I've done some research on this. Here's my findings. Hydrogen peroxide should be limited to external use. When swallowed or injected, it does far more harm than good. 35% is very corrosive and burns holes through cell walls. If your system is contaminated, it MAY help kill pathogens. Mild h2o2 nasal spray for cold prevention is also beneficial. These are the only two exceptions. So unless you are really sick, avoid it internally.
Simple concept: you're putting in more energy (electrically) to break down the H2O than you'll be able to get out of burning the hydrogen, do to countless losses (heat lost during electrolysis, energy lost via EMF from electrical wires, and than energy lost to mechanical friction when driving the engine. There is not such thing as a loss less system. At this point you might as well just run an efficient electric motor off of the energy you were using to break down the water into hydrogen.
HHO is Hydrogen Hydroxide which is water... NOT Hydrogen Peroxide. BIG difference. anyone can split water into Hydrogen and oxygen. Just another reason why FOX news misleads the world.
@PizzaManTech FOX News isn't misleading anyone. They're just stupid and do not know better. The thing they ARE doing is to spread their stupidity, which falls onto very fertile stupidity ground in the US ;-P
These people will LITERALLY be killed by the oil companies before they are allowed to develop and mass produce any vehicle that runs on ONLY water. Why do you think the guy is driving a hybrid? He is no idiot. His technology will not come to fruition in most of are lifetimes even though it could probably be released and mass produced TOMORROW.
The odd part: Even though it uses electricity to split the H from the O, there already exists a device on an automobile that can create that kind of electricity. Its called a generator! Most do not know this though: generators produce over 120 volts of ac power. Then it is coverted into dc power, the voltage is kicked down to 12 volts AND the amperage is kicked sky high by the conversion. Therefore, all one has to do is add a second generator for electrolysis, remove the dc conversion/stepdown
People are dumb, so even if this is true forget it. We already know the various ways cancers can be cured cheap. Still the "majority" love to told what to do and lead around by the nose to get ripped off and die a slow death by doctors. So when they come up with a "water car", people will get charged for water and also 'environmental" fees. The majority can't be happy unless they are "owned".
Ha, they aren't interested in your water car. I'm surprised you are still alive, if you are. You are a complete imbecile to the max if you think you can sell this. If it works, spread the news fast and make it available free to everyone, or else you will never go anywhere with this. Oil is the biggest industry on earth and Oil backs the US Dollar. It would be easier to shut down every Atlantic City casino.
Its not HHO its H2 + O2 (hydrogen and oxygen). Water isn't the energy source, its the energy carrier - the source is whatever power station created the electricity.
It does have interesting implications though, as it means any house could be converted to a fuel source using electricity generated by solar panels and electrolysed water.
i hate these idiots who take little bits of science, get it completely wrong and try use it to PROVE their idiotic ideas. free energy nuts really are annoying.
hydrogen peroxide powder? i guess he can make water powder too then?
this is only useful for running a hho torch, its not practical for generating energy unless you want to disregard the fact that you just put a bunch of electricity into the process in the first place!
@minraja-good plan,.dont forget to strap on your horse blinders extra tight, wont want to see and acknowledge the corruption of the world that is right right in front of you,......or maybe you are part of the problem?,..........if so then i suggest you stand in front of a large mirror and ask yourself if you like what you see?,......by the way dont you have some japanese anime to go watch and pleasure yourself to?,.......try not to crumple your foil hat ,...have a nice day,...........:)
@rogerrain1 Oh I work for government. You didn't know? I am one of them. Assimilate! or get put in one of those FEMA work camps. We are keeping lists. Why do you think Youtube exist? It's really for us to keep tabs on the non-conformers like you. The picture of the anime in my profile is to get people like you to drop your guard. And as you can see, it works. Nice chatting with you. Well back to my civil-defense duties.
its technology like this , that should be released to the public, this guy could of made millions just by doing car converting kits, but no..........he sold his technology to the government and they will not allow this to be released......
@psphaxzor19 Intermolecular forces don't really play a role in the flamability of a molecule. I just don't think the structure is possible, Hydrogen only has two valence electrons so once there is a bond with the other hydrogen there is nothing left to bond it to the oxygen atom. Sounds like either a screw up on their part or another dihydrogen monoxide spoof/hoax/troll
well i think when it burns it it goes from HHO to H2O it loses the extra Hydrogen molecule and then it looses the H and O becoming seperate oxygen and hydrogen :D completely safe
Sure are alot of petro co. debunkers here wonder why, after demonstrating his automobile that crossed the country on water he was snuffed out (Now this is just something I read so can not back it up with fact at this point) but if it doesn't work why would the Government even be interested hummmmm. this apparently slipped by the propaganda/sensership guys and aired oops someone was in hot water.
Jesus, Fox news is a load of crap. Forgot to mention the only slightly important fact that the energy comes from electricity. and I like how they say 'the flame feels only slightly warm to the touch' go on, show me douch bag
@newzealandnick You do realize that local Fox26 is part of Fox Broadcasting and Not Fox News, which is a completely different part of Newscorp, right? Or are you retarded?
@newzealandnick Hey retard, Fox News and Fox Broadcasting are two completely different entities. They're both owned by Newscorp, but FNC isn't in anyway owned by Fox Broadcasting. Dumbass.
@newzealandnick I'll take that as a confession that you don't know shit. You're probably some fat shit projecting your own fatness onto others. LOL you're from Ireland, typical you wouldn't know shit about how Newscorp works. Have fun getting bailed out, dipshit.
Please people, please for the love of god learn some basic chemistry. All this is, is electrolysis of water. Its really not very practical at all (read about "hydrogen economy"). He's using/wasting energy (electricity) to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen can then be used as a fuel. The process USES MORE electrical energy than he gets back from the hydrogen gas. It would be far more practical and energy conserving to use the electricity for an electric vehicle or hybri
@clairishe What if you use part of the immense heat generated by the gas that is created from electrolysis to generate more electricity (heat up air like a jet engine)? Fact remains that you will need far more electricity to create the heat that HHO does.
@clairishe Not quite the point guy. Perhaps you can dispute and trash Stan Meyers water car as well? The bottom line is we do not need oil based products anymore. Havent for decades. THATS the point. I know "basic chem" I also know... you know what its a waste of time to try and argue with people like you.
@clairishe yup, H2O as fuel would only be useful if we made some crucial steps many years ago. If we used solar/thermal technology, stock of hydrogen gas could be used to power once the sun goes down.
@clairishe bla bla bla, he's not wasting electricity at all, this gas has very important uses, its not over unity, however the alternator wasn't invented when this technology came out, which pretty much fucks your maths with this whole concept, and then there are duel battery systems,duel alternator systems ect ect. Its allso possible to blow your house up with this gas and leave no trace of explosive residue. Forget efficiency, the gas has too many important uses, neutralizing nuclear waste...!
@clairishe You're half right... if you use the electricity made by wind or solar power directly to break down water without storing it, it is a good idea. However just plugging this thing into the wall is a bad idea like you say. I don't understand the title though... H2O2 is hydrogen peroxide.
@clairishe I guess you missed the part where he said "our very unique electrolysis process" that would suggest that his method might be slightly different from using more electrical energy than it gets back from hydrogen.
The man that invented IS DEAD HE WAS KILLED OF JUST LIKE MOST OF THE ORHER PEOPLE WHO FIND OUT IMPORTANT THINGS THAT COULD BENIFIT OUR WORLD RIP WATER DUDE
The "Government" and "Big Oil" bought this DEVINE inventer off? Did "They" also buy-off his (obvious) primary invester/backer Elvis (alive and well... "Thank-you...thank-you very much!")? Beam me up Scotty...
This one of the most AMAZING (?!) videos I've yet encountered ! @skepticoz Aren't you also AMAZED at the "tek-no-logy" that enlightenes us backward thinkers to a CHEMICAL reaction which yields temperatures greater than the "the surface of the sun"? ASTOUNDING!!! Not to mention the capacity to disassociate molecular bonds then reduplicate them with a net GAIN in energy! WOW!!! This beyond GENIUS, it is...DEVINE! And to think, all this from a jug of...water! WHEW...I'm humbled. - §:|€
Wonder what happened to Klein? He was bought out and his company Aguygen Gas, is now being run by folks tied to the Government and the oil industry who assert that this technology is only an “evolutionary, not revolutionary, [product which] utilizes the time-tested technology of the internal combustion engine while improving the performance of that technology”. The only good thing to report is that they didn’t kill Mr. Klein, just his invention. I hope it was worth whatever they paid him.
The only reason he is working with the govt is so they can take the patten and refuse to use it for anything useful other than war. Gas ? Even most of brazil is on ethonal and they are a 3rd world country.
Well some people might not take this properly but I do. I am for one profound at the results our technology can surpass. If many would stop being so close minded they would see the brilliance of this video.
