Gas from Water, (WaterFuel), HHO technology

Discussion in 'Propulsion' started by brian eiland, May 15, 2006.

  1. kistinie
    Joined: Aug 2007
    Posts: 493
    Likes: 8, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: -74
    Location: france

    kistinie Hybrid corsair

    Really ?


    MHD and Z machine from Sandia showed the opposite with unexpected energy rise, very likely from...water.

    The casimir effect tells us it is possible to get energy from water and it was demonstrated in many ways.

    It is really just like discussing on the impossible OverUnity of a reversible air conditioning heater instead of getting the benefit of their COP around 3 with peace.

    Highly Illogical captain Dave !
     
  2. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    Good point. The English are seperated from the USAnians by a common language. However, with the ink we save by not writing all those extra u's, we can write a lot more p's.
     
  3. quarktoo
    Joined: Dec 2009
    Posts: 85
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: -54
    Location: New York

    quarktoo ProSpeller

    Hi Dave,

    First I must say thank you for rising above the level of a 12 year old - how refreshing.

    Now I shall clean up your errors - it's only fair.


    I stated "pure hydrogen" not "hydrogen burns in the presence of oxygen."

    That is a misquote on your part - don't do that. Hydrogen and oxygen are commonly called hydroxl, hho and water is the ash of that reaction when burned.

    I stated "pure hydrogen", now maybe can explain what "pure hydrogen" reacts with in order to burn? I choose my words carefully and if I make a mistake, I own up to it.

    From wiki or any other definition I have ever seen:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

    "The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time."

    The second law was written by men describing steam engines and fire and simply means that a steam engine cannot be used to generate electricity which in turn is used to generate more steam which in turn is used to generate more electricity, etc., i.e., perpetual motion.

    Used in the context of how it was written and the purpose, I totally agree.

    Since water is the fuel source and more water is added, it is not a isolated system and 2nd law does not apply.

    Next to apply 2nd laww to everything, means there is no such thing as an "isolated system" which then relegates 2nd law to meaningless.

    You don't get to use the laws of physics to suit your arguments or beliefs - they are what they are. If you really think you know everything about the universe, or can prove that their is only one, then you are the smartest scientist on Earth - I doubt that.

    The term "free energy" used in the context of the discussion is defined as "economic free energy" water IS consumed and IS the fuel - hence the term water fuel.

    The process you describe is electrolysis and that is not the process I am describing which is "fracturing" as Meyer termed it or "molecular shattering" as Dr. Puharich termed it.

    The law of force (F-MA) has three exceptions - one is if the mass is moving at or near quantum speed. Acceleration is what is used to cause that speed and I have been very clear from the start of this discussion that accelerators were used.

    1. A focused laser is used to elevate the electron orbit planes of the O2 molecules and small lasers are commonly used to reduce mass to near absolute near zero to produce Bose Einstein condensate.

    2. Accelerated electron stream produced in Meyer's VIC transformer which contains pancake coils over coaxial coils. Note - A Tesla coil was used to drive the first accelerator in the US.

    3. Ultrasonic piezo was used in a resonant cavity to produce cavitation to cause the afore mentioned "fracturing or shattering".

    "What we are doing is the exact opposite of Faraday electrolysis" - Stan Meyer.

    You are right in that you are not going to beat Faraday's laws of DC electrolysis.

    People get confused on this subject because they either are not aware of the "fracturing" (Also see Dr. Randall Mills of Blacklight Power) or they don't understand that Stan Meyer managed to patent every known method or process involving electrolysis OR water fuel.

    Thanks again for attempting to elevate the discussion above that of a 12 year old.
     
  4. Luckless
    Joined: Mar 2009
    Posts: 158
    Likes: 7, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 105
    Location: PEI, Canada

    Luckless Senior Member

    "Everything" as in every last bit of energy in the universe Is and isolated system with no influence from anything else.

    The law isn't meaningless unless you have no understanding of that meaning.
     
