Видео

Thanks for watching. Glad you found it interesting.

My question is, where is Stanly Meyer's car that runs on water?? He mysteriously dies, and the car disappears.

@@imtweetydiva29 Charged ball lightnings powered it not h2

Yes you amsoil interptor 2 stroke synthetic in the H2 motor.

Well if you don't put a blow off on it you probably could blow your motor But the blow off is easy to make it's just an empty cylinder with some water in it Long as a hydrogen goes through the water it can't back up it's explode it'll be just Long as a hydrogen goes through the water it can't back up it's explode it just fine it's been running hydrated All kinds of gas vehicles over in your 1st world war and the second world war they could not get Gas during the war so they converted everything over to hydrogen And it was 100% hydrogen that ran all their vehicles They ran buses around town they ran generators they ran equipment They ran motorcycle I saw Harding Davis with gasafires on them... Using gasification to run your bikes So it absolutely does work just because this guy has a lab coat on I call him professor lab coat Everybody wants to believe what he saying He has no clue what he's talking about But he's talking about you can't run it in 100But he's talking about you can't run it 100% he's a damn fool just you can't It's been done Thousands of times You look up Gus vacation in the 30's and 40's on the internet Tons tons of pictures All kinds of equipment Add vehicles being run off of gasification running off of 100% hydrogen and nothing else So don't listen to So don't listen to professor lab Coat.... I think he's just looking for somebody to think he's smart The lab coat don't make you smart But I'm gonna buy 1 of amazon for $14 just to see if it actually make But I'm gonna buy 1 of amazon for $14 just to see if it actually makes me smarter Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

The Hindenburg also had a highly flammable hull. Also it was designed to work with helium and the Americans used hydrogen to cut corners. With hydrogen one would need to account for embrittlement and diffusion through the container walls which were never considered if the airship was designed to work with helium

@@atrumluminarium The Americans didn't operate the Hindenburg, they didn't cut any corners. They wouldn't supply the NAZIs with helium because they might use it for war, so they moved to hydrogen.

Yes 2 stroke and not a gutless 4 turd stroke. I pretty much hate car culture as its obsessed with over complex 4 turd stroke. Rotax 850 Etec scaled up to different sizes would be awesome.

Toyota is already making them and I’ve been researching a company called liquid piston that makes a new style engine that can use hydrogen as a source and they have a lot of military contracts. Turns out if this new engine (much smaller and lighter) is equipped on a generator all you need is a fuel cell and water to power everything and don’t need fuel transported to your location… the possibility are literally endless!

I agree with you 100%During the 1st and second world war.... Over in Europe they converted all their vehicles to hydrogen motorcycles Cars Trucks buses farm equipment Generators All the all those all of them ran off of hydrogen because they couldn't not get gas..... But professor lab coat here Thanks because he's got a lab coat that he ordered from amazon for $14...... It makes him look smart I'll admit that But he's still dumb as a box of rocks trying to explain away how hydrogen will never work but it's been working since the 30s...... Anybody that doesn't believe it all they have to do is go on the internet... Add look up gasification in the 30s Add look up gasification in the 30s and 40s and then we'll see tons of pictures of vehicles converted over to hydrogen....😋😋😋😋😋 So yeah all the hydrogen haters can # sand right up their bungholio..... Unless you want to listen to professor lab coat Explain to you how something that works doesn't work.... I'm going to order me a lab coat so I can look smart too...

Zero point energy pulsed plasma 2 strokes!

If you generate hidrogen from salt water, you will generate chlorine which is toxic

Support your statement.

Yup I don't know where he got the lab coat but putting on a lab coat and explaining how something that's been working for over 80 years does not work Makes you look like a dumbass

A 2 stroke and not a gutless overcomplex 4 tard stroke which car culture is obsessed

As opposed to battery powered firestarters, made possible by African children mining lithium

@@CatchiestWorm12 There are now millions of EVs on the road and still the statistics show that more gasoline cars catch fire every day. Also, lithium is extracted mostly in Australia and no children are involved. Cobalt (poorly mined in central africa) is no longer part of EV battery technology. Good to keep up with developments.

