Oh, and the thing is, a lot of currently "impossible" things have been rigorously inspected by scientists and found to actually be doing impossible things. Just because it doesn't fit the theories you were taught to believe as biblical truth (of a scientific flavour) doesn't mean it isn't happening right infront of you. New discoveries always piss off a lot of mainstream scientists and their blind followers.
Science itself has to be revised once in a while, and the energy doesn't get created out of nowhere. It has a source. This is an open system, there's nothing theoretically impossible about "zero point energy." In fact, it's been worked into quantum mechanics already and that's where the zero point term came from. Science isn't done yet folks, we're not that advanced, and our scientific establishment isn't exactly ethical. Defying the current theory is how progress is made, but it's frowned upon.
haha, this is such utter bs. I don't know what you do at school in the US, but we learn why this is impossible in middle school chemistry. any reversible process must by definition require an energy input equal to the original output to reset it. Electrolysis of water produces H2 and O2, consuming electricity. when you combust the H2, the reaction is reversed, and produces EXACTLY the same amount of energy as it cost you to electrolyse it. conspiracy theory or easy science?
Vatican- NAZIS- SocialistsCFR (luciferian jews) run the world. The Globalist, the international bankers, secret societies, organized religions ruled by an elite bloodline, same bloodline ruling from Egypt 2 Rome 2 British (European) Empire 2 now American Empire (1913 Fed Reserve). Presidents & Kings stand at whim of the real power which is the priest hood (Priests - Bishops - Cardinals - Pope) standing behind the throne - trying to form it's one world luciferian gov't
@minase0906 You need to prove it to be CREDIBLE to anyone who is reading these posts. Anyone who has a technology that could generate free energy and hides it is very very selfish. To say they are waiting to be payed makes no sense because it would be worth a fortune. A public display would keep the EVIL OIL COMPANIES from stealing it. \
@minase0906 I know someone who says they talked to the dead spirits of Edison & Einstein, (true).
That is meaningless unless it can be proven. If he/she can replicate stan meyer then why not put it in public view. Put it on Youtube and SAVE THE WORLD.
@Texmurphy51 Hey Tex..I forgot how to reply to your message (bout a yr. ago..as I became ill, heart-attack and such..anyway just now got my utube info bak) In regards 3 TCC being a myth and the steam..u have me confused with 2 different technologies.TCC is no myth,oil companies do not deny it..chk some patents by big oil,as this is how crude becomes hydrocarbons..heat,catalyst,water.Yes,h2o will break down at high temps..but does not go back 2 steam in cyl.Rather droplets of water.
@minase0906 I am going to try and explain this so even YOU can understand it. Go to Wikipedia and do a search on North Korea. Look down the list and see Power & Energy. You will see they are energy HUNGRY. Why would a country thats energy STARVED reject a technology like this? Why would any Gov reject technology that would allow planes, boats etc to run with no fuel????
@minase0906 China & N.Korea are Communists. They have NO profit motive.
Your finally starting to realize that the idea that Big Oil could stop the development of this technology world wide is impossible. This is why your putting your fingers in your ears & shouting profanity at me.
Do you hear anything about stopping this technology on Wikileaks?
A technology that guys discover in their garage is somehow blocked from posting on the internet, (NOT)
@minase0906 North Korean People HAVE NO MONEY. They dont buy anything, they get a Gov Ration. They are Communists. If North Korea could generate power they would at any costs. Look at a satelite view of they country and you will see the only lights are in the Capitol.
India is still burning coal in their railroads, they have more student engineers in the world, so would have found this technology and used it.
China listens to NO ONE so they would use it if it existed.
@minase0906 Do you really think that countries like N. Korea or Russia would not use a device like this if it existed? If hundreds of people have discovered this concept, non of them simply put out the information, they all kept it secret until the Men In Black came along & killed them or stole the plans? Come On, they could not even keep the plans for the Atomic Bomb secret.
Most of these guys have been milking investors(suckers) for years.
@minase0906 You can find many videos on youtube showing cars running on water or no fuel, perpetual motion and many other things. They are all hoaxes, tricks. They all claim it works but when it comes to a controled demonstration they all fail. Its usually blamed on mechanical or electrical problems. If you REALLY had a device that ran on pure water, & could demonstrate it, investors would beat your door down. These claims are like Bigfoot, lots of stories but no proof.
@minase0906 I am debunking it. I dont like to see misinformation portrayed as truth without debate. This water power thing has been around since WWII just like the stories of the 200mpg carburator. Bigfoot and the Bermuta triangle are in there also.
Nice. This has more detailed information than I've ever heard from a "water energy" video. Still not quite enough to make our own though.
I'd bet money that even if this became mainstream the environmentalists would STILL have a cow about cars having a horrible effect on the weather, environment, & harming animals who can't handle the higher humidity levels caused by releasing water vapor everywhere.
Free energy has been here all along ,But the Oil companies want these technologies unknown to the masses,if you want a real Free energy Magnet Motor, get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,The revolution begins!
Here's something to chew on. If there is a huge conspiracy to cover up this stuff, then why are all these videos able to go free? Why aren't they pulled or blocked by the govs? It would seem the reason is that the devices do not work. Maybe you could argue the govs already do do something and switch the videos with crap to make it a "silent" coverup. But that means you are still not likely to find working stuff on the net, and you still can't believe these videos, as it's all been switched.
If there is no huge conspiracy, then it begs the question of why we don't see this stuff in broader use. Again, the answer would seem to be that what is seen in these Videos simply Does Not Work.
So whatever you believe, it does not seem that you are likely to find working free energy devices on the interwebs. Note that this doesn't prove or disprove the possibility that free energy might exist, however.
But any CLAIMS of free energy must be treated with skepticism. And I'm especially skeptical of INTERWEB claims. Any falsehood can be peddled easily on the interwebs.
Maybe SOMEWHERE out there there is a real free energy device, or a theory on how to get one. But there is ALSO a LOT more BULLSHIT and POPPYCOCK out there as well. I'd say that if there is any truth out there, then for every gram of truth there's 100 kilos of BS poppycock nonsense to go with it.
And superficially, such false and possibly even scammy (as in designed to take away your money or other dishonest dirty and sick no-good crap like that) stuff likely look just as good as the real deal. So many could be misled. Is there a real deal? I don't know. It would be interesting to seriously investigate. But I do think interweb videos such as those here on YT are not likely to yield anything useful. OK?
If anything you must really watch out for the outright scams the most, though. Not only can they potentially hurt you financially but some even involve participating in the scamming process and so may (depending on your laws at least) open you up to potentially serious legal liability. Maybe even jail.
The conspiracy has a very difficult time blocking the web. Too much content, too fast; and if they do censor, then the Hydra effect kicks in, and people's outrage kicks in, causing proponents to double their efforts rather than back down. And the people who have hacking talent do not have the inclination to censor, so you'd be hard pressed to hire them to do that.
Interwebs can be silenced though. That's just it. It's been done in countries other than the USA. China, for example, has a large net blocking system set up. And they don't even need crackers: they can use sheer force of authority to block information by criminalizing it or demanding that content providers remove the stuff. And the US government has recruited crackers for military stuff, too.
Finally, even if we assume the conspiracy fails (which makes it seem incredibly wussy to me), then we're still left with the question of why this doesn't enjoy broader use. I offer a simple test for anyone who believes they have constructed for themselves a "free energy" powered car: Drive it to a university and show it to the top scientists involved. Take them round and round and measure energy usage or fuel use. Let them examine the systems. And so on.
I think oil interests deal with the net by creating false disinfo sites which 'debunk' free-energy sites as 'scam' or 'myths'. The Internet can't be censored so they resort to manipulation. If you do your research, you'll understand how our system works, and how many of these inventors are framed, ridiculed, falsely accused of fraud, put into jail or mental insitute, silenced by huge sums of money (billion $), or simply killed. The conspiracy is real, for power, greed and money.
@sc00f The problem though is the debunkings are based on solid scientific method, stuff that is ignored by many proponents. Like those who don't understand how to measure power with a meter, etc.
And can you go and show me some evidence for your claim? If you can't, then the claim is worthless.
China censors its net greatly. Why can't that be done in the US (and to censor "fringe" topics that many laugh at anyway wouldn't seem as hard as, e.g. censoring government criticism)?
@mike4ty4: a hundred years ago we were told by science that objects heavier than air cannot fly. Who would think that two guys who repaired bicycles with no scientific education would build an airplane? Actually, the science was wrong back then. Do you believe science knows everything today and nothing new is to be invented?
I've seen an avid 'scientific' debunker who was offered to test a hydrogen-boosted car, yet he didn't even dare to see it. Yeah, just stick your head into the ground.
The problem though is that here it would appear this type of effect should've been seen in labs the world over working with electrolysis (that it makes an energy gain somehow instead of being a totally symmetrical process).
Do we know everything? NO, of course not. But the more well-grounded the science a claim contradicts, the stronger the burden of proof that claim must satisfy.
Even better, this 'solid, scientific debunker' offered 1 million dollars to anyone who proves 30%+ mileage improvement for a HHO system, with an entry fee of $5000. He went bankrupt earlier, and he admitted that publicly. "So, I'm bankrupt, but give me $5000 to test your machine, and if it's good then I'll pay you $1 million." Good deal isn't it? I think he sounded more like a scammer than a debunker despite his scientific equations...
(Videos prove nothing since everything can be faked, btw.)
How about other skeptical organizations and prizes, then? Just because one may not be good doesn't mean the others are (hasty generalization fallacy).
I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just saying, if you told anyone 110 years ago that machines could fly, they'd say "no, that's impossible!" Then some bicycle repairmen created an airplane, proving that the theory was wrong. Then the aeronautics was born. Then someone applied aeronautics theory to bees, and found that according to science, bees couldn't possibly fly. The theory was wrong again... Do you see my point here? Science was proven to be wrong many-many times thorougout history.
Yet flight has been demonstrated in nature: birds. Thus even then there would be something to suggest it to be theoretically possible to build a machine, even before someone had the bright idea as to just how to do that. Do you know of any place in nature where a phenomenon that would point to free energy is, and if so, what machines do you think might this suggest (as birds, for example, suggested the form of the airplane, wings, etc. see?).
Places in nature where you can find free energy: lightning, wind, sun, geothermal energy, hgydroelectricity. Machines that suggest this: windmills, wind turbines, dams, photovoltaics, parabolic mirrors, etc., to give you just a few examples. Some of these have been already used for hundreds of years to harvest free energy. Free energy has been around, and will be around forever, in various forms.
@sc00f These forms of energy are well-proven to exist. What is in question here is not merely the existence of "free" or "just there" forms of energy, but rather these specific, "exotic" claims that violate physics.
What you see here is resonance caused by a small force causing the whole structure to resonate, and collapse.
Now, imagine that water molecules also have a such resonance frequency, meaning if you find that, you can break down the hydrogen bonds by using only a tiny amount of energy.
Actually this is what most water fuel inventors do - break down the water efficiently using a little energy, and resonance.
This is what the water fuel inventors call 'pulsed DC electrolysis' - instead of constant voltage, they apply very short pulses of energy at the resonance frequency of the water molecules. These small pulses cause the water bonds to resonate, and eventually break, just like how the wind caused the bridge to resonate, and finally collapse. This is how opera singers can break wine glasses by singing - they find the resonance frequency of the glass, causing it to break.