@metaphysikz101 Do you really believe Google and Youtube don't manipulate the numbers to supress certain types of data or promote Miley Cyrus videos and the like. Corporations pay them to manipulate how information is perceived. It is called mind control and is how power players have been doing business since prehistory. It's good to know if you are cattle and if you are headed for the slaughterhouse. At least then, you might think to escape your prison.
@1qreus Don't make assumptions, you don't know me and you don't know what i know. As a matter of fact I'm sure that what you are learning today I knew yesterday.
listen, i do apologise for sinking to your level, by resorting to petty namecalling.
however if you would like to look up thunderbolts of the gods, part one on youtube, you may actually find some education on current scientific findings, findings which call into question a vast amount of what has been up until now, known science and scientific 'laws'
it is said that one cannot educate pork, however due to recent revelations, that may not prove correct and that you may actually learn something
"i do apologise for sinking to your level, by resorting to petty namecalling."
Yeah? Well sticks and stones may brake my bones, but names will never hurt me. Didn't your mummy ever tell you that? I couldn't give a rats bum what you call me quite frankly. What I resent more than anything, is willful dishonesty and devious tactics. I pay a price for being vigilantly honest and forthright, about my desire to understand nature. People who claim to know better are expected to be reasonable.
Thanks for the info. I might check that out sometime. Now how about responding to the barrage of unresolved issues you already have floating in your wake? I have already pointed out your tactic of of forcing the onus of defense onto the opponent. Repeatedly ignoring my numerous previous retorts and the unanswered questions, but instead trying to press ME for justifications of things which aren't in contention, AGAIN, only cements my point that you will not be held to account for YOUR OWN claims.
"i do apologise for sinking to your level, by resorting to petty namecalling."
Yeah? Well sticks and stones may brake my bones, but names will never hurt me. Didn't your mummy ever tell you that? I couldn't give a rats bum what you call me quite frankly. What I resent more than anything, is willful dishonesty and devious tactics. I pay a price for being vigilantly honest and forthright, about my desire to understand nature. People who claim to know better are expected to be reasonable.
Reposted for good measure, owing to the actions of some pathetic fucking coward, who, rather than replying, with forthright sincerity and intellectual honesty, has been marking some of my posts as spam. Nice one asshole!!
Thanks again for demonstrating AGAIN that as a creatard, you have only have empty rhetoric and no substance whatsoever. Since you have no evidence and comprehend no reasoning skills, your attempt to do any kind of debate will necessarily consist on this childish ad hominem attack style, that perpetually avoids defending the claims you have made. You necessarily WONT defend your own ideas with rational reasoning and evidence because you have no reason nor evidence; only self delusion.
"just looked up skepticoz on wiki, seems they got your number, it must be true, its on wikipedia"
Well I have no Idea what you are talking about, as skepticoz is only my username on youtube. What are you trying to prove anyhow? Can you do anything other than make oblique innuendos without giving away exactly what you are alluding to?
I don't think so. Why? Because you're FULL OF SHIT! By wasting your time trying to dig up some dirt on me to use as ammunition, you're demonstrating my point.
That's enough about me let's talk about YOU! So let's recap on YOUR claims and the oustanding questions YOU have left unanswered:
A) How do you manage to violate the second law of thermodynamics with over unity? (NB: by not being a scientist is not an answer) I.E. Is it magic (supernatural) or do you think the second law is somehow mistaken?
B) What is it about that lame ass video of electric motors plugged into multi-meters that convinces you that somebody has overturned the laws of physics?
On that point you have said "....if a japanese electrical engineer says his motor is producing 70% more energy than its using...im inclined to believe it, seeing as it there for all to see"
What we are SEEing proves absolutely nothing and the revolution in the laws of physics this would portend (if it were true) would eclipse the Einsteinian paradigm shift of relativity and send unprecedented shock-waves through the physics community. The second law is about as irrevocable as they get.
C) The reference I made to Wikipedia to illustrate the widespread prevalence of knowledge about browns gas and how similar Klien's claims are to the article, has been repeatedly used by you as an artifact of infantile derision. You have repeatedly scorned the reference on the grounds that Wikipedia isn't guaranteed to be accurate, even tough I have repeatedly refuted this as irrelevant and hypocritical. Just for starters, the point I was making is not pivotal on the accuracy of the article.
The article in question like any other article in Wikipedia (or anywhere else for that matter), can stand on it's own merit. The protocol in any reasonable debate is to volunteer as much documentary reference to support your claim as you need to make the point. If you actually had any particular reason to suspect that this particular article is inaccurate, then you are quite welcome to challenge the specific point. You haven't put your cards on the table and claimed this article is inaccurate.
This point illustrates the rhetorical sophist, creationist style of debate, because it avoids specific matters of fact (which would need to be defended with evidence and reason), while also attempting to force the onus of defense back onto the opponent. The accusation that my source may not be perfectly reliable is irrelevant as no source is GUARANTEED to be reliable and the reference is only given, to be taken at face value. The possibility of inaccuracy, doesn't invalidate it by default.
So that would actually make D) Do you actually think the article in question (the one I referenced) actually IS incorrect / inaccurate and why? If we can't establish this, then the objection is spurious and irrelevant at best.
And... E) Why don't you directly face the specific facts in question and stop trying to score rhetorical hits, with devious irrelevant innuendos? (good honest answers might include "I lack reasoning skills" and "my claims disagree with the massive abundance of evidence")
F) AGAIN, I point out the fact that it is only BECAUSE I have provided any references for you to criticize at all, that you can even attempt to fabricate this rhetorical aspersion about Wikipedia that you seem prone to defiantly repeating ad nauseum. Each time you do so, you completely disregard every point I have made about your criticism's lack of relevance and it's devious approach to the avoidance and aversion of facts. But look at YOUR litany of claims for which you provide NO reference:
@skepticoz to direct you to the exact video, so that you dont get lost in the maze see Steorn's Orbo Electromagnetic Interaction COP is greater than 1
@skepticoz take a little dive into metatrons cube, meditate on this for a little while and revelation may actually occur, however, i seriously doubt it
and B. try looking up steorn orbo, which explains and demonstrates how the coefficient of performance can indeed be greater than one....then you may get back to me and call yourself a mentally siezed and dysfunctional dickhead
Right so on one hand I have what appears to be water tight laws of nature, that remain formidable in terms of observed empirical evidence and more importantly, as an inevitable logical consequence, of a priori, axiomatic reasoning. On the other and I have a person who claims that watching videos will demonstrate these laws being violated. What I see though is NOT such a demonstration, even taken at face value (assuming what's claimed - no tricks) the demonstration fails as a test of the claims.
Yet I am actually a dickhead because I have been estimating the plausibility of the second law and conservation of energy in accordance with all the available evidence and the inevitable consequence of logical reasoning. But when I view these mind boggling videos and have the same epiphany of enlightenment that you are blessed with, but which appears to be the zealous unreasoned brain fart of a deluded moron, I should return and report myself as a "mentally siezed and dysfunctional dickhead" Oh!
Well good luck with that, but I doubt that I'll ever feel inclined to interpret my habit of favoring the most parsimonious explanation and holding my provisional conclusions accountable to Occam's Razor as the actions of a dysfunctional dickhead. As for 'mentally seized' er.. You're basing this on what precisely? I have a very proud history of standing corrected when shown to be wrong with cogent reasoning. And just what have you shown apart from arrogance? surely not an understanding of nature!
Now clearly no video ever has any hope, of demonstrating conclusive evidence of any principal (controversial or otherwise) unless you are willing to take the presenter/producer at their word that the apparatus being used is not doctored or the video edited to produce deceptive results. That's not an accusation, but the reason why real experiments go to such lengths to establish test conditions that can be disputed and falsified, is in the interests of transparency & independent reproducibility.
Nevertheless I am watching keenly and what I am looking for, is the over riding factor that the presenters may explain HOW this works and WHY it should logically be expected. I.E. If it isn't supernatural (magic) and there is a logical reason WHY the laws of physics are suspended in these particular conditions, then I would expect the presenters to draw a chain of inference by describing cause and effect relationships, that logically replace the laws they appear to contradict with new reasoning.
I am only half way through so far, but the obfuscation seems to be accumulating and the overly technical oscilloscope displays etc, are not necessary to demonstrate over-unity. Assuming no fraud, only a watt meter on the input, & one on the output, would (at a minimum) be needed demonstrate that OU seems to be occurring. The explanation of the principal is the context of the using the CROs to demonstrate the interpretation of the wave forms. A conjurer knows embellishing is a key to deception.
The most amazing thing thus far has been the lack of amazement and technical curiosity in the audience at @ 5:50 on the third video when he called for questions. You have to be kidding! These people aren't physicists or electrical engineers and probably have very little appreciation of the technical aspects of the wave analysis and I would posit the whole demo is pitched to go well over their head. They cant appreciate the gravity or HOW fundamentally our understanding of nature would change.
