Convert Your Car TODAY to Run on Water and gas to save over 40% on
fuel costs!
Would you like to find out how to run your vehicle on water and stop
wasting money on gas?
This do-it-yourself conversion guide is very affordable (under $150)
and EASY with step-by-step instructions.
The conversion WILL NOT void your warranty because it is 100%
reversible! It's easy to install and remove.
Create your own water hybrid for under $150!
Did you know that you can convert your car to a water-burning car? You
can run your car on water, supplemental to gasoline, to increase your
car's fuel efficiency and reduce your fuel costs significantly.
Works on gas or diesel powered cars, vans, trucks, and SUVs. (Not
tested on hybrids)
Your car will become at least 40% more fuel efficient and produce
cleaner emissions.
Convert your car for the lowest price. Similar conversion kits cost up
to $600 and up!
Works with plain tap water. No need for distilled water or special
water additives!
We've simplified the process. The steps are easy, and the materials
are affordable.
Our easy conversion guide will show you how to use electricity from
your car's battery to separate water into a gas called HHO (2 Hydrogen
+ 1 Oxygen). HHO, also called Brown's Gas or Hydroxy, burns smoothly
and provides significant energy - while the end product is just H2O!
HHO provides the atomic power of Hydrogen, while maintaining the
stability of water.

Can Water Really Power a Car?

The answer is YES, ABSOLUTELY! We have made the technology to build a
water-burning hybrid easy and affordable.
Water can be used to fuel a car when used as a supplement to gasoline.
In fact, very little water is needed! only one quart of water provides
over 1800 gallons of HHO gas which can literally last for months and
significantly increase your vehicle's fuel efficiently, improve
emissions quality, and save you money.

For More Details Please Click Here

http://tinyurl.com/3sxyj5

On Tue, 27 May 2008 03:01:21 -0700 (PDT), RUN A CAR ON WATER
 wrote:

[snip]
>
>For More Details Please Click Here
>
>http://tinyurl.com/3sxyj5


Tee hee, tinyURL have seen through that load of shite.

-- 
brightside S9

On Tue, 27 May 2008 14:24:36 +0100, brightside S9
<address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 May 2008 03:01:21 -0700 (PDT), RUN A CAR ON WATER
> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>>For More Details Please Click Here
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/3sxyj5
>
>
>Tee hee, tinyURL have seen through that load of shite.
Not has bad as the load of mars shite that we had to endure on TV all
weekend and nowhere near as costly to the US tax payer that all the
NASA nonsense is costing .

On Tue, 27 May 2008 14:58:19 UTC, mymail@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Tue, 27 May 2008 14:24:36 +0100, brightside S9
> <address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 27 May 2008 03:01:21 -0700 (PDT), RUN A CAR ON WATER
> > wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >>
> >>For More Details Please Click Here
> >>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/3sxyj5
> >
> >
> >Tee hee, tinyURL have seen through that load of shite.
> Not has bad as the load of mars shite that we had to endure on TV all
> weekend and nowhere near as costly to the US tax payer that all the
> NASA nonsense is costing . 

Yes, Ron.
-- 
Bob Eager
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

On Tue, 27 May 2008 14:24:36 +0100, brightside S9
<address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 May 2008 03:01:21 -0700 (PDT), RUN A CAR ON WATER
> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>>For More Details Please Click Here
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/3sxyj5
>
>
>Tee hee, tinyURL have seen through that load of shite.

The extraordinary thing about this scam is how old it is - older than
the internal combustion engine. The first version was the "Keely
motor", demonstrated in Philadelphia in 1874. It was run by a
compressed air generator hidden in the cellar. The car that runs on
water has turned up in the press as a new "discovery" every ten years
or so for more than a century now. The story has been told by, among
others, Ackerman ("Popular Fallacies" 1950) MacDougall ("Hoaxes" 1958)
and Sladek ("The New Apocrypha" 1974).

