It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Water Burning Engines - What the NWO don't want you to know

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I suggest you copy the pages from the following link, onto your desktop or wherever.

While I haven't tested this myself, I have seen water burning engines - there is only one way to find out, try this yourself. No doubt there will be many debunkers, and agents ready to try and discount this info - download it - and try it.

I am convinced that this technology along with permanent magnetic motors (a la Tesla) are what the NWO have been suppressing for many years - spread it like a virus.

educate-yourself.org...

I have a feeling that many governments know of this technology, but have been forced at gunpoint to accept using oil - help break the back of the NWO - spread this around.




posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Your website layout is shocking.!!!


Not Spam.. Apologies... Page didn't fully load 1st time an only had the crappy menu at the top...

[edit on 26/7/2009 by UKWO1Phot]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Cool.I don't know about that page in question,never built it...but i've always wondered what happened to this guy and burning salt water with frequencies.
www.post-gazette.com...

Haven't heard much about him or if it was fake etc..



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
As a scientist I am calling B.S. on this one. If it sounds too good to be true it most assuredly is. Notice the complete lack of actual tech data.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by johnnyflip
 


You are very wrong. This tech. has been known and NOT hidden for many years.

Scientific truths:

A: Electrolysis of water creates hydrogen.
B: Hydrogen is flammable, and explosive.
C: Engines can be run off of hydrogen.

Everyone knows A, B, and C, are 100% true.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I have talked to several professors at the college here and they have agreed that using water was completely possible and would be efficient, but was withheld due to the fact it would be so cheap.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Hi, alternate-energy fans.

Go see that :

www.geet.nl...

There are quite easy projects to do.
You can run an engine on orange juice, Pepsi, ketchup. . .

Blue skies.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Scientific truths:

A: Electrolysis of water creates hydrogen.
B: Hydrogen is flammable, and explosive.
C: Engines can be run off of hydrogen.

Everyone knows A, B, and C, are 100% true.


Yes but I'm fairly sure that you cannot possibly make enough hydrogen on board a vehicle to then power that vehicle... Or even if you can the cost of the electricity far out weighs the benefit you would get from the Hydrogen.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 

Ive wondered the same thing! You hear about it once then never again.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnnyflip
As a scientist I am calling B.S. on this one. If it sounds too good to be true it most assuredly is. Notice the complete lack of actual tech data.


As a skeptic I'm calling BS on your BS call. First, if you're using the scientist card you need to validate that with information about yourself. I'm not saying you should break anonimity, I'm saying that if you want to use the argument of authority you need to break anonimity or I will play your "scientist" card with my "hahaha really?!" card. You could be doing investigative research on the mating habits of gnats, you'd still be a scientist and your opinion would still be worth the same as everyone else's regarding H2O combustion.

There is some technical data on the pages, at least at a quick glance. What I personally need to know is the ressonance frequency which breaks the water molecule. If I know that I have a feeling that within a few years I'll have a HHO burning ICE fueled from nothing more than water. Might not get away with having it on a car just yet, but a boat... a boat would be good.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Funny i came accross this thread tonight...
I was thinking earlier while driving my 1200 cc bike to have a water injection system fitted to it instead of a turbocharget to boost power and torque...



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mindmelding
What I personally need to know is the ressonance frequency which breaks the water molecule.


It appears, according to www.sciencedirect.com... 21&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7638bca9c51fad4fe779b1321ea7caf6 that you will need 50 watts of power per cubic centimeter of water.

One square centimeter of water doesn't yield a cubic centimeter of hydrogen. It yields a lot less.

You can't use it in its gas form (not dense enough) so you have to liquefy it. When you liquefy it (takes a lot more energy), you need a gas tank 3x the size of a regular gas tank... plus extra shielding to keep the cold from burning things and keep the tank from leaking:
www-formal.stanford.edu...


If I know that I have a feeling that within a few years I'll have a HHO burning ICE fueled from nothing more than water. Might not get away with having it on a car just yet, but a boat... a boat would be good.

Might not have a lot of room once you got it there. And when you add the expense of getting it into a liquid form, you'll find it costs a lot more than gas.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then
Yes but I'm fairly sure that you cannot possibly make enough hydrogen on board a vehicle to then power that vehicle... Or even if you can the cost of the electricity far out weighs the benefit you would get from the Hydrogen.


That is not entirely true.

Today's old style electrolysis is very inefficient, and slow, I agree.

However that does not mean it is impossible to speed up the process and find/discover a better style of electrolysis that could use less energy. There are literally thousands of different ways to create electrolysis devices, and not every single way has been tested or discovered.

You never know, someone could find that "sweet spot" that will produce enough hydrogen on the fly with very little power input. Some people claimed to already have done that.

IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Been reading that website for years, there is a lot of interesting stuff there.

In fact I have it mirrored on my main website.

If anybody wants a copy of it in zip format, give a holler and I'll upload it somewhere. The filesize is 210 megs.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Just the fact that we are talking about this makes this thread worth a star and flag. Well done Amag.

It really doesn't matter if this version works or not. As soon as someone figures it out, or this info sparks something in the right person, the better we'll all (or at least them and their closest) be.

I believe this kind of inspiration (if nothing else) deserves to be spread as far and wide as possible if even the most minuscule amount of possibility exists.

IMHO, and because it has the potential to better the whole of mankind, it is far better to make a multitude of cheap mistakes, than mistakenly and neglectfully ignore the magnitude of even the slightest possibility that this is true.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


What I want is the ressonance frequency. The amount of power needed is something which will be apparent. I very much doubt it's that high, because we're talking ressonance. And I won't be needing any gas tank if the HHO is produced on the fly.