  5. quarktoo
    Joined: Dec 2009
    Posts: 85
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: -54
    Location: New York

    quarktoo ProSpeller

    How does Casimir effect extract energy from water?

    Ditto the Z machine. They have discovered well over 20 different states of water. Such a simple and stable molecule yet one of the least understood. Maybe water will help some people understand that we don't know much about a whole bunch of different things at an academic level at least.

    The national labs have hijacked science for military and space as you rightly mentioned earlier.
     
  6. quarktoo
    Joined: Dec 2009
    Posts: 85
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: -54
    Location: New York

    quarktoo ProSpeller

    O.K., so you just claimed to know everything about the universe, or even that there is only a single universe.

    Anyone that actually knows anything about science would dismiss you at that point. You don't know, what you don't know unless you are a magical thinker and assumption is not what science is made of. That is what insanity and mind control are made of.

    EDIT -
    BTW - Entropy of the universe is where they always attempt to take the argument once they lose the argument regarding acceleration and mass to ATOMIC energy conversion. A hydrogen bomb, which converts mass into atomic energy, blows that argument out of the water so to speak. The net is economic free energy. The universe is a big place and nobody is going to miss that tiny amount of mass.
     
  7. Luckless
    Joined: Mar 2009
    Posts: 158
    Likes: 7, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 105
    Location: PEI, Canada

    Luckless Senior Member

    Wait, what? First off if you knew anything about science, then you would know that saying "I think this is meaningless, therefore it is and we can ignore a generally accepted law of science" would have you dismissed there.

    Second, where the hell is the 'free' energy in an atomic explosion? "Energy" isn't the electricity you run a light bulb off of.
     
  8. quarktoo
    Joined: Dec 2009
    Posts: 85
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: -54
    Location: New York

    quarktoo ProSpeller

    Either you are too stupid to quote me properly or you are too corrupt or both, which is most likely since stupid and lack of integrity walk hand in hand.

    Here is your fake quote:
    I think this is meaningless, therefore it is and we can ignore a generally accepted law of science"


    Here is what I wrote:
    "Next to apply 2nd laww to everything, means there is no such thing as an "isolated system" which then relegates 2nd law to meaningless."


    Other than my typo on the word law, my statement is correct.

    ...and lastly, I have better things to do than explain how hydrogen bombs and light bulbs work to an idiot that misquotes me.
     
  9. Dave Gudeman
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 135
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 359
    Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

    Dave Gudeman Senior Member

    OK, if we are going to have a civil discussion, I'll play...

    You must distinguish between misquotes and misunderstandings. When something "burns", that means that it combines chemically with oxygen in a rapid exothermic reaction. It is rare to hear any other sort of reaction described this way, so the misunderstanding is quite, er, understandable. In fact if that is not what you meant then I still don't understand you. What would it mean for hydrogen to "burn" with no other chemicals being introduced?

    Hydroxyl is the compound OH. It isn't something that you can put in a bottle. It is either a part of a larger compound or it is a transitory radical in solution. Water is sometimes spelled chemically as HOH in order to emphasize that it can donate a hydrogen atom or a hydroxyl group in a reaction, but I've never seen HHO before this discussion.

    As far as the "ash" and "burning", I have no idea what you are talking about. You can't burn hydroxyl in any sense that I'm aware of, and HHO is just an unusual way to write water. What do you think the difference is between HHO and water? And why don't you write out the chemical reaction that you think is taking place, since the word "burn" seems to be confusing us?

    Well, they shouldn't phrase it in such a complicated way because it just confuses people. However, if you will think about it for a few minutes, I think you can convince yourself that if it applies to isolated systems, then it applies to the universe as a whole. Consider that "the system" can be defined to be anything you want. No matter what reaction is going on, you can define a big enough space around it to constitute an isolated system. Therefore everything that happens happens in an isolated system that obeys the second law.