-- 
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

"brightside S9" <address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote in message 
news:ap2o345gisenr96o4io1n79751dp9u0hu7@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 03:01:21 -0700 (PDT), RUN A CAR ON WATER
>  wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>
>>For More Details Please Click Here
>>http://tinyurl.com/3sxyj5
>
> Tee hee, tinyURL have seen through that load of shite.
> brightside S9
>
You can run a car on Water, by splitting water into Oxygen
and Hydrogen with a portable electrolysis plant in the boot of the car

The most practical is to use a HV generator creating arcing
on the surface of a replaceable aluminium spinning plate
immersed in water.
The hydrogen created will both run the engine and a generator
powered by the engine to create the HV.

This technique is used by the military to power generators

The only problem is it also creates piles of aluminium oxide,
a few years of everyone using that technique would deplete
the worlds bauxite (aluminium) supplies and create mountains
of aluminium oxide.

Steve Terry

Steve Terry wrote:

> "brightside S9" wrote
> >  RUN A CAR ON WATER  wrote:
> >>
> >>For More Details Please Click Here
> >>http://tinyurl.com/3sxyj5
> >
> > Tee hee, tinyURL have seen through that load of shite.
> > brightside S9
> >
> You can run a car on Water, by splitting water into Oxygen
> and Hydrogen with a portable electrolysis plant in the boot of the car
>
> The most practical is to use a HV generator creating arcing
> on the surface of a replaceable aluminium spinning plate
> immersed in water.

Cite please.

Graham

Steve Terry:
>The hydrogen created will both run the engine and a generator
>powered by the engine to create the HV.

Nope ! The laws of thermodynamics will not allow it.
It takes more energy to split water into H and O2, then you get back by 
burning  it,
specially in relatively inefficient internal combustion engine.

However those of you who can walk on water, should have no problem running 
on water :-)
Regards,
Martin

Steve Terry wrote:

>You can run a car on Water, by splitting water into Oxygen
>and Hydrogen with a portable electrolysis plant in the boot of the car
>
>The most practical is to use a HV generator creating arcing
>on the surface of a replaceable aluminium spinning plate
>immersed in water.
>The hydrogen created will both run the engine and a generator
>powered by the engine to create the HV.
>
>This technique is used by the military to power generators
>
>The only problem is it also creates piles of aluminium oxide,
>a few years of everyone using that technique would deplete
>the worlds bauxite (aluminium) supplies and create mountains
>of aluminium oxide.

Sadly for your process, the production of aluminium oxide is the first
stage in producing aluminium from bauxite....and it all sounds little
different from the perpetual-motion device of a generator that charges
a battery that runs the generator....

"Burton Bradstock" <nospam@here.invalid> wrote in message
news:1i2q341loe3e1hot04c41aab8i4a983n2m@4ax.com...
>
> Steve Terry wrote:
>
>>You can run a car on Water, by splitting water into Oxygen
>>and Hydrogen with a portable electrolysis plant in the boot of the car
>>
>>The most practical is to use a HV generator creating arcing
>>on the surface of a replaceable aluminium spinning plate
>>immersed in water.
>>The hydrogen created will both run the engine and a generator
>>powered by the engine to create the HV.
>>
>>This technique is used by the military to power generators
>>
>>The only problem is it also creates piles of aluminium oxide,
>>a few years of everyone using that technique would deplete
>>the worlds bauxite (aluminium) supplies and create mountains
>>of aluminium oxide.
>
> Sadly for your process, the production of aluminium oxide is the first
> stage in producing aluminium from bauxite....and it all sounds little
> different from the perpetual-motion device of a generator that charges
> a battery that runs the generator....
>
That's the problem, making aluminium uses a huge amount of energy.

About 5 years ago Reuters reported that an Irishman had invented
what he called the Jasker machine, which used a gyroscope
(inside a cabinet the size of a washing machine) which was coupled
to an electric motor to spin it and a generator which fed car batteries
which powered the motor, and had extra over to charge the batteries.

