911wasalie Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 It's a very inefficient process though. So was the petrol engine at one time,in fact it still is. It's all down to money in the end from the big corporations and governments point of view but individuals must start thinking for themselves and stop repeating negative stuff from the media. When I lived in England I constantly heard passengers on British Rail complaining about the service etc. Well they now have what they wished for, a complete disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
911wasalie Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 Try experimenting with electrolytic capacitors, consider the energy to weight ratio compared to lead acid batteries also their working life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyer Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 to lazy to look at allthe threads as anyone pointed out that Iceland is moving to 100% hydrogen and as for running a car on water I think around the late 40s Armstong Sidley had a car that injected steam direct into the chamber must have had problems with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Using steam to transfer energy is not 'running on' water. Something else was providing the energy to generate steam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishall Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 There are many claims of technology that breaks the laws of physics. There was a programme called 'Zero Point Energy' on TV a few years ago, it investigated various claims of producing more energy than that used to extract it. One was the use of water hammer, a heating engineer in the states noticed heat being produced where water hammer was occurring and through trial and error produced a simple machine using an electric motor that produced water hammer efficiently with the result that an increase of 5% energy in the form of heat was achieved, he set a system up in a fire station and managed to heat the place more cheaply than with conventional means. Scientists refused to measure his results because they said it was impossible to achieve so there was no point in bothering! The other system was hydrogen production from water, a demo showed hydrogen being produced from a few watts of electricity, the inventor declined to reveal his secret method. This method resulted in an energy increase of 80%. One of these inventors had been approached by oil companies with the intention of buying them out and burying the technology. 'Starlite' what's all that about? It's a funny old world http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/5158972/Starlite-the-nuclear-blast-defying-plastic-that-could-change-the-world.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Why would an oil company buy and then bury the technology. They could buy, commercialise and rule the world with that technology. Like most conspiracy theories, it doesn't actually stand up to a little bit of thought and no doubt wouldn't stand up to any investigation either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Why would an oil company buy and then bury the technology. They could buy, commercialise and rule the world with that technology. Like most conspiracy theories, it doesn't actually stand up to a little bit of thought and no doubt wouldn't stand up to any investigation either. Because oil companies have current huge income, and have invested heavily in the production of oil. Why would they want or need to develop and market an alternative? Why would they want to jeapordise that income? It makes sense to me for the oil companies to swallow up any good ideas for alternatives and 'save them for later'. I don't think it's a conspiracy theory as such. It just makes commercial sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishall Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Why would an oil company buy and then bury the technology. They could buy, commercialise and rule the world with that technology. Like most conspiracy theories, it doesn't actually stand up to a little bit of thought and no doubt wouldn't stand up to any investigation either. It would appear that way to conventional logic but as I said earlier, it's a funny old world, there's stuff going on that the ordinary person has no knowledge of. Besides it's said the oil companies already rule the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Vehicle powered by water, eh. I think I remember this one, wasn't it called a steam engine ? Showing your age a bit there. to lazy to look at allthe threads as anyone pointed out that Iceland is moving to 100% hydrogen Iceland has the big advantage of geothermal energy... and also a population that is prepared to stand up to their government. as for running a car on water I think around the late 40s Armstong Sidley had a car that injected steam direct into the chamber must have had problems with it I think that is a whole different idea: the water injection improves the efficiency of the infernal combustion engine. It still runs on petrol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 It would appear that way to conventional logic but as I said earlier, it's a funny old world, there's stuff going on that the ordinary person has no knowledge of. Besides it's said the oil companies already rule the world. Given that there isn't a single oil company, and any kind of 'free energy' machine would mean that there very shortly would be, that still doesn't explain anything. The starlite story is interesting, although it doesn't explain how you extrude something that is heat resistant... If I was a betting man I'd bet that it goes nowhere. Please bear in mind that the inventor Maurice Ward (an amateur chemist and former hairdresser) was so moved by the news of children dying in a plane fire that he created this wonder material from common chemicals used in hair styling. Despite a handful of well publicised tests (published by himself and not by the well known agencies that supposedly carried out these tests I should add) there was a complete lack of peer review or open testing and entirely contrary to his supposed compassionate motivation in making this substance he utterly kiboshed all commercial offers on the formula during the discussion phase and despite the ease of production and the obvious revolutionary applications made no effort to go into production for himself. He died earlier this year and took the formula for Starlite to his grave, however 2 years prior to this in 2009 he did begin re-releasing old videos of 'tests' and republicising this substance. This seems to me to be a result of his knowing that he was dying and wanting to go out with some kind of fanfare or last hurrah. Considering the timing this seems entirely self serving expecially when you remember that his 'altruistic' nature didn't predispose him to make the formula freely available for the good of humanity (or the little children), or even to pass it onto his family. That seems like a fair assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.