Water as fuel?

[BoyntonStu]

Water as fuel?

Natural gas, coal, oil, and wood, are examples of fuels.

Water is oxidized Hydrogen and it is therefore water is burned fuel.

A single match can start a forest fire.

Drop a match into water, does it burn? Fuels burn.

We have to unmake water with energy to generate Hydrogen.

Hydrogen from water is not fuel, it is a carrier of energy, just like a battery.

To say that water is a fuel is to say that a battery is a fuel.

BoyntonStu

[daddymikey1975]

I think someone forgot to take their meds.

I have to respect the way Stu thinks as it's outside the box. However, I have to admit, it seems as if Dr. Jackson's (shane) diagnosis is spot on. Stu like to sprk discussions to "kick" people's minds outside the box. in a weird way, it does generate some intelligent discussions from time to time...

Although, the last few times stu has chimed in, he hasn't really participated in the discussion.

[daddymikey1975]

fu·el (fyl)
n.
1. Something consumed to produce energy, especially:
a. A material such as wood, coal, gas, or oil burned to produce heat or power.
b. Fissionable material used in a nuclear reactor.
c. Nutritive material metabolized by a living organism; food.
2. Something that maintains or stimulates an activity or emotion

in our HHO generators, would the water be the fuel? or would the electricity be the fuel as it's comsumed to produce power...

in the grand scheme, if water were comsumed to power an automobile, regardless of the means of comsumption, could it be a fuel??

just because we BURN the gasoline in our engines, does that alone make it a fuel??

what if we use the gasoline for electrolysis, would that make it less of a fuel??

if i use gasoline to clean my hands, is it still fuel?? or hand cleaner??

mike

[BoyntonStu]

fu·el (fyl)
n.
1. Something consumed to produce energy, especially:
a. A material such as wood, coal, gas, or oil burned to produce heat or power.
b. Fissionable material used in a nuclear reactor.
c. Nutritive material metabolized by a living organism; food.
2. Something that maintains or stimulates an activity or emotion

in our HHO generators, would the water be the fuel? or would the electricity be the fuel as it's comsumed to produce power...

in the grand scheme, if water were comsumed to power an automobile, regardless of the means of comsumption, could it be a fuel??

just because we BURN the gasoline in our engines, does that alone make it a fuel??

what if we use the gasoline for electrolysis, would that make it less of a fuel??

if i use gasoline to clean my hands, is it still fuel?? or hand cleaner??

mike

Water is not burned, Gasoline or coal or nuclear energy is consumed in order to generate electricity. These fuels were consumed.

Now we use the Hydrogen to burn.

Consider a battery. Like hydrogen, fuels must be consumed to charge the battery.

Is battery a fuel?


What is the difference between a charged battery and Hydroxy created out the same electricity?

Nada. Hydroxy and the battery are both energy carriers.

BoyntonStu

Beauty is temporary, stupidity is forever!

[daddymikey1975]

Water is not burned, Gasoline or coal or nuclear energy is consumed in order to generate electricity. These fuels were consumed.

you're stuck thinking that consuming = burning. when you eat dinner, do you burn your food? is the food fuel? if a vehicle were to consume only water, and operate, would the water be fuel?? regardless if it's used to produce HHO??

Now we use the Hydrogen to burn.

Isn't the water consumed by the process of electrolysis to produce fuel (hydroxy?)

Consider a battery. Like hydrogen, fuels must be consumed to charge the battery.

Is battery a fuel?


What is the difference between a charged battery and Hydroxy created out the same electricity?

Nada. Hydroxy and the battery are both energy carriers.

is the debate about water as fuel? or was the debate about hydroxy as fuel??

BoyntonStu

Beauty is temporary, stupidity is forever!

and 1 finger pointing out an insult while 3 point back

[coffeeachiever]

BoyntonStu

Beauty is temporary, stupidity is forever!

Stu? Okay then. Let's say I get a 911 call to an old geezer with heart palpitations. When I get to the scene it's you. I put you on the monitor and see that you are in supraventricular tachycardia. I say,"Stu, your heart rate is much to fast. You're not perfusing. I'm going to have to cardiovert you". You say,"what does that mean". I say, "Oh, you must be stupid, you don't know what I'm talking about. Are you going to be stupid forever?"
Not cool man.

[daddymikey1975]

Stu? Okay then. Let's say I get a 911 call to an old geezer with heart palpitations. When I get to the scene it's you. I put you on the monitor and see that you are in supraventricular tachycardia. I say,"Stu, your heart rate is much to fast. You're not perfusing. I'm going to have to cardiovert you". You say,"what does that mean". I say, "Oh, you must be stupid, you don't know what I'm talking about. Are you going to be stupid forever?"
Not cool man.

Thanks coffee for sticking up for me. I pointed out this observation in another post but stu neglected to read it.

All i said was that just because a person may not understand what one is talking about doesn't make them stupid.

a harmless debate is just that. Sparking an intellectual conversation is definitely welcome as well. Insulting just to make yourself feel/look superior is actually still just as childish as the 5th graders that did it to me :cool:

mike

[Painless]

Back on the original subject:

Should we define a fuel as something which can be combusted? I think not.

Consider a steam engine, a boiler heats water which is injected as steam to push a piston. Effectively, expansion at work. However, one would probably assume that the coal or whatever was heating the boiler was the fuel.

Consider this:

*EVERYTHING* burns, its simply a matter of the amount of heat needed to initiate combustion. When we burn gasoline, we introduce sufficient heat via a spark which causes the hydrogen to dissassociate from the carbons and bond with oxygen. Similarly, the carbons and other elements also bond with oxygen.

Water can also be burnt, with sufficient temperature. A plasma spark is hot enough to dissassociate the H and O and then fuse them together then, creating heat.

All combustion creates heat, this is the energy that we want in most cases.

I would say that a fuel is something that we want to cause to react with another substance (oxygen, for example) via the introduction of a catalyst or energy in order to obtain heat or expansion.

Russ.

[daddymikey1975]

Russ, in your example of the steam engine i'll add this:

I agree that the coal or wood is the fuel for the fire..(fire = energy produced from the burning (method of consumption in this instance) of this fuel)

the fire is then used to heat the water which is the fuel for the steam engine since the water is consumed (utilized) and during utilization the energy propels the engine the by product (exhaust) is the steam that's allowed to exit the engine.

in a water as only fuel source, plasma could be the method of consumption, or using the water to make HHO could be the method of consumption, but water in this instance cold be the fuel. In the water to make HHO could be analgous to the coal (or wood) to 'make' steam. electricity = coal or wood, burning the wood/coal = electrolysis by product is steam or HHO... either way, the water is consumed in both respects.

Do we not use one fuel source to create another?

mike

[coffeeachiever]

As long as we're thinking outside the box, why does a fuel have to be consumed? Why can it not be renewable? Recycled? That would be the perfect fuel right? That would be free energy. Overunity. Our Grail.

[daddymikey1975]

As long as we're thinking outside the box, why does a fuel have to be consumed? Why can it not be renewable? Recycled? That would be the perfect fuel right? That would be free energy. Overunity. Our Grail.


because you didn't write the dictionary... LOL...

I'm just basing my logic on what the dictionary says... fuel is consumed. That doesn't mean that things that are consumed cannot be renewable, or recycled...

I agree that these types of fuels could potentially be free energy.

Consider this (while in response here)

if you have solar panels on your roof, to charge batteries for your home, which portion is the fuel??

the electricity is consumed correct? although replenished it is consumed... could electricity in this example be a fuel or just a source of energy.. (or are they the same?)

mike

[Stevo]

I think what Stu is trying to say here is that anything that requires energy from your engine to convert itself into a combustible state can be easily explained as an energy carrier due to it's parasitic nature. You use more (or as much) power to create the combustible than you end up receiving. A car battery is a prime example as well as hydroxy.

Think of it as you will. I find it rather comical how so many people tend to tilt towards the personal side debates versus the intellectual side. I am certainly guilty in the case of Scooterdog (even though he deserved it). An open ended statement utilizing the word "stupid" just dries the brush, increases friction as well as the chances of starting a fire. Don't get me wrong though, I think that "water for fuel" is inappropriate for the application(s)... but that's just my opinion.

Peace and hair grease.

[BoyntonStu]

because you didn't write the dictionary... LOL...

I'm just basing my logic on what the dictionary says... fuel is consumed. That doesn't mean that things that are consumed cannot be renewable, or recycled...

I agree that these types of fuels could potentially be free energy.

Consider this (while in response here)

if you have solar panels on your roof, to charge batteries for your home, which portion is the fuel??

the electricity is consumed correct? although replenished it is consumed... could electricity in this example be a fuel or just a source of energy.. (or are they the same?)

mike

Electricity is a carrier of energy.