@sc00f Resonance does not breach conservation of energy. If there is a minimum of X joules to break a bond, then it cannot be done with X joules, period. This minimum energy is called the binding energy, and all that resonance does is make it possible to reach this energy at lower power, or rate of energy delivered over time. The same amount of joules are expended, and this is how many joules you get back (in practice, it won't be 100% efficient so there'll actually be energy lost to heat).
This is what science tells us, but anecdotal evidence suggests the resonance can make the coefficient of performance higher than 100%. Remember what they told us 110 years ago about things that cannot fly. If science doesn't understand this today, it doesn't mean it breaches any of the physical laws. Actually many inventors say it doesn't breach any thermodynamics laws, the energy simply comes from an other source, that we yet don't see and understand. This doesn't mean it cannot exist.
@sc00f Anecdotes are not scientific evidence. We need hard evidence. And furthermore, electrolysis has been done exteniely in professional labs, why would anomalous effects fail to show up there?
Maybe because they're doing it the wrong way? Remember, (real) water cars don't use standard electrolysis, so different rules may apply.
You still don't understand how free energy is suppressed by a multi-billion dollar industry. Scentists are silenced, threatened, framed, labs are destroyed. This is why you won't ever see any 'hard evidence', and why science will never acknowledge 'free energy from water'. Free energy would threaten the whole economy and lots of financial interests.
Okay, another thing for you to consider: bubble fusion, or sonofusion excites water with high frequency acoustic waves, resulting in thermonuclear fusion inside water bubbles. Scientists found that small bubbles have a temperature up to 100,000K when they pop (more than the center of the Sun). And this happens in a cup of water by using high frequency acoustic excitation.
The excess energy here comes from the fusion, so no physical laws are broken. Research 'bubble fusion'. This is science.
The oil industry has billions of dollars of profit every year. If you invent a free energy source, their income is threatened. Would you pay for utility and petrol anymore if you had free unlimited energy? For this reason, inventors are usually offered huge sums of money to keep their mouth shut (up to 1 billion dollars in cash), threatened, or simply killed. Would you offer $1 billion in cash for something that doesn't work?
Do you have some proof of these anecdotal stories? And if this has happened, these devices won't be available. Thus anything you find on the interwebs is 99.999999% likely to be a total fraud. Do you have the overwhelming evidence to discover which device is the 0.000001%?
Both acoustic energy and electricity causes the particles to move. When you apply voltage/current, the anode pulls negative polarity (oxygen), and the cathode pulls positive polarity (hydrogen). This is how they're separated when you do electrolysis - the atoms move. So electricity causes the particles to move, just like acoustic waves. And science has proven that fusion happens when you use high frequency acoustic waves to excite water. This is a fact.
@sc00f The theory of the bubble fusion though (and it's not actually a PROVEN thing, but something that some experiment suggest _might_ exist) is that the acoustic waves create cavitation (bubble implosion) and the buble collapse, not hte mere excitation of particles by the sound, cause a huge rise in temperatire lcoally, up to millions of degrees kelvin, igniting fusion. I haven't heard of that happening w/an electrolysis setup. Any experimental proof?
My point was not to make a direct analogy between bubble fusion and pulsed DC electrolysis, just to show that high frequency excitation can create unusual effects, like hydrogen fusion. So it might be possible that similar effects are achievable by high frequency pulsed electrolysis. Actually I have no idea what happens exactly. If you look at Stan Meyer's patent USP # 4,936,961 it will give you some theory on how that may work.
Meyer had US patens granted under Section 101, which depends on a successful demonstration of the invention to a Patent Review Board. So, in other words, he presented sufficient demonstration for the US Patent Office to prove his claims.
If you don't believe the Patent Office, well, that's up to you. The capitalists will love you for paying for energy.
@sc00f If he was all legal, how come he was sued for fraud after 3 witnesses say the technology and noticed it couldn't work (nothing revolutonary at a ll about it)? (And the suit was won, btw)
Where exactly is the requirement that it must be successfully demonstrated to work?
I don't know, I was not there. Possibly he was framed, just like in an 1995 court hearing - they put some unknown substance in the water to make the experiment fail. Read the story here:
waterfuelcell[DOT]org/moreinfo[DOT]html
He claims his technology was 'fully legalized under US Patent Security Law 35 USC 101 and other US Federal regulatory Acts'.
Also, at least four people have reproduced his fuel cell in the recent years, but this is just anecdotal evidence.
@sc00f Yep, that's all anecdotal -- not good grounds for solid, strong scientific belief. Looking at the law, it doesn't look like it requires it to work, though maybe someone with legal expertise in the necessary area could weigh on this -- however many other places, esp. ones about exposing free energy/alt energy scams, also say that things can be patented that don't work. It's best to research claims that can be researched as opposed to just taking what "alt media" sites say as truth.
Based on my research, I think such a system is plausible, even if conventional science can't explain it. Lots of free plans are available, and those are definitely not scams. Most of these so called 'scammers' sell plans that you could otherwise find for free, and some of them explicitly tell you that they're selling information you could find for free. I think 'people asking money for information' is the reason for your negative 'scam' connotation with water-fuel energy. It's in fact free info.
@sc00f The problem is not that it is inexplicable by current scientific theory -- after all, theory can be wrong. The problem is the lakc of evidence for it working. To propose something that significantly challenges the conventional theory, which is backed by a lot of evidence, is something which itself needs strong evidence. Anecdotes don't make the grade. Really, the best evidence would be (as always) an actual working machine. Of course that can't be presented on the internet :)
Most electrolysis watercars that I know use short pulses pulses of DC, tuned at the resonance frequency of water. The observation was that at certain frequencies, gas production increases, above COP=1. Stan Meyer uses an oscillator around 42 kHz, and has built a circuit into his car that finetunes the frequency during run to maximize gas output (since it not constant, but subject to different factors). Bob Boyce uses thre oscillators at 10.7, 21.4 and 42.8 kHz.
Again, you still don't understand how capitalism works. Bob Boyce has been building hydroxy-powered racing power boats around 1990. When words spread about Boyce's water-fueled engine, someone broke into his workshop, stole the prototype and vandalized his machines. Not even a chance of rigorous checking, before some interests destroy it or silence the inventor. Remember, trillions of dollars are at stake, so they do _everything_ so that you'll never find substantial proof.
@sc00f So then if there's no substantial proof, why should I believe your claim? Huh? Do you even have any proof there were devices and they were destroyed later? If not, why do you believe it?
What would count for you as 'substantial proof'? A video of the machine working isn't. Anecdotal witness reports aren't. A patent isn't. Plans how to build the machine aren't. Scientific research is constantly suppressed.
One more thing: Stan Meyer's brother's company is called Xogen. They use very similar electrolysis tech, and will soon be producing retail wastewater treatment systems. They're more careful, not claiming overunity, just more efficiency, but essentially it's the same system.
@sc00f The best proof would be an actual working machine. But of course, that cannot be had over the internet. But that's what it'd take. The problem with plans is how do you not go and just blame a failure of the device on failure to follow them (as ALWAYS happens with EVERY negative test of a free energy device I've seen)? Nonetheless, it's better than anecdote as something can be done with it, but not the best proof. Though it may provide a way to make that proof if the thing works.
#1: Yes, science can be wrong, but "often", not usually on huge theories. Not impossible, though, but it'll require very strong evidence to overturn stuff supported by decades of research covering hundreds of experiments providing supporting evidence. The strength of proof required for an unorthodox claim is directly proportional to the amount of well-proven theory it overturns, for good reason.
#2 This could just mean they fall into the same traps, as well.
#3 No evidence, just anecdotal crap. Evidence against exists too: interwebs don't seem to be policed (never mind that China shows that large-scale net censorship by a gov is not only possible but very doable. The US government could likely do it and do it much more subtly.), for example.
I'd say "you've proven that a _certain_ implementation of a _certain_ machine doesn't work". Based on that, making a generalization that "_all_ implementations of _all_ water-cell machines don't work" would be a "hasty generalization fallacy", as you'd say. See my point? It's impossible for you to test _all_ possible implementations of _all_ possible water-car systems, including future ones, yet to be invented. Yes, you could prove that _some_ implementations of _some_ designs don't work.
Did you notice I didn't say anything on the contrary? My point was to show that this is a pointless discussion, because I can't prove such a machine exists, and you can't prove such a machine doesn't exist. I express skepticism about science, because many fundamental scientific beliefs changed during history, and you express skepticism about free energy, because many earlier inventions were (claimed to be) bogus or scams.
@sc00f Fundametally my skepticism is based on the fact that none have been proven to work. You yourself admit you can't prove a working machine. Without such evidence, there is nothing to oblige me to hold a belief that any of these devices do work. The scientific community could be full of crap yet without proof one of these devices works, I still would not believe the claim. The issue of the sci. com.'s credibility is really a side issue to the one of the evidence or lack thereof.
#6 But this doesn't automatically imply these water cars work, and finally, it's not conclusively proven that this effect exists.
#7 And what happens when you build it, device doesn't work, and the inventors always claim you missed something, then you try to do that, and you "miss" something ELSE, etc.? Very shoddy communication on part of authors at best, outright liars at worst.
As I told you I was not trying to prove anything, I just told you the reasons that make ME think it's possible. This is not proof of anything at all, and we could argue endlessly.
I'm closing this discussion, because I'm just wasting my time here. I have no point in trying to prove anything - I'm not 'selling' anything. When I'll have some free time, I'll do some experiments (instead of wasting my time here), to see if I can make a working system. That's the proof of the pudding!
Anyways, what are _you_ trying to prove here? Obviously, you have no way of proving that none of the water-fuel cells work. So why are you keen on wasting your time trying to prove something that's impossible to prove? Are you paid by an oil company or what?
@sc00f If anything, just to make a point to have more skepticism.
Am I paid by the oil companies? Nope.
And I don't _now_ have any way to test, but if I did and I built it and it showed no net energy gain, what would you say? Would you concede, then, that I had "proven that machine didn't work"? But you just said it's impossible. And even without proof it _doesn't_ work, there's also no proof it _does_, so why believe it? Absence of evidence of absence is not evidence of presence.
(Just to add, I cannot be 100% sure until I see it myself, but I believe some of these inventors really made working systems, which could be used to drive cars or improve mileage when installed properly. Not forgetting that some of them are definitely scammers, of course.)
Well unless they killed Boyce he still knows how to build this water fueled engine. if he could prove it to one of the Capitalist they would provide him with the money, protection n equipment to create this machine. What happends in countries that have not capitalism? Who keeps these machines off market there? I think its a lame excuse every one of these guys use when they cannot show there device to work. Why dont you build one n prove to yourself it works or not?
Boyce was not killed, instead, he was unknowingly implanted a microchip which caused him cancer. But here's his 48 page long, detailed plan on building his electrolyser:
free-energy-info[DOT]com/D9[DOT]pdf
Non-capitalist China supposedly has a free 5 kW self-running generator by Wang Shum, said to be close to mass production. I'm wondering if they'll actually put it to production. But remember, China is also using foreign imported oil, so the arabs (or someone) might still get pissed.
@sc00f Breaking water into Hydrogen & Oxygen, (electrolysis) has been know since 1800. It takes energy to do it. When you burn it you get that energy back, minus some loss. There is No energy gain. China could care less about the arabs. If they had this generator why would they piss away there money on foreign oil. I might believe it here since we dont drill for our own but this technology could not be hidden world wide forever.
