There are poor people in the Ukraine and politically oppressed women in Iran. This does not change the way chemistry works. There are many people who die in the Gaza strip. This does not change the way physics works. Drug dealers shoot each other on the streets of Los Angeles. Such doesn't mean they have "repressed technology."

The logical fallicy at work is either argumentum ad phobium or argumentum ad misericordiam, depending on whether one wishes to frighten us into agreeing or to appeal to our pity.

There are many people in China who are without a job now. Does the Chinese government hide Stan's "miracle technology" from the people in order to stay in power? (Note well, the Chinese leaders are disparate to find jobs for the citizens in order to stave off civil unrest.) Why doen'st China flood Western markets with free energy technology if such really exists?

Stan's "technology" is not being repressed. Stan's "technology" is like the Piltdown Man, the Hitler Diaries, the Cardiff Giant, or the Fiji Mermaid.

Psyplants, you are either a scam artist yourself, or you are one of their victims. Since you have asked us for money, which category should we place you in?

 

ok maybe one day in a while you are going to see the water car in front you and you are going to realize its possible. you are going to see the all world as you know change a lot.
hope life be great to you.

 

I mean with the nuclear reaction that... there is a lot of energy inside the atoms we just need to learn better ways to extract it from there safely and with no radiation.

i know mark if you decrease mass you get more Energy. Stan talked also about this if you takes off 4 electrons of each oxygen atom do you know by what factor you decrease its mass? and what if you can really shake the atoms with the high voltage and magnetics, lasers... and obtain a very bigger reaction out of the combustion even if is just in thermal energy, you could not use the water droplets coming out from the motor and use it for expand it into vapor again controlling the temperature, transforming hot in kinetics and more pressure efficiency ? how many electrons are 1 amp/h? how many oxygen atoms you have in one liter of water? just food for thought...

What I said was in reply to your statement about energy not being conserved in cold fusion. Taking four electrons from an oxygen atom is not a nuclear reaction; I seem to remember it being called a chemical reaction. The mass of an electron is a tiny fraction of that of a proton (or neutron), with a proton being about 1837 times as large as that of an electron.

Your question about how much mass is lost in taking four electrons from an oxygen atom is pretty easy to answer: 0. The electrons are still around, just not in one of the shells of the oxygen atom. This is very different from a nuclear reaction, in which the mass of the original nucleus changes and the difference becomes an equivalent amount of energy.

 

ok maybe one day in a while you are going to see the water car in front you and you are going to realize its possible.

Even that won't be enough for me. The only thing which will convince me is what I (and others) have already asked for: demonstrate a return to bad mileage on a hydrolizer-equipped car by turning off the hydrolizer. No one in the whole freaking world has been able to do that! Why not?

 

I read this thread, and, I must say, it is entertaining.

Here's what I've seen for "Demonstrations" of "Zero Point Energy", "Overunity", and the like.

I'll run down a few of them with synopsis of what was left out or ignored in measurments

