Daniel Dingel’s Working Water Powered Car

Daniel-Dingel_filling_water_car_300This is a Daniel Dingel’s water car working with REAL water… through electrolysis. It seems that the re-mix of hydrogen and oxygen actually produces more energy than it takes to split them!

Daniel Dingel from Philippines has made 100 motors work on water and wants to spread them to the world, so any country can reverse engineer it and make something better off it. It’s really amazing how we were taught since kids that water only kills fire… not always!

Daniel Dingel’s water powered car is probably, from what he says, based on the same principle as Stanley Meyer’s car. He converts water to the two gasses (H2 and O) by splitting it using a certain electrical frequency.

It’s well known among free energy groups that hydrogen generators can be made this way, and the fun part is that the power that the water splitting system uses is smaller than the power it outputs (like it does in the case of DC current applied to the same water). Further scientific research has to be done in this field.

commentsubscribe

Check these out, too

0

These guys like us. Do you?


Comments

  • SteelMachine
  • KingsleeSpurling

    The example you have given prof actually  goes this way 50cc x 3000revs = 150 litres a minute of air to expand a volume that big you need 150 divided by 1728 = .086 litres a minute of hho thats very easy remember 1 amp for 1 hour will make 6 litres of HHO at 1  bar

  • Lets do some simple math. Web links for ref included.
    http://www.ehow.com/how_7822268_calculate-air-flow-stroke-engine.html
    50cc very small generator. Running 3000 rpm, 2 stroke. Formula is as per posted web link above.
    50X3000 X 1 divided by 1728= 86.8 CFM thats a lot of needed intake. I just have never seen a HHO device produce anything near that much gas. The HHO devices I have built might produce one cubic foot of gas over 1 minute if everything was fresh and new start. Thats with 2 amps.
    Theres no argument that a engine can run on HHO. Its a matter of creating enough HHO gas to run the engine that powers it, to allow it to run iin a loop ( only water) for fuel on the same device.. The engines that I saw run, ran using HHO from a large bag of gas. We have also ran very small RC engines on the same gas, using a large balloon filled. It emptyed the large balloon in just secounds at 5000rpm.

    • KingsleeSpurling

      I have been over all this crap before and you can see all the math in previous posts

  • I havent done my math? Your kidding right? Im enjoying reading about all this and I enclude reading your acticles also. Share with me 2 small things. Hows many litters per minute do you think a normal HHO device would give connected to a small generator? How many liters of intake vapors per minute do you think it takes to run that same combustable engine? You cant use expandion of liquid gasoline here. SHow me in liters per minute of HHO generated and liters of HHO needed to run that device. I have built a number of HHO spilting devices. Started while I was in college and have built accouple of them since. They produce only small volumes of gas compared to the needs of a engine. Please share. Please remember that that small generator engine needs to be running hard at 2500 to 3000 RPM to have good electrical output. Its really hungry for fuel. (HHO Gas)

  • The main problem with HHO, is that you cant produce enough of it for a motor to run. Even the smallest generator/gas engine would need 400 litters of gas/air mixture to run and a HHO system has a hard time producing even 40 liters of gas. Dont worry about any thing else, the generators and HHO systems cant produce enough gas mixture for the smallest running motor when using a genrator on its self. Sure, you could have 10 HHO units running 40 liters a minute but the engine could never get close to producting enough electrical power to provide the electric needs for that many HHO systems. No need for formulas. We just need a better way to produce enough HHO. Professor53, Hawaii

    • KingsleeSpurling

      you havnt done your math thats for sure

  • Dead Parrot

    Kingslee Spurling isn’t the doctor he claims to be, he must have missed his injections recently and the delusions are returning. He also claims to be immortal and was shot 37 times by the CIA. While I am sure he uses a calculator better then he uses digital scales, he is quite incapable of understanding anything that isnt injectable into his arm.

    • KingsleeSpurling

      this was written by heath Tunstall he has stolen off me and belted me when I asked for my money would you employ a person like that? and I think by my input to this below argument proves that I have a doctorate if you bothered to read any of it and do some simple math you are incapable of and plenty of people who know the real me know that something is happening with my lack of ageing.