    First of all, I tend to agree with your reasoning here, just not your facts. If the second law really did have such a limited background, it would be reckless to apply it to the entire universe. But it actually has a much more complex background. Thermodynamic studies have been made of thousands of different kinds of systems with many forms: solid, liquid, gas, thin film, thin thread, and more. And no violation has ever been measured. Furthermore, there are deeper theoretical consequences of the law such that very odd things could happen if it were false. The fact that we never observe such odd things is another reason to think that it is true.

    I think I should point out that my complaint against your system is based on the first law of thermodynamics, not the second law. It violates conservation of energy.

    You are going to have to explain this. I don't get what you are saying.

    Oh, boy! I'm the smartest scientist on earth! :)

    Proof that there is only one universe:
    Definition: a universe U is a set such that for all x, x is in U.
    Axiom 1: if two universes contain exactly the same objects then they are the same universe.
    Proof: let A and B be two universes. By definition
    for all x, x is in A and x is in B.
    therefore, A and B contain exactly the same objects
    By axiom 1, A and B are the same universe.
    ergo: there is only one universe.

    Where do I pick up my Nobel prize? :)

    As to your device, I'll put together a more specific critique later. If you want to post what you consider the best links to the device are, I will reference them directly.
     
  10. quarktoo
    Joined: Dec 2009
    Posts: 85
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: -54
    Location: New York

    quarktoo ProSpeller

    Why don't you look up the definition of the word burn like I did. As stated, I try to choose my words carefully.

    burn:
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/burn
    10. Chemistry.
    a. to undergo combustion, either fast or slow; oxidize.
    b. to undergo fission or fusion.

    From wiki - burn:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn

    Radiation burns are caused by protracted exposure to UV light (as from the sun), tanning booths, radiation therapy (as patients who are undergoing cancer therapy), sunlamps, and X-rays.

    You just got "burned" at your semantics game and your argument just went down in flames. :)

    Congratulations! You spotted a typo. I meant to use the word hydroxy.

    Hydroxy
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxy

    "Hydroxy gas: A nickname for oxyhydrogen, a combination of hydrogen and oxygen gas produced from the electrolysis of water"

    I stand corrected. I wrongly added the letter "l" to the end. I should have stayed with HHO or more accurately oxyhydrogen. In the context of the discussion, anyone that works with this knows exactly what I am saying. Semantics...

    Second law is, what it is. Remove the word "isolated" from second law and it becomes meaningless.

    Remove 2nd law from the context of what it was meant to define and suddenly you are claiming to know everything about the universe and perhaps beyond. That would be a departure from science in every regard. You don't get to redefine the laws of physics based on how you "believe" the unknown universe is or how it suits you in an argument.

    Dave, Dave, Dave... At no time did I state that thermodynamics was violated, I stated that 2nd law does not apply - see very first post. Since an external fuel source is supplied, it is not an "isolated" system and the definition does not apply. Don't misquote me.

    I am sure that is true and it does not redefine thermodynamics. BTW - Dr. Richard Feyman made a PBS special with other scientist like Dr. Mandelbrot in which Feyman was quoted in reference to Aharonov Bohm effect "more energy out than in." I'm sure you must be much smarter than those two as well? Didn't Feyman win a Nobel prize? :)

    I could not explain it any better than I already have in previous posts.

    "The first law of thermodynamics , an expression of the principle of conservation of energy, states that energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but cannot be created or destroyed."

    Mass is formed from energy and all economic "free energy" devices convert mass into the atomic energy contained within the mass, not the chemical energy of a chemical reaction.

    Now since the universe did the work of compressing energy into mass for free, and it takes very little energy to convert that mass back into energy using acceleration, in an economic sense, you get free energy and as Tesla stated "connect man's machinery to the wheel work of nature."

    It takes work to accelerate the mass so you don't get all the energy contained in the mass but you get more out than work put in. It no more violates 1st law than "burning" oil.

    There is no 1st law or 2nd law violation nor did I ever claim there was. 1st law is not violated and 2nd law does not apply.