Read the details. This is not conventional electrolysis. Supposedly Stan Meyer's car ran on plain, distilled water. No electrolyte needed, unlike conventional electrolysis. The high frequency pulses resonate the water, making it break down, that's the observation.
Why would a government still buy oil if they had free energy? Because they have a constant, huge income from taxes, so it's actually profitable. In my country, gas price contains about 30% tax. You do the math. Don't be naive.
@sc00f You actually believe its a special reaction? A simple laborator test would prove or disprove this, Oh yah the oil companies. Do this ... take this Meyers generator & run a simple motor/generator. Run that generated power back to the electrolyser. If it makes excess power not only will it run itself forever, you could tap off some of the power to run, say a small light bulb. A public demo of this for say a month would prove the concept. . Cont
@sc00f See how easy it would be to prove this? You or anyone with the plans could do it. IF it REALLY makes excess energy. As for China, If you generated free energy the money going outside the country would remain internal & could be taxed even more. Only the US is stupid enough to Not use our own resources because of Enviro reasons. No country would use taxes as a reason to keep using oil.
@Texmurphy51: If I did a generator, that wouldn't prove anything. If I uploaded a video, people would say it's fake. If I sold an e-book about it, I'd be called a scammer. If I uploaded free plans, people would dismiss it. If I revealed my identity, the 'men in black' might visit and threaten me, or steal or destroy it. If I wanted an investor, some company may buy it and just sit on it. It's actually _extremely_ difficult to prove something like this.
Selling taxed oil distillates is a tremendous income for governments. For example, the U.S. gas consumption is about 378 million gallons/day (source: EIA). At an average state gas tax rate of 27.2 cents per gallon, plus 18.4 cents federal tax, the government has about 17 billion dollars income from gas taxes, every day. So if you invent a machine that generates free energy, someone's daily $17 billion income is threatened. No wonder Stan Meyer was offered $1 billion in cash for his water-car.
@sc00f You are fogetting that for every 27cents tax $2 or more goes out of the country. China OWNS all of the businesses unlike the US they would get more money from a free energy source. That entire cost of fuel would go to them instead of OPEC. Stan Meyer himself made that claim of a $1 billion offer. Cont...
And you forgot that there's a problem when a car runs on plain water. You can't tax water like gas! Nearly everyone has access to cheap water, so instead of $2.5-3 per gallon, you'll lose all income! No taxes for the government, no income for OPEC, everyone is pissed off. Do you see now why they do everything to supress water cars? They can't tax or control or regulate it, so they could lose trillions of dollars. The majority of the oil in the US is used for this purpose (transportation).
In other words, if I had a car that runs on water, then I'd just collect the rainwater from my rooftops, and run my car on it. I wouln't pay a cent to anyone - no taxes to the government, no money to the oil industry. If a lot of people did this, both the governments and the oil companies would be very-very pissed off!
@sc00f We are talking about CHINA & their reasons to use this device. The Government OWNS the businesses. Any money they pay for foreign oil comes out of their pockets. If they run cars on water the GOV saves money. If this happend in the US they would increase auto taxes. With decreased use of gas they are already talking about this now. Continued ........
@sc00f You say making the self running generator will not prove anything. I think it will prove to YOU that is not possible. Try it and see if it work. Prove to yourself that the device Does Not Work. If it did work you could take a motorcycle motor, self run it and ride cross country with no fuel. You dont think that would draw media attention????
Stan Meyer did that, and he got media attention. Unfortunately, he's not with us anymore. If I succeeded, I would keep it a secret, because I want to live a long life. The more people know about it, the more danger for you. I wouldn't want to be threatened, silenced or killed (like many inventors), so I would just keep it a secret and drive around happily for free. Otherwise my life would be in danger (remember the multi-trillion dollar mafia).
@sc00f Part 1 .Well I will tell you what.... If you know the secret give it to me & I will take the risk. We can sign an agreement & you will get half. I wont hold my breath though because you, just as Stan Meyers will not create this vehicle. Its like the story of men who change lead to gold. I heard the story 40 yrs ago about a man who made a 200mpg carb that GM took off the market. It was BS then & BS now.
@Texmurphy51 Part 1: Actually the 200mpg carb is provable, not easily but it is. I do know exactly how it works if you or anyone would like to know the process (called & used in the oil ind. Thermal Catalytic Cracking or TCC). It is complex but achievable. I do not have the process refined nor do I have the means to further my own work as I am disabled and waiting on my disability before I can AFFORD to tie the loose ends. That said, I know of a man that would likely be happy to show you.
@Texmurphy51 Part 2: No tricks. No BS. His name is Bruce McBurney of Niagara Falls, Canada. He has written an excellent book of the process, and has many good books he re-sells cheap. His website is himacresearch,com, though as he is a humble man without oodles of money or time, he hasn't updated his site. So I urge anyone interested to call him for a list of his books on Charles Pogue, Meyers, many others.
@Texmurphy51 Part 3: Bruce has a 1 ton van that gets over 70 mpg with a big V8 when switched over to the reformer (on-demand while driving, as the reformer needs heat from the engine). Bruce worked with Paul Pantone, but THAT is another story. Actually Paul worked with Bruce. This is the Same principle as Tom Ogle's work. In short the petrol is changed into a gas (liquid "gas" does not ignite!) and it works because of a change in work over the change in time.
@sc00f Part 2 What gives you the idea that splitting water apart, then burning it again will give extra energy? You can do the same with any fuel. You can burn Alcohol, gather the gases, pump energy in & make Alcohol again. Do you think you can get extra energy from that? When you burn Hydrogen & Oxygen you get water. It takes the same energy to split it minus loss in heat. TRY IT.
@Texmurphy51 Part 4: This drastically improves the efficiency of crappy steam-engine like design if the ICE that we have today, as we always have had, mainstream, which does not allow time to burn fuel (6-8ms). An engine that comes far closer and is better in every way than anything mass produced (other than in some aviation) is one called a Rotary Vee, which is easy to build if you have some skills. I have some PDFs of this design if anyone likes. It is very worth having built if you can't. :)
There are people making claims about engines running on no fuel here on youtube. They write books & have witnesses too.
Now tell me, Why dont they produce or sell these wonders? Why is it that men in black or the oil companies stop them but yet they sell Plans & produce videos about what they are doing?
Read a book on thermodynamics & you will find that the internal combustion engine has a maximum level of efficiency , about (25%). Continued...
I worked on vaporized gasoline injection for engines back in the 70s, similar to Pantone's idea & can tell you there was an increase in eff compared to standard carbs but not 200mpg. You can get a little bit more injecting water, which makes it a steam engine, NOT using HHO. The way you get high mileage is to use a small motor in a light car with low drag, and drive conservatively,(slow accelerations).
@Texmurphy51 First, Paul had lots of problems with the GEET design. You can get some efficiency out of vaporizing, but that is not the same as TCC (the eng. gets so cool the Rad.Water is luke warm when correctly done!), and you can get 100-200..(variables on vehicle of course), but not easily. Wellhead gas with no additives running over a viable catalyst around 500 deg.F will work. Normal gas will too, but after a tank or so the catalyst will corrode from additives, which can be filtered out.
@FullspeedorNothin Come on with the variables. I saw him run a lawnmower engine while heating the fuel with a pipe around the exhaust. Thats the extent of his design. There are no sophistocated controls, just heat the gas, change the jet sizes & go. Do you really think that he can vaporize it better than fuel injection or control the fuel better? As I said max eff is 25% no matter the carb
@FullspeedorNothin TCC is a myth. No energy will be gained by cracking water. Kerosene has more energy than gas,(this is why diesel gets better mpg), so of course you will get better mpg. You can get better mpg just messing with the fuel/air mixture of normal injection. This is what your doing with GEET plus dispite the TCC idea its working as a steam engine. This is why it runs cooler. Water will dissociate at Hi Temps but when injected into a cylinder it reduces temp & becomes steam.
@Texmurphy51 That was the "advanced steam project" I was working on..the block must be heated for the steam to be expansive throughout.I am just now starting to get healthy enough to do the TCC, but it is difficult.many anti-catalysts in gasoline,I suspect diesel as well,unless it is well-head fuel.To get past this one must either filter or go straight thermal cracking.time rate change is key,btu remains same,but syn,CH14 is left.more ltr. I wish to give the tech freely when refined
@FullspeedorNothin I dont see how Thermal Cracking can give your the claimed 7x or 10x the energy as claimed in these videos. You may be able to get slightly better gas mileage by leaner burning, (this is how most of these devices work) but much beyond a few percent is doubtful.
The IC engine is about as efficient as it can be, next step is to go to gas turbine to electric or a fuel cell for more mpg.
Experiment all you want but you cant fight Physics
@sc00f Part 2 I believe that from him just as much as his claims of his car. Story goes his car & all plans were stolen when he died but his Ted hid it ... I am surpised that Aliens were not included in this story. Why would a man who has an invention that would change mankind not keep plans in another place, you know backup? Do you Actually believe this stuff?
And the reason why you don't hear about such inventions in the media is that the media is also owned and controlled by these corporations and interests. We're brainwashed through the mass media and the 'debunkers' to believe that we're dependent on these big companies and have to pay them billions of dollars every year, with huge taxes.
Just to add, many methods certainly don't work, and are scams, but this doesn't apply to all methods, which would be 'hasty generalization fallacy'.
I didn't say that all methods were scams because some are. What I do say, however, is that if you're going to make a claim that theories supported by mountains of scientific evidence are wrong, you're gonna need similarly strong evidence to prove that claim. Do you have evidence for an oil company conspiracy? If you have no evidence, then the claim is total speculation.
@mike4ty4 - because the gov't doesn't have control over the internet yet. unless you allow our corrupt politicians like Joe lieberman to pass bills to tax more americans to FUND controlling of the internet. wake up. control is anti-FREEDOM. youtube ought to be free. information should be free. its this mind control, no questioning (which goes on in our education system) that is dumbing us down! search "21st Century Traitors".
I like this idea but I beleive I can get more out of magnetic Generators but anywho their need to put the recyleing system into a car so you can go further without putting more water in. The Universe is Full of Energy with just have to find ways of tapping into. =)
Someone should tell Sisyphus about this shit. He would be relieved to know that he could just let the boulder go and the energy it picks up by rolling down the hill could be used to get it to the top.
ipash there are cars in japan today that are running on water only...what is so hard to believe? The companies do not want this, they do not have our best interests at heart. They have the technology to get way better gas mileage or not use gas at all. They buy the patents and throw them in the garage to be forgotten. All of these companies are in bed together and help each other out. Their time is coming though, people are demanding it and some are doing it themselves, inventing at home.
wow this video is such fucking bullshit..if zpe was real, industry would be all over it.
also you only get such energy returns from nuclear fission and fusion reactions...and we know how complex and expensive that is.
why tell us about it? why not invent a process, patent it and sell cars that run on water? You'd become a billionaire-hell I'd never share it with anyone till I have the patent.