By this time I have dozens of questions, like: How do you get the back EMF to disappear? How are those toroids orientated? Is their Inductance value critical in the principal that eliminates the back EMF? etc, etc. Then we find out at the end of this video that this guy actually has no ultimate explanation of how this works. He is asked if it is zero point energy and can't say for sure (that hardly seems like a trick question) as there is no 'zero point energy meter'.
But if you understand the fundamental principals behind the machine, then the question is not an empirical one. You know what zero point energy is and you understand the fundamental principals of how and why your machine overcomes conservation of energy laws. It follows then that you must be able to explain the logic and causative chain which leads to this unique situation. The straight answer to this question should follow from knowledge of the principals. No empirical tests should be needed.
So at this point we have a few red lights on. There is an overtly technical demonstration, for a docile non-technical audience, a pretense of transparency where none could ultimately be afforded, some emerging pseudo-science in that elimination of back EMF is given as part of the causative reason, but no actual methodology is explained (so far) to account for the missing back EMF. Finally, the fundamental principals are inferred to be AWOL. (so it's magic then?) It's not looking too good so far.
I may have to recant what I said about the docility of the audience some what. They seemed far more docile in the first few questions. Apparently it was more like awkward passive avoidance of a confrontation. There were some more pointed questions in the next video, but unfortunately none about the way the fundamental principals can be explained in terms of thermodynamic law and causative exceptions in principal, nor HOW the back EMF is vanished in the practical application.
Now the most significant question was the one about the battery as obviously the device demonstrates absolutely nothing whatsoever, if it can't use It's own surplus of energy to power it's own motion. That is the essential basic requirement of a perpetual motion (unity) engine. If this is not achieved then the whole demonstration is futile. The convenient excuse of needing a particular 'shape' of current is pathetic mambo-jumbo bullshit. Even if it's true, it's still not a demonstrated result.
Finally the last video demonstrates some obscure irrelevant nonsense, that fails to account for the failure of the lack of causative explanation, the lack of reconciliation with known physics and the failure to physically demonstrate an affirmative result. It looks like a bit of pseudo-technical fluff making a pretense at resolving some minor but valid technical objection, that would otherwise present as a hitch. As if to say: "So now we've cleared that up, it's finally proven our magic motor".
But never mind. Obviously you can explain in detail how & why this suffices as a perfectly valid logically consistent demonstration of over unity power. The onus isn't on me to explain why over unity isn't not true anyhow, it's on you to explain how this set of videos actually demonstrated it. Even if no other scam occurred, it's pointless putting this all on a glass table and proclaiming the effort to simplify as a precaution against potential cheating, as the thing runs on a fucking battery.
I really don't know why I am spending the time to entertain your deluded little brain farts whackjob, you still haven't responded to my request for clarification about where scientists published their overt declarations that they have DISCOVERED or proved that the world is flat. I thought that was just one of many naive assumptions of primitive cultures, like the Sumerians who might I add, you seem to think knew MORE than modern humans, at a time that something which didn't make sense happened.
@skepticoz cool story bro, why dont you write a book on how many flaws are in this guys idea. Instead of bashing the guy, maybe you should make something better?
¨why dont you write a book on how many flaws are in this guys idea.¨
One answer is, that fools wont read books that might contradict their prejudice or afford them an education. In any case it would be a short book, as the second law is all that needs to be said: The entropy of an isolated system may never decrease. But to generalize for open systems, you cant get more energy out than is put in. You cant make a jar out of which you can get more jellybeans, than are put in either. Same thing.
@skepticoz You intelligence seems to be incontrovertible so why breath, type and press your opinion on fools who yet understand your ingénues abilities please I will continue to read your comments for you are very entertaining but why give them your patrons the presence of enjoyment by increasing your idiocy and decreasing your brilliance take the time to realize most of these fools arent worthy of your knowledge From one kind mind to the other
¨Instead of bashing the guy, maybe you should make something better? ¨
To the extent that this device works, NOTHING would, ´be better´ (infinite free energy. Seriously!? - only immortality could be better. To the extent that it doesnt work, nothing WOULD, be better. It dosnt work, so removing the device & using the energy it consumes directly WOULD be better. Returning any money fraudulently scammed out of investors WOULD also be better. Fraud is FRAUD, not the next best thing to nothing.
@thricegod1288@thricegod1288 close minded individuals such as yourself do not yet have the theroy of brilliance down henceforth you lack any knowlegde of such do not be offended by others comments take them as more of a means to support my theory :)
Gads, here we go again. A solution to all our energy needs... only they conveniently ignore thehuge powerplant over the hill that supplies all the electricity to allow them to split water in the first place. Running a car on it, gee, that's brilliant... why not just have an electric car and save all the bother, but of course that needs the powerplant over the hill, too. People only see what they want to see...
its a joke is it? i have a vawt wind turbine, homebuilt for £200, it produces 10kw of power, completely free after the initial cost, which runs my oxyhydro system.....for FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
@whackitov What is a joke, is the spurious assertions that this alternative source of fuel can be produced in a CLOSED system and create more energy than it uses for production. The nuggets of truth, are in the claims that browns gas, may be used to improve the efficiency of a regular car engine (i.e. by improving the combustion). If instead, you claim that you can use that fuel to run a generator to split hydro/oxy from water, efficiently enough to power the generator, it's perpetual motion.
@skepticoz if a closed system produces more energy than it needs to run itself, providng excess energy which can be used elsewhere, then it is overunity
ive added a video response....if a japanese electrical engineer says his motor is producing 70% more energy than its using...im inclined to believe it, seeing as it there for all to see
"if a closed system produces more energy than it needs to run itself, providng excess energy which can be used elsewhere, then it is overunity"
If a system produces more energy than it requires to run, then it is over unity and perpetual motion (and a violation of hitherto immutable laws of physics, that contradicts the most fundamental understandings of nature), but if you can get energy from it, then by definition it's not closed. A closed system must have no energy going in or coming out.
I can't help wondering why, the second law of thermodynamics and the vigilantly peer reviewed Wikipedia, seem less credible to you than an-untested (double blind controlled standards please), uncorroborated, un-peer reviewed claim by what sounds like (yet another) free energy huckster. Could it be that you don't actually understand the second law, nor why is reputedly so merciless? I am fascinated no end to see how a youtube video will establish irrefutable proof of an over unity generator.
@skepticoz peer review? who are the peers? do i know them? would they be of the same educational standard as the scientists who firmly insisted that the earth was flat?? hmmm? esteemed gentlemen of unquestionable intellect hmm? i care not for scientists 'laws' they are simply theories until they are proven wrong. darwin was wrong and even regreted ever making his statement,
yet 'scientists' ( or egoic entities) still insist the evolution theory stands, for fear of admitting they were mistaken
AGAIN you rush for irrelevant derision and ignore my valid criticism that REGARDLESS of whether the specific article is correct, I was not relying on it's accuracy to make the point I was making. ANYBODY can check to see if the general knowledge of browns gas was widespread. You DON'T NEED to rely on the authority, prestige or intellect of the Wikipedia editing public to understand the point I was making. These are eminently checkable and rather mundane matters, of a non-controversial nature.
@skepticoz the point about browns gas is not that it cannot run an internal combustion engine, but rather that the amount of electricity required to produce hho would be better placed in an electric vehicle, it doesnt say anywhere that it cannot power an internal combustion engine, which it obviously can.
and the count of fraud was on the claim of overunity, so maybe its not overunity, maybe its not an efficient use of the gas, but neither is drilling for oil an energy efficient process
"the point about browns gas is not that it cannot run an internal combustion engine"
And where did you get the idea that I was attempting to make any claim that this fuel can't be used to run an internal combustion engine? That is neither a point I attempted to make, nor is it relevant in any obvious way.
"and the count of fraud was on the claim of overunity, so maybe its not overunity, maybe its not an efficient use of the gas, but neither is drilling for oil an energy efficient process"
Now, where did I claim that drilling for oil is a better alternative? The point I raised about efficiency was SPECIFICALLY to address the over unity implication by pointing out than no system (even a perfectly thermodynamically closed one) is more than 100% efficient and that is what over unity implies.
I REPEAT: Casting aspersions on Wikipedia doesn't refute the point I was making, even if it did depend on the accuracy of the content. It's really just a cheap shot, to disparage a person's source, if their quote is accurate and point well made. The point was how abundant common knowledge about browns gas is and how freakishly similar the article.
Now if you wish to grow some balls & actually question the point of issue, instead of this piss weak circuitous rhetoric, that's another thing.
You don't have to know somebody for them to hold your feet to the fire. look at me for instance, I don't know you and that's not going to stop me from trampling your bullshit into the mud. It's nothing personal that's just the way it is. The point you continue to ignore is that truth doesn't rest on authority. There are a great many things that neither you nor I rely on each others authority to establish. That's the whole point of peer review.
"would they be of the same educational standard as the scientists who firmly insisted that the earth was flat??"