  • Dr Kingslee Spurling

    i didnt look it up in a book liam i was taught to calculate it, unlike you, nitrogen has an Sg of .98
    you have completely ignored 5 noble gases that apear in the periodic table and thus in nature
    yes the Sg of air is 1 but you wouldnt have been taught these things
    and kelvin was the first person to cite the amount of nitrogen in the atmospere via the development of the temperature scale, every instrument tech from rmit has been taught to calculate these things you have simply looked up a botched experiment they did not use enough analysers clearly you need more than 1
    78% is the total nitrogen and noble gas.

  • Liam

    Dr Klueless,
    I see where you made your mistake. You are quoting the “Critical Temperature” for the nitrogen. Like most of the self taught you don’t use correct terminology and wonder why people have to argue with you to get to first base.

    In the real world of science it is normal to quote various gaseous properties at STP (Standard temperature and pressure). You don’t realise this that is why you struggle. The Critical Temperature for nitrogen is -147C which is the highest temperature it can be converted to a liquid whilst under enormous pressure. The normal way to quote the Liquefaction Temperature is at one atmosphere, which is 196C for nitrogen.

    Why on earth you mention Kelvin in relation to nitrogen is beyond comprehension. You like to confuse your facts it seems.

    See? If you can talk the language best to leave it to grown ups.

    “…air that has an Sg of 1” – yeah right. And the Pope is Jewish.

    I’m not going to argue about the % of nitrogen in the atmosphere (it is 78%) because you are incapable of even looking up that fact up in any standard science book.

    You’re relying on your memory obviously, which seems to be affected by something out of your control.

    Stick to topics you know, like eating and sleeping.

  • Dr Kingslee Spurling

    Rutherford discovered it he did not know how to measure it kelvin did and proved it to liquify at -147degC giving us the kelvin temprerature scale this is a process of cooling not compression like kelvin used you state to get -196deg C but it is not what kelvin did are you saying lord Kelvin was incorect ? the noble gas volume is 78% not nitrogen its 70% and is calculatable with its Sg in relation to air that has an Sg of 1 this can be proven with all the gases in the periodic table and there is 10 gases all, in our air to some extent 78% nitrogen is vanity press and there is heaps of it now now work it out and take your frustration out on your wife. your a mushroom!

  • Liam

    Dr Klueless,
    Here is a quote from a company that produces nitrogen.

    “AN INERT GAS WITH MANY INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS TO PROTECT, INERT
    A COLD RESERVE: IT CAN BE LIQUEFIED BY COOLING IT AT -196°C.

    Nitrogen was discovered in 1772 by Daniel Rutherford who called it noxious air or fixed air. But it was Lavoisier who, in 1786, isolated it. The name nitrogen comes from Latin nitrogenium, where nitrum (from Greek nitron) means “saltpetre”, and genes means “forming”.

    Nitrogen is mainly found in the atmosphere, where it accounts for 78 % by volume of the air we breath. ”

    So your figures of -147 deg C and 70% are once again shown to be made up rubbish.

    You are wrong and the rest of the references are right. Check you figures before you type rubbish. Your memory is crap and so is your version of reality.

  • Dr Kingslee Spurling

    Liam and geoff it seems you both were bullies at school and you now bash your wives, if you go down the path of lord Kelvin and the kelvin templerature scale being derived from the liquifaction point of nitrogen being around -147 deg C you get 70% nitrogen in air and the same when you consider its Sg it is actually calculateble and actually comes in around 70% this is what kelvin taught who was the first to come up with an acurate reading of nitrogen google wont tell you this, but learning the physics and math of the instuments involved with measuring these things will, your science website did not tell you how thet came to that conclusion, the browns gas site has input by many including universitys, there are nine gases which make up our environment most of them are under or around 1% one is about 2% oxygen is 21% nitrogen is 70% this can be proven by non destuctive means and by using more than 1 analyser.

  • Liam

    Doctor Klueless,
    That is only a link to a site based on the Brown book. It is not scientifically valid information- it was is referred to as “vanity press” whereby an author puts together unreferenced pseudo-science and tells the ill-informed it is science.

    I went to numerous science based websites and got the following information about the atmosphere:
    78.084 % – Nitrogen
    20.946 % – Oxygen
    0.934% – Argon
    0.034% – Other gases

    I assume you can use Google too. (obviously not)

    Science isn’t your thing. Quit while you’re behind. Don’t bother responding, I can see why Mr Fritz gave up. You are a loony.