I don't know what you guys are selling but clearly this is a scam.
ill tell you what its called the end of fucking controll from the goddamn goverment will finally go back to the days before these fucking feins controlled us like the tax man coming buy and saying PAY YOUR TAX TODAY LET ME SEE WHAT YOU GOT !!!then i shoot that motherfucker in his face with my pistol and laugh BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
Anyone who will discount H20 as a fuel, dismissing the power of pure hydrogen and oxygen gas must be part of the media mob trying to halt progress in this amazing field of pure energy.
Another BS dude misleading people. I agree with your comments on resonant cells production rates, but DO NOT mention Zero Point Energy here PERIOD. Gas outbursts are being produced by resonant electromagnetic wave collisions and has nothing to do with ZPE!!
It's perplexing as to why they insist on calling this "free" energy; it has served the propagandists for decades and is misleading.
As the issue is spitting the atoms and previously the tool was raw electricity, why would adding other dis-associative elements like resonance not call for changing the "laws"? In whatever form: variable electricity, RF, physical vibration.
So. Its quite usual to find an (amature) electrolysis apparatus that gives 1 L/minute at around 20 W and 12 volts. Which is 240 W(s). And since the resultant 1 L/min in seconds is 1 / 60 = 0,0166667 L/sec.
and since that is both Oxygen gas and hydrogen gas, you multiply the volyme/second with 0,66667 and get 0,0111112 L of HYDROGEN GAS per second, using 240 Watts. How many W to get 1L: 240 / 0,011112 = 21 600 W
Concider this before you start clappin your hands for "free enegy from water".
Every electrolyser uses a certain current and voltage. If you multiply the Current (Amp) with voltage (Volt) you get the used power. Like 18 amps x 12 volt = 216 W (seconds).
Most of the electrolysis aparatus on youtube mix the product oxygen and hydrogen gas, giving Oxyhydrogen (HHO,Browns gas, etc.) In a volyme ratio of 2 units of Hydrogen to 1 unit of Oxygen. So, you got to muliply the gas by 0,666 to get H2.
-nuclear- actually the smallest mass and volume ratio of any energy source to the power u get from it. and yes people, if u store it in a mountain in the desert, it can be perfectly contained and shield behind thick rock which the state its in can charge a dumping fee.
hydroelectric- the highest energy output source today and all that happens is that some of the water's momentum is absorbed.
solar-invest $6billion and set up huge solar panel fields out west
I read Wiki on it and he was sued for fraud. The experts looking at the invention said it was simply using "conventional electrolysis". If Meyers used this "conventional electrolysis" in a novel way to propel an automobile, then it could be worth trillions to us today. Think of the energy to power a hydrogen nuclear bomb and then its output. Is it the same? What if... someone discovered how to make a superconductor from a simple process? Like you I'm a skeptic, but I keep an open mind.
You cannot get a sustained amount of energy out of electrolysis than you put into it. If this actually worked, we would've seen water-powered cars decades ago.
Energy (electricity) --electrolysis-of-water--> hydrogen & oxygen --combustion--> mechanical energy but less energy than you started with.
I am all for alternative energy and getting away from unsustainable fossil fuels. Electrolysis/hydrogen can be part of the solution if the electricity comes from renewable sources.
It's century-old technology that can be made in most car shops with some additional parts from a lab supply store. Again, if this actually worked, we would've seen water-powered tricked-out cars decades ago.
Sorry to offend you with information, facts and rational thought, you rude lowbrow. Stan Meyer was convicted of fraud for his hoax water-powered car. Anyone who claims to have a water-powered car is out to scam ignorant investors.
Will a water-powered car be entered in the Automotive X Prize for a car that can get at least 100MPG? Millions of dollars will be awarded. They are the same folks that gave millions to the first private space ship.
People like you need to open your eyes and see the truth. HHO works its a fact. Oil is about a 5 TRILLION dollar a year buisness. Do you think they would just roll over and virtually go out of buisness. If you enjoy giving your money to them, then by all means go right ahead. Hopefully one day soon this fuel will be used by everyone. There are a lot of people right here on youtube that have high output HHO generators. All you have to do is see it for what it is. Hope to have you onboard soon!
It takes energy to create HHO, no matter how high the output. You cannot get more energy out of HHO than you put into it. A hydrogen economy/system is a great idea if the energy used to create HHO is from renewable sources. Generating HHO using electricity from our current (no pun intended) coal/oil/gas power grid is wasteful.
By the way, I rarely drive my car; it sits for days and weeks at a time gathering cobwebs. Conservation is superior to technological gains.
By your standard of power input and output, nuclear power wouldnt be possible. Think about it for a second before you reply about something you know very little about. It does work very well and is 100 times better for the environment than petrolium. The electricity is being made at the alternator not from a coal burning plant. I wont argue with someone who would rather have the worst of the 2 evils.
Nuclear power has to do with releasing energy from subatomic bonds. Electrolysis has to do with chemical bonds. It takes energy to "lift" hydrogen and oxygen atoms away from each other when their stuck together in a water molecule.
I care very much about our environment, and I welcome new technologies. But this is nothing new. Electrolysis has been around for over a century. Yes, it has been improved, but you still can't get more out of it than you put into it. You're falling for a scam.
So what you're saying is that it is impossible, can't be done, and no one will ever discover a way to extract more energy from water than it consumes. I'm I hearing you correctly? Then everyone should just stop trying, is that correct? Seems like we should close the patent office because there are no more things we can invent.
Its not easy being a/the "sceptic" and being called "bribed by oilcompanies... =(
Even though people are so happy about this "free energy", they cant show ONE video that shows this system in a closed circut making more energy than it uses. They cant show ANY scientificly aproved evidence...
And for the love of god. Nuclear powerplants utilize the exothermic advantages of nuclear fission (splitting atoms!) thats like comparing addition to integrals and dervates... or simple to advanced!
a lot of people seem to be making huge money selling some miracle medical devices or services. i don't see them getting suppressed or assassinated. there are mechanical magic devices available on the market. fuel efficiency enhancer for example.
but why medical devices enjoy more relative successes than mechanical ones? i think it is because medical ones target human subjective perceptions. mechanical ones can't have that luxury.
They killed Meyers just so they can continue their organized crimes and quests for oil using the criminal military. I pretty sure you can also make bombs using Meyers invention not only power your car from water.
Fact: The water molecule has a positive end and a negative end. If placed in a magnetic field it will rotate itself accordingly. Pulses that magnetic field N S N S and it will spin. Spinning induces centrifugal force. The faster the frequency of the pulse the faster the spin. The faster the spin the stronger the centrifugal force. Spin it fast enough to overcome the molecular bonding and PRESTO! Separation. First grade Physics.
Place the water molecule in-between the plates of a capacitor to make the magnetic fields. Because there is very little current flow between the plates you can break the water using high voltage and very little amps. This is much more efficient than traditional electrolyses and no catalysts is required.
neither hertz nor dgrees (celcius, fahrenheit) are units of energy, so they can not be compared in terms of energy.
also, think about radiowaves as being analagous to light (theyr made of the same stuff). a white spotlight and a white flashlight will have the same frequency (hertz) but very different energy outputs.
This is out of control now, it seems like hundreds of people are replicating these devices, i myself am going to give it a try, the only thing stopping this from coming out to the masses is media supression. I recommend that everybody give it a go andprove it to friends and relatives, this will cause mass disclosure, all the best to all who try!!!
This true and factual technology has been venomously supressed by imperialist corporate oil intrests since 1934 but is now irrefutable to anyone with an open mind and home workshop thanks to brave scientists and you tube. Try it yourself!!!
Oh, and the thing is, a lot of currently "impossible" things have been rigorously inspected by scientists and found to actually be doing impossible things. Just because it doesn't fit the theories you were taught to believe as biblical truth (of a scientific flavour) doesn't mean it isn't happening right infront of you. New discoveries always piss off a lot of mainstream scientists and their blind followers.
bgbaywood 7 months ago
Science itself has to be revised once in a while, and the energy doesn't get created out of nowhere. It has a source. This is an open system, there's nothing theoretically impossible about "zero point energy." In fact, it's been worked into quantum mechanics already and that's where the zero point term came from. Science isn't done yet folks, we're not that advanced, and our scientific establishment isn't exactly ethical. Defying the current theory is how progress is made, but it's frowned upon.
bgbaywood 7 months ago
haha, this is such utter bs. I don't know what you do at school in the US, but we learn why this is impossible in middle school chemistry. any reversible process must by definition require an energy input equal to the original output to reset it. Electrolysis of water produces H2 and O2, consuming electricity. when you combust the H2, the reaction is reversed, and produces EXACTLY the same amount of energy as it cost you to electrolyse it. conspiracy theory or easy science?
Baryon321 8 months ago
Vatican- NAZIS- SocialistsCFR (luciferian jews) run the world. The Globalist, the international bankers, secret societies, organized religions ruled by an elite bloodline, same bloodline ruling from Egypt 2 Rome 2 British (European) Empire 2 now American Empire (1913 Fed Reserve). Presidents & Kings stand at whim of the real power which is the priest hood (Priests - Bishops - Cardinals - Pope) standing behind the throne - trying to form it's one world luciferian gov't
truthknowledge. Com
MopDMTBARTL 11 months ago
So a call for electrolite hypothosis...and yes just off the top of my head Cobalt Cloride
coldshot5555 1 year ago
@minase0906 Your just pissed at me because what I am saying is TRUE
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@minase0906 Its not that you dont have time, you CANT prove anything to me.
To sit on technology like this, (if you REALLY had it), is like knowing the cure for Cancer but not telling anyone.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@minase0906 You need to prove it to be CREDIBLE to anyone who is reading these posts. Anyone who has a technology that could generate free energy and hides it is very very selfish. To say they are waiting to be payed makes no sense because it would be worth a fortune. A public display would keep the EVIL OIL COMPANIES from stealing it. \
So whats the EXCUSE??????
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@minase0906 I know someone who says they talked to the dead spirits of Edison & Einstein, (true).
That is meaningless unless it can be proven. If he/she can replicate stan meyer then why not put it in public view. Put it on Youtube and SAVE THE WORLD.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 Hey Tex..I forgot how to reply to your message (bout a yr. ago..as I became ill, heart-attack and such..anyway just now got my utube info bak) In regards 3 TCC being a myth and the steam..u have me confused with 2 different technologies.TCC is no myth,oil companies do not deny it..chk some patents by big oil,as this is how crude becomes hydrocarbons..heat,catalyst,water.Yes,h2o will break down at high temps..but does not go back 2 steam in cyl.Rather droplets of water.
FullspeedorNothin 1 month ago
@minase0906 I am going to try and explain this so even YOU can understand it. Go to Wikipedia and do a search on North Korea. Look down the list and see Power & Energy. You will see they are energy HUNGRY. Why would a country thats energy STARVED reject a technology like this? Why would any Gov reject technology that would allow planes, boats etc to run with no fuel????
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
Comment removed
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@minase0906 China & N.Korea are Communists. They have NO profit motive.
Your finally starting to realize that the idea that Big Oil could stop the development of this technology world wide is impossible. This is why your putting your fingers in your ears & shouting profanity at me.
Do you hear anything about stopping this technology on Wikileaks?
A technology that guys discover in their garage is somehow blocked from posting on the internet, (NOT)
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@minase0906 North Korean People HAVE NO MONEY. They dont buy anything, they get a Gov Ration. They are Communists. If North Korea could generate power they would at any costs. Look at a satelite view of they country and you will see the only lights are in the Capitol.
