• Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

Run your car for FREE using h20 as fuel!

 
jack sweeney
Posts: 29
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Sorry, text Deleted! please do not pay attention to the title of this thread!
 
paul wheaton
steward
Pie
Posts: 19445
Location: missoula, montana (zone 4)
bee chicken hugelkultur trees wofati woodworking
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Easy folks.

Let's keep an open mind.

This is something that has been making the rounds for decades and a few years ago there was a big push for water contraptions that would improve your mileage by 40% or so.

farm show magazine covered it a lot and after dozens of people tried dozens of variations, some people had worse mileage, some people had slightly better, and most had no change.

For each one of these things where there is an example of this, there seems to be controversy.

While logic states that it cannot be done, logic used to be pretty conclusive that the world is flat.

With rocket mass heaters we are still getting people that call bullshit on the numbers.

Frankly, I want these things to be true. Although i am still missing the bits that get me to race out and build something. Or to see a first hand demonstration. Or .... something.

I'm not yet convinced, but I'm open to the idea that it could turn out to be true.

 
Brad Davies
gardener
Posts: 213
Location: Clarkston, MI
10
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
paul wheaton wrote:Easy folks.

Let's keep an open mind.

This is something that has been making the rounds for decades and a few years ago there was a big push for water contraptions that would improve your mileage by 40% or so.

Farm Show magazine covered it a lot and after dozens of people tried dozens of variations, some people had worse mileage, some people had slightly better, and most had no change.

For each one of these things where there is an example of this, there seems to be controversy.

While logic states that it cannot be done, logic used to be pretty conclusive that the world is flat.

With rocket mass heaters we are still getting people that call bullshit on the numbers.

Frankly, I want these things to be true. Although i am still missing the bits that get me to race out and build something. Or to see a first hand demonstration. Or .... something.

I'm not yet convinced, but I'm open to the idea that it could turn out to be true.



I'll agree with this Paul,

If it did work it would be absolutely amazing both for users and the creator, definitely Noble prize worthy as it would nullify the law of conservation of energy. I'm not saying laws of physics can't be broken, but it would be an amazing achievement that would alter a lot of understandings of the basis of our collective scientific knowledge.

Proof can sometimes be subjective, like the RMH issue.

Some people won't believe it unless it slaps them in the face and is approved by a panel of PHD's

While others might be satisfied with a photo or video.

I accept that RMH work because: I have seen videos of it, I have heard first hand reports of it working, I have heard first hand reports of, we used to use X amount of wood now we use Y, and I have seen independent reviews / creations that verify these claims.

I am very skeptical but, this is one instance where I would absolutely love to be wrong.
 
richard valley
Posts: 240
Location: Sierra Nevada mountain valley CA, & Nevada high desert
1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
France has some success because of they're large use of nuc power. At low use times hydrogen can be produced with energy that is not being used or exported to neighboring countires.
 
Chris Kott
Posts: 796
Location: Toronto, Ontario
9
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Sorry, I'm going to have to side with the laws of physics as we know them. I put a test unit together a few years ago. I made it do what it was designed to do, which was make hydrogen on demand. I think what it was supposed to do, which, I guess, happened to those test cases that showed mileage improvements, is ensure the complete combustion of the fuel in the engine by adding hydrogen to the mix and raising the burn temperature. I think this idea could be very useful in a number of applications, but I was unsatisfied with the arguable benefit. I will try this one again, but it will be on my farm truck when I have both a farm and a truck, and the truck will be an old ford or jeep or something, and I will really go to town with the amount of hydrogen produced and pumped into the engine, but I am still skeptical. As to running a car on just water, the original Water4Gas website did have in its literature a story about an inventor who was apparently killed by big oil because his water car worked. Apparently the mechanics of the car were conventional, but there was something (I don't know, I'm not an electronics techie) that tuned the current electrolyzing the water to the resonant frequency of the water, and attenuated the frequency to match the decreasing water level. This apparently made electrolysis happen with a fraction of the electricity normally required, and so that is why it worked. Unless that sort of thing is going on, I have a hard time believing any conventional electrolysis unit could power a car.
 
