Erie, PA man invents salt water engine

would be nice if this really works and changed the world positively

"eric wrote:

would be nice if this really works and changed the world positively

why do you doubt it works?

I saw several different videos on this and they all say it works. In fact it is supposedly the cleanest engine on the planet. Even cleaner then electric. Electric requires a fossil fuel to make the electric. This requires nothing but salt water and the emission is pure oxygen. According to other articles I have read salt is 1000 times more abundant then all the fossil fuels combined.

Not gonna be a big story because there is no money to be made here

YouTube - Water Powered Car! No More Gasoline!
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm

what a bunch of dead heads.

This could be the biggest stumbled upon invention in the history of the world and only one guy has any sort of comment and it was "if it works"

This is a game changer folks and I'm not talking about Henne's interceptions:up::pity:

"2socks wrote:

what a bunch of dead heads.

This could be the biggest stumbled upon invention in the history of the world and only one guy has any sort of comment and it was "if it works"

This is a game changer folks and I'm not talking about Henne's interceptions:up::pity:

This is amazing. I didn't see this thread till today.

I wonder how much water and salt would be needed to get any realistic mileage out of the engine.

forgive me for being skeptical, but ive been told all my life, " if something seems to good to be true, it probably is."

1. i saw a vide years ago about a man converting his ford station wagon to run on water and get 100 MPG. still havent seen or heard anything else ever about that.

2. there is money to be made, the surface of our planet is approximately 70% salt water. surely people could purify and sell it as a fuel cheaper then gas.

3. just imagine the difference this would make in the airline industry alone. no more combustible fuel tanks. september 11th wuold have been far worse had the planes been carrying tanks of salt water instead of jet fuel that burned for hours and led to the buildings collapsing.

4. flights would have no distance limitations. any plane could just drop a straw and fly low over the ocean to refuel. just like those forest fire planes use in lakes refill thier dump tanks.

5. imagine how much using salt water instead of jet fuel would lower our military operating budget alone.

YouTube - Water powered engine

saw this aboout 10 year ago.
100 miles on 4 ounces of water.
where the **** is this now?

Dead heads? I think "not gullible" is a more apt description.

The radio-wave generator consumes more energy than can be produced by the burning salt water. At this stage it's useless. All it's doing is getting the hydrogen in water to burn and using large amounts of energy to get that hydrogen to seperate from the oxygen.

"MarinePhinFan wrote:

Dead heads? I think "not gullible" is a more apt description.

The radio-wave generator consumes more energy than can be produced by the burning salt water. At this stage it's useless. All it's doing is getting the hydrogen in water to burn and using large amounts of energy to get that hydrogen to seperate from the oxygen.

Ten dollars says its still more efficient then a gas engine.

"unluckyluciano wrote:

Ten dollars says its still more efficient then a gas engine.

How about 1 million?

Once again, the radio wave generator consumes more energy than it makes in terms of the hydrogen to be burned. So, it would be like me burning 1 gallon of gas in order to obtain 1 ounce of gas. Add to that that it releases poisonous chlorine and what we have is a "cool" idea with no practical usage.

Someone's gonna be out for this guy's head.

"MarinePhinFan wrote:

How about 1 million?

Once again, the radio wave generator consumes more energy than it makes in terms of the hydrogen to be burned. So, it would be like me burning 1 gallon of gas in order to obtain 1 ounce of gas. Add to that that it releases poisonous chlorine and what we have is a "cool" idea with no practical usage.

Gas engines are one of the most inefficient things on this earth is my point. I don't have the exact figures but I'm willing to bet this still has better efficiency. I know how efficiency works by the way. And every engine consumes more then it makes, no engine puts out exactly what you put into it so I'm not sure what your point is with that.

"unluckyluciano wrote:

Gas engines are one of the most inefficient things on this earth is my point. I don't have the exact figures but I'm willing to bet this still has better efficiency. I know how efficiency works by the way. And every engine consumes more then it makes, no engine puts out exactly what you put into it so I'm not sure what your point is with that.

You're not understanding the point.

Of course there is no such thing as a 100% efficient engine. The point is, just making the hydrogen separate from the water using this method takes waaaaaaaay more energy than the amount of hydrogen created. It's less efficient than an internal combustion engine.

"MarinePhinFan wrote:

You're not understanding the point.

Of course there is no such thing as a 100% efficient engine. The point is, just making the hydrogen separate from the water using this method takes waaaaaaaay more energy than the amount of hydrogen created. It's less efficient than an internal combustion engine.

I Understand the point. Do you have the figures on the efficiency?

"MarinePhinFan wrote:

Dead heads? I think "not gullible" is a more apt description.

The radio-wave generator consumes more energy than can be produced by the burning salt water. At this stage it's useless. All it's doing is getting the hydrogen in water to burn and using large amounts of energy to get that hydrogen to seperate from the oxygen.

See this is the problem. Instead of slamming the idea and just writing it off, why don't you take a minute and do a little research. Not possible......you read one article and dismiss it.:pity:

The fact is, radio wave generators have made monumental strides since being first developed and are 10x,s more efficient since being first developed. Advances in electronic components and sensor technologies are steadily reducing the energy requirements. This with only a handful of people working on there efficiency.

Additionally they will at some point replace batteries. This is not a fantasy it is a fact. So please before dismissing something because your not "gullible" or insinuate that others are gullible, by partaking in this discussion......do some research

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/ambient-energy-generator-technology/

www.alternative-energy-news.info/tiny-generators-electricity-ambient-vibrations/

"Finascious D wrote:

This is amazing. I didn't see this thread till today.

