PDA

View Full Version : Misc Run Your Car With Water


CosmicPal
06-13-2008, 10:40 AM
Anyone know if this is legit? I couldn't find anything on Snopes.com about it.

I suppose it would work....Any auto-mechanics or enthusiasts out there that can shine some light on this?

http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/

CosmicPal
06-13-2008, 10:50 AM
Geez....I love how they sell how the "over 90 pages of detailed instructions" are so EASY to follow. I very much doubt that. :(

Brock
06-13-2008, 10:51 AM
I'm holding out for the gravity-driven perpetual motion engine.

kepp
06-13-2008, 10:52 AM
This explains the mushroom cloud I saw this morning.

But seriously, if it works that'd be cool to do. Test it out on an old beater first. You can probably find the "ebook" in a torrent (or other freely-downloadable medium) somewhere.

tiptap
06-13-2008, 10:56 AM
When you burn something, carbon or hydrogen, you add oxygen to it. Oxidize it. That is the energy producing process. So if you have H20 it is already oxidized. Any process then has to use some other energy to first reduce Hydrogen before then in turn burning it again to get water. That external energy could come from solar or wind but if it comes from a fossil fuel, the second law of thermodynamics says you will never get as much energy out of the produced reduced Hydrogen you put in from the Fossil fuel in the first place. Now you might have a Hydrogen engine that is itself very efficient as compared to Fossil Fuel burning engine and so may benefit in converting to Hydrogen system but this would be from bad engine efficiency in the Fossil fuel engine as opposed to actually getting energy from water. (Unless it is hydraulic energy from water driven turbines)

MTG#10
06-13-2008, 10:58 AM
Damn I want to bone Rachel.

MTG#10
06-13-2008, 11:01 AM
I would try this but think of what it would do to your water bill!



















:D

FAX
06-13-2008, 11:02 AM
My brother in law swears he has a friend (from Missouri, by the way) who has rigged his truck to run on water. I must assume it's true.

Anyhow, he's planning on getting together with this person to convert his car to an Aquamobile. If that works, I'm going to do the same thing.

FAX

MTG#10
06-13-2008, 11:02 AM
When you burn something, carbon or hydrogen, you add oxygen to it. Oxidize it. That is the energy producing process. So if you have H20 it is already oxidized. Any process then has to use some other energy to first reduce Hydrogen before then in turn burning it again to get water. That external energy could come from solar or wind but if it comes from a fossil fuel, the second law of thermodynamics says you will never get as much energy out of the produced reduced Hydrogen you put in from the Fossil fuel in the first place. Now you might have a Hydrogen engine that is itself very efficient as compared to Fossil Fuel burning engine and so may benefit in converting to Hydrogen system but this would be from bad engine efficiency in the Fossil fuel engine as opposed to actually getting energy from water. (Unless it is hydraulic energy from water driven turbines)

Apparently it uses power from your battery...which is then of course replaced with your alternator.

FAX
06-13-2008, 11:03 AM
I would try this but think of what it would do to your water bill!:D

You should be able to use urine, Mr. MTG#10.

FAX

kepp
06-13-2008, 11:05 AM
You should be able to use urine, Mr. MTG#10.

FAX

So, in reality, we could soon have beer-powered cars.

MTG#10
06-13-2008, 11:05 AM
You should be able to use urine, Mr. MTG#10.

FAX

Maybe but how do you make urine? Water, still killing my water bill. :mad:

FAX
06-13-2008, 11:07 AM
When you burn something, carbon or hydrogen, you add oxygen to it. Oxidize it. That is the energy producing process. So if you have H20 it is already oxidized. Any process then has to use some other energy to first reduce Hydrogen before then in turn burning it again to get water. That external energy could come from solar or wind but if it comes from a fossil fuel, the second law of thermodynamics says you will never get as much energy out of the produced reduced Hydrogen you put in from the Fossil fuel in the first place. Now you might have a Hydrogen engine that is itself very efficient as compared to Fossil Fuel burning engine and so may benefit in converting to Hydrogen system but this would be from bad engine efficiency in the Fossil fuel engine as opposed to actually getting energy from water. (Unless it is hydraulic energy from water driven turbines)

What about the guy who shoots radio frequencies at salt water? He isn't "adding" anything to the water. He's agitating the molecules with the radio waves and the water burns.

