Make a Hydrogen Booster For Your Car; Runs on Water

If you read and understand Puharichs work you will see how it doesn't defy any current laws of physics. Resonance is a powerful thing, I wouldn't be so quick to judge it as nonsense. I spent a couple of years re reading the same paragraphs until I "got it". Now it all makes perfect sense to me.

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by NRen2k5

No, they most definitely are selling it with the overunity angle. For an onboard water electrolysis rig to provide a performance boost, it would have to be overunity.

I already explained this at least twice. Since people seemed to be having trouble understanding the high school introductory physics involved, I put it in a way you’d only need grade school math to understand. If you still don’t understand, then I guess it’s hopeless.

i advise you to step back and look at the picture from another angle, which apparently includes only hoaxes, frauds and ignorant people without concept of 'high school physics', as you love to put it.

the electrolyis gear is not put in for power, it's used to generate gases which are supposed to help combustion. that point cannot be argued, imho, since they clearly said so in the first video. whether it works or not is open to debate, of course.

Oh, it works. It just doesn’t give you a boost. Its overall effect is a drain.

NOx?

www.greenfacts.org...

why is everybody so proud of physics when they don't get even the most simple chemical notation?

I underestimated you, and for that I’m sorry. I’m too used to kids on other forums posting about “NOX” and “NOS” in reference to nitrous oxide (N2O) injection systems.

your insistance on 'overunity' is unfounded, the tell-tale sign of a perpetuum mobile would be that you do NOT need any fuel. in this case all they claim is that you'll need less fuel, not even that much less. they need the hydrogen/oxygen mixture, on-board electrolyis is but one way to get it, sp please stop focusing only on that aspect. the electrolyis rig won't use any more juice than car lights, probably less.

But the idea that it gives more energy than it takes is overunity. Haven’t I pointed it out enough?

PS: what do you think a catalytic converter does?

Basically to convert the toxic biproducts of combustion to less toxic ones.

Originally posted by Furnace_Man:

It takes more energy to separate the water into 2×H2 and O2 than you’ll get by burning the mixture. I’ve already said this more than once.

And if you keep saying it I'll ignore you even more!

Then go troll somewhere else.

Originally posted by Furnace_Man

Are you saying that following the Puharich work, you have succeeded in building a system that electolyses water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, and that the burning of the resultant gases produces more energy than that which was used in the electrolysis process?

Quite simply, Yes.

Check the numbers again. You’re wrong.

If you read and understand Puharichs work you will see how it doesn't defy any current laws of physics. Resonance is a powerful thing, I wouldn't be so quick to judge it as nonsense. I spent a couple of years re reading the same paragraphs until I "got it". Now it all makes perfect sense to me.

Resonance doesn’t bend the laws of thermodynamics. Resonance is like a swingset. Time your pushes just right and you get the swing to rise higher and higher. It isn’t giving more energy out than in, it’s just taking the energy you put in and basically summing it cycle by cycle.

Here's some info about the supression of some of these technologies:

www.rense.com...

Stan Meyer's is included.

There’s nothing to suppress in these hoaxes. That site has a bit of info and a lot of opinion.

And here’s mine: Stan Meyers was a con artist. If he were to walk in soaking wet and tell you it’s raining, you’d better take a look out the window anyway.

[edit on 11/4/2007 by NRen2k5]

Originally posted by NRen2k5

Oh, it works. It just doesn’t give you a boost. Its overall effect is a drain.

so are superchargers, valve actuators, fuel and liquid cooling systems. the trouble is that your engine tends to work better with these additions. if this gadget does as these people say, you'd spend some of your available power to improve efficiency beyond your initial loss.

the concept is analogous to capital investment, so i'm really not buying that your opposition is honest.

I underestimated you, and for that I’m sorry. I’m too used to kids on other forums posting about “NOX” and “NOS” in reference to nitrous oxide (N2O) injection systems.

no you're just desperately looking for mistakes by others, rather than the subject. this is not the debate forum of PTS.

PS: what do you think a catalytic converter does?

Basically to convert the toxic biproducts of combustion to less toxic ones.


so, if these reactions are exothermic, it's pretty obvious to anyone that completing these reactions inside the combustion chamber rather than the exhaust pipe will yield more usable energy instead of just heat down the pipe.

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by NRen2k5

Oh, it works. It just doesn’t give you a boost. Its overall effect is a drain.

so are superchargers, valve actuators, fuel and liquid cooling systems. the trouble is that your engine tends to work better with these additions.

Their overall effect isn’t a drain which is why they work.

if this gadget does as these people say, you'd spend some of your available power to improve efficiency beyond your initial loss.

But it doesn’t do as the people say. It’s plainly obvious. You waste more energy producing the hydrogen than you get by burning it.

the concept is analogous to capital investment, so i'm really not buying that your opposition is honest.

???

I underestimated you, and for that I’m sorry. I’m too used to kids on other forums posting about “NOX” and “NOS” in reference to nitrous oxide (N2O) injection systems.

no you're just desperately looking for mistakes by others, rather than the subject. this is not the debate forum of PTS.

There’s no debate to be had here. I’m trying to stop people from wasting their time and energy on something that doesn’t work and is nothing more than a scam.

PS: what do you think a catalytic converter does?

