Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

157

(post is archived)

[–] • 12 pts (edited )

For those who understand basic physics the amount of energy you get out of burning the hydrogen is the same it takes to break the water molecules apart in the first place, and in any practical application any time you convert one form of energy to another, such as coal to electricity, you lose energy, so you can't have a fully water powered car.

Although I met a guy years ago who was selling a conversion kit for this. He had an answer for this criticism. The water to hydrogen conversion was using the excess energy produced by the gas engine of your car, which usually dissipates as heat. This is a similar concept to regenerative breaking. His claim is that you would improve your gas mileage by up to double (I suspect actual results were less).

[–] • 3 pts

That sounds like a reasoned response (double checks which website we're on) huh... nice.

[–] [deleted] • 4 pts

Every once and a while a normal person wanders in to provide actual reasonable perspectives before the drooling retards chase him away with rocks and sticks so they can resume talking about outlandish retard things.

[–] • 2 pts

Don't forget accusations of the following

Assorted faggotry

Unpopular ethnicities

Agent provacateur

[–] • 1 pt

Should... should we tell him about the jews?

[–] • 1 pt

Lol, it's true. I love your name btw.

[–] • 3 pts

There is also potential problems created by hydrogen embrittlement.

Several patents exists in this field, I have checked them out. Supposedly an alloy was once created that split water into H2 and O2 when it came in contact with it. There was also a spark-plug like device that could split water on demand and ignite it.

Meyers claim was that there was a certain frequency that enabled electrolysis to happen with a lower power consumption.

There have also been many 100+ mpg carburetors developed but silenced by Big Oil (supposedly).

[–] • 3 pts

There have also been many 100+ mpg carburetors developed but silenced by Big Oil (supposedly).

Doubt. The world never uses less oil, it just starts using oil for other things (plastics, roads, heating, lubrication, etc)

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

The whole "big oil" thing is bunk. Oil Barons may be shrewd, but they aren't stupid. Energy is energy, and if this can power a car, it can power the grid.

If such a device existed, they wouldn't shelve it. They would put one in every power substation and make trillions of dollars. They'd sell one to every automobile manufacturer and make trillions. They'd put one in every home and make trillions. They'd put one in every boat and make trillions.

No Oil Baron cares about oil for the sake of oil. They want profit. And a water powered ENGINE, not car, ENGINE. Is worth far more than oil.

[–] • 2 pts

I don't believe in peak oil, I don't think it comes from dinosaurs either. I think the planet produces it.

I researched highly efficient carbs many years ago, found many stories of 100+ mpg, some even more.

The trick seems to be vaporizing the fuel before it enters the engine.

https://www.farmshow.com/view_articles.php?a_id=822

I am not going to try to convince you but I do think it is possible. There is monetary incentive to keep vehicles sucking gasoline.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Bu bu but muh global warhmin! Greta looks down at her prepared talking points to India.

[–] • 2 pts

Those hydrogen kits usually run off battery, which charges off the engine using the alternator. It looks like free hydrogen to a fool but anyone who understands cars knows the energy is ultimately coming from the gas.

[–] • 0 pt

Well yeah, the keyphrase was UP TO double.

[–] • 0 pt

Apparently he came up with a way that was relatively low power using the existing primary and secondary ignition system already on the vehicle and special injectors.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

unfortunately this is not basic physics so your basic physics understanding won't get you to understand why this tech is entirely viable

not trying to be a dick...look into the relation between resonance and the aether theory.

edit: by that I mean as far as generating energy goes, this "water powered car" is laughable compared to what we could actually do.

[–] • 0 pt

1.) Resonance is a simple mathematic concept that describes patterns in interference, and not magical in any way.

2.) Aether theory is either: scientism-wicca, or a an outdated theory from a century ago that never had anything going for it.

3.) The earth is still not flat.

[–] • 0 pt

also lmfao at your understanding of resonance

the fact you think it's just "Mathematical representation" shows yet again, how people like you fail to understand things yet expect to be treated as some information source lmfao

can you even back up your argument? can you offer counter arguments to points made that poke holes in your theory? i bet you cant lmfao

[–] • 0 pt

the aether theory is a superior, more provable theory then the theory of relativity

the fact you state it's "scientism/wicca" just confirms you are either a kike or someone who is completely uneducated and not qualified to make their opinion known on this particular matter because nothing you say would be even close to being right lmfao

also, claiming something "is" something, or isn't, required burden of proof, your attempt to validate your own belief requires just as much proof as flat earth requires, the only difference is flat earth people are actually trying to scientifically prove their argument in a fair and unbiased way, people like you are just cunts who scream nonsense that you can't actually back up

[–] • 2 pts

My grandfather told me of a device he was offered for a car in the 50s that greatly increased it's mileage. Looking back on how he described it, it was probably an early throttle-body injection device. Same for a friend who said his great-uncle, who lived in the heart of GM land, bought a new car that got extraordinary mileage (for the 50s.) GM apparently bought it back (as in "we didn't mean to sell that one", here's your money back) a few weeks later and gave him a new car for his trouble. Again, it sounds like early throttle-body stuff. GM was certainly playing with it at the time.