The fuel that produced the electricity in the solar panels is the Sun.

If a wind turbine produced the electricity, what is the fuel?


What is an uncharged battery? Is it fuel that powers an electric car?

Must fuel be consumed to charge the battery?

You carry to battery to discharge its energy.

That is why a battery is called an energy carrier.


Is air a fuel?

Compressed air?

What is the difference between compressed air and a charged battery?


BoyntonStu

[coffeeachiever]

because you didn't write the dictionary... LOL...

I'm just basing my logic on what the dictionary says... fuel is consumed. That doesn't mean that things that are consumed cannot be renewable, or recycled...

I agree that these types of fuels could potentially be free energy.

Consider this (while in response here)

if you have solar panels on your roof, to charge batteries for your home, which portion is the fuel??

the electricity is consumed correct? although replenished it is consumed... could electricity in this example be a fuel or just a source of energy.. (or are they the same?)

mike

As technological advances are made, dictionaries and encylopedias must be revised. So my question is this... If OU is achieved, which then is the catalyst and which is the fuel? Hmmm.

[daddymikey1975]

As technological advances are made, dictionaries and encylopedias must be revised. So my question is this... If OU is achieved, which then is the catalyst and which is the fuel? Hmmm.

I agree 100% :D which comes first, the chicken or the egg HAHA...

as far as the catalyst/fuel, which started it?? HAHA....

I agree with you on this one.


Stu.. all we're doing is offering differing opinions of the same thing aren't we?

mike

[BoyntonStu]

As technological advances are made, dictionaries and encylopedias must be revised. So my question is this... If OU is achieved, which then is the catalyst and which is the fuel? Hmmm.


What evidence do you have that you can get more energy out of anything than you put into it?

OU and perpetual motion are just a jumble of letters made into words without meaning.


Here's a question based on a scientific definition:

"When you place a can of beer on a block of ice, does the ice cool the beer?"


BoyntonStu

[coffeeachiever]

What evidence do you have that you can get more energy out of anything than you put into it?

OU and perpetual motion are just a jumble of letters made into words without meaning.



BoyntonStu

Did you read the thread on magnetic resonance? Do you not believe OU is possible or are you going to be the defeatist that tries to step on everyone's effort? What happened to the Stu that encouraged everyone to experiment and see what they could accomplish? Where did that guy go?

If you want to get into trick questions I'll go head to head with you forever. But what does that accomplish?

[daddymikey1975]

What evidence do you have that you can get more energy out of anything than you put into it?

OU and perpetual motion are just a jumble of letters made into words without meaning.


Here's a question based on a scientific definition:

"When you place a can of beer on a block of ice, does the ice cool the beer?"

the beer warms the ice.

OU i know not much about, but from what i've uncovered from time to time in the past (and I can't remember where) perpetual motion isn't possible (in theory)

overunity I'm not sure what it even is... (I suppose I should go read up on it then eh?)

Coffee, I too wonder where the encouraging and inventive Stu went ??

[BoyntonStu]

Did you read the thread on magnetic resonance? Do you not believe OU is possible or are you going to be the defeatist that tries to step on everyone's effort? What happened to the Stu that encouraged everyone to experiment and see what they could accomplish? Where did that guy go?

If you want to get into trick questions I'll go head to head with you forever. But what does that accomplish?

If you don't know the meaning of the words you use, how can you have an intelligent discussion.

If you "believe" in perpetual motion you can easily accept OU.

I have built about a dozen cells and people from all over the world have replicated my Amoeba design with good results.

What have you contributed?

BoyntonStu


P.S. The notion that I asked a trick question, shows just how uninformed you are. The beer question was not a trick question as you may eventually learn.

[coffeeachiever]

the beer warms the ice.

OU i know not much about, but from what i've uncovered from time to time in the past (and I can't remember where) perpetual motion isn't possible (in theory)

overunity I'm not sure what it even is... (I suppose I should go read up on it then eh?)

Coffee, I too wonder where the encouraging and inventive Stu went ??

Mike,
Overunity is simply getting more energy out of something than you put into it to create said energy.

[BoyntonStu]

Mike,
Overunity is simply getting more energy out of something than you put into it to create said energy.

OU is by definition; perpetual motion.

In fact, you might say that OU is better than perpetual motion.

A wheel that never stops turning is an example of perpetual motion.

OU means that you can perpetually power more wheels from an OU wheel.

Is encouraging perpetual motion experiments useful or is it wasteful?

BoyntonStu

[coffeeachiever]

OU is by definition; perpetual motion.

In fact, you might say that OU is better than perpetual motion.

A wheel that never stops turning is an example of perpetual motion.

OU means that you can perpetually power more wheels from an OU wheel.

Is encouraging perpetual motion experiments useful or is it wasteful?

BoyntonStu

Encouraging OU is useful. I don't believe we'll find it powering HHO generators with our car batteries like we've been doing. All we'll do with this is save gas, clean our motors and help the planet. All worth pursuing.

If you want to get into OU, it will take a combination of technologies as most things these days do. The earth itself has magnetism that can be tapped. That is energy. Should we not explore that Stu?

Did you read the thread on magnetic resonance? You can find a link to it on H2OPWR's thread on zero current leakage. It's a great read. There's your OU. Disprove it before you poo poo on it.

If we listen to you these days we would be too discouraged to make the discoveries that will advance civilization. Do you not realize that's what we're doing here? We are advancing technology. Even if we don't discover what we're looking for, God only knows what we can discover with the effort.

I will ask you to once again encourage people to take those steps. Help them with what is important and quit getting hung up on the semantics. You are capable of bridging gaps in knowledge for people so that they may make the discoveries that we so desperately need. Instead you are choosing to be critical and distracting.

Once again I will bow out of one of your threads. I hope the next conversation we have is more productive.

[jriggs_18]

What evidence do you have that you can get more energy out of anything than you put into it?

OU and perpetual motion are just a jumble of letters made into words without meaning.


Here's a question based on a scientific definition:

"When you place a can of beer on a block of ice, does the ice cool the beer?"


BoyntonStu

No the heat in the beer is absorbed from the beer to the ice, resulting in a lack of heat in the beer and ready for consumption

Once the beer has been chilled is it still beer? or is it just an empty can? Answer that one Stu

[daddymikey1975]

No the heat in the beer is absorbed from the beer to the ice, resulting in a lack of heat in the beer and ready for consumption

or in layperson's terms, the beer warms the ice.

that's how an air conditioner works. by moving heat from the 'desired cool area' to an area that we don't care about warming.... nothing makes anything cold.. cold is not transferred, rather heat is transferred to something with less heat (commonly referred to as 'cold')

mike

[BoyntonStu]

or in layperson's terms, the beer warms the ice.

that's how an air conditioner works. by moving heat from the 'desired cool area' to an area that we don't care about warming.... nothing makes anything cold.. cold is not transferred, rather heat is transferred to something with less heat (commonly referred to as 'cold')

mike


Mike,


" nothing makes anything cold.. cold is not transferred, rather heat is transferred to something with less heat (commonly referred to as 'cold')"

Correct! Why do you have such assurance?

Could it be that the scientists working on thermodynamics for many decades have provided all the proof necessary to state a Law of Physics?

Should we work on experiments on how to transfer cold?

We could call it OC, 'over cold"; as in "move over cold".


I hope that you get my point.

BoyntonStu

[jriggs_18]

'Cold' is the absence of Heat, Air conditioning systems work by absorbing heat and removing the heat

The ice is cold(no heat), the can is warm(heat present), the Ice absorbs heat, leaving you with a beer can with no heat - that means its cold.

Good discussion we got going here....Stu knows how it works, you are obviously a very educated and deep thinker...keep it coming, i enjoy this

[BoyntonStu]

'Cold' is the absence of Heat, Air conditioning systems work by absorbing heat and removing the heat

The ice is cold(no heat), the can is warm(heat present), the Ice absorbs heat, leaving you with a beer can with no heat - that means its cold.

Good discussion we got going here....Stu knows how it works, you are obviously a very educated and deep thinker...keep it coming, i enjoy this

Welcome to this discussion.

Words and the definitions that we accept creates our realities.

Individual words are difficult to define, and the combining of words much, much more difficult.

Resonance has a definition that we can agree on.

"Resonance of water" has no definition for me.

I have no idea what it means.

BoyntonStu

Questions:

What is the plural of "Oxymoron"?

What is the word that means the opposite of "Oxymoron"?

An example of each would be useful.

[Q-Hack!]

Welcome to this discussion.

Words and the definitions that we accept creates our realities.

Individual words are difficult to define, and the combining of words much, much more difficult.

Resonance has a definition that we can agree on.

"Resonance of water" has no definition for me.

I have no idea what it means.

