|
|
"G. R. L. Cowan" <gcowan@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42DB2E88.58E139E4@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Bill Ward wrote:
>>
>> On 17 Jul 2005 19:13:21 -0700, ngdbud@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> >I have seen sites all over the internet that claim they have plans to
>> >make cars run on waterI read the descriptions and believed it but when
>> >i ran it by my science teacher he said that it was impossible and
>> >defied the law of concervation of energy. That's just about all he
>> >said, but i can fill in the blanks. if the water takes enrgy from the
>> >alternator then how can there be any energy left to make the car move?
>> >How can a car create its ownenergy? and if they are real, couldn't you
>> >just build a condensor to turn the steam back into water and into the
>> >gas tank? this would of course mean perpetual energy which is
>> >supposedly impossible, although i can't say i'm a skeptic.
>>
>> Your line of thinking is correct. There's nothing wrong with
>> being a skeptic, it's one of the requirements for doing
>> science. Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily
>> rigorous proof, and running a car on water certainly
>> qualifies as extraordinary.
>>
>> You're already ahead of some of the posters we've had on
>> this ng - keep up the good work.
>
> It's homeopathy. Water cars can't run if they
> get gas in the water tank -- and just having
> a briefly opened can of gasoline somewhere on the
> planet in the preceding century gets enough in there
> to stop'em!
Who needs perpetual motion. We gots perpetual excuses man! All we need now
is some suckers errr... I mean.... investors.
>
>
> --- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
> http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
> "Boron: A Better Energy Carrier than Hydrogen?"
|
|