India is still burning coal in their railroads, they have more student engineers in the world, so would have found this technology and used it.
China listens to NO ONE so they would use it if it existed.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@minase0906 Do you really think that countries like N. Korea or Russia would not use a device like this if it existed? If hundreds of people have discovered this concept, non of them simply put out the information, they all kept it secret until the Men In Black came along & killed them or stole the plans? Come On, they could not even keep the plans for the Atomic Bomb secret.
Most of these guys have been milking investors(suckers) for years.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@minase0906 You can find many videos on youtube showing cars running on water or no fuel, perpetual motion and many other things. They are all hoaxes, tricks. They all claim it works but when it comes to a controled demonstration they all fail. Its usually blamed on mechanical or electrical problems. If you REALLY had a device that ran on pure water, & could demonstrate it, investors would beat your door down. These claims are like Bigfoot, lots of stories but no proof.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@minase0906 I am debunking it. I dont like to see misinformation portrayed as truth without debate. This water power thing has been around since WWII just like the stories of the 200mpg carburator. Bigfoot and the Bermuta triangle are in there also.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
Nice. This has more detailed information than I've ever heard from a "water energy" video. Still not quite enough to make our own though.
I'd bet money that even if this became mainstream the environmentalists would STILL have a cow about cars having a horrible effect on the weather, environment, & harming animals who can't handle the higher humidity levels caused by releasing water vapor everywhere.
goldenheartOh 1 year ago
Comment removed
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
Support Clean Energy!!! Search for and Watch "The Clean Energy Anthem"
KorElement 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy has been here all along ,But the Oil companies want these technologies unknown to the masses,if you want a real Free energy Magnet Motor, get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,The revolution begins!
buchananfibbing 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and its here! The Oil companies are doing everything they can to stop this
information. If you want a Free energy machine , get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM , Join the
revolution!
despinapjr 1 year ago
Use of some solar panel direct in water to produce gases ?? clean energy used, clean gas taken....
Giordano496 1 year ago
i built one that works you guys are idiots
decontaminate 1 year ago
reduce foreign oil imports
2sillytube 2 years ago
Here's something to chew on. If there is a huge conspiracy to cover up this stuff, then why are all these videos able to go free? Why aren't they pulled or blocked by the govs? It would seem the reason is that the devices do not work. Maybe you could argue the govs already do do something and switch the videos with crap to make it a "silent" coverup. But that means you are still not likely to find working stuff on the net, and you still can't believe these videos, as it's all been switched.
mike4ty4 2 years ago
If there is no huge conspiracy, then it begs the question of why we don't see this stuff in broader use. Again, the answer would seem to be that what is seen in these Videos simply Does Not Work.
So whatever you believe, it does not seem that you are likely to find working free energy devices on the interwebs. Note that this doesn't prove or disprove the possibility that free energy might exist, however.
mike4ty4 2 years ago
But any CLAIMS of free energy must be treated with skepticism. And I'm especially skeptical of INTERWEB claims. Any falsehood can be peddled easily on the interwebs.
Maybe SOMEWHERE out there there is a real free energy device, or a theory on how to get one. But there is ALSO a LOT more BULLSHIT and POPPYCOCK out there as well. I'd say that if there is any truth out there, then for every gram of truth there's 100 kilos of BS poppycock nonsense to go with it.
mike4ty4 2 years ago
And superficially, such false and possibly even scammy (as in designed to take away your money or other dishonest dirty and sick no-good crap like that) stuff likely look just as good as the real deal. So many could be misled. Is there a real deal? I don't know. It would be interesting to seriously investigate. But I do think interweb videos such as those here on YT are not likely to yield anything useful. OK?
mike4ty4 2 years ago
If anything you must really watch out for the outright scams the most, though. Not only can they potentially hurt you financially but some even involve participating in the scamming process and so may (depending on your laws at least) open you up to potentially serious legal liability. Maybe even jail.
mike4ty4 2 years ago
The conspiracy has a very difficult time blocking the web. Too much content, too fast; and if they do censor, then the Hydra effect kicks in, and people's outrage kicks in, causing proponents to double their efforts rather than back down. And the people who have hacking talent do not have the inclination to censor, so you'd be hard pressed to hire them to do that.
PESNetwork 2 years ago
Interwebs can be silenced though. That's just it. It's been done in countries other than the USA. China, for example, has a large net blocking system set up. And they don't even need crackers: they can use sheer force of authority to block information by criminalizing it or demanding that content providers remove the stuff. And the US government has recruited crackers for military stuff, too.
mike4ty4 2 years ago
Finally, even if we assume the conspiracy fails (which makes it seem incredibly wussy to me), then we're still left with the question of why this doesn't enjoy broader use. I offer a simple test for anyone who believes they have constructed for themselves a "free energy" powered car: Drive it to a university and show it to the top scientists involved. Take them round and round and measure energy usage or fuel use. Let them examine the systems. And so on.
mike4ty4 2 years ago
I think oil interests deal with the net by creating false disinfo sites which 'debunk' free-energy sites as 'scam' or 'myths'. The Internet can't be censored so they resort to manipulation. If you do your research, you'll understand how our system works, and how many of these inventors are framed, ridiculed, falsely accused of fraud, put into jail or mental insitute, silenced by huge sums of money (billion $), or simply killed. The conspiracy is real, for power, greed and money.
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f The problem though is the debunkings are based on solid scientific method, stuff that is ignored by many proponents. Like those who don't understand how to measure power with a meter, etc.
And can you go and show me some evidence for your claim? If you can't, then the claim is worthless.
China censors its net greatly. Why can't that be done in the US (and to censor "fringe" topics that many laugh at anyway wouldn't seem as hard as, e.g. censoring government criticism)?
mike4ty4 1 year ago
@mike4ty4: a hundred years ago we were told by science that objects heavier than air cannot fly. Who would think that two guys who repaired bicycles with no scientific education would build an airplane? Actually, the science was wrong back then. Do you believe science knows everything today and nothing new is to be invented?
I've seen an avid 'scientific' debunker who was offered to test a hydrogen-boosted car, yet he didn't even dare to see it. Yeah, just stick your head into the ground.
sc00f 1 year ago
The problem though is that here it would appear this type of effect should've been seen in labs the world over working with electrolysis (that it makes an energy gain somehow instead of being a totally symmetrical process).
Do we know everything? NO, of course not. But the more well-grounded the science a claim contradicts, the stronger the burden of proof that claim must satisfy.
mike4ty4 1 year ago
Even better, this 'solid, scientific debunker' offered 1 million dollars to anyone who proves 30%+ mileage improvement for a HHO system, with an entry fee of $5000. He went bankrupt earlier, and he admitted that publicly. "So, I'm bankrupt, but give me $5000 to test your machine, and if it's good then I'll pay you $1 million." Good deal isn't it? I think he sounded more like a scammer than a debunker despite his scientific equations...
An overunity demonstration:
watch?v=RbRPCt1-WwQ
sc00f 1 year ago
(Videos prove nothing since everything can be faked, btw.)
How about other skeptical organizations and prizes, then? Just because one may not be good doesn't mean the others are (hasty generalization fallacy).
mike4ty4 1 year ago
I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just saying, if you told anyone 110 years ago that machines could fly, they'd say "no, that's impossible!" Then some bicycle repairmen created an airplane, proving that the theory was wrong. Then the aeronautics was born. Then someone applied aeronautics theory to bees, and found that according to science, bees couldn't possibly fly. The theory was wrong again... Do you see my point here? Science was proven to be wrong many-many times thorougout history.
sc00f 1 year ago
Yet flight has been demonstrated in nature: birds. Thus even then there would be something to suggest it to be theoretically possible to build a machine, even before someone had the bright idea as to just how to do that. Do you know of any place in nature where a phenomenon that would point to free energy is, and if so, what machines do you think might this suggest (as birds, for example, suggested the form of the airplane, wings, etc. see?).
mike4ty4 1 year ago
Places in nature where you can find free energy: lightning, wind, sun, geothermal energy, hgydroelectricity. Machines that suggest this: windmills, wind turbines, dams, photovoltaics, parabolic mirrors, etc., to give you just a few examples. Some of these have been already used for hundreds of years to harvest free energy. Free energy has been around, and will be around forever, in various forms.
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f These forms of energy are well-proven to exist. What is in question here is not merely the existence of "free" or "just there" forms of energy, but rather these specific, "exotic" claims that violate physics.
mike4ty4 1 year ago
I'll give you another example. Look at these:
watch?v=P0Fi1VcbpAI
watch?v=3-kksSHBHck
What you see here is resonance caused by a small force causing the whole structure to resonate, and collapse.
Now, imagine that water molecules also have a such resonance frequency, meaning if you find that, you can break down the hydrogen bonds by using only a tiny amount of energy.
Actually this is what most water fuel inventors do - break down the water efficiently using a little energy, and resonance.
sc00f 1 year ago
This is what the water fuel inventors call 'pulsed DC electrolysis' - instead of constant voltage, they apply very short pulses of energy at the resonance frequency of the water molecules. These small pulses cause the water bonds to resonate, and eventually break, just like how the wind caused the bridge to resonate, and finally collapse. This is how opera singers can break wine glasses by singing - they find the resonance frequency of the glass, causing it to break.
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f Resonance does not breach conservation of energy. If there is a minimum of X joules to break a bond, then it cannot be done with X joules, period. This minimum energy is called the binding energy, and all that resonance does is make it possible to reach this energy at lower power, or rate of energy delivered over time. The same amount of joules are expended, and this is how many joules you get back (in practice, it won't be 100% efficient so there'll actually be energy lost to heat).
mike4ty4 1 year ago
This is what science tells us, but anecdotal evidence suggests the resonance can make the coefficient of performance higher than 100%. Remember what they told us 110 years ago about things that cannot fly. If science doesn't understand this today, it doesn't mean it breaches any of the physical laws. Actually many inventors say it doesn't breach any thermodynamics laws, the energy simply comes from an other source, that we yet don't see and understand. This doesn't mean it cannot exist.
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f Anecdotes are not scientific evidence. We need hard evidence. And furthermore, electrolysis has been done exteniely in professional labs, why would anomalous effects fail to show up there?
mike4ty4 1 year ago
Maybe because they're doing it the wrong way? Remember, (real) water cars don't use standard electrolysis, so different rules may apply.
You still don't understand how free energy is suppressed by a multi-billion dollar industry. Scentists are silenced, threatened, framed, labs are destroyed. This is why you won't ever see any 'hard evidence', and why science will never acknowledge 'free energy from water'. Free energy would threaten the whole economy and lots of financial interests.
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f So what the heck does it use then that isn't "standard" and so allows for anomalous "free energy" production?
mike4ty4 1 year ago
Okay, another thing for you to consider: bubble fusion, or sonofusion excites water with high frequency acoustic waves, resulting in thermonuclear fusion inside water bubbles. Scientists found that small bubbles have a temperature up to 100,000K when they pop (more than the center of the Sun). And this happens in a cup of water by using high frequency acoustic excitation.
The excess energy here comes from the fusion, so no physical laws are broken. Research 'bubble fusion'. This is science.
