Salt water as fuel. Offically working......

All I know is there are a few dozen start-ups that are working on technologies based off stan meyer. They're basically producing hydrogen through some sort of electrolysis prcess as a result of microwave and radio frequency waves.

I don't understand why so many people would be investing all this time and money if it was all BS.

Originally posted by dominicus
I don't understand why so many people would be investing all this time and money if it was all BS.

Because they’re morons?

No, seriously.

It’s just too funny how someone with a high-school education can look at something like this and decide it works, and not change his mind no matter how many physicists, chemists and engineers tell him it can’t.

Is this otherwise average guy a pioneer for sticking with it? No, just a moron.

[edit on 4-11-2007 by NRen2k5]

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.unitednuclear.com...

This guy was visited and had contracts with the Pentagon regarding this stuff. If it's fake BS garbage then the pentagon must be a bunch of idiots. I don't see how you have any rebuttals against all the pentagon interest for God sakes.

Originally posted by dominicus
All I know is there are a few dozen start-ups that are working on technologies based off stan meyer. They're basically producing hydrogen through some sort of electrolysis prcess as a result of microwave and radio frequency waves.

I don't understand why so many people would be investing all this time and money if it was all BS.

Its not bs. NRen2k5 just calls people he doesn't even know idiots, and technology hes never worked on a hoax. Quite simply, some people are just ignorant, and couldn't find water in they were drowning. Many people are already doing it and getting results, even some people at the overunity site. Skeptics have been around as long as real inventors have been inventing great stuff. They will always be there to criticize, and strive to tell everyone it doesn't work, when in fact they know nothing about it, and never set foot in a lab. What compels a skeptic? Its the fact he has been brainwashed like Bendini said, from the out-start and is too stubborn to listen what these people have to say. Rather than actually investigate it, they attack it, because it goes against what they believe is possible. Its funny how some people are already doing it, yet he says its not possible lol. I don't expect much in these people. They just sit around telling everybody how it can't be done, meanwhile others are doing it. Another tool by the skeptic is to say, " You can't create free energy from nothing, thats impossible." Fact is we don't have to create the energy, its already there for the taking. There's always exceptions to the rules.

Originally posted by dominicus
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.unitednuclear.com...

This guy was visited and had contracts with the Pentagon regarding this stuff.

Did he really? Are you sure his contracts weren’t related to some specific part of the scam rather than the whole? Are you even sure he had any contracts? What’s your source of that information?

If it's fake BS garbage then the pentagon must be a bunch of idiots. I don't see how you have any rebuttals against all the pentagon interest for God sakes.

I don’t see any proof of Pentagon interest. You know the meaning of the term “burden of proof” dontcha?

Originally posted by Freezer

Originally posted by dominicus
All I know is there are a few dozen start-ups that are working on technologies based off stan meyer. They're basically producing hydrogen through some sort of electrolysis prcess as a result of microwave and radio frequency waves.

I don't understand why so many people would be investing all this time and money if it was all BS.

Its not bs.

It is. I’ve already gone over the science of why IT DOESN’T WORK several times.

NRen2k5 just calls people he doesn't even know idiots, and technology hes never worked on a hoax.

With good reason. It is a hoax and anybody who continues to fall for it despite being informed of such is an idiot.

Quite simply, some people are just ignorant, and couldn't find water in they were drowning. Many people are already doing it and getting results, even some people at the overunity site.

Yeah, results being that they see a reaction. But electrolysis in a closed system is a losing proposition, as I’ve already stated and explained several times in this thread alone!

Skeptics have been around as long as real inventors have been inventing great stuff.

Yeah. We separate the wheat from the chaff. You can thank me anytime you want.

They will always be there to criticize, and strive to tell everyone it doesn't work, when in fact they know nothing about it, and never set foot in a lab.