Now, it's not that I wish to dispute this point, but I wonder if you might kindly point out the published articles, in mainstream scientific research journals or such credible sources, where educated scientists went out of their way offer testimony against prevailing evidence to the contrary for a flat earth? Are you talking about this earth? In the solar system in our Milky Way?
"i care not for scientists 'laws'" The laws I am talking about don't 'belong' to scientists. If you wish to test if any of them are applicable to you, might I suggest you step off the rooftop of a high rise building? Such an experiment could not only establish the 'law' of gravity as applied to delusional beings, but also the persistence of chemical bonding that most of us rely on for solid matter and to avoid plummeting through the earths surface into a fiery lake of lava. That's just a theory.
"they are simply theories until they are proven wrong."
Wouldn't be a creationist fucktard by any chance would ya? Is that Kent Hovinds poo stuck on the end of your nose? Where else do we learn to use the word 'theory' as a deliberately pointed synonym for 'speculative conjecture'. So what's your point and where are you going with this retarded shit? How about making some logical connections and reaching a conclusion. So science is fallible and... so anything goes? Nature is lawless.. or what?
@skepticoz the fact that we have a dna structure that is not replicated ANYWHERE else in nature, including primates,blows a huge fucking hole in the evolutionist fucktards 'theory'. ive never heard of kent hovind...who is he?
i tend to more believe the historical data recorded by the sumerians, who happened to be there at the time, rather that the historians who are merely playing jigsaws but without all the pieces
@whackjob What the fuck are you on about? You didn't come here to push a criticism of evolution and I didn't come here to defend it. Now HOW is it that I am being called into the witness stand as the defendant? OH that's right you're a creationist moron and your only means of defense is to establish a perfunctory attack in some perverse effort to imply If am wrong about evolution (because you can make endless assertions), you must be right about free energy. How about justifying your own claims?
"the fact that we have a dna structure that is not replicated ANYWHERE else in nature, including primates,blows a huge fucking hole in the evolutionist fucktards 'theory'... "
And the scare quotes around 'theory' are for who's benefit? I have already pointed out that you are misusing the word to imply a synonym with 'speculative conjecture'. I also went to the effort of pointing out that in the scientific context gravity is also a theory. Want a bet that that is only speculative conjecture?
What do you mean by "...a dna structure..." Are you talking about the the double helix? No that's universal. Is it the sugar phosphate back bone. No that's universal to all living organisms. Is it the particular order of bases to encode for each amino acid? No. Universal again. Is it that the amino acids them self are unique in us, by comparison to the ones that other life forms have? No not that either? Could it be a load of crap you are regurgitating?
Er... Yeah! that last one about the crap does seem quite plausible at the moment. But instead of making me play 20 questions, perhaps you could make your contribution at least resemble a tentatively honest one by, I dunno, giving some reference maybe. I promise I won't do what you did and scoff at the authority of the source and dismiss it out of hand on the basis of an irrelevant rhetorical ad hominem. I would want to look at the actual evidence, for the actual point. and address the substance.
You see how cheap and easy it is, to make vague unsubstantiated claims like this that nobody can refute because you don't provide enough information to establish exactly what is being claimed or what evidence, research or reasoning supports it. It will no doubt be complete fabricated shit like the myriad number of other creation claims and the dead give away is that you avoid giving enough information (without prying) to hold the claim up to clear light in the first instance.
The cheap and easy throw away claims that are constantly being manufactured by the creationist canard mill, are only one side of the insidious ploy though, because, as you demonstrate, a forthright and honest approach providing optimal transparency can be exploited as a weakness, as you attempted to do, by casting aspersions on my sources and questioning their authority. You don't even make unambiguous claims, let alone quote sources to even check the authenticity of a claim. Just sooo, gutless.
This has been flagged as spam show
I've done some research on this. Here's my findings. Hydrogen peroxide should be limited to external use. When swallowed or injected, it does far more harm than good. 35% is very corrosive and burns holes through cell walls. If your system is contaminated, it MAY help kill pathogens. Mild h2o2 nasal spray for cold prevention is also beneficial. These are the only two exceptions. So unless you are really sick, avoid it internally.
gr8vibes2 2 weeks ago
Simple concept: you're putting in more energy (electrically) to break down the H2O than you'll be able to get out of burning the hydrogen, do to countless losses (heat lost during electrolysis, energy lost via EMF from electrical wires, and than energy lost to mechanical friction when driving the engine. There is not such thing as a loss less system. At this point you might as well just run an efficient electric motor off of the energy you were using to break down the water into hydrogen.
mdibound 4 months ago
Great work, shame it's going to get buried by the oil companies...
starlaeuropa 4 months ago
Nice fail Faux "news"!!... the flame is "only slightly warm to the touch"..... WHAT?!?!
marek0086 5 months ago 2
and then a hitman receives a call from exon and gmc telling him who his next target is.
Arcazazel 6 months ago
ballsack
MeinNameistMohamed 6 months ago
HHO is Hydrogen Hydroxide which is water... NOT Hydrogen Peroxide. BIG difference. anyone can split water into Hydrogen and oxygen. Just another reason why FOX news misleads the world.
PizzaManTech 7 months ago
@PizzaManTech FOX News isn't misleading anyone. They're just stupid and do not know better. The thing they ARE doing is to spread their stupidity, which falls onto very fertile stupidity ground in the US ;-P
dawoderpfeffer 5 months ago
How neat
Che8t 8 months ago
So where does the peroxide come into the mix???
MrDesolate1 8 months ago 2
These people will LITERALLY be killed by the oil companies before they are allowed to develop and mass produce any vehicle that runs on ONLY water. Why do you think the guy is driving a hybrid? He is no idiot. His technology will not come to fruition in most of are lifetimes even though it could probably be released and mass produced TOMORROW.
We are being controlled people,,,, WAKE UP!
pgbruiser 8 months ago
The odd part: Even though it uses electricity to split the H from the O, there already exists a device on an automobile that can create that kind of electricity. Its called a generator! Most do not know this though: generators produce over 120 volts of ac power. Then it is coverted into dc power, the voltage is kicked down to 12 volts AND the amperage is kicked sky high by the conversion. Therefore, all one has to do is add a second generator for electrolysis, remove the dc conversion/stepdown
lwblack64 9 months ago
What a horrible idea... how could we tax a fuel anyone can make? this is so stupid ;-)
waynerd23 9 months ago
People are dumb, so even if this is true forget it. We already know the various ways cancers can be cured cheap. Still the "majority" love to told what to do and lead around by the nose to get ripped off and die a slow death by doctors. So when they come up with a "water car", people will get charged for water and also 'environmental" fees. The majority can't be happy unless they are "owned".
syyenergy7 10 months ago
Ha, they aren't interested in your water car. I'm surprised you are still alive, if you are. You are a complete imbecile to the max if you think you can sell this. If it works, spread the news fast and make it available free to everyone, or else you will never go anywhere with this. Oil is the biggest industry on earth and Oil backs the US Dollar. It would be easier to shut down every Atlantic City casino.
syyenergy7 10 months ago
Complete rubbish.
johndehaura 11 months ago
whatever happened to this invention? why hevent we heard more about it since 2006?
achmedfu 11 months ago
@achmedfu because the oil giants and energy giants will go broke if the world runs on water
maccas1329 10 months ago
Its not HHO its H2 + O2 (hydrogen and oxygen). Water isn't the energy source, its the energy carrier - the source is whatever power station created the electricity.
It does have interesting implications though, as it means any house could be converted to a fuel source using electricity generated by solar panels and electrolysed water.
confusedmiked 1 year ago
FOX-news … a reliable and accurate source of information ever since.
