Overunity.

Originally posted by boncho
Here is the kicker:

One liter of gasoline contains approximately 30MJ of energy, while oxyhydrogen gas would contain approximately 7-8kJ per liter. This means that you would need approximately 4000 liters oxyhydrogen for each liter of gasoline your engine currently uses, assuming the engine efficiencies are approximately the same on oxyhydrogen than on gasoline.

That was the beauty of Stans system.. It didn't need to store hydrogen..It created it on demand..You are comparing totally different systems including throwing in the booster stuff.. Stan created his own patented electrolysis process, which has not been replicated.

Originally posted by boncho

Thus if your car uses 6 liters of gasoline per hour while driving down the highway, prepare for 24000 LPH oxyhydrogen consumption. Assuming a super-efficient series cell electrolyzer (2.5 W per LPH) you would need 60kW of electrical energy to run the electrolyzer. This corresponds to about 80hp, which is significantly more than the amount of engine power used at highway speeds (~20hp). Figuring in the alternator efficiency (~50%) you would actually need 160hp on the engine shaft to produce 24000LPH of oxyhydrogen gas

You need to look at this video which should fill in some of the blanks. Stan's system wasn't only about the electrolyzer..

Originally posted by boncho
In other words, it doesn't work.

I guess these guys must live in a parallel universe because they are doing just that, running off HHO..

reply to post by Freezer

That was the beauty of Stans system.. It didn't need to store hydrogen..It created it on demand..You are comparing totally different systems including throwing in the booster stuff.. Stan created his own patented electrolysis process, which has not been replicated.

Stan was a fraud, there are many people that have done similar schemes.

I guess these guys must live in a parallel universe because they are doing just that, running off HHO..

Again, you have no understanding about what you are talking about. You posted the Lazar video, in which he makes Hydrogen gas, stores it using hydrides and then runs his car off it. I never said you can't run a car off hydrogen. Only that it is by no means a miracle. And also unrealistic (as of right now).
A thread here about how hydrogen could work


The Japanese video you posted about the Genepax car is another blunder on your part. Because they were using a hydrogen fuel cell that ran with large amounts of chemical catalysts. And while it looks like you can just put water into it, the more expensive chemical catalysts are the main energy variable for the car, not water. The company is now defunct I believe. But they did round up some good investor money....


Please don't bother spamming more youtube videos you don't understand. If you can find a paper that produces h202 in closed system which has no external energy input, than post it.

You won't be able to, because it doesn't exist. If you can't run a closed system, you can't power a car. Simple as that.

Originally posted by boncho
Stan was a fraud, there are many people that have done similar schemes.

Funny how you keep saying it, but can't provide proof. Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. I can say I've been to the moon, doesn't mean I have.

So there it is, I can't provide proof that his car was real, and you can't provide proof that it wasn't. Fact is he has the patents, which stacks up a lot higher than anything you've brought forth.

Did you watch the 40 minute video on that guy explaining those patents? I thought you would have found that most interesting..

Originally posted by boncho
Again, you have no understanding about what you are talking about. You posted the Lazar video, in which he makes Hydrogen gas, stores it using hydrides and then runs his car off it.

You claimed to have debunked HHO, which is a pretty wide open statement, which is why I posted those videos of vehicles utilizing hydrogen. You need to be more specific, and perhaps so should I.

Originally posted by boncho
I never said you can't run a car off hydrogen. Only that it is by no means a miracle. And also unrealistic (as of right now).

So unrealistic that Lazar has been running his corvette for over 20 years on hydrogen? Tell me why exactly is it unrealistic when people are running cars on water right as we speak? Couple this with the MYT engine and people would have the freedom to drive for almost no cost, not only that but the exhaust would be water. Would it be impossible to use tax money for building solar powered hydrogen stations along the road? Unrealistic? With the money we spend on wars that would be a drop in the bucket. Heck with the money we spend on wars we could afford to give everyone free cars and fuel for life.

Originally posted by boncho
Please don't bother spamming more youtube videos you don't understand.

Yea, quite a jab to the oil companies eh? I will continue to post these types of videos everywhere I can, thank you very much. Until we wake up that is.. Many already have and are experimenting. Which is why the oil companies have had to increase there efforts.

reply to post by Freezer


The videos you post just show how little research you do on the subject. Unfortunately it takes me hours sometimes posting scientific papers and tracking down net material for everything that pops up in these forums. I don't have the time right now.

As far as Meyer being a fraud, he was found to be in the Courts. If you read his patents, they do not mention producing gas in the amounts that are capable of running a car in a closed system.
You can start hereAnd use Google Patent search for the rest.

