses the better torque curve of an electric vs 4-stroke power source as a major marketing point -- the potential customer can feel the difference when the light turns green and knows they're not shopping for a $100,000 golf cart but a sophisticated and powerful sports car. Steam cars could have the same market point. Another variation of steam car could be a hybrid vehicle, using a high-efficiency furnace and boiler to spin a high-efficiency turbine driven generator for electric power. Then you have instant readiness as power would be stored in batteries like other hybrids and replenished on-the-fly. |
||
|
|
|
|
17-02-2012, 09:22 PM
|
#11 | ||
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,786
|
Quote:
I remember seeing a clip on Top Gear about a steam powered car and old boy had converted. Unfortunately, the peice was halted due to a blown gasket. That was back in the days when Top Gear was good. I've looked at them, found a few interesting stories and seen a one or two simple conversions. Recently, I stumbled across the VW Beetle wood burning car built back during the war. Quote:
There are already plenty of alternative technologies that could change the planet, they are just being ignored.  (Its a conspiracy I tells ya!!) |
||
|
|
|
|
18-02-2012, 01:07 AM
|
#12 |
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,396
|
The Holzbrenner conversion is NOT user friendly.
But here's an article on it: http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/...-gas-cars.html |
|
|
|
|
18-02-2012, 02:36 AM
|
#13 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 447
|
Quote:
get over it. we have natural resources to use, but they still cost, most not affordable. please get over the free energy thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
18-02-2012, 04:05 AM
|
#14 |
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,396
|
sorry, mr_i_disagree but your post is invalid.
If you can't find a way to disagree with me AND with the free energy promoters I suggest changing your username.  
|
|
|
|
|
22-02-2012, 10:51 PM
|
#15 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 486
|
Incidentally, if any of you are engineers / physicists / mechanics, could you possibly take a look at these and see what you think? It'd be nice to get an informed and professional opinion....
__________________
“He who controls others may be powerful, but he who has mastered himself is mightier still.” - Lao Tzu (Chinese taoist Philosopher, founder of Taoism, wrote "Tao Te Ching" (also "The Book of the Way"). 600 BC-531 BC) |
|
|
|
|
23-02-2012, 04:37 AM
|
#16 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,396
|
Quote:
Your 1st video, the water welder, is a nonsensical local news broadcast with half facts and incorrect information. Nothing "runs on" water. The welding machine doesn't "run on" water it runs on electricity, used to crack the water which is then fed to the welding torch. The energy out is less than the energy in, as is true of any change of energy from one form to another. Then the video goes into his "water fueled" car. Again, a vehicle requires an electrical source to crack the water which is then burned for propulsion. In the case of cars, you have a stack of inefficiencies. Just to start, an automobile engine only turns about 20% of the available heat of combustion into motion. If you plug a load into the car's alternator (mechanically inefficient) you put load on the engine which requires more fuel than the car running without that load -- doesn't matter whether the load is headlights, a stereo, hydraulic pump for a dump-bed truck, or the electrolysis rig to crack water in to hydrogen and oxygen. The amount of hydrogen and oxygen needed to push a car down the road at even modest speeds would exceed the capacity of any of the little jam-jar gizmos people on the internet would love to sell you. Your second video appears to be a very boring step-by-step process for assembling a specific electrolysis rig. There are many ways of building the device and many sizes one can build. None of them will provide enough gas to power an automobile. Water is the ashes of burned hydrogen. It isn't a power source, any more than horseshit is food. I've done electrolysis experiments many times and they can be very fun to build and very enlightening to operate. The first one I built was for a chemistry assignment that I went over-the-top with, trying to figure out how long it would take to collect the hydrogen for a particular chemical reaction that was a precursor to a totally other product. I used a peanut butter jar. My electrodes accidentally touched (bad design, poor assembly, zero safety controls) and the spark between them lit the bubbles on each, resulting in a busted jar and water all over the floor. My brother still tells the story, over 25 years later, of the day I blew up a jar of water. I built one a couple of years ago with much better safety, to test a couple of variables relating to a discussion on another forum about colonizing the moon. I don't have pix in my photobucket account anymore, maybe I should upload 'em again. Anyway, if you research the water for fuel idea further you will find many ways of building the rig, but none of them are more efficient than the "textbook" 237.13 kJ of electrical energy/mole. Last edited by apollo_gnomon; 23-02-2012 at 04:40 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-03-2012, 12:37 AM
|
#17 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,786
|
Quote:
I understand what you mean about user friendly. Don't misunderstand me, I don't think there is a going to be a single solution to solve all our problems. Possible, but unlikely. So I wouldn't advocate all cars being wood burners, I merely highlight the possibility. It seems to me there are many possibilities. We need a range of solutions and they should be deployed locally and in tune with the environment, such as the peat powered power stations in Ireland or geothermal power in Iceland. Wood burners are not user friendly on a large scale, but there will be area's with an abundance of waste wood due to geographic and economic conditions, and in that environment, wood burners would make sense. Similarly, if a family has a second car that is primarily for local use, then a limited range electric car could be suitable and desirable. Solar panels on the garage roof charging a set of batteries to charge the car overnight. Steam power is a great option, in other environments diesels are best. Mixing fuel or water will improve efficiency. It complicates user operation but if people understand how their machines operate enough to operate them correctly then that's better for all concerned. My current commute to work is a few miles each way, I have an old Lotus on classic car insurance, I generally maintain it myself, as a second car its not used unless required. If it was converted to a short range electric car, it would suit me fine, a few batteries and an electric motor with a 50/60 miles range, I would only need to charge it weekly and I could use it for work daily. My main car is an old Mercedes LPG, single point injection (air filter), nice ride, low emission, cheaper fuel. No carbon build up in the engine, less oil changes and simpler system to maintain than the fuel injection system. The right tool for the right job, and a range of tools available. We don't need a centralized, one size fits all approach. Central power stations burning the same fuel and everyone using petrol or diesel cars, this thinking has bottle necked technological productivity. Given the time and money those profiting from present dominant technologies have had, I think they've done an extremely poor job improving and refining the systems we use. Criminal in fact. We need a variety of technologies from the way we build and heat our homes to locally orientated energy generation and transportation systems providing local jobs. Centralization does not result in an effective solution unless it is adaptable and representative of the areas it operates but that makes it complicated and difficult to administer and so is rarely designed that way. As for free energy, there's energy everywhere its just a question of tapping it. Its all free in the truest sense. We create none of it, we just dig it up out of the ground or drill it out. Then there's tapping the wind, wave or solar energy, its all free, it only takes labor and that's possible by food which is also free, we don't pay the earth to grow it. We always convert existing energy. As for over unity, I think its fair to say there is a possibility of tapping new sources. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-03-2012, 10:25 PM
|
#18 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: The Shire, England
Posts: 455
|
I remember an engineer friend of mine telling me (somewhat over-optimistically as it turned out), that there was a new-generation of efficient steam engines coming along, and this would take off in a big way. It might well have been the time of the "oil crisis" (or crises).
What he said though never went away from the back of my mind, and as oil/petroleum prices have gone up and up, I've often wondered if steam should be revisited. I'm old enough to remember (with affection) the old steam railway locomotives. These were supposed to be very inefficient (at least as inefficient as the 4-stroke combustion engine), but I wonder if a modern steam locomotive could be developed? The old steam engines used to run on coal, and Britain, where I live, has plenty of coal, and only vanishing amounts of oil left. (I guess the USA has plenty of coal as well). The trouble with coal is of course that it is filthy and polluting, but perhaps "clean coal" could apply to steam locomotives as well as power stations. Does anyone think there is any future in modern, efficient steam locomotives? I would have thought it would be relatively much easier to introduce (or re-introduce) steam into the railway/railroad industry than in the car industry. Locomotive drivers and engineers have to be specially-trained anyway, so the specialist requirements of a steam engine shouldn't be a problem (unlike trying to educate the general public with millions of car-drivers, not to mention service-stations, etc). |
|
|
|
|
12-03-2012, 09:37 PM
|
#19 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,786
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-03-2012, 10:21 PM
|
#20 | |
|
Inactive
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,274
|
Quote:
The one thing that many people don't understand is that true energy cannot be made nor destroyed, only converted from one form into another. The law of Conservation has yet to be broken, all end energies needing some other form of existing fuel to fuel the outcome. There are devices that can produce enough hydrogen to drive an internal C E, like the Microweld system that jewelers and silver smiths use, buy you would need a power station following you or a bloody long cable or a large generator in tow burning diesel or petrol. The only water vehicle using unmodified fuel is the steam engine which has it's greatest power at zero standing. The greatest returns are all ancient technologies like the water wheel or the revolving earth pannels used on houses for heating during the dark hours. On a local river there used to be 16 different kinds of mills on a mile and a half stretch all using the same power source one after the other, the energy source returning again and again from the natural enviornment. Eventually human nature will overcome and nature once again will save the day. Last edited by the apprentice; 12-03-2012 at 10:27 PM. |
|
|
|
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
|
|
