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).
That sounds like a reasoned response (double checks which website we're on) huh... nice.
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.
Don't forget accusations of the following
Assorted faggotry
Unpopular ethnicities
Agent provacateur
Should... should we tell him about the jews?
Lol, it's true. I love your name btw.
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).
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)
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.
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.
Bu bu but muh global warhmin! Greta looks down at her prepared talking points to India.
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.
Well yeah, the keyphrase was UP TO double.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
(post is archived)