It doesn’t work. This isn’t a matter of belief based on poor understanding of current science, like “The Earth is flat” or “If God had wanted Man to fly, he would have given him wings.” This is cold hard fact backed up by scientific laws which have been verified through thousands of experiments to be universally true.

What compels a skeptic? Its the fact he has been brainwashed like Bendini said, from the out-start and is too stubborn to listen what these people have to say.

The guy is a scammer. Look at some of the garbage he’s selling, like the “Ultra Clarifier.”

When Bedini comes in soaking wet and tells you it’s raining outside, you’d still better check for yourself.

Rather than actually investigate it, they attack it, because it goes against what they believe is possible.

No, it goes against what we know is possible.

Its funny how some people are already doing it, yet he says its not possible lol.

They’re not doing it. They’re fiddling around, and they think they’re getting close, but they’ll never get there. It’s impossible.

I don't expect much in these people. They just sit around telling everybody how it can't be done, meanwhile others are doing it.

No, no, no! They aren’t!

If somebody really has done it, then he might want to cash in on James Randi’s “Million Dollar Challenge.”

I wonder why there are no takers?

Another tool by the skeptic is to say, " You can't create free energy from nothing, thats impossible." Fact is we don't have to create the energy, its already there for the taking. There's always exceptions to the rules.

Not in this case. All the concepts here are already well understood by the scientific community. There is no free energy to be had here.

So HHO is using H2 and O2 as component gases.

Not too safe.

William R. Lyne proved that H2 recombines from H and H giving a
generation of energy and temperatures.

So recombining water generates more energy and temperatures.

But how did he show water when nothing got hot?

See at 07:15... when gas is combusted its water.

How did it heat the other materials, what is he holding?

He should explain that one.


TeslaandLyne
1 minute ago
At 07:15, what is he holding that does not heat up, please explain that one.
William R. Lyne demonstrated H and H recombines to H2 giving off heat.
Now its HHO recombining into water.

The oxy-hydrogen torch? It’s a neat torch.

It’s fuelled by compressed oxygen and hydrogen. It takes energy for the supplier to produce the oxygen and hydrogen and even more to compress it into the bottles/tanks used. And then even more to transport it to the consumer.

reply to post by NRen2k5


Do you think he has a short cut making almost H and/or H2 and almost
O and/or O2 in the water cooker of his?

What is coming out of the gas flow from water.

If we came up with a similar process there is nothing he could do.

But we could not make it an HHO II generator, HOH might be OK.

Originally posted by dominicus
This guy was visited and had contracts with the Pentagon regarding this stuff. If it's fake BS garbage then the pentagon must be a bunch of idiots. I don't see how you have any rebuttals against all the pentagon interest for God sakes.

Note they never said much about it, other than "he had contracts".

Here's how the system normally works - I do this all the time. Hey, does that add instant credence to everything I say? Tom has Pentagon contracts - you must believe him! (actually, we'd call it a DoD contract, I've never heard it called a 'Pentagon contract')

Anyways, if I were to say "Look, I have this magic death ray", and ran around with this 1950's rig on a pickup sort of like the one on "Earth vs the Flying Saucers", and had shots of me pointing it at cows and them dropping dead on You Tube, sure, I'd probably get a visit.

Warmup: They fly someone out, and watch you do it. Now, the guy isn't going to delve deeply into it. Is it CGI? Are cows falling over? Is it immediately obvious what's going on? If it looks interesting, you go to:

Phase 1: Depending on what branch it is, and what projects are running, you might get attached to an ongoing project or a new one might be started. You will enter "phase 1", and you'll be stroked a contract to produce a "white paper" explaining the theoretical basis of your cow death ray. They're generally good for about 20-40K, and they're funded either from the euphemistically named "other funding" if they don't want it accounted for on a line item basis, or the facility's "unsolicited SBIR" account.

At this point, I'd have to drop my technological pants. If my cow death ray actually had a .308 rifle hidden in the ray gun stage dressing, this is not going to be very convincing, because they're going to farm it out to a bunch of very bright people to pick apart.