• Video on UTube, guy puts a big copper stake in the ground and a whole bunch of metal on the roof, with a multimeter in between the two. Shows voltage appearing, and "Viola! Free Energy!". -- When you turn on your radio, how does sound come out of the speaker? What was built was simply a giant broadband antenna connected to ground (similar to an old Crystal radio). The antenna "gathered voltage" from many transmitting stations, ending up with a millivolt or two in total. extremely low current. "But if I get more money for a larger array,.." - Bigger/more antennas. This is basically Tesla's idea - Radio Transmission, not power transmission. Those hundreths/thou/millionths of a volt are produced from numerous transmitters, expending 5kW to 1 Million Watts, and not even 100% efficiently! Free Energy? No. "Zero Point/Background Energy?" No. "Earth magnetic Field Energy?" No. Receiving radio signals without decoding them - Yes.
• Basically ALL HHO Systems. aka "Brown's Gas", although that term is shunned, since this is "DIFFERENT" HHO! This inventor, prior to Stanley Meyer ripped off several welding companies with the "demonstrator unit", and welding. The gas was found to burn much cooler than welding gasses, and was difficult to control. The MAJOR factor that led the inventors to believe they were acheiving "overunity" was by measuing either voltage or current. NOT POWER. These companies sued him silly once they received their REAL electric bill from the utility company. The usual "trick" is to crank up the voltage so current is "gone". 10,000 volts at 100 μA = 1 Watt. 50Amps at 20milliVolts = 1 Watt. In every video I've seen, the inventors are measuring Voltage and Current with Analog (d'Arsonoval) Panel meters, or with a cheapo Digital multimeter. In the analog case, the meters themselves could show an error of 2x overunity, while drawing power to display the value. When No-Name DMMs are shown, their accuracy is usually around +-5mV or +-5mA. No real way to to get an accurate measurement (3-6+ calibrated significant digits +- 1) with that equipment. So, when the inventors state that over $100,000 was spent on research (usually rare materials, palladium, titanium, etc), they couldn't spend $5k on measuring equipment, which, when trying to achieve "Over Unity", I would think measuring equipment should be the FIRST Priority. Anybody around "In The Know" have an idea about why they aren't at least using Fluke 87 meters for "the show"?
• Meyers - Breaking water apart: The video where "The Majik Cell" is bubbling madly is simply due to a large amount of power, and for a brief time. The "buggy" video is a hoax (as given later by the videographer I believe). The other "Water Car" (Fuel Cell - Water -> Electricty) was a compact car that appeared empty, but the rear shocks were bottomed out from what can only be battery weight, as all the "working parts" were where the engine was in front. Again, in all of these, usually either current in/out or voltage in/out is shown but Never BOTH at the same time, since it would "Reveal the secret". Think about it: If you were to put meters on a cell phone to show how much power was used, would that tell everybody in the world how to bulid one?
• Spinning Magnets: The overunity crowd seems to hold magnets as magical as they were when we were 5 years old. To a religious extent. All demonstrations I've seen involving harnessing magnetic energy started with "The Device" Spinning rapidly. It is never mentioned how it achieved the speed it is at, but the inventor goes on and on into the levitating bearings with vacuum, the super oxygen free copper with 1 micron thick varnish that will never melt or crack, and also has an insulation resistance of over 100,000 volts. All of this while pointing at the analog meters of the amperage being produced. With sufficient mass on a flywheel, strong magnets, and good winding, yes, you can make a motor/generator that will power a 60 Watt bulb. Not for long though. The lit bulb isn't shown for more than a minute in the videos I've seen (assuming there isn't a bit of extra circutry in the bulb base, but from seeing the rest of their work, I doubt they are capable.
  

To sum up: Every "Over-Unity" or HHO device that shows even perfect efficiency (let alone > 100%), is due to measurement errors, assumptions, "prerequisites", or outright fraud, nearly all of which involve adding energy to a system prior to testing with "normal input".

On a sidenote: I read in a discussion where somebody had his "HHO Generator" nearly "perfected", and he was getting 2 liters/minute out of it on his car. It drew 20 Amps (about the same as your air conditioner). Somehow though, that crowd feels that any energy coming from the alternator is "Free". In addition, 2 liters of gas, thankfully, isn't enough to keep an average engine idling for 1 second! So, at highway speeds, each cylinder is simply getting a touch of water mist. Water mist DOES sometimes increase fuel economy, (This goes back to the 200mpg carb, before fuel injection). The way it does increase efficiency (about 5-10%, max) is from cooling the system, and confusing the O2 sensors to run the engine lean (which isn't good). So any "Real Proven Gains" are probably from the latter.

Finally, notice how nearly ALL of the "OverUnity" and free energy "Inventor Prototypes/examples" require absurd amounts of expensive materials? Some might have an effect on the system, but it is mostly to keep people from trying to make one themselves, only to find out it doesn't work.

Patents: There are hundreds of "Perpetual Motion Machines" patented. NONE of them work! A patent simply means you filled out the paperwork for a unique way of doing something. It doesn't have to work, or even EXIST.

 

Yes, well, we've been explaining just that for some time now. It never ceases to amaze that true believers drift in from time to time and blithely ignore all the evidence presented. We have had any number of threads on the topic, and I have placed a couple of critical reviews of the over-unity crew's material.

One thing that never ceases to fascinate me - the absolute precision in the increased gas mileage figure. Usually to 2 decimal places. But no other figures (other than the amount of money requires to keep the research going) ever appear. We almost beg to have some figures presented and get nothing but silence.

Of course, this is perfectly consistent with running a scam.