If you had a battery that could generate the radio frequencies, that would work, right?

FAX

FAX
06-13-2008, 11:07 AM
Maybe but how do you make urine? Water, still killing my water bill. :mad:


Beer.

FAX

CosmicPal
06-13-2008, 11:09 AM
Maybe but how do you make urine? Water, still killing my water bill. :mad:

I believe the article said, nothing more than a gallon of water would be sufficient.

That's hardly killing your water bill. I would think your toilet alone would be worse. :D

MTG#10
06-13-2008, 11:12 AM
I believe the article said, nothing more than a gallon of water would be sufficient.

That's hardly killing your water bill. I would think your toilet alone would be worse. :D

Yeah I was just joking around...obviously gasoline is about 1000 times more expensive than water. :p

Skip Towne
06-13-2008, 11:14 AM
My brother in law swears he has a friend (from Missouri, by the way) who has rigged his truck to run on water. I must assume it's true.

Anyhow, he's planning on getting together with this person to convert his car to an Aquamobile. If that works, I'm going to do the same thing.

FAX

Stanley Steamer?

FAX
06-13-2008, 11:21 AM
Stanley Steamer?

I don't think he's burning wood or coal, Mr. Skip Towne. It has something to do an electrical charge that slams headfirst into the hydrogen atoms who get pissed off and try and retaliate against the electrical charge, but another electrical charge sneaks up behind the hydrogen atoms and gets down on all fours and then a big electrical charge pushes the hydrogen atoms backwards over that electrical charge and all the other electrical charges have a big laugh at the hydrogen atoms' expense.

FAX

cdcox
06-13-2008, 11:26 AM
I don't think he's burning wood or coal, Mr. Skip Towne. It has something to do an electrical charge that slams headfirst into the hydrogen atoms who get pissed off and try and retaliate against the electrical charge, but another electrical charge sneaks up behind the hydrogen atoms and gets down on all fours and then a big electrical charge pushes the hydrogen atoms backwards over that electrical charge and all the other electrical charges have a big laugh at the hydrogen atoms' expense.

FAX

Exactly correct, FAX. The laughing electrical charges are just goofing off, not doing any useful work. This is called the second law of thermodynamics, except they are laughing at us, not the hydrogen atom.

Donger
06-13-2008, 11:27 AM
I prefer the Fred Flintstone conversion. Cheaper, too.

cdcox
06-13-2008, 11:28 AM
I prefer the Fred Flintstone conversion. Cheaper, too.

I hate Big Feet.

JBucc
06-13-2008, 11:28 AM
You can run your car on water for free. Just sit by the coast and wait for a really really big wave.

Adept Havelock
06-13-2008, 12:37 PM
I think you left an "I" out of the first word in the thread title.

chasedude
06-13-2008, 12:41 PM
A woman I work with says her husband has been working on this with friends. He's claimed to have it working in one of his friends trucks resulting in 70 mpg overall.

I've been begging her to give me the info on it and she keeps forgetting to tell her husband.

mrbiggz
06-13-2008, 12:42 PM
I don't know about the site listed in the orignal post, but blog.waterforfuel.com is the real thing. I have been following along for over a year now and if he is able to crack it then I'll be the first in line to buy a kit and convert my car.

you can see some a demo at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcl3qDJrPyE

Kerberos
06-13-2008, 12:46 PM
My dad had a friend 25 years ago that tried this kind of thing with a small coleman cooler with the lid melted to the base for his hydrogen chamber. Never saw a bit of difference in gas milage or effeciency.

This is a load of shit or everyone would be doing it already IMO.

Donger
06-13-2008, 12:53 PM
Anyone know if this is legit? I couldn't find anything on Snopes.com about it.

I suppose it would work....Any auto-mechanics or enthusiasts out there that can shine some light on this?

http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/

Surely everyone noticed that the website states: Run your car on water AND gas.

tiptap
06-13-2008, 01:24 PM
What about the guy who shoots radio frequencies at salt water? He isn't "adding" anything to the water. He's agitating the molecules with the radio waves and the water burns.

