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: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
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.


You don't understand....

They are claiming OVERUNITY. Overunity is potential perpetual motion/energy.

That means they think they could use the energy from the burning water to power the electrolysis and still have energy to spare. Perpetual motion.

SO YOU ARE WRONG. They are claiming overunity, meaning if it was a closed system it could power itself. If it can't power itself, it isn't overunity.

I can't believe your illogical and incorrect post got multiple stars..


There must be a few ATS users who don't know anything about physics.


Originally posted by MajorDisaster
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?


That is called OVERUNITY, and so far is not possible because energy can not be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to the next.

You don't understand..... even if we knew how to convert energy 100% perfectly, we won't get more than we started with.

Example:

Pretend that burning 1 point of hydrogen is equal to 1 point of electricity.

If I wanted to convert 100 points of electricity into 100 points of hydrogen, I would have to have 100% efficient conversion. That in itself is nearly impossible with electrolysis because of loss of energy via heat, and energy absorbed into impurities in the water, and other reasons.

Even if I had 99% efficiency, that would mean 100 points of electricity would only make 99 points of hydrogen. That means you loose 1 point of electricity in the conversion.... Starting with 100 and going to 99 is a WASTE of energy, and you are better off just using the 100 points of electricity for something else.

Even if you are capable of 100% conversion, you don't get more energy than you started with.... You start with 100, and end up with 100.

What the people in the OP's video are claiming is that they can turn 100 points of electricity into 200 points of hydrogen (200 points of electricity). That is not possible, because the energy has to come from somewhere, and it doesn't come from burning hydrogen.

When you burn oxyhydrogen it turns into water vapor. The heat from burning hydrogen is released when the hydrogen is converted back into water vapor. It is the same exact amount of energy needed to separate the water to begin with. You do NOT get more energy.

electrolysis: 2 H2O → 2 H2 + O2
combustion: 2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O

You do NOT get more energy than you started with, even with 100% efficiency.

You can NOT start with a little energy and get a LOT of energy from hydrogen.

So the claims by the people in the OP's video are FAKE, and INCORRECT.

However............ you can run a car on hydrogen, and you can turn water into a flame, BUT, you will loose energy in the process.




[edit on 24-11-2009 by ALLis0NE]




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Fuel cell... hrmmm. In my opinion it's a little bit of a distraction from boosted cold spark implosion with ball or circular skin effect cathode/anode plugs, incorporating direct injection of water into cylinders as it's not as efficient for making power at a basic level it seems, however it does not require a cylinder based engine. It's all about the shape of the cell and the electronics to drive it. Make the molecules work easier for you



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostR1der
Fuel cell... hrmmm. In my opinion it's a little bit of a distraction from boosted cold spark implosion with ball or circular skin effect cathode/anode plugs, incorporating direct injection of water into cylinders as it's not as efficient for making power at a basic level it seems, however it does not require a cylinder based engine. It's all about the shape of the cell and the electronics to drive it. Make the molecules work easier for you


Yes, that is where it will go. But the only proven design so far caused too much radiation and he was not allowed to manufactor it.

Maybe this is where they got "Mr. Anderson" from in The Matrix. The Govt. kept trying to stop this Mr. Anderson also.

Herman Anderson



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GhostR1der
 


This is also where the term "Heavy Water" came into play.
Again, it is in the right direction, but it does take some funds and equipment to play with it.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Not to hijack the thread, but has everyone seen george greens magnetic motor?

www.youtube.com...

in the video it shows him getting a magnet to spin using other magnets.

what I want to know is could this be used to make a perpetual motion machine?
the magnet being spun would be the equivalent of the wind turbines blades. and the magnets causing the spin would be like the wind, pushing the blades.

Ive always been curious about free energy, and I always thought it would be possible somehow, with magnets.

Can someone please explain to me why this wouldnt work? without giving me the generic 2nd law of thermodynamics response, which I already know.
But with this specific case, why wouldnt it work like a wind turbine, but instead it would be a magnetic turbine.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



Then of course there is the ignorant bunch, who claim they can "trick" a molecule, a magnet or a piece of rock into behaving according to their volition, and contrary to physics laws, most of which have been tested to umptieth decimal place.


I mostly agree with you, but this statement begged to be made an example of, lol!


I would say that all of our so-called "semi-conductors" act exactly like you claim. They are "tricked" into behaving uncharacteristically. Also, non-Newtonian fluids, and even water often behave differently than expected. These things are eventually figured out, defined, or just "accepted" for the properties that they have, but I am glad people didn't just take the previously accepted data as fact, and instead delved deeper to find the anomalies, and exploit them for the good of mankind!



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
You don't understand....

They are claiming OVERUNITY. Overunity is potential perpetual motion/energy.

That means they think they could use the energy from the burning water to power the electrolysis and still have energy to spare. Perpetual motion.


Good God man. For the last time, "perpetual motion" machines don't use FUEL.