 

I would like to ask if any of you know how much power you need to separate 1 mol 18g of water. should be +- 33 liters of gas. i think is something like ;covalent electrons * coulombs electron / amps/h * 1,24 v (((1,20E+24*(1,602*10^-19))/3600)*1,24) +- 66 watts mol. or 2 w per liter of gas ... assuming 120 km/h with a car that have an efficiency of 20 km liter of gasoline should consume 6 liters in 1 hour. if one liter of water have 2,5 more hydrogen than gasoline and it takes 3689w/h to dissociate it should be 8854 w/h to dissociate 2,4 liter of water. if I'm not wrong. thats faraday constant if i'm not wrong so if faraday didn't used the materials and technology we have today why you could not make it possible? i know is a little hard to believe 40 watts will make 200x more energy than input like stan said but consider the decrease in mass 0,000292328 for this 2,4 litters of water. we already extracted 257,27 amps from the gas to decrease it's mass. hypothetically. How much is the energy increase by these decrease in mass? Does anyone knows relativity to enough to calculate this? E= M C ^2
C^2= E /M ??????????

EXAMPLE

if two liters per minute equals 120 liters per hour which should be +- 4 moles of water if one mole takes 66 watts to dissociate he should use at least 250 watts for that separation he is claiming if he is using 1,24 volts *20 amps equal to 25 w that should be 10 times less current than would be the minimum to do this job. i think maybe was not 1,24 volts maybe it was 12 volts which would demonstrate +- 100 % efficiency. the case is how to reuse the free electrons which are liberated from the water and ionizing system.

A long time ago was already possible to use 50 to 70% of the efficiency of the ICE by the use of a turbo and direct injection system which can reuse the 75% hot losses to preheat the combustible and get more energy from the explosion. The Ozone is more reactive than oxygen. and Future is coming

The only way to demonstrate any mileage gain is to first disconnect the battery and run only from the alternator.
and to demonstrate it can run only on water the same applies too.

 

Your first paragraph is a marvel of incoherence and unsubstianted "facts". I am particularly impressed by having

extracted 257,27 amps from the gas to decrease it's mass.

. That's a slick trick. Dr. Science would have a hard time duplicating the claim, much less the extraction.

In the example, how are you able to produce those "free electrons"? Are those the ones Meyer drew with the smiley faces?

Uh -

A long time ago was already possible to use 50 to 70% of the efficiency of the ICE by the use of a turbo and direct injection system which can reuse the 75% hot losses to preheat the combustible and get more energy from the explosion. The Ozone is more reactive than oxygen. and Future is coming

- this is incoherent. A long time ago? How long? What source have you for those efficiency claims?

Of course O3 is more reactive than O2. They even liquified some for oxidizer in a rocket motor. You really want reactive, look at fluorine. When you burn fluorine with oxygen, fluorine is the oxidizer and oxygen the fuel.

The future has been mispredicted for the last several thousand years.

Your methodology -

The only way to demonstrate any mileage gain is to first disconnect the battery and run only from the alternator.
and to demonstrate it can run only on water the same applies too.

- is wrong. You drive a set distance over the same route at a constant speed and measure the fuel consumed. Then you alter something and run the course again. Any difference in fuel consumed measures a change in mileage. Altering back to the initial condition and repeating confirms the test.

Someone stole my battery one day. I got a jump and drove the car to Sears on just the alternator. Don't think I got better mileage or did anything with water - just rode the clutch slowly at lights.

We've been waiting for anybody at all to do a witnessed test of this kind. All we hear are shills with really, really exact testaments of mileage increase, but nothing to back up their claims.

I see no circuitry or any other single thing to back up any one of your claims.

 

psyplants,

Never forget that water is a ash, not a fuel.

What are you trying to achieve? Would you like to discover access to limitless free energy? I sure hope you don't succeed. If you did, the planet would be burned to a crisp in no time at all. Someone somewhere would surely attempt such action in a "Heaven's Gate" type of operation like those comet nuts did several years ago. Or how about the religious nuts of Jim Jones? No, it is best for the planet if energy is hard to get and expensive.

Ratch

 

One more thing: Engines are built to run on something that burns rapidly. Hydrogen Explodes. Not healthy for the engine unless it is designed for H2 fuel.