If you had a battery that could generate the radio frequencies, that would work, right?

FAX

Yes, the radio frequencies are "tuned" to augment the reduction of Hydrogen and they do provide energy to do just that. If it were different then the fundamental laws of Thermodynamics would be wrong. And the battery as source gets that electricity from the alternator run by a gasoline engine. There is no way, absolutely no way, to get energy from the oxidized state of Hydrogen and Oxygen (water). The burning of the reduced Hydrogen in fuel cells is what is being done but the original energy has to come from somewhere else. Now it could be the grid. I am all for running cars off the grid and if you wish to do so by means of a fuel cell great. (Charge up at night when electrical prices are lower and less demand on the grid) But the water is not an energy source. The reduction of the Hydrogen of water acts like a battery or capacitor to store the energy until use later. But with loss over the energy needed to reduce the Hydrogen from water.

Count Alex's Losses
06-13-2008, 01:27 PM
I got some penis enlargement pills if you want 'em.

CosmicPal
06-13-2008, 01:31 PM
I got some penis enlargement pills if you want 'em.

Good luck with that.

FAX
06-13-2008, 01:32 PM
Yes, the radio frequencies are "tuned" to augment the reduction of Hydrogen and they do provide energy to do just that. If it were different then the fundamental laws of Thermodynamics would be wrong. And the battery as source gets that electricity from the alternator run by a gasoline engine. There is no way, absolutely no way, to get energy from the oxidized state of Hydrogen and Oxygen (water). The burning of the reduced Hydrogen in fuel cells is what is being done but the original energy has to come from somewhere else. Now it could be the grid. I am all for running cars off the grid and if you wish to do so by means of a fuel cell great. (Charge up at night when electrical prices are lower and less demand on the grid) But the water is not an energy source. The reduction of the Hydrogen of water acts like a battery or capacitor to store the energy until use later. But with loss over the energy needed to reduce the Hydrogen from water.

I guess I'm not understanding this. Of course, I am neither an engineer nor a chemist, but I am interested in learning so apologies for the near-idiocy, Mr. tiptap.

The H20 is, essentially, energy in storage, right? I mean, when the radio waves bombard the salt water, it's releasing stored energy?

FAX

cdcox
06-13-2008, 01:44 PM
I guess I'm not understanding this. Of course, I am neither an engineer nor a chemist, but I am interested in learning so apologies for the near-idiocy, Mr. tiptap.

The H20 is, essentially, energy in storage, right? I mean, when the radio waves bombard the salt water, it's releasing stored energy?

FAX

You can think of the water as basically a dead battery. No (useful) energy stored. You have to add energy to the water (in the form of electricity, radiowaves, whatever) to get water to release its hydrogen. The hydrogen can be thought of as a charged battery that is storing energy. It is storing the energy that came from the electricity or the radiowaves or whatever.

The key thing to remember is that every time you go through an energy coversion step (burn coal to make electricity, use electricity to make radiowaves, use raidio waves to make hydrogen, burn hydrogen in a fuel cell to make electricity, use a moter to covert electricity to mechanical engergy to run your car) you pay an energy tax to Mother Nature due to the second law of thermodynamics. Some steps are more efficient than others, but no conversion step is 100% efficient. In general, the more steps you have, the less efficiently you are using the energy and the more expensive it will be. Every time you covert energy you are baring your ass to Mother Nature and she is going to take a chunck, without fail.

cdcox
06-13-2008, 02:09 PM
Here are the laws of themodynamics conveniently summarized.

Zeroth: You must play the game.
First: You can't win.
Second: You can't break even.
Third: You can't quit the game.

FAX
06-13-2008, 02:19 PM
Okay. Thanks for the education, Mr. cdcox. I understand the second law of thermodynamics. But, here's my question ... the energy stored in gasoline is released by burning it, correct? This is accomplished by means of a spark.

If the energy stored in H20 can be released (burned) by means of a radio wave, what is the difference?