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f That's an _acoustic_ phenomenon... how is that generated with _electrical_ current?
mike4ty4 1 year ago
The oil industry has billions of dollars of profit every year. If you invent a free energy source, their income is threatened. Would you pay for utility and petrol anymore if you had free unlimited energy? For this reason, inventors are usually offered huge sums of money to keep their mouth shut (up to 1 billion dollars in cash), threatened, or simply killed. Would you offer $1 billion in cash for something that doesn't work?
sc00f 1 year ago
Do you have some proof of these anecdotal stories? And if this has happened, these devices won't be available. Thus anything you find on the interwebs is 99.999999% likely to be a total fraud. Do you have the overwhelming evidence to discover which device is the 0.000001%?
mike4ty4 1 year ago
Both acoustic energy and electricity causes the particles to move. When you apply voltage/current, the anode pulls negative polarity (oxygen), and the cathode pulls positive polarity (hydrogen). This is how they're separated when you do electrolysis - the atoms move. So electricity causes the particles to move, just like acoustic waves. And science has proven that fusion happens when you use high frequency acoustic waves to excite water. This is a fact.
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f The theory of the bubble fusion though (and it's not actually a PROVEN thing, but something that some experiment suggest _might_ exist) is that the acoustic waves create cavitation (bubble implosion) and the buble collapse, not hte mere excitation of particles by the sound, cause a huge rise in temperatire lcoally, up to millions of degrees kelvin, igniting fusion. I haven't heard of that happening w/an electrolysis setup. Any experimental proof?
mike4ty4 1 year ago
My point was not to make a direct analogy between bubble fusion and pulsed DC electrolysis, just to show that high frequency excitation can create unusual effects, like hydrogen fusion. So it might be possible that similar effects are achievable by high frequency pulsed electrolysis. Actually I have no idea what happens exactly. If you look at Stan Meyer's patent USP # 4,936,961 it will give you some theory on how that may work.
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f Do you have any evidence (patents can be made for unworkables, so they are not evidence themselves) to support these claims?
mike4ty4 1 year ago
Meyer had US patens granted under Section 101, which depends on a successful demonstration of the invention to a Patent Review Board. So, in other words, he presented sufficient demonstration for the US Patent Office to prove his claims.
If you don't believe the Patent Office, well, that's up to you. The capitalists will love you for paying for energy.
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f If he was all legal, how come he was sued for fraud after 3 witnesses say the technology and noticed it couldn't work (nothing revolutonary at a ll about it)? (And the suit was won, btw)
Where exactly is the requirement that it must be successfully demonstrated to work?
mike4ty4 1 year ago
I don't know, I was not there. Possibly he was framed, just like in an 1995 court hearing - they put some unknown substance in the water to make the experiment fail. Read the story here:
waterfuelcell[DOT]org/moreinfo[DOT]html
He claims his technology was 'fully legalized under US Patent Security Law 35 USC 101 and other US Federal regulatory Acts'.
Also, at least four people have reproduced his fuel cell in the recent years, but this is just anecdotal evidence.
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f Yep, that's all anecdotal -- not good grounds for solid, strong scientific belief. Looking at the law, it doesn't look like it requires it to work, though maybe someone with legal expertise in the necessary area could weigh on this -- however many other places, esp. ones about exposing free energy/alt energy scams, also say that things can be patented that don't work. It's best to research claims that can be researched as opposed to just taking what "alt media" sites say as truth.
mike4ty4 1 year ago
Based on my research, I think such a system is plausible, even if conventional science can't explain it. Lots of free plans are available, and those are definitely not scams. Most of these so called 'scammers' sell plans that you could otherwise find for free, and some of them explicitly tell you that they're selling information you could find for free. I think 'people asking money for information' is the reason for your negative 'scam' connotation with water-fuel energy. It's in fact free info.
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f The problem is not that it is inexplicable by current scientific theory -- after all, theory can be wrong. The problem is the lakc of evidence for it working. To propose something that significantly challenges the conventional theory, which is backed by a lot of evidence, is something which itself needs strong evidence. Anecdotes don't make the grade. Really, the best evidence would be (as always) an actual working machine. Of course that can't be presented on the internet :)
mike4ty4 1 year ago
Most electrolysis watercars that I know use short pulses pulses of DC, tuned at the resonance frequency of water. The observation was that at certain frequencies, gas production increases, above COP=1. Stan Meyer uses an oscillator around 42 kHz, and has built a circuit into his car that finetunes the frequency during run to maximize gas output (since it not constant, but subject to different factors). Bob Boyce uses thre oscillators at 10.7, 21.4 and 42.8 kHz.
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f Have these experiments been rigorously checked for errors/bias/etc.? That's the rub.
mike4ty4 1 year ago
Again, you still don't understand how capitalism works. Bob Boyce has been building hydroxy-powered racing power boats around 1990. When words spread about Boyce's water-fueled engine, someone broke into his workshop, stole the prototype and vandalized his machines. Not even a chance of rigorous checking, before some interests destroy it or silence the inventor. Remember, trillions of dollars are at stake, so they do _everything_ so that you'll never find substantial proof.
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f So then if there's no substantial proof, why should I believe your claim? Huh? Do you even have any proof there were devices and they were destroyed later? If not, why do you believe it?
mike4ty4 1 year ago
What would count for you as 'substantial proof'? A video of the machine working isn't. Anecdotal witness reports aren't. A patent isn't. Plans how to build the machine aren't. Scientific research is constantly suppressed.
One more thing: Stan Meyer's brother's company is called Xogen. They use very similar electrolysis tech, and will soon be producing retail wastewater treatment systems. They're more careful, not claiming overunity, just more efficiency, but essentially it's the same system.
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f The best proof would be an actual working machine. But of course, that cannot be had over the internet. But that's what it'd take. The problem with plans is how do you not go and just blame a failure of the device on failure to follow them (as ALWAYS happens with EVERY negative test of a free energy device I've seen)? Nonetheless, it's better than anecdote as something can be done with it, but not the best proof. Though it may provide a way to make that proof if the thing works.
mike4ty4 1 year ago
And why do I believe it?
#1 Science is often wrong.
#2 Multiple inventors independently came up with very similar designs.
#3 Most of them are suppressed/framed, offered large sums of money, or threatened.
#4 The 'conspiracy theories' make perfect sense.
#5 Objects break easily when they resonate.
#6 Acoustic resonance creates hydrogen fusion in water.
#7 Multiple accounts of successful replication, with _free_ plans and schematics.
Enough reasons to seriously reconsider possibilities.
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f Reasons to believe critiqued:
#1: Yes, science can be wrong, but "often", not usually on huge theories. Not impossible, though, but it'll require very strong evidence to overturn stuff supported by decades of research covering hundreds of experiments providing supporting evidence. The strength of proof required for an unorthodox claim is directly proportional to the amount of well-proven theory it overturns, for good reason.
mike4ty4 1 year ago
#2 This could just mean they fall into the same traps, as well.
#3 No evidence, just anecdotal crap. Evidence against exists too: interwebs don't seem to be policed (never mind that China shows that large-scale net censorship by a gov is not only possible but very doable. The US government could likely do it and do it much more subtly.), for example.
#4 Why?
#5 And this proves free energy exists... how?
mike4ty4 1 year ago
I'd say "you've proven that a _certain_ implementation of a _certain_ machine doesn't work". Based on that, making a generalization that "_all_ implementations of _all_ water-cell machines don't work" would be a "hasty generalization fallacy", as you'd say. See my point? It's impossible for you to test _all_ possible implementations of _all_ possible water-car systems, including future ones, yet to be invented. Yes, you could prove that _some_ implementations of _some_ designs don't work.
sc00f 1 year ago
Of course it's impossible to test every single last possibility. And that I admit freely: It is impossible to prove a universal negative.
HOWEVER, what I am advocating here is the position that:
1. To _believe_ a POSITIVE claim about these things, one should first have good evidence.
2. The burden of evidence is on the one making the positive claim.
mike4ty4 1 year ago
Did you notice I didn't say anything on the contrary? My point was to show that this is a pointless discussion, because I can't prove such a machine exists, and you can't prove such a machine doesn't exist. I express skepticism about science, because many fundamental scientific beliefs changed during history, and you express skepticism about free energy, because many earlier inventions were (claimed to be) bogus or scams.
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f Fundametally my skepticism is based on the fact that none have been proven to work. You yourself admit you can't prove a working machine. Without such evidence, there is nothing to oblige me to hold a belief that any of these devices do work. The scientific community could be full of crap yet without proof one of these devices works, I still would not believe the claim. The issue of the sci. com.'s credibility is really a side issue to the one of the evidence or lack thereof.
mike4ty4 1 year ago
#6 But this doesn't automatically imply these water cars work, and finally, it's not conclusively proven that this effect exists.
#7 And what happens when you build it, device doesn't work, and the inventors always claim you missed something, then you try to do that, and you "miss" something ELSE, etc.? Very shoddy communication on part of authors at best, outright liars at worst.
mike4ty4 1 year ago
As I told you I was not trying to prove anything, I just told you the reasons that make ME think it's possible. This is not proof of anything at all, and we could argue endlessly.
I'm closing this discussion, because I'm just wasting my time here. I have no point in trying to prove anything - I'm not 'selling' anything. When I'll have some free time, I'll do some experiments (instead of wasting my time here), to see if I can make a working system. That's the proof of the pudding!
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f @sc00f Thank you. It was starting to turn into a "yes-no-yes-no" run-in-a-circle match. If you do get some results, would you let me know?
mike4ty4 1 year ago
Anyways, what are _you_ trying to prove here? Obviously, you have no way of proving that none of the water-fuel cells work. So why are you keen on wasting your time trying to prove something that's impossible to prove? Are you paid by an oil company or what?
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f If anything, just to make a point to have more skepticism.
Am I paid by the oil companies? Nope.
And I don't _now_ have any way to test, but if I did and I built it and it showed no net energy gain, what would you say? Would you concede, then, that I had "proven that machine didn't work"? But you just said it's impossible. And even without proof it _doesn't_ work, there's also no proof it _does_, so why believe it? Absence of evidence of absence is not evidence of presence.
mike4ty4 1 year ago
(Just to add, I cannot be 100% sure until I see it myself, but I believe some of these inventors really made working systems, which could be used to drive cars or improve mileage when installed properly. Not forgetting that some of them are definitely scammers, of course.)
sc00f 1 year ago
Well unless they killed Boyce he still knows how to build this water fueled engine. if he could prove it to one of the Capitalist they would provide him with the money, protection n equipment to create this machine. What happends in countries that have not capitalism? Who keeps these machines off market there? I think its a lame excuse every one of these guys use when they cannot show there device to work. Why dont you build one n prove to yourself it works or not?
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
Boyce was not killed, instead, he was unknowingly implanted a microchip which caused him cancer. But here's his 48 page long, detailed plan on building his electrolyser:
free-energy-info[DOT]com/D9[DOT]pdf
Non-capitalist China supposedly has a free 5 kW self-running generator by Wang Shum, said to be close to mass production. I'm wondering if they'll actually put it to production. But remember, China is also using foreign imported oil, so the arabs (or someone) might still get pissed.
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f Breaking water into Hydrogen & Oxygen, (electrolysis) has been know since 1800. It takes energy to do it. When you burn it you get that energy back, minus some loss. There is No energy gain. China could care less about the arabs. If they had this generator why would they piss away there money on foreign oil. I might believe it here since we dont drill for our own but this technology could not be hidden world wide forever.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
Read the details. This is not conventional electrolysis. Supposedly Stan Meyer's car ran on plain, distilled water. No electrolyte needed, unlike conventional electrolysis. The high frequency pulses resonate the water, making it break down, that's the observation.