Here is the info on the production BMW Hydrogen 7, Running PURE Compressed Hydrogen:

BMW's thermo-tank, specially designed to hold liquid hydrogen as well as regular gasoline, has the same diameter as the drum of a washing machine. It has a volume of 170 liters (45 gallons) and takes up half the trunk. But it can only hold eight kilograms (17.6 lbs) of the extremely light hydrogen fuel -- barely enough for a 200 kilometer (124 mile) trip. What's more, some of the tank's contents have to be released as they heat up and evaporate -- even the best insulation system can't keep temperatures down forever. After nine days, half the tank load has gone bad.

Seriously, if there was a better way that was economically viable, it'd be going places. One MIT Grad designed a New Lithium Cell technology (A123), and is kicking many "big companies" out of contracts, including the first GM Electric Car (Volt). There isn't a conspiracy to keep inventors down.

 

if two liters per minute equals 120 liters per hour which should be +- 4 moles of water.....

What is the displacement of the engine? A 3.6 liter engine would use up the two liters per minute in the first minute.

Assume all output is added to airflow, that's 1200 liters. Running at 1200 RPM, the car is sucking in 250 liters per minute through the intake (napkin calc).

So, even if my calculation is terribly incorrect (1 of 4 strokes is intake, displacement is close to volume of intake), the 1 hour output of "The Device" gives enough energy, used perfectly, to keep the engine running for 20 seconds, assuming no friction, etc. etc. etc. How much more Hydrogen will that 20 seconds create? How long would the engine run on that? It keeps getting smaller, and I'm using Idle RPM.

 

Like i said in the other post 2,4 liters of water in an hour of consumption would be 1847 * 2,4 liters of hho gas. there are +- 133 moles of water, avogadro number * 133 molecules of water which represents the number of oxygen atoms there also 266 moles of hydrogen and 133 moles * 8* avogradro electrons. If we ionize the oxygen gas of 2,4 liter of water we have 5950 amps if we take 4 electrons of each oxygen atom. yes the smile electrons

If the car is connected to the battery the electrolysis will use the energy stored in the battery and you wont see the real result. If the car is running only on the alternator all the energy you consume will come from the motor so you can see if there was better mileage because of the cell or because of your mind. i hope its clear.

A long time ago i mean in the 60's 70's the direct injection of the combustive already makes it more efficient and more is the pressure inside the cylinders more efficient the motor is. like Direct injection like on diesel fuels . but if you take The hot coming from a heat exchanger inside the exhaust and compress it and inject together with already preheated and vaporized fuel, any fuel, you are going to create a very very good efficiency. Of corse the knew that in 60's. But the money comes aways first and than the make the cars to consume as much as they could. Now this system is being implemented by the auto manufactories but is a very old thing.

I ask again i know is a little hard to believe 40 watts will make 200x more energy than input like stan said but consider the decrease in mass 0,000292328g for this 2,4 litters of water. we already extracted 5950 amps from the gas to decrease it's mass. hypothetically. How much is the energy increase by these decrease in mass? Does anyone knows relativity to enough to calculate this? E= M C ^2

 

Sorry i wrote 250 amps was wrong the corrected is 5950 amps

 

The guy who had the "Perfect Generator" that I saw and am referring to, was producing 2 liters of gas per minute, not using 2 liters of water per minute.

 

This is the same problem we have with all such devices. Any number of figures are thrown out, but there is never a mention of testing methodology, test equipment used, conditions under which the data were collected, tests conducted to confirm the results or identify modifying variables.

To use an old example, Spider Man is able to do his feats in just the same way. There is no explanation of why he has his powers, or how his web-spinning device works. However, the movie obviously proves that his powers do, in fact, exist. Further, the use of the web spinner clearly shows it to be a real device.

Think about it - how are your examples as convincing? At least I can actually see Spider Man become superhuman and use his wen spinner. That is much more than you can show. I think Spider Man is more convincing. I can see a movie where those things actually happen (just like Meyer's dune buggy).

 

I don't get it. Why is this topic still such a debate? Stan demonstrated his device, sold millions of dollars worth of plans and instructions. So what's to discuss? If it had worked, even just a little, the internet would be flooded with knock offs, stores, blogs, forums. There would certainly be something at the local Walmart by now (China is usually pretty quick to cash in on these sorts of gadgets)... Doesn't seem like most folks are having much success with this. I know it's tough getting taken in by a scam. There are a lot of projects you can do at home, to save on fuel money.

 

Agreed. I'll take that as a motion to close the topic. As there must be a second out there, the thread is closed.