It stops when we all say it stops, luckily for us, much progress has been made. Things are slowly but surely changing. This is the will of the Creator.
Jethro didn’t this on the Beverly Hillbillies TV show back in the sixties, except when he switched the car from gasoline water, the car died.
This is one of those stories that makes GW look like conspiracy kooks.
I’ve been an engineer for 40 years and I can tell you as the person said at the beginning of the video, it takes more energy to separate hydrogen from oxygen than you get in return from burning the hydrogen, unless someone had found a cheap catalyst that would give up energy during the separation process, and then we would have a viable inexhaustible source of energy.
Electrical power on a vehicle is not free. It comes as a direct result of consuming fuel within the engine to drive the alternator. With a typical engine efficiency of 40%, a belt efficiency of 98% and an alternator efficiency of 55%, this leads to an overall energy conversion efficiency of only 21%.
It's roughly 260k joules of energy to split 1 mole of water into hydrogen and oxygen.
1 mole of hydrogen offers roughly 280k joules of potential energy at combustion. And we would have two moles of oxygen or roughly 12k more joules burning that up. Let's just say there's 10% "more energy" from the process to keep things simple. Awesome! Thats why the water car theory seems to make sense.
The issue is that you need to produce 5x more energy for an ICE car to get the 260k joules to split the water molecules (cars have about 20% efficiency). Or 1,300,000 joules. Now you've lost a ton of energy. But at least it's not gasoline, right?
Because it takes 4x more energy to split the atoms than you would get from burning the atoms, the system can't run using only water. You would need electricity in a battery that couldn't be recharged or you would be burning gas in a horribly inefficient manner.
If you did overcome the efficiency problem of a combustion engine and got to 100%, you'd net about .15 miles per gallon in the average car, as you'd only have available the net difference between splitting molecules (takes energy) and burning them (creates energy). That's not a good solution.
Simply put, ICE engines cannot run on water. Period.
A 1.5v drycell battery can separate oxygen from hydrogen, however if you wanted to use the hydrogen to turn a generator to charge the battery, the entire system would drain down to zero energy in a short time because it takes more energy to separate the hydrogen than is ever recovered.
If you start the system with a large battery and use the energy from the battery to split the H2O, you could get enough H2 gas to run the engine for a while, but eventually it will run out of energy from the battery. The system is a net sum loss system.
I remember hearing Stanley on the Mike Murphy show in the 80's or 90's. Mike was a radio guy who was into conspiracies and ufo's. Mr. Murphy believed also that Stanley was murdered. If it didn't work, why would they feel they had to kill him? I know nothing about engineering, just being devils advocate.
Better answer: He wasn't murdered. Neither Mr. Murphy nor anyone can overcome the laws of chemistry and physics. This is sort of high school level science, so those who believe Mr. Murphy are likely to believe a lot of things outside their knowledge.
The tip-off is that the promoters either never have a scientific explanation of the details, to show why it is or would be possible, or their explanation is incomplete. Or they begin to act squirrelly if reasonable questions are asked. Questionable accomplishments even get significant scientific and industrial notice, before they mysteriously dwindle into obscurity (usually related to odd financial maneuvers of the proponents). An example of this was Andrea Rossi and his cold fusion gadget, the E-Cat. (Here's a good run-down: https://skepticalinquirer.org/2019/05/rossis-e-cat-expose-of-a-claimed-cold-fusion-device/) We had the E-Cat come up for consideration at my company, but making sense out of it was elusive. My best guess at the time was that the process might have been the stimulation of beta decay in the construction materials, transforming nickel into copper. Alas, no joy.
What if he was channeling power from the Dark Dimension? What if he had a racecage filled with super-hamsters? What if he had an accomplice pull his car with an invisible fishline? If you want to play the "what if?" game (a child's game), I can go on indefinitely. The point is, what he touted is not scientifically possible and he evidently never explained why it could be. It's just another perpetual motion hoax.
His death was attributed to an aneurism, but people think it was poison. Who knows. Did he find a catalyst that could provide the energy needed to make the separation of hydrogen and oxygen practical? If so, he found the holy grail of science, because it would result in limitless inexpensive energy. I am very doubtful that he did.
Yes, catalyst is the wrong word. The substance would need to be used in place of direct energy from a battery but from another compound that would give up energy in order to release the H2. The problem is that Oxygen and hydrogen have one of the strongest affinities known, so finding a compound that would draw the oxygen away to free the hydrogen isn't known.
Oh, there's no problem finding such compounds. All the alkali metals will react the oxygen out of the water molecule (e.g., lithium, which is why I laugh when I see firemen trying to put out a lithium fire with a flood of water). But what would be the point of that? Simpler to burn the energetic compound. But what have you saved?
After thrashing through the periodic table, one ultimately comes to the conclusion that if there weren't hydrocarbon fuels, we would have to synthesize them, because they are so useful and convenient as sources of energy.
Here is a website I found at a patrons request when I was working at the library. Evidently the owner of the website was put in federal prison for 20 years. He died after release, if i recall it was because of complications of diabetes. Interesting stuff.
Remember the lone gunman. Yah ah they were canceled right after the water powered car episode. It is still vivid in my mind. The real invetor crawled into his house and said before he died. THEY KILLED ME. heart attack gun in operation. Chilling.
It stops when we all say it stops, luckily for us, much progress has been made. Things are slowly but surely changing. This is the will of the Creator.
Myers is the tip of the iceberg, many many more before and after
Ahem, Nikola, ahem.