Why would a government still buy oil if they had free energy? Because they have a constant, huge income from taxes, so it's actually profitable. In my country, gas price contains about 30% tax. You do the math. Don't be naive.
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f You actually believe its a special reaction? A simple laborator test would prove or disprove this, Oh yah the oil companies. Do this ... take this Meyers generator & run a simple motor/generator. Run that generated power back to the electrolyser. If it makes excess power not only will it run itself forever, you could tap off some of the power to run, say a small light bulb. A public demo of this for say a month would prove the concept. . Cont
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@sc00f See how easy it would be to prove this? You or anyone with the plans could do it. IF it REALLY makes excess energy. As for China, If you generated free energy the money going outside the country would remain internal & could be taxed even more. Only the US is stupid enough to Not use our own resources because of Enviro reasons. No country would use taxes as a reason to keep using oil.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51: If I did a generator, that wouldn't prove anything. If I uploaded a video, people would say it's fake. If I sold an e-book about it, I'd be called a scammer. If I uploaded free plans, people would dismiss it. If I revealed my identity, the 'men in black' might visit and threaten me, or steal or destroy it. If I wanted an investor, some company may buy it and just sit on it. It's actually _extremely_ difficult to prove something like this.
sc00f 1 year ago
Selling taxed oil distillates is a tremendous income for governments. For example, the U.S. gas consumption is about 378 million gallons/day (source: EIA). At an average state gas tax rate of 27.2 cents per gallon, plus 18.4 cents federal tax, the government has about 17 billion dollars income from gas taxes, every day. So if you invent a machine that generates free energy, someone's daily $17 billion income is threatened. No wonder Stan Meyer was offered $1 billion in cash for his water-car.
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f You are fogetting that for every 27cents tax $2 or more goes out of the country. China OWNS all of the businesses unlike the US they would get more money from a free energy source. That entire cost of fuel would go to them instead of OPEC. Stan Meyer himself made that claim of a $1 billion offer. Cont...
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
And you forgot that there's a problem when a car runs on plain water. You can't tax water like gas! Nearly everyone has access to cheap water, so instead of $2.5-3 per gallon, you'll lose all income! No taxes for the government, no income for OPEC, everyone is pissed off. Do you see now why they do everything to supress water cars? They can't tax or control or regulate it, so they could lose trillions of dollars. The majority of the oil in the US is used for this purpose (transportation).
sc00f 1 year ago
In other words, if I had a car that runs on water, then I'd just collect the rainwater from my rooftops, and run my car on it. I wouln't pay a cent to anyone - no taxes to the government, no money to the oil industry. If a lot of people did this, both the governments and the oil companies would be very-very pissed off!
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f We are talking about CHINA & their reasons to use this device. The Government OWNS the businesses. Any money they pay for foreign oil comes out of their pockets. If they run cars on water the GOV saves money. If this happend in the US they would increase auto taxes. With decreased use of gas they are already talking about this now. Continued ........
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@sc00f You say making the self running generator will not prove anything. I think it will prove to YOU that is not possible. Try it and see if it work. Prove to yourself that the device Does Not Work. If it did work you could take a motorcycle motor, self run it and ride cross country with no fuel. You dont think that would draw media attention????
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
Stan Meyer did that, and he got media attention. Unfortunately, he's not with us anymore. If I succeeded, I would keep it a secret, because I want to live a long life. The more people know about it, the more danger for you. I wouldn't want to be threatened, silenced or killed (like many inventors), so I would just keep it a secret and drive around happily for free. Otherwise my life would be in danger (remember the multi-trillion dollar mafia).
sc00f 1 year ago
@sc00f Part 1 .Well I will tell you what.... If you know the secret give it to me & I will take the risk. We can sign an agreement & you will get half. I wont hold my breath though because you, just as Stan Meyers will not create this vehicle. Its like the story of men who change lead to gold. I heard the story 40 yrs ago about a man who made a 200mpg carb that GM took off the market. It was BS then & BS now.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 Part 1: Actually the 200mpg carb is provable, not easily but it is. I do know exactly how it works if you or anyone would like to know the process (called & used in the oil ind. Thermal Catalytic Cracking or TCC). It is complex but achievable. I do not have the process refined nor do I have the means to further my own work as I am disabled and waiting on my disability before I can AFFORD to tie the loose ends. That said, I know of a man that would likely be happy to show you.
FullspeedorNothin 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 Part 2: No tricks. No BS. His name is Bruce McBurney of Niagara Falls, Canada. He has written an excellent book of the process, and has many good books he re-sells cheap. His website is himacresearch,com, though as he is a humble man without oodles of money or time, he hasn't updated his site. So I urge anyone interested to call him for a list of his books on Charles Pogue, Meyers, many others.
FullspeedorNothin 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 Part 3: Bruce has a 1 ton van that gets over 70 mpg with a big V8 when switched over to the reformer (on-demand while driving, as the reformer needs heat from the engine). Bruce worked with Paul Pantone, but THAT is another story. Actually Paul worked with Bruce. This is the Same principle as Tom Ogle's work. In short the petrol is changed into a gas (liquid "gas" does not ignite!) and it works because of a change in work over the change in time.
FullspeedorNothin 1 year ago
@sc00f Part 2 What gives you the idea that splitting water apart, then burning it again will give extra energy? You can do the same with any fuel. You can burn Alcohol, gather the gases, pump energy in & make Alcohol again. Do you think you can get extra energy from that? When you burn Hydrogen & Oxygen you get water. It takes the same energy to split it minus loss in heat. TRY IT.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 Part 4: This drastically improves the efficiency of crappy steam-engine like design if the ICE that we have today, as we always have had, mainstream, which does not allow time to burn fuel (6-8ms). An engine that comes far closer and is better in every way than anything mass produced (other than in some aviation) is one called a Rotary Vee, which is easy to build if you have some skills. I have some PDFs of this design if anyone likes. It is very worth having built if you can't. :)
FullspeedorNothin 1 year ago
@FullspeedorNothin Part 1
There are people making claims about engines running on no fuel here on youtube. They write books & have witnesses too.
Now tell me, Why dont they produce or sell these wonders? Why is it that men in black or the oil companies stop them but yet they sell Plans & produce videos about what they are doing?
Read a book on thermodynamics & you will find that the internal combustion engine has a maximum level of efficiency , about (25%). Continued...
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@FullspeedorNothin Part 2
I worked on vaporized gasoline injection for engines back in the 70s, similar to Pantone's idea & can tell you there was an increase in eff compared to standard carbs but not 200mpg. You can get a little bit more injecting water, which makes it a steam engine, NOT using HHO. The way you get high mileage is to use a small motor in a light car with low drag, and drive conservatively,(slow accelerations).
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 First, Paul had lots of problems with the GEET design. You can get some efficiency out of vaporizing, but that is not the same as TCC (the eng. gets so cool the Rad.Water is luke warm when correctly done!), and you can get 100-200..(variables on vehicle of course), but not easily. Wellhead gas with no additives running over a viable catalyst around 500 deg.F will work. Normal gas will too, but after a tank or so the catalyst will corrode from additives, which can be filtered out.
FullspeedorNothin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FullspeedorNothin Come on with the variables. I saw him run a lawnmower engine while heating the fuel with a pipe around the exhaust. Thats the extent of his design. There are no sophistocated controls, just heat the gas, change the jet sizes & go. Do you really think that he can vaporize it better than fuel injection or control the fuel better? As I said max eff is 25% no matter the carb
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@FullspeedorNothin TCC is a myth. No energy will be gained by cracking water. Kerosene has more energy than gas,(this is why diesel gets better mpg), so of course you will get better mpg. You can get better mpg just messing with the fuel/air mixture of normal injection. This is what your doing with GEET plus dispite the TCC idea its working as a steam engine. This is why it runs cooler. Water will dissociate at Hi Temps but when injected into a cylinder it reduces temp & becomes steam.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 That was the "advanced steam project" I was working on..the block must be heated for the steam to be expansive throughout.I am just now starting to get healthy enough to do the TCC, but it is difficult.many anti-catalysts in gasoline,I suspect diesel as well,unless it is well-head fuel.To get past this one must either filter or go straight thermal cracking.time rate change is key,btu remains same,but syn,CH14 is left.more ltr. I wish to give the tech freely when refined
FullspeedorNothin 1 month ago
@FullspeedorNothin I dont see how Thermal Cracking can give your the claimed 7x or 10x the energy as claimed in these videos. You may be able to get slightly better gas mileage by leaner burning, (this is how most of these devices work) but much beyond a few percent is doubtful.
The IC engine is about as efficient as it can be, next step is to go to gas turbine to electric or a fuel cell for more mpg.
Experiment all you want but you cant fight Physics
Texmurphy51 1 month ago
@sc00f Part 2 I believe that from him just as much as his claims of his car. Story goes his car & all plans were stolen when he died but his Ted hid it ... I am surpised that Aliens were not included in this story. Why would a man who has an invention that would change mankind not keep plans in another place, you know backup? Do you Actually believe this stuff?
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
And the reason why you don't hear about such inventions in the media is that the media is also owned and controlled by these corporations and interests. We're brainwashed through the mass media and the 'debunkers' to believe that we're dependent on these big companies and have to pay them billions of dollars every year, with huge taxes.
Just to add, many methods certainly don't work, and are scams, but this doesn't apply to all methods, which would be 'hasty generalization fallacy'.
sc00f 1 year ago
I didn't say that all methods were scams because some are. What I do say, however, is that if you're going to make a claim that theories supported by mountains of scientific evidence are wrong, you're gonna need similarly strong evidence to prove that claim. Do you have evidence for an oil company conspiracy? If you have no evidence, then the claim is total speculation.
mike4ty4 1 year ago
Comment removed
sc00f 1 year ago
Comment removed
sc00f 1 year ago
@mike4ty4 - because the gov't doesn't have control over the internet yet. unless you allow our corrupt politicians like Joe lieberman to pass bills to tax more americans to FUND controlling of the internet. wake up. control is anti-FREEDOM. youtube ought to be free. information should be free. its this mind control, no questioning (which goes on in our education system) that is dumbing us down! search "21st Century Traitors".
MopDMTBARTL 11 months ago
I like this idea but I beleive I can get more out of magnetic Generators but anywho their need to put the recyleing system into a car so you can go further without putting more water in. The Universe is Full of Energy with just have to find ways of tapping into. =)
TravvyG 2 years ago
Someone should tell Sisyphus about this shit. He would be relieved to know that he could just let the boulder go and the energy it picks up by rolling down the hill could be used to get it to the top.
grimshawr 2 years ago
ipash there are cars in japan today that are running on water only...what is so hard to believe? The companies do not want this, they do not have our best interests at heart. They have the technology to get way better gas mileage or not use gas at all. They buy the patents and throw them in the garage to be forgotten. All of these companies are in bed together and help each other out. Their time is coming though, people are demanding it and some are doing it themselves, inventing at home.
p00j2620 2 years ago
wow this video is such fucking bullshit..if zpe was real, industry would be all over it.
also you only get such energy returns from nuclear fission and fusion reactions...and we know how complex and expensive that is.
why tell us about it? why not invent a process, patent it and sell cars that run on water? You'd become a billionaire-hell I'd never share it with anyone till I have the patent.