Andrew Parker
pollinator
Posts: 514
Location: Salt Lake Valley, Utah, hardiness zone 6b/7a
4
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I once met Paul Pantone, of GEET fame. He only lived a few miles from me at the time, so I made an appointment and got the sales pitch from the man himself and a short tour by one of his devotees (conflicted, to be sure but he, oh so badly, wanted it to work). I was a bit uncomfortable, as I had to take one of my infant twins along and Mr. Pantone was looking and behaving very convincingly Mansonesque (Charles, not Marilyn).

The pitch was interesting. It was apparent that he had surely come across something but lacked the scientific background or patience to really develop it, so he pushed forward with the sort of techno-evangelism that, while likely having been around since the dawn of man, has been made ever more popular by late-night talk radio and the development of the internet.

The conflicted devotee was unable to get any of the gadgets to work, the lawnmower or the Suburban, but I let it slide. He had some good ideas on how to improve the design, but I never saw any of them implemented as I followed GEET for a few years after that. IMHO, magnetism is a red herring. I think it works from plasma arcs in the reactor, generated by static electricity from the fast moving exhaust gases. The bubbler is used mainly as a parlor trick. It can't really run on coffee or soda. The bubbler distills the junk out and sends water vapor and gases to the reactor. Atomizing injectors could do the job (starting with clean fuel and water) without driving around with a Molotov cocktail under the hood.

There is a very interesting experiment by the Navy that used a plasma generator made from a spark plug to crack diesel fuel, then injected the resulting gases into the pistons with the atomized diesel, to greatly improve combustion. They mentioned that with the addition of a catalyst, they could also crack water vapor. They were not claiming free energy, just greater efficiency.

I have read up on Brown gas, the Meyer cell (still want to make one), and dozens of other designs. I too would really like them to work, but it hasn't happened yet. I am not saying they don't work. Some may work, others not. Some may not be economically viable because they use too much energy to make "free" energy, and others may be outright fraud.

It doesn't take a conspiracy to keep a good idea from making it. I am sure that some good ideas have been quashed by conspiracy but the majority just didn't get off the ground (or out of the garage) for one very non-conspiratorial reason or another.

I look forward with interest and an open but highly skeptical mind to your video and explanation.
 
Chris Kott
Posts: 796
Location: Toronto, Ontario
9
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Dale, do you not accept as reasonable that one could experience some boost in fuel economy if the combustion temperature was raised by the injection of the oxygen/hydrogen and caused the fuel to be more completely combusted? I would think that this comparison to a RMH would make the argument more credible.
 
josh brill
Posts: 86
1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hydrogen is an energy carrier not a source. It can only hold the energy that gets put into it. The alternator is powered by the engine. It doesn't produce extra energy so to produce the h2 you would be putting a load onto the alternator which would have to pull more energy from the engine. So where does the fuel efficiency come from?
 
paul wheaton
steward
Pie
Posts: 19445
Location: missoula, montana (zone 4)
bee chicken hugelkultur trees wofati woodworking
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I deleted a lot of posts in this thread.

Apparently, I did not make myself clear earlier.

Just because people are stupid today does not mean that this will not work tomorrow.

Do people here really think that their knowledge of science is absolute knowledge? The boundaries of science are not growing?

If you cannot speak respectfully to my other guests on these forums, get the fuck off of my web site.

Dale, you are now on freakishly thin ice.
 
Chris Kott
Posts: 796
Location: Toronto, Ontario
9
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
As to the original post (which I read), I agree with your criticism of it, Dale. However, if one actually reads my post on the efficiency thing, one would realise I was suggesting that by raising the temperature of combustion by injecting the product of electrolysis, whose open-flame temperature sits at around 1200 C, and that can be used in controlled settings to produce temperatures of around 2800 C, one would be burning as fuel the parts of fuel (gas or diesel) that normally get caught by the catalytic converter, or get pumped into the environment. Of course taking energy out of the system to electrolyze water constitutes a drain, and I agree absolutely that you can't "Run your car for FREE using h20 as fuel!", but as an optimiser of systems that are designed with an amount of planned inefficiency, or inadvertent inefficiency, this could be akin to the way an RMH is able to do what it does and produce such results on relatively little fuel.

-CK
 
paul wheaton
steward
Pie
Posts: 19445
Location: missoula, montana (zone 4)
bee chicken hugelkultur trees wofati woodworking
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Fair statements:

>> has anybody gotten this to work?

>> I tried it once and couldn't get it to work.