  • Dr Kingslee Spurling

    http://amasci.com/weird/bgf1.html is where you read about Browns gas or water gas being hho you will see with further investigation i am correct liam i have done my research unlike you, and with nitrogen at 78% when you consider the concentration of the other gasses in our air you end up with 108%. I dont believe evereything i read i use rational and reasoning, which is why i have a doctorate, i know my temperatures sound excessive but are calculateble with boyles gas law in relation to browns gas, this is the product of electrolysis i dont know what this hydroliysis involves you speak of.

  • Liam

    Doctor Klueless,
    You seem to make up a lot of rubbish. There is no mon-atomic form of hydrogen or oxygen. You get that nonsense from fringe dwelling loonies who believe in free energy devices. Hydrolysis of water always yields H2 and O2 – show me a link to a peer reviewed document that says otherwise. I just read all you other posts too. You have never been to a chemistry lesson and you don’t know how to look up facts in proper books do you?

    I take it you are self taught, which proves the adage: “The self taught often have a fool for a teacher”.

    Instead of sprouting off like an arrogant lunatic make one of your devices and video it and post it on YouTube. Of course the Government agents will stop you from doing it won’t they? Hahahahahahahha

  • Dr Kingslee Spurling

    exert from yull brown patent on the gas
    Brown’s Gas is an exact mixture of two hydrogen and one oxygen in their atomic molecular form, written 2H0. I often call this mon-atomic to differentiate from “normal” hydrogen and oxygen gas in their di-atomic form , written as 2H 2:O2. At omic (or mon-atomic) H and O are COMPLETELY different from di-atomic H2 and O2.

  • Dr Kingslee Spurling

    My university lecturer agreed with me on gold and nitrogen you still havnt studied it further, and your equation is un-balanced, go dan dingle build and sell as many engines as you can, lets destroy the world order as we know it, your full of lies mr fritz better exists, when are your agents going to kill me for telling the truth, you clearly have not sat down and thought about anything in length, instead relying on you bachelors deg, i have a doctorate for breaking the ground on such things as super conductors which actually saw them work.

  • Geoff Fritz

    It is obvious you have not had much schooling as your grasp of chemistry is nil. I’ll try one last time to explain the facts then that’s it. You’re either defective or stupid or both.

    Hydrolysis of water:
    Water comprises of two atoms of hydrogen bound with one atom of oxygen.
    Hydrogen gas only exists as two atoms of hydrogen bound together, shown as H-H or written as H2.
    Oxygen gas only exists as two atoms of oxygen bound together, shown as O-O or written as O2.
    Written as an unbalanced equation it looks like this:
    H2O -> H2 + O2
    As the number of atoms has to balance on each side of the equation is modified to look like this:
    2 H2O -> 2 H2 + O2
    Thus two moles of water produce two moles of hydrogen gas and one mole of oxygen gas. If you set up an electrolysis cell with separate electrodes and gas capture you’ll get twice as much hydrogen gas (by volume) as oxygen.

    This is all basic chemistry – if you don’t believe me go read a chemistry book and wise up!

    I’m not going to debate your ranting about temperature. You supply no evidence which means you are wrong.

    Google “specific gravity of metals” and you’ll see you are wrong about gold. The comment “no gold does not have an Sg of 19.3 either its really 12.7 g cc mercury weighs 13.54 and there is only one electron difference one electron cannot weigh 6 grams if an electron can only have a mass of ” is just so much crap. The weight of the electron has NOTHING to do with anything. The weight of elements is based on neutrons and protons. The density is based on the distance between the atoms. Cite a reference for your figures, if you don’t then it proves you are wrong again.

    Use Google to check your made upt figures for nitrogen gas in the atmosphere – you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Don’t sit so close to the screen when you type – it makes it hard for our facial recognition software to confirm it is you typing the crap you’re so keen on. We detected you tried to disable our keystroke tracker – it’s a waste of time due to the 256 bit encryption.

    This is the last time I respond to your lunacy. Another agent will monitor you.

  • Geoff Fritz

    You don’t know what you’re talking about.