BoyntonStu

Questions:

What is the plural of "Oxymoron"?

What is the word that means the opposite of "Oxymoron"?

An example of each would be useful.

Wiki shows the plural to be "Oxymorons"... not sure how accurate that is.
Considering that the word "Oxymoron" is a contradiction by itself, the word is from Greek; "oxy" meaning sharp and "moros" meaning dull. I would suspect that there isn't an opposite, other than to say "Common Sense", but even that is subjective. :D

I do know that the one of the first people to write about the resonance of materials was Nikola Tesla. He had this to say:

"Pure resonance effects leading to ever-increasing amplitude are impossible in
Nature due to the imperfect conductivity and imperfect elasticity of the
media or, generally stated, by frictional losses."

[BoyntonStu]

The plural of Oxymoron is Oxymora.

The opposite is Pleonasm.


Examples: Johnny! Climb down from the tree.

and: Johnny! Climb up the tree.

Do you understand which sentence uses a Pleonasm and which one uses an Oxymoron?


BoyntonStu


Put another way, what Tesla said was that Nature puts a damper on resonance.

Why do so many folks in Hydroxy ignore Tesla?

If Tesla was incorrect, you may possibly achieve OU.

Since I follow Tesla and most other proven scientific measurements, I maintain that the pursuit of Resonance of water and/or OU is a waste of time!

[daddymikey1975]

Resonance has a definition that we can agree on.

"Resonance of water" has no definition for me.

I have no idea what it means.


Stu,

Consider if you will the loud stereo systems that occasionally drive around the streets...

As an audio installer (by trade) I know this to be certain. Things resonate. I would also be daring enough to say that all things have a natural tendency to resonate. The frequency with which they resonate (naturally or most efficiently) is different based on the material in question.

A subwoofer's spec sheet will have a line listed as Fs - resonant frequency of the subwoofer (the physical speaker)

This frequency will be the easiest for the speaker to reproduce with all other parameters being equal. This is the frequency at which the speaker is the most efficient. Of course, this frequency is 'created' by the engineers and designers of the speaker, but you get my point.

When we design an enclosure for a particular speaker, we can make the enclosure have it's own 'natural' resonant frequency.. (to be read, we can make that frequency be whatever we want it to be) this is called tuning the enclosure. We do this to achieve a desired effect within the car's cabin. In fact, the cabin of the car has frequencies that it will 'amplify' (or reproduce very well) and other frequencies will be dubdued.. have you seen an equalizer on a stereo? this equalizer is designed to make up for the lack of frequency 'amplitude'... some materials will absorb sound waves others will reflect them... this absorption and reflection is due to the material in question having differing properties when frequencies are 'applied'.

Consider this...when under water, sounds travel much farther than in air.. the water is more conductive to sound waves (as well as sonar, and the like) than air is.

Since we know that sound waves (and other frequencies) pass through water, is it also possible for water to resonate??

if it is possible to resonate water, would it also be possible for water molecules to have a particular frequency that they 'resonate at' much better than other frequencies??

how about the opera singer that can break a wine glass with their voice? could the note that they reproduce be the resonant frequency of the glass??

I think this would be the 'common or acceptable' definition.

(or at least as good as I can describe)

I hope this helps.

mike

[daddymikey1975]

That's much easier to say than his round-a-bout way LOL...

well, I agree, but i believe we will not know if we don't at least try.

I say we have nothing to lose by trying.

[BoyntonStu]

[QUOTE=daddymikey1975;20548]That's much easier to say than his round-a-bout way LOL...

well, I agree, but i believe we will not know if we don't at least try.

I say we have nothing to lose by trying.[/QU


"I say we have nothing to lose by trying."

Time, energy, money are wasted in an effort to attempt to break a well established Law of Physics in your garage.

It is like spending your life building up your arms and flapping them in an attempt to fly.

I try to improve the efficiency of the Amoeba Cell with the full knowledge that it will NEVER produce more energy than I put into it.

BoyntonStu

[H2OPWR]

[QUOTE=daddymikey1975;20548]That's much easier to say than his round-a-bout way LOL...

well, I agree, but i believe we will not know if we don't at least try.

I say we have nothing to lose by trying.[/QU


"I say we have nothing to lose by trying."

Time, energy, money are wasted in an effort to attempt to break a well established Law of Physics in your garage.

It is like spending your life building up your arms and flapping them in an attempt to fly.

I try to improve the efficiency of the Amoeba Cell with the full knowledge that it will NEVER produce more energy than I put into it.

BoyntonStu

Stu, I completely understand your logic. But if people do not challenge established so called laws and accepted truth's we will all stand still. If we choose to use our time and spend our money to try to make a great breakthrough that never happens the worst that can happen is to make big improvements instead of accepting what the text books teach us as absolute truths and standing still. The fact is that there is no standing still in life. If we are not moving forward we are going backwards. I for one will be continuing to try to get over unity fully understanding that in all probability it will never happen. I will enjoy every improvement along the way and be proud of what I have accomplished trying and the effort that I put in will be my reward. I for one wish to thank those who continue to try and do not accept the words "YOU CAN'T DO IT SO DO NOT TRY, YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME" Everyone please carry on!

[Dave Nowlin]

This thread makes my head hurt. Either you're all so much smarter than me that I just don't understand. Or you're playing mine is bigger than yours. One thing I do accept. In any system there are losses. Sometimes due to resistance of an electrical circuit, sometimes due to mechanical losses from friction or other factors, sometimes losses when we change from one state to another as liquid to a gas. I am interested in HHO as an alternative fuel source and to clean up the environment. I am not interested in HHO to beat others over the head with as I wax eloquent. Comprende?

Dave Nowlin

[jriggs_18]

Stu

What do you use HHO for? is it just for the enjoyment of building cells or are you using it as a 'catalyst' in your personal vehicle? Do you think that the conventional method everyone is using works or is it bogus? Im not attacking you, I just am trying to get a feel for where you stand with the 'water revolution'

IMO OU will happen someday, people will continue to advance, discover and rewrite old laws, 'modernize' if you will. it may not be within my lifetime but I believe it will happen...IMO

[daddymikey1975]

[QUOTE=BoyntonStu;20551]

Stu, I completely understand your logic. But if people do not challenge established so called laws and accepted truth's we will all stand still. If we choose to use our time and spend our money to try to make a great breakthrough that never happens the worst that can happen is to make big improvements instead of accepting what the text books teach us as absolute truths and standing still. The fact is that there is no standing still in life. If we are not moving forward we are going backwards. I for one will be continuing to try to get over unity fully understanding that in all probability it will never happen. I will enjoy every improvement along the way and be proud of what I have accomplished trying and the effort that I put in will be my reward. I for one wish to thank those who continue to try and do not accept the words "YOU CAN'T DO IT SO DO NOT TRY, YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME" Everyone please carry on!

I agree with you 110%...

Stu, may I suggest an idea...

the start of this thread was about using water as fuel correct?? we seem to have gotten way off topic here with the intellectual conversations we've had..and now we seem to be debating OU.. in my opinion, based on the 'laws of physics' and WHAT I'VE BEEN TAUGHT... it's not possible.

based on my Internal Belief System, it COULD be possible.. and even if it's not, wouldn't it be fun to try?? imagine all the things we'll discover by removing the couch cushions??

Imagine where we'd be if Columbus believed what he was taught about the world being flat?

so, back on topic, I believe water COULD be used as a fuel source. I do not believe we can use our current methods of electrolysis to create HHO as the only fuel source for a vehicle. I believe we can use water as a sole fuel source. plasma spark has some promising theories behind it that we should investigate.

No i don't believe that we can get more energy out of our cells than we put into them, but i believe we can make these things WAY more efficient than what they are... In fact, I believe there lies uncovered efficiency improvements in your amoeba cell design still..

by coming together with this type of conversation and mind stimulation I believe we can accomplish much. It won't be overnight, but imagine all the breakthroughs we wouldn't have if no one ever challenged the 'laws that be' ??

I hope you get my point here.
Mike
(p.s. read my signature line..)

[BoyntonStu]

[QUOTE=H2OPWR;20553]

I agree with you 110%...

Stu, may I suggest an idea...

the start of this thread was about using water as fuel correct?? we seem to have gotten way off topic here with the intellectual conversations we've had..and now we seem to be debating OU.. in my opinion, based on the 'laws of physics' and WHAT I'VE BEEN TAUGHT... it's not possible.

based on my Internal Belief System, it COULD be possible.. and even if it's not, wouldn't it be fun to try?? imagine all the things we'll discover by removing the couch cushions??

Imagine where we'd be if Columbus believed what he was taught about the world being flat?

so, back on topic, I believe water COULD be used as a fuel source. I do not believe we can use our current methods of electrolysis to create HHO as the only fuel source for a vehicle. I believe we can use water as a sole fuel source. plasma spark has some promising theories behind it that we should investigate.