I wonder how much water and salt would be needed to get any realistic mileage out of the engine.

right now 4 ounces of water produces 100 miles. with zero emissions.......oh wait sorry, their burning the hydrogen......so the emission is pure oxygen.

I just want to say that we are mixing a couple variations of the technology which have different hurdles so to speak. But none the less they are fascinating, in what they may be able to accomplish.

Imagine coupling this technology with nuclear power generation or solar power generation. with tweeks in these different technologies the sky is the limit

"2socks wrote:

See this is the problem. Instead of slamming the idea and just writing it off, why don't you take a minute and do a little research. Not possible......you read one article and dismiss it.:pity:

The fact is, radio wave generators have made monumental strides since being first developed and are 10x,s more efficient since being first developed. Advances in electronic components and sensor technologies are steadily reducing the energy requirements. This with only a handful of people working on there efficiency.

Additionally they will at some point replace batteries. This is not a fantasy it is a fact. So please before dismissing something because your not "gullible" or insinuate that others are gullible, by partaking in this discussion......do some research

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/ambient-energy-generator-technology/

www.alternative-energy-news.info/tiny-generators-electricity-ambient-vibrations/

If you want to run a car using only hydrogen, which happens to be the most abundant element in the universe and makes up 75% of everything in it, just use hydrogen. Using so much energy using this device to separate the hydrogen from the salt water in order to burn it which will yield about 30% of THAT energy is useless and wasteful. On top of that, why do you think you see the flame in the video? Hydrogen is invisible when it burns. The reason you see the flame is because the sodium is also burning and in turn producing a very hazardous chlorine spill.

However, research isn't really needed for things like this. Does it sound too good to be true? Put another way, why isn’t everyone in the world doing it already? Why doesn’t the military run its Humvees on “water gas”? Why hasn’t Detroit blown away those pesky fuel consumption standards with a water-powered SUV? Is there an elaborate conspiracy theory involved? Of course there is! The reason that water-powered cars haven’t taken over our roadways is that the inventor, Santa Claus, was killed by winged monkeys in 1998. Although authorities refused to pursue an investigation, security camera footage revealed a shirtless, shot-gun toting Dick Cheney fleeing the scene. Here’s the thing, though; except in bad movies, you can’t derail a technology by killing its inventor, particularly a technology that is described in great detail on the world wide web.

Also, are there any credible companies or research organizations touting the technology? When Google funds a company building water-powered cars, perhaps we can start to get excited about the prospect of filling up at the tap. :up:

"MarinePhinFan wrote:

If you want to run a car using only hydrogen, which happens to be the most abundant element in the universe and makes up 75% of everything in it, just use hydrogen. Using so much energy using this device to separate the hydrogen from the salt water in order to burn it which will yield about 30% of THAT energy is useless and wasteful. On top of that, why do you think you see the flame in the video? Hydrogen is invisible when it burns. The reason you see the flame is because the sodium is also burning and in turn producing a very hazardous chlorine spill.

However, research isn't really needed for things like this. Does it sound too good to be true? Put another way, why isn’t everyone in the world doing it already? Why doesn’t the military run its Humvees on “water gas”? Why hasn’t Detroit blown away those pesky fuel consumption standards with a water-powered SUV? Is there an elaborate conspiracy theory involved? Of course there is! The reason that water-powered cars haven’t taken over our roadways is that the inventor, Santa Claus, was killed by winged monkeys in 1998. Although authorities refused to pursue an investigation, security camera footage revealed a shirtless, shot-gun toting Dick Cheney fleeing the scene. Here’s the thing, though; except in bad movies, you can’t derail a technology by killing its inventor, particularly a technology that is described in great detail on the world wide web.

Also, are there any credible companies or research organizations touting the technology? When Google funds a company building water-powered cars, perhaps we can start to get excited about the prospect of filling up at the tap. :up:

First of all they were ancient winged Pterodactyl's. Get your fact straight!!!

you are missing the point

Na na na na na...................mines bigger:up:

The point made here is this is a extremely promising technology. The guy who invented it by mistake is a freaking retired microwave engineer who stumbled on it by mistake. He admits that he hasn't given much thought or energy to it because he has been concentrating on finding a cure for cancer. If some of the scientists would pay attention who know's what could be accomplished. It is very possible that in a closed loop system enough energy from the combustion of the hydrogen could be used just like in a internal combustion engine. Heat to run the spark to burn the hydrogen and enough energy to run a super efficient on board microwave generator. Electronics used to make the first generator(10 years ago) now need only 1/4 of the power to run now as they did then.......further decreasing the salt generator's need by 100's of percentage points.

Where the real technology is is in batteries. Because there are no electrode plates to corrode or chemical reactions to weaken, this technology could easily replace batteries in certain applications.

This machine is merely using RF energy to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen. In order to do that, it must supply at least as much energy as one can get by recombining them. This process has at least one advantage over straight electrolysis: it has no electrodes that corrode and require maintenance. So if it's efficient enough, it might be a reasonable way to produce hydrogen for use as a fuel. (The next step to solve is then separating the hydrogen from the oxygen, and the step after that is storing the hydrogen.)

If you took say Tesla Motors S Coup and made it a water hybrid.....who knows what the possibility is. (teslamotors.com) The S Coup gets 300 miles to a single charge. Cost's about $2 to charge, and takes about 4 hours to charge. Obviously you didn't read or bother to take a look at the links I posted for you to look at. Instead you want to ass/u/me that the misinformation you are putting out is a fact with out quantifying your response with facts/links. Make the statements but please back them up. Other posters have asked for the same and you ignored their requests.

I am open to the debate if you are game. And of course I mean you no disrespect.:up: