H2O > HHO gas. Why do we still need petrol??

POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Monday, June 12, 2006 21:42
VIEWED: 6005
PAGE 4 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4

TIGER

Monday, June 12, 2006 4:39 AM

This claim is utter bullshit. Over the past couple of years I've read reports of a half a dozen different people from around the world "inventing" processes similar to this, most looking for money to continue the work.

If it were really possible to run a car 100 miles on 4oz of water, no amount of corporate or government interference could keep it quiet. It would be sweeping the world like wildfire.

CALHOUN

Monday, June 12, 2006 8:37 AM

Quote:
piratenews wrote:
Sunday, June 11, 2006 15:50
Good video. I hope this guy don't wind up dead, like the other inventor of a water-powered car.

Is Stanley Meyer the guy who wound up dead? Probably after he knocked back the billion dollars the Arabs offered him for his technology..

Nice links by the way piratenews.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, June 12, 2006 9:42 PM

Yeah, Stan's dead - interesting that just before his death he loudly claimed he'd been poisoned, but no evidence either way exists that anyone has gotten their hands on.

I know WHAT caused his watercar to fail, even if he didn't - look up Hydrogen Embrittlement, Stan had no idea what caused stuff to start to crumble on him like that, and of course looked like a moonbat when he tried to explain it.

There exist a slew of patents for very similar devices, all of which have at some point, been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the patent office (which are pretty skeptical as a general rule) but none so far have *reliably* worked as intended - so my take on it is that these folks were close, and even hit the mark a time or two, but there is some element not being properly accounted for or handled in the design itself.

Having looked at the patents and diagrams, not one of these inventors worked with, or even knew of, each other at the time the patents were filed, yet all of these devices are so remarkably similar it's eerie.

The simple fact that Stan *DID* drive his car a considerable distance is worth a second look, being that it would be awfully, awfully hard to fake that with skeptical people looking it over so much.

I bet with a little decent research that isn't done in someone's garage in fear for their lives, we could definately use these processes to at least highly refine the process of getting hydrogen out of water, and even if we don't get superefficiency, streamlining the process would make it much more palatable as a common fuel.

As for the thermodynamics issue, recent research kinda seems to sidestep it.

Ironically, most scientific discoveries don't start out "Eureka!" but rather more often... "Oops!"
http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/09/hot_plasma/

Also rather promising is biological conversion, but that one's way out of my league of knowledge, me being more an electro-magnetics type.
http://www.biochemsoctrans.org/bst/033/bst0330076add.htm

I wonder if we should revisit Project Winterhaven's research with our current technology - and if it would amount to anything then ?

Sure beats spending time, effort and money shooting people over a resource that isn't renewable.

-Frem

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4