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.

 

Open-Source Specs Posted for 200% Efficient Water Fuel Cell!

page: 2
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Is this not just taking off from where Stanley Meyers was at?
Pretty close to the same design and some of the key is the clearance between the tubes. I am glad someone is doing something. I am in the process of buying materials and getting my shop set up to proceed.

www.waterfuelcell.org...

It is good to do open source and a way to stay alive if you really have something. There is plenty of money to be made in the manufacture and installation of these units, no need to protect it.




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
it's just an engine that uses WATER as FUEL - if this becomes mainstream (which it wont!), then eventually there'll be water shortages. No one in their right mind is going to use water as fuel when there's more need for water as a drink to stay alive!

please don't compare it with Steorn - they're two completely different things.
for one, Steorn is not a hoax or a scam, and secondly, Steorns 'free energy' is free energy - it doesn't need fuel.

Thanks

my 2p



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by j2000
Is this not just taking off from where Stanley Meyers was at?


Exactly, yes!


But Stan Meyer tried to go it alone instead of open-sourcing his specs, and got silenced.

If this one is anywhere close to the efficiency that Meyer was rumored to achieve, then this is huge!!



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Does this just apply to fresh water, or salt water ?

Second line



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adam West
Does this just apply to fresh water, or salt water ?

Second line


No salt water. But as advancements can be made in engery of this nature, you would have the available power supply for cheap to take the salt out of water. The reason as of this point, is because it costs too much in energy to remove the salt.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster

Originally posted by j2000
Is this not just taking off from where Stanley Meyers was at?


Exactly, yes!


But Stan Meyer tried to go it alone instead of open-sourcing his specs, and got silenced.

If this one is anywhere close to the efficiency that Meyer was rumored to achieve, then this is huge!!


To this day, there are groups trying to buy the Buggy and all his stuff, but I think some keys are missing somewhere.
That is why what these guys are doing, and by getting others to play with it, all will benefit from it. Meyers on the other hand was a fool to try adn protect it. That was old school thought for making money from it. He should have known better that they would get rid of him.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket
I'm sure the thread is about to be flooded with them, yes...but if I understand what they're claiming, no thermodynamic laws are being violated at all.


...yeah, and I claim that I am the Chinese Emperor!

I'm too lazy to do the math, but they seem to be claiming that they produce more H2+O2 mix than the electrical current of same strength, in a typical cell. If that's not a violation of energy conservation law, I don't know what is.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
How can you burn water? It is already burned hydrogen, you cannot extract any more energy from it by burning.
Pure hydrogen and oxygen contains lots of energy, but water does not.

I think this is complete BS.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by MajorDisaster
 


i wouldnt be surprised if this guy dissapears and we never hear about this again, i remember watching a clip about a guy who made cars run on water a couple of years ago and nothing ever happened, we dont have cars running on water still, but it can be done, here is the link to that clip www.youtube.com... if someone can embed it would be appreciated.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
How can you burn water? It is already burned hydrogen, you cannot extract any more energy from it by burning.
Pure hydrogen and oxygen contains lots of energy, but water does not.


Please do some research into HHO/hydroxy/Brown's Gas. That's all I really want to say



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by IFA420
 





posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Seriously? Taken much chemistry have you? Why do you think it takes so much energy to break down water? To overcome... come on I know you can do it...



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
www.youtube.com...

Here's Stan Meyer's water car with the Pentagon showing "lots of interest."



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
They are NOT claiming that this is a "perpetual motion machine"!


Yes they ARE claiming that it is "perpetual motion". They claim "OVER UNITY" which IS perpetual motion, a.k.a. perpetual energy, a.k.a. free energy.

The are claiming that it takes X amount of energy to create Y amount of energy, and X < Y. That means they think they can replace the X energy with a portion of the Y energy, in a loop, to perpetually run itself and still have extra power left over. Y - X = Z. They claim Z is EXTRA energy, a.k.a. OVER UNITY.

In laymans terms, they believe they are creating enough energy to run that machine by itself without external power input, and still have extra energy to spare (over unity).

