It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Energy Solutions THEY don't want you to know about

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 04:18 PM

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

The fuel is what supplies the energy. Water in a steam engine does not. It is the working fluid.

Helium in a Stirling engine is a working fluid. It, too, does not supply energy.

Your statement SHOULD read - you can't turn water into steam without heat.

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:20 AM
Here we go, another mix of info, disinfo, & just plain BS.

Searl is for the most part debunked, unless he shows us a SEG with all 3 rings

Rossi has been debunked, soundly, by New Energy Times.

However, the HHO story, the hydrogen car, is a reality.

Stan Meyer's work HAS been verified, a number of times, including colleagues of mine.

It does not need more energy to split the water than you get from it.
It is far less dangerous than any other 'hydrogen' system because it is a 'supply-on-demand' system so you don't need to store it in a tank. Tanks are very expensive because they contain a lithium-based material that absorbs hydrogen, this material is VERY difficult to get, it's on the 'nuclear materials' list so you can't buy it.

Read my thread on 'water as fuel'
...wait, i never posted it HERE LOL
I will copy a few lines....

Apart from that, there is ample evidence of electrical/magnetic 'overunity' machines, many of which i have covered in great detail over the years.......
Don't debunk or dismiss something out-of-hand, like HHO. Do the research.
Don't accept sudden wonderful solutions like Rossi's reactor, because he is a fraud.
edit on 30-12-2012 by playswithmachines because: update

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:39 AM
Here you go:
Water as Fuel
Since i began seriously browsing the internet, surfing for information 15 years ago, i was at once puzzled by the tremendous discrepancy in information, and worse, the amount of false info out there. Of course, you will always get spammers, idiots, whacko's, and disinfo agents.
After hearing of the Stan Meyer car i soon lost interest because everybody said it was impossible, he simply had a hidden fuel tank somewhere, & that was that.
So instead of going any further, i just chalked it up as yet another fake story, meant for publicity, but no real scientific find at all.

Around 3 years ago, i had some time on my hands, so i thought i would take another look.
I was amazed to find not only plenty of solid evidence that it worked, but that the laws of Thermodynamics (if not entirely broken) had been twisted into a pretzel.
Natural law says it will take just as much energy to split the water (normally by electrolysis) than you will get back from the resulting explosion.
But is that true?
Well, i know the power of hydrogen gas exploding, i have seen it rip apart stainless steel containers 1/8" thick like it was paper, and that was probably less than one litre of gas.

The actual mechanism where this energy gain happens, is highly complex, and several people have explained it by way of a low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) which is normally found in Cold Fusion discussions. A tiny amount of mass is lost, and that's where all the energy comes from.
I must confess, i am lousy at math, so i have to rely on those who are good at it..
What i can tell you is that water can be split using very little energy, using a combination of techniques like high voltages, pulse circuits, resonance etc. And this can run your car, with a few slight modifications.

From Wiki:

There is no documented proof that the system produces enough hydrogen to run an engine. To date no peer review studies of Meyer's devices have been published in the scientific literature, although his claims have been thoroughly discredited in scientific journals.
Well, there is now

In 1996, Meyer was sued by two investors to whom he had sold dealerships, offering the right to do business in Water Fuel Cell technology. His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary, University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed.[3] According to Meyer the technology was patent pending and under investigation by the patent office, the Department of Energy and the military.[14] His "water fuel cell" was later examined by three expert witnesses in court who found that there "was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and that it was simply using conventional electrolysis". The court found Meyer guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered him to repay the two investors their $25,000.
Meyer's death.
Stanley Meyer died suddenly on March 21, 1998 after dining at a restaurant. An autopsy report by the Franklin County, Ohio coroner concluded that Meyer had died of a cerebral aneurysm, but conspiracy theorists insist that he was poisoned to suppress the technology, and that oil companies and the United States government were involved in his death.
Wiki failed to mention he was attacked & beaten to the ground a few times...

In honour of this brave and talented man, we have decided to open source everything.

Members of the I.F. have done this research, and showed me their results. We swapped some ideas, and everyone went to their sheds to tinker.
So far we have at least 2 independent verifications of this technology.
We used both a low-tech and high-tech approach, both worked.