  • Dr Kingslee Spurling

    less than 2 hours to answer this time all my calculation are correct by boyles law you havnt even sat down and studied anything i dont see how an atom of h2O could disasociate into anything other than hho where does the other oxygen come from Professor Brown found gas flow rates of 1000 litres an hour with 16 amps or 350 litres to the Kw this is common knowledge by anyone who has done some gas physics and and an expansion ratio stated at 1860:1 http://amasci.com/weird/bgf1.html read about it there and combustion temperatures of up to 8000 deg C all this makes my engine concepts very workable/ transfusion.
    You didnt even look at the browns gas facts site http://amasci.com/weird/bgf1.html it calaborates everything with input by many universitys you havnt even looked for the information yourself the filters have existed for industrial and medical industrys since about 1990 if not earlyer.
    anyone who belives nitrogen is 78% of the atmospere is wrong its actually 70% oxygen makes up 21% and some of the other gasses where as high as 2% so it cant be 78% like your book says, no gold does not have an Sg of 19.3 either its really 12.7 g cc mercury weighs 13.54 and there is only one electron difference one electron cannot weigh 6 grams if an electron can only have a mass of 1 this is provable with archemedes principal and a set of scales.
    this is not about the combustion of hydrogen rather hho
    You say nitrogen is irelivent crap it non combustable and has a negative temperature coeficent nitrogen reacts with oxygen and only oxygen to produce NOX and destroys 70 % of your fuel load in the conversion do some combustion physics maybe get rid of the nitrogen and boyles law now takes over which proves all my temperatures to be correct it just creating the instrinsent environment in the start to get the same results in real life.
    Now should i call the police about you admition of computer trespass or threats to kill
    and get a new book and you wasted your years at uni only to be lied to about the true potential of science.

  • Fritz

    You are now sounding obsessive. MY calculations on the volumes of H2 and O2 produced from electrolysis of water are correct. As there is no nitrogen in the gas mixture from water you choosing to now mention it is irrelevant.

    The electrolysis of water produces H2 and O2. This talk of “HHO” is the nonsense talk of poorly educated clowns who have never studied chemistry. Go talk to any chemist on the entire planet and they’ll tell you that you’re wrong. But as you don’t know how to listen or do research what its the point?

    The burn temperatures you quote do not related to the combustion of hydrogen. They are made up with no reference to any scientific papers.

    Quote: “he put a hydrogen injection system on a car with a filter on the inlet air to get rid of the nitrogen to improve combustion he was selling it commertially [sic] ” – well it is amazing as it would be the only filter of its type in the world. There are no such filters. You talk such drivel.

    NO one is ever taught the atmosphere contains 79% nitrogen. All text books quote 78%.

    The SG of gold is quoted in numerous places and the figure is 19.3 not 19.7 as you claim. Like the rest of the numbers you tend to make up as you go along. It is eacsy to verify all the numbers I quote, however you don’t provide any evidence for your claims.

    You are now showing yourself to be rambling conspiracy theorist. Somehow all the universities and scientists are wrong because you say so. Please go back to using your medication as you are losing the plot.

    I do work for the Government and I am forwarding all your sedicious comments to the relevant agency. Expect a knock on the door at midnight. The keystroke tracker software on your PC has already told us more than you can imagine. Your PC has a two way screen so we also have images of you committing the offences.

    Have a nice day…while it lasts.

  • Dr Kingslee Spurling

    put the info on the browns gas site into boyles gas law if you dont believe mine
    as you will find i am right or close free energy exists the governments we elect are to stupid and selfish to give us such things to do in our everyday lives, a cracker at a petrolium refinery burns more crude oil than it makes petrol
    thats the sort of crap we put up with and carbon taxes to boot, we have had a lot better for a long time, most of them are dead for there troubles of trying to give us more sustainable lives. Youl Brown nearly had it completly cracked but he got run through by the government and all his experiments taken away, all that realy remains of him is his cutting torch they liked that, he also invented very efficent implosion pumps as well, i know a guy who worked with him in the 70s. he put a hydrogen injection system on a car with a filter on the inlet air to get rid of the nitrogen to improve combustion he was selling it commertially but they were puting canaries on them all because he was storing hydrogen for the injection system even though the tank had been evacuated and would implode if it caught fire, he also sold generator sets that electolized via the current supplied by the alternator it also had a ceramic filter on the inlet air to eliminate nitrogen in the combustion chamber, i met one of the engineers from the australian army base that had baught the generator sets supplied by youls co worker, you just zap the water he said and it runs on very little water, he got run through by the government and he shut his company shut down or else they were going to kill him if he didnt cease his research.You work in the government dont you Mr fritz.