You claimed to have debunked HHO, which is a pretty wide open statement, which is why I posted those videos of vehicles utilizing hydrogen. You need to be more specific, and perhaps so should I.

"HHO" is a term used by crackpots and con artists. So it doesn't need much debunking.

So unrealistic that Lazar has been running his corvette for over 20 years on hydrogen? Tell me why exactly is it unrealistic when people are running cars on water right as we speak?

If you read the thread I linked you to, you would have seen that I liked Lazar's idea and that I was discussing how it could be feasible.

Heck with the money we spend on wars we could afford to give everyone free cars and fuel for life.

costofwar.com...

When I checked the cost of the war on Iraq and Afghanistan it was around 1,200,000,000,000

When divided by the number of people in the States, it's about $4,000.

That is not enough to build the cars, let alone the rest of the technology you are talking about.

I will continue to post these types of videos everywhere I can, thank you very much. Until we wake up that is.

The videos you post are no better than propaganda. And the only thing people are waking up to (if they choose to take them at face value), is the potential to be defrauded.

Search GWE.

Your arguments are rhetoric that are not backed by anything but a sea of scammers. If you want to do some real work on the subject and come back with a cogent argument that supports some reasonable position, please do.

Originally posted by boncho
The videos you post just show how little research you do on the subject. Unfortunately it takes me hours sometimes posting scientific papers and tracking down net material for everything that pops up in these forums. I don't have the time right now.

Again with the talk, but that's pretty much it.. You have time to make insults, but no time to provide any evidence that Stan Meyer was a fraud. Not sure where these "scientific papers" are. Got a link?

Originally posted by boncho
Your arguments are rhetoric that are not backed by anything but a sea of scammers. If you want to do some real work on the subject and come back with a cogent argument that supports some reasonable position, please do.

I never claimed to have proof, you did, while providing none. Again with the accusation of "scammer" yet you don't even say who you are talking about, and have nothing to back it up.

reply to post by Freezer

Again with the talk, but that's pretty much it.. You have time to make insults, but no time to provide any evidence that Stan Meyer was a fraud. Not sure where these "scientific papers" are. Got a link?

I already posted a paper from someone that is in the forums that owns the copyright to Stan's videos, care to address it? Care to address the fact that his patents say nothing about running a car or that his invention works in a closed system?

I never claimed to have proof, you did, while providing none. Again with the accusation of "scammer" yet you don't even say who you are talking about, and have nothing to back it up.

Simple understanding of electrolysis is proof.... If you need me to spell it out I can. Will do on the next post. I assume you have no understanding whatsoever, correct?

If YouTube is your only educational resource, I apologize.

Originally posted by boncho
I already posted a paper from someone that is in the forums that owns the copyright to Stan's videos, care to address it? Care to address the fact that his patents say nothing about running a car or that his invention works in a closed system?

What exactly do you want me to address about it? So they own the copyright to some videos..Explain how Stan Meyer's device is debunked. I'm all ears with an open mind. If you are knowledgeable in Stan's system, explain it here in your next post. Remember I have only stated my belief that Stan Meyer's system was legit, I am not sure because I never had hands on experience with his devices, did you? You have stated that this was all a scam, so it's up to you to present evidence for that claim. So far I haven't seen any substantial evidence that this was a scam.

Originally posted by boncho
Simple understanding of electrolysis is proof.... If you need me to spell it out I can. Will do on the next post. I assume you have no understanding whatsoever, correct?

If YouTube is your only educational resource, I apologize.

Feel free to do so, would love to hear it, can't be much worse than the insults, and baseless accusations, although I don't see how it is relevant since I already told you that you can have a 1% efficient generator that produces overunity or a cop greater than 1, simply based on the fact that outside energy can be cohered.

reply to post by Freezer


Stan Meyer and his car is no different than David Copperfield making something disappear or and regular magician cutting a woman in half.

There is a video of him operating a car but there is no scientific analysis on his system and it was never independently tested.

As far as the story about his death and the mysteries surrounding his invention, the guy was selling his ideas to people. But also claimed to have been offered millions (in the cumulative amount of billions) to stop working on his system. But he didn't take the money.

There was no suppression because all his work is still floating around to this day....

He has no education, no formal qualifications. He was found to be fraudulent in the courts.

Prove his system doesn't work? He proved it himself.



Overunity


When talking about "overunity" you are talking about the efficiency of a system. When talking about solar panels, the energy source is the sun, and that is part of that system. So for you to have "overunity", you would have to collect all the sun's energy and output more than that.

Overunity, is by definition something that doesn't work. It is part of science that says if the result is there, the data must have an error in it. A closed system cannot function without overunity, and all closed systems will stop working because they will run out of an energy source.