And "Overunity" simply means a COP > 1.0 - which is entirely possible, if your system uses FUEL.

Closed systems, that don't use FUEL, can never be overunity.

Open systems, that are using FUEL or other sources of energy from the environment (solar, wind etc), CAN be overunity, or COP > 1.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Even though I enjoy your enthusiasm and scepticism,

I just want to point out your both arguing about theoretical concepts.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorDisaster
 


What do you think you get when you burn hydrogen? You get water. So they convert water into hydrogen and oxygen and then those two combust and become water again. Assuming the only source of hydrogen and oxygen is the initial supply of water, you'd get back exactly as much water as you put in. So there's no reason this couldn't be used in a closed system.

Which of course is just another reason why this thing is fictional. There's no way you can start with a fuel, break it down, recombine it, end up with as much fuel as you started with AND an excess of energy.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
If the water was actually being drained by that tube, he would not need to flip the bottom over and if he had flipped it over then it would stop draining because the suction is supposed to be coming from the bottom of the orange tube. Anyone who has ever operated a drinking straw could understand this. The reason he flips it over and the reason he does so into a bucket of water is because there is a hole in the bottom of the bottle that he is covering with his finger. As soon as that hole is uncovered, air is able to replace the water that is draining into the bucket the bottle is placed into.

I could imagine this trick might work on rednecks, small children, or those who have suffered severe brain damage, but certainly not on anyone of ordinary adult intelligence. My dog has a water bowl with a screw on container attached to it. As he licks up water, more slides down from the attached container to take its place.



[edit on 24-11-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
What do you think you get when you burn hydrogen? You get water. So they convert water into hydrogen and oxygen and then those two combust and become water again. Assuming the only source of hydrogen and oxygen is the initial supply of water, you'd get back exactly as much water as you put in.


Who said that? Certainly not me!

My understanding is that when you combust the HHO gas, yes you do get a small amount of water back - but the same amount of water you started with in the first place? Hell no!!

What you guys don't seem to be getting is that most of the water is consumed by this process. As in, gone, forever. Consumed, like fuel! And when you consume the water in that way, you get a huge amount of energy.

Stan Meyer, and others, discovered ways to change water (H2O) into hydroxy gas (HHO) using little energy.

changing H2O into HHO --> little energy

combust HHO gas --> LOTS of energy

Why is this so hard to understand?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
25 people flagged the post "important", but they don't really think that any bit whatsoever or they would have tried out this device. What a time-waster this thread is. Talk talk talk. No, the plans are there. Just do... thats it... there is no point to saying a word if the plans are right there. But again if the thread went on for that long without replication so therefore the plans must be incomprehensible and there is no point to me even looking at the obviously sorely mistaken lie of a website.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


ahhh andrewH7 my old nemesis
haha

still trying to convert the masses with your "bunk" science I see.

Just an FYI, it wont work.. the rednecks are far ahead of you on the topic of over-unity free energy devices.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorDisaster
 


You have a horrible understanding of the chemistry of combustion if you think the water is consumed and disappears. Unless there is a nuclear reaction going on, you're going to end up with as much matter coming out of the reaction as you have going in. If your only reactants are hydrogen and oxygen, all you can get out of the reaction is hydrogen, oxygen, water (H2O), and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2).

[edit on 24-11-2009 by nataylor]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster

Originally posted by nataylor
What do you think you get when you burn hydrogen? You get water. So they convert water into hydrogen and oxygen and then those two combust and become water again. Assuming the only source of hydrogen and oxygen is the initial supply of water, you'd get back exactly as much water as you put in.


Who said that? Certainly not me!

My understanding is that when you combust the HHO gas, yes you do get a small amount of water back - but the same amount of water you started with in the first place? Hell no!!

What you guys don't seem to be getting is that most of the water is consumed by this process. As in, gone, forever. Consumed, like fuel! And when you consume the water in that way, you get a huge amount of energy.

Stan Meyer, and others, discovered ways to change water (H2O) into hydroxy gas (HHO) using little energy.

changing H2O into HHO --> little energy

combust HHO gas --> LOTS of energy

Why is this so hard to understand?



1. There is no such thing as HHO gas. There's H2 and O2 mixed in the right proportion
2. When you combust the mixture, you get Exactly The Same Amount of Water as what you started with to make the Hydrogen and Oxygen gases
3. The energy released during combustion is Exactly the energy required to break up the water. Minus any inevitable losses due to inefficiencies of the system.
4. There is no such thing as "water gone forever". Where does it go, spunky? To the Moon? :-)
5. Your argument that water is fuel is specious. It takes energy to make fuel (sunlight to make coal). Water is the endproduct of burning the fuel. That's why water doesn't burn very well.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
Good God man. For the last time, "perpetual motion" machines don't use FUEL.

And "Overunity" simply means a COP > 1.0 - which is entirely possible, if your system uses FUEL.



Holy cow man, go back to school.

You are so incorrect that it is completely hilarious and pathetic at the same time.