  • Dr Kingslee Spurling

    15 minutes to answer it seems you have a compusive disorder or you are just very atentive
    my temperature calculations are correct by the ideal gas law you get radicaly different answers when you have no nitrogen in the reaction 1 cc of water gas and a litre of nitrogen free air does burn at 6000 deg C and 1 cc of water gas with nothing around it implodes at 600,000 eg C by memory, at uni they teach you nitrogen is 79% of our atmosphere, it is not, and they claim gold has an Sg of 19.7 or thereabouts, again incorect my sealed loop combustion physics are unique and all calculateable with the ideal gas law try it! my electrolysis rate is correct 1 amp for 1 hour makes 6 litres of gas, and my power calulation is correct ,you have posed no alternative or said where it was wrong, you can read about the gas here being hho not h2 o2 as you claim it to be is correct or very close, http://amasci.com/weird/bgf1.html its about the browns gas cutting torch which operates on the same principal, experiment conditions vary giving different conclusions as you will see.
    many people have proven what i say to be correct one aerospace engineer said in theory a 1 litre engine has the potential to power the whole of australia, you dont find this sort of stuff in acessable books maybe the vatican archives where all supressed technology ends up, face it it has been built to power a sub one of my friends saw the program on the discovery channel as well, you do not undertstand what is going on in the sealed loop its perfect transfusion, a reversable reaction, you can actually get free energy from the steam cycle with a carfully engineered process as well, believe what you want you have been lied to a lot, university dogma has a lot to answer for.

  • Geoff Fritz

    Dr Kingslee Spurling,
    So far the numbers you have quoted have all been found to be woefully inaccurate and don’t appear in any physics books.

    Cite sources for your arguments. Otherwise you’re just another crackpot.

    Meanwhile, try different medication.

  • Dr Kingslee Spurling

    you can believe what you like i know what i saw the murder of many individuals, and i met the guy who tucked her brains back into her head, toyota studied it properly and concluded it worked and insinuated nothing else.
    i have met many non believers and after further study they came to the same conclusion as toyota it works,
    you clearly do not understand what is happening in the loop or the whole process in general. it has been built and was on the discovery channel you can read a post about it here http://www.coofercat.com/node/451#comment-7235
    you will come to the same conclusion to if you study the process properly
    you sound like your typical university mushroom.
    i have a doctorate in industrial process control and have had it since i was 18yrs old for being open minded and very ground breaking, what makes you think you know it all your the one spreading what you call BS you are a common drone.

  • Geoff Fritz

    BS 1 Sealed loop engine – mmm. Electricity converts water to H2 and O2. The combustion of H2 and O2 yields water and heat. Unless the heat is converted directly to electricity the device cannot be a closed loop.
    BS 2 Stop with the murdered girlfriend BS – you’re now sounding idiotic. Upload the footage to YouTube as proof.
    BS 3 If Toyota stated the design invalidates the second law of thermodynamics it means you were dreaming. I think perhaps Toyota said it won’t work because it attempts to violate the second law of thermodynamics. Huge difference.
    I’d suggest you go on taking a different sort of medication as the ones you’re on now aren’t helping. Your delusions are still the same.
    To stop everyone thinking you’re deluded you could always make a vehicle powered by your impossible device and prove me wrong. But that isn’t going to happen is it? Why? Those stupid “outdated” laws of physics. LOL

  • Geoff Fritz

    BS 1 Sealed loop engine – mmm. Electricity converts water to H2 and O2. The combustion of H2 and O2 yields water and heat. Unless the heat is converted directly to electricity the device can be a closed loop.

    BS 2 Stop with the murdered girlfriend BS – you’re now sounding idiotic. Upload the footage to YouTube as proof.

    BS 3 If Toyota stated the design invalidates the second law of thermodynamics it means you were dreaming. I think perhaps Toyota said it won’t work because it attempts to violate the second law of thermodynamics. Huge difference.

    I’d suggest you go on taking a different sort of medication as the ones you’re on now aren’t helping. Your delusions are still the same.

    To stop everyone thinking you’re deluded you could always make a vehicle powered by your impossible device and prove me wrong. But that isn’t going to happen is it?

  • Dr Kingslee Spurling

    My engine with the sealed loop has been built by the australian submarine corperation some years ago and actually powers a small experimental catterpillar drive it works, many people have died in the cause for hho powered engines , and many people have been threatened and paid off, my girlfriends murder was actually filmed by 7 melbourne australia, along with the death of 6 invividuals who came to her aid all dumped in the sewer for rats to eat, everything i have stated has been calaborated by people with doctorates and professors
    toyota stated my design invalidates the second law of thermodynamics, do all the calculations and you will see that we shouldnt be using petrol, none of this is standard university physics.