Now, this could be a "Pentagon contract". Or Navy, Army, SOCOM or whomever. And I could legitimately say "Wow, my invention must be real, an LTC came out and now I have a 'Pentagon contract'", and it would be true, at least about the contract and visit part. But that doesn't mean they're lining up to give me a few billion to build them. Or that they believe me.

Not as good as water, its a more expensive gas but you never need any more.

Joseph Papp: Noble Gas Engine (US Patent 4428193, etc)


Demo with observers kills one.

But here is the central problem with Feynman's analysis (which has many other errors of fact and logic embedded in it): There was a court action against Feynman by Papp and his backer, Don Roser of Environetics, Inc., as a result of Feynman's inept attempt to disprove the Papp engine with his unauthorized pulling of an electric control-circuit wire that Feynman egregiously imagined had to be powering the engine. It was unfortunate for Feynman that the wire's gauge was far too thin even had there been a secret electric motor within the retrofit Volvo engine. Furthermore, as you will read, the engine kept running even after the flimsy wire was removed. Feynman asserted that Papp most likely had deliberately planned to blow up his own engine to avoid subsequent discovery of the "fraud"! And, Feynman acknowledges that there was an out-of-court settlement with Caltech. Surely, had there ever been the slightest piece of evidence that conventional explosives blew up the Papp engine that day, Caltech would most certainly not have had to settle. Papp would soon have been charged with manslaughter, no doubt, and Feynman would surely have cited this evidence publicly. He was not one to shrink from dramatic gestures. Caltech also had the motive and the means to skewer Papp with the kind of evidence that is routinely gathered by police departments and crime labs following explosion accidents.

Word, keep the dumb asses away from your invention at all times.

reply to post by jtma508


Thank You, you saved me the time in having to explain that one.

So that's that is it is it ?, or are you guys more then just a bunch
of verbalizers, instead of showing off your cleverness as rational thinkers, procrastinating and leaving it up to others to prove a point, that God forbid could upset your precooked notions of science,
Why not give it a whirl, the formula was given, go for it now build it yourself or with your buddies and if you find it to be true no patent in the world will be able to stop the technology from be used.
Do it now for the love of God !

Assuming distilled water and we ignore the fact that water is not completely H2O.
the equation for splitting one mole of water is:

H2O-->H2 + 0.5O2 OR 2H2O-->2H2 +O2

H2O is in aqueous form, hydrogen is in the form of gas and oxygen is in the form of gas. Teh reaction is at 1 atm pressure and 298 (room temperature) Kelvin

since water is usually in the form:

OH- + H+ H2O

at room temperature (298K) and 1 atm pressure

water can then be split using energy, the change in energy added is :
ΔH = 285.83 kJ

in electrolysis
1 H atom will be attracted to the -ve electrode and the OH molecule to the +ve electrode, since hydrogen is usually found in twos (HOFBrINCl), every two Hs become
1 H2 in the form of gas. In a similar fashion, every two OHs combine and form 1 O2 and 1 H+ which is then attracted to the -ve pole and combined with another H atom. The process continues until we run out of energy to input into the system or we run out of reactant (H2O)

note that the energy is measured in KJ, so this much energy is required to
split the atom regardless of whether you use electricity, u waves, or laser-guided-rock.

the only way around this is by using catalysts, thefreedictionary defines a catalyst as:

cat·a·lyst (ktl-st)
n.
1. Chemistry A substance, usually used in small amounts relative to the reactants, that modifies and increases the rate of a reaction without being consumed in the process.

of course, there is a second def but we ignore it because we are interested in chemistry here.

a catalyst changes the reaction intermediates in a chemical reaction, leading to alternative pathways to the products at a lower energy cost.