>> I've read about it and a lot of people think it is a hoax

>> I think it's a hoax

>> I don't see how it could work

Unfair statements:

>> It's a hoax

>> It's not physically possible

>> Anybody who believes this for one second is a moron

///////////////////////////////////////////

I spend way too much time talking to people about all sorts of alternative energy stuff. And I hear the last three statements far too often from ignorant boobs. THIS SITE is for people that are respectful of alternative ideas.


 
Devon Olsen
Posts: 1064
Location: SE Wyoming -zone 4
7
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
here is an interesting video on just what happens to those that do have water powered cars


the technology is already here, it is simply very difficul and dangerous, i migh add, to get ahold of
also youtube who killed the water car?, its a lil longer and in about 6 parts...

though i didn't read the deleted posts, letting people with asshole comments slide by can serve a purpose imho, though it certainly changes the atmosphere of the thread, often to a negative end, opposing views give many oppurtunities for stimulating discussion and forces those that respond to stick to level-headed scientific responses to persuade the other person without blowing a cap themselves, its your site obviously so do anything you want with it, i just thought i'd suggest lettin people who decide to be assholes, be assholes for the sake of conversation...
 
Peter DeJay
Posts: 104
Location: Southern Oregon
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'm not sure about free, but I fully believe its possible to increase our mileage of the current technology we have (combustion engines) exponentially, with relatively low technology. I believe that as a generality, simpler things are better. So to me, the simplest truth of extreme capitalism would show us, when you control a product, and you profit from the use of that product, there is no logical reason to have the main device that uses your product run on less of your product. So you quash anything that will threaten your control of supply and demand of your product.

It also makes simple logical sense that our ICE's are extremely and obviously inefficient, somewhere around 20 or 30 percent. Which means there is tons of potential energy wasted, evidenced as the carbon soot and unburned gases and oil that escapes the combustion chamber on the first round. Modern catalytic converters just take that dirty air/fuel and re inject it into the chamber, which worsens the combustion that round, etc etc. If you can get a cleaner, hotter, more efficient combustion the first time, everybody wins. More power, more efficient, easier on the parts, less buildup. One method I heard about makes sense to me, and that is the work of Tom Ogle back in the 30's i believe, or possibly the 40's. He patented a fairly simple device that I believe replaced the carbouretor with some sort of heated steam injection system. Basically, gas doesn't burn as a liquid, only as a gas, so if you can heat and predisperse the fuel, you get a more even, violent combustion. He was getting MPG's in the 30's and 40's in his full size Buick V8 car. Anyway, long story short, he was shut down and murdered, and his original patent papers have of course vanished from the patent office. There is a good movie if you are interested, called GasHole.
 
Andrew Parker
pollinator
Posts: 514
Location: Salt Lake Valley, Utah, hardiness zone 6b/7a
4
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Pogue was in the 30's, Ogle was in the late 70's. In doing some quick research, it appears that both fuel systems suffered from the formulation of the gasoline. Pogue's carburetor worked with white gas, but gasoline from the cracking process which allowed producers to meet the growing demand for gasoline, left a varnish in the complex heat exchanger and clogged it. Ogle's system took vapor from the gas tank and injected it into the engine directly (perhaps through a throttle body). The company that purchased his design explained that after the easily obtained vapor had been extracted, it left a thick oily sludge. This sounds very similar to observations of the GEET bubbler.

The key to these vapor systems seems to be having the ability to vaporise all the fuel, without leaving residue in the system. This requires much higher temperatures than can be recovered from the exhaust.

I like the plasmatron technology. It is compact and will crack just about anything. There is a penalty in generating the electricity to run it. I don't know how that would balance out.

If GEET did work with plasma generated by the rush of exhaust through the reactor, that might solve the electricity issue. I would assume though that not all plasmas are created equal. I used to monitor the unofficial GEET forum, but I haven't read or heard anything in many years.
 
Dale Hodgins
gardener
Pie
Posts: 6139
Location: Victoria British Columbia-Canada
186
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
paul wheaton wrote:

If you cannot speak respectfully to my other guests on these forums, get the fuck off of my web site.

Dale, you are now on freakishly thin ice.


I just stumbled upon this today and had completely forgotten about it. I assume that I'm the Dale in question. I honestly don't remember the exact nature of my comment, but it was evidently unwelcome. Lately I've been passing up on opportunities to make light of matters that I consider unscientific. I will make a serious effort to refrain from commenting on these matters in the future.