    Semantics... I have a ******** that lives near me. One could argue he is a "universe". However, there are plenty of ********* on the planet and they are not all the same to me so is there really only one universe?

    EDIT-
    Now you assume that there are multiple universes and they contain exactly the same thing? Where do you find time to do that much inventory? I get the joke but you know...
    -EDIT

    You don't get the Nobel prize and it has no meaning anymore since Obama got the peace prize during two wars, both based in lies and human rights violations such as occupation, kidnapping and torture.

    What you do get, is a dunce prize and you earned that when you misquoted me. Don't do that or I am not going to be nice to you anymore.

    I await your next post with bated breath. Google - The sum of all knowledge.

    Good luck finding links to mass to atomic energy conversion. It is suppressed information for a bunch of reasons.

    While chemistry does occur, it is not a chemistry process so it would be impossible to post the chemistry formula. It is an atomic process but Puharich did include some of the chemistry in his patent if your are interested..

    Einstein stated a gallon of water had enough atomic energy to power a freight train around the Earth three times. Where is the chemistry to back that up? Hidden away at a weapons labs or national lab. I don't know the math or nuclear chemistry formula and you are not going to get anyone that does to publish it. That does not mean that it does not exist somewhere.

    Imperical science is about as good as it gets. The fact that Meyer, Dr. Puharich and Dr. Anderson drove and demonstrated water cars around for many years is about as real as it gets. I am pretty sure they were also under a gag order and or afraid people would suppress the property by filing patents around the key aspects. Meyer stated this and spent years protecting the property rights and fighting the corrupt patent office national security patent review process.

    Here is where I would start:
    Youtube - Dr. Puharich lectures 1 - 5
    Youtube - Stan Meyer Colorado lecture and others.
    Learn about the many ways that acceleration converts mass to atomic energy. Cavitation, accelerator coil, vacuum electron acceleration, etc. I posted the information already.

    Study the patents and research the subject for decades like I have and you will surely come to the same conclusion but faster since you are so smart.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2009
  11. mark775

    mark775 Guest

    "It is suppressed"
    Sorry 'bout what's happening in that skull casing...
    insanity.jpg
     
  12. quarktoo
    Joined: Dec 2009
    Posts: 85
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: -54
    Location: New York

    quarktoo ProSpeller

    Dave,

    As a offering of good tiding and to help make my case, here is a photo of the accelerator coil from Meyer's first dune buggy. Note the slots on the outside for the pancake coils?

    When Meyer died two things happened:
    1. On the day Meyer died,while meeting with NATO officials at a restaurant in Garden City Ohio, Meyer stood up, announced to all the others in the restaurant he had just been poisoned and died in the parking lot trying to get himself to the hospital.

    2. Government types came to his house and ripped the dune buggy apart cutting wires off transformers, etc. That is why there are no wires going to the connector according to the person that owned the car for all this time.

    The car, what was left of the hydrogen fracture generators, etc., were recently sold to Dr. Greer from the disclosure project which most people believe to be a disinfo. front for the CIA located 20 minutes down the road - myself among them.

    EDIT-
    Meyer referred to the signal the transformer produced as "rippled DC" in one of his patents.
    -EDIT

    The VIC transformer:
     

    Attached Files:

  13. quarktoo
    Joined: Dec 2009
    Posts: 85
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: -54
    Location: New York

    quarktoo ProSpeller

    GOD'S APRIL FOOLS JOKE on Science & the SECRET
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_UXcNMBGTA

    Here is an example of someone that has discovered an economic free energy machine using acceleration and feels he is violating 1st law of thermodynamics because he has no way to measure the tiny amount of mass that is being converted into energy. If he ran that for 1000 years and then weighed it, he still could not measure the missing mass.

    Looks like he has figured out that capacitive inductance negates the need for a shorted coil due to the self inductance of the high voltage coil.

