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.

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



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.



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



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



Then go troll somewhere else.



Check the numbers again. You’re wrong.


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]

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.



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


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

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



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.



???



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.




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.

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:

YouTube Link

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:

YouTube Link

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

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.

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:

YouTube 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...

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

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]

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

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]

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.