FAX

tiptap
06-13-2008, 02:25 PM
You missed that it is the Hydrogen alone that is burning, even the salt water. The water is converted into Hydorgen and oxygen. Then the spark starts the burning of the Hydrogen and the Oxygen in the air into water. It is the Hydrogen that is the charged battery, just like gasoline is a charged battery based upon Carbon burning. That stored energy is from hundreds of millions of years ago from the algae (and other organic material) storing solar energy in reduced carbon form, oil (or coal or natural gas).

FAX
06-13-2008, 02:34 PM
I suppose I'm going to flunk. Last effort before I drop this class.

The stored energy in gasoline is dead plant energy and the stored energy in hydrogen is big bang energy. Both allow this stored energy to be released by burning. You begin the process with a spark in the case of gasoline and radio waves in the case of hydrogen (in the salt water), but it's different somehow?

FAX

ElGringo
06-13-2008, 02:35 PM
I really think it sounds like a good idea, but have no idea how it works. I just thought I would let you know that a quick search for a torrent file got me the pdf for free, so no need t pay for it. I just wish I was around someone that could make it and put it in my car for me (if it works).

HemiEd
06-13-2008, 02:39 PM
I'm holding out for the gravity-driven perpetual motion engine.

It is right around the corner, hold your breath.

Baconeater
06-13-2008, 02:43 PM
If it really worked, someone would already be doing it on a large scale.

HemiEd
06-13-2008, 02:45 PM
I got some penis enlargement pills if you want 'em.

3 inches is NOT considered large, don't stop using them yet.

FAX
06-13-2008, 02:45 PM
What about magnetics? Maybe we could tap into the Earth's magnetosphere and go places by adjusting our polarity shifter?

FAX

HemiEd
06-13-2008, 02:49 PM
What about magnetics? Maybe we could tap into the Earth's magnetosphere and go places by adjusting our polarity shifter?

FAX

I think you are on to something there Mr. Fax, especially when you couple it with the finding that the speed of light, is not the speed limit.

bowener
06-13-2008, 03:46 PM
I have $50 to blow... should i but the guide to see how hard this really is?

Bob Dole
06-13-2008, 03:50 PM
A friend here in Texarkana and some of his co-workers have been converting their work vehicles to use Brown's gas.

wutamess
06-13-2008, 03:58 PM
I have $50 to blow... should i but the guide to see how hard this really is?


I think I have the guide on my hd somewhere.
I'll upload it to my site if really interested.

update: uploading it now.

Stewie
06-13-2008, 04:24 PM
I bet there are people who really buy this BS. It's a tragedy.

CrazyPhuD
06-13-2008, 04:30 PM
The short answer with this is join an MLM you'll lose less money. It is provably impossible for this to succeed. If you want to give him money then by all means do so.

With gas prices the way they are scam artists will come out of the woodworks to steal your money and this person is no different. Can't work...not now...not ever.

bowener
06-13-2008, 04:36 PM
The short answer with this is join an MLM you'll lose less money. It is provably impossible for this to succeed. If you want to give him money then by all means do so.

With gas prices the way they are scam artists will come out of the woodworks to steal your money and this person is no different. Can't work...not now...not ever.

Im not educated in this, why will it not work?

I think I have the guide on my hd somewhere.
I'll upload it to my site if really interested.

update: uploading it now.

Where is said site?

CrazyPhuD
06-13-2008, 04:53 PM
Im not educated in this, why will it not work?


I'll try to keep this simple....

Here's the formula for making hydrogen and oxygen from water. Water is H20, hydrogen gas is H2 oxygen gas is O2.

2 H20 + Energy = 2 H2 + O2

In effect to create hydrogen and oxygen gas you need to add energy. They have a process for this it's call electrolysis.

Now once you have hydrogen and oxygen you can combust them or even use them in a fuel cell to create energy. The reaction in these cases are.

2 H2 + O2 = 2 H20 + Energy

If you notice it's just the opposite reaction that was done to create the gasses in the first place. The Issue is the Energy component in both equations are the same. This means you need exactly as much energy to create the hydrogen and oxygen gasses as you generate when you combust them.