Dale.
 
r john
Posts: 134
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Not really h20 as fuel. But steam cars have been around for a long time and the technology is now available to produce flash steam from solar using thermal oil and a steam evaporator. So running a car for free is possible.
 
Bill Bianchi
Posts: 227
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Ah, a riddle inside an impossibility wrapped in a challenge.
I'll accept. All right, the challenge is to get an electrolyzer to increase the gas mileage on a vehicle. For the purpose of this challenge, the alternator may not be used to power the electrolyzer. That way, the argument that making the engine work harder can never increase mileage is off the table.
Since we're just messing around here, let's not get into the cost involved with equipment. We'll just focus on whether or not it's possible to get better mileage using an electrolyzer, and damn the cost of the setup.

I'm a firm believer that if you want to accomplish something you've never accomplished before, you're going to have do something you've never done before. Call me crazy.

So, first off, let's install a few ultracapacitors. These capacitors will fire off into the electrolyzer whenever they are fully charged, making HHO to go into the engine. These ultracapacitors can charge and discharge far more times than a battery & they weigh much less than a battery.

Next, let's find a few ways to charge those capacitors that don't involve using the alternator or making the engine work any harder.

1. Solar panel on the roof, the electricity dumped into the capacitor.
2. TEG's (Thermo Electric Generators) installed on hot parts of the vehicle, like the exhaust or engine block, the electricity dumped into the capacitor.
3. Coils attached to the frame, magnets attached to parts of the vehicle that move up and down, the parts the shock absorbers cushion. The magnets move toward the coils each time the car hits a bump, making electricity & dumping it into the capacitor.
4. Regenerative braking added to generate electricity each time the vehicle slows down or stops, then dumps it into the capacitor.
5. Piezoelectric setup inside the tires so they make electricity each time one of them rotates to the ground, generating electricity and dumping it into the capacitor.
6. Small Stirling motors mounted that operate off the engine's heat, which generate electricity, which is dumped into the capacitor.

Those are a few ideas to generate electricity without working the engine any harder. Use any of these methods to charge the capicitors, have the capicitors discharge into the electrolyzer, put the HHO into the engine.

All right, wouldn't adding extra fuel that doesn't require any extra work on the engine's part make a gallon of gas take you farther than without it? I have no idea how much farther. Just makes sense that adding a little extra fuel should get you a little farther on that gallon of gas.

No fair jumping in with the yeahbuts. "yeah, but it wouldn't be worth it". " yeah, but it would cost too much money." " yeah, but it wouldn't add very much mileage". Ect...

So, do I get a passing grade here? Is it possible to get extra mileage from an electrolyzer if we approach the problem differently?
 
Andrew Parker
pollinator
Posts: 514
Location: Salt Lake Valley, Utah, hardiness zone 6b/7a
4
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Bill,

First, if the overall efficiency of the engine is significantly improved by bleeding off some energy to generate a charge for an electrolyzer or a plasma generator, I don't see the problem.

To go along with your restriction, I hate to say it, but the GEET reactor might be a good candidate, assuming there is energy that can be tapped from the constricted hot gases (there is a Dutch researcher that maintains that simply the heat from the exhaust can reform steam into oxygen and hydrogen in the GEET reactor). Another possibility would be a turbocharger -- actually, half a turbocharger (without the compressor) hooked up to a small generator.
 
Bill Bianchi
Posts: 227
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi, Andrew.
I don't understand the GEET system as well as I'd like, but if it can do what that guy claims, I'm all for it. They would have to refine it a lot, from what little I've read about it.

For steam, another theoretical option might be to use the hot oil from the engine to run a small generator. Someone already mentioned the motor that works from steam generated from hot oil. That one was solar heated.
There is a motor out there now that works by injecting hot oil and a shot of water mist directly into the cylinder. The mist flashes to steam upon contact with the oil, driving the piston. The oil & water are separated after exiting the cylinder.
Maybe the vehicle's motor oil is hot enough to do this and run a small onboard generator.

The turbine idea is intriguing, but I don't know enough about how they operate to say anything useful about it.