ThatGuyFromAustria 1 year ago
i hate these idiots who take little bits of science, get it completely wrong and try use it to PROVE their idiotic ideas. free energy nuts really are annoying.
hydrogen peroxide powder? i guess he can make water powder too then?
this is only useful for running a hho torch, its not practical for generating energy unless you want to disregard the fact that you just put a bunch of electricity into the process in the first place!
membola 1 year ago
Good God...what happened? They don't teach chemistry in high schools anymore?
bobstevefrank123 1 year ago
(1) nikola tesla already invented a way to provide fossil free limitless electricity(worldwide)
(2)cars that run on water is nothing new( just silenced by big corperations)
(3)any water can be used rain, drain, salt,even your urine
(4)this guy like many before sold his right to his work to the gov
(5)due to the powers that be we will never see the true quality of life the human race can achieve
(6)its time to realize wether black or white we are all slaves in this new world
(7)REBELL NOW
rogerrain1 1 year ago 2
@rogerrain1 RIGHT!!!! First let me get my trusty tinfoil helmet. I don't want the NWO reading or controlling my mind.
minraja 1 year ago
@minraja-good plan,.dont forget to strap on your horse blinders extra tight, wont want to see and acknowledge the corruption of the world that is right right in front of you,......or maybe you are part of the problem?,..........if so then i suggest you stand in front of a large mirror and ask yourself if you like what you see?,......by the way dont you have some japanese anime to go watch and pleasure yourself to?,.......try not to crumple your foil hat ,...have a nice day,...........:)
rogerrain1 1 year ago
@rogerrain1 Oh I work for government. You didn't know? I am one of them. Assimilate! or get put in one of those FEMA work camps. We are keeping lists. Why do you think Youtube exist? It's really for us to keep tabs on the non-conformers like you. The picture of the anime in my profile is to get people like you to drop your guard. And as you can see, it works. Nice chatting with you. Well back to my civil-defense duties.
minraja 1 year ago
It's not hydrogen peroxide he is splitting water to hydrogen and oxygen
megamarko94 1 year ago
who's the fucking retard who labeled this video
Thebigbambeano 1 year ago
Holy-Terrorist:>*=*
Agentoxedo07 1 year ago
its technology like this , that should be released to the public, this guy could of made millions just by doing car converting kits, but no..........he sold his technology to the government and they will not allow this to be released......
repententertainment1 1 year ago
I think hho is a gas... The atoms do not have a hydrogen bond any more and can burn wereas steam cant
psphaxzor19 1 year ago
@psphaxzor19 Intermolecular forces don't really play a role in the flamability of a molecule. I just don't think the structure is possible, Hydrogen only has two valence electrons so once there is a bond with the other hydrogen there is nothing left to bond it to the oxygen atom. Sounds like either a screw up on their part or another dihydrogen monoxide spoof/hoax/troll
arckon09 1 year ago
4 ounces??? you know how little that is?! god dang
MrSyntheticDesign 1 year ago
well i think when it burns it it goes from HHO to H2O it loses the extra Hydrogen molecule and then it looses the H and O becoming seperate oxygen and hydrogen :D completely safe
MrSyntheticDesign 1 year ago
HHO=H2O?
lnvfednk 1 year ago
Sure are alot of petro co. debunkers here wonder why, after demonstrating his automobile that crossed the country on water he was snuffed out (Now this is just something I read so can not back it up with fact at this point) but if it doesn't work why would the Government even be interested hummmmm. this apparently slipped by the propaganda/sensership guys and aired oops someone was in hot water.
myteepatriot 1 year ago
Oh, dear god. The commenters are already blaming the government for restricting the usage of a fake technology.
SingularlyDatarific 1 year ago
"Combines the ATOMIC POWER OF HYDROGEN with the stability of water"
/facepalm
Fox, this is just embarrassing. Even more than usual.
SingularlyDatarific 1 year ago 5
What BS. This guy is a con man and Fox fell for it.
TaterGumfries 1 year ago 2
Jesus, Fox news is a load of crap. Forgot to mention the only slightly important fact that the energy comes from electricity. and I like how they say 'the flame feels only slightly warm to the touch' go on, show me douch bag
newzealandnick 1 year ago 2
@newzealandnick You do realize that local Fox26 is part of Fox Broadcasting and Not Fox News, which is a completely different part of Newscorp, right? Or are you retarded?
itachi705 1 year ago
@itachi705 and fox news is part of ??? Fox Broadcasting.... nice, thanks for putting me straight.
newzealandnick 1 year ago
@newzealandnick Hey retard, Fox News and Fox Broadcasting are two completely different entities. They're both owned by Newscorp, but FNC isn't in anyway owned by Fox Broadcasting. Dumbass.
itachi705 1 year ago
@itachi705 whatever fatty, you are so lame
newzealandnick 1 year ago
@newzealandnick I'll take that as a confession that you don't know shit. You're probably some fat shit projecting your own fatness onto others. LOL you're from Ireland, typical you wouldn't know shit about how Newscorp works. Have fun getting bailed out, dipshit.
itachi705 1 year ago
@itachi705 actually I was referring to your chubby little digits in your video playing the keyboard
newzealandnick 1 year ago
Holy crap, this is amazing!
scott231us 1 year ago
iraq dont have water.....
diapysik 1 year ago
LIGHTSABER?
Jake000500 1 year ago
The oil vampires have this stuff silenced or put in wacky hobby categories, well gotta go and put some more gasoline in the ol dinosaur.!
jjpeterson1 1 year ago
Salmmiak is fully right. People believe this nonsense for two reasons:
1) they lack basic education
2) they want to believe in the easy yet impossible for not having to face the difficulties of the possible
caspareisermann 1 year ago
Please people, please for the love of god learn some basic chemistry. All this is, is electrolysis of water. Its really not very practical at all (read about "hydrogen economy"). He's using/wasting energy (electricity) to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen can then be used as a fuel. The process USES MORE electrical energy than he gets back from the hydrogen gas. It would be far more practical and energy conserving to use the electricity for an electric vehicle or hybri
clairishe 1 year ago 34
@clairishe video . google . com/videoplay?docid=871102105173074920#
GooGobbler113 1 year ago
@clairishe ppf u think ur so smart y not u patent a something like that?? gosh comment in ur head
coilsinamotor 1 year ago
@clairishe What if you use part of the immense heat generated by the gas that is created from electrolysis to generate more electricity (heat up air like a jet engine)? Fact remains that you will need far more electricity to create the heat that HHO does.
manganificent 1 year ago
@clairishe
Sounds more like physics, but I see your point.
Energy output never exceeds what is put in.
sciences8 1 year ago
@clairishe Not quite the point guy. Perhaps you can dispute and trash Stan Meyers water car as well? The bottom line is we do not need oil based products anymore. Havent for decades. THATS the point. I know "basic chem" I also know... you know what its a waste of time to try and argue with people like you.
ejflex 1 year ago
@clairishe yup, H2O as fuel would only be useful if we made some crucial steps many years ago. If we used solar/thermal technology, stock of hydrogen gas could be used to power once the sun goes down.
boardrfolif3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@clairishe read ny comment and then remove your foot from your ass
rogerrain1 1 year ago
@clairishe bla bla bla, he's not wasting electricity at all, this gas has very important uses, its not over unity, however the alternator wasn't invented when this technology came out, which pretty much fucks your maths with this whole concept, and then there are duel battery systems,duel alternator systems ect ect. Its allso possible to blow your house up with this gas and leave no trace of explosive residue. Forget efficiency, the gas has too many important uses, neutralizing nuclear waste...!
MrSquidDick 1 year ago
@clairishe You're half right... if you use the electricity made by wind or solar power directly to break down water without storing it, it is a good idea. However just plugging this thing into the wall is a bad idea like you say. I don't understand the title though... H2O2 is hydrogen peroxide.
waynerd23 9 months ago
@clairishe...if you used solar panels or wind generators then it would cost nothing to make it.
wetweasel56 8 months ago
@clairishe I guess you missed the part where he said "our very unique electrolysis process" that would suggest that his method might be slightly different from using more electrical energy than it gets back from hydrogen.
squashedmike 4 months ago
The man that invented IS DEAD HE WAS KILLED OF JUST LIKE MOST OF THE ORHER PEOPLE WHO FIND OUT IMPORTANT THINGS THAT COULD BENIFIT OUR WORLD RIP WATER DUDE
IAbominator 1 year ago
Hydrogen Peroxide is "H2O2"
this is "HHO", witch is Hydrogen+Hydrogen+Oxygen.
fhfg4 1 year ago 28
@fhfg4 waters an easier way of saying HHO
EpicXXProductions 1 year ago
Man I was hoping for a cool video with 100% H202 and an organic...oh well.
death11284 9 months ago
@fhfg4 What is H2O4?
pmarceau 7 months ago
why the f arnt we funding this but have to go with that assholes obama care
victorme1 1 year ago
this was uploaded in 2006??? WTF??? why arent we doing this now???
djmarkcotter 1 year ago
Where is it now? Was this a just some wank news?
voon100 1 year ago
Excellent, excellent,excellent. Don't sell out to the government. Launch it for yourself a private enterprise.
moesez1 1 year ago
Fuck the government. We would have this engine in our cars right now if it weren't for them Illuminati basterds.
DylanVidz 1 year ago
@DylanVidz Splitting water molecules requires more energy then you get out of it. and energy doesn't really "grow on trees".
salmmiak 1 year ago
The "Government" and "Big Oil" bought this DEVINE inventer off? Did "They" also buy-off his (obvious) primary invester/backer Elvis (alive and well... "Thank-you...thank-you very much!")? Beam me up Scotty...
zzgizz01 1 year ago
This one of the most AMAZING (?!) videos I've yet encountered ! @skepticoz Aren't you also AMAZED at the "tek-no-logy" that enlightenes us backward thinkers to a CHEMICAL reaction which yields temperatures greater than the "the surface of the sun"? ASTOUNDING!!! Not to mention the capacity to disassociate molecular bonds then reduplicate them with a net GAIN in energy! WOW!!! This beyond GENIUS, it is...DEVINE! And to think, all this from a jug of...water! WHEW...I'm humbled. - §:|€
zzgizz01 1 year ago
The Government paid this guy a fat amount of cash NOT to further his research. It would crush the economy... apparently...