  • Geoff Fritz

    The volume of gas produced from water is always defined at standard temperature and pressure and that is why the figures you quote are clearly incorrect.

    The story about you girlfriend and the SAS – pure fantasy.

    “The output of the engine is calculated as follows, fuel in litres minute x calorie bond of fuel x eficency, so at 40 amps of current , being headlight current will produce 4 litres of gas in 1 minute so 4 x 102.2 x 85% = 34,748 kw” – ignoring of course all that is incorrect.

    You have done fusion – you are making things up as you go along.

    “…the first internal combustion engine ran on water…” No it didn’t. It ran on hydrogen. That is a matter of fact from the history books. You are very confused.

    If you need to continually exaggerate and lie to promote your case you clearly are not what you claim.

  • Dr Kingslee Spurling

    i have been told by other water engine developers that you get more gas than is calculated by you and when you electolize 1 litre of water you measure 2039 litres these are people who have sold water powered engines to the military as generator sets and his company was shut down and his life threatened, in my case when my girlfriend looked into intelectual property rights in 1987 she was murdered outside the patents office by the police and SAS.
    The output of the engine is calculated as follows, fuel in litres minute x calorie bond of fuel x eficency, so at 40 amps of current , being headlight current will produce 4 litres of gas in 1 minute so 4 x 102.2 x 85% = 34,748 kw out of a 1 litre engine of my design running at 3000 revs
    guess what i have perfected hyrogen fusion as you called it go for it Mr Dingle i hope you can change our polititians minds on this technology, the first internal combustion engine ran on water petrol was yet to be invented, be negative if you like.

  • Fritz

    Here is the claim on Dr Kingslee Spurling’s website.: “When Dc current is passed through water it makes gas (water gas) 1 liter of water can make 2039 liters of gas with an expansion ratio of 1729/1 when exploded with a spark it turns back into the same amount of water that made the gas to start so its recyclable, and when circulated in as sealed loop you keep all of the fuel when circulated with a gas that will not change state when combined with fuel elements but expands and contracts with temperature.. Combustion temperatures start at 6,000degC and go to 600,000degC”

    Now if anyone believes that hogwash they deserve to be fleeced by free energy scammers.
    Fact 1. Water doesn’t release 2039 litres of gas. Basic chemistry says a litre of water (1000g) contains 1000g/18g/mole = 55.5 moles of gas. One mole occupies 22.4 litres. 55.5 x 22.4 = 1243 litres.
    Fact 2. The continual combustion (conversion to water) and conversion to H2 and O2 loses energy thus a closed loop is not possible.
    Fact 3. The burn temperature of the H2 in an ideal stoichiometric state is about 2,800 deg C. You obviously are confusing the temperature of the sun (hydrogen fusion) with what happens here (combustion) on earth.

    I can shoot holes in lots of things on your very poorly researched website. You may fool the “believers” but not the chemists of the world.

  • Dr Kingslee Spurling

    If you want to read about my research and my design on the idea go to my waterpoweredengines site you can see alternatives to the cylinder engine you can also download what nasa copyrighted for me as well, the site contains fuel technology, materials technology, and anti-gravity, and electic perpetual engines http://sites.google.com/site/waterpoweredengines/

  • If “scientists” can be paid to advance junk-science like ‘global warming’, they can be paid to research this technology and get nowhere forever, just like the American Cancer Society . . . if they ever found a cure, they’d be out of business while the “cure for cancer” is dispensed daily in Tijuana, but remains illegal throughout the US.

  • liam

    Kingslee Spurling,
    I know my maths and chemistry.

    I see you didn’t disagree that the temperature information you gave was incorrect. Any decent physics book will confirm I’m right.

    The expansion ratio number of 1729 is meaningless without stating the pressure and volume as gas will expand infinitely.

    A litre of water contains 111grams of hydrogen and 889 grams of oxygen. 111grams of hydrogen gas contains 55.6 moles of gas. At standard temperature and pressure a mole of gas occupies 22.4 litres. Therefore 55.6 moles of H2 occupies 1244 litres. 889 grams of oxygen gas contains 27.8 moles of gas. Therefore 27.8 moles of O2 occupies 622 litres, giving a total of 1867 litres.

    I’m sure any chemistry book would give the same answer.

