ONE MORE TIME – There is NO debate it is a false claim. :rolleyes: A scam. A HOAX!
Mr. Dingle apparently wants money for his “invention” and lots of it otherwise he would reveal the supposed secret of said “invention” for the good of mankind.
He claims persecution to prevent being exposed for what he is. A scammer, and not a very convincing one at that.
[/URL=http://www.commutefaster.com/TheRealScore.html]** Dingle is One of Many ** Scroll down right hand column to “Water as Fuel”
Without exception all of the charlatans clain that the gov’t., big business, the oil companies, or some other entity are out to get them and supress their invention to protect their profits.
What would make you think it is real or has merit of any kind???
Liquid water is already in its lowest energy level[sup]1[/sup]. You can’t burn it… it is already burnt.
Sure, you can give water some energy, and then extract the energy. But to do so requires an independent energy source. And the energy storage/retrieval cycle is not 100% efficient. In this type of system the water would be an energy vessel, and not a fuel, much like a battery or flywheel.
Hence there will never be a water-powered car.
[sup]1[/sup][sub]Well, thermodynamically speaking, *ice * is at a lower energy level. But it requires energy to make ice when ambient temperature is greater than 0 °C.[/sub]
spingears, do you ever look at a GQ thread and say to yourself “hey, everything I was going to say has already been answered in a more articulate way” and decide not to post? It might help if you did this a little more often.
The link you provided would have been useful, and less rude to the OP. The rest of your post was needless.
I don’t know much about the activities of the IMF or the World bank, but I will be glad to send anybody info through IM or email.
I cannot send pms in this forum or view profiles without paying the fee.
As for the topic, there is alot of info about how it could threoritcally be impossible, but how can we actually prove that he did not find a way? The scientific method sould be followed. Not just theories and hypothesis, but actual physical tests on his designs following scientific procedure.
There isn’t any “theoretical” about it. It simply is NOT possible. The energy you can get from burning the hydrogen is necessarily less than that needed to extract it from the water in the first place. No real world system is even 100% efficient, never mind MORE than 100%, which is what his purported water-fueled car would have to be to work as stated.
Just start a new thread.
Produce your vidence - we’ll be glad to comment on it.
Feel free to post your ‘lots of information’.
As others have said, if you start with a lot of power, electrolyse water, then burn the hydrogen, you finish with less power. (We can explain why if you’d like.
Mr. Dingle doesn’t tell you about the first step.
Finally, all scams start with an appeal for help (usually because somebody is persecuting them) and you pay over the money before any proof of a working invention is offered.
All useful inventions attract investment based on working prototypes - indeed a clever invention has to beat investors off with a stick.
You can’t prove a negative. Although in this case he could just by letting legitimate scientists test a prototype - which he never will, because scam artists like this will NEVER produce anything testable - no matter how much money you give him, he won’t ever come up with plans, formulas, or working prototypes that can be tested in rigorous laboratory conditions; he will just keep asking for money saying that this issue has come up, or that he needs cash to “grease some palms in Washington”, or that needs to pay for rent for his research facilities, or just about anything - the list is endless.
Here is the point you are missing - you come in and essentially demand we prove that he’s a liar and a fraud. WE do not have to do the “disproving” - HE must prove HIS claims. He has not, and will never do so. He has not provided one single shred of evidence - real evidence derived from rigorous studies from recognized scientists and not just from his own imagination.
I’m a chemistry teacher. Please take my word on it. There is almost no power left in water.
Water is literally the ashes of combustion that has already happened. Every time you burn a carbon/hydrogen containing molcule, you produce water. You can’t burn ashes, and water has already combined with oxygen. As my organic chem professor said, if nature can produce water, it probably will. Why? Because water is one of the least energy containing molecules around.
Ever notice how the world had a kajillion tons of water just lying around? If it were very reactive, it would have combined with something.
That’s not true. You can power a car on fuel cells, for one thing. For another, you can run an internal combustion engine on any combustible substance, including hydrogen. Takes a bit of design work, but it’s not all that high-tech, just non-standard.
And this is true, as anyone who’s taken high-school chemistry can attest.
Please list the info about how it could be theoretically possible. I haven’t seen any yet.
Do you have this car in your posession, to do “actual physical tests”? Because if you don’t, suggesting actual physical tests to perform aren’t going to answer your underlying question.
He said theoretically impossible–I think he means that people here have only addressed the question from a theoretical perspective, and that no one has done any observations.
Of course, as you say, it’s impossible to do any observation without a model or a plan of the car, and since Dingel won’t supply those, or offer any explanation of how it works, the burden of proof is squarely on his shoulders.
lixluke–there is a longstanding tradition of water powered cars linked to fraudulent claims.
There is also a long history of con artists & scam men blaming poorly-understood institutions for “suppressing” their “inventions”.
Follow 2 rules in assessing claims like these–
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.
Do not believe anybody who uses the word conspiracy, unless he can prove that there is one, and explain why and how the conspirators would benefit, in detail.
In addition, he should be able to explain how an outsider like him knows about the conspiracy without either being able to break it or it having been broken already. In other words, how does a leaky conspiracy continue to exist?