In even better laymans terms, they are starting with 100 and claiming to create 200 (200% efficency). Meaning they think they can use half of the 200, which is 100, to make another 200. Like a loop, a perpetual motion....

Energy transfer is motion.

The entire universe is motion.


Originally posted by MajorDisaster
Try to know what you're talking about before you post, OK?


So maybe YOU should try to know what you're talking about before YOU post, OK?


-----

Anyway, I highly doubt they can dissociate water 100% efficently with such a crude cathode and anode design and normal electrolysis. 200% efficency is just a joke..

That would mean every single watt of energy they use would not be wasted, and would perfectly take the water into parts. That is just impossible with their design.

The fact that their water heats up means their design is not 100% efficent. It means most of their electricity is creating heat, and they are letting the heat escape into the enviornment (wasted). Heat = Waste, because it delivers energy to their enviornment.

So those guys are a fruad. They have not broken the law of conservation of energy.



A consequence of the law of energy conservation is that perpetual motion machines can only work perpetually if they deliver no energy to their surroundings. If such machines produce more energy than is put into them, they must lose mass and thus eventually disappear over perpetual time, and are therefore impossible.



We already know electrolysis can create hydrogen. However, unless you can do it 100% effciently, you are going to get less energy than you started with. There is no such thing as 100% efficency electrolysis. Even if there was, you would only get exactly the amount of energy that you started with.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 

you`re not burning water. You would be using electrolysis to seperate the Hydrogen atoms from the Oxygen atoms. Done by passing an electrical current through water via two electrodes, bubbles forming on the electrode are hydrogen gas. These are fed down a tube into the air intake of your car (for example) where they mix with your regular fuel and increase your MPG. Idont know if you can run an engine on 100% hydrogen because when burnt hydrogen produces water (paradox) and water and metal (engine and exhaust components) dont live well together. RUST.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by Maslo
 


Seriously? Taken much chemistry have you? Why do you think it takes so much energy to break down water? To overcome... come on I know you can do it...


Maslo has demonstrated decent background in natural sciences many times before. I do hope you have enough education to maintain a meaningful discussion with this expert.

Now, the amount of energy to break down water into H2 and O2 has been measured and put in reference books. If the process is 100% efficient (i.e. no energy lost to heat etc, which in practice is inevitable), the best you can hope for is getting back an equivalent amount of energy when H2 and O2 recombine.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
One thing that their plans do not give you is the electronics to run it. Almost all that have had success in the past have done so with a pulse modulation of he power. They do not show the package they are using in the video.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
They will not charge large sums for this and even if they do it will be in your favor. The energy companies will most likely pay you! Probably wondering why? Simple.... Hook to the grid and any unused energy will be used by the power company to send to other customers. They are doing this right now in Arizona for people that have solar…. So essentially it should pay for itself...

-Kdial1


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by j2000
 


I noticed that too.

The key behind Stanely M.'s design was the pulse modulation in increasing steps.

Since they haven't mentioned any modulation, I think they are just running straight electricity without modulation.

If they ARE using some type of modulation, that means they don't have 100% efficiency because those modulators lose energy via heat, and are not 100% efficient.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Yes they ARE claiming that it is "perpetual motion". They claim "OVER UNITY" which IS perpetual motion, a.k.a. perpetual energy, a.k.a. free energy.


A "perpetual motion machine" is (in theory) a closed system that's able to stay in motion forever WITHOUT an external fuel source.

This system clearly isn't a closed system, it's consuming water for fuel. So this is absolutely not a "perpetual motion machine", nor should we refer to it as such.

I know skeptics have long claimed that HHO systems aren't feasible because it costs too much energy for the electrolysis to get the hydrogen out of the water.

But, suppose a NEW way to perform the electrolysis using much less energy could be discovered - as Stan Meyer, and others, supposedly have done. Well, if that's true, then it would be perfectly feasible to have a generator running on water, without violating any Laws of Physics.

Use a little bit of energy to change the water into HHO gas, then burn the HHO gas to get a LOT of energy out. Make sense?



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join