If you need the same amount of energy to break down the water as you do when you combust the oxygen and hydrogen, then what energy do you have left to move your car? The answer is none. This is basic conservation of energy.

cdcox
06-13-2008, 04:55 PM
I suppose I'm going to flunk. Last effort before I drop this class.

The stored energy in gasoline is dead plant energy and the stored energy in hydrogen is big bang energy. Both allow this stored energy to be released by burning. You begin the process with a spark in the case of gasoline and radio waves in the case of hydrogen (in the salt water), but it's different somehow?

FAX

Please don't drop the class. It's really important for average citizens to understand the fundamentals of energy as we consider various ways to fuel our future. To entice you to stay, I'll break out a couple of titty graphs.

The first graph shows what happens when you burn gasoline. You start with gasoline and oxygen and end with water and CO2. The gasoline already has a great deal of energy stored in it (shown in green). Just not quite enough to spontaneously decompose into CO2 and water. So we add a tiny bit of energy to it in the form of a spark. This gives enough energy for the gasoline and oxygen to burn to CO2 and water, therby releasing all of the stored energy. The energy out (shown in red) is much greater than the energy added by the spark (shown in blue).

The second graph shows what happens when you do the radiowave thing with water. You start with water and end with water. The water is storing no energy! We have to add a lot of energy (shown in blue) to get the water to split into hydrogen and water. The hydrogen is now storing the energy from the radio waves. Now when we burn the hydrogen, it releases the stored energy and is coverted back to water, which contains no energy. The amount of energy we get by burning hydrogen (shown in red) is exactly the energy we put in from the radio waves (blue). We broke even. Except the 2nd law of thermodynamics says we can't break even, so we would actually lose a lot of energy in the form of heat, that cannot be captured to make our car go.

FAX
06-13-2008, 04:56 PM
Very well explained, Mr. CrazyPhuD. But, I reiterate for the nth time ... what about the guy who sets water on fire with nothing but radio waves? It's the guy who accidentally discovered the effect when trying to find a cure for cancer.

He shoots radio frequencies at the water and "BOOM!!" fire!!! Surely it takes less energy to produce a radio frequency than it does to create a spark via a spark plug?

EDIT: Posted prior to titty graph illustrations. I reserve the right to delete this post at a later time after having reviewed Mr. cdcox's post.

FAX

CrazyPhuD
06-13-2008, 05:04 PM
Very well explained, Mr. CrazyPhuD. But, I reiterate for the nth time ... what about the guy who sets water on fire with nothing but radio waves? It's the guy who accidentally discovered the effect when trying to find a cure for cancer.

He shoots radio frequencies at the water and "BOOM!!" fire!!! Surely it takes less energy to produce a radio frequency than it does to create a spark via a spark plug?

EDIT: Posted prior to titty graph illustrations. I reserve the right to delete this post at a later time after having reviewed Mr. cdcox's post.

FAX

Actually, the method you use to break down the water will only effect the Efficiency. What I showed was an example that assumed 100% efficient operations. Nothing so far is 100% efficient, there are always losses from heat etc. Your basic engine runs I believe 20-30% efficient, which means that 70% of the energy of gasoline is lost due to heat. All the radio waves might do is make a more efficient operation. The problem is at 100% efficiency you break even and have no additional energy to move you car. At less than 100% efficiency you consume more energy than you generate and you lose even more. Even if he creates a method to crack water that is 100% efficient and develops a 100% efficient oxidation process he still can't move his car because there still isn't left over energy.

Uncle_Ted
06-13-2008, 05:47 PM
Damn I want to bone Rachel.

Have you figured out which button I can push on the website to make Rachel take off her clothes?

:evil:

Taco John
06-13-2008, 06:16 PM
Here's one of these I ran into the other day...

http://www.preignitioncc.com/wjessee/

wutamess
06-13-2008, 06:24 PM
Where is said site?


http://kcpcrepair.com

Second entry on the page.

tiptap
06-13-2008, 07:16 PM
Very well explained, Mr. CrazyPhuD. But, I reiterate for the nth time ... what about the guy who sets water on fire with nothing but radio waves? It's the guy who accidentally discovered the effect when trying to find a cure for cancer.

He shoots radio frequencies at the water and "BOOM!!" fire!!! Surely it takes less energy to produce a radio frequency than it does to create a spark via a spark plug?