  • its just the ideal gas law at work do the math yourself if you are capable at it, i have had all my calculations confirmed by the csiro

  • liam

    Dr Kingslee Spurling,
    Did you make up all those numbers without reference to standard texts on the subject? Hydrogen burns at a maximum temperature of 3080K. Those temperatures you’re quoting are fantasy. Perhaps you are confusing temperatures on the sun with those here on earth.

    No vehicles are water powered. They are hydrogen powered.

  • Waterpowered engines is no fantasy but a reality it takes 1 amp for 1 hour of dc current to make 6 litres of gas a at 1 bar, it has an expansion ratio of 1729/1 and 1 litre of water will make 2039 litres of gas. combustion temperatures between 6,000 and 600,000 deg.C If you filter the nitrogen out of the inlet air this gives a drastic increase in efficency

  • RDMofDavao

    I understand that your approach is less to be successful, remember no person knows everything of what other person knows, mostly of the discoveries or invention details made after experimenting in so many ways.

    Don’t be so dependent your thinking on vacuum, vacuum is always empty, you will do nothing like an empty head.

  • Geoff Fritz

    It is not a matter of harnessing. Energy gotten out of a machine must be replaced, and in a closed system that is not possible. We are not alive due to free energy – we are not in a closed system either – energy comes from the sun.

    You mustn’t confuse an open mind with an empty brain.

  • RDMofDavao

    What I mean is just a matter of harnessing to have perpetual motion machine. because we are just bound of what we have seen today or referred to the systems at works, that’s why we stick to that reason. Today’s technology it was impossible hundreds of years ago. if you think it deeply we humans, you’ll come out that we are just like an organic robot alive suppose totally by free energy.

  • Geoff Fritz

    You are confusing perpetual motion with a perpetual motion machine. And that is the problem with all free energy proponents – they fail to grasp even the most basic aspects of the debate.

    Try and understand the concept of “machine” and you’ll be able to move on.

    As for the “Ark of the conenant [sic]” rubbish there goes any chance of a reasoned debate.

  • RDMofDavao

    What we have today is not yet totally perfect, there are a lot of things to discover, that is why every now and then there are things that will come out.

    Like the Ark of the conenant, base on the discriptions it is very powerful but yet no can prove how it works, so we called a hoax? I think no, there were secret of the gods on how they made impossible things on earth. There will be a God given gift to come out anytime.

    I believe in perpetual motion, if there is no perpetual motion then we don’t have an alive solar systems in the universe or an even electron that is moving inside the atom.

    We don’t possess the knowledge of the universe so we have to be an open minded.

  • Geoff Fritz

    It is not about semantics. The definition of free energy is only about isolated systems. A device that is powered by energy from any open system is not free energy.

    “As everybody knows there are no closed/isolated systems in nature.” – try telling that to anyone promoting free energy such as magnetic motors and water powered engines.

    You need to sit down and have a quiet think about what people believe.

  • Synthesis

    @#9 by Geoff Fritz
    If I take your definition for “free energy” then I have the same opinion as you do. So I see a issue of semantics here. 🙂 Till we don’t have the same concept for FE our discussions are useless. Try to read any FE info from now on using my definition. Don’t stick to the isolated system paradigma. As everybody knows there are no closed/isolated systems in nature.

  • Geoff Fritz

    Your analogy of the researcher is not evidence of anything
    “Free energy” by definition is energy from no where – refers to an isolated system and thus the first and second law of thermodynamics apply – and that is why no free energy device (a perpetual motion machine) will ever work.
    Drawing energy from the ether or vacuum or what ever you want to call it is not “free energy” – you may as well call solar energy “free energy”.

    You are confused by definitions. Stan Meyer did nothing other than electrolysis – he was a proven fraud.

    Anyone who proclaims they have built a perpetual motion device needs to stop posting on forums such as this, or even worse YouTube, as no one in their right mind who had invented a working version would bother. Build one and sell it. Anything else is hot air.

  • Synthesis

    @ #7 by Geoff Fritz on January 11, 2011 – 4:19 am

    “Non-scientific sources are unacceptable. No references to free energy sites or vanity press publications.”
    I don’t want to convince you giving references. I don’t try to make a literature composition. There were cases in the established science when some researchers cited and used scientific work of the others, older than them in the field, that later was demonstrated to be a fraud. A recent case was in the field of medicine, when a researcher falsified the statistical data collected about the eficiency of a drug. What is very bad is that his “data” slipped through the verification done by other experts. So don’t believe 100% in what you find in a science book. Verify it experimentally if possile! I know! It’s hard! I have no doubts that some FE claims are frauds! But not all of them!

