docco monday night on water fuel

[Mr Revhead]

maybe you need a 450hp ct26 to get it to work?

how many times are ppl gunna be sucked in by this???

i thought its quite simple.... the only way to make water combust is to seperate it, the energy required to seperate it is greater than the enery comtained. bang. theory stops there.

[fivebob]

maybe you need a 450hp ct26 to get it to work?

At least the 450HP CT26 is theoretically possible, though highly improbable

how many times are ppl gunna be sucked in by this???

As long as there are unscrupulous people prepared to pray on the ignorant, and the something for nothing mentality exists.

Mind you, unlike fossil fuels, the supply of ignorance is virtually unlimited given that education standards are so low these days that people don't even question the absurdity of such claims. Personally I blame Labours "Tomorrow’s Schools" policy for the gullibility of today’s youth

i thought its quite simple.... the only way to make water combust is to seperate it, the energy required to seperate it is greater than the enery comtained. bang. theory stops there.

Indeed it is that simple, but what you, and I, fail to understand is that, when you add gullibility and greed into the equation, it all becomes possible, and naysayers should be stoned to death as they are obviously not fit to live in a world of such magical happenings.

Hydrogen power is a reality, and an infinitely renewable resource. Unfortunately, it requires more power to make than it releases in combustion. So until it is produced from renewable energy sources such as solar or wind power, it will contribute more to greenhouse gasses than the fuel it's supposed to replace

[Santa'sBoostinSleigh]

until it is produced from renewable energy sources such as solar or wind power, it will contribute more to greenhouse gasses than the fuel it's supposed to replace

BINGO!

[old schooler]

told ya id get bagged!

thanks for the pic of the graph fivebob, i read it in a book once and have a copy of the graph that i drew by hand, for referance (spose im gonna get jumped on for copyrite laws now)

again, the other info was found in books. somewhere in the new plymouth liberary.

i guess that if i say that i can make a rocket travel at the speed of light, you will again say "proove it" and think "your nuts, your as crazy or stupid as that guy who said he got a motorbike running on water"

[fivebob]

told ya id get bagged!

Hmmm... Post BS without proof = get bagged. Pretty simple equation really. Seems to be universal and unlike water fuelled engines it has shown to be correct

(spose im gonna get jumped on for copyrite laws now)

No, though the copyright on Sir Harry's work does not expire until 2024 (50 years after he died), your copying of his work comes under the 'fair use" category, and thus is permissible

i guess that if i say that i can make a rocket travel at the speed of light, you will again say "proove it" and think "your nuts, your as crazy or stupid as that guy who said he got a motorbike running on water"

Not quite, I'll say "prove it"

However as Einstein has shown it's not possible to reach the speed of light, if you were to prove his theory wrong then you'd be in for a Nobel prize, fame, fortune, and all the benefits such an honour bestows.

Of course such fame and fortune requires that you be able to prove your theory, and, like water powered engines, according to the known laws of physics these things are not possible. So if you were able to formulate, and more importantly, prove new laws that permitted these wondrous feats then you would be believed, however I doubt you will achieve such greatness in you life time.

Of course you could just start a religion, which of course requires no proof only faith. Douglas Adams had it right when he wrote;

"I refuse to prove I exist," says God, "For proof denies Faith and without Faith I am nothing."

Substitute Water Engine Inventor for God, and a working model for existence and you’ve got yourself a nice little earner there, and, with a constant supply of gullible fools, oops I mean disciples, you can take on the laws of physics and win. Well at least in your mind you can win, everyone else will just think you a fool, and they may well be right.

Speaking of travelling faster than the speed of light, I saw an interesting documentary the other day on the subject of time travel, basically proved that while it's possible to travel into the future (by travelling at very high speeds), it is not possible to travel into the past, unless you can travel faster than light.

All sorts of interesting theories were proposed on how you could do it, but all failed because they broke the known laws of physics. Some were very ingenious, like folding the universe in on itself, but none were considered possible. Perchance you could use your Tomorrow's Schools edumication to proove (sic) they are indeed possible.

Whilst engaging in a battle of wits with the unarmed is a droll diversion in my otherwise tedious day, it's not really fair, as I'm the only one providing facts, and I'm getting bored with repeating myself. So I would appreciate it if the Tomorrow's Schoolers disciples of the Church of the Wondrous Free Energy Engine could please furnish some facts about how this device can possibly work. Of course this would mean that you could suffer the possibility of being called a heretic by your fellow devotees and excommunicated from said religion, but wouldn’t it be worth it to actually prove that you are right, and shock horror I am wrong

That alone will garner you several naïve dolts, oops I mean converts, for your newly founded religion

[old schooler]

point one, i said as fast as, not faster.

point two, Enstine just stated that as you aproce the speed of light, your mass increases. at the speed of light your mass is said to be infinate. and infinate mass would require infinate energy to move, therefore no one can travel at the speed of light....correct?

but in a rocket, the fuel also increses with mass. the fuel entering the place for combustion increses maintaining the same force to accelerate the increasing mass.

and no, making such a thing would be pointless as i wouldnt want to use it as anything with infinate mass will also have infinate gravity. thats a black hole.

point three. theory and practice are two different things. you can read all the books in the world on driving a car, but till you drive its how you learn. since water doesnt burn, how can it work?
screw knows, but if i found a way, i wouldnt tell no one for people of the likes of you calling me full of sh*t. and i would enjoy free fuel motoring

[RedMist]

You can't travel faster than the speed of sound. It's a scientific absolute.

And what light speed are we talking about? Einstein himself stated that the speed of light in vacuum is not constant.