Jethro didn’t this on the Beverly Hillbillies TV show back in the sixties, except when he switched the car from gasoline water, the car died.
This is one of those stories that makes GW look like conspiracy kooks.
I’ve been an engineer for 40 years and I can tell you as the person said at the beginning of the video, it takes more energy to separate hydrogen from oxygen than you get in return from burning the hydrogen, unless someone had found a cheap catalyst that would give up energy during the separation process, and then we would have a viable inexhaustible source of energy.
Absolutely not possible.
Electrical power on a vehicle is not free. It comes as a direct result of consuming fuel within the engine to drive the alternator. With a typical engine efficiency of 40%, a belt efficiency of 98% and an alternator efficiency of 55%, this leads to an overall energy conversion efficiency of only 21%.
Maybe this will help...
It's roughly 260k joules of energy to split 1 mole of water into hydrogen and oxygen.
1 mole of hydrogen offers roughly 280k joules of potential energy at combustion. And we would have two moles of oxygen or roughly 12k more joules burning that up. Let's just say there's 10% "more energy" from the process to keep things simple. Awesome! Thats why the water car theory seems to make sense.
The issue is that you need to produce 5x more energy for an ICE car to get the 260k joules to split the water molecules (cars have about 20% efficiency). Or 1,300,000 joules. Now you've lost a ton of energy. But at least it's not gasoline, right?
Because it takes 4x more energy to split the atoms than you would get from burning the atoms, the system can't run using only water. You would need electricity in a battery that couldn't be recharged or you would be burning gas in a horribly inefficient manner.
If you did overcome the efficiency problem of a combustion engine and got to 100%, you'd net about .15 miles per gallon in the average car, as you'd only have available the net difference between splitting molecules (takes energy) and burning them (creates energy). That's not a good solution.
Simply put, ICE engines cannot run on water. Period.
A 1.5v drycell battery can separate oxygen from hydrogen, however if you wanted to use the hydrogen to turn a generator to charge the battery, the entire system would drain down to zero energy in a short time because it takes more energy to separate the hydrogen than is ever recovered.
If you start the system with a large battery and use the energy from the battery to split the H2O, you could get enough H2 gas to run the engine for a while, but eventually it will run out of energy from the battery. The system is a net sum loss system.
I remember hearing Stanley on the Mike Murphy show in the 80's or 90's. Mike was a radio guy who was into conspiracies and ufo's. Mr. Murphy believed also that Stanley was murdered. If it didn't work, why would they feel they had to kill him? I know nothing about engineering, just being devils advocate.
Better answer: He wasn't murdered. Neither Mr. Murphy nor anyone can overcome the laws of chemistry and physics. This is sort of high school level science, so those who believe Mr. Murphy are likely to believe a lot of things outside their knowledge.
I want to argue but your reasoning is solid. Slight of hand.
The tip-off is that the promoters either never have a scientific explanation of the details, to show why it is or would be possible, or their explanation is incomplete. Or they begin to act squirrelly if reasonable questions are asked. Questionable accomplishments even get significant scientific and industrial notice, before they mysteriously dwindle into obscurity (usually related to odd financial maneuvers of the proponents). An example of this was Andrea Rossi and his cold fusion gadget, the E-Cat. (Here's a good run-down: https://skepticalinquirer.org/2019/05/rossis-e-cat-expose-of-a-claimed-cold-fusion-device/) We had the E-Cat come up for consideration at my company, but making sense out of it was elusive. My best guess at the time was that the process might have been the stimulation of beta decay in the construction materials, transforming nickel into copper. Alas, no joy.
Our understanding of chemistry and physics. What if he discovered something an alien race figured out a long time ago?
What if he was channeling power from the Dark Dimension? What if he had a racecage filled with super-hamsters? What if he had an accomplice pull his car with an invisible fishline? If you want to play the "what if?" game (a child's game), I can go on indefinitely. The point is, what he touted is not scientifically possible and he evidently never explained why it could be. It's just another perpetual motion hoax.
You figured it out! Eureka! Water fueled cars, here we come!
His death was attributed to an aneurism, but people think it was poison. Who knows. Did he find a catalyst that could provide the energy needed to make the separation of hydrogen and oxygen practical? If so, he found the holy grail of science, because it would result in limitless inexpensive energy. I am very doubtful that he did.
Catalysts do not supply energy to a reaction. They only speed up a reaction that would happen anyway.
Yes, catalyst is the wrong word. The substance would need to be used in place of direct energy from a battery but from another compound that would give up energy in order to release the H2. The problem is that Oxygen and hydrogen have one of the strongest affinities known, so finding a compound that would draw the oxygen away to free the hydrogen isn't known.
Oh, there's no problem finding such compounds. All the alkali metals will react the oxygen out of the water molecule (e.g., lithium, which is why I laugh when I see firemen trying to put out a lithium fire with a flood of water). But what would be the point of that? Simpler to burn the energetic compound. But what have you saved?
After thrashing through the periodic table, one ultimately comes to the conclusion that if there weren't hydrocarbon fuels, we would have to synthesize them, because they are so useful and convenient as sources of energy.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence........Why wouldn't chy-nah be building them by the millions?? they could name their own price.
Here is a website I found at a patrons request when I was working at the library. Evidently the owner of the website was put in federal prison for 20 years. He died after release, if i recall it was because of complications of diabetes. Interesting stuff.
Remember the lone gunman. Yah ah they were canceled right after the water powered car episode. It is still vivid in my mind. The real invetor crawled into his house and said before he died. THEY KILLED ME. heart attack gun in operation. Chilling.