I've seen it done in videos, and overall concept was explained. Yes, they could be hoaxes, hypothetically. But usually hoaxes don't get the hoaxer killed after selling his technology to the military. Just saying...


MBF

posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd


One square centimeter of water doesn't yield a cubic centimeter of hydrogen. It yields a lot less.


It would yield more. I don't feel like doing the calculations right now, but it would yield more.


You can't use it in its gas form (not dense enough) so you have to liquefy it.


Yes you can. If you break the H2O into H2 and O2, you have the perfect ratio for complete combustion. I discussed this with a cousin and he rigged a device onto a lawnmower and he said it worked great. Now I am not saying that you have an alternator on your car that has enough output to run your car on this gas.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Ok, im gonna go a. and take a crack at this one...

The Atomic Mass of Hydrogen: 1.00794
The Atomic Mass of Oxygen: 15.9994

Molecular mass of Water Molecule = (O + H + H) = 18.01528

So, by weight...

About one ninth of water is Hydrogen.

Gaseous hydrogen burns just as well as Liquid hydrogen, and since the reaction does not have to bring the cryogenic hydrogen up to temperature, it is going to be a hotter reaction.

Hydrogen combustion with atmospheric oxygen to produce pure water and heat has been known for Many years...

The x-45 (Scramjet) NASA has been working on, is fueled by molecular hydrogen and atmospheric oxygen reaction...

Mainly because of the ease of fuel flow, and chemical reaction calculations when dealing with the relatively simple reaction of H4 + O2 = 2 H2O


The problem with the "Meyers Cell" (And yes, that is what your page of schematics is detailing) is that of thermodynamics.

Current understanding of thermodynamics prevents overunity (More than 100% efficient) devices from existing.


When you electrolize (Split) water, the minimum amount of energy that you have to put in, in order to split one mole of hydrogen from the water, is below what is released when one mole of hydrogen is burned with oxygen to recombine into water.

Thus, this meyers cell (Through our current understanding of chemistry, and quantum physics) cannot produce anything more than an efficient electrolization reaction (Current DC Electrolyzers are around 30% efficient)

Placeing a non overunity cell in your car would merely over complicate the design, without adding any benefit whatsoever, because you STILL have to carry all of the energy to SPLIT the water, to turn to hydrogen, to burn with oxygen.... making this a inefficient design.

Now, it *IS* possible that the resonance frequency acts upon a "Segment" of reality that science has not yet observed, and is drawing the extra energy from there... but if this were true, it would still not be overunity... merely an unknown energy reservoir.

The only problem that we currently have with hydrogen fuel (Cryogenic liquid), is its volume, which takes up (Per Megajoule) 4 times more space than conventional gasoline or jet fuel.
everything2.com...

And at 700 bar (10,000psi) it takes up 8 times more space than a like energy volume of gasoline.

Hydrogen does however (Per Megajoule) contain 3-4 times more energy than gasoline for the same mass.


Scientists are currently working on all sorts of different storage methods for hydrogen fuel in transportation systems, including:

Metal Hydrides: Small metalic filings that bind to hydrogen, and soak them up like a sponge, to be released later when a small ammount of heat is applied.
en.wikipedia.org...

Carbon nanosheets: By creating multiwalled, interconnected carbon sheets, the normal electrostatic repulsion of molecular hydrogen molecules can be instead conducted through the nanosheets, and thus, the overall pressure of a volume of hydrogen is drastically reduced (Compared with normal compression , or cryogenic liquification)
www.nanowerk.com...=4154.php
scitation.aip.org...
pubs.acs.org...

-Edrick



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
I just want to clarify some stuff for people who might not have read, or perhaps fully understood the concept.

The frequency doesn't seem that critical, it's probably dependent on the dimensions of the cylinders, it says 10-250Hz - using a square pulse.

No hydrogen or oxygen are stored - only water is stored. The gasses and vapor collect in the top of the cylinder - at around 30kPa you have enough pressure to run the engine.

The water is not wholly electrolyzed - it is mainly separated by high frequency vibration due to the fact it is polarized - you can agitate it - just like a microwave does - use the right frequency and you separate the atoms at low energy.

Not all the water molecules are separated - rather you have a mixture of O2, H2 and H2O injected into the combustion chamber - the more power you want, the higher the concentration of the combustibles. The water that is not electrolyzed is necessary - it is the expanding gas, the combustibles mainly provide heat to vaporize the water.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by Amagnon]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick

When you electrolize (Split) water, the minimum amount of energy that you have to put in, in order to split one mole of hydrogen from the water, is below what is released when one mole of hydrogen is burned with oxygen to recombine into water.

Thus, this meyers cell (Through our current understanding of chemistry, and quantum physics) cannot produce anything more than an efficient electrolization reaction (Current DC Electrolyzers are around 30% efficient)

Placeing a non overunity cell in your car would merely over complicate the design, without adding any benefit whatsoever, because you STILL have to carry all of the energy to SPLIT the water, to turn to hydrogen, to burn with oxygen.... making this a inefficient design.

Now, it *IS* possible that the resonance frequency acts upon a "Segment" of reality that science has not yet observed, and is drawing the extra energy from there... but if this were true, it would still not be overunity... merely an unknown energy reservoir.


Thanks for the response. A couple of things - as I haven't tried this, I can't confirm it - but the text indicates it is NOT conventional electrolysis - which as you have stated is inefficient.

The other thing you brought up was storage - but this burns the fuel as soon as its made - there is no storage except for the water - a small amount of vapor is stored at the top of the cyclinder at 30kPa - as it is burned, it is replced.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join