EDIT: Posted prior to titty graph illustrations. I reserve the right to delete this post at a later time after having reviewed Mr. cdcox's post.

FAX

Einstein didn't get his Noble Prize for any of his Relativity findings. Or his brownian movement explanations. He got it for the PHOTOELECTRIC effect. He used QUANTUM explanation for how a certain wavelength of light is needed to knock off an electron to produce the Photoelectric effect (which produces a current) But the "color" actually the wavelength of light makes a difference. Take a glow in a dark ball for example. You know one of those balls you put under the light and then it Phosphoeses in the dark with a weak light. Will if you try to do this with a red laser it won't work. It won't matter how many or how intense of a red laser you use because energy is related to wavelength and you need a shorter wavelength of light in order for the energy to be stored in the Phospher. White light has a whole range of wavelength so it works. A blue wave laser will work for example.

Will similarly the wavelength of radio wave, which is a form of electromagnetism just like light, HAS the right amount of energy to split water (with salts they help) into hydrogen and oxygen. The escaping hydrogen then burns when sparked in the apparatus. But the radio waves are providing energy. It is just tweaked to match up with the energy needs for the disassociation of hydrogen and oxygen.

Ari Chi3fs
06-13-2008, 07:54 PM
What about magnetics? Maybe we could tap into the Earth's magnetosphere and go places by adjusting our polarity shifter?

FAX

Yeah, Tesla tapped into that, in the early 1900's ... thing is, J.P. Morgan was financing it, and when he found out that we could provide FREE energy to the world... he figured that was a HORRIBLE idea, as we need to PROFIT!!!11

So, he burned down Tesla's Colorado lab... and canceled funding on the project.