[–] • 1 pt
[–] • 0 pt

It wasn't that, the way he described it to me was looked almost like a regular carburetor and just bolted in where the original carb was.

[–] • 1 pt

They do bolt in where the regular carb goes, and when the air cleaner is on it just looks like a normal engine.

[–] • 1 pt

I've seen videos of the guys using like an external gas tank and a heating element or something to boil the fuel. I believe that works. Immensely impractical for an actual vehicle (I mean at that point just build an electric car).

[–] • 1 pt

It probably does help a little, it would allow the gasoline to vaporize easier. Dangerous as all get-out, tho.

[–] • 0 pt

Well that's part of what I meant by impractical. The demos I saw have people standing by with fire extinguishers, and the whole thing is done stationary. Yet some people are acting like this is some secret Detroit has been hiding from the American people. People are weird.

[–] • 0 pt

??? There have been inventions that turned gas into vapor prior to entering the carburetor which is how it's supposed to work. That's why they moved on from the carb to the fuel injector that can't do that, and had their lackeys in congress make the old system illegal for "environmental reasons", lol always to save the environment, children or you, always the same trick. That doesn't put money into their pockets from you to them fast enough so.....it's illegal cause the 3 reasons above. Even big 4 door "boats" from the 70's were getting near 200 miles to the gallon....that hurts their profits...Truth and reality does not matter to them, only profits and control.

[–] • 0 pt

Right, they heat the fuel and disperse it to achieve near 100% vaporization. With carburetors and fuel injection there are still liquid droplets that are basically wasted.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

what drugs do you smoke?

[–] • 0 pt

I don’t think it was as much about turning it into vapor as a plasma. When most hydrocarbons like gasoline are heated to 3-400° they stabilize into a plasma. I think what the trick was they claimed with some of those vaporizers was that when heated to a plasma like that, other liquids of at least 30-40% hydrocarbon began to perform well enough to “allegedly” run through the same engines. The trick was that the vaporizer had to be configured in size and temperature for each specific fuel. And the way the manufactures first tried to stop ppl from using these even before injection was the catylatic converter. I’m not sure if they existed yet or not, but they did make it mandatory for the catalytic converter to be mounted directly off the end of the header, which was exactly where you needed to run those vaporizers to achieve sufficient temperatures. So you couldn’t achieve those temperatures further down in the exhaust.

[–] • 1 pt

It was at a Cracker Barrel.

[–] • 0 pt

Good place, their poison is to die for.

[–] • 0 pt

They have a reputation for being racist to customers too.

[–] • 1 pt

It’s been illegal in the US under national security directives since 1956 to improve mpg of the internal combustion engine by more then 80%. It’s exactly the kind of thing they bury in obscure unrelated legislation. All these free energy device claims don’t have to be 100% true to justify government oppression, nor do they have to be 100% bullshit and useless if they don’t achieve their exact claims. The average internal combustion engine runs approx 18% efficiency and wastes the rest in heat loss ect. So you can technically improve the average fuel mileage by more then 500% without breaking any laws of physics virtue signaling troglodytes like to shriek every time they come across anything like this. Even Mercedes last F1 engine ran an exhaust recirculating device to recombust waste energy that achieves high enough efficiency increases to be illegal in a production car.

I achieved approx a 20-30% mpg increase in a 06 mazda3 with one of those HHO cels. It took me 2 years to figure out how to build it to actually work because every site and video online I found on them was either bullshit or to incomplete to be useful to me. Imo the vaporizers you run in your exhaust to heat your fuel are the most promising. Like the GEET engine. But that guy was charged with fraud to like every inventor in American history that seriously attempted a disruptive technology. It doesn’t make him right or wrong, but I tested it myself and still chose to recommend it.

Arm services Patent advisory board “ASPAB” Patent security category review list

Prepared by ASPAB Sub committee chairman H.L Mourning, AMC

J.C Morris, AF Bert Convey, NAVY JAN 1971

Short title: PSCRL-1 Group XI, ITEM 9

“Item 9. Energy conversion systems with conversion efficiencies in excess of 70 to 80% (AP). (NAVY). (AMC)

[–] • 0 pt

It’s been illegal in the US under national security directives since 1956 to improve mpg of the internal combustion engine by more then 80%.

I wonder why they do this crap?

