Plans for a water powered car.

reply to post by hudsonhawk69

The burden of proof lies with those who make the claims so stop trying to move the goalposts. So again, where is the evidence?

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by john_bmth
Care to highlight exactly where in this 140 page nonsensical mish mash of random stuff is the independent laboratory tests that demonstrate over unity?

He cannot , as there has been no such test. Meyer is just another convicted fraudster

Wow!.. It's amazing to me that on a conspiracy theory web site people can be so blantently close minded even in the face of the proven facts. Prove me wrong if you can.

Well then enlighten us I've actually bothered to leaf through it and I'm calling BS as I know what pseudo-scientific BS looks like. Show us the pertinent evidence that demonstrates over unity and prove us wrong!

reply to post by john_bmth


Well I call BS on so much of what you've stated that it would be easier to talk about what you got right.

Here would be a fair start to you discovering the truth and quit "parroting" what I know IMHO to be lies. Read some of these stories to see who is doing what with HHO that I found searching for this professor.

playsushi.infospace.com...

Dr, Ricketts is for real and he has been doing it for over 20 years.
playsushi.infospace.com...

I am an environmentalist who took note of it and reported it to the EPA in detail, who then told me in a huge national setting that 'big oil, won't let it happen." They had just told us "you,people don't deserve automobiles" and I hopped up to tell about this design that was winning 1st place then too. So, I took that at face value and starting noticing, and they were RIGHT! Even Al Gore ignored this totally while he worked at MTSU with Dr. Ricketts. This design still wins 1st place when that original car is brought to alternative fuel exhibitions. What more could I say? Only a few have been built by anyone worldwide to my knowledge but the design is rock solid sound. People somewhere want us to believe a lie, that it can't work. Clinton was POTUS, so I can't totally blame a Bush. Even though I still feel they had a hand in it all as evidence would point.

That is my story and I am sticking with it.Your making me wake up to address the nonsense being babbled by people you appear like. People who will not dare read the truth and admit it because it makes their ego look bad.

reply to post by Justoneman


You haven't even bothered to read my replies, have you? Nor did you even read the links you posted up:

To get hydrogen to fuel the car, Dr. Ricketts and his team separate hydrogen out of water using electricity through the process of electrolysis. To make it a greener process, their electricity comes from solar energy.

They're using an external power source to split the hydrogen (solar). No over unity. Nothing to do with Me. Meyer's "invention" or any of the others mentioned in this thread. If you're going to accuse someone of talking nonsense, best make sure you get your own story straight first.

reply to post by EmilNomel


here, emilnomel, Ive got these magic beans that i'll offer to you at a 1 time discount price of $59.99.
You interested?
They come with a free gift shaving accessories kit, that even if you return the magic beans for a full refund, you can keep the shaving kit as a gift..........

reply to post by Screwed


We dont have motors or engines efficient enough to produce more energy then they require. Therefore an alternator cannot produce enough power to fuel the motor that's spining it.

Wow, this thread is getting quite heated, Eh?

Let's see if Old ErtaiNaGia can calm this stuff down a bit.


Okay, first off, Op... what you are proposing in your OP does APPEAR to be a perpetual energy machine of the first kind, because it releases more energy than it produces....

This is an undeniable Fact, but I don't think that it's ACTUALLY what is happening, only what is Percieved to be happening... I'll get onto that more in a moment.


I have studied the Designs of Stanley Myers, his "Generator" is basically a Pulsed High frequency AC system with a rectifier that applies this Pulsed DC current to several concentric cylinder pairs in a water bath.

The premise (From Stanley) is that the Pulsed high frequency current was superior to regular steady DC current at separating the Hydrogen from the Oxygen....

So efficient, he claims, that it produced more energy (in the HHO gas) than he was actually inputting into the system.

Now, anyone who understands classical physics, will tell you that this is a Perpetual Energy device, as it SEEMS to violate the second law of thermodynamics....

However, I do not believe that this is the case.


And now, my explanation from earlier:



Now, you may be getting what I am insinuating... that the Meyers Cell is a form of Cold Fusion tweaked to produce HHO gas... and it seems that it would be likley....

All that you have to do, is look at the Protium (Hydrogen) Fusion Chain.




You will see that the first by-products of Protium - Protium fusion are neutrinos, and positrons...

Positrons are basically anti electrons... and would annihilate electrons and themselves to produce gamma ray photons of a specific frequency.

Now, if the Myers Cell was tuned to an extremely low harmonic of the Gamma ray frequency, this might allow the anode and cathode to act as a sort of radio receiver for the gamma rays, thereby capturing the gamma ray energy as potential difference in the cell itself, and thus causing more electric potential to be across the cell than the power that you actually put into it.

Thereby, not being an "Over-Unity" device... but a Nuclear device.