Mugen123456789 1 year ago
Now that's awesome! There are some smart people still out there. Bet he never had any college education...probably just a science whiz!
illicitdolphin 1 year ago
It's fun to come to these threads to see who failed basic physics.
TaintedMojo 1 year ago
Wonder what happened to Klein? He was bought out and his company Aguygen Gas, is now being run by folks tied to the Government and the oil industry who assert that this technology is only an “evolutionary, not revolutionary, [product which] utilizes the time-tested technology of the internal combustion engine while improving the performance of that technology”. The only good thing to report is that they didn’t kill Mr. Klein, just his invention. I hope it was worth whatever they paid him.
socalsal627 1 year ago
The water is BP Gulf of Mexico water - laced with petroleum - thats how the car is able to run! - Obviously I'm kidding. Drive on water car!
richinator 1 year ago
The only reason he is working with the govt is so they can take the patten and refuse to use it for anything useful other than war. Gas ? Even most of brazil is on ethonal and they are a 3rd world country.
360atGOD 1 year ago
please send me the formula to use it my self
beartats420 1 year ago
Interesting, I wonder if he used sea water.
djabrams1 1 year ago
Omg trolls are trolling again. Happy Trol Day!
cama9103 1 year ago
Well some people might not take this properly but I do. I am for one profound at the results our technology can surpass. If many would stop being so close minded they would see the brilliance of this video.
sarabeth1410 1 year ago
This is real...so are the dark money-hungry sources of the lies surrounding this and other "New Energy" technologi
musician1955 1 year ago
funny how this video has been up since 2006 and only 150k views -_-
metaphysikz101 1 year ago
@metaphysikz101
"Only 150K"...plenty enough for me....PEACE!
musician1955 1 year ago
@metaphysikz101 Do you really believe Google and Youtube don't manipulate the numbers to supress certain types of data or promote Miley Cyrus videos and the like. Corporations pay them to manipulate how information is perceived. It is called mind control and is how power players have been doing business since prehistory. It's good to know if you are cattle and if you are headed for the slaughterhouse. At least then, you might think to escape your prison.
1qreus 1 year ago
@1qreus lol ummm....ok and u felt the need to say all that because?????
metaphysikz101 1 year ago
@metaphysikz101 Nevermind, you made my point. Moo!
1qreus 1 year ago
@1qreus Don't make assumptions, you don't know me and you don't know what i know. As a matter of fact I'm sure that what you are learning today I knew yesterday.
metaphysikz101 1 year ago 2
So he patented water?
EmperorOfMars 1 year ago
Basically, it runs on ELECTRICITY.
VCat2006 1 year ago
Water (H2O) + electricity. Not hydrogen peroxide (H2O2).
VCat2006 1 year ago
listen, i do apologise for sinking to your level, by resorting to petty namecalling.
however if you would like to look up thunderbolts of the gods, part one on youtube, you may actually find some education on current scientific findings, findings which call into question a vast amount of what has been up until now, known science and scientific 'laws'
it is said that one cannot educate pork, however due to recent revelations, that may not prove correct and that you may actually learn something
whackitov 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"i do apologise for sinking to your level, by resorting to petty namecalling."
Yeah? Well sticks and stones may brake my bones, but names will never hurt me. Didn't your mummy ever tell you that? I couldn't give a rats bum what you call me quite frankly. What I resent more than anything, is willful dishonesty and devious tactics. I pay a price for being vigilantly honest and forthright, about my desire to understand nature. People who claim to know better are expected to be reasonable.
skepticoz 1 year ago
Thanks for the info. I might check that out sometime. Now how about responding to the barrage of unresolved issues you already have floating in your wake? I have already pointed out your tactic of of forcing the onus of defense onto the opponent. Repeatedly ignoring my numerous previous retorts and the unanswered questions, but instead trying to press ME for justifications of things which aren't in contention, AGAIN, only cements my point that you will not be held to account for YOUR OWN claims.
skepticoz 1 year ago
"i do apologise for sinking to your level, by resorting to petty namecalling."
Yeah? Well sticks and stones may brake my bones, but names will never hurt me. Didn't your mummy ever tell you that? I couldn't give a rats bum what you call me quite frankly. What I resent more than anything, is willful dishonesty and devious tactics. I pay a price for being vigilantly honest and forthright, about my desire to understand nature. People who claim to know better are expected to be reasonable.
skepticoz 1 year ago
Reposted for good measure, owing to the actions of some pathetic fucking coward, who, rather than replying, with forthright sincerity and intellectual honesty, has been marking some of my posts as spam. Nice one asshole!!
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz woah! now that was a lightening response, 3 weeks!!
brake is spelled break btw.
however, i do know better, im aware of what is happening on the frontiers of science, not sticking doggedly to outdated thinking.
dont blame me for the spam flags, i like people to see you making a dufus of yourself, why would i want to hide it????
and how about willfull dishonesty, you watched any of the links??? heres another, look up casimir effect, thats the law of conservation busted AGAIN
whackitov 1 year ago
@skepticoz lmfao!! you remind me of that guy off the 'Big Bang Theory' im sure you know the one. its the nerd that no one likes. hahaha
studman0614 1 year ago
@studman0614
There a millions of people who LOVE Sheldon. So... ¨Thank you kind sir. You flatter me. - Sheldon. Big Bang Theory.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@ septictosser just looked up skepticoz on wiki, seems they got your number, it must be true, its on wikipedia
FPMSL
whackitov 1 year ago
@whackjob
Thanks again for demonstrating AGAIN that as a creatard, you have only have empty rhetoric and no substance whatsoever. Since you have no evidence and comprehend no reasoning skills, your attempt to do any kind of debate will necessarily consist on this childish ad hominem attack style, that perpetually avoids defending the claims you have made. You necessarily WONT defend your own ideas with rational reasoning and evidence because you have no reason nor evidence; only self delusion.
skepticoz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"just looked up skepticoz on wiki, seems they got your number, it must be true, its on wikipedia"
Well I have no Idea what you are talking about, as skepticoz is only my username on youtube. What are you trying to prove anyhow? Can you do anything other than make oblique innuendos without giving away exactly what you are alluding to?
I don't think so. Why? Because you're FULL OF SHIT! By wasting your time trying to dig up some dirt on me to use as ammunition, you're demonstrating my point.
skepticoz 1 year ago
That's enough about me let's talk about YOU! So let's recap on YOUR claims and the oustanding questions YOU have left unanswered:
A) How do you manage to violate the second law of thermodynamics with over unity? (NB: by not being a scientist is not an answer) I.E. Is it magic (supernatural) or do you think the second law is somehow mistaken?
B) What is it about that lame ass video of electric motors plugged into multi-meters that convinces you that somebody has overturned the laws of physics?
skepticoz 1 year ago
On that point you have said "....if a japanese electrical engineer says his motor is producing 70% more energy than its using...im inclined to believe it, seeing as it there for all to see"
What we are SEEing proves absolutely nothing and the revolution in the laws of physics this would portend (if it were true) would eclipse the Einsteinian paradigm shift of relativity and send unprecedented shock-waves through the physics community. The second law is about as irrevocable as they get.
skepticoz 1 year ago
C) The reference I made to Wikipedia to illustrate the widespread prevalence of knowledge about browns gas and how similar Klien's claims are to the article, has been repeatedly used by you as an artifact of infantile derision. You have repeatedly scorned the reference on the grounds that Wikipedia isn't guaranteed to be accurate, even tough I have repeatedly refuted this as irrelevant and hypocritical. Just for starters, the point I was making is not pivotal on the accuracy of the article.
skepticoz 1 year ago
The article in question like any other article in Wikipedia (or anywhere else for that matter), can stand on it's own merit. The protocol in any reasonable debate is to volunteer as much documentary reference to support your claim as you need to make the point. If you actually had any particular reason to suspect that this particular article is inaccurate, then you are quite welcome to challenge the specific point. You haven't put your cards on the table and claimed this article is inaccurate.
skepticoz 1 year ago
This point illustrates the rhetorical sophist, creationist style of debate, because it avoids specific matters of fact (which would need to be defended with evidence and reason), while also attempting to force the onus of defense back onto the opponent. The accusation that my source may not be perfectly reliable is irrelevant as no source is GUARANTEED to be reliable and the reference is only given, to be taken at face value. The possibility of inaccuracy, doesn't invalidate it by default.
skepticoz 1 year ago
So that would actually make D) Do you actually think the article in question (the one I referenced) actually IS incorrect / inaccurate and why? If we can't establish this, then the objection is spurious and irrelevant at best.