I understand why they suppress LENR and other types of super science. I may not entirely agree but I understand some the arguments might have a little bit of legitimacy.

if every Joe Schmo had something equivalent to a nuclear bazooka we'd all have a bad time

What is the point of stopping cars from having 100 MPG though? It just seems nasty and petty to me. Like they hate people and want them to be trapped in the rat race.

They're artificially adjusting the standard of living down for no legitimate purpose that I can discern.

[–] • 1 pt

Well I wouldn’t attempt to say it’s justified, but from their point of view with a priority on control, stopping a car from doing 100mpg makes perfect sense. If you take the cost of energy or fuel out of every product you buy, they’d all be discounted by 90%. And you would only need to work 5-10hrs/week instead of 40-50 in order to pay your bills. Societies priorities and interests would shift 180 overnight for better or worse (likely better).

Eg. If you took the total fuel and electricity cost out of oil exploration and refinery, gas would cost $0.10/gal and all food prices would drop by half or more.

[–] • 0 pt

It's hard to play devil's advocate looking at it in that light. They just seem irredeemably horrible.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

On my death bed I hope I have enough wear with all to scream “they poisoned me” just for fun. I’ll let my youngest son know I plan to do this for the record. Than he can post on poal and get mega internet points.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I'm scared of my heart stopping. I had an anxiety attack once and thought I was having a heart attack. Actually went to the hospital.

If I was obsessed with being poisoned, I might have screamed about being poisoned instead.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt (edited )

So, let me see if I understand this. A guy who claims to have broken the laws of physics was also paranoid. Hmmm. I like the "perpetual motion community" they are fun people. But, they aren't exactly the most rational people either.

Here's why the water powered car is bullshit. Not just because it breaks the laws of physics. It also breaks the laws of economics.

If it can power a car, it can power ANYTHING. Anyone deeply invested in, say, oil, isn't going to sweep it under the rug. They are going to immediately dump all their investment in oil and invest in such a device.

[–] • 0 pt

Take a standard gasoline engine and figure out how much pressurized hydrogen it would take to keep it running. Find an alternator capable of producing enough current to "fracture" the H2O molecule. Capture said hydrogen and pressurize it to the amount needed to run the engine. Find a suitable way to "inject" the hydrogen. Only emission would be pure oxygen. It can be done, just don't tell anyone or your life may be at risk.

[–] • 0 pt

You realize that combusting Hydrogen means combining it with Oxygen, right? Burning Hydrogen makes Water. Right? Please tell me you knew that?

There wouldn't be any oxygen emitted. Just water. And it wouldn't provide energy. It would require energy.

[–] • 0 pt

After splitting the water molecule, only the hydrogen is needed. The oxygen produced would be quite useless and therefore purged into the atmosphere. Yes, burning hydrogen produces water but it is very minimal. The whole point to using water to power an ICE ( internal combustion engine) isn't the effeciency of energy input equalling the energy output, but that water is a FREE resource. There are government research papers available that show this is absolutely possible with an ICE and are easily found if one only does a little research.

[–] • 0 pt

Essentially every single sentence you just wrote, is as wrong as it is physically possible to be. "Burning" is an exothermic reaction in which a fuel combines with an oxidizer to release energy. In this case, the fuel would be Hydrogen. The oxidizer, would be Oxygen.

Literally. The only thing that is happening, when hydrogen burns, is oxygen combing with the hydrogen to form water. That's it. That's literally the entire chemical process of what "burning hydrogen" even means.

isn't the effeciency of energy input equalling the energy output, but that water is a FREE resource

If energy input doesn't equal energy output, then burning hydrogen is just a cost, that takes energy away from movement. It's just a pointless extra step that lowers MPG.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

The amount of energy it takes to "fracture" (as you put it) an H2O molecule is the exact same as you get from burning it. More so, because no method is 100% efficent.

It can be done and nobody will care, because you are free to waste all the energy you want. We already have electrolysis and we already have hydrogen cells. Nobody is killing anyone for having these devices. Nobody cares because they aren't as efficient as the crackpots claim they are.

[–] • 0 pt

Why are you so concerned with efficiancy when water is the most abundant resource on the planet? Water is free and the only emission is oxygen. Also, Jesus Christ's gift to man is free; if only you believe in Him and repent. Why do so many people reject things that are free?

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt (edited )

You can't burn water. If you want to burn the hydrogen, you need to put energy into it to break up the molecules. The amount of energy you will need is the same amount you will get back from burning the hydrogen. Add in inefficiency, and you are losing energy. If you doubt this, then I'll trade you 3 of my quarters for one of your dollars.

Spend less time worshipping a Jew and spend more time improving yourself and protecting your people. This means closing your (((Bible))) and opening a 7th grade physics text book.

Heil Odin!

[–] • 0 pt

Died Screaming

hot.

Load more (4 replies)