If there were to be a perceived closed system that managed to continue running, it would be an open system. Because there would have to be additional energy input from somewhere.

"Overunity devices" By Bearden et all, are usually boxes or magnets motors that claim to take energy in and put more energy out. ie Overunity.

Meaning they are generating electricity, or energy from nothing.


Here is a paper where they are talking about efficiency:

Accounting for overlap factors, these values approach 100%, implying near-unity conversion from the driving lasers to the generated spectrum.

1


You can see in the paper I posted they are talking about efficiency. Apply that to the solar array converting sun to electricity, you will not find a solar array that converts at 100% +. Therefore, you don't have overunity.

reply to post by boncho


Furthermore, Meyer was already debunked earlier in this thread:

One liter of gasoline contains approximately 30MJ of energy, while oxyhydrogen gas would contain approximately 7-8kJ per liter. This means that you would need approximately 4000 liters oxyhydrogen for each liter of gasoline your engine currently uses, assuming the engine efficiencies are approximately the same on oxyhydrogen than on gasoline.



Thus if your car uses 6 liters of gasoline per hour while driving down the highway, prepare for 24000 LPH oxyhydrogen consumption.

A backyard "scientist" like Meyer has "recreated" Meyers water system, his name is Ravi:

4.0 A-----18.00------------12.00-------------43.200 [LPH of h2]
H2+O2 was calculated on an average basis for collection time of 30 secs. I'm not very
sure of H2 and O2 volumes as I've calculated H2 as 2/3rd the volume of the total and
O2 as 1/3rd the volume. Incase im wrong please do let me know how to calculate
these.

He claims to produce 64LPH of Oxyhydrogen (well he calls it hydroxy )


Still 375 times below what is needed (to operate a vehicle on the hwy) from the above quoted text.

Ravi, did this with what he says was 4 amps, [he claims increasing amperage increased the oxyhydrogen production] so to hit the number we need, (by his calculations) we need 1500amps to run the car.
1

Even the die hard fans of Meyer have numbers that don't add up to the claims.


In comparison, a 20lb tank of liquid propane has about 107.2kwh in it, or 107200 watt hours.

(91,690 BTU per US gallon, 2220 kJ/mol, 50.34 kJ/g).

1

Just think about that for a second....also think about how much propane cars use when they are modified to run on them....


.

Originally posted by boncho
Stan Meyer and his car is no different than David Copperfield making something disappear or and regular magician cutting a woman in half.

There is a video of him operating a car but there is no scientific analysis on his system and it was never independently tested.

Just because some device is not tested by scientists doesn't mean it doesn't work, and in fact therefore tells you that you can't possibly debunk something you know nothing about, because you haven't tested it.

Originally posted by boncho
As far as the story about his death and the mysteries surrounding his invention, the guy was selling his ideas to people. But also claimed to have been offered millions (in the cumulative amount of billions) to stop working on his system. But he didn't take the money.

If I was in their position, I'd offer that money too.. If his system had made it to the market, that would destroy the oil cartels profits.

Originally posted by boncho
There was no suppression because all his work is still floating around to this day....

That's why in the link you provided they are still working towards figuring out how Stan's system worked..

Originally posted by boncho
He has no education, no formal qualifications. He was found to be fraudulent in the courts.

So are you saying, only a person with formal qualifications can invent something new?

Originally posted by boncho
"Overunity devices" By Bearden et all, are usually boxes or magnets motors that claim to take energy in and put more energy out. ie Overunity.

Meaning they are generating electricity, or energy from nothing.

They actually state quite the opposite, saying these are open systems and take energy from the environment..I don't see why you can't understand that. You are concentrating on the term and missing the entire concept.

Originally posted by boncho
Furthermore, Meyer was already debunked earlier in this thread:

Yea, you already posted that. You are not factoring in the electronics part of the equation, the electronics which haven't been figured out......

Originally posted by boncho
He claims to produce 64LPH of Oxyhydrogen (well he calls it hydroxy )

I've already watched his videos. And I have no reason to doubt his work. Again the electrolyzer is only part of the system..When you have a electronic device which can output more electricity than in, the efficiency of the actual electrolysis method becomes less of a factor. Was ravi's system the same as meyers system? No..

You might want to read up on this part from the link you provided.
waterfuelcell.org...

reply to post by Freezer

Just because some device is not tested by scientists doesn't mean it doesn't work, and in fact therefore tells you that you can't possibly debunk something you know nothing about, because you haven't tested it.

No but it's a good way to separate the fraudsters from the people who actually do invent something.


And no one knows nothing about it... That's the point....

If I was in their position, I'd offer that money too.. If his system had made it to the market, that would destroy the oil cartels profits.

And the person offering it wouldn't accept?