Overunity means "more energy output than input".

That is basically what COP > 1 means. Coefficient of performance (COP) is the ratio of output to the amount of input. If the ratio is greater than 1:1, (ex: 2:1), then you have "more energy output than you have input".

Overunity is technically perpetual motion. To get motion you need input. If you have more output than input (overunity) that means you can use the output to power the input (perpetual motion) and still have energy to spare.

Fuel = potential motion = input or output

To say perpetual motion doesn't need fuel (input) is incorrect, it needs input to create motion, and it need continuous input. What is correct is to say perpetual motion doesn't need external fuel (input), other than the input it creates itself.

So you are wrong multiple ways.

Seriously, just stop posting, you are making a fool of yourself.



Originally posted by MajorDisaster
Closed systems, that don't use FUEL, can never be overunity.


What the heck. You don't even know what you are talking about so why are you even talking?

You are wrong, wrong, wrong. It's hilarious to watch you try...


When I said "closed system" I meant a loop. An open system is not a loop, and not perpetual, unless it is capable of overunity which can be closed and turned perpetual.

A closed system CAN be overunity if it creates more output (fuel) than input (fuel). That would mean the initial starting input (fuel) is all that is needed, and the output (fuel) created would be enough to trigger another input (fuel), and make a LOOP (closed system) perpetually.

An open system that is capable of overunity has the potential to be closed and turned into perpetual motion. That was my point that you are failing to understand. Overunity = potential perpetual motion


Originally posted by MajorDisaster
Open systems, that are using FUEL or other sources of energy from the environment (solar, wind etc), CAN be overunity, or COP > 1.


WRONG. Fuel, or energy from other sources like the environment is considered INPUT.

What you are claiming is that the COP of an open system could be 2:1 if there is external FUEL from the environment. THAT IS WRONG.

If you have input of 1, and output of 2, where did the extra 1 come from to make 2? If it came from the environment that means it is INPUT. That means you have 2:2, which is 1:1 ratio, and not COP > 1.

I honestly don't think you are capable of understanding such a thing.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster

Originally posted by mahajohn
Finally! A perpetual motion machine! They've beat Dr. Greer to the punch!


They are NOT claiming that this is a "perpetual motion machine"!



Are!

I am offering 1 million dollars to anyone who builds one that does what is claimed.

Mods should ban perpetual motion machine threads.

Or at least limit them to 99 pages.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by RRokkyy]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


Hi Von Doomen,

After having personally witnessed a permanent monopole magnetic motor (oh yes monopoles don't exist supposedly LOL), I can tell you they do not breach 2nd law. Reason is that the energy for the system is derived from magnetism.
Take a magnet, put it on a steel beam and attach a weight to it. W=FxD. Force is whatever it takes to support the weight. Distance moved is zero. Work done is zero. This is the basis for the workings of said machine. I have seen other monopole designs online (no doubt you too) which have been demonstrated in videos successfully. The energy for this is the same energy that spins electrons in an atom and the same which spins planets on a larger scale...



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
23 amps @ 12v is quite a lot of power. Not sure what the conversion rate is for 1 liter of HHO in watt/hrs.

Here's one conversion I found online, no idea if this is legit or not:
www.overunity.com...

The formula in the link above states that, basically, if you are using less than 2.15 watt/hrs per liter of HHO produced, you are over 100% efficient

So based on that, he is producing 5 liters per minute, meaning 300 liters per hour

His machine uses 23.6 amps @ 12v = 283.2 watts, which would be 283.2 watt/hrs after running for one hour

Based on conversion rate of 2.15 watt/hrs per liter HHO above, he should be using 645 watts to produce 300 liters at 100% efficiency, so he is obviously greater than 100% efficient (227% actually)

That being said though, such results are not all that uncommon when using a water solution saturated with electrolytes. Electrolytes GREATLY reduce the amount of power required to split the water molecule into HHO. Problem is, electrolytes have an energy cost, which no one ever adds into their equation . . . they presume the fuel source (water + electrolyte) is FREE

Also notice the water is heated to 95 degrees? There is an energy cost there too, to heat the water, and I can guarantee you 276 watts did not heat that much water to 95*, at least not in any reasonable amount of time. Let's be conservative and say there was 2 gallons of water in that container, to heat that gallon from 70* (room temp) to 95* would take 122watt/hr

If such a device worked on plain ol' room temperature tap water I would be impressed!



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
Rubbish......But this guy will claim that scientists are all in on a conspiracy to suppress this discovery because Big Oil doesn't want such a thing, yadda-yadda-yadda...........If this Law turned out to be incorrect, it would make Einstein's revolution in physics look tame by comparison. There wouldn't be one branch of science that didn't need to be rewritten, if this were true. It would be the discovery of the millennium, the most important scientific discovery in the world. And it all started on the Internet, right?



I have to agree with you. I would also go one further and guess that Al Gore invented it, at about the same time he discovered the Internet.




top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join