New Reactor Verified To Produce Enormous Amounts of Hydrogen At Virtually No Cost

originally posted by: butcherguy
Years ago, there was a scammer that sold investors on the idea that he could run an internal combustion engine on water. He would demonstrate by filling a gas tank with water and hook it up to his car. Then he would drop a few pills into the tank with the water and start the car.
To an outside observer, the car was running on water.
The scammer knew better though, he had added calcium carbide to the water in the form of those pills. The car was running on acetylene gas formed by the calcium carbide and water.
The engineers may have taken readings, but what is inside the machine?

When we were kids they called that bangsite.

originally posted by: butcherguy
...The engineers may have taken readings, but what is inside the machine?

Right. This company that provided the verification of the output hydrogen (TRC Engineering) did not do a study as to how the machine worked or the processes taking place inside of it. Their verification does not say where the excess hydrogen comes from -- it was not the purpose of the verification.

That's not saying the claims of the builders of this machine are not valid. It only means that TRC's verification is not the final word on this.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Well there are only two possibilities here.

Either the machine works as claimed or they somehow managed to squeeze a bottle of mixed hydrogen gas in there with enough capacity to emit 113 cubic feet of hydrogen per minute during long periods of testing.

There are no known ways of producing that much hydrogen in such a confined space using so little power.

if this is true, expect some government agency to pay a few million for the designs and OOPS! they seem to have disappeared!

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

I'll be waiting to lease a car with this tech inside.

originally posted by: ErosA433

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist


It will probably happen in a few years time, after the dollar implodes and all these quack state funded scientists lose their jobs.

Interesting... so that assumes that science is lead in total by one country... Evidence is *quick look at a map* yeah, thats not true.

You're quite right, science isn't confined to the USA alone.

What you've failed to realise though, is that the implications of working alternatives, are just as profound in every country.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist
I hate to say it, but it sounds too good to be true.

Usually when something sounds too good to be true, it isn't true.

Or that's what TPTB tell you because they buy it up, put it on a shelf because if they can't rip off the public with it, what good is it?

a reply to: rickymouse

Good.

Patents are a ball and chain to progress, serving only selfish people, always have been and always will be.

I believe patents ought to be replaced with a combination of open source, donation and pay per use.

If people around the world like your idea or product / invention, and it saves them time/effort/money/all 3 or more, and it makes their lives better..a one off modest donation as a thank you to the inventor, from only 1% of the world's wealthy, would make the inventor more wealthy than he or she probably ever dreamt possible.

The inventor could open source his or her work. Altruism makes people feel great, especially super wealthy people who may be feeling a little guilty at taking so much of the cake, when so many have never so much as seen a cake, will feel terrific by giving their ideas and innovations to the world by open sourcing it gratis.

Another still may be the pay per use option. The invention can be built or manufactured or used at no initial cost...only pay a modest usage fee every time you use it, like a usage based rental scheme, you only pay for what you use. Based on the honesty and trust principle, many will not pay the fee however modest. However...many will gladly pay the fee. And again, the inventor would be among the wealthiest people on the planet if only 1% of users actually paid the fee.

Patents don't make access to beneficial products and innovative inventions possible for most of the worlds people. The may still make the inventor wealthy, but it's limited scope for rapid adoption and being put into use around the world almost immediately, makes it a poor system for most of the world, and only really benefits the inventor and his or her backers and the corporations who would produce, distribute and sell the device or product.

It's a selfish arrangement. The other methods still mean the inventors get rewarded with huge amounts of money, but also much more in the gratitude of the worlds population, and satisfaction in knowing they had made a huge and positive contribution to the world.

The current method means that in comparison, we have the system we have, and all that it entails.

I know which system i'd rather see.

Besides, as you say, the other big boys pretty much ignore patents these days anyway or change a small but significant aspect of the invention and they're off making their own, ever-so-slightly-different version anyway.

With the other methods of sharing with the world, gives the control and the power to easily help themselves to live better lives to everyone equally, not to an individual corporation boardroom or so. And the inventor still gets container loads of cash and prestige.

Personally, not that i would, but if i ever came up with an innovation that could help the world in a profound way, i'd open source and go with the 'if you like it and it makes your life better..why not consider a small donation?' route, and give it away as soon as i could.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Not only that, but as recently as early 2014, the Chinese banks even increased their purchases of US dollar treasury securities.