That's why in the link you provided they are still working towards figuring out how Stan's system worked..

It didn't

They actually state quite the opposite, saying these are open systems and take energy from the environment..I don't see why you can't understand that. You are concentrating on the term and missing the entire concept.

They also don't work, and the people building/marketing to investors are also frauds.

I've already watched his videos. And I have no reason to doubt his work. Again the electrolyzer is only part of the system..When you have a electronic device which can output more electricity than in, the efficiency of the actual electrolysis method becomes less of a factor.

Wow... Go back and watch Meyer's videos. There are enough clues in them alone as to why his system was a fraud.

Pay close attention to subtle things in the video.

Originally posted by boncho
And no one knows nothing about it... That's the point....

Exactly, so how do you know it doesn't work?

Originally posted by boncho
And the person offering it wouldn't accept?

This is what makes this guy one of the greats.. He knew that this could change humanities future, and put humanity before his own selfish monetary needs, although made the mistake of not releasing it all without using the corrupt patent office, simply to be recognized for his work. He didn't know the forces he was up against and the lengths some groups were willing to go not to have this technology released.

Originally posted by boncho
It didn't

They also don't work, and the people building/marketing to investors are also frauds.

Again this is your opinion. My post was a broad generalization of no one in particular, yet "they" are frauds. So by that criteria, if you make any claims at all without scientific proof, then you are a fraud looking to steal peoples money.., a very flawed system of judgment indeed. Guilty until proven innocent?

Originally posted by boncho
Wow... Go back and watch Meyer's videos. There are enough clues in them alone as to why his system was a fraud.

Pay close attention to subtle things in the video.

Which brings up this. What exactly is it and what purpose does it serve, and also has it been replicated and tested in a scientific matter?
waterfuelcell.org...

While we are talking about videos, here's another interesting one.

E-Cat Cold fusion device independently validated producing 800% more energy than input Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

Looks like there is a certain amount of confusion about the term "overunity."

So I will offer one before continuing:

"Overunity" refers to a system that has an "energy efficiency" (amount of energy out divided by amount of energy in) greater than 1, or greater than 100% if expressed as a percentage.

We must first remember that E=mc^2. Though this may be an approximation, the point is that matter is a form of energy, too.

If you include all past and present inputs of energy into the system as part of the system, then the only way you can get an "overunity device" would be to create a device that actually creates energy (or matter/mass). And this is logically impossible, since the only thing that could be truly capable of creating energy would be something that was not itself made out of energy. This leaves us in the realm of the immaterial, the spiritual.

Thus, any appearance of overunity, barring direct spiritual intervention, must be false. The output energy MUST be converted from some other form of energy.

Matter-to-energy converters are all around us, and without them life would be pretty boring. The most obvious one that comes to mind is the sun. The less obvious example is all the rest of matter. If matter weren't in continuous motion, then it would cease to exist. And if it is in continuous motion then it must be producing energy. But most matter is not radiative like the sun. Each atom keeps all the energy it produces inside itself, except for equal exchanges with other atoms.

We can force a non-radiating material to radiate by heating it up, or exciting it in some other way (with a voltage). All such systems we know about produce "waste" energy and so measure in at less than 100% efficient.

All proposed "free energy" systems that I know about are really either energy harvesting systems like solar cells or matter-to-energy converters like cold fusion. If they seem to come out overunity it is only because there is some source of energy that is not being accounted for (barring, of course, direct spiritual intervention).

So this whole kick for overunity is really just a search for sources of energy where it was traditionally thought that none existed, or ways to harvest an energy form that traditionally was thought to be impossible to harvest.

If you could take a grain of sand, put it into a device that ran on a little 9 volt battery and power a 100 watt light bulb with it for 100 years, that would be "overunity" for most people. But basically the device would just be "burning" sand. Super low-cost fuel!

I am sure that this sort of technology has been, is being, and will continue to be developed. The problem is getting the PTB to take their greedy little hands off it and let us use it!

I am sure that this sort of technology has been, is being, and will continue to be developed. The problem is getting the PTB to take their greedy little hands off it and let us use it!

Could you explain how 'sitting' on these devices puts more money into the hands of TPTB?

You and I can buy oil stocks and be 'in on the profit' as much as TPTB.

Plus you don't have to 'sell' the devices you can 'lease' them to the military and maritime. Just think you don't have to bother with the expense of those tankers.

reply to post by samkent


Don't bother with logic on the "free energy" crowd. They do not have business acumen, and for some reason they don't understand the most profit is realized from things that are essentially 'free'.

The rest of us know that every time it rains millions of dollars worth of water is falling on us, and the other half isn't paying attention when they pay $1.25 for a bottle of it at the store....