No i don't believe that we can get more energy out of our cells than we put into them, but i believe we can make these things WAY more efficient than what they are... In fact, I believe there lies uncovered efficiency improvements in your amoeba cell design still..

by coming together with this type of conversation and mind stimulation I believe we can accomplish much. It won't be overnight, but imagine all the breakthroughs we wouldn't have if no one ever challenged the 'laws that be' ??

I hope you get my point here.
Mike
(p.s. read my signature line..)

Let me state it again:

Hydroxy from electrolysis and Hydrogen that is made from any ource are both carriers of energy. They are not primary fuels.

I design cells to generate as much Hydroxy as possible to catalyze gas in order to increase the flame speed. The result will be an increase in MPG.

I am 100% positive that Hydroxy will never replace gasoline unless you are willing to use more energy to make it than the gas it replaces.

To believe that you can, is to believe in perpetual motion.

Gas replacement by OU electrolysis is exactly equivalent to perpetual motion.

Do you believe in perpetual motion?

If not, you cannot believe in OU.

BoyntonStu

Christopher Columbus: What where the 2 major social concepts did he bring to the Western Hemisphere?

[Bassman]

My 2 cents is that if it took more power to refine gas from oil then the power it produced, then we wouldn't be using gas.
I believe that water holds a lot of power and we just need to find a cheap way of getting it out. That isn't perpetual motion. That is science.

[jriggs_18]

My 2 cents is that if it took more power to refine gas from oil then the power it produced, then we wouldn't be using gas.
I believe that water holds a lot of power and we just need to find a cheap way of getting it out. That isn't perpetual motion. That is science.

Actually if someone figures out how to run a car on water they have indeed created a perpetual motion machine. A perpetual motion machine is nothing more than a device that creates more than goes in. Since ordinary water has no stored chemical energy to release, it would indeed be perpetual motion.

The only reason I believe that OU is possible is because of my personal beliefs about why water was put here for us... And I dont personally believe that OU exists anywhere except within one of many of waters weird properties.

[BoyntonStu]

My 2 cents is that if it took more power to refine gas from oil then the power it produced, then we wouldn't be using gas.
I believe that water holds a lot of power and we just need to find a cheap way of getting it out. That isn't perpetual motion. That is science.


I agree with you about gas.

What scientific approach would you recommend to unburn water?

Perhaps we should consider unburning the CO2 in our exhaust.

We could get Carbon and Oxygen and we could burn it again and again.

BoyntonStu

[BoyntonStu]

Actually if someone figures out how to run a car on water they have indeed created a perpetual motion machine. A perpetual motion machine is nothing more than a device that creates more than goes in. Since ordinary water has no stored chemical energy to release, it would indeed be perpetual motion.

The only reason I believe that OU is possible is because of my personal beliefs about why water was put here for us... And I dont personally believe that OU exists anywhere except within one of many of waters weird properties.


Water was put there for us by who?

Was water put on Mars for the same purpose?

BoyntonStu

[jriggs_18]

Water was put there for us by who?

Was water put on Mars for the same purpose?

BoyntonStu

GOD put water here

water on mars was put there for a reason but I cant answer why, but im sure you know why


Stu, how was the universe built?

[BoyntonStu]

GOD put water here

water on mars was put there for a reason but I cant answer why, but im sure you know why


Stu, how was the universe built?

Do you have so much faith in me that you ask this question and that you expect me to know what the question means?

Universe built vs Universe always was/is?

Do you have so much faith in yourself as to presume that you know the answer?



Perhaps this possibility may answer your question:

A spaghetti God bought the materials from the Home Depot in the Sky, and she built the Universe as a person would build a clock.

This answer has as much possibility of being correct as OU is correct.


BoyntonStu

P.S. Explain this phrase:


Before there was time.

[jriggs_18]

"Do you have so much faith in me that you ask this question and that you expect me to know what the question means?"

No I dont have so much faith in you that I expect you know the answer, it just seems like you know everything so I thought I would give it a shot.

"Do you have so much faith in yourself as to presume that you know the answer?"

No I dont presume I know the answer but I do know what I believe and unlike you, If I know the answer to a question I dont ask someone else to see if they are smart like me and know the answer. Theres nothing wrong with thought provoking questions, but playing a trivia game on this forum isnt what were here for. Go here if you want to do that www.funtrivia.com.

I respect the work youve done and I know your a very intelligent person but I think thats where it stops with you, Ive learned through my few years on this earth that just because a person can explain everything (or almost everything) with a scientific explanation doesnt mean that they have common sense.

If you had common sense and/or courtesy you would have kept your spaghetti god analogy to yourself. Im not out to attack your religous beliefs nor would I belittle them no matter how crazy i thought they might be.

"Before there was time."

There was no time, duh that was easy, im suprised you couldnt have gotten that one, well im sure you already knew and were just trying to stimulate thoughts......right??

[daddymikey1975]

jriggs, i believe there are book smart people like Stu and there are 'street' smart people. (common sense)

I also agree that because someone is obviously book smart, this alone can contribute to their lack of street smarts and very often shows it's ugly head.

Stu's an eccentric individual. He's very bright, however most people don't know how to take him. I believe Stu means well, however he's all too often trying to provoke 'sideways' thinking with his 'riddles'...

hope this helps
mike
(wow, did i just stick up for Stu?)

[BoyntonStu]

jriggs, i believe there are book smart people like Stu and there are 'street' smart people. (common sense)

I also agree that because someone is obviously book smart, this alone can contribute to their lack of street smarts and very often shows it's ugly head.

Stu's an eccentric individual. He's very bright, however most people don't know how to take him. I believe Stu means well, however he's all too often trying to provoke 'sideways' thinking with his 'riddles'...

hope this helps
mike
(wow, did i just stick up for Stu?)


Mike,

Thanks anyways, but I do not ask thatt anyone should stick up for me.

If you confirm my ideas, that is enough.

It is not about me.

Book Smart?

How many book smart folks would have built this?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hom61NxuaE

How many street smart people understand why it works and why it is safe?

6 years ago all the street smart folks said that my elevator design could not be built. I didn't listen to them. 6 years later, many have asked me how I did it.

I don't B.S. I build.

OTOH I don't fool myself into thinking that I can burn Hydrogen, collect the water in the exhaust, and burn it again, and again as I drive along. That is OU.

My "sideways" thinking is just thinking about what is true.

Straight ahead thinking is just following the sheep.

Sometimes I think that it is futile to tell the truth because it is like talking to the wall.

My goal is to educate people about Science.

So called "riddles' is my way to draw attention to serious subjects.


BoyntonStu

[Painless]

People,

Let's take these threads for what they truly are, thought provoking discussion, and seek to follow them through in the hope that we might find new tangents to take for our research.

Activities, such as these, need to be approached with an open mind. In fact, the very science we are all working on definitely requires an open mind.

A truly open mind requires thought process that are free from ego, how else can off the wall ideas and different approaches be consumed and furthered to advances?

Stu is a member of this forum that I both admire and respect. Let's stop assuming that which is not true about him and work on making the most of what he brings to our forum. We all have our contributions to make.

Russ.

[jriggs_18]

"How many book smart folks would have built this?"

Thats a very admirable project you've built, obviously there is one book smart person who would build a home elevator

"How many street smart people understand why it works and why it is safe?"

Well I would consider myself to be a street smart person and I wouldnt say that its impossible and Im almost certain I could look at it, understand why and how it works, and call it safe, im sure theres lots of others on this forum who could do the same

"My "sideways" thinking is just thinking about what is true."

And my sideways thinking is that a car can run on water

"Straight ahead thinking is just following the sheep."

An example of straight ahead thinking would be like saying "Well you cant run a car on water because my professors told me so, and no one has ever scientifically done this, so it CANNOT be done" <---That is straight ahead thinking.

Now back to the thread topic 'water as fuel?' - yes i BELIEVE a car can run on water, now please dont attack me for what I believe in, ive already given you my explanation as to why I think its possible.

If I may ask, what makes you disbelieve? Is it simply because it hasn't happened yet?

[Bassman]

Actually if someone figures out how to run a car on water they have indeed created a perpetual motion machine. A perpetual motion machine is nothing more than a device that creates more than goes in. Since ordinary water has no stored chemical energy to release, it would indeed be perpetual motion.

The only reason I believe that OU is possible is because of my personal beliefs about why water was put here for us... And I don't personally believe that OU exists anywhere except within one of many of waters weird properties.

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe in perpetual motion but if you do some research, several universities is researching joining two hydrogen atoms together and then hitting it with plasma with the idea that someday they will be able to power the earth totally with sea water.