The theory being the extra energy was coming from Gravity
that the gyroscope was absorbing whist spinning!

Prof Eric Lathwaite inventor of the linear motor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Laithwaite
Postulated something similar with his experiments with gyroscopes.

A couple of days later the Reuters report disappeared from their website.

Of course if it worked anyone could make one and they would eventually
drain the earths gravity slowing down it's spin, killing us all.

Some conspiracy theorists believe there is a Men In Black force,
whose job is to scotch the machines, and information about them.

Steve Terry

On Wed, 28 May 2008 16:09:22 +0100, "Steve Terry" 
wrote:

>
>"Burton Bradstock" <nospam@here.invalid> wrote in message
>news:1i2q341loe3e1hot04c41aab8i4a983n2m@4ax.com...
>>
>> Steve Terry wrote:
>>

>That's the problem, making aluminium uses a huge amount of energy.
>
>About 5 years ago Reuters reported that an Irishman had invented
>what he called the Jasker machine, which used a gyroscope
>(inside a cabinet the size of a washing machine) which was coupled
>to an electric motor to spin it and a generator which fed car batteries
>which powered the motor, and had extra over to charge the batteries.
>
>The theory being the extra energy was coming from Gravity
>that the gyroscope was absorbing whist spinning!
>
>Prof Eric Lathwaite inventor of the linear motor.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Laithwaite
>Postulated something similar with his experiments with gyroscopes.
>

Prof Eric Lathwaite may have been clever but not infallible, he
thought that moths communicate via ultra short wave electromagnetic
phenomena and persisted in his belief even after it had been
disproved.

"Digby" <a> wrote in message 
news:140r34t3qp5bl71pffdapofnrr9nm0tjrk@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 16:09:22 +0100, "Steve Terry" 
> wrote:
>>"Burton Bradstock" <nospam@here.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:1i2q341loe3e1hot04c41aab8i4a983n2m@4ax.com...
>>> Steve Terry wrote:
>
>>That's the problem, making aluminium uses a huge amount of energy.
>>
>>About 5 years ago Reuters reported that an Irishman had invented
>>what he called the Jasker machine, which used a gyroscope
>>(inside a cabinet the size of a washing machine) which was coupled
>>to an electric motor to spin it and a generator which fed car batteries
>>which powered the motor, and had extra over to charge the batteries.
>>
>>The theory being the extra energy was coming from Gravity
>>that the gyroscope was absorbing whist spinning!
>>
>>Prof Eric Lathwaite inventor of the linear motor.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Laithwaite
>>Postulated something similar with his experiments with gyroscopes.
>
> Prof Eric Lathwaite may have been clever but not infallible, he
> thought that moths communicate via ultra short wave electromagnetic
> phenomena and persisted in his belief even after it had been
> disproved.
>
He also showed a spinning gyroscope weighs less on scales
than a non spinning one.

It's safe to say his studies of physics are much better than his ones of 
biology

Besides what's that got to do with the possibility of gravity motors?
Lathwaite was interested in them for propulsion, not energy capture
for power generation.

Steve Terry

Digby wrote:

> Prof Eric Lathwaite may have been clever but not infallible, he
> thought that moths communicate via ultra short wave electromagnetic
> phenomena and persisted in his belief even after it had been
> disproved.

I suspect something similar will be true of the AGW religion believers.

Graham

Steve Terry wrote:

>Of course if it worked anyone could make one and they would eventually
>drain the earths gravity slowing down it's spin, killing us all.

The moon's doing that anyway.

"Burton Bradstock" <nospam@here.invalid> wrote in message 
news:bjmr341uvrt5rdu6j5di7dvpkv6u0ocdin@4ax.com...
>
> Steve Terry wrote:
>
>>Of course if it worked anyone could make one and they would eventually
>>drain the earths gravity slowing down it's spin, killing us all.
>
> The moon's doing that anyway.
>
That's going to take millions of years, if enough people started building 
Jaskers
we'll be dead in only hundreds or even tens of years.