​@@mb-3faze I'll be honest, I'm kind of sceptical with the statistics, that they give us for EV fires. Why? Because numbers range from 1/5 of petrol cars to 1/100 if you have to believe EV minded sources. Some examples: One source uses the data that was spoon-fed by Elon Musk himself of how EVs are 11x less likely to catch fire. The data they used to compare is from 2015, which frankly is misleading due to the sample size of EVs being too low and also EVs not having aged that much at that point. Another source claims it's 20x less likely. But there they only used the numbers from Sweden, with only 614.000 EVs on the road at the time of their research. The study they did is representative for Sweden, but not something we can apply to the rest of the world given that in Sweden we are talking about an environment that's a lot colder compared to a lot of other places in the world. Hotter regions are the ones where EVs struggle more with the problem of car fires. Ideally, we would get worldwide numbers, but there we run again in the problem of the sample size being too low right now, given that some regions in the world barely have any EVs driving around. Then there is a source that claims petrol cars are 100x more likely to go up in flames... I mean... (to be fair, this source electrek is known to be pulling numbers out of their *ss). They use fire recalls to measure, which is an idiotic measurement if you ask me. A recall doesn't mean that the car is 100% likely to develop that problem it's recalled for. In a lot of cases, the most serious risks (like fires etc.) get recalled if there is only a slight notion of the possibility it could happen. Then there's the discussion of hybrid cars. Are they petrol vehicles? Studies actually agree that hybrids are the most likely to catch fire. More than petrol cars and EVs combined (in the USA, so again not worldwide unfortunately, so also take this with a grain of salt). The study did found though that: "combustion vehicles often covered a wide variety of mechanical areas - from wiring issues to fuel leaks to component failures", whereas EVs and Hybrids: "Fire risk recalls for hybrid and electric vehicles, on the other hand, almost always centered around the battery pack". What I'm trying to explain here is that some studies throw Hybrids together with petrol cars to compare them with EVs, while the battery pack is usually the issue for Hybrids. Which again is a disingenuous way of representing data. To be fair, I don't think the amount of cars on fire is necessarily the issue. The biggest issue is putting out a fire. I can only imagine, here in Europe, what would happen if almost all vehicles in a street are EVs. If one catches fire, chances are much higher of the fire spreading out of control due to how difficult it is to put out an electrical fire. I live in a fairly small town, and it was big news that the local government had bought a water container to submerse an EV for 48 hours. Which is fine for the limited amount of EVs on the road here in my town. But the earlier example I've given, with a whole street of EVs, is going to cause an insane amount of issues. It's hypothetical, I know. But it's a fact that EVs are difficult to put out and as a result have a way higher chance to make a fire spread out. Putting a car submersed in water for 48 - 72 hours is not a very practical thing. Especially when there are a huge amount of EVs on the road. It takes 1500 - 3700 (500 - 1.000 gallons) litres of water to put out a petrol car, compared to 113.500 - 151.000 litres (30.000 - 40.000 gallons). That also kind of feels like wasting a valuable resource, and not all that environmentally friendly, especially if it would happen on a large scale. Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.

@@stix2you Thanks for your considered reply - and I did read all of it. I wont come as much of a surprise to say that I disagree with every point you made! Just going backwards through you points: I follow the progress on electron storage technology closely and it's worth noting that there are already electric commuter planes in operation. The newer so-called solid state batteries are getting pretty close to the 500Wh per kg energy density the flyboys say we need, in fact 700Wh/kg has already been established. As for trains - there is literally no excuse for not electrifying and most are, of course. Boats - they should at least be battery operated anywhere near port. 6) Residential generation. Sure powerwalls are expensive - I wouldn't buy one. But PV is pretty cheap especially if you do some install yourself. A 3kW grid-tied 8 panel system will set you back about 2 grand. I've installed 5 such systems for friends and family. Batteries (because they are generally lithium) are not really viable, currently, but the iron-air batteries (commercial size at the moment) and some flow-battery tech will bring the price down to a quarter of the feel good, smug powerwall level. Looking forward to that. Rather than rattling on about the other points, my major concern about hydrogen is the obvious fervor of the fossil fuel industry for it. That should sound some significant alarm bells. Why are they so keen to support something that will kill off their business of extracting free stuff from the ground and then sell that stuff to us all the while benefitting from a trillion dollars in direct subsidies every year? (that's an entirely verifiable claim) Well, because they know they only viable way of generating industrial quantities of hydrogen is through reforming methane - what a surprise that they keep that under wraps! Safety - lol - have a major crash in your EV and the chances are you'll walk away even if the batteries get a bit flamey. In a hydrogen car crash when some truck has ripped the value mechanism off the 10,000 psi tank? You are 100% dead. Oh - and prepare for your house insurance to skyrocket - even if it's only your neighbor that has the hydrogen car. The car/fossil fuel people hoodwinked us with leaded fuel (which they knew way back during Midgley's time was terrible) and most recently with diesel lies. Hydrogen is just their latest gambit and they are blitzing social media with carefully crafted lies and absolutely boatloads of money. I have been engaged on the hydrogen debate for more than 15 years when good old Arnold Schwarzenegger pushed for hydrogen in California. Big oil has abandoned California and are now pushing their hydrogen propaganda in less enlightened areas.

​@@mb-3fazeThe only Gasoline cars catching on fire are Hyundai trash cans and Kia's junk. That's a big lie when it comes to Toyota's and American made vehicles, get your facts straight before you write a statement with lies. EV cars are disposable junks that runs on a dozen batteries and will never last 20 years from the date it left the Assembly line.

Do you have a copy? I hear they were blank...

@@lucindawoods8793 exactly

@@lucindawoods8793 exactly

Glad you enjoyed it