Energy Solutions THEY don't want you to know about

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

Steam engines do not run on water

Water is the fuel in a steam engine.

No it is not, fuel heats up water which then becomes steam. This is a far cry from being "water powered".

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Water is the fuel in a steam engine.

No. It isn't. The steam is the engine's working fluid.

The fuel is whatever you are combusting, eg coal.

It is also correct to say water in the form of steam is a steam engines working fluid.

It matters not if you look at it your way or look at it my way, the steam engine still works but only after you put the water into it. Can we get any more silly here? Wait.. we will, I know it.. I'll just wait for it...

No fuel is the fuel in a steam engine. water is the working fluid.... two totally different things.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


No, you're still flat out wrong. You can belittle attempts to correct you all you want but it doesn't change the fact that you still do not grasp the not-so-subtle point that water is NOT the fuel in a steam engine.

reply to post by betheflow


Rossi cold fusion is the best option

cold fusion was debunked by people who get billions in funding to stay in work

google: Rossi cold fusion

its fairdinkum but TPTB wont give him patents so he is releasing product without patents

the patent system is used to suppress or steal technology

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

No, you're still flat out wrong. You can belittle attempts to correct you all you want but it doesn't change the fact that you still do not grasp the not-so-subtle point that water is NOT the fuel in a steam engine.

How are you defining the word "fuel"? One of you thinks that "fuel" is the description of the exergy which will be burned to produce energy which itself pushes the mechanical parts of the locomotive.

The other one thinks that "fuel" is the substance working as an energy-carrier pushing the mechanical parts of the locomotive.

There is only this single difference: fuel which has to be burned is exergy, fuel which does itself some kind of useful mechanical (or others, but in this example just mechanical) work is energy.

The discussion which is which is hair-splitting and not furthering the discussion about independet energy solutions, in my opinion.

Originally posted by HiGilgamesh
reply to post by betheflow

 

Rossi cold fusion is the best option

cold fusion was debunked by people who get billions in funding to stay in work

google: Rossi cold fusion

its fairdinkum but TPTB wont give him patents so he is releasing product without patents

the patent system is used to suppress or steal technology

Did he really sell one of his wonder-machines? Whom to? Will it destroy itself if opened? Does it operate under the specific estimations made by Rossi?

Okay, serious question: EXACTLY how is water being used as a fuel with these "H20 cars" or the like?

H20 is generally the end-result of certain types of fires/combustion, or put another way the product of a redox reaction. If water is "broken apart" and ignited in the same fashion that it was initially created (by igniting the hydrogen), it's physically impossible for the energy gained through the ignition process to exceed the energy expended during the process of "breaking the H20 apart" (and NUMEROUS tests have proven this). The only way for H20 to be used as a fuel is if another material is being introduced as a reducing agent, or (much less likely) to be introduced as an oxidizing agent, or if a method has been developed to create a self-propelling chain reaction to "break apart" H20 (which seems unlikely, seeing how stable and abundant H20 appears). So, which is it, and how EXACTLY do these fabled "H20 cars" work? Specifically, what is the reducing agent or oxidizing agent being introduced to use H20 as a fuel, or what EXACTLY is the process by which H20 "breaks apart" in a self-propelling chain reaction?

PS: H20 isn't used as a fuel in a steam engine, but rather it's used to create mechanical energy when it's converted in to a gaseous form in a confined space. It's more like how water is used to drive turbines in damns, and really isn't anything like how oil is burned to drive a combustion engine, nor is it anything like how wood is burned to produce heat. The ONLY fuel in a steam engine is whatever is being burned (the redox process), which is usually wood or coal, which in turn generates heat that converts water from its liquid form to its gaseous form.

Originally posted by crankyoldman
The energy devices that power navel vessels are classified and would seem to be highly efficient and safeish. The energy device that powers the mars curiosity is rather remarkable, and even more remarkable because it has been around for some time but is classified too.

Neither claim is true. Try again!

Originally posted by Sly1one

Originally posted by nightbringr
Each and every one of these devices has been debunked.