Another option is to install a battery bank, charge it at home, then use it to run the electrolyzer. I suspect the weight of the batteries would reduce the mpg, so a balance between power and weight would have to be struck. Then again, running an electrolyzer shouldn't require as many batteries as running an electric car, so maybe the battery bank wouldn't need to be quite so heavy. Guess it depends on how many miles are driven each day between charging.

My whole point is that we need to think about these things differently than we have been. Instead of focusing on the laws of physics exclusively to determine what can never be possible, we need to understand them and find ways around them. Running an electrolyzer from waste motor heat was just one example of going around the physics that say the vehicle can't possibly generate HHO and gain mpg from it.
We can so too, if we start focusing on what is possible rather than what is not.
 
Marcos Buenijo
pollinator
Posts: 583
Location: Southwest U.S.
12
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Bill Bianchi wrote:Another option is to install a battery bank, charge it at home, then use it to run the electrolyzer. I suspect the weight of the batteries would reduce the mpg, so a balance between power and weight would have to be struck. Then again, running an electrolyzer shouldn't require as many batteries as running an electric car, so maybe the battery bank wouldn't need to be quite so heavy. Guess it depends on how many miles are driven each day between charging.


I wondering how running an electrolyzer from a battery system would manage higher range than if the same electrical energy were used to power an electric drive motor? It seems there are a great deal more losses involved in the former than the latter configuration.

 
Bill Bianchi
Posts: 227
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Yeah, Marcos, I agree that using electricity to make HHO would not be as efficient as putting it directly to an electric motor to assist the engine.

I'm not saying anyone should install an electrolyzer in their vehicle and power it from waste heat, motor vibration,regenerative braking, or from the shock absorber area.

This was just an example to point out that we're not thinking outside the box enough when it comes to alternative energy generation. The arguments against HHO were centered on using only the alternator as the power source in order to gain mpg, which would violate the laws of physics. It was like, that's that, HHO is an impossibility for improved mpg because physics proves it. In truth, very little human imagination/innovation had gone into finding a way around the physics against HHO for improved mpg. Using waste energy in the vehicle's regular operation to power the electrolyzer zipped right around the physics against HHO providing extra fuel without making the engine work harder to make it, yet I've never seen it brought up in the many debates over this all over the web. Not saying no one had ever thought of this, just that I've read a lot of arguments against it made by people a whole lot smarter than me and every one of them I read zeroed in on the alternator as the one and only possible source of power for the electrolyzer. What would happen if these highly intelligent people were to put aside the 'can't do' attitude and got down to the business of figuring out how to make it work?

How many other opportunities are we overlooking for alternative energy in general due to "tunnel vision" or the assumption there is only one way to skin a cat?

If we want the same results we've been getting, then we need only keep doing what we've always done. But, if we want to achieve things we've never ahcieved before, we need to do things in ways we've never done before. That will require thinking in ways we've never thought before.

That was the only reason I chimed in on this, really. Hopefully, a few folks will think through their previous assumptions and identify opportunities they've overlooked in the past when considering the so-called impossibilities in energy production.
 
Nick Kitchener
Posts: 462
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
7
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Well, I've been closely following the work of a man who has been attempting to replicate Stan Meyer's work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer's_water_fuel_cell
Wikipedia actually has the theory / technology all wrong, but at least it describe who Stan was.

At this point, he can explain the entire process using scientific first principles, and without using "alternative" science.

He has constructed about 50 - 75% of the equipment needed, and is working / saving right now to get the funds together for finishing this off.

Laugh and scoff if you want. I'm not saying he actually has it working either. I'll let him prove this technology through demonstration, it's the permaculture way after all
 
Andrew Parker
pollinator
Posts: 514
Location: Salt Lake Valley, Utah, hardiness zone 6b/7a
4
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
There are so many inefficiencies in the modern engine, it is not a big deal to tap off a little electricity to generate enough hydrogen to significantly improve fuel efficiency and emmisions. It may sound like overunity, but it is not. Here is an explanation of an MIT study, sponsored by the US DoE, back in the '90's. The plasmatron converter they describe was made out of a sparkplug and a short length of pipe. It uses 500 watts. Adding some catalysts and water vapor can boost hydrogen production significantly.

I did a search on "turbocharger generator" and came up with a lot of hits. It is certainly an option to consider as a power source.
 
Nick Kitchener
Posts: 462
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
7
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Meyers work isn't over unity either...