Ari Chi3fs
06-13-2008, 07:56 PM
Tesla, Genius Out of Time
In the later quarter of the 19th century, Tesla was alone in his opposition to the fundamental views of the nature of electrical forces as described by three of the biggest names in electric science: James Clerk Maxwell, Herman Von Helmholtz, and Heinrich Hertz. Tesla possessed a broader vision of the cosmos because his keen sense of awareness and especially his natural intuitive insights gave him a deeper understanding of the role that the ether (or aether) played in the manifestations of all http://educate-yourself.org/fe/Teslaportrait1904.jpgelectrical phenomena while his contemporaries focused their attention exclusively on the electromagnetic component (assuming that no other component could be involved). This lack of etheric insight by his contemporaries (with the exception of Sir William Crookes) and the heated controversy that the mere mention of the ether had engendered was to cause Tesla ridicule and sarcasm from men of inferior intellect for decades. The ether controversy largely dissipated in the academic arena after the publication of Eienstein’s Theory of Relativity (1905) and the Michaelson-Morley Experiment which essentially declared that the ether ‘theory’ was dead, but Tesla’s insights and deductions concerning the role of the ether were correct all along.
The ether existed then and it exists now, despite the lock step denials by mainstream science, past or present. Rudolf Steiner, another man of genius, affirmed that the ether was composed of four fractions which he described as 1) the Light Ether, 2) the Warmth Ether, 3) the Chemical Ether, and 4) the Life Ether, a combination of the first three. Tesla’s New York and Colorado experiments confirmed for him that Radiant energy was bound up within the elusive ether, but could be made manifest by the creation of an abrupt disruption in the equilibrium of the ether fractions using one way, high magnitude pulses of short duration.
This was the key that unlocked Radiant Energy.
“See the excitement coming!”
These were the words that Tesla used at the end of his pivotal 1892 December lecture, “The Dissipation of Electricity”. He was brimming over with buoyancy and optimism for the future In the 1890's, Tesla conducted a large number of experiments which confirmed his theory and refined his understanding of the special conditions required for Radiant energy to express itself. He later expanded his New York work with the large scale experimental trials conducted at Colorado Springs, Colorado in 1899. http://educate-yourself.org/fe/teslaColoradoSprings1899.gifTesla, the humanitarian, wanted more than anything to share this enormous discovery with his fellow man. Tesla spoke of practical applications of radiant energy that were so wide reaching that they could have created a profound and immense leap into the future for all of mankind in practically every sector of daily life:
Unlimited electricity could be made available anywhere and at any time, by merely pushing a rod into the ground and turning on the electrical appliance. Homes, farms, offices, factories, villages, libraries, museums, street lights, etc., could have all their lighting needs met by merely hanging ordinary light bulbs or fluorescent tubes anywhere desired- without the need for wiring -and produce brilliant white light 24 hours a day. Motor energy for any imagined use such as industrial applications, transportation, tractors, trucks, trains, boats, automobiles, air ships or planes could be powered freely-anywhere on the planet from a single Magnifying Transmitter. This new form of energy even had the ability to elevate human consciousness to levels of vastly improved comprehension and mental clarity. Undreamed of therapeutic applications to improve human health and to eliminate disease conditions could have been achieved fully 100 years ago had Tesla been allowed to complete his commercial development of Radiant Energy. But powerful barons of industry, chiefly in the person of John Pierpont Morgan, colluded to deny him the financial backing he needed and in doing so, effectively denied mankind one of Nature’s most abundant and inexhaustible gifts of free energy.
The Magnifying Transmitter
The closest Tesla came to a world wide industrial application of his Radiant Energy dream was the construction of his huge Magnifying Transmitter at Shoreham, Long Island, a site which he named Wardenclyffe. Following his return to New York City from Colorado Springs in 1899, Tesla was jubilant and full of enthusiasm to implement his plan for the commercial application of Radiant energy. He turned to JP Morgan for a substantial portion of the funding to finance the huge project at Wardenclyffe. http://educate-yourself.org/fe/Wardenclyffe.jpgMorgan was chiefly concerned with turning a profit from overseas radio transmissions since Marconi was fast locking up the market and Morgan, ever the aggressor, wanted a share of the market. When Tesla told him that the transmitter could transmit “intelligence” to the world, Morgan assumed that he meant ordinary radio communications, but Tesla was not referring to ordinary radio transmissions. He was talking about something much bigger, but avoided revealing all to Morgan during this early phase of the Wardenclyffe project. Some considerable time later, Tesla eventually felt compelled to tell Morgan the larger possibilities offered by the Magnifying Transmitter when he needed more funding to complete the project. Tesla thought that Morgan would be overwhelmed by his expanded explanation of the true capacities of the transmitter and would be anxious to complete the work, but Tesla’s assumption had backfired and Morgan refused to lay out any more money for the transmitter. Sadly, the enormous benefits that could have been made available to society by Tesla’s Magnifying Transmitter project, died then and there.
Morgan & Westinghouse
Morgan had already orchestrated circumstances in Tesla’s life in order to force Tesla to be dependent on him for financial backing. During an earlier period, when Tesla himself had millions from his Polyphase AC generator royalty payments and other earnings, Morgan wanted to woo Tesla with a deal that effectively gave Morgan majority control over his patent rights and projects, but Tesla turned him down, telling Morgan that he had enough money of his own to fund his projects. While returning to his hotel from that very meeting with Morgan, however, Tesla was told that his laboratory had been burned to the ground. It represented a tremendous loss to Tesla and it shook him deeply. Everyone, of course, felt convinced that Morgan was behind the arson. In order to save face, Morgan was embarrassed by Tesla into putting up the money to pay for the rebuilding of a new lab as an act of “philanthropy”. From that time forward, however, other financial backers were not to be found. Morgan was powerful enough to black list Tesla among the Eastern Establishment elites that previously had hobnobbed and feted with Tesla as if he was one of their own. Black listing and ostracization by officialdom and financiers lifted somewhat after Morgan’s death, but generally continued to haunt Tesla for the rest of his life.
Before the turn of the century, Tesla also willingly gave up millions, perhaps billions, in royalty earnings to George Westinghouse in an unprecedented act of friendship. Westinghouse had believed in the superiority of Tesla’s AC system and provided the money to build Tesla’s big AC generators at Niagra Falls, NY. Tesla was paid millions up front for his patents, but was also due to receive royalty earnings for every kilowatt of power produced. When Westinghouse ran into financial difficulties at a later date, Tesla tore up his royalty contract in order to save Westinghouse from financial ruin. Had he not done that, Tesla would have had enough money from royalties to keep him ensconced in great wealth for the rest of his life.
The story is frequently told that when Morgan found out from Tesla that the true purpose of the Wardenclyffe transmitter was to provide free electricity to the world, he abruptly pulled the funding. That’s not completely accurate. The economic conditions were recessionary at the time and the stock market had taken a considerable dip that year. Morgan wasn’t interested in risking any more capital in perilous times on a project he couldn’t fully fathom and wasn’t completely convinced of. Tesla held land ownership of the Wardenclyffe site and tower, but no further work was done after 1910. In 1914, Tesla was deeply in debt and signed over the deed of Wardenclyffe Station to pay off years of back rent due to the owners of the New Yorker Hotel where he was living (he occupied two penthouse suites in the hotel). In 1917, the hotel owners had the tower demolished and its parts sold for salvage. Despite the loss of Wardenclyffe, Tesla continued to refine his understanding of Radiant Energy and miniaturize the equipment needed to produce it. He eventually was able to reduce the equipment down to the size of a suit case.