People tremendously overestimate the quantitative importance of petroleum trade on global finance. It's very small compared to investment flows. There's no petrodollar. There's the bond market dollar, and the largest most liquid bond & debt markets in the world are in dollars and euros.

originally posted by: ugmold

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist
I hate to say it, but it sounds too good to be true.

Usually when something sounds too good to be true, it isn't true.

Or that's what TPTB tell you because they buy it up, put it on a shelf because if they can't rip off the public with it, what good is it?

Are you crazy? Cheap energy would be EXTREMELY PROFITABLE.

The PTB that are keeping this away from the public are known as the Laws Of Thermodynamics.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I know one thing, it would be the best ecological advancement that mankind would acheive if this turns out to be real.

It would cancel out a lot of the pollution that we are making. It would be better for all creatures in this world.

a reply to: MysterX

I totally agree. If I invent something, I will patent it open source, only collecting a small percentage off of those who produce the products to gain wealth. Some people do not know how to assemble a barbeque grill, (frustrating how many parts they have. Frustrating reading instructions written by someone who thinks different than us also).
For those people, someone can produce it. Lots of things can be made simple. Complexity in our society is used so people will think things are better because they are complex. Simple and well built is better.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
Eventually all of your homes, cars and businesses will be powered by a combination of Blacklight's SunCell and SHT's Symphony reactor.

Not forgetting the Orbo, the E-cat, the RAR energia gravity engine, the QEG, the Keshe reactor, William Skinner’s Gravity-powered Device, John Bedini's contraptions, Searle's gravity/energy device, or any one of these ans many more amasci.com...

All scams, none of them properly tested.

originally posted by: hellobruce

All scams, none of them properly tested.

That happens to be the difference between SHT, BLP, and the people you just mentioned.

I'm particularly enamored with BLP. Three independent university labs have confirmed their findings. They project a completed SunCell unit to be ready in about four to six months time.

What makes BLP's process so great is that it provides direct conversion of water into electricity. Hydrogen gas obviously has to be run through a typical combustion type generator to get usable electricity, which makes it far more unwieldy than BLP's process. BLP's SunCell will also not require a constant changing of electrodes to keep it functioning.

It may not be wise to open source a hydrogen generator as is a dangerous gas and hard to handle. Heck my hho generator blew up mysteriously, not long ago and had not my door taken the brunt of the explosion, I wouldn't be posting here.
a reply to: MysterX

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

can we have confirming statements FROM THE BODIES WHO ALLEDGEDLY " TESTED " THIS DEVICE that back this claim up ?

a reply to: Nochzwei

I know what you mean, but simply living life is dangerous and in the end, we're all going to come to a sticky end one way or another..we can't live wrapped in cotton wool..life is full of risk.

The risk / benefits is worth it.

I've dabbled in HHO generation too, and yes, i too have had the BOOM moment...it does make a very loud bang doesn't it!

But saying that, millions of people are starving to death, cannot grow enough to eat, have no access to clean and safe water for drinking, cooking and cleaning themselves. Cannot keep cool in the blistering heat and can't get warm in the freezing cold.

People are dying from insane amounts of pollution in cities and the land and communities are being destroyed by cavalier exploitation of fossil resources.

I'd say were already subject to very real dangers that kill millions every year...if a few are unlucky enough to have an accident with this tech, it's unfortunate but measured against how many are suffering and dying right now without the tech, it's a no brainer.

Cars blow up..peoples domestic gas supplies blow up due to leaks, refineries catch fire and nuclear power stations go critical and expose the entire world to deadly poisons and contaminants...we still use those energy sources despite the death toll.

A hydrogen technology producing essentially financial cost free energy, will have it's accident victims too, just as we have now with fossil fuels and associated technologies...but, it will be essentially financial cost free and non polluting.

I'd say it's worth the risk considering.

originally posted by: [post=18192951]MysterX
I've dabbled in HHO generation too, and yes, i too have had the BOOM moment...it does make a very loud bang doesn't it!

Valid points in the entire post.
But these hho generators on the market are badly engineered.
Boom is fine even if it startles you, but parts flying around like bullets is quite another matter.

If real this should send common car gas to about 20 cents a gallon. Wont need coal either coal plants could be converted to use Hydrogen etc...

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Yeah, you'd have to be pretty daft to think that an independent lab would go "Yup, it's over-unity alright. NEXT!" and not say a peep on the matter.