What no one has asked is why did Reuters withdraw the article from their 
archives?

Steve Terry

Steve Terry wrote:

>"Burton Bradstock" <nospam@here.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:bjmr341uvrt5rdu6j5di7dvpkv6u0ocdin@4ax.com...
>>
>> Steve Terry wrote:
>>
>>>Of course if it worked anyone could make one and they would eventually
>>>drain the earths gravity slowing down it's spin, killing us all.
>>
>> The moon's doing that anyway.
>>
>That's going to take millions of years, if enough people started building 
>Jaskers
>we'll be dead in only hundreds or even tens of years.
>
>What no one has asked is why did Reuters withdraw the article from their 
>archives?
>
>Steve Terry 

Well, you did use the word 'eventually'....so that included the moon
scenario.

The sun will implode due to gravity effects too, but that's after the
moon's gone.

"Burton Bradstock" <nospam@here.invalid> wrote in message 
news:leks34dc17obd334j4s3093751oovffcpl@4ax.com...
> Steve Terry wrote:
>>"Burton Bradstock" <nospam@here.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:bjmr341uvrt5rdu6j5di7dvpkv6u0ocdin@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Steve Terry wrote:
>>>
>>>>Of course if it worked anyone could make one and they would eventually
>>>>drain the earths gravity slowing down it's spin, killing us all.
>>>
>>> The moon's doing that anyway.
>>>
>>That's going to take millions of years, if enough people started building
>>Jaskers
>>we'll be dead in only hundreds or even tens of years.
>>
>>What no one has asked is why did Reuters withdraw the article from their
>>archives?
>>Steve Terry
>
> Well, you did use the word 'eventually'....so that included the moon
> scenario.
> The sun will implode due to gravity effects too, but that's after the
> moon's gone.
>
As i clearly pointed out it's a matter of time scale, the moon will take 
millions
of years which i hope you agree isn't of much concern, but a large number
of Jaskers would do the same in only a few years, which is of slightly 
greater concern.

Steve Terry

On Thu, 29 May 2008 07:55:51 +0100, Burton Bradstock
<nospam@here.invalid> wrote:


>
>The sun will implode due to gravity effects too, but that's after the
>moon's gone.
>

The sun will not implode. it is not massive enough. It will eventually
end up as a white dwarf (though passing through many interesting
stages on the way there).

-- 
brightside S9

brightside S9 wrote:

>On Thu, 29 May 2008 07:55:51 +0100, Burton Bradstock
><nospam@here.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>The sun will implode due to gravity effects too, but that's after the
>>moon's gone.
>>
>
>The sun will not implode. it is not massive enough. It will eventually
>end up as a white dwarf (though passing through many interesting
>stages on the way there).

The sun will reach a size which wil lbe unsustainable by its internal
muclear processes, and it will then collapse in on itself. AKA an
implosion.

On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 07:58:06 +0100, Burton Bradstock
<nospam@here.invalid> wrote:

>
>brightside S9 wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 May 2008 07:55:51 +0100, Burton Bradstock
>><nospam@here.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>The sun will implode due to gravity effects too, but that's after the
>>>moon's gone.
>>>
>>
>>The sun will not implode. it is not massive enough. It will eventually
>>end up as a white dwarf (though passing through many interesting
>>stages on the way there).
>
>The sun will reach a size which wil lbe unsustainable by its internal
>muclear processes, and it will then collapse in on itself. AKA an
>implosion.

Hmm!  Collapse and implosion both inthe same sentence.

In terms of stellar evolution there is a difference between an
implosion and a collapse, especially in what happens after the
implosion / collapse.