And... E) Why don't you directly face the specific facts in question and stop trying to score rhetorical hits, with devious irrelevant innuendos? (good honest answers might include "I lack reasoning skills" and "my claims disagree with the massive abundance of evidence")
skepticoz 1 year ago
F) AGAIN, I point out the fact that it is only BECAUSE I have provided any references for you to criticize at all, that you can even attempt to fabricate this rhetorical aspersion about Wikipedia that you seem prone to defiantly repeating ad nauseum. Each time you do so, you completely disregard every point I have made about your criticism's lack of relevance and it's devious approach to the avoidance and aversion of facts. But look at YOUR litany of claims for which you provide NO reference:
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz to direct you to the exact video, so that you dont get lost in the maze see Steorn's Orbo Electromagnetic Interaction COP is greater than 1
follow the trail neo!
whackitov 1 year ago
@skepticoz see the above comment, learn something, then get back to me.
whackitov 1 year ago
@skepticoz take a little dive into metatrons cube, meditate on this for a little while and revelation may actually occur, however, i seriously doubt it
and B. try looking up steorn orbo, which explains and demonstrates how the coefficient of performance can indeed be greater than one....then you may get back to me and call yourself a mentally siezed and dysfunctional dickhead
whackitov 1 year ago
Comment removed
whackitov 1 year ago
Right so on one hand I have what appears to be water tight laws of nature, that remain formidable in terms of observed empirical evidence and more importantly, as an inevitable logical consequence, of a priori, axiomatic reasoning. On the other and I have a person who claims that watching videos will demonstrate these laws being violated. What I see though is NOT such a demonstration, even taken at face value (assuming what's claimed - no tricks) the demonstration fails as a test of the claims.
skepticoz 1 year ago
Yet I am actually a dickhead because I have been estimating the plausibility of the second law and conservation of energy in accordance with all the available evidence and the inevitable consequence of logical reasoning. But when I view these mind boggling videos and have the same epiphany of enlightenment that you are blessed with, but which appears to be the zealous unreasoned brain fart of a deluded moron, I should return and report myself as a "mentally siezed and dysfunctional dickhead" Oh!
skepticoz 1 year ago
Well good luck with that, but I doubt that I'll ever feel inclined to interpret my habit of favoring the most parsimonious explanation and holding my provisional conclusions accountable to Occam's Razor as the actions of a dysfunctional dickhead. As for 'mentally seized' er.. You're basing this on what precisely? I have a very proud history of standing corrected when shown to be wrong with cogent reasoning. And just what have you shown apart from arrogance? surely not an understanding of nature!
skepticoz 1 year ago
Now clearly no video ever has any hope, of demonstrating conclusive evidence of any principal (controversial or otherwise) unless you are willing to take the presenter/producer at their word that the apparatus being used is not doctored or the video edited to produce deceptive results. That's not an accusation, but the reason why real experiments go to such lengths to establish test conditions that can be disputed and falsified, is in the interests of transparency & independent reproducibility.
skepticoz 1 year ago
Nevertheless I am watching keenly and what I am looking for, is the over riding factor that the presenters may explain HOW this works and WHY it should logically be expected. I.E. If it isn't supernatural (magic) and there is a logical reason WHY the laws of physics are suspended in these particular conditions, then I would expect the presenters to draw a chain of inference by describing cause and effect relationships, that logically replace the laws they appear to contradict with new reasoning.
skepticoz 1 year ago
I am only half way through so far, but the obfuscation seems to be accumulating and the overly technical oscilloscope displays etc, are not necessary to demonstrate over-unity. Assuming no fraud, only a watt meter on the input, & one on the output, would (at a minimum) be needed demonstrate that OU seems to be occurring. The explanation of the principal is the context of the using the CROs to demonstrate the interpretation of the wave forms. A conjurer knows embellishing is a key to deception.
skepticoz 1 year ago
The most amazing thing thus far has been the lack of amazement and technical curiosity in the audience at @ 5:50 on the third video when he called for questions. You have to be kidding! These people aren't physicists or electrical engineers and probably have very little appreciation of the technical aspects of the wave analysis and I would posit the whole demo is pitched to go well over their head. They cant appreciate the gravity or HOW fundamentally our understanding of nature would change.
skepticoz 1 year ago
By this time I have dozens of questions, like: How do you get the back EMF to disappear? How are those toroids orientated? Is their Inductance value critical in the principal that eliminates the back EMF? etc, etc. Then we find out at the end of this video that this guy actually has no ultimate explanation of how this works. He is asked if it is zero point energy and can't say for sure (that hardly seems like a trick question) as there is no 'zero point energy meter'.
skepticoz 1 year ago
But if you understand the fundamental principals behind the machine, then the question is not an empirical one. You know what zero point energy is and you understand the fundamental principals of how and why your machine overcomes conservation of energy laws. It follows then that you must be able to explain the logic and causative chain which leads to this unique situation. The straight answer to this question should follow from knowledge of the principals. No empirical tests should be needed.
skepticoz 1 year ago
So at this point we have a few red lights on. There is an overtly technical demonstration, for a docile non-technical audience, a pretense of transparency where none could ultimately be afforded, some emerging pseudo-science in that elimination of back EMF is given as part of the causative reason, but no actual methodology is explained (so far) to account for the missing back EMF. Finally, the fundamental principals are inferred to be AWOL. (so it's magic then?) It's not looking too good so far.
skepticoz 1 year ago
I may have to recant what I said about the docility of the audience some what. They seemed far more docile in the first few questions. Apparently it was more like awkward passive avoidance of a confrontation. There were some more pointed questions in the next video, but unfortunately none about the way the fundamental principals can be explained in terms of thermodynamic law and causative exceptions in principal, nor HOW the back EMF is vanished in the practical application.
skepticoz 1 year ago
Now the most significant question was the one about the battery as obviously the device demonstrates absolutely nothing whatsoever, if it can't use It's own surplus of energy to power it's own motion. That is the essential basic requirement of a perpetual motion (unity) engine. If this is not achieved then the whole demonstration is futile. The convenient excuse of needing a particular 'shape' of current is pathetic mambo-jumbo bullshit. Even if it's true, it's still not a demonstrated result.
skepticoz 1 year ago
Finally the last video demonstrates some obscure irrelevant nonsense, that fails to account for the failure of the lack of causative explanation, the lack of reconciliation with known physics and the failure to physically demonstrate an affirmative result. It looks like a bit of pseudo-technical fluff making a pretense at resolving some minor but valid technical objection, that would otherwise present as a hitch. As if to say: "So now we've cleared that up, it's finally proven our magic motor".
skepticoz 1 year ago
But never mind. Obviously you can explain in detail how & why this suffices as a perfectly valid logically consistent demonstration of over unity power. The onus isn't on me to explain why over unity isn't not true anyhow, it's on you to explain how this set of videos actually demonstrated it. Even if no other scam occurred, it's pointless putting this all on a glass table and proclaiming the effort to simplify as a precaution against potential cheating, as the thing runs on a fucking battery.
skepticoz 1 year ago
I really don't know why I am spending the time to entertain your deluded little brain farts whackjob, you still haven't responded to my request for clarification about where scientists published their overt declarations that they have DISCOVERED or proved that the world is flat. I thought that was just one of many naive assumptions of primitive cultures, like the Sumerians who might I add, you seem to think knew MORE than modern humans, at a time that something which didn't make sense happened.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz cool story bro, why dont you write a book on how many flaws are in this guys idea. Instead of bashing the guy, maybe you should make something better?
thricegod1288 1 year ago
¨why dont you write a book on how many flaws are in this guys idea.¨
One answer is, that fools wont read books that might contradict their prejudice or afford them an education. In any case it would be a short book, as the second law is all that needs to be said: The entropy of an isolated system may never decrease. But to generalize for open systems, you cant get more energy out than is put in. You cant make a jar out of which you can get more jellybeans, than are put in either. Same thing.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz You intelligence seems to be incontrovertible so why breath, type and press your opinion on fools who yet understand your ingénues abilities please I will continue to read your comments for you are very entertaining but why give them your patrons the presence of enjoyment by increasing your idiocy and decreasing your brilliance take the time to realize most of these fools arent worthy of your knowledge From one kind mind to the other
sarabeth1410 1 year ago
¨Instead of bashing the guy, maybe you should make something better? ¨
To the extent that this device works, NOTHING would, ´be better´ (infinite free energy. Seriously!? - only immortality could be better. To the extent that it doesnt work, nothing WOULD, be better. It dosnt work, so removing the device & using the energy it consumes directly WOULD be better. Returning any money fraudulently scammed out of investors WOULD also be better. Fraud is FRAUD, not the next best thing to nothing.
skepticoz 1 year ago
Comment removed
sarabeth1410 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thricegod1288 @thricegod1288 close minded individuals such as yourself do not yet have the theroy of brilliance down henceforth you lack any knowlegde of such do not be offended by others comments take them as more of a means to support my theory :)
sarabeth1410 1 year ago
Gads, here we go again. A solution to all our energy needs... only they conveniently ignore thehuge powerplant over the hill that supplies all the electricity to allow them to split water in the first place. Running a car on it, gee, that's brilliant... why not just have an electric car and save all the bother, but of course that needs the powerplant over the hill, too. People only see what they want to see...