http://educate-yourself.org/fe/radiantenergystory.shtml

cdcox
06-13-2008, 10:59 PM
fire!!! Surely it takes less energy to produce a radio frequency than it does to create a spark via a spark plug?

FAX

No, that is the whole point of the 1st law of thermodynamics. If you start with water and end with water then the BEST you can do is to break even. Energy in is equal to energy out. But you can't break even because of the second law. As CrazyPhuD said:

water + energy_in_from_radio_waves -> H2 + O2 -> water + engergy_out

where energy_out < engergy_in_from_radio_waves.

Gasoline is better because you start with a high energy prodcut (gasoline) and end with a low energy products (CO2 and water). You are really burning solar energy captured by plants 30M years ago.

CO2 + H2O + energy_from_sun -> plants -> fossile fuel -> CO2 + H2O + energy_out

where energy_out < energy_from_sun

Humans are only involved in the processes colored red.

THE BIG DIFFERENCE IS THAT HUMANS DID NOT HAVE TO SUPPLY energy_from_sun SINCE MOTHER NATURE GAVE US THAT MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO, BUT THEY DID HAVE TO PROVIDE energy_from_radio_waves FROM SOME OTHER ENERGY SOURCE.

tiptap
06-16-2008, 08:32 AM
Aether concept has been replaced by the more limiting concept of Fields. Aether concept has no Quantum aspect. A Field is an approximation to a Aether but recognizes that the appearance of an Aether is built up from small discrete units that if the phenonmenon investigated is large compared to the unit then it can be approximated by Field Theories.

We see this in Calculus. Many very good fits of a continuous function to what we know is discrete math are put to use. Economics and business use of Calculus are good examples. And for Physics, the atom and other elemental particles are so small and dispersed evenly that Field approximations work quite well. The fields do exist but they are governed by the matter and energy present and do not exist apart from those elements.

The distinction between an Aether (disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiments and shown to be unnecessary with Maxwell's and Einstein's Theories) and a Field is a discussion of which is more fundamental. Matter and Energy or some dimension in which matter and energy are embedded.

RedNeckRaider
06-16-2008, 11:18 AM
Aether concept has been replaced by the more limiting concept of Fields. Aether concept has no Quantum aspect. A Field is an approximation to a Aether but recognizes that the appearance of an Aether is built up from small discrete units that if the phenonmenon investigated is large compared to the unit then it can be approximated by Field Theories.

We see this in Calculus. Many very good fits of a continuous function to what we know is discrete math are put to use. Economics and business use of Calculus are good examples. And for Physics, the atom and other elemental particles are so small and dispersed evenly that Field approximations work quite well. The fields do exist but they are governed by the matter and energy present and do not exist apart from those elements.

The distinction between an Aether (disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiments and shown to be unnecessary with Maxwell's and Einstein's Theories) and a Field is a discussion of which is more fundamental. Matter and Energy or some dimension in which matter and energy are embedded.

:spock: Dang i aint even smart enough to know if you are that smart! Is your name Will Hunting?