This is only my guess as to the function of the Meyers Cell, as I have not seen any tests OF the cell to look for tritrium production, OR gamma photons... So, take it as you will.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
This is only my guess as to the function of the Meyers Cell, as I have not seen any tests OF the cell to look for tritrium production, OR gamma photons... So, take it as you will.

Actually we don't have to guess.

It doesn't function so we don't need to guess how it functions:

Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell

Meyer's claims about his "Water Fuel Cell" and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent

Your exercise in explaining how Meyers fuel cell works is a bit like explaining how the beans work in Jack and the beanstalk. We know they aren't real so what's the point?

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Justoneman

 

... Nor did you even read the links you posted up:

To get hydrogen to fuel the car, Dr. Ricketts and his team separate hydrogen out of water using electricity through the process of electrolysis. To make it a greener process, their electricity comes from solar energy.

I love it when people read the fine print.

What's embarrassing is how often the over unity believers don't read it, or post sources they haven't even read. FatherLukeDuke caught someone not reasearching their own claim too:

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Originally posted by Pervius
It used to be the only way to crack the hydrogen bond was electrolysis...took alot of power to release hydrogen. Not anymore. In 2007 American inventor John Kanzius woke up from a dream with an idea. He took 2 of his wife's frying pans and an old Ham radio. One frying pan was the transmitter, the other the receiver. When a glass of salt water was placed in between them....the RF radiation cracked the hydrogen bond...much more efficiently than electrolysis.

He created more energy than he was putting in.

That's not what John Kanzius says:

Kanzius admitted that this process could not be considered an energy source, as more energy is used to produce the RF signal than can be obtained from the burning gas and stated in July 2007 that he never claimed his discovery would replace oil, asserting only that his discovery was "thought provoking."

(from his Wiki)

That was a good find too. People have to stop being so desperate to latch on to fantasy claims, and at least research their own claims better.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Actually we don't have to guess.

It doesn't function so we don't need to guess how it functions:

Oh... have you made one?

(Second line)

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

That's not how the burden of proof works. However, I assume you have made one, seeing as you are supporting the discredited claims of the "invention"?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Oh... have you made one?

No, my point was that nobody has made a fuel cell that will do what Meyer claimed. Not Meyer, nor anyone else, including you.

reply to post by john_bmth

That's not how the burden of proof works.

Yes, I am aware of that.

However, I assume you have made one, seeing as you are supporting the discredited claims of the "invention"?

And this is an incorrect assumption, on two points.

A. I did not make one of these "Myers Cells"

B. I am not supporting the claims of this invention.

If you read my post carefully, you will see that what I am doing is supplying an alternative to the "Over-Unity" claim OF the invention, by stating that it may be possible to create more energy from a device of this type, if the energy production is caused by a non-classical Fusion reaction within the cell, as opposed to violating the second law of thermodynamics for the production of energy.

In essence, if the "Meyers Cell" *IS* a form of fusion... then it would not be "Over-Unity" or "Perpetual Energy" but would in fact agree with thermodynamics.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

No, my point was that nobody has made a fuel cell that will do what Meyer claimed. Not Meyer, nor anyone else, including you.

I was asking you this, because you seem to be absolutely certain that the Cell will not work, despite the fact that you have not tried it out yourself.

And that's not how science works either

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

No, my point was that nobody has made a fuel cell that will do what Meyer claimed. Not Meyer, nor anyone else, including you.

I was asking you this, because you seem to be absolutely certain that the Cell will not work, despite the fact that you have not tried it out yourself.

And that's not how science works either

Science works by supporting claims with evidence. It is not up to others to debunk the claims (although that has been done already), the burden of proof lies with those making the claims. Stop trying to move the goalposts.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


It could be powered by free love for all it matters. However, unless there is evidence to support any claims of this "invention", we might as well be arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Evidence first, discussion second.

reply to post by john_bmth

Science works by supporting claims with evidence. It is not up to others to debunk the claims (although that has been done already), the burden of proof lies with those making the claims. Stop trying to move the goalposts.

I'm not moving the goalposts... I am merely separating what we know, from what we don't know.

I do not know if the cell works or not....

And guess what?

YOU don't know if it works or not either.

Neither of us has ACTUALLY DONE the experiment, so we have absolutely no KNOWLEDGE of it's validity.


You can CLAIM that it doesn't work... but until you are actually PRESENT for an experiment of this system, to see if it works or not... you have no KNOWLEDGE of the event, or it's authenticity.

In the same way, I am not claiming that it works or not, because any information that I could possibly give on that subject would necessarily be second or third hand, and thus not knowledge, but belief.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Actually, it HAS been tested:

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.

reply to post by john_bmth

Actually, it HAS been tested:

Yes... but not by you.

(second line)

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Why should I need to test anything? It's already been tested by 3 expert witnesses. More to the point, a claim is considered false until evidence is presented to support it. No evidence has been presented, ergo the claim is false.

reply to post by john_bmth

It's already been tested by 3 expert witnesses.

And who were these expert witnesses?

(Second Line)