-- 
brightside S9

On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 10:50:13 +0100, brightside S9 wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 07:58:06 +0100, Burton Bradstock
> <nospam@here.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>
>>brightside S9 wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 29 May 2008 07:55:51 +0100, Burton Bradstock
>>><nospam@here.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>The sun will implode due to gravity effects too, but that's after the
>>>>moon's gone.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The sun will not implode. it is not massive enough. It will eventually
>>>end up as a white dwarf (though passing through many interesting
>>>stages on the way there).
>>
>>The sun will reach a size which wil lbe unsustainable by its internal
>>muclear processes, and it will then collapse in on itself. AKA an
>>implosion.
> 
> Hmm!  Collapse and implosion both inthe same sentence.
> 
> In terms of stellar evolution there is a difference between an
> implosion and a collapse, especially in what happens after the
> implosion / collapse.

An implosion is forced by external pressure; collapse is usually due to
gravity.
A star, at any state, doesn't really have much pressure outside it.
-- 
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

"PeterC"  wrote in message 
news:gmgvmxvpwqcq.mr9l3v5cwkjw.dlg@40tude.net...


> An implosion is forced by external pressure; collapse is usually due to
> gravity.
> A star, at any state, doesn't really have much pressure outside it.

It does when it goes super nova.
The core is compressed by the explosion.

> It does when it goes super nova.
> The core is compressed by the explosion.

Does this turn the water into steam to
drive the engine?

wrote in message 
news:484284c7$0$10632$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>> It does when it goes super nova.
>> The core is compressed by the explosion.
>
> Does this turn the water into steam to
> drive the engine?
>
I was thinking the same thing, hasn't the thread gone a bit off topic?

Steve Terry

Steve Terry wrote:
>  wrote in message
> news:484284c7$0$10632$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>> It does when it goes super nova.
>>> The core is compressed by the explosion.
>>
>> Does this turn the water into steam to
>> drive the engine?
>>
> I was thinking the same thing, hasn't the thread gone a bit off
> topic?
> Steve Terry

Did you expect anything different...

"Steve Terry"  wrote in message 
news:g1ud7f$k21$2@news.albasani.net...
>
>  wrote in message 
> news:484284c7$0$10632$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>> It does when it goes super nova.
>>> The core is compressed by the explosion.
>>
>> Does this turn the water into steam to
>> drive the engine?
>>
> I was thinking the same thing, hasn't the thread gone a bit off topic?
>
> Steve Terry
>

It was a fantasy thread wasn't it?

"dennis@home"  wrote in message 
news:g1v7li$8uk$1@news.datemas.de...
> "Steve Terry"  wrote in message 
> news:g1ud7f$k21$2@news.albasani.net...
>>
>>  wrote in message 
>> news:484284c7$0$10632$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>
>>>> It does when it goes super nova.
>>>> The core is compressed by the explosion.
>>>
>>> Does this turn the water into steam to
>>> drive the engine?
>>>
>> I was thinking the same thing, hasn't the thread gone a bit off topic?
>> Steve Terry
>
> It was a fantasy thread wasn't it?
It turned into one, which is a shame as it is possible,
but not without the expending of energy elsewhere

Steve Terry

brightside S9 wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 07:58:06 +0100, Burton Bradstock
><nospam@here.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>brightside S9 wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 29 May 2008 07:55:51 +0100, Burton Bradstock
>>><nospam@here.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>The sun will implode due to gravity effects too, but that's after the
>>>>moon's gone.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The sun will not implode. it is not massive enough. It will eventually
>>>end up as a white dwarf (though passing through many interesting
>>>stages on the way there).
>>
>>The sun will reach a size which wil lbe unsustainable by its internal
>>muclear processes, and it will then collapse in on itself. AKA an
>>implosion.
>
>Hmm!  Collapse and implosion both inthe same sentence.
>
>In terms of stellar evolution there is a difference between an
>implosion and a collapse, especially in what happens after the
>implosion / collapse.

Don't let me stop you posting a description of the difference between
a collapse and an implosion - in stellar-evolotion  terms, of course.