In electrolysis, NaCl is used, but chlorine is produced as a by product! a catalyst that fits the definition is difficult to make. Sometimes other salts/acids are used. Also you need a decent electrode such as platinum so it doesn't react or get corroded easily.

how does this relate to the video?
well, from what I saw in the video there are two possibilities:
1.Hes using an alternative energy source to provide the energy input to split the water molecule.
2.Hes using a catalyst to provide an alternative pathway to the reaction at a lower energy cost!

in order to prove #1:
get a multimeter to measure the input amperage and voltage to the biomedical device to measure the power the machine is using. From what we know about microwave ovens, it takes a very large amount of power to generate electromagnetic waves. At the same time, the whole setup must be in an isolated environment in a vacuum (but then oxygen is added in abundance) and the energy output is measured indirectly. Of course there will be minimal energy leak in and out of the system, however it is going to be negligible due to the energy levels we are dealing with here. Distilled water with a measured amount of salt must be measured before the reaction. This will provide a good measure of efficiency of the system. Maybe its more efficient to use u waves than electrolysis?

to prove the second part, a theoretical pathway must be made to predict the reaction intermediates. Again in a closed system (actual not ideal ) like the one used to prove #1, distilled water must be used with a measured amount of salt. After the reaction, the composition of the gases inside the system are analyzed and the composition is determined (spectroscopy?), the composition of the solution in the test tube is determined, water is evaporated and the salt is weighted again to determine if it was used or was used as a catalyst. If the same amount of salt remains, then it was used as a catalyst (or had no use at all). Also, the residue (if any) must be analyzed.

after which we move on to the real world and its problems
I hope i didn't bore u to death

references:
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...(molecule)
www.thefreedictionary.com...

Originally posted by NRen2k5
If somebody really has done it, then he might want to cash in on James Randi’s “Million Dollar Challenge.”

I wonder why there are no takers?

Not everyone sells out for money. Some people actually want their invention to make it into the market-place, instead of being buried with-in contracts. Do you think GM buys battery patents cause it wants to produce a battery? Do you really believe what Bob Lazar did to his vette couldn't be done to any car in America? Have you read about Lazar's solution to the hydrogen tank, and what are your opinions? Water = power, whether we can harness it, or even believe in it is another story.

[edit on 29-12-2007 by Freezer]

Originally posted by Freezer

Originally posted by NRen2k5
If somebody really has done it, then he might want to cash in on James Randi’s “Million Dollar Challenge.”

I wonder why there are no takers?

Not everyone sells out for money. Some people actually want their invention to make it into the market-place, instead of being buried with-in contracts. Do you think GM buys battery patents cause it wants to produce a battery? Do you really believe what Bob Lazar did to his vette couldn't be done to any car in America? Have you read about Lazar's solution to the hydrogen tank, and what are your opinions?

Do you honestly think any one of those, let alone all of them, is more likely genuine than simple fraud?

Water = power, whether we can harness it, or even believe in it is another story.

We believe in and can harness energy from water in a number of ways.

But water as a fuel, Brown's Gas, HHO, etc. are scams which rely on people’s ignorance of energy balance (the laws of thermodynamics).

Edit: And if you're waiting for NRen2k5 to answer, don’t hold your breath.

[edit on 30-12-2007 by MurderSmurf]

Originally posted by MurderSmurf
We believe in and can harness energy from water in a number of ways.

But water as a fuel, Brown's Gas, HHO, etc. are scams which rely on people’s ignorance of energy balance (the laws of thermodynamics).

Edit: And if you're waiting for NRen2k5 to answer, don’t hold your breath.

[edit on 30-12-2007 by MurderSmurf]

So you are saying Lazar is lying about his tank, hydrogen conversion patent, and so forth.. typical response from someone who doesn't even investigate it. If its a scam, what fuel has Bob been driving on for all these years Murdersmurf?

www.youtube.com...

Also please explain the law of thermodynamics, and how it doesn't allow for water to be converted into usable power.

Water to electricity is interesting as well. Why not electrolyze water with water?
crave.cnet.co.uk...


I can't understand for the life of me why people are so negative against new ideas, and forms of energy generation, makes me sick to think, in the end these same people are going to be the ones benefiting from it..Its no wonder Tesla was the way he was. I would get angry, rip out the plugs, and go home too.

[edit on 30-12-2007 by Freezer]

Originally posted by Freezer

Originally posted by MurderSmurf
We believe in and can harness energy from water in a number of ways.

But water as a fuel, Brown's Gas, HHO, etc. are scams which rely on people’s ignorance of energy balance (the laws of thermodynamics).

Edit: And if you're waiting for NRen2k5 to answer, don’t hold your breath.

[edit on 30-12-2007 by MurderSmurf]

So you are saying Lazar is lying about his tank, hydrogen conversion patent, and so forth..

I haven’t read up too much on Bob Lazar, but what I have read tells me the guy’s unreliable to say the least.

I’m not going to totally pass judgment either way, though, and I don’t even see where you think he contradicts what I’ve told you.

If its a scam, what fuel has Bob been driving on for all these years Murdersmurf?

Well, if it’s a scam, it would follow that the fuel he’s been driving on for all these years is plain ol’ gasoline.

Also please explain the law of thermodynamics, and how it doesn't allow for water to be converted into usable power.

I’m not going to explain that because I never said it.

I told you that in a car, it’s impractical to make your own hydrogen on-board, because you do so at a loss. I mean seriously, you’d be better off using that same electricity to just power an electric motor instead.

Water to electricity is interesting as well. Why not electrolyze water with water?

Because the energy you get from “electrolyzing” water is less than the energy required to electrolyze it.

I can't understand for the life of me why people are so negative against new ideas, and forms of energy generation

Negative?

Negative would be dismissing them outright.

I’ve taken the time and effort to consider the physics involved and tell you why the ones that don’t work, don’t.

Originally posted by MurderSmurf
Because the energy you get from “electrolyzing” water is less than the energy required to electrolyze it.

How much does the electricity cost you coming out of a solar panel? Now, how much energy is it costing you for the solar panel to supply electricity for electrolyzing the water? Now, now much energy did it cost you to produce hydrogen? "Water as a fuel is a scam" - thats what I was referring to.

I was also referring to Lazar's tank idea to store hydrogen safely.

[edit on 31-12-2007 by Freezer]

Originally posted by Freezer

Originally posted by MurderSmurf
Because the energy you get from “electrolyzing” water is less than the energy required to electrolyze it.

How much does the electricity cost you coming out of a solar panel? Now, how much energy is it costing you for the solar panel to supply electricity for electrolyzing the water? Now, now much energy did it cost you to produce hydrogen?

But then you’re not “electrolyzing water with water”. You’re electrolyzing water with solar power.

"Water as a fuel is a scam" - thats what I was referring to.

And water as a fuel is a scam. Converting water to hydrogen + oxygen takes more energy than you can ever get back from them. So you’d be better off using the energy to power your engine instead.

I was also referring to Lazar's tank idea to store hydrogen safely.

The metal hydride concept is interesting. But mayb e he’s just turning a little knowledge of “nickel metal hydride” batteries into a flashy-sounding but unworkable concept of his own.

Originally posted by Freezer
How much does the electricity cost you coming out of a solar panel? Now, how much energy is it costing you for the solar panel to supply electricity for electrolyzing the water?

Soooo....to power the electrical devices in my house I should fit solar panels which convert solar radiation into electricity which then electrolyses water, splitting out the hydrogen (as well wasting some of my solar energy as heat etc). I then convert the energy in the hydrogen, via combustion, into heat which I then convert to kinetic energy in a generator which converts it back to electricity....which I can then use to power my lovely electrical devices.

Strange how there aren't any commercial systems out there utilising this set up?

Really guys, you can no more create energy from "burning" water than you can from burning ash.

Water is to hydrogen what ash is to wood.