Perpetual motion defies the very laws of physics,

And what exactly do think the universe is? Planets? moons? Stars? Galaxies? Asteroids? etc...are ALL moving perpetually...

Because...no energy is being extracted from them. Motion doesn't consume energy. Acceleration, that's another thing.

Originally posted by CrikeyMagnet
Think Luminiferous Aether... the hypothetical medium through which light waves travel (You'll all say "That's been proven not to exist!", but I say... "No... it may have been proven not to exist in the form that we expect... but it's very difficult to prove something you can't see, can't measure, and don't know how to interact with doesn't exist.")

Not at all. See that LCD screen on your computer? That's the end of "luminiferous ether".

Why? Well, "luminiferous ether", if it existed and was the medium through which light travelled, would propagate as a longitudinal wave. Only...if that was true, you couldn't polarize it. Because polarization requires EM to be transverse. And you know? That LCD? It only works because you've got polarizers.

End of ether. That's leaving out all the other experimental data that says there is no "aether". It's been gone for 100 years, man. Let it go.

Originally posted by Freezer
Good post, but you are spinning your wheels here. The invention secrecy act of 1951 gives the government the right to take any invention they see as a threat to national security.

Tripe.

You just can't patent anything that's a threat to national security. But the things that are gagged are usually DOE gags on nuclear patents.

You can make anything you'd like, you just can't get a US patent. You can, however, get a patent in any other country.

Originally posted by Vandettas
Just because free energy systems have been attempted to be built and failed, doesn't mean their impossible to build.

No, the reason they're impossible to build are the laws of thermodynamics. Not that you tried and failed.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
From what I understand about cars that run on water (that is assuming there are any) is the only byproduct that would be created by it would be oxygen. The other argument I heard being made is there isn’t enough fresh water. 1st that would be false overall but second is if you can run an engine on water then you can run desalinization plants on water as well.

The car that runs on compressed air and the trash to fuel stations is not in anyway hoaxes.

The reason you can't run a car from water is that there's no chemical energy in it. It's already burnt. There's nothing left. The car that runs on compressed air is getting its energy from the generator that ran the air compressor. Nothing "free" or over unity.

Originally posted by uwascallywabbit
tom bearden has a patent for MEG

And that means that he coughed up some money for filing it. Nothing more. Patents do not require proof. Nor does it mean that the government has validated the idea. Just that you filed it.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Water is the fuel in a steam engine.

Not at all. It's the working fluid in a steam engine. It is not the fuel. The fuel is what contributes heat energy, coal, wood, gas, whatever.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
It matters not if you look at it your way or look at it my way, the steam engine still works but only after you put the water into it. Can we get any more silly here?

No matter what you say, it's not the fuel. There is a difference.

A lot of Stirling engines use helium as the working fluid. It is also not the fuel. It has to be there for the engine to work, and it's what's getting hot and moving the piston, but only because you're applying a heat differential from a fuel.

OFFS.

If water ISNT the "fuel" in a steam engine, then GASOLINE isnt the fuel
in a cumbustion engine.

Seen....?!!?

You cant get steam without water
And you cant get combustion/"explosion" without gasoline...

Noo?!?!?

No, H20 is not used in a steam engine in the same way that gasoline is used in a combustion engine.

In a steam engine the fuel is whatever is being used to apply heat to the H20, usually coal or wood, which causes the H20 to convert in to a gaseous form from its liquid form. In other words, in a steam engine H20 is part of a mechanical process, like a gear, being driven by a burned product, such as coal or wood, and that burned product is the fuel. In a combustion engine gasoline is driving a mechanical process by being burned. Gasoline is the fuel.

H20, by virtue of containing an oxygen molecule, is the end-result of a spent fuel (specifically burning hydrogen). The only way for H20 to be used as a fuel is if another material is introduced, to either utilize H20 as an oxidizing agent or as a reducing agent, because by definition fuel is a product that can undergo a redox process.

I suggest you read up more on these topics:
Redox: en.wikipedia.org...
Reducing Agent: en.wikipedia.org...

If "THEY" don't want us to know what these wonder machines, then why are those videos still on youtube? Why are you allowed to post this thread? If those contraptions work, why hasn't anyone else done it?