If that happens, they will be able to power a vehicle with water. But thats not perpetual motion. They are just extracting the power that already exist in the water by using nuclear fusion. Come to think about it, I doubt if they will do that in the vehicle itself.

[BoyntonStu]

This is the stupidest tread yet.

I bet $100,000 I CAN run a car on water. If you don’t think so put up the money!

One simple way would be to load the trunk up with HHO gens and a few extra batteries. True the car (or maybe truck) would be limited in range and have to be recharged..... but the ICE would be running on 100% HHO.....

Hey!

I completely agree with you.


The problem is not to use 1,000 gallons of fuel to replace 999 gallons of fuel.

You can probably use 10,000 AA batteries to run a car. What is proven?

The question is: Can you produce a gallon worth of gasoline energy (~ 125,000 BTU) using electolysis with less than 125,000 BTU input?

BoyntonStu

[jriggs_18]

If that happens, they will be able to power a vehicle with water. But thats not perpetual motion. They are just extracting the power that already exist in the water by using nuclear fusion. Come to think about it, I doubt if they will do that in the vehicle itself.

Powering anything by only water is perpetual motion, I will say it again - pure water (H2o) has no chemical energy to be released, once the molecules become seperated then you have usable energy.

Is there power contained within water? Oh yes, but the molecular structure of water doesnt allow you to extract that energy until they are seperated

There seems to be alot of confusion as to the original thread topic,

Can you run a car on water using water as the energy source, not the energy carrier, we all know that cars could be driven by batteries powering generators, but can a car use water as the energy SOURCE.


I guess I should add that if an industrial process was developed that would produce more HHO energy than what was consumed during the process and the gas was stored and put onto a car that would also count as a water driven car. But it all boils down to can you extract more usable energy out of water than what you had to put into it

[BoyntonStu]

Powering anything by only water is perpetual motion, I will say it again - pure water (H2o) has no chemical energy to be released, once the molecules become seperated then you have usable energy.

Is there power contained within water? Oh yes, but the molecular structure of water doesnt allow you to extract that energy until they are seperated

There seems to be alot of confusion as to the original thread topic,

Can you run a car on water using water as the energy source, not the energy carrier, we all know that cars could be driven by batteries powering generators, but can a car use water as the energy SOURCE.


I guess I should add that if an industrial process was developed that would produce more HHO energy than what was consumed during the process and the gas was stored and put onto a car that would also count as a water driven car. But it all boils down to can you extract more usable energy out of water than what you had to put into it


I guess I should add that if an industrial process was developed that would produce more HHO energy than what was consumed during the process and the gas was stored and put onto a car that would also count as a water driven car.

This will happen the day after the Pope gets married.

BoyntonStu

[jriggs_18]

"This will happen the day after the Pope gets married."

ya thats what we psuedo-scientists call straight thinking

You know what Stu you should rename this thread to "Will someone tell me what I know isnt true so I can ridicule their thoughts?"

Real productive

And you never did answer me, why is it you dont believe that OU can happen?

Oh I forgot its not listed in a textbook it doesnt exist.
I think we should all just stop now because stu says it cant happen

You should change your name to BoytonProg or BoytonAnybeliefsthatarentscientificallydocumented

[BoyntonStu]

I can do it without using 1 gallon of fuel... charge the batteries via either solar or wind.

.

Batteries?

How do you make the batteries without using gas?


BoyntonStu

[jriggs_18]

Stu, just a reminder you still havent answered my question

Why cant OU happen? Im starting to think youre avoiding me here, c'mon now

"Batteries?

How do you make the batteries without using gas?"

At this point we cant because our US/world infrastructure hasn't been constructed with those processes in mind, but wind can generate electricity, I don't think even you stu will argue that. And every gas powered device under the sun could be made into an electric device given the time and resources, so thats how batteries could be made w/o gas. Either way, your still not using water as a fuel, but you would still be bridging the gap to certain degree, and using wind/solar could reduce our fuel usage but to power the entire country on solar and wind only would be next to impossible, and im almost certain BoytonProg is going to say it IS impossible.:( Would an infrastructure reconstruction also go against the current laws of science?

[daddymikey1975]

One of the most promising and probably going to disappear quickly is biodiesel created by algae.

I Agree it'll probably disappear because that method doesn't impact our food supply like using corn. The farmers are in bed with the government (always has been subsidized) and the farmers would be pi$$ed if we went that way more permanently (algae and not corn, soy, etc.)

so it'll be developed enough for them to realize it's viable, then suppressed.

just my .02

[BoyntonStu]

Stu, just a reminder you still havent answered my question

Why cant OU happen? Im starting to think youre avoiding me here, c'mon now

"Batteries?

How do you make the batteries without using gas?"

At this point we cant because our US/world infrastructure hasn't been constructed with those processes in mind, but wind can generate electricity, I don't think even you stu will argue that. And every gas powered device under the sun could be made into an electric device given the time and resources, so thats how batteries could be made w/o gas. Either way, your still not using water as a fuel, but you would still be bridging the gap to certain degree, and using wind/solar could reduce our fuel usage but to power the entire country on solar and wind only would be next to impossible, and im almost certain BoytonProg is going to say it IS impossible.:( Would an infrastructure reconstruction also go against the current laws of science?


How do you make plastic battery cases with wind?

How do you mine and refine the battery internal materials.?

BoyntonStu

Why can't OU happen is eactly why perpetual motion cannot happen.

They are the same.

Imagine a Hydrogen burning car going down the road,

You collect the exhaust water and reuse it again, and again.

The again and again part is perpetual motion.

[jriggs_18]

How do you make plastic battery cases with wind?

The raw material has to come from somewhere, ya I get it. But the industrial processes to make anything could be turned into an electrical operation rather than a fossil fuel driven operation. I think its safe to say that if we only had to use fossil fuels to make plastics the oil companies wouldnt have the stronghold they have today. Also, i would imagine that if oil didnt exist and we lived in a modern society without oil that some smart fella would come up with a way to make plastic without deriving it from oil

How do you mine and refine the battery internal materials.?

With electric mining equipment that doesnt exist yet


"Why can't OU happen is eactly why perpetual motion cannot happen.

They are the same.

Imagine a Hydrogen burning car going down the road,

You collect the exhaust water and reuse it again, and again.

The again and again part is perpetual motion."

Yea I think we all know that would be perpetual motion but you seem to have sidestepped my question again.:( I will ask again.

Why (why being the key word) do you believe OU cant happen?

Do you believe that the few people who claim to have ran cars on water only are fakes? meyers, dingle, and the s1r cars. I have my doubts about the credibility of each as well.

Will you please just tell me what I know to be true, you dont believe in OU because modern science doesnt believe in it. [in a calming voice] Its ok stu, let it out

[BoyntonStu]

How do you make plastic battery cases with wind?

The raw material has to come from somewhere, ya I get it. But the industrial processes to make anything could be turned into an electrical operation rather than a fossil fuel driven operation. I think its safe to say that if we only had to use fossil fuels to make plastics the oil companies wouldnt have the stronghold they have today. Also, i would imagine that if oil didnt exist and we lived in a modern society without oil that some smart fella would come up with a way to make plastic without deriving it from oil

How do you mine and refine the battery internal materials.?

With electric mining equipment that doesnt exist yet


"Why can't OU happen is eactly why perpetual motion cannot happen.

They are the same.

Imagine a Hydrogen burning car going down the road,

You collect the exhaust water and reuse it again, and again.

The again and again part is perpetual motion."

Yea I think we all know that would be perpetual motion but you seem to have sidestepped my question again.:( I will ask again.

Why (why being the key word) do you believe OU cant happen?

Do you believe that the few people who claim to have ran cars on water only are fakes? meyers, dingle, and the s1r cars. I have my doubts about the credibility of each as well.

Will you please just tell me what I know to be true, you dont believe in OU because modern science doesnt believe in it. [in a calming voice] Its ok stu, let it out


Imagine a successful OU generator.

Any system that can get more energy out than was put in is called Over Unity.

Pick any OU number. Let's say 120%.

You put in 100 Watts and you get 120 Watts out.


Keep it going.......


Now we put 1 megawatt in and we get 1.2 megawatts out.


Keep it going.....


The OU process creates an exponential expansion of energy.


If we can do OU, can we scale it up to generate enough power to boil the Atlantic Ocean?


This is why OU is not possible.


BoyntonStu

[jriggs_18]

If OU became to be true you yes it could generate enough power to boil the ocean, but what do want to boil the ocean for?:o

Conventional Science tells us that the amount of energy within a contained environment is fixed but what about energy that enters our atmosphere from space.

Is energy being added into our atmosphere that stays here from space?

How much atomic energy is contained within a gallon of water?