    Eventually he may figure out he can back that HV coil up with a pancake coil to accelerate it even more and at that point, most likely have have a self running motor powered by acceleration and mass to atomic energy conversion. Muller motor? Probably.

    Better than sails? In a storm or no wind it would be better than sails but sailing is fun and good exercise which has nothing to do with science

    So we agree that you can't break the laws of thermodynamics when properly applied but that does not prevent you from producing an "economic" free energy device.
     
  14. masrapido
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 263
    Likes: 35, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 330
    Location: Chile

    masrapido Junior forever

    Dave, I am sorry to have to join the lineup of people correcting you because the company is not a good one.

    Firstly, your understanding of explosion and implosion is actually incorrect. Explosion is a reaction where a fuel reacts to ignition rapidly and the gasses expand under the heat created. Explosions happen when, let us use your example "long-chained", molecules are separated into smaller chains. Covalent bonds between the atoms in molecules are broken, and energy is released.

    Implosion is a reaction where, again as per your example, short-chained molecules are combined together into a long -chained molecules. It is a process of fusion of atoms and/or simpler molecules into more complex ones.

    What separates the two is that in implosion the energy is absorbed into the fusion process. That can be observed by the fact that hydrogen, for example, burns with invisible flame and it does NOT emit the heat and light. Both remain within the flame. On the other hand when petrol or diesel burn they emit both the light and the heat.

    Second, contrary to popular opinion which you reflect here, the hydrogen does not explode. And definitely not as destructively as petrol, for example. Oxidising reaction of hydrogen is sucking the air IN, whreas petrol's explosion is blowing the air OUT.

    Your description of explosion and implosion is incorrect also because the two do not happen from high or low point of pressure. They CREATE their high or low pressure points.

    The rest of your comments display further your unfamiliarity with this part of chemistry and physics behind it. There are quite a few scientific pages dedicated to hydrogen that will provide detailed information and help you correct some of the errors in your post.

    Interestingly, even many scientists (makes me wonder) will call hydrogen oxidation an "explosion", yet it will be clear that they are talking about the burning and implosion, which does NOT result in an explosion because explosion is EXpansion, whereas, hydrogen implodes, and inveitably creates low pressure around the flame.

    As for the quirkie, my goodness, that is one disturbed individual with a lot of time badly utilised.

    His reply to you is so full of crap, it doesn't even need to be replied to. It rebutts itself.
     

  15. quarktoo
    Joined: Dec 2009
    Posts: 85
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: -54
    Location: New York

    quarktoo ProSpeller

    ...and speaking of Dr. Greer, notice how he is present at a demonstration of a free energy device that was validated many times and suppressed?

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4914871211025734766&hl=en#

    ...and then of course the usual suspects like Sterling Allen is there who offered Peter 26 million for the rights to the invention? This is something that keeps happening. The fox is guarding the hen house.

    Speaking of asymetric circuits, notice how in the Dr. Puharich patent the end of the primary coil is open except for a resistor used to detect resonance? That is done through capacitive self inductance.

    Need another example? Have a look at Dr. Stiffler's cold electricity circuit - what he now calls "spacial energy coherence". (MRH2O2 on youtube)

    It is an old trick that has been suppressed more times than I can remember and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand how it works.

    Note how Peter mentioned the 44 gauge wire on the primary and .005 amps or watts of power (can't remember) input yet many amps of power output? The end of the wire is probably not connected to anything, hence no appreciable current draw.

    Demonstration of Peter Sumaruck's "Zero Amp Tech"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQw8-HtqefY&feature=player_embedded

    Notice how the generator does not bog down when Peter turns on those five motors? No current draw.

    And of course, the suppression and naturally the military is involved..
    http://www.worldviewopinion.com/blog/energy/_archives/2008/7/19/3800414.html

    It is my understanding that you can presently buy a 12KW version for $300,000 and make and sell as many units as you please. They are being manufactured in Waco TX, so I am guessing he is living on borrowed time.
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.