    How about starting doing experiments instead of living in a fantasy world depicted by religious-scientific books? I’ve done my own experiments using scalar waves, things that “DO NOT EXISTS” and are “impossible” according to mainstream science and I have obtained some of the results claimed by the “conmen”. Don’t be afraid! I have academic studies. I don’t fool myself so easy when it comes to experimental conclusions.

    The mainsteam science is flawed intentionally with “doctored” experiments (see for example what Feynman said how the scientist fooled themselves with the value of electron’s charge when they repeated the oil drop experiment. There are more such cases.). They say that such things do not exist, but in secret some of the same guys do their own experiments. Most of them try to slow down the competitors… This reminds me of Marconi who said that Tesla never produced something usefull for wireless telegraphy, but in secrecy he used the same things that can be found in Tesla’s previuous patents, the same principles, sometimes the same schemes/diagrams. Don’t be fooled by propaganda! Do your own experiments till you’ll succeed!

    “Ask yourself why no one has ever demonstrated”
    There are people who have succesfully replicated some of the experiments. It’s very important to know how to see the results. This kind of energy is not always picked up by conventional measurement equipment

    “Stan Meyer was promoting free energy which does not exist” Why are you so sure that FE does not exist? You didn’t grasp the concept well! Free Energy is not something that is produced using a closed system! It’s something extracted from another place, like the “Ether field”. Any working free-energy device is an open system! In nature closed/isolated systems do NOT exists. They exists only in theory. It’s not always obvious from where the additional energy comes from, but you should keep in mind that it is not created by the device.
    I kindly remember you that the first and second law of thermodynamics are only appliable to isolated/closed systems. So the classical saying that “a working FE device would be perpetuum mobile” proves the lack of perspective.
    I kindly ask you to not take it personally!

  • Geoff Fritz

    @ Synthesis – cite references that show Myer’s method used different amounts of energy to split water into H2 and O2 compared to the established means. Non-scientific sources are unacceptable. No references to free energy sites or vanity press publications.

    What you have described “…in my opinion SM method taps Tesla’s “negative energy”” is classical belief over reality. Ask yourself why no one has ever demonstrated under laboratory conditions anything other than the standard energy involved in water dissociation and combustion of the products? Stan Meyer was promoting free energy which does not exist. What on earth has a worker getting zapped at an Edison power plant got to do with your argument? Going off on a tangent proves to me you have no argument.

  • Synthesis

    @Geoff Fritz
    “3. The energy required to split water into H2 and O2 is the same as is recovered according to all science books. Laboratory tests prove it to be so.”
    That’s correct if we talk about the common known electrolyse. Stanley Meyer’s method is not an electrolyse. If you would have read the Stanley’s patents you would have seen that in sereral places it uses something like ‘by means of a non-electrolytic process”.
    The lab tests you are talking about don’t use SM method but the classical electrolyse which is described by Faraday’s law. In my opinion SM method taps Tesla’s “negative energy” or “radiant energy” by using DC pulses. Check the story with Tesla at one of the Edison power plants and the worker who died after closing a high-power DC circuit. If you would do some experimental research you would learn more…

  • Geoff Fritz

    I think the blurb for the video says it all: “Daniel’s car is probably, from what he says, based on the same principle as Stanley Meyer’s car. He converts water to the two gasses (H2 and O) by splitting it using a certain electrical frequency. It’s well known among the free energy groups that hydrogen generators can be made this way, and the fun part is that the power that the water splitting system uses is smaller than the power it outputs (like it does in the case of DC current applied to the same water).”

    1. Stan Meyer was proven to be a fraud.
    2. Water splits into H2 and O2 not H2 and O
    3. The energy required to split water into H2 and O2 is the same as is recovered according to all science books. Laboratory tests prove it to be so.
    4. If free energy could be obtained this way tell me where the plans are and where is the proof it all works as claimed. I have been reading this same rubbish for over 30 years and still no one provides evidence.

  • Nice…

  • Mr. Dingel’s official website is now online at DanielDingel.com where some of his personal files have been digitized and made public.

  • sage

    I want one!! God Bless him.

  • How much current is required to split the two ? H2& O.What Frequency is used to split the two? I understand that Daniel used alumninum somewhere to stop things from exploding,but,nothing is said ,as, to where this aluminum is placed?