I think it would be enough to boil an ocean

[BoyntonStu]

If OU became to be true you yes it could generate enough power to boil the ocean, but what do want to boil the ocean for?:o

Conventional Science tells us that the amount of energy within a contained environment is fixed but what about energy that enters our atmosphere from space.

Is energy being added into our atmosphere that stays here from space?

How much atomic energy is contained within a gallon of water?

I think it would be enough to boil an ocean

If OU became to be true you yes it could generate enough power to boil the ocean, but what do want to boil the ocean for?

Boiling the ocean is an example of how ridiculous it is to consider OU.


At least you understand that with OU it would be possible.


Since HHO Forum feals with electrolysis of water, we need not consider atomic energy from water.

I have zero knowledge on the subject.


Unfortunately, a few others do not comprehend what you have learned about OU.

Happy New Year!

BoyntonStu

.

[BoyntonStu]

"This is why we have to top off our reservoirs and this is why we would still have to add water to the 'fuel' tank in the water powered car we can't just use the water without using water."

I disagree. That statement is not accurate, We never lose any water if we collect all the exhaust.

Consider filling your tank with H2O.

You break it into 2H and O with your super duper OU generator.

You burn it in your engine and you get H2O.

You collect the H20 in your exhaust by just piping it back into your tank and you can do it again, and again.


No water is lost.


BoyntonStu

[daddymikey1975]

I deleted my post because I felt that it would start an argument.

Stu posted his belief (and while sarcastic) it was a response to my post (which was serious) and was explaining why it can't work by applying the current laws of physics and science.

again i'll simply say that I believe water can be used as a fuel source but i don't think it's gonna be with any setup that we're currently experimenting with. It won't be plates in a bath, or a dry cell. The only way it could that seems promising at this point is using the plasma spark idea that I've read about.

Stu consider if you will in rebuttal to your sarcasm that as your super super OU machine/engine or whatever you want to call it heats up (which it will due to friction) the water you have exiting (exhaust) may be in the form of steam, it may condense if the wind is right... you'll NEVER capture 100% of the water that's exhausted... and That's why I made the statement that you refer to.

Energy is not created or consumed.. it simply changes form.. most often that form is wasteful heat. We currently don't have a way to capture the waste energy (heat) and put it into something useful towards the OU process do we??

mike
(i'll argue with you all day long Stu.. others may not but i won't hesitate :D - I can hold my own )

[jriggs_18]

"It won't be plates in a bath, or a dry cell. The only way it could that seems promising at this point is using the plasma spark idea that I've read about."

Thats for sure, electrolysis isnt going to get us there, ive read alot of the so called water car that s1r has built using the plasma spark. I think that is the most promising of all, but Im still not convinced anyone including s1r has successfully done it.

Stu, Im not a chemist either but I know that a gallon of water has lots of hho in there and with your analogies aside just think of this, how could i turn a gallon of water into HHO using less power than what the hho contains?

I know, I know, you cant. (at least not right now, or forever according to you)

But I think youre losing focus by scaling these ideas to unimaginable proportions, sure you could do crazy things if OU came to be but the thing to keep in mind is that the core actions of turning a water to hho with OU isnt all that crazy to me.

Either way I get your drift, you say it cant happen because it violates the laws of science. You say it will never ever happen and I happen to think that in time it will happen and when it does, look out weird stuff could happen

There is an enourmous amount of water on this earth, if it was all turned to hho is would say there is enough energy to do anything we could dream up, even run your super duper ocean boiler. Come to think of it, if we turned all the water into hho we wouldnt have anything to boil, damn just when you think youre onto something....;)

[theramsey3]

STU,
you say OU isn't possible you also say that it is getting more power out of something than you put in. You need to look at a newer Lincoln Electric welder I bought one the other day that is rated at 50 amps 220 volts input which is 11000 watts and 250 amps 76 volts output which is 19000 watts so is that still OU or is there some reason that you can give us that it isn't? If it isn't why not it is exactly as you described it.

[BoyntonStu]

STU,
you say OU isn't possible you also say that it is getting more power out of something than you put in. You need to look at a newer Lincoln Electric welder I bought one the other day that is rated at 50 amps 220 volts input which is 11000 watts and 250 amps 76 volts output which is 19000 watts so is that still OU or is there some reason that you can give us that it isn't? If it isn't why not it is exactly as you described it.


If I changed the label to indicate 1 Watt input and 10,000 Watts output, would the measured performance of your welder be affected?


Are you so naive as to believe that after plugging in your welder and getting more power out than when you plugged it in, that you could then unplug it and it would run by itself?

That, in effect is what you said.

Do you realize the falsity of your logic?

BoyntonStu

[daddymikey1975]

STU,
you say OU isn't possible you also say that it is getting more power out of something than you put in. You need to look at a newer Lincoln Electric welder I bought one the other day that is rated at 50 amps 220 volts input which is 11000 watts and 250 amps 76 volts output which is 19000 watts so is that still OU or is there some reason that you can give us that it isn't? If it isn't why not it is exactly as you described it.

Rated power doesn't necessarily relate to the power while in use (steady state)

What size circuit breaker do you have on the 220 line?? is the output 76 volts A.C. or D.C. ?? if it's DC then there's some lost in the rectification...

I hope this helps
mike

[theramsey3]

I have a 70 amp circuit breaker and the output is AC only. I don' have any way of measuring amps to be sure. with the welder set at 250 amps no arc it has 83.7 vac with an arc it has 27.2 vac :eek: on the output, on the input no arc 220.6 vac with arc 198.2 vac (My misunderstanding occurred by reading the rated voltages after doing research on the Lincoln web site I found that the rated 76 volts is only to get the arc started :o) so I stand corrected I just thought I'd put in my 2 cents about the whole OU thing being possible(before I found out about the voltage drop on the output).

[daddymikey1975]

I have a 70 amp circuit breaker and the output is AC only. I don' have any way of measuring amps to be sure. with the welder set at 250 amps no arc it has 83.7 vac with an arc it has 27.2 vac :eek: on the output, on the input no arc 220.6 vac with arc 198.2 vac (My misunderstanding occurred by reading the rated voltages after doing research on the Lincoln web site I found that the rated 76 volts is only to get the arc started :o) so I stand corrected I just thought I'd put in my 2 cents about the whole OU thing being possible(before I found out about the voltage drop on the output).

it's all good :)

[BoyntonStu]

I have a 70 amp circuit breaker and the output is AC only. I don' have any way of measuring amps to be sure. with the welder set at 250 amps no arc it has 83.7 vac with an arc it has 27.2 vac :eek: on the output, on the input no arc 220.6 vac with arc 198.2 vac (My misunderstanding occurred by reading the rated voltages after doing research on the Lincoln web site I found that the rated 76 volts is only to get the arc started :o) so I stand corrected I just thought I'd put in my 2 cents about the whole OU thing being possible(before I found out about the voltage drop on the output).

Good for you!

Open minded people learn.

Closed-minded people say that the folks who do not agree with them and who try tell them the truth, are being paid off by the oil companies.

If OU were possible, you could start your system and sell the "Over" back to the power company.

Stay tuned and keep on learning.


BoyntonStu

[jriggs_18]

Good for you!

Open minded people learn.

Closed-minded people say that the folks who do not agree with them and who try tell them the truth, are being paid off by the oil companies.

If OU were possible, you could start your system and sell the "Over" back to the power company.

Stay tuned and keep on learning.


BoyntonStu


Some open minded people also think that OU could be a reality some day

Some close-minded people think that OU cant be possible because it hasnt happened and science says that it never will.

I dont think you are being paid off and you dont think OU is possible because of your own knowledge.

I think that big oil trying to supress our efforts is a joke. I dont think they are in fear of losing their reigns. I think they should be though....

People say that oil companies are spending big bucks to keep us quiet. I say that BS. these people that have 'water powered' cars are nothing more than a joke to me. Let people see it and watch it work...then its no longer a joke.

[BoyntonStu]

Some open minded people also think that OU could be a reality some day

Some close-minded people think that OU cant be possible because it hasnt happened and science says that it never will.

I dont think you are being paid off and you dont think OU is possible because of your own knowledge.

I think that big oil trying to supress our efforts is a joke. I dont think they are in fear of losing their reigns. I think they should be though....

People say that oil companies are spending big bucks to keep us quiet. I say that BS. these people that have 'water powered' cars are nothing more than a joke to me. Let people see it and watch it work...then its no longer a joke.

Don't hold your breath.

OU means that you can start an electrical device, unplug it, and sell the energy back to the electric company as your device continues to make more electricity.


Is that what you believe?


BoyntonStu

[jriggs_18]

Don't hold your breath.

OU means that you can start an electrical device, unplug it, and sell the energy back to the electric company as your device continues to make more electricity.