kiminicooper1 1 year ago
its a joke is it? i have a vawt wind turbine, homebuilt for £200, it produces 10kw of power, completely free after the initial cost, which runs my oxyhydro system.....for FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
disinform that one :)
whackitov 1 year ago
@whackitov What is a joke, is the spurious assertions that this alternative source of fuel can be produced in a CLOSED system and create more energy than it uses for production. The nuggets of truth, are in the claims that browns gas, may be used to improve the efficiency of a regular car engine (i.e. by improving the combustion). If instead, you claim that you can use that fuel to run a generator to split hydro/oxy from water, efficiently enough to power the generator, it's perpetual motion.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz if a closed system produces more energy than it needs to run itself, providng excess energy which can be used elsewhere, then it is overunity
ive added a video response....if a japanese electrical engineer says his motor is producing 70% more energy than its using...im inclined to believe it, seeing as it there for all to see
whackitov 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"if a closed system produces more energy than it needs to run itself, providng excess energy which can be used elsewhere, then it is overunity"
If a system produces more energy than it requires to run, then it is over unity and perpetual motion (and a violation of hitherto immutable laws of physics, that contradicts the most fundamental understandings of nature), but if you can get energy from it, then by definition it's not closed. A closed system must have no energy going in or coming out.
skepticoz 1 year ago
Comment removed
whackitov 1 year ago
@skepticoz look up also if you will, steorn orto, a little more education that may still miss your sub atomic grey particle
whackitov 1 year ago
I can't help wondering why, the second law of thermodynamics and the vigilantly peer reviewed Wikipedia, seem less credible to you than an-untested (double blind controlled standards please), uncorroborated, un-peer reviewed claim by what sounds like (yet another) free energy huckster. Could it be that you don't actually understand the second law, nor why is reputedly so merciless? I am fascinated no end to see how a youtube video will establish irrefutable proof of an over unity generator.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz peer review? who are the peers? do i know them? would they be of the same educational standard as the scientists who firmly insisted that the earth was flat?? hmmm? esteemed gentlemen of unquestionable intellect hmm? i care not for scientists 'laws' they are simply theories until they are proven wrong. darwin was wrong and even regreted ever making his statement,
yet 'scientists' ( or egoic entities) still insist the evolution theory stands, for fear of admitting they were mistaken
whackitov 1 year ago
AGAIN you rush for irrelevant derision and ignore my valid criticism that REGARDLESS of whether the specific article is correct, I was not relying on it's accuracy to make the point I was making. ANYBODY can check to see if the general knowledge of browns gas was widespread. You DON'T NEED to rely on the authority, prestige or intellect of the Wikipedia editing public to understand the point I was making. These are eminently checkable and rather mundane matters, of a non-controversial nature.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz the point about browns gas is not that it cannot run an internal combustion engine, but rather that the amount of electricity required to produce hho would be better placed in an electric vehicle, it doesnt say anywhere that it cannot power an internal combustion engine, which it obviously can.
and the count of fraud was on the claim of overunity, so maybe its not overunity, maybe its not an efficient use of the gas, but neither is drilling for oil an energy efficient process
whackitov 1 year ago
"the point about browns gas is not that it cannot run an internal combustion engine"
And where did you get the idea that I was attempting to make any claim that this fuel can't be used to run an internal combustion engine? That is neither a point I attempted to make, nor is it relevant in any obvious way.
skepticoz 1 year ago
"and the count of fraud was on the claim of overunity, so maybe its not overunity, maybe its not an efficient use of the gas, but neither is drilling for oil an energy efficient process"
Now, where did I claim that drilling for oil is a better alternative? The point I raised about efficiency was SPECIFICALLY to address the over unity implication by pointing out than no system (even a perfectly thermodynamically closed one) is more than 100% efficient and that is what over unity implies.
skepticoz 1 year ago
I REPEAT: Casting aspersions on Wikipedia doesn't refute the point I was making, even if it did depend on the accuracy of the content. It's really just a cheap shot, to disparage a person's source, if their quote is accurate and point well made. The point was how abundant common knowledge about browns gas is and how freakishly similar the article.
Now if you wish to grow some balls & actually question the point of issue, instead of this piss weak circuitous rhetoric, that's another thing.
skepticoz 1 year ago
"peer review? who are the peers? do i know them?"
You don't have to know somebody for them to hold your feet to the fire. look at me for instance, I don't know you and that's not going to stop me from trampling your bullshit into the mud. It's nothing personal that's just the way it is. The point you continue to ignore is that truth doesn't rest on authority. There are a great many things that neither you nor I rely on each others authority to establish. That's the whole point of peer review.
skepticoz 1 year ago
"would they be of the same educational standard as the scientists who firmly insisted that the earth was flat??"
Now, it's not that I wish to dispute this point, but I wonder if you might kindly point out the published articles, in mainstream scientific research journals or such credible sources, where educated scientists went out of their way offer testimony against prevailing evidence to the contrary for a flat earth? Are you talking about this earth? In the solar system in our Milky Way?
skepticoz 1 year ago
"i care not for scientists 'laws'" The laws I am talking about don't 'belong' to scientists. If you wish to test if any of them are applicable to you, might I suggest you step off the rooftop of a high rise building? Such an experiment could not only establish the 'law' of gravity as applied to delusional beings, but also the persistence of chemical bonding that most of us rely on for solid matter and to avoid plummeting through the earths surface into a fiery lake of lava. That's just a theory.
skepticoz 1 year ago
"they are simply theories until they are proven wrong."
Wouldn't be a creationist fucktard by any chance would ya? Is that Kent Hovinds poo stuck on the end of your nose? Where else do we learn to use the word 'theory' as a deliberately pointed synonym for 'speculative conjecture'. So what's your point and where are you going with this retarded shit? How about making some logical connections and reaching a conclusion. So science is fallible and... so anything goes? Nature is lawless.. or what?
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz the fact that we have a dna structure that is not replicated ANYWHERE else in nature, including primates,blows a huge fucking hole in the evolutionist fucktards 'theory'. ive never heard of kent hovind...who is he?
i tend to more believe the historical data recorded by the sumerians, who happened to be there at the time, rather that the historians who are merely playing jigsaws but without all the pieces
whackitov 1 year ago
@whackjob What the fuck are you on about? You didn't come here to push a criticism of evolution and I didn't come here to defend it. Now HOW is it that I am being called into the witness stand as the defendant? OH that's right you're a creationist moron and your only means of defense is to establish a perfunctory attack in some perverse effort to imply If am wrong about evolution (because you can make endless assertions), you must be right about free energy. How about justifying your own claims?
skepticoz 1 year ago
"the fact that we have a dna structure that is not replicated ANYWHERE else in nature, including primates,blows a huge fucking hole in the evolutionist fucktards 'theory'... "
And the scare quotes around 'theory' are for who's benefit? I have already pointed out that you are misusing the word to imply a synonym with 'speculative conjecture'. I also went to the effort of pointing out that in the scientific context gravity is also a theory. Want a bet that that is only speculative conjecture?
skepticoz 1 year ago
"the fact that we have a dna structure"
What do you mean by "...a dna structure..." Are you talking about the the double helix? No that's universal. Is it the sugar phosphate back bone. No that's universal to all living organisms. Is it the particular order of bases to encode for each amino acid? No. Universal again. Is it that the amino acids them self are unique in us, by comparison to the ones that other life forms have? No not that either? Could it be a load of crap you are regurgitating?
skepticoz 1 year ago
Er... Yeah! that last one about the crap does seem quite plausible at the moment. But instead of making me play 20 questions, perhaps you could make your contribution at least resemble a tentatively honest one by, I dunno, giving some reference maybe. I promise I won't do what you did and scoff at the authority of the source and dismiss it out of hand on the basis of an irrelevant rhetorical ad hominem. I would want to look at the actual evidence, for the actual point. and address the substance.
skepticoz 1 year ago
You see how cheap and easy it is, to make vague unsubstantiated claims like this that nobody can refute because you don't provide enough information to establish exactly what is being claimed or what evidence, research or reasoning supports it. It will no doubt be complete fabricated shit like the myriad number of other creation claims and the dead give away is that you avoid giving enough information (without prying) to hold the claim up to clear light in the first instance.
skepticoz 1 year ago
The cheap and easy throw away claims that are constantly being manufactured by the creationist canard mill, are only one side of the insidious ploy though, because, as you demonstrate, a forthright and honest approach providing optimal transparency can be exploited as a weakness, as you attempted to do, by casting aspersions on my sources and questioning their authority. You don't even make unambiguous claims, let alone quote sources to even check the authenticity of a claim. Just sooo, gutless.
skepticoz 1 year ago