And as to wither or not space can be folded, or a warp drive (not star trek!) created. It depends on which of the Galilean or Minkowski space-time holds to be true.

[fivebob]

You can't travel faster than the speed of sound. It's a scientific absolute.

So Concorde was just another consipricay then

And what light speed are we talking about? Einstein himself stated that the speed of light in vacuum is not constant.

I thought he said it was constant, but that light could travel faster than the speed of light if that makes sense. Also there are those lovely theoretical particles call Tachyons which supposedly can exist at faster than light speed, but of course they have to start there existence at a speed faster that light

And as to wither or not space can be folded, or a warp drive (not star trek!) created. It depends on which of the Galilean or Minkowski space-time holds to be true.

Folded space maybe, but warp drive is pure fantasy.

BTW nice hijack, that was going to be my next tactic but you beat me to it

[JT]

point three. theory and practice are two different things. you can read all the books in the world on driving a car, but till you drive its how you learn.

Not quite, wether you know how to drive from experience or read all books on the matter, the laws of physics still apply when you crash

You can't travel faster than the speed of sound. It's a scientific absolute.

So Concorde was just another consipricay then

[RedMist]

You can't travel faster than the speed of sound. It's a scientific absolute.

So Concorde was just another consipricay then

Sarcasm, before X1 broke the "sound BARRIER" it was a scientific absolute that if the air couldn't move out of the way quick enough you simply destroyed whatever was attempting to push said air. But you already knew that, and already knew that I was relating that to your comments in regards to the speed of light.

And what light speed are we talking about? Einstein himself stated that the speed of light in vacuum is not constant.

I thought he said it was constant, but that light could travel faster than the speed of light if that makes sense. Also there are those lovely theoretical particles call Tachyons which supposedly can exist at faster than light speed, but of course they have to start there existence at a speed faster that light

Actually he stated that as light has the ability to be affected by a gravitational force as such must alter it's point to point velocity. Theroretically Tachyons loose energy and increase speed. So they need not necessarily start existance at over the speed of light. There is supposition that Neutrinos are Tachyons.

And as to wither or not space can be folded, or a warp drive (not star trek!) created. It depends on which of the Galilean or Minkowski space-time holds to be true.

Folded space maybe, but warp drive is pure fantasy.

I disagree, some interesting hurdles to tackle, but I can't see why we couldnt harness the power of Tachyon's or some other faster than light substance.

[fivebob]

Sarcasm, before X1 broke the "sound BARRIER" it was a scientific absolute that if the air couldn't move out of the way quick enough you simply destroyed whatever was attempting to push said air.

Don't remember anything about it being a scientific absolute, but it was one of the theories proposed. I do know from experience the problems of object passing through the transonic region, (I've had props fly apart in mid air at 43,000rpm ) and the forces created can be very destructive, which is why special transonic airfoils have been created. There's an interesting article on the subject at http://www.supercoolprops.com/articles/transonic.php which shows the shockwaves that are formed when aproaching the speed of sound.

But you already knew that, and already knew that I was relating that to your comments in regards to the speed of light.

True, but I have never seen the speed of sound being called a scientific absolute, after all it varies depending on the substance which is transmitting the sound. I do recall reading theories that humans couldn't travel faster than 60mph or they would die, but that was 19th century mumbo jumbo

Actually he stated that as light has the ability to be affected by a gravitational force as such must alter it's point to point velocity.

It alters it's velocity but doesn't affect the speed

Theroretically Tachyons loose energy and increase speed. So they need not necessarily start existance at over the speed of light.

All the papers I've seen state that the slowest a Tachyon can travel is just above the speed of light. I'll have to do some more reading.

There is supposition that Neutrinos are Tachyons.

Hmm I thought Neutrinos were zero mass particles travelling at the speed of light, whereas Tachyons had mass and could only travel faster than the speed of light

I disagree, some interesting hurdles to tackle, but I can't see why we couldnt harness the power of Tachyon's or some other faster than light substance.

Can't see how you can accelerate a mass from sub light speeds through the speed of light. Even if you use tachyon energy, you still have the issue of requiring infinite time, or infinite energy, to reach the speed of light. I suppose it could be possible to pass through this barrier without actually achieving the speed of light, but that would take some serious manipulation of time and space. Mind you if propenents of the water engine would reveal how they get more power out of the engine than they put in, then the infinite energy problem might be solvable

[pc]

I don't believe the speed of light barrier the way it's described. I reckon that you just won't be able to propel anything faster so it wont be broken because of that.
I also don't believe the infinte mass idea or time slowing down. I reckon they're just a requirement for einstiens equations to work at extreme speeds.

The water/hydrogen engine idea is crap.
Could you concentrate a lot of sunlight using lenses into sparkplug holes (filled with glass) and run a normal combustion engine on water? A steam engine of sorts.

[Lloyd]

or time slowing down. I reckon they're just a requirement for einstiens equations to work at extreme speeds.

But experiments have shown the equations work

[malc]

just thought I would post a link to a website I found,
it explains some of the issues around using hydrogen as a fuel for motorcars and the like.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/pub/jmc/progress/hydrogen.html

whilst being optomistic about alternative fuels such as hydrogen (like a few others), the facts about hyrdogen as a fuel cannot be denied.
It is interesting to learn of the advantages of water injection in engines though, experimented with in aircraft in the second world war to surpress detonation and increase service ceiling, and has since been used in turbo and supercharged cars to also stop detonation and lower intake and combustion temps. Although the water is not burned as such, it is interesting to see how by injecting water into an engine there can sometimes be performance gains to be had.