I don't know what you guys are selling but clearly this is a scam.
iPashaBella 2 years ago
Sorry but none of the devices in the video is working. No one has been able to replicate it. There is no such thing as free lunch!
fredrik999z 2 years ago
if you want to run your car on water and burn hydrogen go to: thegas4free.blogspot,com
jedwhelchel 3 years ago
ill tell you what its called the end of fucking controll from the goddamn goverment will finally go back to the days before these fucking feins controlled us like the tax man coming buy and saying PAY YOUR TAX TODAY LET ME SEE WHAT YOU GOT !!!then i shoot that motherfucker in his face with my pistol and laugh BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
saintjames0 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
niceeeeeeee vidddd check mine out on meetyourfling(.Com)
foss
301969538646
azadarkarbal 3 years ago
This stuff works!
Anyone who will discount H20 as a fuel, dismissing the power of pure hydrogen and oxygen gas must be part of the media mob trying to halt progress in this amazing field of pure energy.
#uck you oil dogs! Go to hell.
Happy 420,
MS
Matthappy420 3 years ago
Hydrogen is a possible fuel [though expensive and really pathetic] but water is totally not fuel.
cyborgtroy 2 years ago
Great Video!
If we could just get the media to listen. Spread the word and be heard!
Happy 420,
MS
Matthappy420 3 years ago
Another BS dude misleading people. I agree with your comments on resonant cells production rates, but DO NOT mention Zero Point Energy here PERIOD. Gas outbursts are being produced by resonant electromagnetic wave collisions and has nothing to do with ZPE!!
minde4000 3 years ago
It's perplexing as to why they insist on calling this "free" energy; it has served the propagandists for decades and is misleading.
As the issue is spitting the atoms and previously the tool was raw electricity, why would adding other dis-associative elements like resonance not call for changing the "laws"? In whatever form: variable electricity, RF, physical vibration.
dstevens101 3 years ago
For more information on this please type the following:
squidoo. com /runacaronwaterfuel
just erase the spaces in between the words
nataliyanataliya333 3 years ago
Thats some brute-force crap, not the real thing.
swaanson 3 years ago
squidoo. com /runacaronwaterfuel
just erase the spaces in between the words
It's not workiiiiing.
cyborgtroy 2 years ago
Awesome video...im insalling my new generator this week on my ruck..i should get a 50% increase in MPG...
3255959 3 years ago
Lovely points,,, Thanx
bizwenth 3 years ago
So. Its quite usual to find an (amature) electrolysis apparatus that gives 1 L/minute at around 20 W and 12 volts. Which is 240 W(s). And since the resultant 1 L/min in seconds is 1 / 60 = 0,0166667 L/sec.
and since that is both Oxygen gas and hydrogen gas, you multiply the volyme/second with 0,66667 and get 0,0111112 L of HYDROGEN GAS per second, using 240 Watts. How many W to get 1L: 240 / 0,011112 = 21 600 W
So, whats the energy content of 1 L hydrogen gas?
12 000 W= 12kW
Whooops!
Johanoeberg 3 years ago
Concider this before you start clappin your hands for "free enegy from water".
Every electrolyser uses a certain current and voltage. If you multiply the Current (Amp) with voltage (Volt) you get the used power. Like 18 amps x 12 volt = 216 W (seconds).
Most of the electrolysis aparatus on youtube mix the product oxygen and hydrogen gas, giving Oxyhydrogen (HHO,Browns gas, etc.) In a volyme ratio of 2 units of Hydrogen to 1 unit of Oxygen. So, you got to muliply the gas by 0,666 to get H2.
Johanoeberg 3 years ago
That Moray guy is my uncle. I'm serious. I just randomly found this and I'm all like "wtf?"
metallica708 3 years ago
dude, 3 answers to the energy problem.
-nuclear- actually the smallest mass and volume ratio of any energy source to the power u get from it. and yes people, if u store it in a mountain in the desert, it can be perfectly contained and shield behind thick rock which the state its in can charge a dumping fee.
hydroelectric- the highest energy output source today and all that happens is that some of the water's momentum is absorbed.
solar-invest $6billion and set up huge solar panel fields out west
Pimpmastahanhduece 3 years ago
I read Wiki on it and he was sued for fraud. The experts looking at the invention said it was simply using "conventional electrolysis". If Meyers used this "conventional electrolysis" in a novel way to propel an automobile, then it could be worth trillions to us today. Think of the energy to power a hydrogen nuclear bomb and then its output. Is it the same? What if... someone discovered how to make a superconductor from a simple process? Like you I'm a skeptic, but I keep an open mind.
mykol13v 4 years ago
The video stated "producing 1 liter of gas/hour" I believe this is a mistake, it should sound 1 liter of gas/min not hour.
notogas 4 years ago
It was useing a very small amount of electricity
kfox66 4 years ago
You cannot get a sustained amount of energy out of electrolysis than you put into it. If this actually worked, we would've seen water-powered cars decades ago.
Energy (electricity) --electrolysis-of-water--> hydrogen & oxygen --combustion--> mechanical energy but less energy than you started with.
I am all for alternative energy and getting away from unsustainable fossil fuels. Electrolysis/hydrogen can be part of the solution if the electricity comes from renewable sources.
ThorGoLucky 4 years ago
well, If we would have seen water-powered cars decades ago, then who do u think would be less richer today??
How much power do Oil companies have. food and shelter is humans basic needs. u need money to get these and u need gasoline to get money.
to protect there investments, they can silence couple people, untill maybe nowadays
boygenis 4 years ago 3
It's century-old technology that can be made in most car shops with some additional parts from a lab supply store. Again, if this actually worked, we would've seen water-powered tricked-out cars decades ago.
ThorGoLucky 4 years ago
Christ - where did you learn English? On Mars?
Gruntol5 4 years ago
ThorGoLucky we already have dickhead, but that guy is DEAD NOW ! go do ur disinfo somewhere else bitch
msdnvp 4 years ago
Sorry to offend you with information, facts and rational thought, you rude lowbrow. Stan Meyer was convicted of fraud for his hoax water-powered car. Anyone who claims to have a water-powered car is out to scam ignorant investors.
Will a water-powered car be entered in the Automotive X Prize for a car that can get at least 100MPG? Millions of dollars will be awarded. They are the same folks that gave millions to the first private space ship.
ThorGoLucky 4 years ago
People like you need to open your eyes and see the truth. HHO works its a fact. Oil is about a 5 TRILLION dollar a year buisness. Do you think they would just roll over and virtually go out of buisness. If you enjoy giving your money to them, then by all means go right ahead. Hopefully one day soon this fuel will be used by everyone. There are a lot of people right here on youtube that have high output HHO generators. All you have to do is see it for what it is. Hope to have you onboard soon!
kfox66 4 years ago
It takes energy to create HHO, no matter how high the output. You cannot get more energy out of HHO than you put into it. A hydrogen economy/system is a great idea if the energy used to create HHO is from renewable sources. Generating HHO using electricity from our current (no pun intended) coal/oil/gas power grid is wasteful.
By the way, I rarely drive my car; it sits for days and weeks at a time gathering cobwebs. Conservation is superior to technological gains.
ThorGoLucky 4 years ago
By your standard of power input and output, nuclear power wouldnt be possible. Think about it for a second before you reply about something you know very little about. It does work very well and is 100 times better for the environment than petrolium. The electricity is being made at the alternator not from a coal burning plant. I wont argue with someone who would rather have the worst of the 2 evils.
kfox66 4 years ago
Nuclear power has to do with releasing energy from subatomic bonds. Electrolysis has to do with chemical bonds. It takes energy to "lift" hydrogen and oxygen atoms away from each other when their stuck together in a water molecule.
I care very much about our environment, and I welcome new technologies. But this is nothing new. Electrolysis has been around for over a century. Yes, it has been improved, but you still can't get more out of it than you put into it. You're falling for a scam.
ThorGoLucky 4 years ago 3
Yeah OK bud. Think what ever you want.
kfox66 4 years ago
So what you're saying is that it is impossible, can't be done, and no one will ever discover a way to extract more energy from water than it consumes. I'm I hearing you correctly? Then everyone should just stop trying, is that correct? Seems like we should close the patent office because there are no more things we can invent.
geedafotus 3 years ago
No, you are not hearing me correctly.
ThorGoLucky 3 years ago 2
Its not easy being a/the "sceptic" and being called "bribed by oilcompanies... =(
Even though people are so happy about this "free energy", they cant show ONE video that shows this system in a closed circut making more energy than it uses. They cant show ANY scientificly aproved evidence...
And for the love of god. Nuclear powerplants utilize the exothermic advantages of nuclear fission (splitting atoms!) thats like comparing addition to integrals and dervates... or simple to advanced!
Johanoeberg 3 years ago
a lot of people seem to be making huge money selling some miracle medical devices or services. i don't see them getting suppressed or assassinated. there are mechanical magic devices available on the market. fuel efficiency enhancer for example.
but why medical devices enjoy more relative successes than mechanical ones? i think it is because medical ones target human subjective perceptions. mechanical ones can't have that luxury.
agungk 4 years ago
They killed Meyers just so they can continue their organized crimes and quests for oil using the criminal military. I pretty sure you can also make bombs using Meyers invention not only power your car from water.
phnxrzn2007 4 years ago
So you see the war in Iraq for oil is senseless bloodshed driven by power mad lunatics who control America.
christar999 4 years ago
this is nothing more than a disgused "make money quick!" attempt at perpetual motion, scam.
mpaton2006 4 years ago
Wow, you sound like a paid dis-informationist.
christar999 4 years ago 2
Oil companies don't want people to know about this stuff. Notice the comment below this one is marked as spam.
urmomsuckedit 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fact: The water molecule has a positive end and a negative end. If placed in a magnetic field it will rotate itself accordingly. Pulses that magnetic field N S N S and it will spin. Spinning induces centrifugal force. The faster the frequency of the pulse the faster the spin. The faster the spin the stronger the centrifugal force. Spin it fast enough to overcome the molecular bonding and PRESTO! Separation. First grade Physics.
GSpotter63 4 years ago 2
Place the water molecule in-between the plates of a capacitor to make the magnetic fields. Because there is very little current flow between the plates you can break the water using high voltage and very little amps. This is much more efficient than traditional electrolyses and no catalysts is required.
GSpotter63 4 years ago
If a 1500 degree flame burns off a 1 hert radio wave thats a pretty large gain i would say..
Nick4Him 4 years ago 3
neither hertz nor dgrees (celcius, fahrenheit) are units of energy, so they can not be compared in terms of energy.
also, think about radiowaves as being analagous to light (theyr made of the same stuff). a white spotlight and a white flashlight will have the same frequency (hertz) but very different energy outputs.
anonimousemail 4 years ago
This is out of control now, it seems like hundreds of people are replicating these devices, i myself am going to give it a try, the only thing stopping this from coming out to the masses is media supression. I recommend that everybody give it a go andprove it to friends and relatives, this will cause mass disclosure, all the best to all who try!!!
electrogravitic 4 years ago 3
This true and factual technology has been venomously supressed by imperialist corporate oil intrests since 1934 but is now irrefutable to anyone with an open mind and home workshop thanks to brave scientists and you tube. Try it yourself!!!
1ntt 4 years ago 5