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.
Originally posted by Cassius666
Does somebody own an overunity device, or has been in somebodies home who powers his own house or car with an overunity device? There are many claims of overunity devices, but does somebody actually use something powered by an overunity device on a regular basis?
Nobody has them. They do not exist.
This has run for 14 days continuous, Overcoming both friction from the air and friction from the track it rolls along.
It gets the energy it needs to run from temperature and atmospheric pressure changes in the environment, and can run for years without human intervention.
12
There is an energy source, ethyl chloride gas, stored in the shape of a very powerful hollow spring, set in a large drum at the back of the clock. Just one degree of temperature change has the effect of keeping the clock running for two days. A plate covering this spring acts on another, much weaker spring, which in turn is connected to a chain attached to the mainspring. In this way the clock is kept wound. So whether the temperature rises or falls, the difference will always wind the clock.
1
Perpetual motion describes hypothetical machines that operate or produce useful work indefinitely and, more generally, hypothetical machines that produce more work or energy than they consume, whether they might operate indefinitely or not.
Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by boncho
In that case, We have to find out how matter came from nothing at the beginning of everything.
Even though they fully respect the laws of thermodynamics, there are a few conceptual or real devices that appear to be in "perpetual motion." Closer analysis reveals that they actually "consume" some sort of natural resource or latent energy, such as the phase changes of water or other fluids or small natural temperature gradients. In general, extracting large amounts of work using these devices is difficult to impossible.
Resource consuming
Some examples of such devices include:
¬The drinking bird toy functions using small ambient temperature gradients and evaporation.
¬A capillarity based water pump functions using small ambient temperature gradients and vapour pressure differences.
¬A Crookes radiometer consists of a partial vacuum glass container with a lightweight propeller moved by (light-induced) temperature gradients.
¬Any device picking up minimal amounts of energy from the natural electromagnetic radiation around it, such as a solar powered motor.
¬The Atmos clock uses changes in the vapor pressure of ethyl chloride with temperature to wind the clock spring.
¬A device powered by radioactive decay from an isotope with a relatively long half-life; such a device could plausibly operate for hundreds or thousands of years.
Originally posted by boncho
What I do find humorous of course, is that while people claim suppression from "big oil" and "TPTB", perpetual motion and overunity were studied for centuries.
Originally posted by boncho
An actual "overunity device" would take energy and somehow make more energy from it. It will never happen. There will always be an explanation as to where the energy is coming from and also limitations from the energy source.
Also people need to identify the difference between overunity and perpetual motion.. A solar panel is overunity, but is not perpetual as it's material will eventually break down over time.
Until the people wake up and realize that you have rouge group which has a strangle hold over the planet, we will never see this technology used to benefit the public.
Originally posted by boncho
Stan Meyer was a fraudster, charlatan, con artist, etc.
Originally posted by boncho
A solar panel is not "overunity". If you want to call something by the defined name than please understand what the name means first.
Overunity implies you are getting more than you are putting in. Solar panels are collecting energy from the Sun. An external energy source. They do not collect and convert at 100% efficiency.
Originally posted by boncho
Rouge
Care to provide proof to back that statement up?
1
Nevertheless, Meyer attracted believers, investors and, eventually, legal trouble.
"I was a sucker for some of this stuff at the time," William E. Brooks said from his home in Anchorage, Alaska.
Brooks invested more than $300,000 in Meyer's technology. He hoped to find applications for his aviation business.
Today, he and his wife, Lorraine, laugh about the ordeal, made easier because their money was returned in a 1994 settlement in Franklin County Common Pleas Court.
Two years later, a Fayette County judge found "gross and egregious fraud" in Meyer's contract negotiation with two businessmen. Their money was returned.
The sun is the energy source. And it is highly inefficient way of capturing energy. It's not "overunity."
How much electricity do you put into a solar panel? That's right zero. Yet it outputs electricity all day. More in than out, period.
We can have a generator which is 1% efficient and still produce overunity.
No comment about the invention secrecy act of 1951?
Originally posted by boncho
I spent over an hour doing a comprehensive debunking on "HHO" and Meyer. The thread was deleted though, (because it was someone trying to market their HHO crap) So Ill make this quick.
Originally posted by boncho
I have already stated either in this thread or others that military is around 20 years ahead of the general public. Because there are secret projects and certain things that are kept from public industry, it does not equal there is a mass suppression of overunity devices.
Originally posted by boncho
It's a crackpot term.
Yea and Tesla was a supposed crackpot as well, yet here we are typing on computers powered by ac.
Anyways this is pointless to argue. The real progress will be made by experimenters, and not armchair critics. Just know HHO is on it's way in, and oil is on it's way out..
Debunking HHO? I love to see how you debunk HHO..
The electrolyzer shown in this report has about 80-90% total efficiency when all things are considered (ambient temperature, ambient pressure, accurate measurement of gas volume and current) when powered by straight DC.
Many people build simple single-cell car hydro-booster type electrolyzers and control the amperage by using weak electrolyte. The cell voltage is often around 13V, and they put just enough electrolyte to pass 5A or so. 5A creates only 3.5 LPH of gas, so the efficiency is very bad at 18.5 Watts per LPH.
One liter of gasoline contains approximately 30MJ of energy, while oxyhydrogen gas would contain approximately 7-8kJ per liter. This means that you would need approximately 4000 liters oxyhydrogen for each liter of gasoline your engine currently uses, assuming the engine efficiencies are approximately the same on oxyhydrogen than on gasoline.
Thus if your car uses 6 liters of gasoline per hour while driving down the highway, prepare for 24000 LPH oxyhydrogen consumption. Assuming a super-efficient series cell electrolyzer (2.5 W per LPH) you would need 60kW of electrical energy to run the electrolyzer. This corresponds to about 80hp, which is significantly more than the amount of engine power used at highway speeds (~20hp). Figuring in the alternator efficiency (~50%) you would actually need 160hp on the engine shaft to produce 24000LPH of oxyhydrogen gas