Here is Stan's original paper:
Water Fuel Cell

And here is an expanded version, with an independent analysis by P.G.Bailey and T.Grotz including legal documents, testimonies etc:

Undaunted, we decided to go ahead, using both 'brute force' and 'resonant' techniques.
3 significant problems have been dealt with;
1) Safety; Gas-on-demand, flashback arrestors, and a gas cut-off ensure there is very little risk of an explosion.
2) Volume; to produce enough liters per minute to run a car (based on a 2--2.6 litre engine.
3) Ratio; To get the right ratio and at the same time not melt the engine.

Mega, mega thanks to Max, Bob, and the rest of the forum, you guys rock!

edit on 30-12-2012 by playswithmachines because: Links fixed

posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 09:00 PM
reply to post by betheflow

Please include this in all research, this is real, no magic, scientifically explained without breaking or bending any of rules some folks wish to adhere to and working everyday.

I can not debunk this.

posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 10:17 PM
reply to post by coolhanddan

That is one of the most amazing videos I will ever see in my lifetime. This is cheap, doable and super cool. I wonder if people will complain about a water shortage?

I also like the compressed air cars This page shows pics of the sports model which is a convertible. 5300 Euros or 6,983 dollars.

One thing is sure. If technology can get every person to use their own forms of " free or free-er" producing energy for all personal needs and Big Electric and Big Oil no longer helps to control the people, this world will change completely.

edit on 16-4-2013 by JohnPhoenix because: edit

posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 10:23 PM

Originally posted by coolhanddan
reply to post by betheflow

Please include this in all research, this is real, no magic, scientifically explained without breaking or bending any of rules some folks wish to adhere to and working everyday.

I can not debunk this.

It's an aluminum-air battery. That works, it's not bunk.

However, you may be missing parts of the picture.

The aluminum is converted to aluminum oxide in the reaction. THAT is where the energy is coming from.

Aluminum-air batteries are not rechargeable. You have to take the mushy anode crap back to a foundry and pump energy into it, converting it back to metallic aluminum.

It's energy inefficient. That's why you don't often see al-air batteries used. There's no 'free energy' here, it's a well known battery that's costly to 'recharge', the recharging being the re-refining of aluminum slag into metallic aluminum.

posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 04:52 AM
reply to post by betheflow

There is one simple reason why NONE of these mentioned actually would work in reality. Because we can´t buy one, simple as that.

Now wait and hear me out, I know you already want to argue with the bad government killing them all off before they could market these things.

Well, tell me, how did you find out about them? Is it possible that all the details, and hundreds of videos are available for everyone online? That does seem to be the case doesn´t it?

Now why on earth has nobody run with the idea so far? Why hasn´t anyone with a few thousand dollars secretly developed one of those machines so far?

Because everyone who knows a little bit about science and engineering will tell you that these unfortunately do not work . They never could and they never will.

IF there was anything to it, who would stop YOU for example from building one right now? In fact why don´t you take a loan or your savings and start to develop one? You might not have the technical expertise, but you could hire some people couldn´t you?

The sad truth is that these myths are circulated between rather uninformed and younger people who still are able to believe this. This hasn´t gone mainstream, because the mainstream is not stupid enough to buy this.

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 01:27 PM
reply to post by AldrinAlden

I support wholeheartedly research for clean and renewable energy.

The field is unfortunately is something most physicists wouldn't touch with a ten feet pole due the history of embarrassing failures and deliberate hoaxes.

For example Newman's Magnetic motor mentioned in opening post was tested by US Patent office and thoroughly debunked:

U.S. Department of Commerce -
Report of Tests on Joseph Newman's Device (NBSIR 86-3405)

Also recommended reading anyone who has bought into TV reports about amazing new discoveries:

IT'S NOT NEWS, IT'S ENTERTAINMENT - Robert L. Park, Oxford University Press

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 11:34 PM

Originally posted by betheflow
Energy Solutions THEY don't want you to know about

If they don't want me to know about it, why did they put it all on YouTube and why do these videos contain so many detailed mainstream media reports on the devices you're telling us someone doesn't want us to know about?

I don't think you've thought this through.
edit on 23/5/13 by Sankari because: typo...

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in