Is that what you believe?


BoyntonStu


If OU was acheived I would think that you could sell power back to the grid, after all youre getting more energy than you put in so you would certainly have excess energy to do something with.

[BoyntonStu]

If OU was acheived I would think that you could sell power back to the grid, after all youre getting more energy than you put in so you would certainly have excess energy to do something with.


If OU was achieved you would not need a grid.

Just pedal or hand crank a little OU generator.

Use the OU output to power a 2nd generator,.............100........10,000

Now you have so much extra power, what would you do with it?

That is what any OU system would offer.


Do you now understand how absurd it is to believe in OU?


BoyntonStu

[coffeeachiever]

Stu,
Is an atomic bomb OU? Explain how it's not.

[BoyntonStu]

Stu,
Is an atomic bomb OU? Explain how it's not.

Is there anything factually incorrect my my last post?

BoyntonStu

[Q-Hack!]

Stu, I think you would argue with a damn wall!

A nuclear reactor is a perfect example of OU. You get out more energy than was put in. If it's not, please do explain.

And don’t avoid the question with another question. Your games are getting very old!

Nuclear reactors are one of those controversial subjects when discussing OU. Some say yes others say no. I say it depends on your definition of over unity. If you say that to be an OU device requires greater than 100% efficiency then the nuclear reactor does not meet the definition. Nuclear reactors work by creating steam and then converting that into electricity. Depending on the power plant, this process is estimated at about 45% efficiency.

If you look at just the energy created by the fusion process then yes, you do have more energy created than used, but you still have to feed it a substance that is not created in the process so even then it is hard to call nuclear fusion over unity. A good example of this is any star in the galaxy. Stars use the nuclear fusion process to power themselves. They do last a long time but eventually they burn out.

[BoyntonStu]

Nuclear reactors are one of those controversial subjects when discussing OU. Some say yes others say no. I say it depends on your definition of over unity. If you say that to be an OU device requires greater than 100% efficiency then the nuclear reactor does not meet the definition. Nuclear reactors work by creating steam and then converting that into electricity. Depending on the power plant, this process is estimated at about 45% efficiency.

If you look at just the energy created by the fusion process then yes, you do have more energy created than used, but you still have to feed it a substance that is not created in the process so even then it is hard to call nuclear fusion over unity. A good example of this is any star in the galaxy. Stars use the nuclear fusion process to power themselves. They do last a long time but eventually they burn out.

Light a stick of dynamite with a match.

OU? Not!

Here's an example of an OU money machine.

Slip a dollar bill into the machine and out comes $1.10.

Now, you can slip $1.10 into the machine and out comes $1.21

etc., etc.....


After a few thousand cycles, you will have enough money to retire.

That is OU.

I can't make it any simpler than that.

If you do not understand why OU is impossible, think of the money machine as an energy machine.

BoyntonStu

[coffeeachiever]

Stu,
This thread is the only time I've completely disagreed with Mike. He said that you think outside the box. I think you are so far in the box you can't see the light.
The greatest advances in history have been made in the faces of people like you that say no more can be discovered than what already has been. People like you say that the "laws of science" are absolute and nothing outside of those "laws" should be discussed.
Mankind's exploration of universal truths is in it's infancy. You know nothing. You obviously haven't read Steven Hawking's theories of future space travel. The propulsion he discusses is WAY OU. Are you smarter than Steven Hawking? I dare say no.
A nuclear bomb is OU.
Case Closed.

[BoyntonStu]

Stu,
This thread is the only time I've completely disagreed with Mike. He said that you think outside the box. I think you are so far in the box you can't see the light.
The greatest advances in history have been made in the faces of people like you that say no more can be discovered than what already has been. People like you say that the "laws of science" are absolute and nothing outside of those "laws" should be discussed.
Mankind's exploration of universal truths is in it's infancy. You know nothing. You obviously haven't read Steven Hawking's theories of future space travel. The propulsion he discusses is WAY OU. Are you smarter than Steven Hawking? I dare say no.
A nuclear bomb is OU.
Case Closed.

Steven Hawking's theories on OU?


Kindly explain one of them or at least state it.

BoyntonStu

[coffeeachiever]

Steven Hawking's theories on OU?


Kindly explain one of them or at least state it.

BoyntonStu

I will look it up again Stu, just for you.

Kisses,

[jriggs_18]

Stu,
This thread is the only time I've completely disagreed with Mike. He said that you think outside the box. I think you are so far in the box you can't see the light.
The greatest advances in history have been made in the faces of people like you that say no more can be discovered than what already has been. People like you say that the "laws of science" are absolute and nothing outside of those "laws" should be discussed.
Mankind's exploration of universal truths is in it's infancy. You know nothing. You obviously haven't read Steven Hawking's theories of future space travel. The propulsion he discusses is WAY OU. Are you smarter than Steven Hawking? I dare say no.
A nuclear bomb is OU.
Case Closed.

As much as I hate to, I have to question why a nuclear bomb is ou. Isnt a chemical reaction what is releasing the energy? Just like lighting dynamite as stu mentioned. It may not be a simple as combusting nuclear materials, but it is similar in principle - Apply a process to certain materials and get an explosive reaction? Maybe theres more to it than I know though, i havent read much on nuclear reactions

[BoyntonStu]

As much as I hate to, I have to question why a nuclear bomb is ou. Isnt a chemical reaction what is releasing the energy? Just like lighting dynamite as stu mentioned. It may not be a simple as combusting nuclear materials, but it is similar in principle - Apply a process to certain materials and get an explosive reaction? Maybe theres more to it than I know though, i havent read much on nuclear reactions


Bravo!

A thinking person is hard to find these days.

BoyntonStu

P.S. OU implies that there is no using up of any material.

In the example above, did the dollar bill get used up when $1.10 came out?

If the dollar bill was used up a little, only 99 cents might come out; not $1.10.

If Nuclear reactors were OU they would never need FUEL replenishment.


(Some folks should wear an ID Ten T badge)

[BoyntonStu]

Lighting dynamite does not change the material at the nuclear level. Yes energy is released but no atoms are split.

He has fell off the rocker and hit his head......

Or it could be alzheimers....

either way his posts are getting worst and worst.

I encourage everyone to NOT REPLY to his post anymore. This will be my last!
(Unless he starts taking his meds again)


Please keep your word and stay away from my threads until you apologize for your rude statements.

BoyntonStu

[Painless]

Much as I hate to get involved in any discussion where there is labeling and ego involved...

Nuclear fusion is a good example of getting more energy out of a process than *WE* put into it, just like our beloved use of HHO in a an ICE. We introduce the hydrogen and oxygen to increase the thermal efficiency of the gasoline and air mixture in the combustion chamber.

Nuclear fusion releases the energy that holds a nucleus together. This energy was converted into this form by a previous process (the construction of the nucleus), we simply released it. Nothing was created or destroyed, merely converted from one form to another.

We don't get as much energy from the electricity as is contained in the nucleus bond that we broke, but we do get energy that is in a form which is more suitable for our need.

I am open minded, but personally, I don't believe that OU is achievable. I believe that it is an illusion created by the harnessing of energy which we did not witness the insertion of. If a motor runs continuously from permanent magnets, this is the magnetic field of the magnets exerting their own energy. Magnets produce a strong magnetic field due to their electrons being aligned. We can therefore hypothesize that the magnetism is a property of the electrons and the magnets mass.

Will the energy in an electron ever end? Will the force that causes an electron to orbit a nucleus ever undergo enough 'conversion to another form' to cause the electron to stop it's orbit? Then again, all energy had to be created at some point in time... the big bang perhaps? Perhaps the electrons orbit decaying is synonomous with the end of the universe? I suppose we will find out when we get there. Deep questions, I really don't think we want to go there.

My beleifs about OU are my own and if I'm ever proven to be wrong, I will be amongst the first to stand up and absorb the 'new science' with open eyes and mind.

Russ.

[BoyntonStu]

Much as I hate to get involved in any discussion where there is labeling and ego involved...

Nuclear fusion is a good example of getting more energy out of a process than *WE* put into it, just like our beloved use of HHO in a an ICE. We introduce the hydrogen and oxygen to increase the thermal efficiency of the gasoline and air mixture in the combustion chamber.

Nuclear fusion releases the energy that holds a nucleus together. This energy was converted into this form by a previous process (the construction of the nucleus), we simply released it. Nothing was created or destroyed, merely converted from one form to another.

We don't get as much energy from the electricity as is contained in the nucleus bond that we broke, but we do get energy that is in a form which is more suitable for our need.