But yes, even water injection increases efficiency quite significantly because it increases the pressure in the combustion chamber. The Lancaster bombers of WWII did this so they could carry less fuel on the runs to Germany.
 
Bill Bianchi
Posts: 227
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Free energy is fascinating, no doubt. Yet, it is also dangerous for the inventor/experimentor to achieve, in my opinion. My opinion comes from research into the history of free energy suppression and is just that, my opinion. It's fine if you believe every last free energy attempt ever shown was a complete scam or just ineffective, including cold fusion. You're entitled to your opinions as well. (remember, if even one was legit, then FE is possible. There are hundreds of accounts of working FE machines)

I purposely do not talk about FE in these forums. If there is such a thing as free energy suppression, then the best way I know to make it safe for inventors to bring these technologies out to the public is to find a scientifically accepted alternative energy system that can be built and operated by just about anyone, using a wide variety of fuels found just about anywhere on this planet. We break the energy providers' backs with that, then really let loose with free energy devices to finish them off. Charcoal gasification, using charcoal made from bio-briquettes, has this potential, in my opinion.

I will say, however, that some of these FE attempts might have true value right now if combined with or built into existing alternative energy machines.
For example, look up the Ecklin/Brown setup, the one where blades of ferrous metal are spun between a stationary magnet and a stationary coil. The blade cuts the magnetic field as it passes, stopping it from reaching the stationary coil. When the blade has passed, the magnetic field surges back onto the coil as it "snaps" back into its natural shape. The coil outputs electricity from that movement of the magnetic field.
Is that capable of over unity? I can't say, but it doesn't really matter because that setup has a real application to wind turbines.
That setup was designed to skirt Lentz Law, which it appears to do. What if the wind were the motive force driving it? Would that turbine generate as much electricity as a traditional windmill in the same wind or would it generate more? Would that setup produce energy at lower windspeed, since there is less force against rotation? We can't know the answer to that because no one has tried, that I know of. If this setup requires less energy to operate than traditional alternators, it could make a wind turbine operate better.

Or magnetic shielding in an attempt to get a magnet motor to spin by itself. Could that have an application for magnetos driven by known alternative energy sources? If you can shield one magnet from another moving magnet, you can shield a coil from a magnet's approach, then react as the shields clear and the magnet is moving away from the coil. This would reduce the repulsion against rotation while producing electricity as the coil "kicks" the magnet away, helping to power rotation. Use the wind or a motor running on alternative fuel to spin it and see if it outputs more than a standard alternator or generator would.

Or, how about testing the theory that if a magnet is setup on a bearing of its own on the wheel so it can freely rotate as it passes a stationary coil? That one should be easy to test for a few folks here. If resistance against rotation is less than normal, but the output from the coil remains unchanged, we've got a setup that can be powered by wind or alternatively fueled motors for a higher output. Maybe a Stirling could be made to do useful electric production if the HP requirement were reduced.

We need to try different approaches to get different results. Free energy attempts are among the most different approaches of all. Even if they can't quite power themselves with excess power left over, maybe they can still be applied to more traditional alternative energy devices to get a higher output. We won't know until more people begin trying.
 
Topher Belknap
Posts: 205
Location: Midcoast Maine (zone 5b)
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

I pay for my water, and I assume most other people do as well.

If an invention requires new laws of physics in order to work, people are justified in making the case that the prize money from the Nobel prize should be used to capitalize it.

Conservation of energy requires that no more energy can be achieved by putting the water back together, than was put into it to break it up.

The efficiency of an internal combustion engine can be increased even by using several energy conversion methods, all of which are less than 100% efficient. One only needs to drive a hybrid to see this in action.

The way to test the efficiency of a new engine technology is to run careful experiments on a dynometer, not to install it in customers cars, and hope the placebo effect works for cars.

Thank You Kindly,
Topher
 
Dale Hodgins
gardener
Pie
Posts: 6139
Location: Victoria British Columbia-Canada
186
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The most common logical fallacy that I am personally witness to is " confirmation bias ". If people expect to observe something, they often interpret various data as proof that their hypothesis is correct. I expect most smokers to litter. I see it every day. I may not see many of them put the butt into a container for later disposal. My ex-wife is waiting for a miracle which would see her getting a visa to visit India. If they suddenly change their policy toward those born in Pakistan, she will claim devine intervention.

We often see what we want to see or what we expect to see.
 
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic