Re: Cars that run on water?

Whereas I do not disagree with the assertions in your reply, that i am not a
genius and that i've rehashed many others' previous works. I have taken the
time and effort to investigate, experiment and to build sophisticated
aparatus based on those "others" original models...Archie Blue for example.

Thank you for the definitions also. How would you like to try and explain
why my engine works on this stuff at all. Howsabout trying to explain the
enormous energy release of [the] burning of Hydrogen and the pitiful energy
required to decompose it's resulting oxide. So many times posters on this
group have warned of the explosive nature of electrolytic gas, totally
missing the irony behind it


Into the living sea of waking dreams wrote:

> Peter Lowrie wrote:
>
>> Your science teacher is a klutz, and is spinning you with bull***.
Everyone
>> knows that 7 to 74 times more energy is released when Hydrogen oxidises
>> than is required to break it (water) apart again.
>>
>> The oxidisation of Hydrogen is a physical reaction - not strictly
chemical.
>>
>>
>> ngdbud@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have seen sites all over the internet that claim they have plans to
>>>make cars run on waterI read the descriptions and believed it but when
>>>i ran it by my science teacher he said that it was impossible and
>>>defied the law of concervation of energy. That's just about all he
>>>said, but i can fill in the blanks. if the water takes enrgy from the
>>>alternator then how can there be any energy left to make the car move?
>>>How can a car create its ownenergy? and if they are real, couldn't you
>>>just build a condensor to turn the steam back into water and into the
>>>gas tank? this would of course mean perpetual energy which is
>>>supposedly impossible, although i can't say i'm a skeptic.
>>
>>
>
> If that were true, we would not have the petroleum based engines in use
> to day.
>
> Afterall, you are not a genius, you have not done anything original, you
> have not discovered anything.
>
> As you admit, the basis is what "everyone knows".
>
> As long as you rehash what others have done, or have said they have
> done, you will not convince anyone of the efficacy of your device.
>
> BTW, what do you mean "oxidisation (sic) is a physical reaction"?
>
> FYI, physical reactions or more properly, changes are for example, going
> from crystalline (frozen water) to liquid to gaseous (steam).
>
> A chemical reaction involves the exchange of electrons, the formation of
> new electron orbitals, for instance: A chemical reaction is electrons
> are taken from one atom and transferred to another atom, for example
>
> Hydrogen with one electron will form a new bond with oxygen and share
> that electron with the oxygen atom.
>
> Oxygen is two electrons short of a full orbital, and will want two
> Hydrogens
>
> the result is a hybrid orbital, sp3, tetrahedral, with two orbitals
> containing 2 electrons each, and 2 hydrogen-oxygen bonds with 2
> electrons each. Since the electrons in the hydrogen-oxygen bonds will
> spend more time around the oxygen atom, giving the molecule a partial
> negative charge for the Oxygen and a partial positive for the Hydrogens.
>
> The angle between the Hydrogens is approximatel 109 degrees.
>
>
> Does this help?
>
> j.

--
Regards,
Peter.
http://www.pelicom.net.nz
.

Quantcast