Car on water which instead of over 20 l/100km burns only aroun 5 liters per 100 kilometers
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: BobG on 20 Jun 2008 11:30 Lets say the dissocoator is using 125 amps at 12V... 1500W... 2HP... Lets assume the disoociation is 80% efficient. So we have 1200W we can get back from burning the H2. Almost 2HP. If the car was using 20HP to cruise with the gizmo off and was getting Xmpg, when he switches it on, I suppose he is now using 22HP to cruise at the same speed, and gettin X-Ympg. Now adding the H2 cancels out the Y and we are back to X mgp like before. Wheres the win?
From: BobG on 20 Jun 2008 11:32 On Jun 20, 11:30 am, BobG <bobgard...(a)aol.com> wrote: > Lets say the dissocoator is using 125 amps at 12V... 1500W... 2HP... > Lets assume the disoociation is 80% efficient. So we have 1200W we can > get back from burning the H2. Almost 2HP. If the car was using 20HP to > cruise with the gizmo off and was getting Xmpg, when he switches it > on, I suppose he is now using 22HP to cruise at the same speed, and > gettin X-Ympg. Now adding the H2 cancels out the Y and we are back to > X mgp like before. Wheres the win? ========================================= Damn usenet. I can spell dissociation under some carefully controlled conditions. Hope that doesnt reflect on my street cred.
From: Uncle Ben on 20 Jun 2008 11:39 On Jun 18, 12:37 am, janpa...(a)gmail.com wrote: > Such a car weas build by two young hobbyists from New Zealand. It was > shown in television. The television crew subjected it to a simple test > to determine the saving on fuel that it accomplishes. It burns only > around 5 liters per 100 kilometers (plus around 1 liter of water), > while the car of an identical model, and year, burned on exactly the > same road and with exactly the same speeds over 20 liters per 100 > kilometers. > > About this kind of "cars on water" I remember to read theoretically > alteady in 1997 during my professorship in Borneo. But I never had an > opportunity to see how they compare to factory models. So with a great > interest I looked on Friday, 13 June 2008 at 7:00 pm to 7:30 pm on the > channel 3 of television New Zealand the program called "Campbell Live" > which was just about one such car constructed by two young New > Zealanders in their 20s. In this programme was also explained what the > design and operation of such a "car on water" was about. I described > this design and operation on my web page "free_energy.htm" (updated on > 15 June or later) the address of which can be find if in thewww.google.com > someone types the key words "Jan Pajak free_energy.htm" but without > quotes. In the program this "car on water was also subjected to an > experiment. Namely it was taken for a ride together with another > identical car of the same year and model, only that still in the > factory condition (it was probably "Ford Falcon"). Both cars drove the > same path with the same speed. After they went through 100 kilometers, > the fuel consumption was measured ion both of them by the TV crew. It > turned out that the "car on water" burned around 5 liters of petrol, > while the factory version of the same car burned over 20 liters (both > after 100 km on the road). So the saving on fuel amounted to 75% (or > three quorters) the the original (factory) fuel consumption. > > The mopdification of these two boys was extremely simple. They just > added to an old car that they had a small "dissociator of water" which > they build themselves. This dissociator consumed energy from the > dynamo and dissociated water into hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen was > let out, while the hydrogen was added to the air at the car's > carburattor. So this hydrogen, after entering the cylinder mixed with > the air, burned in the cylinder with the fuel and thus increased the > temperature of the burning. This raise in the temperature of burning > in turn caused the better burning of the fuel, and also the lack of > smoke in the exhaustions. So the burning become much more efficient. > The final effect was that the car consumed 75% less petrol. So the > entire saving on fuel results from this increased temperature in the > cylinder. The changes themselves were technically very simple, so that > even these two boys could complete them successfully. > > Because in this program there were no details of the car, I looked in > internet at web pages of the "Campbell LIfe" to find these details. > This particular program has 2 web pages, namelywww.3news.co.nzandwww.tv3.co.nz. But I could NOT find anything in there about thye car. > Therefore I described everything that I remembered from this program > on my web page. Interested readers can find it at the addresses of my > web page "free_energy.htm" update on 15 June or later. (This web page > needs to be seeked viawww.google.comas there is a lot of such web > pages - not all of these are updated on 15 July 2008. To find these > one needs to type key words listed before.) > > So it seems that it is worth to experiemnt with cars, as such simple > change as the "car on water" may save some of us even around $ 100 per > week. > > With the totaliztic salute, > Jan Pajak If we try to help Dr. Pajak get this discussion back on track, we will find that he is famous for many things, including the invention of a perpetual motion machine and his philosophy of "totalizm," which offers many comforting notions to us poor struggling "eaters of bread." The perpetual motion machine draws "free energy" (meaning, I suppose, not the Gibbs or Helmholtz free energy of statistical mechanics, but rather energy that costs nothing) from the environment, like a heat pump, he says. If this retired professor from the University of Borneo and other Asian institutions can get any recognition for his invention, then that will mark the end of the crushing effects of the dark forces of evil that he describes so well in his autobiography as having defeated him at almost every turn of his life. It is amazing that he has survived already into his 60's without having been killed by these dark forces, which have, however, prevented him from qualifying for unemployment benefits. Uncle Ben
From: Bret Cahill on 20 Jun 2008 14:13 > A gasoline ICE is about 30% efficient, A new perfectly tuned gas engine. > and a diesel one about 45%. 40% for diesel and large high pressure ratio gas turbines. Bret Cahill
From: Bret Cahill on 20 Jun 2008 14:22
> Gasoline engines are measured in emissions per gallon of fuel. So higher efficiency could mean higher NOx and more emissions/gallon. > Diesel > engines, however, are measured in emissions per mile. This means the > more efficient a diesel car gets, the higher the "emissions" it > produces, while the opposite is true for gasoline car. Higher efficiency would mean spreading diesel emissions over more miles for a lower number. It makes sense if you merely got it backwards. Bret Cahill |