Basically to convert the toxic biproducts of combustion to less toxic ones.

so, if these reactions are exothermic, it's pretty obvious to anyone that completing these reactions inside the combustion chamber rather than the exhaust pipe will yield more usable energy instead of just heat down the pipe.
And if using hydrogen as a fuel additive did so, you’d figure someone in the auto industry would have discovered that years ago and implemented it.

Originally posted by NRen2k5
..
And if using hydrogen as a fuel additive did so, you’d figure someone in the auto industry would have discovered that years ago and implemented it.

That's not a conclusive argument, is it?!

if the auto industry had any sense, there would not be any hybrids with two sets of redundant and heavy drivetrains and they would have ditched the piston engine approximately 30 years ago.

they haven't and even hybrids are sold via emotion, like any other car in existance. this time, 'environmental' appeal whatever that means, seeing rechargeable batteries are among the more toxic technical items known to man.

PS: your claim that hydrogen does not work is just as credible as theirs that it does, isn't it?

Here's a video of Stan Meyer's invention:

I didn't invent this technology and have never claimed such. I'm simply re-doing what someone else has already done. I've seen it work in my own garage and I know for a fact that it has potential to be very big.
I've built the Pogue type carbs, they work too, I never got 200 mpg but 100 mpg ain't all that bad.
You people poo-pooing the physics behind how it works, have you ever actually tried to build anything besides a sandwich? How the hell do you argue facts you only got out of a book? If you are a reasonable logical adult why would you believe everything you read? Those laws you claim I'm breaking were written before there were computers, lasers, ink-jet printers,,,, hell, they were written before there were toasters! Why do you give them so much credence?
Those laws of physics are probably mostly right, but they aren't the end all say all right to the end. My god, think for yourself, reason it out, take a break, have a piece of pizza.

Here's a video of Denny Klein's work:



[edit on 103030p://America/Chicago04b by Luther777]

I’m trying to stop people from wasting their time and energy on something that doesn’t work and is nothing more than a scam.

You're trying to stop me from doing something that interests me. You're trying to stop me from doing something that makes me feel better about myself. You're trying to stop me from doing something that just might help a lot of people including yourself.
Well thank you very much, but I really don't need your help.
It does work and I'm not selling anything so no one is going to get scammed.

Answer me one question,,,, How do you know that it doesn't work? Have you tried to build one? That's the only way you can know for certain.

Originally posted by Furnace_Man
Well thank you very much, but I really don't need your help.

Seconded.

I starred it, but I wanted to quote it to.

Sorry mods, this is more or less a one liner.

Here's another video about running your car off of water:

Google Video Link

That's a good one Luther, I think I was at their website before.

A friend that makes jewelry has a torch that makes it's own gas from water. It's pretty cool, but quite expensive.

Here's a video claiming Meyer's is a con:

Originally posted by Luther777
Here's another video about running your car off of water:

Google Video Link

Hi Luther

Started watching your videos.

This one very disappointing, just a company marketing video, no science in there. (looks like an mlm pitch )

This one may have been posted before, it's the C4 equinox episode on Free Energy:

video.google.com...



Here's what I don't get. The easiest way to demonstrate over-unity is to simply hook up the output to the input and show it keeps running indefinitely. Why do none of these inventors demonstrate like this? Am I missing something?

embed not working, perhaps I'm not doing it right ... mod help?

[edit on 7-11-2007 by RogerT]

Originally posted by NRen2k5
If you still don’t quite get it, let me propose a financial arrangement with you.

For every $5 you pay me, I’ll give $1 back. We can keep doing this until either you’re broke or you get the point. Whichever happens first.

HA! that is freakin awesome! fell out of ma chair when i read that one mate!

Originally posted by RogerT
style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" "http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=2464139837181538044&hl=en" flashvars="">

[…]

embed not working, perhaps I'm not doing it right ... mod help?

Since the mods can't be motivated to do squat for the skeptics here (except curbstomp them), here ya go:

Google Video Link

But, remember the universal laws of thermodynamics. We know overunity in a closed system is impossible and we know water as a fuel is impossible. These are false leads.

[edit on 13-11-2007 by RatRanger]

Originally posted by RatRanger

But, remember the universal laws of thermodynamics. We know overunity in a closed system is impossible and we know water as a fuel is impossible. These are false leads.

Thanks for sorting out the embed

I'm working hard to get up to speed on this over-unity thing. It seems the actual terms being used create a lot of problems with the skeptics.

For example, Peter Lindemann will demonstrate a magnetic attraction motor, simply modified from an off the shelf induction motor, to have zero back emf, useable torque and a 'recapture' of a large portion of the input power. It looks like he's getting more out (in total power) than he's putting in, yet he says it's not over-unity. He explains why, but I didn't understand.... it looked like over-unity to me!

The closed system thing also seems to be a big deal and the term free energy. The arguments are becoming about what is and isn't a closed system, what is and isn't over-unity, what is and isn't free energy.

Why argue. Just hook up the output to the input and show that there's a little bit extra that can be used to drive a genny. Call it what you like, but it would surely cause no less than a planetary revolution.

Let the scientists argue over where it comes from and what it's called. Why should we care if we get to heat our homes and drive our cars for free.



PS. I'm still not 100% convinced it's out there, but something is certainly brewing.