I am open minded, but personally, I don't believe that OU is achievable. I believe that it is an illusion created by the harnessing of energy which we did not witness the insertion of. If a motor runs continuously from permanent magnets, this is the magnetic field of the magnets exerting their own energy. Magnets produce a strong magnetic field due to their electrons being aligned. We can therefore hypothesize that the magnetism is a property of the electrons and the magnets mass.

Will the energy in an electron ever end? Will the force that causes an electron to orbit a nucleus ever undergo enough 'conversion to another form' to cause the electron to stop it's orbit? Then again, all energy had to be created at some point in time... the big bang perhaps? Perhaps the electrons orbit decaying is synonomous with the end of the universe? I suppose we will find out when we get there. Deep questions, I really don't think we want to go there.

My beleifs about OU are my own and if I'm ever proven to be wrong, I will be amongst the first to stand up and absorb the 'new science' with open eyes and mind.

Russ.

A car that ran OU would have gas pouring out of its tank as we drove down the road. You put 10 gallons in: "Unity" and you get more than 10 gallons out: "OU".

You put 1 dollar in and you get $1.10 out. OU

You put 10 BTU's in, and you get 11 BTU's out. OU

You put 10 Watts in and you get 11 Watts out. OU

In every case the original is there plus some more.

In Nuclear Fusion, the fuel gets used up. No OU.

In a car the gasoline gets used up. No OU.

With Hydroxy, you put 100 Watts in and you never get more than 100 Watts of Hydroxy energy out. If you could, you could boil the Atlantic Ocean.

I fail to understand why the OU concept is so difficult for some to understand.

BoyntonStu

[coffeeachiever]

There is a lengthy explnation of Hawking's theories on the future of propulsion in space in "A Brief History Of Time". It has been 15 years or so since I read it and I am not looking through the book tonight for it.
Hawking touched on it again a couple of years ago when he was screaming about the survival of the human race depending on colonization of other solar systems.
While it doesn't go in depth as I would like, it gets touched on here.....

http://blog.cognitivelabs.com/2006/11/stephen-hawking-mustcolonize-planetsin.html

Overunity in energy production is an inevitability. We will search for it until we find it. It will not elude us much longer. Stu, when we find it I know you will be happy to eat your words. I hope you live to see it. I intend to. In fact, I plan to be a part of it.

This forum has educated me about things I'd never heard of less than a year ago. It has also inspired me to search elsewhere for what else is out there. I soon will have absorbed enough knowledge from the people here to make a marketable HHO system. One that will show people what HHO can really do. I will take the money from that and then will explore magnetic resonance. That may be where the OU is. Maybe it will be the project after that. Or after that.

Energy should and will be free. In fact, that will be my new signature line.

[BoyntonStu]

There is a lengthy explnation of Hawking's theories on the future of propulsion in space in "A Brief History Of Time". It has been 15 years or so since I read it and I am not looking through the book tonight for it.
Hawking touched on it again a couple of years ago when he was screaming about the survival of the human race depending on colonization of other solar systems.
While it doesn't go in depth as I would like, it gets touched on here.....

http://blog.cognitivelabs.com/2006/11/stephen-hawking-mustcolonize-planetsin.html

Overunity in energy production is an inevitability. We will search for it until we find it. It will not elude us much longer. Stu, when we find it I know you will be happy to eat your words. I hope you live to see it. I intend to. In fact, I plan to be a part of it.

This forum has educated me about things I'd never heard of less than a year ago. It has also inspired me to search elsewhere for what else is out there. I soon will have absorbed enough knowledge from the people here to make a marketable HHO system. One that will show people what HHO can really do. I will take the money from that and then will explore magnetic resonance. That may be where the OU is. Maybe it will be the project after that. Or after that.

Energy should and will be free. In fact, that will be my new signature line.

I quote from Mr. Hawking:


"Unfortunately, this would violate the scientific law which says that nothing can travel faster than light.".

Seems to me that Mr. Hawking respects Scientific Laws.

I am unaware of any Scientific Law or Theory that predicts OU.

I do not read where Mr. Hawking predicts OU.

Please point out the particular sentence where OU is discussed.


BoyntonStu

[coffeeachiever]

I quote from Mr. Hawking:


"Unfortunately, this would violate the scientific law which says that nothing can travel faster than light.".

Seems to me that Mr. Hawking respects Scientific Laws.

I am unaware of any Scientific Law or Theory that predicts OU.

I do not read where Mr. Hawking predicts OU.

Please point out the particular sentence where OU is discussed.


BoyntonStu

Stu,
You read to hastily. The quote you copied refers to something else. Hawking says his system will propel people JUST UNDER the speed of light. He says his theory is completely plausible.
I would love to discuss this with you further, but my wife just asked me to eat cheesecake off of her ***. That's a bit distracting. Good night.

[Cadillac]

The speed of light is impossible and impractical.

Say you could move at the speed of light. You traveled 2 years 3 months and happened upon an interesting object. You studied the object for six months will call it a meteor. So you traveled back at the same speed for a total of 5 years round trip. While it was only five years to you 80,000 years had past on the Earth. Where would you land? Why would your trip even matter? Time is relative to speed and unless you can find a way to bend this it is impossible. You could potentially travel to the future with little aging on your own body but it would be impossible to return back in time.

All of this assumes that your ship and yourself would stay together at those speeds. While there is no "air" in space there is a lot of dust and rocks out there. The dust at those speeds could even behave like liquid as you would encounter a lot of particles in a short amount of time.

[H2OPWR]

If all you guys focused all this energy on HHO we would be at Unity now. PLEASE. This is HHO FORUMS.COM. Some of us are trying to make improvements on an ineffecient technology. Please focus all your efforts to help! PLEASE

[jriggs_18]

"P.S. OU implies that there is no using up of any material."

Couldnt overunity be like this as well...put in a canadian dollar and get an american dollar back

lets just you could convert a gallon of gas to diesel without using an energy. would that not be an example of overunity? youre changing what you had in the beginning and coming away with more energy, even though you cant turn around and do it all again without getting more gas?

I still see your analogy as being ou, but im just thinking there could be other occurrences that would count as ou.

"If all you guys focused all this energy on HHO we would be at Unity now. PLEASE. This is HHO FORUMS.COM. Some of us are trying to make improvements on an ineffecient technology. Please focus all your efforts to help! PLEASE"

This thread may not have answered any questions on how to faciliate production of HHO for the commonfolk but IMO that doesnt mean it hasnt been productive. This thread may be about theory and things that dont exist as of now, just because its different than alot of other threads doesnt mean its worthless, in fact it has raised many questions in my mind as to where I stand with OU and why. I still maintain my belief that it is achievable and sure this discussion might be better suited for OUpower.com (wait, i forgot to mention that one on my group list didnt i) but whats the harm in hosting the discussion here as it still pertains to the possible use of water to better mankind, or.....boil an ocean. (the boiling ocean analogy may seem crazy, but it did get me thinking)

[daddymikey1975]

My belief still stands even after all the ranting and raving.
I don't believe Overunity is possible because it seems (to me) that in order to get more out than you're putting in you're stealing. stealing from what or from where??

The nuclear reactor thing is where I'll go next..It's not overunity because there's an inefficiency in the whole process.. but examine the pieces of the process.. when fission occurs we're splitting one atom into two thereby RELEASING the energy. some may call this OU but I do not. All we've done is found a way to release stored energy. This process doesn't feed itself into releasing more stored energy. The inefficiency comes from harnessing the heat to make steam. There's no super efficient way to harness heat. Then we're making steam with it to power a turbine (which has mechanical resistance to motion that we must overcome).. and since this process doesn't feed itself continuously it's not OU (in my opinion)

BUT.. along with my beliefs again.. I believe that by studying OU and pursuing OU we will DEFINITELY stumble across a much much more efficient way to create HHO (which contains stored energy) so I say WHY NOT ??

maybe we can't keep our cars running perpetually without adding water.. if that's the worst that'll happen who cares.

I saw a commercial for a lincoln that parks itself. Anyone else see the commercial??
If someone had told Henry Ford that in the year 2009 there would be cars that park themselves without user input he would have laughed his a$$ off...

but such an animal DOES exist... how did it exist ?? by using technology, research, development, failure, research, development, failure, research, SUCCESS...

This is where the OU pursuit will take us (again, in my opinion)

Coffee.. I must say that you're disagreement with my opinion that Stu thinks outside the box is justified. LOL.. I still feel that he has out of the box thinking ability, and he definitely has the ability to get people thinking constructively. However (and here it comes again) what if he's the 'you can't do that' kinda guy just to motivate those that really can ?? sometimes we tell our children that they aren't capable of something just in order to motivate them into accomplishing that which we were denouncing.

many people told him that his elevator invention wouldnt work, couldnt work, and wasnt going to be safe. He still uses it to this day.

think stu is doing this to us in this case?? (probably not, but we can always hope)

mike